Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The Rotten Fruits Produced by Dialogue With Liars

RORATE CÆLI has published a translation of a statement by Cardinal Bertone in which he states that Benedict's Latin prayer for the Jews will not be changed. He also asks for reciprocity from the rabbis. A translation of the response to this statement from the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni is also published which contains the following deception:

"the Jewish prayers have already been 'self-censored' centuries ago". "The essential information - Di Segni observes - is that today there is not any reference to Christians in our prayers, which have already been the object of repeated interventions of censorship and self-censorship. The Hebrew texts were modified centuries ago, long before the [Second Vatican] Council." (Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni)

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/


Compare that statement with this one by Rabbi Yerachmiel Seplowitz:

"... if we are going to sit down with the Vatican to negotiate liturgy, should we, l’havdil, offer to take out the second paragraph of Aleinu, in which we pray for the day when gentiles will stop worshipping idols? How about “sheheim mishtachavim” – the line that Christian censors removed from Aleinu, claiming it insulted Christians? Many of us have put it back ...

http://www.jewishpress.com/displayContent_new.cfm?mode=a&sectionid=56&contentid=22275&contentName=The%20Pope's%20Got%20A%20Point


One of these Judaic spokemen is dissembling here. A clue as to the veracity of each statement can be found in the fact that Rabbi Di Segni's statement appeared in the Italian press for Goys while Rabbi Seplowitz's statement appeared in The Jewish Press.

But this is beside the fact that the Sephardi of Italy, which Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni represents, never made the censorship to the Aleinu that Ashkenazi Rabbi Slepowitz speaks of above. The Aleinu's offenses against Christians have always existed in the Sephardi prayer book that Di Segni himself would use.

The following is a version of the Aleinu "prayer" from a Judaic prayer book from England pre-1190 A.D. according to Israel Jacob Yuval, professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This is an example of how Judaic "prayers" developed in times and places before censorship:

It is our duty to praise the Master of All, to ascribe greatness to the molder of primeval creation, for He has not made us like the nations of the lands, for He has not assigned our portion like theirs nor our lot like theirs, for they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god who cannot save--man, ash, blood, bile, stinking flesh, maggot, defiled men and women, adulterers and adulteresses, dying in their iniquity and rotting in their wickedness, worn out dust, rot of maggot [and worm]--and pray to a god who cannot save. (Aleinu from medieval English prayer book, Two Nations in Your Womb, Israel Jacob Yuval, University of California Press, 2006, p.119)


It was common for Judaic persons to spit as they recited this so-called prayer--what truly amounts to a curse. The heirs to this tradition of juvenile hatred are now called our "elder brothers in the faith" and our Bible-based traditions are being modified to suit them. I would point out that the Aleinu is quite tame compared to many other traditional, rabbinic anti-Christian curses and practices.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

18th Chapter of Luke:

The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican.

Lex injusta non est lex said...

http://thetyranny.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/vawa-title-iv-d-and-ron-paul/

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir:

This is the literal translation of the Aleinu:

It is our duty to praise the Master of all, to acclaim the
greatness of the One
who forms all creation. For God did not make us
like the nations of other
lands, and did not make us the same as other
families of the Earth. God did
not place us in the same situations as others, and
our destiny is not the same
as anyone else's.
And we bend our knees, and bow down, and give
thanks, before the Ruler,
the Ruler of Rulers, the Holy One, Blessed is God.
The One who spread out the heavens, and made the
foundations of the Earth,
and whose precious dwelling is in the heavens
above, and whose powerful
Presence is in the highest heights. Adonai is our
God, there is none else.
Our God is truth, and nothing else compares. As
it
is written in Your
Torah: "And you shall know today, and take to
heart, that Adonai is the only
God, in the heavens above and on Earth below.
There is no other."
Therefore we put our hope in You, Adonai our God,
to soon see the glory of
Your strength, to remove all idols from the Earth,
and to completely cut off
all false gods; to repair the world, Your holy
empire. And for all living flesh
to call Your name, and for all the wicked of the
Earth to turn to You. May all
the world's inhabitants recognize and know that to
You every knee must
bend and every tongue must swear loyalty. Before
You, Adonai, our God,
may all bow down, and give honor to Your precious
name, and may all take
upon themselves the yoke of Your rule. And may
You
reign over them soon
and forever and always. Because all rule is Yours
alone, and You will rule
in honor forever and ever.
As it is written in Your Torah:
"Adonai will reign forever and ever."
And it is said: "Adonai will be Ruler over the
whole Earth, and on that day,
God will be One, and God's name will be One.

---

No mention of maggots or bile, etc.

Maurice Pinay said...

Dear Sir:

This is the literal translation of the Aleinu ...


What you have furnished is a post-censorship version of the Aleinu prayer. What I have furnished is a version of the prayer that developed in a time and place before censorship of rabbinic texts began, in this case, pre-1190 A.D. England according the the source I supplied, Two Nations In Your Womb by Israel Jacob Yuval. Yuval is a professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. If you believe he falsified the text. Take it up with him. I am certain he did not.

Anonymous said...

"What you have furnished is a post-censorship version of the Aleinu prayer. What I have furnished is a version of the prayer that developed in a time and place before censorship of rabbinic texts began, in this case, pre-1190 A.D. England according the the source I supplied, Two Nations In Your Womb by Israel Jacob Yuval. Yuval is a professor of Jewish history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. If you believe he falsified the text. Take it up with him. I am certain he did not."

---

Dear Sir:

Even if one were to accept your version of the facts to be true, which I do not, two glaring inconsistencies in your argument remain. These are:

1- The Aleinu was first composed during Biblical times, credited to Joshua, centuries before the birth of Christ. It is illogical, and perhaps even misleading, to argue that a prayer written so long before the birth of Jesus could contain any references to Christ or Christians. Conversely, the idolatry practiced by the non-Jewish population at the time the prayer was written is well documented by historians, archeologists and theologians alike, and the Jewish aversion to idolatry is equally well documented.

2- Even if one were to accept your version of Yuval's recitation of the prayer as correct, by your own admission, Jews altered the text of the prayer more than 900 years ago. It is logical to expect that the alteration of such a venerated prayer could only have been undertaken for the most important of reasons. What could that reason be? Perhaps to avoid offending their Christian neighbors for the last 900 years, while still retaining the elements of praise and devotion to God contained in the original text.

It is obvious that you do not like Jews. This is a free country and that is your right. You are clearly offended by some of the references to "Gentiles" contained in Jewish text and Jewish prayer. It is important to remember however, that the term "Gentile" also predates the birth of Jesus by centuries at least, and was originally intended to refer to the idolatrous heathen populations that the early Jewish culture encountered. For this reason, as before, it is illogical to argue that its use in texts composed before the birth of Christ can be intended to refer to Christians. It is unfortunate that the meaning of the word "Gentile" has expanded beyond its original intent and now is taken to refer to all non-Jews. Substituting the word "heathen" for the word "Gentile" in most Jewish prayers and texts dramatically clarifies the original, contemporaneous intent of the writer, and reduces or eliminates any offense, which could be felt by one who believes himself to be a "Gentile." If Jews can ask the Church to alter some passages to avoid offending them, perhaps the Church is justly entitled to ask the same in return.

---

vigitrad said...

Just want to point out one thing :

The Talmud and other books from the rabbis contained a lot of horrible things againts the christians and christianity. But since the knowledge of their language has increased in Europe, the jewish have suppressed some quotes in their books or subsituted names like Nimim, Goyim nohrim (christians) or Meschoummedim, Mourim (baptised jews) by common names. However, the rabbis continue to teach VERBALLY what has been suppressed or transformed.

This is well-documented by several authors as Rabbi Drach, Gougenot des Mousseaux, Father Meinvieille, ...

Don't forget what our Lord said to the jews : They are the sons of the Devil... and the Devil is the Father of Lies.

Maurice Pinay said...

The Aleinu was first composed during Biblical times, credited to Joshua, centuries before the birth of Christ.

--------------------

This is pious rabbinic nonsense which has no factual support whatever. This story is discarded along with the rabbinic tale about Moses receiving Mishnah and Kabbalah on Mt. Sinai and the myriad of other absurd rabbinic claims from the "oral tradition." The earliest written record of the Aleinu is in the mystical Hekhalot literature which dates to the Talmudic period (70-500 A.D.) according to Gershom Scholem, (Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 1965, p.105) There is reason to doubt even this late date.

--------------------

It is illogical, and perhaps even misleading, to argue that a prayer written so long before the birth of Jesus could contain any references to Christ or Christians.

--------------------

See the above refutation of this illogical assertion.

--------------------

Even if one were to accept your version of Yuval's recitation of the prayer as correct, by your own admission, Jews altered the text of the prayer more than 900 years ago. It is logical to expect that the alteration of such a venerated prayer could only have been undertaken for the most important of reasons. What could that reason be?

Perhaps to avoid offending their Christian neighbors for the last 900 years, while still retaining the elements of praise and devotion to God contained in the original text.


--------------------

The prayer was initially censored due to pressure, and in some cases force from the medieval Christian authorities. Any suggestion that the medieval rabbis altered their hateful curses against Christians voluntarily in sensitivity to Christian sensibilities should rightly be scoffed at. This is not to say that I agree with medieval Christian censorship of Judaic texts which, as it turns out, has provided the grounds for sophistic arguments such as those Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni and yourself are peddling, and conditions in which the rabbis could point to censored versions of the Talmud claiming that it was an "anti-semitic" "canard" to claim that the rabbinic tradition was hateful towards Christ, His Blessed Mother and Christians.

-------------------

It is obvious that you do not like Jews. This is a free country and that is your right.


-------------------

Well that goes to show how poor your perception is and how quick you are to fall back on the old standby--smearing the opponent as a "Jew-hater." The truth is that I do not like the actions taken by the Abe Foxman, Jules Isaac, Elliot Abrams, Michael Ledeen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Moses Hess, and Rabbi David Rosens of the world. I do not like the damage that they cause to my Church, State and culture. I do not like the catastrophic consequences of their insane, self-serving policies put into action. But even more so, I do not like the treachery of their philo-Judaic accomplices. And I will continue to exercise my God-given right to condemn the criminal behavior of the above-mentioned criminals and many others like them as long as they continue in their criminal behavior.

-------------------

You are clearly offended by some of the references to "Gentiles" contained in Jewish text and Jewish prayer. It is important to remember however, that the term "Gentile" also predates the birth of Jesus by centuries at least, and was originally intended to refer to the idolatrous heathen populations that the early Jewish culture encountered.

------------------

You are clearly prevaricating here. The time for these lame excuses has passed. The fact that the rabbinic tradition curses and disparages Christ and Christians throughout its canon under code words meant to evade censors and investigators is out and in the open today. I recommend that you update your apologetics.

-----------------

For this reason, as before, it is illogical to argue that its use in texts composed before the birth of Christ can be intended to refer to Christians.

-----------------

The written canon of rabbinic Judaism post-dates Christ. It is illogical to claim that it predates Christ.

-----------------

It is unfortunate that the meaning of the word "Gentile" has expanded beyond its original intent and now is taken to refer to all non-Jews.

-----------------

The term "Gentile" refers to "the nations" which is to say, all non-Israelite nations. That is what the term means in its true, Biblical sense. There is nothing offensive about the term "Gentile" in and of itself. Only when it's coupled with the racial supremacism of rabbinic Judaism do problems arise.

-----------------


If Jews can ask the Church to alter some passages to avoid offending them, perhaps the Church is justly entitled to ask the same in return.

----------------

The rabbis have no right to request changes in anything faith-related from Christians. This entire matter is a charade.

Anonymous said...

Dear Sir:

Maurice Pinay said...

The Aleinu was first composed during Biblical times, credited to Joshua, centuries before the birth of Christ.

--------------------

This is pious rabbinic nonsense which has no factual support whatever. This story is discarded along with the rabbinic tale about Moses receiving Mishnah and Kabbalah on Mt. Sinai and the myriad of other absurd rabbinic claims from the "oral tradition." The earliest written record of the Aleinu is in the mystical Hekhalot literature which dates to the Talmudic period (70-500 A.D.) according to Gershom Scholem, (Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 1965, p.105) There is reason to doubt even this late date.

--------------------


The Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions are all subject to varying degrees of "pious nonsense" which can be said to have "no factual support whatever." This is among the reasons we refer to them as "faiths." Once upon a time, the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. Further, oral tradition cannot be discounted as a means of passing religious and cultural traditions between generations. Both the Old and New Testament are the product of oral tradition reduced to writing, sometimes centuries after the fact.

***

It is illogical, and perhaps even misleading, to argue that a prayer written so long before the birth of Jesus could contain any references to Christ or Christians.

--------------------

See the above refutation of this illogical assertion.

--------------------

Substitute the word, "spoken" for the word, "written" and see the above refutation of this refutation.

***


Even if one were to accept your version of Yuval's recitation of the prayer as correct, by your own admission, Jews altered the text of the prayer more than 900 years ago. It is logical to expect that the alteration of such a venerated prayer could only have been undertaken for the most important of reasons. What could that reason be?

Perhaps to avoid offending their Christian neighbors for the last 900 years, while still retaining the elements of praise and devotion to God contained in the original text.

--------------------

The prayer was initially censored due to pressure, and in some cases force from the medieval Christian authorities. Any suggestion that the medieval rabbis altered their hateful curses against Christians voluntarily in sensitivity to Christian sensibilities should rightly be scoffed at. This is not to say that I agree with medieval Christian censorship of Judaic texts which, as it turns out, has provided the grounds for sophistic arguments such as those Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni and yourself are peddling, and conditions in which the rabbis could point to censored versions of the Talmud claiming that it was an "anti-semitic" "canard" to claim that the rabbinic tradition was hateful towards Christ, His Blessed Mother and Christians.

-------------------

Your response is the argument of one determined to find offense. Whether voluntarily or by coercion, the prayer evolved to its present form, and by your reckoning has been recited in that form for over 900 years. Similar evolution of other Jewish prayers has occurred as time and circumstances changed. Your characterization of my position as sophistry belies an unwillingness to consider the alternatives. If, in fact, the Talmudic passages relating to Balaam, Yeshu and Miriam refer to Jesus and the Virgin Mary, then Christians clearly have every right to be offended by them, as would I. But what if they don't refer to Christ and His Virgin Mother? Would you still find them offensive? Perhaps one day the Church will ask for a definitive answer. I sincerely hope someday it does.

***


It is obvious that you do not like Jews. This is a free country and that is your right.


-------------------

Well that goes to show how poor your perception is and how quick you are to fall back on the old standby--smearing the opponent as a "Jew-hater." The truth is that I do not like the actions taken by the Abe Foxman, Jules Isaac, Elliot Abrams, Michael Ledeen, Binyamin Netanyahu, Moses Hess, and Rabbi David Rosens of the world. I do not like the damage that they cause to my Church, State and culture. I do not like the catastrophic consequences of their insane, self-serving policies put into action. But even more so, I do not like the treachery of their philo-Judaic accomplices. And I will continue to exercise my God-given right to condemn the criminal behavior of the above-mentioned criminals and many others like them as long as they continue in their criminal behavior.

-------------------

I do not see you as my opponent, nor did I accuse you of hating Jews. I merely observed from your many writings that you do not seem to like them, and that you have the right to your feelings. For you to accuse me of smearing you as a "Jew-hater" when I did not, is the functional equivalent of those who play the "Anti-Semite" card where there is merely criticism or disagreement. I'm glad you clarified your position in stating that you do not like the actions of certain Jews. I do not like the actions of certain Jews either, including most of your list, the ACLU 99.9% of the time, and AIPAC, among others, for their single-minded short-sightedness and the effect their actions can sometimes have on the country and culture I love. I do not like those Jews who whine about creches on public property, or those who complain about Christmas events in public schools, or those who would equate Hanukah, a third string holiday at best, with one of the Holiest days of the Christian calendar, Christmas. I do not like those Jews who wield the charge of Anti-Semitism indiscriminately as a universal trump card to silence critics or get their way. Similarly, I do not like those who lump all Jews (or Christians, or Muslims, etc. for that matter) together en masse and ascribe the same undesirable characteristics or behaviors to all of them. Such people of any faith promote dangerously divisive thinking.

***


You are clearly offended by some of the references to "Gentiles" contained in Jewish text and Jewish prayer. It is important to remember however, that the term "Gentile" also predates the birth of Jesus by centuries at least, and was originally intended to refer to the idolatrous heathen populations that the early Jewish culture encountered.

------------------

You are clearly prevaricating here. The time for these lame excuses has passed. The fact that the rabbinic tradition curses and disparages Christ and Christians throughout its canon under code words meant to evade censors and investigators is out and in the open today. I recommend that you update your apologetics.

-----------------

There is no need to prevaricate where the facts bear out the position. The term in question predates Christianity, as does the term "Cuthean," and thus cannot be argued to refer to it. Rabbinic tradition is no more and no less guilty of cursing and disparaging Christ and Christians than Christian tradition is of cursing and disparaging Jews. See anything written by Martin Luther, among many others. The consequences of that bi-lateral disparagement have been grave to both sides over the course of history. History is behind us and we are responsible to set things straight. I make no apologies for seeking reconciliation, improved relations and mutual respect between Christians and Jews, and will support efforts to do so.

***

For this reason, as before, it is illogical to argue that its use in texts composed before the birth of Christ can be intended to refer to Christians.

-----------------

The written canon of rabbinic Judaism post-dates Christ. It is illogical to claim that it predates Christ.

-----------------

The Oral Tradition of Judaism, including what became written as the Old Testament, pre-dates Christ.

***

It is unfortunate that the meaning of the word "Gentile" has expanded beyond its original intent and now is taken to refer to all non-Jews.

-----------------

The term "Gentile" refers to "the nations" which is to say, all non-Israelite nations. That is what the term means in its true, Biblical sense. There is nothing offensive about the term "Gentile" in and of itself. Only when it's coupled with the racial supremacism of rabbinic Judaism do problems arise.

-----------------

I take your point about the term "Gentile" being inoffensive in and of itself. However, "the nations" at the time the term was coined, were idolatrous heathens. There were no Christians. Viewed in the context of that meaning and at that time, the word "Gentile" cannot mean "Christian." Nor can the word "Christian" mean "heathen." Racial or religious supremacism is a dangerous and unhealthy illusion, regardless of which group practices it, although human nature will always encourage members of any identifiable group to think of themselves as the best.

***

If Jews can ask the Church to alter some passages to avoid offending them, perhaps the Church is justly entitled to ask the same in return.

----------------

The rabbis have no right to request changes in anything faith-related from Christians. This entire matter is a charade.

In a perfect world, I would be the first to agree. In this imperfect world, Christians, Muslims and Jews need to learn to get along. Whether we find our way to God through Moses or Jesus or Muhammed, there is still only One God.

***

Although we clearly disagree on many of the issues we have discussed, I appreciate the integrity you have demonstrated by posting our discussion, and I look forward to your reply.

B

Maurice Pinay said...

The Jewish, Christian and Muslim religions are all subject to varying degrees of "pious nonsense" which can be said to have "no factual support whatever." This is among the reasons we refer to them as "faiths." Once upon a time, the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. Further, oral tradition cannot be discounted as a means of passing religious and cultural traditions between generations. Both the Old and New Testament are the product of oral tradition reduced to writing, sometimes centuries after the fact.

-----------------

There is no Biblical or material evidence that Joshua wrote the Aleinu. Apparently it's an article of faith for you that he did. That's your business. You can't hold me to it as you apparently believe you can and your argument has no factual merit. I reject this claim along with the rest of the non-Biblical rabbinic tales intended to tie the rabbis' crazy traditions to the Patriarchs.

-----------------

Whether voluntarily or by coercion, the prayer evolved to its present form, and by your reckoning has been recited in that form for over 900 years. Similar evolution of other Jewish prayers has occurred as time and circumstances changed. Your characterization of my position as sophistry belies an unwillingness to consider the alternatives. If, in fact, the Talmudic passages relating to Balaam, Yeshu and Miriam refer to Jesus and the Virgin Mary, then Christians clearly have every right to be offended by them, as would I. But what if they don't refer to Christ and His Virgin Mother? Would you still find them offensive? Perhaps one day the Church will ask for a definitive answer. I sincerely hope someday it does.

-----------------

I have not said or even implied that the prayer was actually prayed in its censored form for the past 900 years. I'd prefer that you don't put words in my mouth. Just because the prayer books were censored in no way presupposes that the censored prayers were actually used. The censored books served primarily to placate Christian authorities. This is not proof of reform in actual belief and practice on the part of "Jews." There is much evidence that it was the texts alone which were changed, and not the practices.

As rabbi Slepowitz suggests, today, "Jews" are comfortable enough with their position of dominance in society to restore the censored parts of the Aleinu. The Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud, and to a certain extent the Pritzker Zohar is further evidence of this trend, and quite frankly, these largely uncensored texts where Jesus and Christians are referred to by name make a mockery of your non-argument. This is happening at the very time that the rabbis shriek about "antisemitism" they percieve in Christian prayers.

-----------------

I do not see you as my opponent, nor did I accuse you of hating Jews. I merely observed from your many writings that you do not seem to like them, and that you have the right to your feelings. For you to accuse me of smearing you as a "Jew-hater" when I did not, is the functional equivalent of those who play the "Anti-Semite" card where there is merely criticism or disagreement.

----------------

Actually, you said, "It is obvious that you do not like Jews." If you don't want to be accused of ad hominem, then abandon the practice of ad hominem. Further, there is no equivalence between damage caused by the "antisemite" charge and the charge that one hurls or implies the epithet carelessly. If so, Abe Foxman and his ilk would be on the Bowery like so many people whose lives and careers they've ruined with the "antisemite" charge. Let's try to have a sense of proportion here.

----------------

I'm glad you clarified your position in stating that you do not like the actions of certain Jews. I do not like the actions of certain Jews either, including most of your list, the ACLU 99.9% of the time, and AIPAC, among others, for their single-minded short-sightedness and the effect their actions can sometimes have on the country and culture I love. I do not like those Jews who whine about creches on public property, or those who complain about Christmas events in public schools, or those who would equate Hanukah, a third string holiday at best, with one of the Holiest days of the Christian calendar, Christmas. I do not like those Jews who wield the charge of
Anti-Semitism indiscriminately as a universal trump card to silence critics or get their way.


----------------

Really, then? Have you contacted those criminals with your concerns as you have done with me? If my work here causes you consternation, I suggest that's what you do and recommend that you encourage others to do the same because I will not stop until the criminals do.

----------------

Similarly, I do not like those who lump all Jews (or Christians, or Muslims, etc. for that matter) together en masse and ascribe the same undesirable characteristics or behaviors to all of them. Such people of any faith promote dangerously divisive thinking.

---------------

And since that's not the case here, why mention it other than to raise the implication that it is?

---------------

There is no need to prevaricate where the facts bear out the position. The term in question [Gentile] predates Christianity, as does the term "Cuthean," and thus cannot be argued to refer to it.


--------------

If you think you can argue that medieval "Jews" in Europe didn't use the term "Gentile" as an epithet for the Christians they were surrounded by when there were virtually no other "nations" other than Christians in existence in Europe at that time, you must be joking. Who else would "Gentile" have referred to at this time and place?

--------------

Rabbinic tradition is no more and no less guilty of cursing and disparaging Christ and Christians than Christian tradition is of cursing and disparaging Jews.

--------------

Nonsense. The reality is that the rabbis, with the help of the Christian censors, covered up the foul aspects of their traditions to a fantastic degree. The fact that their texts were largely locked away in Hebrew and Aramaic also benefited the cover up. And that you would suggest equivalence between the murderous, racist hatred codified in the rabbinic tradition with Christian traditions betrays either extreme ignorance or remarkable chutzpah on your part. What in the Christian tradition has any equivalence with "Even the best of the gentiles should all be killed" (Soferim 15, Rule 10)," or "redemption cannot take place until Amalek is exterminated" (Zohar, Bereshith, Folio 25b)? I'm concerned about much more than mere disparaging remarks. These are religious commandments to genocide which we see being carried out at this very moment in the "Jewish" state and by the Zionists in Washington. There is no equivalent tradition in the Church canon.

--------------

See anything written by Martin Luther, among many others.

--------------

I don't answer for Martin Luther who made up his own religion and whose incitements have no support in the Church canon.

--------------

The consequences of that bi-lateral disparagement have been grave to both sides over the course of history. History is behind us and we are responsible to set things straight. I make no apologies for seeking reconciliation, improved relations and mutual respect between Christians and Jews, and will support efforts to do so.

--------------

There can be no mutual respect without honesty. You don't seem to understand that any better than the heavy hitters in Judeo-Christian dialogue. I don't believe that true respect between Christians and followers of the rabbis is possible without the latter undergoing a massive reformation of their tradition which makes a virtue of dishonesty (Baba Kamma 113a). Perhaps mutual respect could be something to aim for once such a massive reformation in Judaism has truly taken place. This concept of "reconciliation" between Christians and rabbis of the Talmud and Kabbalah, however, is utterly alien to Christianity. I have no use for it.

--------------

The Oral Tradition of Judaism, including what became written as the Old Testament, pre-dates Christ.

--------------

Certain parts of the non-Biblical oral traditions of rabbinic Judaism (Mishnah) did exist as Pharisaism before Christ. If you believe that all of Talmud, Kabbalah, Shulkhan Arukh, et al, existed before Christ exactly as it came to be written down after Christ you're entitled to such an entirely faith-based belief, but you're not entitled to hold me to it, and again, your argument has no factual merit.

--------------

I take your point about the term "Gentile" being inoffensive in and of itself. However, "the nations" at the time the term was coined, were idolatrous heathens. There were no Christians. Viewed in the context of that meaning and at that time, the word "Gentile" cannot mean "Christian."

--------------

The "sages" of rabbinic Judaism, (i.e. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Avodah Zorah, 9;4) do, in fact, teach that Christians are idolatrous heathens who, btw, would be killed for their "idolatry" under the ideal conditions of Judaic rule. Your argument is absurd.

-------------

In this imperfect world, Christians, Muslims and Jews need to learn to get along. Whether we find our way to God through Moses or Jesus or Muhammed, there is still only One God.

-------------

"Getting along" is a fine dream, but the Christian cannot forsake Truth in pursuit of a dream. So far, this is what Judeo-Christian dialogue has amounted to. It's a charade.

Michael said...

A truly amazing exchange!

I recall my days back in the 1980s in a yeshiva for born again Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem. At that time I had just undergone an anti missionary class to deprogram me from the influence of some Dutch Lutheran missionaries I had met on kibbutz prior to my entering Yeshiva.

One argument they used on us was that all the suspect refernces in the Talmud were against pre-Christian pagans and not against Jesus or Christians. They even tried to claim that overt references to someone named "Yeshu" were to "another Yeshu" and not to Jesus.

A number of years later I started studying from the newly released Steinsaltz Talmud and was utterly shocked and horrified to see in his extensive footnotes that he shamelessly admitted that such references indeed were against Jesus, His Mother and His Church. Even as a committed Orthodox Jew I felt uncomfortable with these admissions such as the vulgar claim in Talmud Gittin about Jesus boiling for eternity in a vat of excrement.

Later when I converted to Christianity I saw with greater clarity that this is a pervasive theme in Judaism that in fact attests to the truth of Christianity: the tragic fact that so much of Jewish self-definition is in opposition to Christianity. Most Jews are not aware of this, indeed as secularists they are unaware of most things about their religious heritage, but I do believe these pernicious rabbinical writings create a principality of evil overshadowing all Jewish people unless they convert and consciously renounce rabbinical teachings.

Michael said...

We also were told in Yeshiva that the missing phrase from Alaynu does refer to Christians, as does the Amida curse against Minim. In fact someone makes a gematria calculation that the phrase in Alaynu explicitly refers to Yeshua or to Notzrim.

Michael said...

See my comments on Noahidism about half way down this webpage:
http://www.israelshamir.net/shamirReaders/english/Shamir--Peter-Edel-On-Zionism.php?vm=r