Friday, June 1, 2007

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skipping ahead we come to Neusner's primary objection:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rabbi Nuesner closes thus:

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

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

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

We are in for interesting times.

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

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

Full article:


John Zebedee said...

Jesus Christ had dialogue with the
'Jews'...we know what the result is therefore my feeling that further 'debate' is totally
fruitless & descends into a 'theatre of the absurd', I
haven't really been following Ratzinger, and possibly he has done
something to witness for the Christian faith beyond his sad attempts at dialogue with Christ's
enemies...but, just to illuminate
how far this 'dialogue' has descended in Christians circles,
let me give a for-instance: I am
a short-wave radio listener & prob-
ably the most powerful short-wave
signal in America comes from some-
thing called the World Harvest Net-
work, an Evangelical network based
in the US, but also with
transmitters on Cyprus, which broadcast into Israel & the MidEast...they do pretty big business in Israel w/tacit cooperation of the Israeli govt...
anyway, late one night, I heard an interview from Jerusalem w/one of
the Temple Mount rabbis...the rabbi
was talking about the absolute Jew-
ish goal of building the '3rd Temple' w/reinstituted animal sac-
rifice & the rule of the, this rabbi announced an 'initiative' directed
to the Moslems, calling for a 'peaceful' dismantlement of the Al-Asqa mosque...but, he said, 'I
pray to G-d this will be done peacefully, but if not, then...'...
the Christian host never even questioned him about the 'if not,
then...'...He just talked about the
'fulfillment of prophesy' & his
'great excitement'...and he never
mentioned Jesus Christ once, out of
'respect' for this madman rabbi...
this is the 'dialogue' of which you speak.

Anonymous said...

Do you believe that Ratzinger is a legitimate Pope? I'm just curious because you call him Benedict. Considering what you write about on your blog, I would guess you are a sedevacantist. That's the only logical position to hold given the evidence, unless one believes a pope can retain his office while teaching heresy and leading souls to hell. By the way, your blog is great. Other trad Catholics try to skirt the Jewish issue, but there's no way to honestly discuss the post Vatican II Church without discussing the involvement of its enemies. Thanks for all your informative pieces and keep up the good work.

Maurice Pinay said...

Do you believe that Ratzinger is a legitimate Pope?

I've gone down that road in the past and found it to be fruitless. I have no qualms with sedevacantists per se, although I find some, not all, of them to be Pharisaic in their argumentation. Likewise, I find some of those who oppose sedevacantists to often times be disingenuous and illogical in their argumentation. This is only my opinion based upon my observations. I'm not a theologian or canon lawyer.

There is a place for debate on the matter, of course, given the state of things. Unfortunately, it is not taking place as it ideally should, so others who are unqualified rush in to fill the void. I understand the reaction, but I find that little good fruit has come of it.

Rather than debating my fellow Catholics over the status of the papacy, I believe my time is better spent warning them of the primary threat to their faith as I see it.