Archive for the ‘Pilpul’ Category

More Pilpul From the USCCB

June 19, 2009

All the hairsplitting pilpul in the world can’t turn non-believing Ashkenzim, Sephardim, et al, into biblical, chosen people. The 2002 Reflections on Covenant and Mission document is groundless; a fraud based upon a fraud. This “clarification” is only another step in the dialectical process towards Benedict’s “reconciliation between Christians and ‘Jews'” where ‘Jews’ continue in their unbelief, deluded racial conceit and adherance to anti-biblical rabbinism, while Christians, by guilt and cajolery, are converted away from the Gospel and into the ‘Noahide’ fraud.

These so-called ‘Jews’ don’t believe Jesus Christ, nor do they even believe Moses (John 5;41-47). Their unsubstantiated claim to genetic descent from the patriarchs affords them no special relationship with the Church. The bishops’ suggestion to the contrary is anti-biblical, rabbinic nonsense.

USCCB Clarifies Key Points From Reflections On Covenant And Mission Statement (2002)

June 19, 2009

WASHINGTON DC (MetroCatholic) – A statement clarifying two points of Catholic teaching relative to the Jewish community was released June 18, at the spring meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Covenant and Mission was jointly issued by the Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. The statement can be found at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/covenant09.pdf.

“Our most important concern here is a pastoral one,” said Archbishop Wilton Gregory, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. “The 2002 document, Covenant and Mission, raised many questions among Catholics in the United States about how the Church relates to the Jewish community. Today’s statement helps to answer these questions clearly.”

Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice, stated that there were two key points at issue.

“The USCCB reaffirms what the Holy See has stated repeatedly: that while the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Jewish people, neither does she fail to witness to them her faith in Christ, nor to welcome them to share in that same faith whenever appropriate.” Bishop Lori said. He added that current debates over the question of how Catholics understand the covenant with Moses in relation to Christ were equally important. The covenant with Moses, that continues to be adhered to by Jews today, is fulfilled, Christians believe, in Jesus.

“As followers of Jesus, we see his covenant as fulfilling God’s plan for the salvation of all peoples, both now and at the end of time,” Bishop Lori said.

Archbishop Gregory commended the on-going work of scholars and pastors in Catholic-Jewish dialogue. “Pope John Paul II once referred to Jews as ‘our elder brothers and sisters in faith’”, he said. “By continuing our study together, we hope to deepen our understanding of Jesus and our relationship with each other in God’s redemption of the world.”

http://www.dfwcatholic.org/usccb-clarifies-key-points-from-reflections-on-covenant-and-mission-statement-20025004/.html

More Pilpul From the USCCB

June 19, 2009

All the hairsplitting pilpul in the world can’t turn non-believing Ashkenzim, Sephardim, et al, into biblical, chosen people. The 2002 Reflections on Covenant and Mission document is groundless; a fraud based upon a fraud. This “clarification” is only another step in the dialectical process towards Benedict’s “reconciliation between Christians and ‘Jews'” where ‘Jews’ continue in their unbelief, deluded racial conceit and adherance to anti-biblical rabbinism, while Christians, by guilt and cajolery, are converted away from the Gospel and into the ‘Noahide’ fraud.

These so-called ‘Jews’ don’t believe Jesus Christ, nor do they even believe Moses (John 5;41-47). Their unsubstantiated claim to genetic descent from the patriarchs affords them no special relationship with the Church. The bishops’ suggestion to the contrary is anti-biblical, rabbinic nonsense.

USCCB Clarifies Key Points From Reflections On Covenant And Mission Statement (2002)

June 19, 2009

WASHINGTON DC (MetroCatholic) – A statement clarifying two points of Catholic teaching relative to the Jewish community was released June 18, at the spring meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Covenant and Mission was jointly issued by the Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice and the Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. The statement can be found at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/covenant09.pdf.

“Our most important concern here is a pastoral one,” said Archbishop Wilton Gregory, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs. “The 2002 document, Covenant and Mission, raised many questions among Catholics in the United States about how the Church relates to the Jewish community. Today’s statement helps to answer these questions clearly.”

Bishop William Lori, chairman of the Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine and Pastoral Practice, stated that there were two key points at issue.

“The USCCB reaffirms what the Holy See has stated repeatedly: that while the Catholic Church does not proselytize the Jewish people, neither does she fail to witness to them her faith in Christ, nor to welcome them to share in that same faith whenever appropriate.” Bishop Lori said. He added that current debates over the question of how Catholics understand the covenant with Moses in relation to Christ were equally important. The covenant with Moses, that continues to be adhered to by Jews today, is fulfilled, Christians believe, in Jesus.

“As followers of Jesus, we see his covenant as fulfilling God’s plan for the salvation of all peoples, both now and at the end of time,” Bishop Lori said.

Archbishop Gregory commended the on-going work of scholars and pastors in Catholic-Jewish dialogue. “Pope John Paul II once referred to Jews as ‘our elder brothers and sisters in faith’”, he said. “By continuing our study together, we hope to deepen our understanding of Jesus and our relationship with each other in God’s redemption of the world.”

http://www.dfwcatholic.org/usccb-clarifies-key-points-from-reflections-on-covenant-and-mission-statement-20025004/.html

Rabbis and Kosher-Catholic Priests in Pilpul

June 20, 2008

Pilpul, simply put, is a rabbinic dialectical process of “debate” or discussion by which a predetermined outcome is arrived at. It’s the Pharisaic tradition which Jesus Christ condemned calling it a “tradition of men” which “makes void the word of God.” Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds are filled with pilpul which in most cases is for the purpose of circumventing Biblical law. The article below tells of rabbis and kosher-Catholic priests engaged in pilul for the purpose of circumventing the Gospel which condemns the very act they are engaged in. See Mark 7;13 for Christ’s condemnation and Mishnah tractate Nedarim for the pilpul through which the “corban” that Christ condemned in Mark 7;13 was synthesized. And note that Jesus did not only condemn the Pharisaic “corban” invention and ritual hand washing, but He said, “many other such like things you [Pharisees] do.”

Believe me when I tell you, in this “Judeo-Christian dialogue”–what is in reality pilpul–the rabbis aren’t interested in hearing the Gospel. They’re interested in finding ways around the Gospel, like their Pharisaic ideological forefathers found ways around Old Testament law. They intend to make the Gospel of none effect.

… if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Rabbis and Catholic priests in dialogue

By Mark L. Shook – St. Louis Post Dispatch

June 19, 2008

The Vatican has taken great pains to define and structure religious dialogues between faith communities. As recently as June 7, Pope Benedict II spoke to the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue of “the importance of truth being the goal of all dialogue and charity being the motivation behind all dialogue.” The content of the council’s meeting and the Pope’s statement seem to imply that religious dialogue is in need of guidelines to keep Catholic participants true to Church doctrine. But very few inter-faith dialogues deal with matters of deep theological import. Most are simply efforts to establish rapport and understanding.

Religious dialogues succeed or fail because of trust and respect. Achieving trust and respect takes time and dedication. Here is yet another example of a process which does not respond well to our need for instant gratification. Rabbis and priests in St. Louis have been in dialogue with each other for more than ten years. That dialogue would never have gotten off the ground had it not been for the personal bonds of friendship which existed between Father Vincent Heier, former Ecumenical officer of the St. Louis Archdiocese, and the late Rabbi Robert P. Jacobs, in his capacity as Executive Vice-president of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association. The two of them set out to create an atmosphere of dialogue which was faithful to the aspirations of the Vatican II process of reconciliation between Jews and Catholics.

We are still going strong. Every other month, a group of about twelve dialogue participants sit down to a kosher lunch provided by an anonymous donor, and over corned beef and turkey, hold a free-wheeling discussion. Sometimes the topics touch on clergy politics, i.e., “How do rabbis/priests get assigned to congregations? At other sessions, the news of the day may form the subject matter. For the most part the dialogue centers around an agreed upon topic with readings sent out in advance. Several sessions were devoted to a careful reading of Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth. Most recently the group studied fundamental documents of belief of the various expressions of Judaism, from Maimonides Thirteen Principles of Judaism to the latest platform of Reform Judaism. No question or comment is ever treated as off the subject. In fact, if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Dialogue participants do not sugar-coat their questions or their responses. With the presence of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis, there is sometimes more intra-Jewish heat generated than heat between Jews and Catholics. Along the way there is significant learning and teaching which takes place. Our priests come to appreciate the wide range of Jewish responses to religious and moral questions of the day and our rabbis develop a more nuanced understanding of how the Church works in developing its teachings and public positions.

Just for the record, no one in these dialogues has converted anyone. Both sides remain true to their faith. What really takes place is a sorting out of real and imaginary differences. Not all or even most of the real differences can be bridged. The sages of Judaism believed that theological conflicts among rabbis were like sparks striking steel and resulted in illumination. I would include this image as a worthy description of true dialogues between persons of all faiths. For each participant there is a strengthening of faith.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/catholic/2008/06/rabbis-and-catholic-priests-in-dialogue/

Rabbis and Kosher-Catholic Priests in Pilpul

June 20, 2008

Pilpul, simply put, is a rabbinic dialectical process of “debate” or discussion by which a predetermined outcome is arrived at. It’s the Pharisaic tradition which Jesus Christ condemned calling it a “tradition of men” which “makes void the word of God.” Both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds are filled with pilpul which in most cases is for the purpose of circumventing Biblical law. The article below tells of rabbis and kosher-Catholic priests engaged in pilul for the purpose of circumventing the Gospel which condemns the very act they are engaged in. See Mark 7;13 for Christ’s condemnation and Mishnah tractate Nedarim for the pilpul through which the “corban” that Christ condemned in Mark 7;13 was synthesized. And note that Jesus did not only condemn the Pharisaic “corban” invention and ritual hand washing, but He said, “many other such like things you [Pharisees] do.”

Believe me when I tell you, in this “Judeo-Christian dialogue”–what is in reality pilpul–the rabbis aren’t interested in hearing the Gospel. They’re interested in finding ways around the Gospel, like their Pharisaic ideological forefathers found ways around Old Testament law. They intend to make the Gospel of none effect.

… if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Rabbis and Catholic priests in dialogue

By Mark L. Shook – St. Louis Post Dispatch

June 19, 2008

The Vatican has taken great pains to define and structure religious dialogues between faith communities. As recently as June 7, Pope Benedict II spoke to the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue of “the importance of truth being the goal of all dialogue and charity being the motivation behind all dialogue.” The content of the council’s meeting and the Pope’s statement seem to imply that religious dialogue is in need of guidelines to keep Catholic participants true to Church doctrine. But very few inter-faith dialogues deal with matters of deep theological import. Most are simply efforts to establish rapport and understanding.

Religious dialogues succeed or fail because of trust and respect. Achieving trust and respect takes time and dedication. Here is yet another example of a process which does not respond well to our need for instant gratification. Rabbis and priests in St. Louis have been in dialogue with each other for more than ten years. That dialogue would never have gotten off the ground had it not been for the personal bonds of friendship which existed between Father Vincent Heier, former Ecumenical officer of the St. Louis Archdiocese, and the late Rabbi Robert P. Jacobs, in his capacity as Executive Vice-president of the St. Louis Rabbinical Association. The two of them set out to create an atmosphere of dialogue which was faithful to the aspirations of the Vatican II process of reconciliation between Jews and Catholics.

We are still going strong. Every other month, a group of about twelve dialogue participants sit down to a kosher lunch provided by an anonymous donor, and over corned beef and turkey, hold a free-wheeling discussion. Sometimes the topics touch on clergy politics, i.e., “How do rabbis/priests get assigned to congregations? At other sessions, the news of the day may form the subject matter. For the most part the dialogue centers around an agreed upon topic with readings sent out in advance. Several sessions were devoted to a careful reading of Pope Benedict’s book, Jesus of Nazareth. Most recently the group studied fundamental documents of belief of the various expressions of Judaism, from Maimonides Thirteen Principles of Judaism to the latest platform of Reform Judaism. No question or comment is ever treated as off the subject. In fact, if there were a transcript of the proceedings it would read very much like a discussion in the Talmud.

Dialogue participants do not sugar-coat their questions or their responses. With the presence of Reform, Conservative and Orthodox rabbis, there is sometimes more intra-Jewish heat generated than heat between Jews and Catholics. Along the way there is significant learning and teaching which takes place. Our priests come to appreciate the wide range of Jewish responses to religious and moral questions of the day and our rabbis develop a more nuanced understanding of how the Church works in developing its teachings and public positions.

Just for the record, no one in these dialogues has converted anyone. Both sides remain true to their faith. What really takes place is a sorting out of real and imaginary differences. Not all or even most of the real differences can be bridged. The sages of Judaism believed that theological conflicts among rabbis were like sparks striking steel and resulted in illumination. I would include this image as a worthy description of true dialogues between persons of all faiths. For each participant there is a strengthening of faith.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/civil-religion/catholic/2008/06/rabbis-and-catholic-priests-in-dialogue/

New Testament and Catholic Schools Processed by Talmudic Dialectics

November 20, 2007

“As above, so below,” so says the Hermetic tenet. What happens in Rome is happening in the local parishes. Benedict and his favorite rabbi, Jacob Neusner have demonstrated how it should be done. Background on that HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. And evidence of it’s filtration down to the parishes is supplied below.

Anyone who has read the talmudic texts will recognize the dialectical pilpul at play here–the lawyerly process of synthesizing anti-biblical interpretations of biblical texts. What makes it even more diabolical here is that one of the rabbis engaged in the process is wearing a priest suit and the subject is the New Testament.

Also relevant is the method by which Benedict and Kasper’s favorite Hasidic sophist, Martin Buber synthesized change and “new truths” through dialogue, a process which he called “dialogical thinking” HERE.

Workshop bridges Catholic, Jewish beliefs
By Cortney Fielding

… Searching for answers to students’ probing questions, Bonar and 35 other teachers from Catholic schools across Los Angeles County participated last week in the Anti-Defamation League’s fifth-annual regional “Bearing Witness” program at the American Jewish University in West Los Angeles.

Through an intensive three-day workshop of lectures and discussions led by Jewish and Catholic leaders, scholars and Holocaust survivors, the program provides Catholic school teachers with the training and resources necessary to teach their students about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and Catholic-Jewish relations, said Matt Freedman, an associate director at the Anti-Defamation League …

Evette Escamilla, a sixth- and seventh-grade history teacher at St. Marianne’s Catholic school in Pico Rivera, said her school valued the opportunity to be part of a dialogue that could be introduced into the classroom.

“Our principal really urged us to come and participate in this week of discussion and reflection,” she said. “It’s wonderful that we actually get to experience this.”

Escamilla said she was most intrigued by a dialogue session between a rabbi and priest, who offered up similar interpretations of events chronicled in the Christian New Testament.

After the dialectical sorcery is done and the Catholic school teachers have been processed to believe that these Talmudic Khazar swindlers are somehow related to Jesus Christ, they’re compelled to transmit this mental virus to the children back at their schools:

“The person we follow as Catholics is Jewish. We can’t ignore his Jewishness,” said Bonar. “We can’t ignore this context when we teach our own religion. Ignoring it plants these seeds of hate.”

full article:

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_7444857

More on the joint USCCB and ADL plan for the subversion of Catholic schools, “Bearing Witness” HERE.

.

New Testament and Catholic Schools Processed by Talmudic Dialectics

November 20, 2007

“As above, so below,” so says the Hermetic tenet. What happens in Rome is happening in the local parishes. Benedict and his favorite rabbi, Jacob Neusner have demonstrated how it should be done. Background on that HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. And evidence of it’s filtration down to the parishes is supplied below.

Anyone who has read the talmudic texts will recognize the dialectical pilpul at play here–the lawyerly process of synthesizing anti-biblical interpretations of biblical texts. What makes it even more diabolical here is that one of the rabbis engaged in the process is wearing a priest suit and the subject is the New Testament.

Also relevant is the method by which Benedict and Kasper’s favorite Hasidic sophist, Martin Buber synthesized change and “new truths” through dialogue, a process which he called “dialogical thinking” HERE.

Workshop bridges Catholic, Jewish beliefs
By Cortney Fielding

… Searching for answers to students’ probing questions, Bonar and 35 other teachers from Catholic schools across Los Angeles County participated last week in the Anti-Defamation League’s fifth-annual regional “Bearing Witness” program at the American Jewish University in West Los Angeles.

Through an intensive three-day workshop of lectures and discussions led by Jewish and Catholic leaders, scholars and Holocaust survivors, the program provides Catholic school teachers with the training and resources necessary to teach their students about anti-Semitism, the Holocaust and Catholic-Jewish relations, said Matt Freedman, an associate director at the Anti-Defamation League …

Evette Escamilla, a sixth- and seventh-grade history teacher at St. Marianne’s Catholic school in Pico Rivera, said her school valued the opportunity to be part of a dialogue that could be introduced into the classroom.

“Our principal really urged us to come and participate in this week of discussion and reflection,” she said. “It’s wonderful that we actually get to experience this.”

Escamilla said she was most intrigued by a dialogue session between a rabbi and priest, who offered up similar interpretations of events chronicled in the Christian New Testament.

After the dialectical sorcery is done and the Catholic school teachers have been processed to believe that these Talmudic Khazar swindlers are somehow related to Jesus Christ, they’re compelled to transmit this mental virus to the children back at their schools:

“The person we follow as Catholics is Jewish. We can’t ignore his Jewishness,” said Bonar. “We can’t ignore this context when we teach our own religion. Ignoring it plants these seeds of hate.”

full article:

http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_7444857

More on the joint USCCB and ADL plan for the subversion of Catholic schools, “Bearing Witness” HERE.

.

Racist Knesset Clears Itself of Racism

July 28, 2007

The Israeli Knesset is true to the Talmudic tradition of racism and doublespeak. According to Cardinal Schönborn, Christians should see the presence of these racial supremacist haters of truth in “Israel” as a fulfillment of Biblical prophesy and cause for rejoicing.

Anthology of bigotry

Jonathan Cook

The legislation states: “the leasing of Jewish National Fund lands for the purpose of settling Jews will not be seen as unacceptable discrimination.” Before the legislators voted, the Knesset’s legal adviser, Nurit Elstein, cleared the bill of accusations that it was racist.

Israel’s parliament last week approved by an overwhelming majority the first reading of a bill to ensure that much of the country’s inhabited land remains accessible to Jewish citizens only — a move described by one leading local newspaper as turning Israel into a “racist Jewish state”.

The private member’s bill, called the Jewish National Fund Law, has received cross-party support. The first reading was approved by 64 legislators, with 16 — most of them Arab MKs — opposed. Supporters ranged from former premiere Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, to Ami Ayalon, a recent challenger to head the Labour Party.

The legislation is designed to nullify the threat posed by a Supreme Court judgment, reached in 2000, that potentially opens the door to thousands of Arab families leaving the tightly controlled areas assigned to them and choosing where they live. Currently Arab citizens, who comprise a fifth of the population, are barred from buying homes in most of the country.

The move is the latest in a series of battles since Israel’s establishment in 1948 to ensure exclusive Jewish control of land through an international Zionist organisation known as the Jewish National Fund (JNF). By the time of Israel’s founding, the JNF had bought about six per cent of historic Palestine for Jewish settlement. Rather than demanding that these territories be handed over by the JNF, the new state authorities assigned the organisation a special, quasi- governmental status. The JNF was also given a significant share of the lands and property confiscated from hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled during the 1948 War.

Today, the state has nationalised 80 per cent of land inside Israel, and the JNF holds another 13 per cent. Neither sells land to private owners on the grounds that it is being held in trust for worldwide Jewry. Instead, they offer long-term leases on the land in their possession.

The JNF has far more power than the division of land suggests, however: its 13 per cent share is reported to include some 70 per cent of the country’s inhabited land; it effectively controls a government body known as the Israel Lands Authority that manages the 93 per cent of land owned by the state and the JNF; and it dominates committees set up to vet applicants to hundreds of rural communities.

Because the JNF charter forbids it from selling or leasing land to non-Jews, this arrangement has allowed the JNF to discriminate against Arab citizens on behalf of the government. The JNF’s control of the Israel Lands Authority and the vetting committees has ensured that Arab citizens are excluded from most of the 93 per cent of nationalised land.

Instead they have been restricted to the three per cent of Israel on which Arab communities already exist or which is privately owned by Arab citizens, though even much of this land falls under the jurisdiction of Jewish regional councils that refuse to allow Arab families to build on it. Dozens of other Arab communities are classified as illegal because the state refuses to recognise them, even though they predate Israel’s establishment.

The JNF’s stranglehold on the management of Israeli land was finally challenged in 2000 when the Supreme Court compelled the vetting committee of a rural community, Katzir, to consider the application of an Arab family, the Kaadans, for a plot of land advertised for sale. Katzir’s committee, which until the ruling had been refusing even to deal with the Kaadans’ application, subsequently rejected the family on the grounds that they were not “socially suitable”. Seven years later the court has yet to offer the Kaadans proper redress.

However, the Kaadans ruling opened the way for other Arab families to demand the right to bid for homes in communities designed only for Jews. The JNF has twice tried to market homes in a new neighbourhood of Karmiel, a town in the Galilee, but has been forced to cancel the tender on each occasion when families from a nearby Arab community, Sakhnin, applied. A petition to the Supreme Court submitted in 2004 on behalf of the Arab families has yet to be heard.

In the meantime, the JNF is reported to be considering withdrawing from the long-standing arrangement that places the Israel Lands Authority in charge of managing all public land, including JNF land. As the court ruling applies only to land managed by the Israel Lands Authority, the JNF would be still entitled to discriminate if it marketed its own housing schemes without the help of the Israel Lands Authority.

The government has been desperately seeking a way both to maintain its relationship with the JNF and not to provoke a second court ruling against it. Earlier this year it announced that land was to be offered to Jews and Arabs without discrimination. In compensation, the JNF would be given state land of equal value every time it was forced to lease land to an Arab family.

The scheme has been criticised by human rights groups which fear it will perpetuate and ultimately exacerbate discrimination by increasing the amount of land under JNF ownership: the JNF will still own the land it is leasing to Arab families but it will also be sold additional land from the state.

The new bill seeks to prevent even the government’s proposed minor concession by nullifying the Supreme Court ruling. The legislation states: “the leasing of JNF lands for the purpose of settling Jews will not be seen as unacceptable discrimination.” Before the legislators voted, the Knesset’s legal adviser, Nurit Elstein, cleared the bill of accusations that it was racist.

Arab Knesset member Wassel Taha, of the National Democratic Assembly, said: “Only an insane Knesset would pass a racist law that affirms the great land theft of 1948 and turns it into Jews- only property.”

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/855/re92.htm

Racist Knesset Clears Itself of Racism

July 28, 2007

The Israeli Knesset is true to the Talmudic tradition of racism and doublespeak. According to Cardinal Schönborn, Christians should see the presence of these racial supremacist haters of truth in “Israel” as a fulfillment of Biblical prophesy and cause for rejoicing.

Anthology of bigotry

Jonathan Cook

The legislation states: “the leasing of Jewish National Fund lands for the purpose of settling Jews will not be seen as unacceptable discrimination.” Before the legislators voted, the Knesset’s legal adviser, Nurit Elstein, cleared the bill of accusations that it was racist.

Israel’s parliament last week approved by an overwhelming majority the first reading of a bill to ensure that much of the country’s inhabited land remains accessible to Jewish citizens only — a move described by one leading local newspaper as turning Israel into a “racist Jewish state”.

The private member’s bill, called the Jewish National Fund Law, has received cross-party support. The first reading was approved by 64 legislators, with 16 — most of them Arab MKs — opposed. Supporters ranged from former premiere Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, to Ami Ayalon, a recent challenger to head the Labour Party.

The legislation is designed to nullify the threat posed by a Supreme Court judgment, reached in 2000, that potentially opens the door to thousands of Arab families leaving the tightly controlled areas assigned to them and choosing where they live. Currently Arab citizens, who comprise a fifth of the population, are barred from buying homes in most of the country.

The move is the latest in a series of battles since Israel’s establishment in 1948 to ensure exclusive Jewish control of land through an international Zionist organisation known as the Jewish National Fund (JNF). By the time of Israel’s founding, the JNF had bought about six per cent of historic Palestine for Jewish settlement. Rather than demanding that these territories be handed over by the JNF, the new state authorities assigned the organisation a special, quasi- governmental status. The JNF was also given a significant share of the lands and property confiscated from hundreds of thousands of Palestinians expelled during the 1948 War.

Today, the state has nationalised 80 per cent of land inside Israel, and the JNF holds another 13 per cent. Neither sells land to private owners on the grounds that it is being held in trust for worldwide Jewry. Instead, they offer long-term leases on the land in their possession.

The JNF has far more power than the division of land suggests, however: its 13 per cent share is reported to include some 70 per cent of the country’s inhabited land; it effectively controls a government body known as the Israel Lands Authority that manages the 93 per cent of land owned by the state and the JNF; and it dominates committees set up to vet applicants to hundreds of rural communities.

Because the JNF charter forbids it from selling or leasing land to non-Jews, this arrangement has allowed the JNF to discriminate against Arab citizens on behalf of the government. The JNF’s control of the Israel Lands Authority and the vetting committees has ensured that Arab citizens are excluded from most of the 93 per cent of nationalised land.

Instead they have been restricted to the three per cent of Israel on which Arab communities already exist or which is privately owned by Arab citizens, though even much of this land falls under the jurisdiction of Jewish regional councils that refuse to allow Arab families to build on it. Dozens of other Arab communities are classified as illegal because the state refuses to recognise them, even though they predate Israel’s establishment.

The JNF’s stranglehold on the management of Israeli land was finally challenged in 2000 when the Supreme Court compelled the vetting committee of a rural community, Katzir, to consider the application of an Arab family, the Kaadans, for a plot of land advertised for sale. Katzir’s committee, which until the ruling had been refusing even to deal with the Kaadans’ application, subsequently rejected the family on the grounds that they were not “socially suitable”. Seven years later the court has yet to offer the Kaadans proper redress.

However, the Kaadans ruling opened the way for other Arab families to demand the right to bid for homes in communities designed only for Jews. The JNF has twice tried to market homes in a new neighbourhood of Karmiel, a town in the Galilee, but has been forced to cancel the tender on each occasion when families from a nearby Arab community, Sakhnin, applied. A petition to the Supreme Court submitted in 2004 on behalf of the Arab families has yet to be heard.

In the meantime, the JNF is reported to be considering withdrawing from the long-standing arrangement that places the Israel Lands Authority in charge of managing all public land, including JNF land. As the court ruling applies only to land managed by the Israel Lands Authority, the JNF would be still entitled to discriminate if it marketed its own housing schemes without the help of the Israel Lands Authority.

The government has been desperately seeking a way both to maintain its relationship with the JNF and not to provoke a second court ruling against it. Earlier this year it announced that land was to be offered to Jews and Arabs without discrimination. In compensation, the JNF would be given state land of equal value every time it was forced to lease land to an Arab family.

The scheme has been criticised by human rights groups which fear it will perpetuate and ultimately exacerbate discrimination by increasing the amount of land under JNF ownership: the JNF will still own the land it is leasing to Arab families but it will also be sold additional land from the state.

The new bill seeks to prevent even the government’s proposed minor concession by nullifying the Supreme Court ruling. The legislation states: “the leasing of JNF lands for the purpose of settling Jews will not be seen as unacceptable discrimination.” Before the legislators voted, the Knesset’s legal adviser, Nurit Elstein, cleared the bill of accusations that it was racist.

Arab Knesset member Wassel Taha, of the National Democratic Assembly, said: “Only an insane Knesset would pass a racist law that affirms the great land theft of 1948 and turns it into Jews- only property.”

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/855/re92.htm

Pope Engages The Rabbis in Dialectics Around Christ and the Gospel

April 19, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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