Archive for the ‘Jesus’ Category

For the sake of His Passion

March 21, 2008

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts. But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant, there have they dealt treacherously against me. (Osee 6;6-7)

***

Then [the chief priests and the Pharisees] led Jesus from Caiphas to the governor’s hall. And it was morning; and they went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch. 29 Pilate therefore went out to them, and said: What accusation bring you against this man? 30 They answered, and said to him: If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee. (John 18;28-30)

1 Then therefore, Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon his head; and they put on him a purple garment. 3 And they came to him, and said: Hail, king of the Jews; and they gave him blows. 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith to them: Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find no cause in him. 5 (Jesus therefore came forth, bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.) And he saith to them: Behold the Man.

6 When the chief priests, therefore, and the servants, had seen him, they cried out, saying: Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him. 7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 When Pilate therefore had heard this saying, he feared the more. 9 And he entered into the hall again, and he said to Jesus: Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin. 12 And from henceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’s friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar. 13 Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha. 14 And it was the parasceve of the pasch, about the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews: Behold your king. 15 But they cried out: Away with him; away with him; crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then therefore he delivered him to them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him forth. 17 And bearing his own cross, he went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha. 18 Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19;1-19)

***

On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for forty days: ‘Jesus of Nazareth is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited [to idol worship] and led Israel astray. Whoever knows an argument in his favor should come and argue on his behalf.’ But they did not find an argument in his favor, and they hanged him on Passover Eve … Jesus … had close connections with the non-Jewish authorities, and those authorities were interested in his acquittal. Thus it was necessary to give him all the opportunity to clear himself, so that the justice of his conviction not be challenged … Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an inciter, and the Torah (lit., “the Merciful”) says: “You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him”! (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Steinsaltz edition, Vol XVII, Part III)

***

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

… the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon, then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed … (“Jesus in the Talmud,” Steven Bayme, American Jewish Committee National Director, September 24, 2003)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030925214732/http://www.ajc.org/inthemedia/RelatedArticles.asp?did=933

***

The very fact that the Talmud’s claim of Jesus’ closeness to the Roman government reflects some knowledge … of the New Testament narrative, particularly of of John’s version of it … this detail exonerates the Roman government from the blame of Jesus’ condemnation and consequently, adopting the Gospels’ message, puts the thrust of the accusation on the Jews … What we then have here in the [Babylonian Talmud] is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility of Jesus’ execution. (Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schafer, Princeton University Press, pp.73-74)

Advertisements

For the sake of His Passion

March 21, 2008

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice: and the knowledge of God more than holocausts. But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant, there have they dealt treacherously against me. (Osee 6;6-7)

***

Then [the chief priests and the Pharisees] led Jesus from Caiphas to the governor’s hall. And it was morning; and they went not into the hall, that they might not be defiled, but that they might eat the pasch. 29 Pilate therefore went out to them, and said: What accusation bring you against this man? 30 They answered, and said to him: If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up to thee. (John 18;28-30)

1 Then therefore, Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers platting a crown of thorns, put it upon his head; and they put on him a purple garment. 3 And they came to him, and said: Hail, king of the Jews; and they gave him blows. 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith to them: Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that you may know that I find no cause in him. 5 (Jesus therefore came forth, bearing the crown of thorns and the purple garment.) And he saith to them: Behold the Man.

6 When the chief priests, therefore, and the servants, had seen him, they cried out, saying: Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Take him you, and crucify him: for I find no cause in him. 7 The Jews answered him: We have a law; and according to the law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 When Pilate therefore had heard this saying, he feared the more. 9 And he entered into the hall again, and he said to Jesus: Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Pilate therefore saith to him: Speakest thou not to me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and I have power to release thee?

11 Jesus answered: Thou shouldst not have any power against me, unless it were given thee from above. Therefore, he that hath delivered me to thee, hath the greater sin. 12 And from henceforth Pilate sought to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying: If thou release this man, thou art not Caesar’s friend. For whosoever maketh himself a king, speaketh against Caesar. 13 Now when Pilate had heard these words, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat, in the place that is called Lithostrotos, and in Hebrew Gabbatha. 14 And it was the parasceve of the pasch, about the sixth hour, and he saith to the Jews: Behold your king. 15 But they cried out: Away with him; away with him; crucify him. Pilate saith to them: Shall I crucify your king? The chief priests answered: We have no king but Caesar.

16 Then therefore he delivered him to them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him forth. 17 And bearing his own cross, he went forth to that place which is called Calvary, but in Hebrew Golgotha. 18 Where they crucified him, and with him two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. (John 19;1-19)

***

On Passover Eve they hanged Jesus of Nazareth. And the herald went out before him for forty days: ‘Jesus of Nazareth is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited [to idol worship] and led Israel astray. Whoever knows an argument in his favor should come and argue on his behalf.’ But they did not find an argument in his favor, and they hanged him on Passover Eve … Jesus … had close connections with the non-Jewish authorities, and those authorities were interested in his acquittal. Thus it was necessary to give him all the opportunity to clear himself, so that the justice of his conviction not be challenged … Was Jesus of Nazareth deserving of a search for an argument in his favor? He was an inciter, and the Torah (lit., “the Merciful”) says: “You shall not spare, nor shall you conceal him”! (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a, Steinsaltz edition, Vol XVII, Part III)

***

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

… the passage suggests rabbinic willingness to take responsibility for the execution of Jesus. No effort is made to pin his death upon the Romans. In all likelihood, the passage in question emanates from fourth-century Babylon, then the center of Talmudic scholarship, and beyond the reach of both Rome and Christianity. Although several hundred years had elapsed since the lifetime of Jesus, and therefore this is not at all a contemporary source, the Talmudic passage indicates rabbinic willingness to acknowledge, at least in principle, that in a Jewish court and in a Jewish land, a real-life Jesus would indeed have been executed … (“Jesus in the Talmud,” Steven Bayme, American Jewish Committee National Director, September 24, 2003)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030925214732/http://www.ajc.org/inthemedia/RelatedArticles.asp?did=933

***

The very fact that the Talmud’s claim of Jesus’ closeness to the Roman government reflects some knowledge … of the New Testament narrative, particularly of of John’s version of it … this detail exonerates the Roman government from the blame of Jesus’ condemnation and consequently, adopting the Gospels’ message, puts the thrust of the accusation on the Jews … What we then have here in the [Babylonian Talmud] is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility of Jesus’ execution. (Jesus in the Talmud, Peter Schafer, Princeton University Press, pp.73-74)

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

February 27, 2007

Essay by Michael A. Hoffman:

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

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

February 27, 2007

Essay by Michael A. Hoffman:

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

Christian Exegetes and "The Jews"

February 27, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

Are you a thinking person or a parrot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who benefits from sloppy distinctions in these areas?

Christian Exegetes and "The Jews"

February 27, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

Are you a thinking person or a parrot?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who benefits from sloppy distinctions in these areas?

The Judaic Propensity to Have It Both Ways

February 25, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus in the Talmud

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

… Consider … the following text from the Talmud:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Judaic Propensity to Have It Both Ways

February 25, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus in the Talmud

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

… Consider … the following text from the Talmud:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.