Archive for the ‘Christian’ Category

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?

Advertisements

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?

Who’s Interests Does the Vatican Represent Today?

February 5, 2007

The Vatican’s October 30-November 2, 1997 symposium, “The Roots of anti-Judaism in the Christian Environment” yielded the following incredible statements:

“… anti-Judaism does not have roots in the New Testament if it is read correctly.”

“Faith cannot justify any form of anti-Judaism nor can the roots of this be found in the words of the Lord transmitted through his Church.”

“Christians who yield to anti-Judaism offend God and the Church itself.”

What do the rabbinic sources say about this religion called, “Judaism.”

“This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians – that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression.”

“Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.” (Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p.59, 159).

“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.”Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474)

“Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.” ( Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, pg. xxi)

“The Talmud is the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ and to which He makes frequent allusions.” (Rodkinson, The History of the Talmud, p.70)

There seems to be a contradiction here. The Vatican tells us that anti-Judaism is not Scriptural and an offense against the Church, but what Scripture and Church are they talking about? Most Popes, Saints, Church Doctors, indeed, most Christians in the 2000 year history of Christianity have been anti-Judaism, and for good reason. Judaism is anti-Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is anti-Judaism. What did Christ say about Judaism: the tradition of the Pharisees?

“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees… Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Mark 16:6;12)

So we should beware the doctrine of the Pharisees: rabbinic Judaism. Apparently, the Vatican is telling us to do the opposite of what Christ is telling us to do here.

“And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition… Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.” (Mark 7: 9; 13)

Christ says that the traditions of the Pharisees, rabbinic Judaism, makes void the Word of God. It seems to me that this is a condemnation of the rabbinic tradition. How, then, can I not also condemn it? What true Christian can contradict what Christ Himself has stated on the matter?

“Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? … But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? …Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” (Matthew 15: 1; 3; 7-9)

Christ says that the Pharisees transgress the commandments of God through their man-made traditions and doctrines and that they worship in vain. This also seems like a clear condemnation of the rabbinic tradition. I wonder how the Vatican prelates missed this. I thought they said that anti-Judaism has no roots in the New Testament. I’m afraid that I’m going to have to side with Jesus Christ on this, like my Christian forefathers have for 2000 years.

So we’ve demonstrated that the Vatican prelates misrepresent both rabbinic Judaism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but we haven’t answered the question, who’s interests are served by their statements.

Given that Judaism is the canonized tradition of the Pharisees who plotted Christ’s execution and stoned His followers, and given that the “sages” of Judaism have never recanted their anti-Christian hostility since then, I’d say that the Vatican certainly doesn’t have the interests of Christians in mind when it makes such statements.

Who does benefit from these Vatican statements, then?

The rabbis–that’s whose interests the Vatican represents today.

Who’s Interests Does the Vatican Represent Today?

February 5, 2007

The Vatican’s October 30-November 2, 1997 symposium, “The Roots of anti-Judaism in the Christian Environment” yielded the following incredible statements:

“… anti-Judaism does not have roots in the New Testament if it is read correctly.”

“Faith cannot justify any form of anti-Judaism nor can the roots of this be found in the words of the Lord transmitted through his Church.”

“Christians who yield to anti-Judaism offend God and the Church itself.”

What do the rabbinic sources say about this religion called, “Judaism.”

“This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians – that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is, of course, a fallacious impression.”

“Judaism is not the religion of the Bible.” (Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser, Judaism and the Christian Predicament, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1967, p.59, 159).

“The Jewish religion as it is today traces its descent, without a break, through all the centuries, from the Pharisees.”Their leading ideas and methods found expression in a literature of enormous extent, of which a very great deal is still in existence. The Talmud is the largest and most important single member of that literature, and round it are gathered a number of Midrashim, partly legal (Halachic) and partly works of edification (Haggadic). This literature, in its oldest elements, goes back to a time before the beginning of the Common Era, and comes down into the Middle Ages. Through it all run the lines of thought which were first drawn by the Pharisees, and the study of it is essential for any real understanding of Pharisaism.” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. 3 pg. 474)

“Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered.” ( Rabbi Dr. Finkelstein, The Pharisees: The Sociological Background of Their Faith, pg. xxi)

“The Talmud is the written form of that which in the time of Jesus, was called the ‘Tradition of the Elders,’ and to which He makes frequent allusions.” (Rodkinson, The History of the Talmud, p.70)

There seems to be a contradiction here. The Vatican tells us that anti-Judaism is not Scriptural and an offense against the Church, but what Scripture and Church are they talking about? Most Popes, Saints, Church Doctors, indeed, most Christians in the 2000 year history of Christianity have been anti-Judaism, and for good reason. Judaism is anti-Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is anti-Judaism. What did Christ say about Judaism: the tradition of the Pharisees?

“Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees… Then they understood that he said not that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Mark 16:6;12)

So we should beware the doctrine of the Pharisees: rabbinic Judaism. Apparently, the Vatican is telling us to do the opposite of what Christ is telling us to do here.

“And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition… Making void the word of God by your own tradition, which you have given forth. And many other such like things you do.” (Mark 7: 9; 13)

Christ says that the traditions of the Pharisees, rabbinic Judaism, makes void the Word of God. It seems to me that this is a condemnation of the rabbinic tradition. How, then, can I not also condemn it? What true Christian can contradict what Christ Himself has stated on the matter?

“Then came to him from Jerusalem scribes and Pharisees, saying: Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients? … But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? …Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: This people honoureth me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.” (Matthew 15: 1; 3; 7-9)

Christ says that the Pharisees transgress the commandments of God through their man-made traditions and doctrines and that they worship in vain. This also seems like a clear condemnation of the rabbinic tradition. I wonder how the Vatican prelates missed this. I thought they said that anti-Judaism has no roots in the New Testament. I’m afraid that I’m going to have to side with Jesus Christ on this, like my Christian forefathers have for 2000 years.

So we’ve demonstrated that the Vatican prelates misrepresent both rabbinic Judaism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but we haven’t answered the question, who’s interests are served by their statements.

Given that Judaism is the canonized tradition of the Pharisees who plotted Christ’s execution and stoned His followers, and given that the “sages” of Judaism have never recanted their anti-Christian hostility since then, I’d say that the Vatican certainly doesn’t have the interests of Christians in mind when it makes such statements.

Who does benefit from these Vatican statements, then?

The rabbis–that’s whose interests the Vatican represents today.