← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Stanley

Thread 9804

Thread ID: 9804 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2003-09-15

Wayback Archive

Stanley [OP]

2003-09-15 17:52 | User Profile

What I find interesting about this article is the frank admission that Gibson's movie isn't the real problem; it's the Gospels themselves.

Boston University's Paula Fredriksen, one of the world's leading experts on the historical Jesus and a participant in the scholars' group that analyzed The Passion, characterized the film as the blood and gore of Mr. Gibson's Braveheart and Lethal Weapon set in Roman Jerusalem, with cardboard Jewish bad guys.

Which, interestingly enough, is pretty much exactly how the Christian Gospel-writers portrayed the death of Jesus -- more than half a century after the fact and without much concern for historical accuracy.**

**Scholars back charges against Gibson **

A confidential study by Catholic and Jewish academics of a script for Mel Gibson's Jesus film finds anti-Semitic overtones, MICHAEL VALPY reports

From Saturday's [url=http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030913.christ/BNStory/Entertainment/]Globe and Mail[/url]

Who killed Jesus? The question suddenly is centre-stage controversy in the North American entertainment industry, exemplifying U.S. Christianity's weird edges and the widening gulf between conservative religious fundamentalism and contemporary biblical scholarship.

The Passion, actor and Catholic traditionalist Mel Gibson's film about the arrest and execution of Jesus, has set off a firestorm of debate dividing liberal and conservative Christians. A group of leading U.S. Roman Catholic and Jewish scriptural scholars have labelled it an intolerable historical and theological travesty that is at risk of promoting anti-Semitism. The scholars made their criticisms in a confidential 18-page report sent to Mr. Gibson and obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Lawyers for Mr. Gibson's production company, Icon, in turn accused them of being in possession of a stolen copy of the script and demanded it back. (The script had found its way to one scholar in a plain brown envelope.)

Mr. Gibson's film is one of two major movies on their way to cinemas this year. Both lay claim to absolute biblical authenticity. The other, produced by an impresario Jew -- Canadian Garth Drabinsky's The Gospel of John -- relied on an advisory board of biblical scholars to tiptoe carefully through the polemics of the Christian New Testament Gospels.

The fundamental difference between the two films is that Mr. Drabinsky's John, which had its premiere on Thursday at the Toronto International Film Festival, tells viewers they are not watching an account of the historical Jesus but rather a late-first-century narrative -- the Gospel as read by actor Christopher Plummer -- of a new religion trying to fend off theological challenges and state repression. Mr. Gibson's The Passion, scheduled for release next Easter, implies that viewers are watching historical verity.

In other words, the issue is scriptural interpretation: Are the Gospels history or not? The mainstream academic view is that they're not. Or not in any conventional sense.

Boston University's Paula Fredriksen, one of the world's leading experts on the historical Jesus and a participant in the scholars' group that analyzed The Passion, characterized the film as the blood and gore of Mr. Gibson's Braveheart and Lethal Weapon set in Roman Jerusalem, with cardboard Jewish bad guys.

Which, interestingly enough, is pretty much exactly how the Christian Gospel-writers portrayed the death of Jesus -- more than half a century after the fact and without much concern for historical accuracy.

The four Gospel accounts of Jesus's arrest, trial and execution (his "passion," from the Latin passio, meaning suffering) finger the Jewish religious hierarchy as the instigators, the Jerusalem Jewish crowds as the mob baying for his death and the Roman governor of Palestine who ordered the crucifixion, Pontius Pilate, as a reluctant dupe of the Jewish high priest Caiaphus.

As Jesus is led off to be killed, Matthew's Gospel infamously has the Jewish mob chant in unison: "May his blood be upon us, then, and upon our children." (Mr. Gibson put the line in Caiaphus's mouth and later, reluctantly, removed it from his script.)

The accounts led to 1,900 years of teaching by the Christian church that the Jews collectively were responsible for deicide, the killing of Jesus, and thus cursed by God.

Christian violence against Jews is one of the plinths of European history. Passion plays of the Middle Ages focused on Jesus's pain and were used to incite hatred of Jews and trigger pogroms. Prof. Fredriksen, in an interview, referred to the Holocaust as one of the "great Christian ecumenical movements."

In 1965, the Roman Catholic Church's reform council, Vatican II, made a Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate) that officially nixed the deicide charge: "The Jews must not be presented as rejected by God or accursed as if this followed from Sacred Scripture."

Both the Vatican and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops subsequently issued detailed guidelines on dramatizations of the Passion. The Pope, when he visited the Middle East in 2000, prayed at the Western Wall of the Jerusalem Temple for God's forgiveness of Christians for their crimes against Jews.

The leading U.S. Catholic and Jewish biblical scholars who read the purported Passion script, Prof. Fredrickson included, unanimously concluded that it contained multiple guidelines violations. (See sidebar for excerpts from their 18-page report.)

They say Mr. Gibson has borrowed from the diary of a stigmatic, 19th-century German nun, Anna Katharina Emmerich, who recorded visions of Jesus's cross being made in Caiaphus's court, of the high priests bribing the Jerusalem crowds to demand Jesus's death and of soldiers putting a bag over Jesus's head to drag him through the streets -- none of which is found in the Gospels.

Select groups of conservative Protestant and Catholic Christians who have been invited by Mr. Gibson to see drafts of the film -- and have praised it -- accuse the Catholic and Jewish scholars of condemning a movie they have not seen. The scholars, in turn, have suggested that Mr. Gibson and those who have seen his film don't understand the Gospels.

It may or may not be fair to report at this point that the traditionalist Catholic sect to which Mr. Gibson belongs opposes many of the teachings of the Vatican II and holds, among other things, that no legitimate pope has sat on the Throne of St. Peter since those reforms.

Mr. Gibson has vehemently denied his film is anti-Semitic. He says he is being sandbagged by anti-Christians. He also has accused "modern secular Judaism" of trying "to blame the Holocaust on the Roman Catholic Church" -- to which Abraham Foxman, executive director of the U.S. Jewish Anti-Defamation League, adds: "Whatever that means."

Peter Richardson, recently retired as a University of Toronto theology professor, headed the scholars' committee that advised Mr. Drabinsky on this season's other Jesus film -- which is a narrative, and only a narrative, of the John Gospel, considered at once the most theologically complex and beautiful and the most "anti-Jewish" of the four scriptural accounts of Christ's life.

His committee, he said, "struggled with how to represent and explain the anti-Judaism of the fourth Gospel. We had a huge discussion about it. We each wrote three or four paragraphs, [which were] reduced to three-line, pithy statements."

Those six statements are shown at the film's beginning "as a kind of distillation of the scholarly concerns we have. It's an effort to deal responsibly with it."

The statements say Jesus and all his Disciples were Jewish, that the Gospel was written at a time of intra-Jewish debate, that crucifixion is not a Jewish form of punishment, and that the Gospel was written two generations after Jesus's death and has more to do with a polemical context of the new religion of Christianity being separated from a Jewish matrix than it does with a historical Jesus.

For the film's narrative, Prof. Richardson's committee selected the American Good News Bible because it was most easily dramatized. It also, fortuitously and unlike other Bibles, translates the 60-odd mentions of Jews in John as "Jewish authorities."

"I would have serious reservations [about using the Good New Bible] as a scholar, but for this purpose it works wonderfully well," Prof. Richardson said.

Mr. Gibson, conversely, has made it clear he believes that what the Gospels say about Jesus's passion is historically and theologically accurate. It's this claim, said Prof. Fredriksen, that bothers her most about the film.

Her irritation begins with the fact that Mr. Gibson's script has Pilate and all the Romans speaking Latin. The working language of the eastern Roman Empire was Greek, she said.

The script's portrayal of Caiaphus as the real power in Jerusalem able to manipulate a weak and waffling Pilate is historically inaccurate, she said. Caiaphus depended on Pilate for his job. Pilate, for his part, was known to be trigger-happy and was subsequently fired for too-brutal repression in neighbouring Samaria.

The scholars' report says the script gives no motive for either Pilate or Caiaphus wanting Jesus dead, but Prof. Fredriksen said in an interview that she believes Pilate had a clear motive: "The pilgrims."

Pilate, she said, would have known Jesus was harmless and his pacifistic movement no threat to Rome. But the thousands of Passover pilgrims who greeted him enthusiastically when he entered Jerusalem were another matter.

Palestine at that time was under direct Roman rule. Passover was a high holiday linked to Jewish freedom. Although nothing happened in the aftermath of Jesus's triumphal entry into the city, Pilate would have perceived the risk of a pilgrims' uprising with Jesus as the spark. Secretly arresting Jesus at night and quickly executing him was the way of dealing with it. Crucifixion was the Roman punishment for sedition.

Prof. Fredriksen said that if the Gibson script's account of Jesus's death didn't sadden her, she would find the controversy around the film fascinating. "But to have this kind of a movie coming out now, it just makes me, oh, so sad."

Judaism shown as 'locus of evil' *Excerpts from the Report of the Ad Hoc Scholars Group, which reviewed a script of Mel Gibson's unreleased film, The Passion:

Members of the Ad Hoc Scholars Group concluded unanimously that a film based on the present version of the script . . . would promote anti-Semitic sentiments.

[The Jewish] Temple -- and by extension Judaism -- is presented as a locus of evil: Jesus's unusually large cross is manufactured there and Jesus is physically abused there at night before a violent mob of Jews. This torment is said to occur adjacent to the Holy of Holies, a locale seemingly targeted by dramatic earth tremors when Jesus dies. Collectively, these elements uniformly project a negative view of Judaism and the Jewish people.

High priests are shown delighting in the physical abuse inflicted upon Jesus, while [the Roman governor] Pilate is shocked by it. [The high priest] Caiaphas's machinations will too easily be seen as epitomizing "Jewish" wickedness.

A Jewish mob is shown in ever-increasing size and ferocity. The mob is plainly identified as representing the Jewish people as a whole, portraying them as such as "bloodthirsty," "frenzied," and "predatory."

The Roman soldiers who flay Jesus are depicted as urged on by demonic forces, while Jews need no such supernatural stimulation for their wickedness. The few Jewish characters sympathetic to Jesus do not offset the disproportionately numerous hostile Jews.

Jewish figures are particularly associated with evil uses of money. The high priest, e.g., is careful to signal an underling to collect up the "blood money" that a distraught Judas [who betrays Jesus to the authorities] has flung at his "opulent robes." While it is true that the priestly elites were rich, the script also shows them using their wealth to corrupt a large number of ordinary Jews, something for which there is scant historical or biblical evidence.

[The script adds] scenes, without any historical or even biblical warrant, that increase the guilt of Jewish characters.

Viewers without extensive knowledge of Catholic teaching about interpreting the New Testament will surely leave the theatre with the overriding impression that the bloodthirsty, vengeful and money-loving Jews simply had an implacable hatred of Jesus.

Michael Valpy covers spiritual matters for The Globe and Mail. *

iwannabeanarchy

2003-09-15 22:56 | User Profile

Funny, the images described in the film are exactly how I imagine these scenes--when I was 11 years old and listening to them read from the Bible during Lent.

I wonder if maybe this is because you have to twist around and distort what the Bible says (after you become a 'leading scholar') to imagine anything else?

Stanley

2003-09-16 02:50 | User Profile

What they're saying is that the Gospels are not historically accurate. To tell the truth, I share their opinion, but I consider it the height of arrogance to tell someone that his religious beliefs are offensive.

They're overreaching. Even the sheeple at Free Republic are getting angry at this one.

iwannabeanarchy

2003-09-16 02:53 | User Profile

Er, no, they are saying both that the Gospels are un-historical, and that portraying what they describe is anti-Semitic.

Stanley

2003-09-16 04:50 | User Profile

I agree. You've spelled out what I implied.

Ragnar

2003-09-16 05:51 | User Profile

This whole thing is just a big piffle. You want real anti-semitism? Just read the Old Testament and imagine it really happened. :D

DakotaBlue

2003-09-17 01:27 | User Profile

Piffle my ass. Too polite and cute a word. This is censorship hiding behind religious sanctimony. My question to the good professor would be, how do you square your low opinion of the Passion with what's recorded in the Babylonian Talmud by Jews themselves? According to linguists and historians who translated the talmud, it's filled with the most malevolent language when referring to Jesus. In fact, in parts of the Sanhedrin, they gloat over their role in his execution. They don't talk about the crucifixion, but a hanging after he was pilloried for 40 days, then stoned, then hanged. Can anyone say for sure that this version isn't the true one. Isn't it odd that no one has brought up the talmud as another point of reference.

This is the ADL and their brownshirts going after free speech but they're smart enough to couch it in religiosity. Link it to anti-semitism and you've got an airtight formula for burying this film. Then send in the Jew stormtroopers from Hollywood to finish it off, and you'll be lucky to get a copy in a plain brown wrapper.

iwannabeanarchy

2003-09-17 01:30 | User Profile

DB, that a very good point about the Talmud and negative references to Jesus.

The Jews had Jesus killed. He was a troublemaker, he threatened the Pharisees in a way he did not threaten the Romans.

I am not going to hold all this against the Jews--I have plenty else to get upset about--but that's reality.

Avalanche

2003-09-17 04:46 | User Profile

Prof. Fredriksen, in an interview, referred to the Holocaust as one of the "great Christian ecumenical movements."

Hey, didn't y'all NOTICE?? Here's this jew-friendly "biblical" scholar making it clear that the NAZIs weren't "guilty" of the Holocaust -- the CHRISTIANS were!!! So what Elie Weasel MEANT was ''hold a place in your heart full of hatred for CHRISTIANS!!!" (And so they have!) :hit: :th:

Ragnar

2003-09-17 05:06 | User Profile

Censorship, no. It comes down to grit. Egypt is a poor country but they filmed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and put it on Egyptian TV.

If Americans Christians can't film their religion as they see fit, let them learn to see the connection between what they can't do and their own support for Israel. Let them adjust their thinking a bit. Let them ask why poor Arabs have freedom of speech and they don't. Adjust their thinking? Most Americans can't think at all. Let 'em learn.

Till then, piffle.

DakotaBlue

2003-09-17 19:27 | User Profile

Ragnar:

The learning is taking place as we speak. It's been a long time in coming, but it's here, thanks to the net. Eventually, We the People will wake up and will demand that our politicians do our bidding. But we're not there yet. We need to have our faces rubbed in it a bit longer, we need to get kicked in the arse a few more times, and we need to feel in the marrow of our bones, the total contempt the Jew has for the gentile beyond the Mel Gibson movie. Directing the public's attention to the ACLU is going to be an excellent start and California is the place to watch right now.

Stanley

2003-09-18 03:56 | User Profile

[QUOTE]by Avalanche[QUOTE]Prof. Fredriksen, in an interview, referred to the Holocaust as one of the "great Christian ecumenical movements."[/QUOTE]Hey, didn't y'all NOTICE?? [/QUOTE]That little gem of tolerance and diversity stood right out for me.

Ragnar

2003-09-18 04:38 | User Profile

[QUOTE]*Originally posted by DakotaBlue * [B]Ragnar:

The learning is taking place as we speak. It's been a long time in coming, but it's here, thanks to the net. Eventually, We the People will wake up and will demand that our politicians do our bidding. But we're not there yet. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agree. We the People are slowly coming around. If the 'net is the alarm it couldn't have come at a better time.

friedrich braun

2003-09-18 05:23 | User Profile

Pull up a chair, I have a little anecdote:

I have a friend who's an Opus Dei priest (a numerary member), who told me that Mel Gibson's brother is also a priest in Opus Dei (numerary).

For the uninitiated, Opus Dei is a highly secretive, powerful, rich, right-wing (right-wing as in Pinochet, I'm not kidding) Catholic ogranization.

For a good read, see The Davinci Code [url]http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/plot.html[/url]

Stanley

2003-09-18 07:08 | User Profile

[QUOTE]Prof. Fredriksen, in an interview, referred to the Holocaust as one of the "great Christian ecumenical movements."[/QUOTE]I'll add one more thing. Why should any Christian who has just taken this slap in the face give a damn what does or does not offend this person?

Patrick

2003-09-18 13:32 | User Profile

.....I had addressed this question not long ago with a thread on another forum; should any of this appear that it is speaking to someone else, that is the reason...

.....In last Sunday’s edition of Parade, a ragazine that falls out of the Sunday “newspaper”, inside the first page was a small blurb concerning Mel Gibson’s new movie The Passion, a man named Arnold Rosenberg, from Fort Myers, Florida wrote in with the following question: “Is it true Mel Gibson directed a film about Jesus that depicts Jews as Christ killers?”

.....The response was as follows: “Those rumors began because Gibson, 47, and his father belong to the “Catholic traditionalists” movement. Its members disagree with many reforms of Vatican II, which absolved Jews as “Christ killers”. His dad also made anti-Semitic remarks, and we’re told The Passion—which he plans to release next easter, in Latin and Aramaic without subtitles—doesn’t repeat the antiSemitic canard that Jews were responsible for Jesus’ death. Asked if it will upset Jews, Mel said, “It may. It’s not meant to.”...

.....Then there was this, clear back in 1969:

.....The Phoenix Gazette, on Saturday, September 27, 1969; The article was subtitled His Failure to Co-operate Cited “Jewish Effort To Save Jesus From Execution Told,” by George W. Cornell:

.....New York (AP): “Jewish officials sought to save Jesus from Roman execution, but He wouldn’t co-operate, says a noted authority on First Century Jewish and Roman law. That’s the latest conclusion about an old but still pondered judicial proceeding that has echoed through history. This new and probing analysis of the case comes from Justice Haim Cohn of Israel’s Supreme Court. His findings, presented in the Israeli Law Review, were published recently in Hadassah Magazine in his country. He maintains that the questioning of Jesus by the Jewish council, the Sanhedrin, on the night before His trial and condemnation by the Roman occupation government, was an unsuccessful effort to find grounds for saving His life. However, under Roman Law, he adds, the accused could be convicted on his own plea of guilty, even without witnesses, and to avoid this, Jesus had to be ‘dissuaded from pleading guilty’ and ‘induced to co-operate.’ Justice Cohn says it was for this purpose, after the Sanhedrin had discredited the witnesses, that its president, the high priest, questioned Jesus directly, asking if He was “Christ, the Son of the Blessed”. Jesus replied in the affirmative. “That reply caused the high priest and the Sanhedrin to give up in despair.” The Israeli Justice writes, since Jesus would not “bow to their authority” or give the assurances they needed to intervene in His behalf. ‘They could do nothing more,’ he says, other than let the Roman trial run its course. Rather than being prompted by purely ethico-religious considerations, however, “their motives were realistic and political”, he says, ‘aimed at regaining some of their lost influence among the people.’

.....Nothing could have been further from their intentions, or more harmful to their purpose, than to arouse the discontent and disaffection of the people by lending a hand in the execution by the Romans of one of their midst. On the other hand, “any action on their part to prevent such execution would, if successful, have been likely to arouse popular applause and to reinstate them in the eyes of the people as their natural and legitimate.” He says this is the only objective that could have caused the unusual night meeting of the Sanhedrin, in view of conditions, laws and customs of that day, and it also fits basically the Gospel accounts. The meeting started with numerous witnesses being questioned and branded as “false witnesses”, he notes, adding that they obviously would have been accepted as truthful if incriminating testimony had been desired. However, he adds, the Sanhedrin “was interested in satisfying itself that any evidence that might be available against Jesus was false and inadmissible” so they could safely intercede in His behalf. “Hence it so found and so declared.” That point would have been sufficient under Jewish law for clearing Jesus of the Roman charges, the Justice notes, since Jewish law prohibited any conviction except by testimony of at least two reliable witnesses.”

.....Sound about right to you? Rather than wallow in the gnostic esotericism, (“we all killed Christ”), let’s answer this recurring question definitively, from Scripture; was it the Romans? Or the Jews?

.....Here is the “official” account from the ”Jewish Encyclopedia which brought about the Romans becoming the military “overlords” of Judea, (modern Palestine): “It is difficult to state at what time the Pharisees, as a party, arose. Josephus first mentions them in connection with Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus. (Ant. 13:5,9), Under John Hyrcanus, (135-105), they appear as a powerful party opposing the Sadducean proclivities of the king, who had formerly been a disciple of theirs, though the story as told by Josephus is unhistorical. (Ant. 13:10,5); comp. Jubilees, Book of, and Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs). The Hasmonean dynasty, with its worldly ambitions and aspirations, met with little support from the Pharisees, whose aim was the maintenance of a religious spirit in accordance with their interpretation of the Law. (see Psalms of Solomon) Under Alexander Jannaeus (104-78) the conflict between the people, siding with the Pharisees, and the king became bitter and ended in cruel carnage, (Ant. 13:13,5; xiv.1,2). Under his widow, Salome Alexandria (78-69), the Pharisees, led by Simeon ben Shetah, came to power; they obtained seats in the Sanhedrin, and that time was afterward regarded as the golden age, full of the blessing of heaven. But the bloody vengeance they took upon the Sadducees led to a terrible reaction, and under Aristobulus, (69-63), the Sadducees regained their power, (Ant. 13:16,2 — xiv.1,2). Amidst the bitter struggle which ensued, the Pharisees appeared before Pompey asking him to intefere and restore the old priesthood while abolishing the royalty of the Hasmoneans altogether. (Ant. 14:3,2) The defilement of the temple by Pompey was regarded by the Pharisees as a divine punishment of Sadducean misrule. After the national independence had been lost, the Pharisees gained in influence while the star of the Sadducees waned. Herod found his chief opponents among the latter, and so he put the leaders of the Sanhedrin to death while endeavoring by a milder treatment to win the favor of the leaders of the Pharisees, who, though they refused to take the oath of allegiance, were otherwise friendly to him...In King Agrippa, (idumean-Patrick), (41-44) the Pharisees had a supporter and friend, and with the destruction of the temple the Sadducees disappeared altogether, leaving the regulation of all Jewish affairs in the hands of the Pharisees.*

.....”Henceforth Jewish life was regulated by the teachings of the Pharisees; the whole history of Judaism was reconstructed from the Pharisaic point of view, and a new aspect was given to the Sanhedrin of the past. A new chain of tradition supplanted the older, priestly tradition, Pharisaism shaped the character of Judaism and the life and thought of the Jew for all time...” (Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 665-666)...

.....They are held in derision in this “trick of the scribes” by My Father; they couldn’t pull off replacing “Judean” with “Jew”, without providing testimony against themselves in the “murder of the age”, despite efforts at further concealment that continue to this day... since the pharisaical element were edomites, and fully in control of the area we know as Judea, despite the military presence of Rome, they were referred to as “Judeans”, just as all others living there at the time, including Christ; the Scriptural illustrations drawn by Christ Himself when addressing these edomites show clearly they were “not of His flock”, “hear not My Words”, “seek to kill me”, “not of YHVH”, “of your father, the devil” “cursed figs”... you fail to “rightly divide The Word”, and as a result, this doesn’t make sense to you; perhaps some prayer for understanding would be in order?

A. Prior attempts?

.....Matthew: “...was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under...”, (Matthew 2:16)...

.....Mark: “And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse him...he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.”, (Mark 3:1-5)...

.....Mark: “And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.”, (Mark 3:6); this illustrate the pharisees plans to murder Our Christ... bear in mind, the Herodians are alsoo identified as edomites in seular History...

.....John/Luke: “After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.”, (John 7:1; Luke 6:11)...

.....John: “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him...the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was his Father...” (John 5:16-18; John 8:57-59)...

B. Animosity?

.....Mark: “And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.”, (Mark 11:18) ...

.....John: “Then from that day forth they, (Jews), took counsel together for to put Him, (Christ), to death.”, (John 11:53)...

.....John: “Howbeit no man spake openly of Him, (Christ), for fear of the Jews.”, (John 7:13),,,

C.Testimony from the deceased before the fact??

.....Christ: “From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that He must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.”, (Matthew 16:21)... See also, Matthew, 16:21, 20:18; Mark, 8:32; Luke, 9:22, 18:33 and John, 6:64, 13:1, 18:4 and 19:28...

.....Christ: Here, He identifies the would-be murderers, Matthew, 16:21, 20:18; Mark, 8:31; Luke, 9:22, 18:33...

.....Christ: Personal confrontation with the murderers, “...the Jews...”, (John 7:15); He inquires: “...Why go ye about to kill me?”, (John 7:19); identifying the Jews: “...the scribes and Pharisees...”, (John 8:3)...

.....Christ: acknowledgement, “...ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.”, (John 8:37); result: “Then took they up stones to cast at him...”, (John 8:59)...

.....Further, later in this chapter, we find that Christ identified these “religious” rulers as not of Israel; Jesus also taught a parable in which He identified His murderers, after which they promptly, again, attempted to kill Him... The parable of the vineyard, in Matthew, 21:33-46 and Luke, 20:9-19; this particular parable is the story of planting a vineyard and comparable to Isaiah, in which we read: “...the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel...”, (Isaiah 5:7)...

.....This verse in Isaiah identifies the “vineyard” as “the house of Israel,” and the planter is identified as God Almighty, YHVH; in the parable, the vineyard, (Israel), is placed under the charge of husbandmen, to whom the planter sends servants that they, (the husbandmen — representing the Jews), were to give Him the fruit of the vineyard...Instead, the husbandmen beat and killed the servants, (Matthew, 21:35); then the householder, (God, Our Father): “But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying. They will reverence my son.”, (Matthew, 21:37)...

.....But what did Christ teach us they would do? “But when the husbandmen saw the Son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill Him, and let us seize on His inheritance.” (Matthew 21:38) Then we read: “And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.”, (Matthew 21:45-46)...

.....According to Luke’s account, he says: “And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people: For they perceived that He had spoken this parable against them.” (Luke 20:19)...

.....Therefore, as we see in this parable and its aftermath, those whom Christ said would kill Him are same who then attempted to so do; notice this story also identifies these “religious” men as non-Israelites... Thus the evidence we have seen would bring these men only under suspicion. It would be considered “circumstantial evidence” in a modern court of law and would not be enough to convict the scribes, the chief priests, the elders, and the Pharisees of the murder itself. They could have been found guilty of at tempted murder; but we are seeking the answer to WHO KILLED CHRIST, not just who threatened Him....

D. Who was last witnessed with the victim? Who might have controlled Him physically?

E. Witnesses’ testimony?

.....Matthew: “Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas, And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtlety, and kill Him.” (Matthew 26:3-4)...

.....Mark: “...and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put Him to death...and immediately while he yet spake, cometh JUDAS, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.”, (Mark 14:1, 43)...

.....Luke: “And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill Him; for they feared the people...And while he yet spake, behold a multitude, and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve...Then Jesus said unto the chief priests, and CAPTAINS OF THE TEMPLE, (pay attention; once these are identified, mystery over ), and the elders...with swords and staves?”, (Luke, 22:2, 47, 52)...

.....(John relates this same story he identifies THE BAND of Mark 15:16): “And THE SOLDIERS led him, (Jesus), away into the hall, called Praetorium; and THEY CALL TOGETHER THE WHOLE BAND.”, (Mark 15:16)...

.....John: “Judas then, having received a BAND OF MEN and OFFICERS FROM THE CHIEF PRIESTS and PHARISEES, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons...Then .”, (John 18:3, 12)... Did this say “Romans”?

.....John: “Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.”, (John 11:53)...

F. Motive?

.....John: ”Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? For this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.”, (John 11:47-48) ...

.....More could be added to each of the above categories, but this is all I have time for at the moment; the finishing touches will make it quite clear, and I may get into the ritualistic significance of the act itself, hearkening back to the secret societies, which were also under Jewish control and influence from time immemorial...

Luke 23:34 and Isa 53:12

A couple of snips from Herrell’s re: Luke 23:34 and Isaiah 53:12:

.....The first type is where dishonest men intentionally changed the text to support their particular heresy or just to dissuade white men from coming to the truth. An obvious example of this is where the Jews added in the verse, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do,” so that today they can claim that Jesus forgave them for His murder.

.....Not only did the antichrist Jews add the verse into the New Testament, but when preparing their Masoretic Text, (discussed later), they changed a verse of prophesy regarding Jesus (Isaiah 53:12) so that it would appear that it was prophesied that He would forgive the Jews. However, when we look at the Septuagint, we see that this verse is not in there and when we look at the oldest and best texts of the New Testament, we find that the ‘Father, forgive them ...’ verse is not in there either. The fact that both the Hebrew was corrupted and the New Testament texts changed shows deliberate collusion on the part of the Jews, but in the case of the New Testament, we now have older manuscripts that show that the verse was never in the Sacred Scripture. Although we do not have the original Hebrew, for in fact we have no Hebrew but the c. 1050 AD version of the Masoretic Text, we do have the Greek Septuagint that was used by Jesus and His Apostles and we know that the prophecy is not in there.

.....As an example of this intellectual dishonesty and theological prejudice, I will cite Luke 23:34. This is, of course, the verse which contains the spurious words, “And Jesus said, ‘Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.’” It has been demonstrated time and time again that these words were not originally in the Gospel of Luke and that since they are in no parallels of the passage they can in no way be considered to have been originally spoken by Christ. I have already mentioned in this present work that the Jews have inserted a self-fulfilling prophecy into their Masoretic Text which apparently prophesies Jesus saying these words, but that prophesy is absent from the Greek Septuagint used by Christ and His Apostles. However, I will once again present the evidence to show the dishonesty of the Alands, Metzger, and others associated with the 4th Edition of The Greek New Testament.

.....When we look at the oldest papyrus of this part of the Bible, the aforementioned p75 (175-225 AD), we find that these words are entirely absent. They are absent from the uncials?1 and B, as well as the corrected D and several others. We find that the earliest Latin, the earliest Syriac, and the earliest Coptic all do not contain the words. We find that the prophesy supposedly foretelling the saying is absent from the Greek Septuagint. We find that a great number of reliable minuscules omit the words. In fact, the evidence is overwhelming.

.....With this in mind, let us look at Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary On the Greek New Testament and read the comment of the Editorial Committee of The Greek New Testament on these words:

.....”...the logion, [i.e., a saying attributed to Jesus], though probably not a part of the original Gospel of Luke, bears self-evident tokens of its dominical origin, and was retained within double square brackets, in its traditional place where it had been incorporated by unknown copyists relatively early in the transmission of the Third Gospel.”

.....Notice that they admit that the words were added by an unknown copyist at an early date, (but at least after 225, as we learn from p75). They place the words in double brackets, which according to them means, “enclosed passages which are regarded as later additions to the text, but which are of evident antiquity and importance.” Now this means that they are admitting that the words are not original, but are in effect saying, “Well, it sounds like something Jesus would have said, so we will keep it.” The true Bible student knows that this sounds nothing like anything Jesus would have said, and even if it did, that cannot be a justification for including it in the text.

.....The defenders of these men will say that this is of no consequence because it was kept in double brackets, and we know that this means that it is not original. However, it does have a consequence. As an example of this, I would cite the New Revised Standard Version. This translation was finished in 1989, and the preface is written by Bruce Metzger, who represented the translation committee. Remember that Bruce Metzger is the man who wrote the note quoted above regarding these spurious words, so Bruce Metzger admitted that these words are not in the Bible. However, when we turn to Luke 23:34 in the NRSV, we find the words in the text with this small footnote:

.....”Other ancient authorities lack the sentence Then Jesus ... what they are doing” Thus, unless someone is familiar with the evidence, he has no idea that what that sentence actually means is that the words are really not in there and that they have been included because Jews would not publish the NRSV without them.

.....Therefore, it is clear that the men who prepared The Greek New Testament were intellectually dishonest and theologically prejudiced, and that because of this their work fails in many areas. The only work that I am aware of that has incorporated the best evidence of the Greek witnesses, without any preconceived ideas or theological bias, together with a good but literal translation of the Greek, is the Anointed Standard Translation of the New Testament.

.....In that work, any significant deviations from the Textus Receptus are noted and the evidence supporting the deviation is given and explained so that the reader can decide if the judgment is sound or not. Any readings which are questionable, with equal evidence both for and against them, are retained in the text and placed in open brackets. The dates and types of the manuscripts and witnesses consulted are provided for the reader in an Appendix so that anyone can look at a questionable reading and decide for himself. I feel that if the reader is intellectually honest, he will inevitably agree with the decisions reached on these matters in the Anointed Standard Translation. The last section in this present work discusses the Anointed Standard Translation in further detail.

From an online version of Breton’s translation of OT Greek Septuagint:

[url]www.ccel.org/bible/brento...ah/53.html[/url]

Isaiah 53

(snip)

10 The Lord also is pleased to purge him from his stroke. If ye can give an offering for sin, your soul shall see a long-lived seed:

11 the Lord also is pleased to take away from the travail of his soul, to shew him light, and to form him with understanding; to justify the just one who serves many well; and he shall bear their sins.

12 Therefore he shall inherit many, and he shall divide the spoils of the mighty; because his soul was delivered to death: and he was numbered among the transgressors; and he bore the sins of many, and was delivered because of their iniquities.

.....Rabbi Stephen Wise, one of the top-dog Jewish leaders in the usA a few years ago, stated that when the Jews returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, (with the true Israelites), around 536 B.C., they brought with them the teachings which became known as the Babylonian Talmud, (which Our Christ referred to as “the traditionof the elders”, which made The Word of YHVH of none effect). “This was the end of Hebraism, and the beginning of Judaism,” the learned “rebbe” stated...

.....The religion practiced by the Pharisees in Jesus’ time was based exclusively on the Babylonian Talmud. This, is confirmed by one, “rebbe” Morris Kertzer:

.....”The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and historical writings of the ancient rabbis. It was edited five centuries after the birth of Jesus. It is a compendium of law and lore. It is the Legal Code which forms the Basis of Jewish Religious Law and it is the textbook used in the Training of Rabbis.”...

.....During his lifetime Michael Rodkinson, (the assumed name of a “jew” and was widely recognized as one of the world’s leading authorities on the talmud, wrote History of the Talmud. This accepted authority on this subject was written by Mr. Rodkinson in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise. In his History of the Talmud, Michael Rodkinson, on page #70, states:

.....”Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, on moral and Religious Subjects, which were current in his time, and must have been evaluated by Him during those thirty silent years when He was pondering His Future Mission? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis answer by holding up the Talmud...and the question becomes, therefore, an interesting one to every Christian. What is the Talmud? The Talmud, then, is the Written Form of that which, in the Time of Jesus Was called the Traditions of the Elders and to which He makes frequent allusions.”

.....One Arsene Darmester in the book The Talmud states:

.....”Judaism finds its expression in The Talmud, it is not a remote suggestion and a faint echo thereof, but it...has become incarnate, in which it has taken form, passing from a state of abstraction into the domain of real things. The study of Judaism is that of The Talmud, as the study of The Talmud is that of Judaism...they are two inseparable things...they are one and the same...The Talmud, is a complete expression of religious movement, and this code of endless presumptions and minute ceremonials represents in its perfection the total work of the religious idea...The miracle was accomplished by a book, The Talmud..The Talmudis composed of two distinct parts the Mishna and the Gemara; the former the text, the latter a commentary upon the text...term Mishna we designate a collection of decisions and traditional laws embracing all departments of legislation, civil and religious...This code, the work of several generations of rabbis...nothing can equal the importance of the Talmud unless it be the ignorance that prevails concerning it...This explains how it happens that a single page of the Talmud contains three or four different languages, or rather specimens of one language at three or four stages of degeneracy...many a Mishna of five or six lines is accompanied by fifty or sixty pages of explanation...is law in all its authority; it constitutes dogma and cult; it is the fundamental element of the Talmud...The daily study of the Talmud which among Jews begins with the age of ten to end with life itself necessarily was a severe gymnastic for the mind, thinks to which it acquired incomparable subtlety and acumen...since it aspires to one thing: To establish for Judaism a ‘Corpus Juris Eccleiastict!’”

.....Prior to His crucifixion, Our Christ had plainly identified His murderers as a non-Israelite people. Speaking to the “jews” in John chapter 8, Christ said they were Abraham’s seed, (as was alluded to above), but denied they were Abraham’s children.... The descendants of Ishmael, Abraham’s son by Hagar, are called Abraham’s seed: “...the son of the bondmwoman...is thy seed.”, (Genesis 21:13)...

.....But nowhere in Scripture, were they, or the descendents of Esau called “children”; however, YHVH calls Abraham’s other son Isaac “thine only son,” illustrating that only through Isaac would they be called “sons,” or “children.” For we know that Abraham had eight sons altogether, but only Isaac was regarded in Scripture as Abraham’s son; all the others are called “seed”, (See Genesis 21:12, 22:16...) The same held true following the rejection of Esau and his descendants and the choosing of Jacob, (true Israel), and his descendants...

.....Jesus Christ, who knew the end from the beginning, even from the foundation of the world, knew that the scribes and pharisees and the chief priests, to whom He was speaking were not Israelites by virtue of having descended from Ishmael or Esau... That they were aware that He knew of their ancestry is admitted by their cry, false as it is: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth...When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” (John 8:44)

.....To be sure that we would understand that these edomites, (“jews), who would never hear, nor heed YHVH’s Word; and that they would never become Christians, Jesus went on to say to them: “He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”, (John 8:47)...

.....Christians wonder why the “jews” continually refuse to hear, (as in, believe), YHVH’s Word need wonder no longer; the Book of Acts relates the story of the beginning of the calling out of the true sons of God, the Israelites: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.”, (John 1:12)... This includes the changing of their name to Christians. “...And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”, (Acts 11:26); that true Israel was to experience a change in name, and that the new name was to be the name of their Lord, is prophesied in Isaiah: “...thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of YHVH shall name.”, (Isaiah 62:2)... Then, in Isaiah 65, God speaks to the enemies of Israel: “And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord God shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name.”, (Isaiah 65:15)...

.....Genesis 36 makes it quite clear that Esau’s progeny were to be known as “edomites,” (meaning “reds); “...he is Esau the father of the edomites.”, (Genesis 36:43)... Notice also, Ishmael’s mother was not Abraham’s legitimate wife so that her offspring were never called children either. Jesus Christ further denied the Jews’ claim to be the sons of God, for He answered: “...If God were your Father, ye would love me...”, (John 8:42); He then proceeded to reiterate a prophecy and a warning of what that mixed-breed, mongrel race would do in the future. “Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do; he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him, when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar and the father of it.”, (John 8:44)...

.....The European nations were soon to become known, even in the eyes of the heathen, as “Christian Nations,” or collectively as “Christendom,” which means “Christ’s Dominion”; certainly, if the heathen can see that the caucasians are named after Christ, and that God has blessed them, wouldn’t you think it was time they awoke from their slumber and recognize their own Scriptural identity?

.....However, there was no name change of the Ishmael-Esau-Canaanite-Edomite Jews, or Judeans, who were the civil and religious rulers in Jerusalem and who, as we have seen, were the murderers of the Our Christ; they have, for nigh on two thousand years, refused to hear the Words of The father, or of The son, just as Christ had said they would, and they retained the name of Judean “jew,” in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah just quoted, that the “enemies” of True Israel would leave their name “for a curse unto My Chosen”...

.....And their own curse, that “His blood be on us, and our children,” remains on them unto this very day; it cannot be removed or taken off unless or until they are converted and become Christians in truth and in righteousness, and not just for the puroses of infiltering the Christian establishment for the purposes of destruction)... Our Christ’s Words, in speaking to them, show us they will not turn or be converted, for He told them: “But ye believe not, because ye, (speaking to the “jews”), are not my sheep...”, (John 10:26)... Could it be spoken any more plain by Him: NOT HIS SHEEP, only the Israelites are His sheep; Paul with even more force and vigor, stated: “...a false prophet, A JEW...Then Saul (Paul), filled with the Holy Ghost...said...thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of YHVH?”, (Acts 13:6-10)...

.....For those of you who still remain somewhat confused over the term “Jew” in the New Testament, just remember that it is translated from a Greek word meaning “Judean,” or “a resident of Judea.”

.....It was neither a religious, nor a racial term as such, at that time in history, but was named on all those who lived in Judea, except for the Romans; that is why the woman at the well in John 4:9 called Jesus a Jew, or Judean. And that is also why Peter was called a Galilean in Mark 14:70 and Luke

.....(The following is a ridiculous claim from an antiChrist: )

“The Torah and Talmud are not mutually exclusive. I’ve seen you repeatedly make the claim that Jews hold the Talmud as sacred and above the Torah, but that’s already been debunked in the past (not that such would ever keep you from still falsely protraying this as fact). The Talmud is a history of Jewish traditions; nothing more. And the false translations and out-of-context quotes from the Talmud you love to use to slander Jews don’t exactly impress me.”

.....???????...

.....HOUSTON STEWART CHAMBERLAIN, world famed author of Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, Vol. I, page 337: “The revelation of Christ has no significance for the Jew! ...I have searched through a whole library of Jewish books in the expectation of finding - naturally not belief in the Divinity of Christ, nor the idea of redemption, but the purely human feeling for the greatness of suffering Savior - but in vain. A Jew who feels that, is, in fact, no longer a Jew, but a denier of Judiasm. And while we find, even in Mohammed’s Koran, at least a vague conception of the importance of Christ and profound reverence for His personality, a cultured leading Jew of the nineteenth century (Graetz) calls Christ “the new birth with the death mask,” which inflicted new and painful wounds upon the Jewish people; he cannot see anything else in Him. In view of the Cross he assures us that “the Jews do not require this convulsive emotion for their spiritual improvement,” and adds, “particularly not among the middle classes of inhabitants of the cities.” His comprehension goes further. In a book, republished in 1880, by a Spanish Jew (Mose de Leon) Jesus Christ is called a “dead dog” that lies “buried in a dunghill.” Besides, the Jews have taken care to issue in the latter part of the nineteens century several editions (naturally in Hebrew) of the so-called “censured passages” from the Talmud, those passages usually omitted in which Christ is exposed to our scorn and hatred as a “fool,” “sorcerer,” “profane person,” “idolater,” “dog,” “bastard,” “child of lust,” etc.: so, too, His sublime Mother.”

.....Rabbi Bakker writes: “This is not an uncommon impression and one finds it sometimes among Jews as well as Christians - that Judaism is the religion of the Hebrew Bible. It is of course a fallacious impression.”

.....”The Talmud must not be regarded as an ordinary work, composed of twelve volumes; it posies absolutely no similarity to any other literary production, but forms, without any figure of speech, a world of its own, which must be judged by its peculiar laws.

.....The Talmud contains much that is frivolous of which it treats with great gravity and seriousness; it further reflects the various superstitious practices and views of its Persian (Babylonian) birthplace which presume the efficacy of demonical medicines, or magic, incantations, miraculous cures, and interpretations of dreams. It also contains isolated instances of uncharitable judgments and decrees against the members of other nations and religions, and finally it favors an incorrect exposition of the scriptures, accepting, as it does, tasteless misrepresentations.

.....The Babylonian Talmud is especially distinguished from the Jerusalem or Palestine Talmud by the flights of thought, the penetration of mind, the flashes of genius, which rise and vanish again. It was for this reason that the Babylonian rather than the Jerusalem Talmud became the fundamental possession of the Jewish Race, its life breath, its very soul, nature and mankind, powers and events, were for the Jewish nation insignificant, non- essential, a mere phantom; the only true reality was the Talmud.” (Professor H. Graetz, History of the Jews).

.....”When we come to the Babylonian Gemara, we are dealing with what most people understand when they speak or write of the Talmud. Its birthplace, Babylonia, was an autonomous Jewish centre for a longer period than any other land; namely, from soon after 586 before the Christian era to the year 1040 after the Christian era - 1626 years.” (Rabbi Hertz, English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, the Soncino Talmud (1935), p. XXI, Rabbi Hertz).

.....”The Talmud has been the banner which has served as a rallying sign to the Jews, dispersed in diverse countries; it has maintained the unity of Judaism.” (Graetz, History of the Jews).

”Pharisaism became Talmudism...But the spirit of the Ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew...studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies. From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered...” (The Pharisees, by Louis Finkelstein, Foreword, Vol. 1).

.....”The Talmud: Heart’s Blood of the Jewish Faith...” (November 11, 1959, New York Herald Tribune, based on The Talmud, by Herman Wouk).

.....”The Talmud derives its authority from the position held by the ancient (Pharisee) academies. The teachers of those academies, both of Babylonia and of Palestine, were considered the rightful successors of the older Sanhedrin...At the present time, the Jewish people have no living central authority comparable in status to the ancient Sanhedrins or the later academies. Therefore, any decision regarding the Jewish religion must be based on the Talmud as the final resume of the teaching of those authorities when they existed.” (The Jews - Their History, Culture, and Religion, by Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, Vol. 4, p. 1332, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1949)

.....”The Talmud is to this day the circulating heart’s blood of the Jewish Religion. Whatever laws, customs or ceremonies we observe - whether we are orthodox, conservative, reform or merely spasmodic sentamentalists = we follow the Talmud. It is our Common Law.” (The Talmud, by Herman Wouk)

.....M. H.DE HEEKELINGEN, in Israel: Son Passe, Son Avenir: “The former Rabbi Drach, converted to Catholicism, says that the Talmud contains “a large number of musing, utterly ridiculous extravagancies, most revolting indecencies, and, above all, the most horrible blasphemies against everything which the Christian religion holds most sacred and most dear.”

.....”In the matter of the translation of The Talmud by non-Jews, we have always preferred that of Luzsensky, whose accuracy has been established by the Courts. In 1923, the Public Prosecutor of Hungary caused his Hungarian Talmud to be seized on account of “attack on public morals” and “pornography.” In delivering its verdict, the Court declared ‘INTER ALIA:’

.....”The horrors contained in the translation of Alfred Luzsensky are to be found, without exception, in the Talmud. His translation is correct, in that it renders these passages, which are actually to be found in the original text of the Talmud, after their true meaning.”

.....The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states that “The Talmud is the real “bible” of the Jews and that it supersedes the Old Testament. This volume has been condemned down through the ages for preaching hatred for Christ and all Christians. Read “THE TALMUD UNMASKED” for the full shocking details.

.....NESTA WEBSTER, in Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, page 370: “The Jewish conception of the Jews as the Chosen People who must eventually rule the world forms indeed the basis of Rabbinical Judaism... The Jewish religion now takes its stand on the Talmud rather than on the Bible.”

.....F. TROCASE, in Jewish Austria: “No obstacle discourages them; they persevere throughout the world, throughout the centuries, the unity of their race. The Talmud has given them a powerful organization which modern progress has been unable to change. Deep, ineradicable hatred of everything that is not Jewish stimulates them in war which they wage against Christian Society, which is too divided to be able to fight with the necessary energy.”

.....GREGORY IX. Condemned The Talmud as containing “every kind of vileness and blasphemy against Christian doctrine.”

.....BENEDICT XIII. His Bull on the Jewish issue (1450) declared: “The heresies, vanities and errors of The Talmud prevent their knowing the truth.”

.....JULIUS III. Contra Hebreos retinentes libros (1554) ordered The Talmud burned “everywhere” and established a strict censorship over Jewish genocidal writings - an order that has never been rescinded and which presumably is still binding upon Catholics.

.....SOMBART, WERNER. 20th century German economist: “Capitalism was born from the money loan. Money lending contains the root idea of capitalism. Turn to the pages of The Talmud and you will find that the Jews made an art of lending money. They were taught early to look for their chief happiness in the possession of money. They fathomed all the secrets that lay hid in money. They became Lords of Money and Lords of the World...