Archive for the ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ Category

The Pope and the Rabbi "Debate" Charade Continues to Play Out

June 1, 2007

Background on this matter HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The Jerusalem Post has now published an editorial from Rabbi Jacob Nuesner in which he continues the dialectical process under the guise of a debate with Benedict. In the editorial Rabbi Neusner states:

“In the Middle Ages rabbis were forced to engage with priests in disputations in the presence of kings and cardinals on which is the true religion, Judaism or Christianity. The outcome was predetermined. Christians won; they had the swords.”

I see. My response to this whopper is that some would say it’s Judaics who now hold the swords. Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson and the others who have been beaten, imprisoned, fined, had their reputations and careers ruined and otherwise been persecuted for refusing to assent to Judaic “holocaust” dogma could certainly attest to that fact. And coincidentally, the Vatican is presently more rotten with philo-Judaism and crypto-Judaism than it has ever been in history. The Vatican is currently headed by a man who has promulgated a document in which he suggests that Christian interpretation of Scripture should be reevaluated in light of the so-called “holocaust” of “The Jews.” This, naturally, is why Rabbi Neusner is now in the mood for a “debate” with the Pope.

On the contrary, Mr. Neusner. The fix is in on this “debate,” just as it was in Pfefferkorn’s case.

Skipping ahead we come to Neusner’s primary objection:

[Jesus] claimed to reform and to improve, “You have heard it said… but I say….” We maintain, and I argued in my book[A Rabbi Talks With Jesus], that the Torah was and is perfect and beyond improvement, and the Judaism built upon the Torah and the prophets and writings, the originally-oral parts of the Torah written down in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash – that Judaism was and remains God’s will for humanity.

We’ve already shown that this objection is absurd from Neusner’s own writings where he himself explains how the rabbis put their words in their god’s mouth. This editorial being meant for public consumption, Nuesner will not make any such revelations therein. There we only get the stock account of the “oral Torah.”

But if we turn to Rabbi Nuesner’s book, Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System, we find that the concept of “oral Torah” was developed a few centuries too late for it to constitute a valid basis for his objection.

The complex of rabbinically ordained practices … including most of the rules for the treatment of Scripture itself–do not derive from Scripture at all. Rabbinic Judaism’s initial concern was with the elaboration and refinement of it’s own system. Attaching the system to scripture was secondary. It therefore is misleading to depict rabbinic Judaism primarily as a consequence of an exegetical process or the organic unfolding of Scripture. Rather, rabbinic Judaism began as the work of a small, ambitious, and homogeneous group of pseudo-priests …

By the third century (A.D.) the rabbis expressed their self-conception in the ideology of “oral Torah” which held that a comprehensive body of teachings and practices (halachot) not included in Scripture had been given by God and through Moses only to the rabbinic establishment. (Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System, Jacob Nuesner, pp. 31-34) as quoted in Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael A. Hoffman II

Not only is the “oral Torah” a complete fabrication of the rabbis, but it was still being developed centuries after Christ as it is clearly stated in Nuesner’s book. Therefore Nuesner’s objection to Christ–that He changed the Law–falls flat. The rabbis themselves changed the Law and created new laws from thin air and they continued to do so centuries after Christ. They’re the worst abrogators of Biblical Law that have ever lived.

Rabbi Nuesner closes thus:

… it really is the one and the same God whom together [Christians and Judaics] serve – in difference …

The challenges of Sinai bring us together for the renewal of a 2,000 year old tradition of religious debate in the service of God’s truth.

Someone once called me the most contentious person he had ever known. Now I have met my match. Pope Benedict XVI is another truth-seeker.

We are in for interesting times.

I can agree with nothing stated here aside from the obvious, that we are living in interesting times.

The ball, apparently, is in the “contentious” Pope Benedict’s court, and his dialectical contribution to this farce will certainly be forthcoming.

Full article:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180450948925&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Advertisements

The Pope and the Rabbi "Debate" Charade Continues to Play Out

June 1, 2007

Background on this matter HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The Jerusalem Post has now published an editorial from Rabbi Jacob Nuesner in which he continues the dialectical process under the guise of a debate with Benedict. In the editorial Rabbi Neusner states:

“In the Middle Ages rabbis were forced to engage with priests in disputations in the presence of kings and cardinals on which is the true religion, Judaism or Christianity. The outcome was predetermined. Christians won; they had the swords.”

I see. My response to this whopper is that some would say it’s Judaics who now hold the swords. Ernst Zundel, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson and the others who have been beaten, imprisoned, fined, had their reputations and careers ruined and otherwise been persecuted for refusing to assent to Judaic “holocaust” dogma could certainly attest to that fact. And coincidentally, the Vatican is presently more rotten with philo-Judaism and crypto-Judaism than it has ever been in history. The Vatican is currently headed by a man who has promulgated a document in which he suggests that Christian interpretation of Scripture should be reevaluated in light of the so-called “holocaust” of “The Jews.” This, naturally, is why Rabbi Neusner is now in the mood for a “debate” with the Pope.

On the contrary, Mr. Neusner. The fix is in on this “debate,” just as it was in Pfefferkorn’s case.

Skipping ahead we come to Neusner’s primary objection:

[Jesus] claimed to reform and to improve, “You have heard it said… but I say….” We maintain, and I argued in my book[A Rabbi Talks With Jesus], that the Torah was and is perfect and beyond improvement, and the Judaism built upon the Torah and the prophets and writings, the originally-oral parts of the Torah written down in the Mishna, Talmud, and Midrash – that Judaism was and remains God’s will for humanity.

We’ve already shown that this objection is absurd from Neusner’s own writings where he himself explains how the rabbis put their words in their god’s mouth. This editorial being meant for public consumption, Nuesner will not make any such revelations therein. There we only get the stock account of the “oral Torah.”

But if we turn to Rabbi Nuesner’s book, Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System, we find that the concept of “oral Torah” was developed a few centuries too late for it to constitute a valid basis for his objection.

The complex of rabbinically ordained practices … including most of the rules for the treatment of Scripture itself–do not derive from Scripture at all. Rabbinic Judaism’s initial concern was with the elaboration and refinement of it’s own system. Attaching the system to scripture was secondary. It therefore is misleading to depict rabbinic Judaism primarily as a consequence of an exegetical process or the organic unfolding of Scripture. Rather, rabbinic Judaism began as the work of a small, ambitious, and homogeneous group of pseudo-priests …

By the third century (A.D.) the rabbis expressed their self-conception in the ideology of “oral Torah” which held that a comprehensive body of teachings and practices (halachot) not included in Scripture had been given by God and through Moses only to the rabbinic establishment. (Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System, Jacob Nuesner, pp. 31-34) as quoted in Judaism’s Strange Gods by Michael A. Hoffman II

Not only is the “oral Torah” a complete fabrication of the rabbis, but it was still being developed centuries after Christ as it is clearly stated in Nuesner’s book. Therefore Nuesner’s objection to Christ–that He changed the Law–falls flat. The rabbis themselves changed the Law and created new laws from thin air and they continued to do so centuries after Christ. They’re the worst abrogators of Biblical Law that have ever lived.

Rabbi Nuesner closes thus:

… it really is the one and the same God whom together [Christians and Judaics] serve – in difference …

The challenges of Sinai bring us together for the renewal of a 2,000 year old tradition of religious debate in the service of God’s truth.

Someone once called me the most contentious person he had ever known. Now I have met my match. Pope Benedict XVI is another truth-seeker.

We are in for interesting times.

I can agree with nothing stated here aside from the obvious, that we are living in interesting times.

The ball, apparently, is in the “contentious” Pope Benedict’s court, and his dialectical contribution to this farce will certainly be forthcoming.

Full article:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180450948925&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

More on Ratzinger-Neusner Luv Fest

May 25, 2007

According to Time Magazine, Benedict XVI, in his new book, Jesus of Nazareth:

… acknowledges [Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s] point that Jesus is offering the Jews a transformation rather than a continuation of the Torah but maintains that the trade-off is worth it, provided Jesus is not merely “a liberal reform rabbi” but “the Son.” That Neusner and other Jews regard that very Sonship as a deal breaker does not bother him much. “It would be good for the Christian world to look respectfully at this obedience of Israel,” he writes, “and thus to appreciate better the great commandments” as universalized by Jesus. (Time Magazine Online Edition, “The Pope’s Favorite Rabbi,” May 24, 2007)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1625183-2,00.html

Could there possibly be more deception crammed into that single sentence?

Judaic rabbis of Talmud and Kabbalah are Israel whom Christians should respect for their obedience to the commandments of the Bible? Not according to Jesus Christ. Jesus said that the Pharisees don’t do the works of Abraham (John 8;40). Jesus said that the Pharisees do not hear the Word of God because they are not of God (John 8;47).

Rabbi Neusner has stated quite plainly in many of his books that his “religion,” rabbinic 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)

So anyone who has read the Gospel of John knows that a spiritual descendant of the Pharisees cannot even hear the Commandments of God, much less obey them. If they did hear and obey God’s Word they would be followers of Jesus Christ. (John 14)

But this claim from Benedict can be demonstrated to be backwards even if the “Christological” argument is put aside, for Rabbi Neusner himself has written on many occasions of how the rabbis themselves create “Torah” (see:Talmud) and that their god studies it!

See here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-insight-from-benedict-xvis-elder.html

This is what Benedict identifies as the “obedience” of “Israel” which Christians should “look respectfully” to in order to better appreciate the “great commandments”? What great commandments could he possibly be speaking of!?!?! The Biblical commandments? There couldn’t be worse abrogators of the Biblical commandments than the rabbis.

Benedict accepts Neusner’s argument that He rejects Christ because He changed the Law, but that’s exactly what Neusner, his fellow rabbis and their spiritual Pharisaic forefathers have done!!!! Rabbi Neusner demonstrates it himself. They make void the word of God through their tradition. (Mark 7;13) These are the last people Christians should respectfully look to as an example of obedience to the Biblical commandments.

And do I need to point out the backwardness of the Pope of the Catholic Church identifying the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, who Christ identified as the spiritual sons of the Devil, as “Israel”(John 8;44)? Christ denied the Pharisees their claim to be “Israel” even though they truly were flesh descendants of Abraham (John 8;37). The rabbis of our time are neither flesh or spiritual descendants of Abraham. How much more absurd is their claim to be Israel than that of the Pharisees of Christ’s time? And the Pope is attempting to sell us on this claim? Double-minded insanity.

Even if what was implied in Benedict’s statement was true–that the rabbis uphold the Biblical commandments as Abraham did–this would be nothing for Christians to admire. Our Messiah, Whom Abraham rejoiced that he might see, has come. Christians have the grace imparted through His sacrifice on the cross and by the descent of the Holy Ghost at the Pentecost (but are they cooperating with it?). Christians have a New Testament infinitely superior to the crude Old Testament which was suitable for a perverse people stained by original sin. Jesus said that John the Baptist was greater than all of the Old Testament Prophets. What would emulation of the Old Testament Prophets merit post Pentecost?

Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end. (Hebrews 8;13)

More on Ratzinger-Neusner Luv Fest

May 25, 2007

According to Time Magazine, Benedict XVI, in his new book, Jesus of Nazareth:

… acknowledges [Rabbi Jacob Neusner’s] point that Jesus is offering the Jews a transformation rather than a continuation of the Torah but maintains that the trade-off is worth it, provided Jesus is not merely “a liberal reform rabbi” but “the Son.” That Neusner and other Jews regard that very Sonship as a deal breaker does not bother him much. “It would be good for the Christian world to look respectfully at this obedience of Israel,” he writes, “and thus to appreciate better the great commandments” as universalized by Jesus. (Time Magazine Online Edition, “The Pope’s Favorite Rabbi,” May 24, 2007)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1625183-2,00.html

Could there possibly be more deception crammed into that single sentence?

Judaic rabbis of Talmud and Kabbalah are Israel whom Christians should respect for their obedience to the commandments of the Bible? Not according to Jesus Christ. Jesus said that the Pharisees don’t do the works of Abraham (John 8;40). Jesus said that the Pharisees do not hear the Word of God because they are not of God (John 8;47).

Rabbi Neusner has stated quite plainly in many of his books that his “religion,” rabbinic 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)

So anyone who has read the Gospel of John knows that a spiritual descendant of the Pharisees cannot even hear the Commandments of God, much less obey them. If they did hear and obey God’s Word they would be followers of Jesus Christ. (John 14)

But this claim from Benedict can be demonstrated to be backwards even if the “Christological” argument is put aside, for Rabbi Neusner himself has written on many occasions of how the rabbis themselves create “Torah” (see:Talmud) and that their god studies it!

See here:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/04/some-insight-from-benedict-xvis-elder.html

This is what Benedict identifies as the “obedience” of “Israel” which Christians should “look respectfully” to in order to better appreciate the “great commandments”? What great commandments could he possibly be speaking of!?!?! The Biblical commandments? There couldn’t be worse abrogators of the Biblical commandments than the rabbis.

Benedict accepts Neusner’s argument that He rejects Christ because He changed the Law, but that’s exactly what Neusner, his fellow rabbis and their spiritual Pharisaic forefathers have done!!!! Rabbi Neusner demonstrates it himself. They make void the word of God through their tradition. (Mark 7;13) These are the last people Christians should respectfully look to as an example of obedience to the Biblical commandments.

And do I need to point out the backwardness of the Pope of the Catholic Church identifying the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees, who Christ identified as the spiritual sons of the Devil, as “Israel”(John 8;44)? Christ denied the Pharisees their claim to be “Israel” even though they truly were flesh descendants of Abraham (John 8;37). The rabbis of our time are neither flesh or spiritual descendants of Abraham. How much more absurd is their claim to be Israel than that of the Pharisees of Christ’s time? And the Pope is attempting to sell us on this claim? Double-minded insanity.

Even if what was implied in Benedict’s statement was true–that the rabbis uphold the Biblical commandments as Abraham did–this would be nothing for Christians to admire. Our Messiah, Whom Abraham rejoiced that he might see, has come. Christians have the grace imparted through His sacrifice on the cross and by the descent of the Holy Ghost at the Pentecost (but are they cooperating with it?). Christians have a New Testament infinitely superior to the crude Old Testament which was suitable for a perverse people stained by original sin. Jesus said that John the Baptist was greater than all of the Old Testament Prophets. What would emulation of the Old Testament Prophets merit post Pentecost?

Now in saying a new, he hath made the former old. And that which decayeth and groweth old, is near its end. (Hebrews 8;13)

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

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