Older  Newer

Comments

• Friday, September 17, 2010

  Searchgirl

  I truly appreciate your beliefs noted in this blog, and on many levels I a gee with you. Where I am torn, and curious as to how you would respond is with regards to the military. My husband served and I understand why he chose this as his career path despite the horrors involved with war, but I can’t quite apply your reasoning to them. War always involves the death of many civilians. I am curious as to what your feelings are on this topic. Also, could it then not be argued that many of these bombings we deem to be terrorist attacks be explained by some as a part of a “war” effort?  So, on one hand I agree with what you are saying heft, but on the other I wouldn’t want to think of our soldiers as being condemned to burn in hell.

• Sunday, September 19, 2010

  Audra24Dillon

  Specialists claim that loans help a lot of people to live the way they want, because they are able to feel free to buy necessary things. Moreover, various banks give college loan for different classes of people.

• Wednesday, November 10, 2010

  Larry

  Yo Rabbi Shmuely,

  Forget about the Muslims, concentrate on TALMUDIC JEWS, those who hate the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. You are the ones He will PUNISH. You are the oneds who were to be a LIGHT ONTO THE GENTILES, but all you have done is CRAP down through the centuries. Their is a GREATER HOLOCAUST coming & you deserve it!!!

  THE OLD TESTAMENT HOLOCAUST

  CLARKE’S COMMENTARY - JEREMIAH 15

  CHAPTER XV

  God declares to Jeremiah that not even Moses and Samuel, whose prayers had been so prevalent, could divert him from his purpose of punishing so wicked a people, 1. Accordingly their captivity is again announced in a variety of images so full of terror, 2-9, that the prophet complains of his own hard fate in being obliged to deliver such unwelcome messages, 10; for which too he is reproved, 11-14. Immediately he appeals to God for his sincerity, and supplicates pardon, 15-18; and God tempers his reproof with promising again to protect him in the faithful discharge of his duty, 19-21.

  NOTES ON CHAP. XV

  Verse 1. Though Moses and Samuel] Moses had often supplicated for the people; and in consequence they were spared. See Exod. xxxii. 11 and following verses, Num. xiv. 13. Samuel also had prayed for the people, and God heard him, 1 Sam. vii. 9; but if these or the most holy men were now to supplicate for this people, he would not spare them.
  Cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.] Do not bring them into my presence by your prayers; let them go forth into captivity.
  Verse 2. Whither shall we go forth?-Such as are for death, to death] Some shall be destroyed by the pestilence, here termed death. See chap. xviii. 21. Others shall be slain by the sword in battle, and in the sackage of cities. Others shall perish by famine, shall be starved to death through the mere want of the necessaries of life; and the rest shall go into captivity.

  There shall be different sorts of punishments inflicted on them according to the nature of their transgressions. Some shall be punished in one way, and some in another.
  Verse 3. I will appoint over them four kinds] There shall appear four instruments of my justice. 1. The sword to slay. 2. The dogs to tear what is slain. 3. The fowls of the heaven to feed on the dead carcasses. And, 4.

  The wild beasts to destroy all that the fowls have left.
  Verse 4. I will cause them to be removed into an kingdoms of the earth] This seems to have respect to the succeeding state of the Jews in their different generations; and never was there a prophecy more literally fulfilled; and it is still a standing monument of Divine truth. Let infidelity cast its eyes on the scattered Jews whom it may meet with in every civilized nation of the world; and then let it deny the truth of this prophecy, if it can. The Jews are scattered through every nation, and yet are not a nation; nor do they form even a colony on any part of the face of the earth. Behold the truth and the justice of God!
  Verse 5. Who shall go aside to ask how thou doest?] Perhaps there is not a more despised nor a more degraded people under the sun. Scarcely any one thinks himself called upon to do a kind office for a Jew. Their character is bad in society, and they are not at all solicitous to redeem it.

  Verse 6. I am weary with repenting.] With repeatedly changing my purpose. I have often, after purposing to punish, showed them mercy. I will do it no longer; it is useless. I took them often at their promise, and in every instance they have failed.
  Verse 7. I will fan them with a fan] There is no pure grain; all is chaff.
  In the gates of the land] The places of public justice: and there it shall be seen that the judgments that have fallen upon them have been highly merited. And from these places of fanning they shall go out into their captivity.

  Verse 8. The mother of the young men] The metropolis or mother city, Jerusalem.
  Verse 9. She that hath borne seven] She that hath had a numerous offspring; Jerusalem, the parent of so many cities, villages, and families in the land. Seven signifies a complete or full number.

  Verse 10. A man of contention to the whole earth!] To the whole LAND, to all his countrymen; though he had done nothing to merit their displeasure.
  Verse 11. I will cause the enemy to entreat thee well in the time of evil] This was literally fulfilled; see chap. xxxix. 11, &c. Nebuchadnezzar had given strict charge to Nebuzaradan, commander in chief, to look well to Jeremiah, to do him no harm, and to grant him all the privileges he was pleased to ask.

  Verse 12. Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?] Shall our weak forces be able to oppose and overcome the powers of the Chaldeans? tjn nechasheth, which we here translate steel, property signifies brass or copper united with tin, which gives it much hardness, and enables it to bear a good edge.

  Verse 13. Thy substance-will I give to the spoil without price] Invaluable property shall be given up to thy adversaries. Or, without price-thou shalt have nothing for it in return.
  Verse 15. O Lord-remember me, and visit me] Let me not be carried away into captivity; and it does not appear that he had ever been taken to Babylon. After the capture of the city he went into Egypt; and either died there, or was put to death by his countrymen.
  Verse 16. Thy word was-the joy and rejoicing of mine heart] When I did receive the prophetic message, I did rejoice in the honour thou hadst done me; and I faithfully testified thy will to them. They have become mine enemies; not because there was any evil in me, but because I was faithful to thee.

  Verse 18. Wilt thou be altogether unto me as-waters that fail?] Leaning either springs, which in the height of summer grow dry; or, like that phenomenon in the sandy desert, where, by a peculiar action of the air on the rising vapors, the resemblance of water is produced, so that the traveler, deceived, rejoices that he is come, in the sandy desert, to the verge of a beautiful lake; but the farther he travels, it is still at the same distance, and at last vanishes; and he finds the whole was an illusion, for the waters have failed. Nothing can exceed the disappointment of the farmer whose subsistence absolutely depends on the periodical rains, when these fail, or fall short of their usual quantity. Some times the rice is sown and springs up in the most promising manner; but the latter rains fail, and whole fields of young rice wither and perish.

  Verse 19. If thou return] By repentance unto me,] Then will I bring thee again] Restore thee to thy own country. But some think the words are spoken to the prophet in reference to his ministry. He had greatly repined because of the persecutions which he endured. The Lord reprehends him, and is about to take from him the prophetic gift; but exhorts him first to take the precious from the vile-not to attend to the deceitful words of the people, but boldly declare the message he had given him; not to return unto the people, but let the people return unto him. And then he should be as God’s mouth- his words should appear to be what they were, the genuine words of God; and the people should be obliged to acknowledge them as such.

  Verse 20. I will make thee-a fenced brazen wall] While thou art faithful to me, none of them shall be able to prevail against thee.

  Verse 21. I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked] From the power of this evil people.

• Wednesday, November 10, 2010

  Searchgirl

  I don’t think hate has gotten anyone anywhere positive Larry.  It is too bad that hate is the message you apply to religion. I choose to apply faith, tolerance and love to the religions that interest me. I hope one day you can find peace.

• Friday, November 12, 2010

  Larry

  Yo searchgirl,

  Did you not read Jeremiah 15? Here it is for you:

  Jeremiah 15

  1 Then the LORD said to me: “Even if Moses and Samuel were to stand before me, my heart would not go out to this people. Send them away from my presence! Let them go! 2 And if they ask you, ‘Where shall we go?’ tell them, ‘This is what the LORD says:

    “‘Those destined for death, to death;
  those for the sword, to the sword;
  those for starvation, to starvation;
  those for captivity, to captivity.’

  3 “I will send four kinds of destroyers against them,” declares the LORD, “the sword to kill and the dogs to drag away and the birds and the wild animals to devour and destroy. 4 I will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth because of what Manasseh son of Hezekiah king of Judah did in Jerusalem.

  5 “Who will have pity on you, Jerusalem?
    Who will mourn for you?
    Who will stop to ask how you are?
  6 You have rejected me,” declares the LORD.
    “You keep on backsliding.
  So I will reach out and destroy you;
    I am tired of holding back.
  7 I will winnow them with a winnowing fork
    at the city gates of the land.
  I will bring bereavement and destruction on my people,
    for they have not changed their ways.
  8 I will make their widows more numerous
    than the sand of the sea.
  At midday I will bring a destroyer
    against the mothers of their young men;
  suddenly I will bring down on them
    anguish and terror.
  9 The mother of seven will grow faint
    and breathe her last.
  Her sun will set while it is still day;
    she will be disgraced and humiliated.
  I will put the survivors to the sword
    before their enemies,”
          declares the LORD.

  10 Alas, my mother, that you gave me birth,
    a man with whom the whole land strives and contends!
  I have neither lent nor borrowed,
    yet everyone curses me.

  11 The LORD said,

    “Surely I will deliver you for a good purpose;
    surely I will make your enemies plead with you
    in times of disaster and times of distress.

  12 “Can a man break iron—
    iron from the north—or bronze?

  13 “Your wealth and your treasures
    I will give as plunder, without charge,
  because of all your sins
    throughout your country.
  14 I will enslave you to your enemies
    in[a] a land you do not know,
  for my anger will kindle a fire
    that will burn against you.”

  15 LORD, you understand;
    remember me and care for me.
    Avenge me on my persecutors.
  You are long-suffering—do not take me away;
    think of how I suffer reproach for your sake.
  16 When your words came, I ate them;
    they were my joy and my heart’s delight,
  for I bear your name,
    LORD God Almighty.
  17 I never sat in the company of revelers,
    never made merry with them;
  I sat alone because your hand was on me
    and you had filled me with indignation.
  18 Why is my pain unending
    and my wound grievous and incurable?
  You are to me like a deceptive brook,
    like a spring that fails.

  19 Therefore this is what the LORD says:

    “If you repent, I will restore you
    that you may serve me;
  if you utter worthy, not worthless, words,
    you will be my spokesman.
  Let this people turn to you,
    but you must not turn to them.
  20 I will make you a wall to this people,
    a fortified wall of bronze;
  they will fight against you
    but will not overcome you,
  for I am with you
    to rescue and save you,”
          declares the LORD.
  21 “I will save you from the hands of the wicked
    and deliver you from the grasp of the cruel.”

  Footnotes:

    1. Jeremiah 15:14 Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac (see also 17:4); most Hebrew manuscripts I will cause your enemies to bring you / into

  Now I want you to read a portion of the Talmud:

  Adam & Beastility

  Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth
  Folio 63a

  and lends a sela’1 to a poor man in the hour of his need, Scripture says, Then shalt thou call, and the Lord will answer; thou shalt cry and He will say: ‘Here I am’.2
  (Mnemonic: Woman and land help this two shoots, tradesmen inferior.)3
  R. Eleazar said: Any man who has no wife is no proper man; for it is said, Male and female created He them and called their name Adam.4
  R. Eleazar further stated: Any man who owns no land is not a proper man; for it is said, The heavens are the heavens of the Lord; but the earth hath he given to the children of men.5
  R. Eleazar further stated: What is the meaning of the Scriptural text, I will make him a help meet for him?6 If he was worthy she is a help to him;7 if he was not worthy she is against him.8
    Others say: R. Eleazar pointed out a contradiction: It is written kenegedo9 but we read kenegedo!10 — If he was worthy she is meet for him;10 if he was not worthy she chastises him.9
  R. Jose met Elijah and asked him: It is written, I will make him a help;11 how does a woman help a man? The other replied: If a man brings wheat, does he chew the wheat? If flax, does he put on the flax?12 Does she not, then, bring light to his eyes and put him on his feet!
  R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh?13 This teaches that Adam had intercourse with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.

  ADAM HAD SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH EVERY BEAST & ANIMAL,

  
  It is Talmudic Jews that are the greatest PERVERTS & RACISTS IN THE WORLD.

  The God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob is not your god.
  He wanted to DESTROY the Israelites in Exodus 32:7-14 for offering their children as human sacrifices to Moloch. This was a Jewish HOLOCAUST that Jews like to pretend never happened. They go on & on about the Passover, but fail to recognise why they were wandering in the Wilderness for 40 years. None of that first generation went into the Promised Land & Moses could only look from a distance at it. Read Amos 5:1-27, underline verses 25 & 26.

  There is a terrible judgment coming on Israel very soon & we will see Jeremiah 15 again being reinacted.

• Friday, November 12, 2010

  Searchgirl

  Hey, you choose hate.  I choose tolerance,  Thank you for reinforcing with me why I choose no specific religion.  To hate on such a level - that is such a shame.  You have my sympathies.

• Friday, November 12, 2010

  Larry

  Judaism - Talmud
     
  Theoretical Cabala

      Two qualities dominate the theoretical Cabala. Every attribute of Intelligence, of Knowing, Loving or Ruling is stripped from the God of the Bible and handed over to pagan spirits, who are invoked as in ancient paganism as the “other gods” denounced by the Prophets. This act of stripping God of Intelligence and reducing Him to a mass of self-perking essence, the En Sof, is, admittedly, pantheism (the sum of nature being God, without any Chief engineer) And, whether called “emanation” by the Cabala, “immanence” by Talmudic Spinoza, or renamed by Hegel; for “the real and ideal is taught in the same way in the Cabala as in Hegel. (Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 474), or “dialectical materialism” by Karl Marx, it is the same old atheistic concept of nature just waiting for MAN to run it and push it around. The Luciferin god is always MAN.

      The great heresy of Gnosticism, which nearly swept Christianity from the earth in the early centuries, is admittedly Cabalistic. And the Gnostic and Cabalistic idea that evil is non-existent is currently revived in ‘Christian Science,” which is neither Christian nor scientific, and is a magnet for hundreds of thousands of Jews who claim, as the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia states, that they can be Christian Scientists without deserting their Talmudism (“Christian Science”). The Jewish Encyclopedia quoted above states: “As the divine has true being, evil is that which has no being, the unreal or seeming thing as it appears.” (Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 477) The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia says: “Evil, according to the Cabalistic philosophy, is nonexistent, anticipating Christian Science…” (Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, p. 620)

  Practical Cabala

      Every pagan trick of dethroning God and enthroning individual spirits is employed by the Cabalists. “Casting of Lots, Necromancy, Exorcism…Bibliomancy, and the mysticism of numbers and letters were developed into complete systems. Hence the cabalistic doctrine of the heavenly alphabet, whose signs are the constellations and the stars. Thus Astrology was legitimized, and Bibliomancy found its justification in the assumption that the sacred Hebrew letters are not merely signs for things, but implements of divine powers by means of which nature may be subjugated” (by man)), says the Jewish Encyclopedia, under “Cabala,” p. 479)

      But the bloody business of making circles to circumscribe the spirits of gouging out cocks’ eyes, skinning lambs and throwing the blood around to weird incantations to bring up the specters of the departed, as forbidden by Scripture, is hidden as an “esoteric” or secret lore entrusted to the Baal Shems, etc.

      Hassidism (also spelled Chassidism) specializes on Cabala. About half of all Jews were Cabalists at the end of the 19th century, we are told. Copied from hand to hand, cabalistic manuscripts, nevertheless, reach museums. One enlightening book on these is by a Cambridge professor, E.M. Butler, “Ritual Magic.” (Cambridge University Press, 1949)

      The vast scholarship, the documentation on the subject, are presented in a light hearted style not unmixed with awareness of the perils, the ghastly viciousness of the occult “arts” which translations of the museum manuscripts must convey to any sane reader. Christ refers to the world red power rising over the seventh and last world government as “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth.” (Revelation 17)

      So reference is made to a branch of this demon magic in the Butler book as belonging to a much earlier age: to the world of the Akkadian-Chaldean “(Babylonian)” inscriptions and of the Graeco-Egyptian papyri animated by the belief that the gods could and would support the magician in his dealings with the demons if properly invoked; and that by the use of certain mysterious and ineffable names as well as other spells, they could be forced to do so even against their will. From the earliest times this extraordinary power was recognized as prone to abuse in the hands of ‘black’ magicians, but the Art itself was not only respectable, it was a high and holy one. Christianity altered all that, anathematizing magic…” (Ritual Magic, E.M. Butler, p. 209)

  Tetragammaton

      The skeleton letters of Jehova: Y-H-W-H, called the Tetragammaton, is the “ineffable word” in Talmudic Judaism, being used in weird combinations to evoke the demons. Its use is restricted to the inner circle of Rabbinical potentates.

      Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg, who is listed in Who’s Who in America and Who’s Who in American Jewry (1938-39), in his defensive yet illuminating book, “Jewish Magic and Superstition,” (Behrmann’, N.Y. 1939) writing of the age long reputation of Jews as practitioners of black magic and all occult demonistic rites, states:

  “The sources indicate that Jews were at least acquainted with methods of inducing disease and death, of arousing and killing passion, of forcing people to do their bidding of employing demons for divinatory and other purposes…We find accounts of the magician’s power to project his soul to far-distant places, there to perform an errand, and then return to his comatose body.”

  (Jewish Magic and Superstition, Rabbi Joshua Trachtenberg, Behrmann’s, N.Y. 1939, p. 13)

      There is no kind or breed of occultist which is not included beneath the whited sepulchre of Pharisaic Talmudic Judaism, and which does not appear in the Talmud and its Cabala. Always, power is ascribed to spirits, and MAN is the creator and chief engineer depending upon his mumbo-jumbo “knowledge,” hence the word “Gnosis,” meaning higher knowledge.

      The Ma’aseh Mercabah and Ma’aseh Bereshit are called the very basis of this occult Gnosticism. Pretending to be based upon Genesis (Creation) and Ezekiel’s chariot throne of God vision (Ezekiel I), this last “mystery” is called “Merkabah.”

      The words “by other means” are the most significant in the definition of the Merkabah in the Jewish Encyclopedia: “the mysteries rest on the belief in the reality of things seen in an ecstatic state brought about by ablutions, fasts, fervent invocations, incantations, and by other means…the Merkabah rider must provide himself with amulets or seals continuing mysterious names…The central figure in the ophany, however, is the “Prince of the Face’ Metatron…He is the one who imparted to man all the knowledge of heaven and of the past and the future.” (Jewish Encyclopedia, pp. 499-500)

  Pharisaic Mercabah

      The Christian need not wallow in darkness. In the 1905 Jewish Encyclopedia it was already clearly written down that the Pharisees took over “Judaism,” removed all “obnoxious verbiage” concerning God, such as attributing to Him Intelligence and control over this world and bestowed all Biblical powers ascribed to Him to lesser spirits, or “angelic powers;” which is pure paganism. And, with the Angelology and Demonology (of Babylon) and the Ma’aseh Bereshit and Ma’aseh Merkabah, they amplified the Bible (into pantheism). Anthropomorphism, or attributing to God any human quality like Intelligence, Love, or Control, such as God gave man over the animal world, was “obnoxious” to the Pharisee.

      Even burning children to the demon Molech for black occult power is allowed TODAY by the supreme scriptures of Pharisaic Judaism.

  MOLOCH
  
  HUMAN SACRIFICE

  Moloch was an idol worshipped by the Hebrews and some other people of the area. The priests burned a large fire within the idol, and according to a number of Biblical and Talmudic references, the Hebrews sacrificed their children to the god by throwing them — live — into the fire (the children were termed “thy seed,” and the act, “pass[ing them] through the fire” in KJV). Accounts vary in details, e.g., the god was Canaanite in origin and only intermittently adopted by the Hebrews; the children were killed before they were burned (Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. Moloch); the god was Carthaginian and the children were cast into the fire by priests, not parents (Gustave Flaubert); etc.
  Molk defined as “the practice of human sacrifice”
  “The rite of the human sacrifice ‘Molk’ as a [sacrificial] offering is peculiar of a mentality which didn’t exist in the Greek or Roman society.
  “If Phoenicians thought that a God wanted the destruction of a town or a country, they didn’t [hesitate] to offer him human lives, avoiding in this way the anger and the curse of the god and blaming on few people.
  “As they believed no other sacrifices better than this could appease the anger of that god, Carthaginians vowed themselves to the human sacrifices and in order to increase the value of the sacrifice, they offered even their children’s life.” — City of Castelvetrano-Selinunte
  Thus we see that according to the above scholar, Molk (= Moloch?) was a word describing the practice of human sacrifice, rather than a specific deity. This conforms with the Catholic Encyclopedia’s statement that the ancient Hebrews may have thought they were sacrificing their children to LORD God.
  The writer for the City of Castelvetrano-Selinunte,  in saying that human sacrifice “didn’t exist in the Greek or Roman society,” was limiting his statement to the Classical Greeks, of course.
  The Moloch Prohibition

  With these precedents in mind, let us now look at two passages from the Old Testament concerning child sacrifice to the idol Moloch (or “Molech”). In the following passages, the words “seed” and “children” are synonymous. First, from Leviticus 18:

  King James Version

  21. And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.

  Leviticus 18:21 (KJV)

  English Standard Version

  21. You shall not give any of your children to offer them (1) to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.

  Leviticus 18:21 (ESV)

  An ESV footnote gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase: “1. Hebrew to make them pass through [the fire].” Now let’s look at Second Kings 23:
  King James Version

  10. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech.

  2 Kings 23:10 (KJV)

  English Standard Version

  10. And he defiled Topheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, that no one might burn his son or his daughter as an offering to Molech. (1)

  2 Kings 23:10 (ESV)

  An ESV footnote gives a literal translation of the original Hebrew phrase: “Hebrew might cause his son or daughter to pass through the fire for Molech.”

  Now let’s look at the relevant cite from the Babylonian Talmud.

  MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.

  Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64a
  Soncino 1961 Edition, page 437

  Following the Mishnah is a discussion among the sages. One of the Talmud Sages, Rabbi Ashi, comments as follows:

  GEMARA. R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through, (3) or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech. Why is this stated? — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire. From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]

  — Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 64b
  Soncino 1961 Edition, page 439

  Rabbi Dr. Freedman, one of the translators of the Soncino Tractate Sanhedrin, clarifies the passage. In a footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman confirms that the Talmud Sages use “seed” to denote living children, in the same sense as the Biblical translators understand the term in the above Biblical quotes. In this footnote, Rabbi Dr. Freedman paraphrases the question from Rabbi Ashi:

  3. Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?

  Rabbi Dr. Freedman

  Other footnotes within the same context clarify the fine point of distinction being drawn in the Mishnah and subsequent debates among the sages:

  5. Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (I) formal delivery to the priests, and (2) causing the seed to pass through the fire.

  Rabbi Dr. Freedman (2)

  5. As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences [sic] is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.

  Rabbi Dr. Freedman (3)
  Following the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 64a and 64b contain a rousing debate between the Sages concerning:

    * the circumstances under which worshipping an idol is idolatry,
    * which idols may be worshipped without indulging in idolatry,
    * which parts of child sacrifice in what combination are punishable, and
    * how children may be sacrificed without violating Leviticus.

  The 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia contains an entry on Moloch that is of interest. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the children were burned “after the victims had been put to death” — without citing any authority. This statement is directly contradicted by Rabbi Ashi and by Rabbi Dr. Freedman in the passages quoted above, wherein they consider the case of “a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried” to the fire. (Paragraphing has been added to this Catholic Encyclopedia excerpt to aid in readability).

  The chief feature of Moloch’s worship among the Jews seems to have been the sacrifice of children, and the usual expression for describing that sacrifice was “to pass through the fire”, a rite carried out after the victims had been put to death.
     
  The special centre of such atrocities was just outside of Jerusalem, at a place called Tophet (probably “place of abomination”), in the valley of Geennom. According to III (I) Kings, xi, 7, Solomon erected “a temple” for Moloch “on the hill over against Jerusalem”, and on this account he is at times considered as the monarch who introduced the impious cult into Israel. After the disruption, traces of Moloch worship appear in both Juda and Israel.
     
  The custom of causing one’s children to pass through the fire seems to have been general in the Northern Kingdom [IV (II) Kings, xvii, 17; Ezekiel. xxiii, 37], and it gradually grew in the Southern, encouraged by the royal example of Achaz (IV Kings, xvi, 3) and Manasses [IV (II) Kings, xvi, 6] till it became prevalent in the time of the prophet Jeremiah (Jeremiah. xxxii, 35), when King Josias suppressed the worship of Moloch and defiled Tophet [IV (II) Kings, xxiii, 13 (10)]. It is not improbable that this worship was revived under Joakim and continued until the Babylonian Captivity …
     
  Of late, numerous attempts have been made to prove that in sacrificing their children to Moloch the Israelites simply thought that they were offering them in holocaust to Yahweh. In other words, the Melech to whom child-sacrifices were offered was Yahweh under another name. To uphold this view appeal is made in particular to Jer., vii, 31; xix, 5, and to Ezekiel., xx, 25-31. But this position is to say the least improbable. The texts appealed to may well be understood otherwise, and the prophets expressly treat the cult of Moloch as foreign and as an apostasy from the worship of the true God. The offerings by fire, the probable identity of Moloch with Baal, and the fact that in Assyria and Babylonia Malik, and at Palmyra Malach-bel, were sun-gods, have suggested to many that Moloch was a fire- or sun-god.

  Catholic Encyclopedia
  Lessons Learned

  It is indeed unfortunate that the Jewish religion has not repudiated the doctrine that children may be sacrificed to Moloch. That doctrine, along with prayers in the Jewish liturgy calling for the return of ritual blood sacrifice surely adds credence to charges that Jews engage in the ritual blood sacrifice of children. Many societies and religions have practices in their histories of which they are not proud. Certainly the United States had slavery, as did many other countries. Catholicism had the persecution of Protestants, and Protestants had the persecution of Catholics; Europe had feudalism, Mexico had human sacrifice, and India had widow burnings (sati, the practice of burning a widow at her late husband’s funeral). Scandinavia had the Vikings, Italy had the excesses of the Roman Empire, and China had foot-binding. Among all those people there came the admission, eventually, that those practices were not appropriate, and as hard on the pride as it was, they accepted responsibility and repudiated their former behaviors.
  Repudiating the Talmud doctrines that approve of ritually sacrificing children (under certain conditions) would go a long way to creating good will between Judaism and people of other religious faiths. Christians and Muslims, too, should reexamine the Old Testament Scriptures. Is this really the church/mosque they want their children attending?
  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

  What you are about to read is an explanation or an excuse for offering human sacrifices to Moloch. It will blow your mind to know just how devious these Talmudic Jews are and why they have been hated by ALL peoples, down through the centuries. It was only when I started to study the Jewish Talmud that I began to understand why Jesus said what he said about these people in Matthew ch 15; Matthew ch 23; and John 8. The majority of Christendom is ignorant of Talmudic Judaism, and because of this ignorance, they foolishly think that God helped these demonic people back into Israel. Oh how wrong can one be? The Jewish Talmud is an Encyclopedia of hatred against the God and Father of Jesus Christ! I plead with all sincere Christians to use their PC to search the Internet and find out more about these devilish people. Remember what Jesus Christ said about them?

  “YOU are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me. “Which of you convicts Me of sin? And if I tell the truth, why do you not believe Me? “He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God.”

  A TALMUDIC JEWISH EXPLANATION FOR OFFERING HUMAN SACRIFICES TO MOLOCH.

  BET MIDRASH VIRTUALI
  of the Rabbinical Assembly in Israel

  ________________________________________

  RABIN MISHNAH STUDY GROUP

  Study of halakhah in the religious climate of Masorti (Conservative) Judaism
  by Rabbi Simchah Roth

  July 2nd 1999 / Tammuz 18th 5759 [Sanhedrin 097]
  ________________________________________  
  

  TRACTATE SANHEDRIN, CHAPTER SEVEN, MISHNAH EIGHT:
  הַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. מָסַר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְלֹא הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ, הֶעֱבִיר בָּאֵשׁ וְלֹא מָסַר לַמֹּלֶךְ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לַמֹּלֶךְ וְיַעֲבִיר בָּאֵשׁ. בַּעַל אוֹב זֶה פִיתוֹם הַמְדַבֵּר מִשֶּׁחְיוֹ, וְיִדְּעוֹנִי זֶה הַמְדַבֵּר בְּפִיו: הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ בִסְקִילָה, וְהַנִּשְׁאָל בָּהֶם בְּאַזְהָרָה:

  The crime of giving one’s child to the Molekh is only incurred by handing [the child] over to the Molekh and passing it through the fire: merely handing it over to the Molekh while not passing it through the fire, or vice versa, does not constitute the sin; only both handing it over and passing it through the fire. A medium is a sorcerer who speaks from his armpit; a necromancer is one who speaks with his mouth. They themselves are to be stoned, but those who consult them are only warned.

  EXPLANATIONS:
  1:
  This mishnah, too, is based on Mishnah Four of our present chapter, which, you will recall, gave a list of all the eighteen offences for which the punishment was death by stoning. That mishnah includes the three items that are the subject of this present Mishnah: worship of Molekh, being a medium and being a necromancer.
  2:
  The Reisha [first section] of our mishnah is concerned with the sin of offering one’s child to the Molekh. The basis of this item (and its punishment) is to be found in the Bible:
  And to the Israelites you shall say: Any person of Israelite stock or of those who [elect to] live with Israel who gives of his offspring to the Molekh shall die the death: the people of the land shall stone him [Leviticus 20:2].

  The exact nature of this deity has yet to be clarified. We should note, however, that our sources do not refer to “Molekh” as a proper noun (the name of a deity) but always preface it with the definite article, “the Molekh”. On a few occasions the Bible refers to the Molekh (or the worship of the Molekh) as “the abomination of the Ammonites” - a people living to the east of Israel in Transjordan and whose name is memorialized to this day in the name of the capital of the Kingdom of Jordan, Amman. This could, perhaps, suggest that the term “Molekh” is a dialectic variant of the Hebrew “Melekh”, king. Very little is known about the worship of this deity. This leaves, of course, a flat field for modern scholars to play on. There are two main avenues of approach. One is to see the worship of the Molekh involving the immolation of living children; the other sees the connection with fire as involving some kind of initiation ceremony. (The view of the sages, as developed in the Gemara [Sanhedrin 64a-b] is supported by the second view of modern scholars.) Robert Kaiser was kind enough to send me a short account of these views, which I presented when we studied Mishnah Four. So much time has passed since then that, for everyone’s convenience, I present that account here again:

  The primary evidence comes not from the Middle East itself, but from Carthage, which was a Phoenician colony. Excavations at Carthage itself and at other Carthaginian cities have revealed a number of sacred precincts known as tophets; and here in total about 20,000 urns have been discovered (covering a period of something like 600 years). These urns contain animal remains, infant remains, or a mixture of the two: the animal remains preclude it from being a cemetery, and point to them instead being the remains of sacrifices. Added to this are iconographic representations actually depicting the sacrifice of infants, and a number of inscriptions (some admittedly relatively late) that appear to refer obliquely to a cultic child sacrifice called a m-l-k (like other Semitic languages, Punic script does not provide vowels). Putting this together, there is little doubt that child sacrifice was a common phenomenon in Carthaginian cities.
  With this in mind, we can go back to our second major source of evidence, which is the Bible itself. There are numerous references in the Bible to child sacrifice as a Canaanite practice [e.g. Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10, 2Kings 3:27, 16:3, 17:17, 17:31, 21:6, Isaiah 57:5, Jeremiah 7:31-2, 19:5-6, Ezekiel 16:20-21, 20:30-31, Psalm 106:36-8]. And several of these specifically refer to “molek” (Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-5, 2 Kings 23:10, Jeremiah 32:35). One might, of course, feel that this is hardly an impartial source, and that such references are part of an exaggerated Biblical polemic against Canaanite religion; but there are nevertheless excellent reasons for regarding them as reliable in this matter. One is the fact that these passages are not merely polemics against the Canaanites, but describe Israelites engaging in these practices, and contain very specific injunctions against them. But more important is the overlap with the Carthaginian evidence: the fact that we can independently know that a widespread group of people of Levantine origin engaged in child sacrifices called “m-l-k” enables us to corroborate the information in the Bible when it tells us about a similar cult with the same name.
  Apart from these main sources, there are other confirmations. For example, there are New Kingdom Egyptian temple relief’s showing Egyptian attacks on Canaanite cities: the inhabitants are depicted as sacrificing their children in response to the crisis.
  So much is essentially unproblematic. More difficult is knowing exactly how widespread such sacrifices were, and to which god they took place. A god with the name M-L-K was widely worshipped in the Middle East, and it seems most natural on the face of things to associate the practice of child sacrifice with his cult.
  However, there are certain problems with this. One is that in a large number of societies where we know that M-L-K was worshipped; there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that any child sacrifice took place. Another is that the Bible specifically refers to the m-l-k sacrifice being offered to other gods [Jeremiah 32:35; cf. also 2 Kings 17:31], though the gods here do have a m-l-k root as part of their names.
  It is true that the Bible does sometimes explicitly describe child sacrifices as being “l-m-l-k” [Leviticus 18:21, 20:2-4, 2 Kings 23:10], which could mean “to M-L-K” (which is how it was traditionally understood ...) However, a good case can be made that this term refers only to the sacrifice, and not to the god at all - that “la-m-l-k” in such cases means “as a m-l-k sacrifice” (Leviticus 20:5, which refers to “ha-m-l-k” is especially relevant, as the “ha-” [=“the”] would seem to imply a practice, not a name). Scholars are divided between these possibilities.
  3:
  The most succinct summary of the view of the sages as to what constituted the worship of the Molekh is to be found in Rambam’s commentary to our present mishnah:

  The immolation referred to is not burning as has been assumed by a very great number of people; rather it consisted essentially of stoking up a fire to a great heat in honour of the aforementioned idol who was thus worshipped. The father would take one of his sons and hand him over to one of the officiants, who would then wave the child from side to side over the fire…

  However, one sage in the Gemara [Sanhedrin 64b] sees the father walking his child between two fires, one on either side. This would definitely suggest some kind of initiation ceremony or making some solemn undertaking. Something very similar is described by the prophet [Jeremiah 34] when the people make a solemn undertaking to release their Hebrew slaves every seventh year - an undertaking which they made by solemnly walking between two rows of dismembered calves (an undertaking which, also, they immediately broke.) In Genesis 15 it is God who makes a solemn undertaking by passing, personified as a burning torch, between two rows of dismembered creatures.
  4:
  Whatever the exact nature of the worship of the Molekh it is strictly prohibited by the text of the Torah and its terrible punishment is stipulated as we have already seen. This is when the process of rabbinic “re-interpretation” begins, as we have seen time and again. By strictly limiting the circumstances involved in the issue under discussion its application can be severely reduced or almost eliminated. For a person to be executed for worshipping Molekh that would have to have been warned in advance by two people acting in concert that the act that he was about to perform was prohibited by the Torah and was punishable by stoning; the person would then have to immediately perform the deed in the presence of the two witnesses. All this is common to all cases involving the death penalty, as we have seen. To make doubly sure, our present mishnah adds, in the specific case of the worship of the Molekh, that the child had to be both handed over and passed over (or through) the fire; one of the deeds by itself was insufficient to incur the death penalty. The Gemara [Sanhedrin 64b] has other reductionary measures to offer, such as that if a person did this to “all” his children he was not guilty; it had to involve only “some” of his children!

  THE DIABOLIC HOLOCAUST OF JEWS BY JEWS

  There are many groups in the world arguing about the Holocaust. The all seem to miss the mark. The first thing one should do is find out what the word holocaust means. A holocaust is a “burnt offering” to a god. The Israelites have a long tradition of offering human holocausts to the god Moloch. In Amos 5:25-27 and Acts 7:42-43 we read of these practices. The Israelites were no sooner out of Egypt when they began to offer their children to Moloch. We read in the Prophets of the Old Testament about such practices, which God and them condemned time after time.
  Surely this is one of the greatest sins a parent can commit. Jews like to talk about the Passover, but NEVER talk about their holocausts in the Wilderness. God left to wander in the Wilderness for forty (40) years, until everyone of them, who offered human sacrifices, were dead.

  One would think Jews would be ashamed for these dastardly, evil deeds, but no, they justify them in their Jewish Talmud:

  Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
  Folio 64a
  ‘Be silent, for one must not make mention of the name of the Lord.‘1 [He said this] because his father and mother had not taught him [to serve the Lord], and straightway he brought forth an idol from his bosom, embracing and kissing it, until his stomach burst, his idol fell to the earth, and he upon it, thus fulfilling the verse, And I shall cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols.2 — That too was after they became addicted thereto.
  Come and hear: And they cried with a loud voice unto the Lord their God.3 Now what did they say? — Rab Judah, or as others maintain R. Jonathan said: [They cried this:] ‘Woe, woe, it is that [sc. idolatry] which destroyed the Sanctuary, burnt the Temple, slew the righteous, and exiled Israel from their land; and still it sports amongst us! Hast Thou not set it before us that we might be rewarded [for withstanding its allurements]? But we desire neither temptation nor reward!‘4 — That too was after they were seduced by it. [Continuing Rab Judah’s statement:] They fasted for three days, entreating for mercy; thereafter their sentence fell from Heaven, the word emeth [truth] written upon it. (R. Hanina said: This proves that the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is emeth.) The shape of a fiery lion’s whelp issued from the Holy of Holies, and the Prophet said to Israel, That is the Tempter of Idolatry. Whilst they held it fast, a hair [of its body] fell out, and his roar of pain was heard for 400 parasangs.5 [In perplexity] they cried: ‘What shall we do? Maybe Heaven will pity him !’ The prophet answered: Cast him into a lead cauldron, and cover it with lead to absorb his voice, as it is written, And he said, This is wickedness; and he cast it into the midst of the ephah: and he cast the weight of lead upon the mouth
  Thereof.6 Then they said, ‘Since the time is propitious, let us pray that the Tempter of Sin [may likewise be delivered into our hands].’ So they prayed and it was delivered into their hands. They imprisoned it for three days; after that they sought a new laid egg for an invalid in the whole of Palestine and could not find one.7 Then they said, ‘What shall we do? Shall we pray that his power be but partially destroyed?8 Heaven will not grant it.’ So they blinded it with rouge. This was so far effective that one does not lust for his forbidden relations.
  Rab Judah said in Rab’s name: A gentile woman once fell sick. She vowed, ‘If I recover, I will go and serve every idol in the world.’ She recovered, and proceeded to serve all idols. On reaching Peor, she asked its priests, ‘How is this worshipped’? They replied, ‘People eat beets, drink strong drink, and then uncover themselves before it.’ She replied, ‘I would rather fall sick again than serve an idol in such a manner.’ But ye, O House of Israel,9 were not so [as it is written, Slay ye every one his men] that were joined unto Baal Peor:10 ye were attached to it like an air-tight lid.11 Whereas, Whilst ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God,12 implies merely like two dates sticking to each other.13 In a Baraitha it has been taught: that were joined unto Baal Peor: [loosely] like a bracelet on the hands of a woman;14 whereas Whilst ye that did cleave unto the Lord your God indicates that they were firmly attached.15
  Our Rabbis taught: Sabta, a townsman of Avlas,16 once hired an ass to a gentile woman. When she came to Peor, she said to him, ‘Wait till I enter and come out again.’ On her issuing, he said to her, ‘Now do you wait for me too until I go in and come out again.’
  ‘But,’ said she, ‘are you not a Jew?’ He replied, ‘What does it concern thee?’ He then entered, uncovered himself before it, and wiped himself on the idol’s nose, whilst the acolytes praised him, saying, ‘No man has ever served this idol thus.’
  He that uncovers himself before Baal Peor thereby serves it, even if his intention was to degrade it. He who casts a stone at Merculis thereby serves it, even if his intention was to bruise it.
  R. Manasseh was going to Be Toratha.17 On the way he was told, ‘An idol stands here.’ He took up a stone and threw it at the idol’s statue. Thereupon they said to him: ‘It is Merculis’. He said to them, ‘But we have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE FOR MERCULIS18 THEREBY SERVES IT.’ So he went and inquired at the Beth Hamidrash [whether he had done wrong, since his action was a gesture of contempt]. They informed him, We have learned, HE WHO CASTS A STONE AT MERCULIS19 [thereby serves it] — that is to say even if it is merely to bruise it. He said to them, ‘Then I will go and remove it.’ But they replied, ‘Whether one casts a stone or removes it, he incurs guilt, because every stone thus removed leaves room for another.’
  MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.
  GEMARA. The Mishnah20 teaches idolatry and giving to Molech.21 R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the
  view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.
  Abaye said: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and R. Hanina b. Antigonus said the one and same thing. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, that which has just been stated. R. Hanina b. Antigonus — as it has been taught: R. Hanina b. Antigonus said: Why did the Torah employ the word Molech? To teach that the same law applies to whatever they proclaimed as their king, even a pebble or a splinter.22 Rabina23 said: The difference between them is in respect of a temporary Molech.24 ________________________________________
  Original footnotes renumbered.
  1.  Amos VI, 10.
  2.  Now this too shows that the child had really been taught to believe in it.
  3.  Nehem. IX, 4. This was on the fast-day held by the newly established community in Palestine.
  4.  This also proves that it had a strong hold upon them.
  5.  A parasang is 8000 cubits.
  6.  Zech. V. 8.
  7.  Through the imprisonment of the Tempter sexual lust was dormant throughout creation.
  8.  Lit.. ‘half and half’. That it may arouse only legitimate sexual desire.
  9.  This is Rab’s comment.
  10.  Num. XXV, 5.
  11.  This connects the Heb. [H] hanizmadim, who cleaved, with zamid [H], an exactly fitting lid.
  12.  Deut. IV, 4.
  13.  [H], dabak, used in this verse, does not imply so strong an attachment as zamad; thus they clung more fervently to Peor than to the Lord.
  14.  Deriving hanizmadim from zamid, a bracelet.
  15.  This reverses Rab’s interpretation.
  16.  In Cilicia, mentioned as one of the northern border places of the Land of Israel; Targum Jerus. Num. XXIV, 8; Targum Jonathan b. Uzziel a. I. (Jast.).
  17.  A town in Babylonia, on the road to Pumbaditha, ‘A.Z. 26a. It may perhaps be identified with Bithra, on the south of the royal canal, on the Seleucian road (A. Neubauer, Geographie du Talmud, p. 363).
  18.  [H] i.e., as act of worship.
  19.  [He was told that the reading in the Mishnah is [H] AT MERCULIS, implying even as a gesture of contempt.]
  20.  On 53a.
  21.  As two separate offences, proving that giving one’s seed to Molech is not idolatry. The differences is, that if one sacrificed to Molech, or caused his son to pass through the fire to some other deity, he is not punished.
  22.  Molech is connected with the idea of kingship. This shews that he too regards any fetish as a Molech.
  23.  In his view they did not say the one and the same thing.
  24.  I.e., anything which was only temporarily worshipped as Molech, such as a pebble which would obviously not be a permanent idol.] According to R. Hanina b. Antigonus, he is executed even then. But R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the law applies only to a permanent idol worshipped as Molech.

  Sanhedrin 64b
  R. Jannai said: Punishment is not incurred unless one delivers his seed to the acolytes of Molech,1 for it is said, And thou shalt not give of thy seed to pass through the fire to Molech.2 It has been taught likewise: I might think, that if one caused his seed to pass through the fire to Molech, without first delivering it to the priests, he is liable: therefore the Writ teaches, Thou shalt not give. If he gave it to the priests, but did not cause it to pass through the fire, I might think that he is liable: therefore the Writ states, to pass through. If one delivered it [to the priests of Molech], but caused it to pass through to some other deity, I might think that he is punished: therefore the Writ teaches, to Molech. Now, if he delivered it to the priests and caused it to pass to Molech, but not through the fire, I might think that he is liable:
  but, as here is written, to pass through; and elsewhere it is stated, There shall not he found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire:3 just as there, the reference is to fire, so here too; and just as here the reference is to Molech, so there too.
  R. Aha the son of Raba said: If one caused all his seed to pass through [the fire] to Molech, he is exempt from punishment, because it is written, of thy seed implying, but not all thy seed.4
  R. Ashi propounded: What if one caused his blind or sleeping son to pass through,5 or if he caused his grandson by his son or daughter to pass through? — One at least of these you may solve. For it has been taught: [Any men … that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall he put to death … And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people;] because he hath given of his seed unto Molech.6 Why is this stated?7 — Because it is said, there shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire.8 From this I know it only of his son or daughter. Whence do I know that it applies to his son’s son or daughter’s son too? From the verse, [And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man] when he giveth of his seed unto Molech [and kill him not: Then I will … cut him off.]9
  Now the Tanna commences with the verse, ‘because he hath given of his seed’, but concludes with ‘when he giveth of his seed’? — This is to intimate another deduction.10 Thus: [because he hath given] of his seed: From this I know only that the law applies to legitimate seed [that being the normal meaning of the word]; whence do I know that it also applies to illegitimate seed?11 — From the verse, when he giveth of his seed.12
  Rab Judah said: He is only liable to punishment if he causes his seed to pass through in the normal way. How is that? — Abaye said: There was a loose pile of bricks in the middle, and fire on either side of it.13 Raba said: It was like the children’s leaping about on Purim.14 It has been taught in support of Raba. Punishment is incurred only for causing one’s seed to pass in the normal fashion; if he caused him to pass through on foot, he is exempt.15 He is liable only for his own issue; e.g., for his son and daughter, he is punished; but for his father or mother, brother or sister, he is not. If he passed through himself, he is free from punishment.16 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon ruled that he is liable. Further, whether to Molech or to any other idol, he is liable. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.
  Ulla said: What is R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon’s reason? — Scripture saith, There shall not be found among thee …17 ‘among thee’ means in thyself.18 And the Rabbis? Do they not interpret ‘among thee’ thus? Surely we have learnt: If one must search for a lost article of his own and of his father’s, priority is given to his own. And we observed thereon: Why so? — To which Rab Judah replied: Scripture saith, Save that there shall be no poor among thee,19 teaching that one’s own loss has priority over that of any other man?20 There the deduction follows from ‘save that’.21
  R. Jose, son of R. Hanina said: Why is extinction thrice threatened for idolatry?22 — One teaches extinction for the normal worship of idols; one for abnormal; and one for the service of Molech.23 But on the view that Molech worship is included in general idolatry, why is extinction mentioned in its case? — To apply to one who causes his son to pass through to an idol [not Molech], where such is not the normal mode of worship. Now, on the view that a megaddef24 is a worshipper of idols,22 why is extinction stated for it?25 — Even as it has been taught:26 That soul shall surely be cut off from among his people;27 he shall be cut off in this world and in the next: this is R. Akiba’s view.28 R. Ishmael said: But the verse has previously stated ‘that soul shall be cut off’:29 are there then three worlds?30 But [interpret this:] ‘and [that soul] shall be cut off’ — in this world: ‘he is to he cut off’ — [of the following verse, and denoted by the infinitive]31 in the next; whilst as for the repetition [the finite form of the verb],32 that is because the Torah employs human phraseology.33
  ________________________________________
  Original footnotes renumbered.
  1.  He explains this to be the meaning of the Mishnah UNLESS HE GIVES IT TO MOLECH.
  2.  Lev. XVIII, 21. This proves that the offence consists of two parts; (i) formal delivery to the priests, and (ii) causing the seed to pass through the fire.
  3.  Deut. XVIII, 10.
  4.  Probably because this would not be accounted a normal mode of Molech worship: cp. pp. 438, 440.
  5.  Is ‘thou shalt not cause to pass’ applicable only to a son who can naturally pass through himself, but not to a blind or sleeping son, who must be led or carried, or does it apply to all?
  6.  Lev. XX, 2f.
  7.  Since the passage commences by explicitly referring to this offence, why is it repeated?
  8.  Deut. XVIII, 10.
  9.  Lev. XX, 4. Hence the law applies also to grandsons.
  10.  I.e., from the first verse, because etc. we learn that the law applies to one’s grandsons too; when he giveth is stated in order that another law may be deduced.
  11.  Not in the modern sense, but seed from a woman forbidden to him.
  12.  This is superfluous, since it has already been stated twice in that passage that the reference is to this effect. Hence it indicates the application of the law to illegitimate seed.
  13.  The victim walked along that pile to Molech, but was not burnt. The statement that Hezekiah was smeared with the blood of the salamander to render him fireproof (63b), shewing that the victim was actually burnt, does not refer to Molech, but to the divinities of Sepharvaim (Rashi).
  14.  Probably referring to a game played on Purim when children jump over a fire lit in a pit. According to this, a pit was dug and a fire lit therein, and the victim leaped over it (So Rashi). Jast. translates: ‘like the stirrup (a ring suspended from a frame) thrust over a bonfire on Purim;’ cp. Aruch.
  15.  This proves that the victim did not walk, but leaped to it.
  16.  This too proves that the victim was not burnt in passing through the fire to Molech.
  17.  Deut. XVIII, 10.
  18.  Hence his view that one is liable if he passes through himself.
  19.  Deut. XV, 4.
  20.  The questioner understood this to be deduced from ‘among thee’ — in thyself. Since this is not taught in the name of any particular Tanna, it should agree with the Rabbis too.
  21.  Heb. [H], implying an admonition to avoid any action which may lead to poverty. Naturally, this is not to be interpreted as permitting dishonesty, but merely insists that poverty must not be courted.
  22.  Twice in Lev. XX, 2-5: Whosoever be he … that giveth of his seeds to Molech … I will cut him off from among his people … And if the people of the land … kill him not: Then I will set my face against that man … and will cut him off. Once in Num. XV, 30f. But the soul that doeth aught presumptuously … the same reproacheth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut from among his people. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord. This refers to idolatry.
  23.  Which is not included in general idolatry, as stated above.
  24.  In Num. XV, 30, the Heb. for ‘he reproacheth’ is megaddef.
  25.  The meaning of megaddef is disputed in Ker. 7b. By a ‘worshipper of idols’ is meant, e.g., one who sings hymns in a heathen Temple.
  26.  Since, being a normal part of idolatry, it is understood.
  27.  Num. XV, 31. Continuing the verses quoted in note 3. In the Heb, as usual, this emphasis is denoted by the repetition of the verb, [H]
  28.  He interprets the doubling of the verb as referring to two worlds.
  29.  Ibid. 30.
  30.  Rashi explains that this question is not put to R. Akiba, because he interprets megaddef in that previous verse as referring to blasphemy, not idolatry. But this question is rhetorically stated by R. Ishmael on his own assumption that megaddef means an idol worshipper.
  31.  [H]
  32.  [H]
  33.  In ordinary human speech, such repetition is quite common.

  
  Demonology of the Pharisees

      All forms of demonology were adopted by the Pharisees and incorporated into the “synagogue of Satan” when they took over Judaism. Demons of the privy, of the night, of every phase of nature, were and are catered to by the tenets and customs of this sect. The Talmud book of Yadayim (hands) is on ritual hand washing in connection with Pharisee demonology. The Talmud is larded with occult works and practices.

      Despite Moses’ orders: “There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire or that useth divination, or an observer of times (astrology) or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee; (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) yet all of these are permitted by Pharisee scripture. (Sanhedrin 65a-65b)
  Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
  Folio 65a
  MISHNAH. A BA’AL OB1 IS THE PITHOM2 WHO SPEAKS FROM HIS ARMPIT. THE YIDDE’ONI [‘A WIZARD’] IS ONE WHO SPEAKS FROM HIS MOUTH.3 THESE TWO ARE STONED; WHILST HE WHO ENQUIRES OF THEM TRANSGRESSES A FORMAL PROHIBITION.4
  GEMARA. Why are both a Ba’al ob and Yidde’oni mentioned here [as being executed], whilst in the list of those who are punished by extinction only Ba’al ob is included, but Yidde’oni is omitted?5 — R. Johanan said: Because both are stated in one negative precept.6 Resh Lakish said: Yidde’oni is omitted [in Kerithoth], because it involves no action.7 Now, according to R. Johanan, why is a Ba’al ob mentioned [rather than a Yidde’oni]? — Because it is written first in the Scripture. Now why does Resh Lakish reject R. Johanan’s answer? — R. Papa said: They are stated separately in the verse decreeing death.8 But R. Johanan maintains: Offences which are distinct in their injunctions [there being a different one for each], are held to be separate [in their atonement]; but if only in the decree of death, they are not regarded as separate.
  Now, why does R. Johanan reject Resh Lakish’s answer? — He can tell you: The Mishnah of Kerithoth is taught in accordance with R. Akiba’s views, that action is unnecessary [for a sin offering to be incurred]. But Resh Lakish maintains: Granted that R. Akiba does not require a great action, but he requires at least a small one. But what action is there in blasphemy [which is included in the enumeration]? — The movement of the lips. But what action is done by a Ba’al ob? — The knocking of his arms.9 Now, is this so even in the view of the Rabbis? But it has been taught: [The idolater] is liable [to a sacrifice] only for that which entails an action, e.g., sacrificing, burning incense, making libations and prostration. Whereon Resh Lakish observed: Which Tanna maintains that a sacrifice is due for prostration? R. Akiba, who rules that a deed entailing [much] action is unnecessary. But R. Johanan said: It even agrees with the Rabbis, for in bending his body, he performs an action. Now, since Resh Lakish maintains that in the view of the Rabbis bending one’s body is not regarded as an action, surely the knocking of the arms is not one? — Well then Resh Lakish’s statement [that the Ba’al ob performs an action] is made on the view only of R. Akiba, but not of the Rabbis. If so, should not the Mishnah there state, [But the Rabbis maintain that] the blasphemer and Ba’al ob are excluded?10 — But ‘Ulla answered: The Mishnah there refers to a Ba’al oh who burnt incense to a demon.11 Raba asked him: But is not burning incense to a demon idolatry?12 — But Raba said: It [i.e., the Ba’al ob in Kerithoth] refers to one who burns incense as a charm.13 Abaye said to him: But burning incense as a charm is to act as a charmer, which is merely prohibited by a negative precept? — That is so, but the Torah decreed that such a charmer is stoned.14
  Our Rabbis taught: [There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or daughter pass through to the fire …] Or a charmer.15 This applies to one who charms large objects, and to one who charms small ones,16 even snakes and scorpions. Abaye said: Therefore even to imprison wasps or scorpions [by charms], though the intention is to prevent them from doing harm, is forbidden.
  Now, as for R. Johanan, why does he maintain that in the view of the Rabbis the bending of one’s body [in prostration] is an action, whilst the movement of the lips is not? — Raba said: Blasphemy is different, since the offence lies in the intention.17
  1.  Lev. XIX, 31. ‘He that hath a familiar spirit’.
  2.  [H] ventriloquist, necromancer.
  3.  Both refer to making the dead speak thus.
  4.  Lev. XIX, 31, lit., ‘a warning’, carrying with it no penalty.
  5.  Ker. 2a.
  6.  Lev. XIX, 31. Regard not them that have familiar spirits, and wizards. Now in Ker. 2a, where the Mishnah teaches that thirty six offences are punished by extinction, the Gemara explains that the number — 36 — intimates that if one committed them all in one state of unawareness, he is bound to offer 36 separate sacrifices. Since however, those two are forbidden by one injunction, only one atonement must be made for both. Consequently, the two cannot be taught there.
  7.  The Mishnah there refers to transgressions, the deliberate committal of which is punished by extinction, whilst if unwitting, a sin offering is due; but this is brought only for an offence involving action.
  8.  Ibid. XX, 27. A man also that hath a familiar spirit, or (not and) that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death. ‘Or’, ut is a disjunctive particle. Since they are thus sharply distinguished, one would have to make two separate atonements for the unwitting transgression, if the offence of wizardry incurred a sin offering at all.
  9.  By flapping his arms about the Ba’al ob made it appear that the dead was speaking from his armpits
  10.  In Ker. 2a the Rabbis state that a blasphemer is exempted from a sin offering, since his offence involves no action. But according to Resh Lakish, that they regard a Ba’al ob as doing no action too, they should have stated that he also is exempted.
  11.  I.e., to the spirit of necromancy. That of course is an action even in the view of the Rabbis. This answer is given on the basis of Resh Lakish’s statement.
  12.  And does not come under the heading of Ba’al ob at all. Idolatry is taught there separately.
  13.  To exorcise the demons (Jast.). Rashi reverses the interpretation: to call up the demons, that they may assist him in his sorcery. This is not idolatry, for the demons are not thereby worshipped as divinities, but it comes under the heading of Ba’al ‘ob.
  14.  Consequently, for unwitting transgression a sin offering is due. But the charmer who is punished by lashes is one who charms animals by bringing them together.
  15.  Deut. XVIII, 10f.
  16.  Large objects, viz., cattle, and beasts; small objects, creeping things, insects, etc.
  17.  For blasphemy is an indictable offence only if it is mentally directed against God. If however, one reviles the Divine Name, whilst mentally employing it to denote some other object, he is not punished. Consequently, since the essence of the offence is mental, the slight action is disregarded.
  Sanhedrin 65b
  R. Zera objected: False witnesses1 are excluded [from the necessity of a sin offering if they unwittingly offended], since their offence entails no action.2 But why so; their offence does not depend on intention? — Raba answered: False witnesses are different, because their offence is caused by sound.3 But does not R. Johanan regard sound as a [concrete] action? Has it not been stated: If one frightened [lit. ‘muzzled’] off an animal by his voice, or drove animals by his voice,4 R. Johanan ruled that he is liable to punishment,  because the movement of his lips is an action; Resh Lakish ruled that he is not, because this is not an action?5 — But Raba answered thus: False witnesses are different, because their offence is caused through vision.6
  Our Rabbis taught: A Ba’al ob is one who speaks from between the joints of his body and his elbow joints. A yidde’oni is one who places the bone of a yidoa’7   in his mouth and it speaks of itself. An objection is raised: And thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground:8 surely that means that it speaks naturally?9 — No. It ascends and seats itself between his joints and speaks. Come and hear: And the woman said unto Saul, I saw a god-like form ascending out of the earth: [And Samuel said to Saul …]10 surely that means that it spoke naturally? — No. It settled itself between her joints and spoke.
  Our Rabbis taught: Ba’al ob denotes both him who conjures up the dead by means of soothsaying11 and one who consults a skull. What is the difference between them? — The dead conjured up by soothsaying does not ascend naturally [but feet first], nor on the Sabbath; whilst if consulted by its skull it ascends naturally and on the Sabbath too. [You say,] it ascends: but whither — does not the skull lie before him? — But say thus: It answers naturally,12 and on the Sabbath too. And this question was asked by Turnusrufus13 of R. Akiba: ‘Wherein does this day [the Sabbath] differ from any other?’ — He replied: Wherein does one man differ from another?‘14 — ‘Because my Lord [the Emperor] wishes it.’ ‘The Sabbath too,’ R. Akiba rejoined, ‘then, is distinguished because the Lord wishes so.’ He replied: ‘I ask this: Who tells you that this day is the Sabbath?’ — He answered: ‘Let the river Sabbation15 prove it; let the Ba’al ob prove it;16 let thy father’s grave, whence no smoke ascends on the Sabbath,17 prove it.’ He said to him: ‘You have shamed, disgraced, and reviled him [by this proof].’
     
  He who enquireth of an ob — is that not the same as one that consulteth the dead?18 — As has been taught: Or that consulteth the dead: this means one who starves himself and spends the night in a cemetery, so that an unclean spirit [of a demon] may rest upon him [to enable him to foretell the future]. And when R. Akiba reached this verse, he wept: If one who starves himself that an unclean spirit may rest upon him has his wish granted, he who fasts that the pure spirit [the Divine Presence] may rest upon him — how much more should his desire be fulfilled! But alas!19 our sins have driven it away20 from us, as it is written, But your iniquities have separated between you and your God.21
     
  Raba said: If the righteous desired it, they could [by living a life of absolute purity] be creators, for it is written, But your iniquities have distinguished between etc.22 Rabbah created a man,23 and sent him to R. Zera. R. Zera spoke to him, but received no answer. Thereupon he said unto him: ‘Thou art a creature of the magicians. Return to thy dust.’
  R. Hanina and R. Oshaia spent every Sabbath eve in studying the ‘Book of Creation’,24 by means of which they created a third-grown calf25 and ate it.
  Our Rabbis taught: Me’onen26 — R. Simeon said: That is one who applies the semen of seven male species to his eyes [in order to perform witchcraft]. The Sages say: It is one who holds people’s eyes.27 R. Akiba said: It is one who calculates the times and hours, saying, To-day is propitious for setting forth; tomorrow for making purchases; the wheat ripening on the eve of the seventh year28 is generally sound; let the beans be pulled up [instead of being harvested in the usual manner] to save them from becoming wormy.
  Our Rabbis taught: A Menahesh29 is one who says: So and so’s bread has fallen out of his hand; his staff has fallen out of his hand; his son called after him; a raven screamed after him, a deer has crossed his path; a serpent came at his right hand or a fox at his left;30
  1.  Lit., ‘witnesses proved zomemim’, v. Glos.
  2.  Ker. 4a.
  3.  Causing certain sounds, i.e., words, to be heard at Beth din. Since sound too is not concrete, false testimony is comparable to blasphemy, and the essence of the transgression lies in intention.
  4.  The first refers to Deut. XXV, 4: Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn; the second to Deut. XXII, 10, Thou shalt not plough with an ox and an ass together.
  5.  Hence we see that R. Johanan considers voice an action?
  6.  I.e., they offend by saying that they saw something: and sight does not entail work or action.
  7.  Rashi, the name of a beast; Maim., the name of a bird.
  8.  Isa. XXIX, 4.
  9.  I.e., the dead actually speaking out of the ground.
  10.  I Sam. XXVIII, 13.
  11.  [H] from Syriac [H] ‘to divine’. Rashi connects it with [H], ‘membrum’.]
  12.  I.e., not from between the necromancer’s joints.
  13.  Tineius Rufus, a Roman Governor of Judea.
  14.  ‘Why is one a noble and one a commoner?’ — referring to the high office which Rufus held.
  15.  A legendary river, said to flow with such a strong current on week days, carrying (for note 10 see p. 447) along stones and rubble with tremendous force, as to be quite unnavigable, but resting on the Sabbath. (Cf. Plinius, Hist. Nat. XXI, 2, and Josephus, Wars, VII, 5, ¤ 1].
  16.  Who cannot conjure up the dead on that day.
  17.  The whole week smoke ascended from his grave, as he was being burnt in the fires of purgatory: but even the wicked in Gehenna have rest from their torments on the Sabbath.
  18.  Deut. XVIII, 11.
  19.  Lit., ‘What am I to do’.
  20.  Lit., ‘have brought (this) upon us’.
  21.  Isa. LIX, 2.
  22.  Ibid. Raba understands mabadilim in the sense of ‘draw a distinction’. But for their iniquities, their power would equal God’s, and they could create a world.
  23.  By means of the Sefer Yezirah, Book of Creation. V. next note.
  24.  The Book of Creation, Heb. Sefer Yezirah, is the title of two esoteric books. The older, referred to here, was a thaumaturgical work popular in the Talmudic period. It was also known as Hilkoth Yezirah (Laws of Creation), and is so called in the same story quoted on 67b. Rashi there states that the creation was performed by means of mystic combinations of the Divine Name, which does not come under the ban of witchcraft. Its basic idea is that the Creation was accomplished by means of the power inherent in those letters (Cf. Rab’s saying: ‘Bezalel knew how to combine the letters by which heaven and earth were created’. Ber. 55a. Cf. also Enoch LXI, 3 et seq.; Prayer of Manasseh: Ecc. R. III, 11 on the magic power of the letters of the Divine Name), and that this same power could be utilised in further creation. The work was ascribed to Abraham, which fact indicates an old tradition, and the possible antiquity of the book itself. It has affinities with Babylonian, Egyptian, and Hellenic mysticism and its origin has been placed in the second century B.C.E., when such a combination of influences might be expected. It is noteworthy that Raba’s statement above, though not mentioning the Sefer Yezirah, insists on freedom from sin as a prerequisite of creation by man, v. J.E., XII, 602.
  25.  (I.e., a calf that has reached one third of its full growth; others interpret: (i) in its third year; (ii) third born, fat].
  26.  Observer of times, Deut. XVIII, 10.
  27.  Producing hallucinations in people by opening and shutting their eyes (Rashi).
  28.  Time was calculated by seven-year cycles. The seventh year was called the year of release, and the land was not to be ploughed or sown therein. Lev. XXV, 1-7.
  29.  An enchanter, Deut. XVIII, 10.
  30.  All these omens were regarded by the superstitious as generally bad.

      Quoting this very Scriptural passage, the “sages” hold that calling up demons to aid with sorcery is not idolatry since demons are not thereby worshiped.

      The ancient practice of spirits speaking from the privates by soothsaying is dwelt upon and this practice is attributed to Jesus (He practiced enchantment by means of his membrum” in Sanhedrin 105a-105b)
  Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
  Folio 105a
  who is descended from Judah; ‘Moab is my washpot,’ to Gehazi, who was smitten on account of matters connected with bathing; ‘over Edom will I cast out my shoe’1 — to Doeg the Edomite;2 ‘Philistia, triumph thou because of me,’ The ministering Angels exclaimed before the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Sovereign of the Universe! If David comes, who slew the Philistine and gave possession of Gath to thy children. [and complains at Thy giving a share in the world to come to Doeg and Ahitophel], what wilt thou do with him?’ He replied, ‘It is My duty to make them friends with each other.‘3
  Why is this people of Jerusalem slidden back by a perpetual backsliding?4 Rab said: The Kenesseth Yisrael5 gave the prophet a victorious answer.6 [For] the prophet said to Israel. ‘Return and repent: your fathers who sinned — where are they?’ They replied, ‘And your prophets who did not sin — where are they? As it is written. Your fathers, where are they? — and the prophets, do they live for ever!‘7 He answered them, ‘Yet [your fathers] repented and admitted [the justice of their punishment],8 as it is written, But my words and my statutes, which I commanded my servants the prophets, did they not take hold of your fathers? and they returned and said, Like as the Lord of Hosts thought to do unto us, according to our ways, and according to our doings, so hath he dealt with us.‘9
  Samuel said: Ten men came and sat down before him [sc. the prophet]. Said he to them, ‘Return and repent.’ They answered, ‘If a master sells his slave, or a husband divorces his wife, — has one a claim upon the other?‘10 Thereupon the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet, ‘Go and say to them, Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your in

• Friday, November 12, 2010

  Searchgirl

  Again, I feel great sympathy for you.  Try to have a nice hate- free day. You need the break.

• Sunday, November 14, 2010

  Larry

  Come out of the closet, Shmuley! We all know you are Gay!!!

• Friday, December 03, 2010

  Larry

  What Have Homosexuals
  &
  Jews Got in Common?

  BOTH BLASPHEME THE NAME & PERSON OF JESUS MESSIAH!

  The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name
  By James Kirkup

  As they took him from the cross
  I, the centurion, took him in my arms-
  the tough lean body
  of a man no longer young,
  beardless, breathless,
  but well hung.

  He was still warm.
  While they prepared the tomb
  I kept guard over him.
  His mother and the Magdalen
  had gone to fetch clean linen
  to shroud his nakedness.

  I was alone with him.
  For the last time
  I kissed his mouth. My tongue
  found his, bitter with death.
  I licked his wound-
  the blood was harsh
  For the last time
  I laid my lips around the tip
  of that great cock, the instrument
  of our salvation, our eternal joy.
  The shaft, still throbbed, anointed
  with death’s final ejaculation

  I knew he’d had it off with other men-
  with Herod’s guards, with Pontius Pilate,
  With John the Baptist, with Paul of Tarsus
  with foxy Judas, a great kisser, with
  the rest of the Twelve, together and apart.
  He loved all men, body, soul and spirit. - even me.

  So now I took off my uniform, and, naked,
  lay together with him in his desolation,
  caressing every shadow of his cooling flesh,
  hugging him and trying to warm him back to life.
  Slowly the fire in his thighs went out,
  while I grew hotter with unearthly love.

  It was the only way I knew to speak our love’s proud name,
  to tell him of my long devotion, my desire, my dread-
  something we had never talked about. My spear, wet with blood,
  his dear, broken body all open wounds,
  and in each wound his side, his back,
  his mouth - I came and came and came.

  As if each coming was my last.
  And then the miracle possessed us.
  I felt him enter into me, and fiercely spend
  his spirit’s finbal seed within my hole, my soul,
  pulse upon pulse, unto the ends of the earth-
  he crucified me with him into kingdom come.

  -This is the passionate and blissful crucifixion
  same-sex lovers suffer, patiently and gladly.
  They inflict these loving injuries of joy and grace
  one upon the other, till they dies of lust and pain
  within the horny paradise of one another’s limbs,
  with one voice cry to heaven in a last divine release.

  Then lie long together, peacefully entwined, with hope
  of resurrection, as we did, on that green hill far away.
  But before we rose again, they came and took him from me.
  They knew not what we had done, but felt
  no shame or anger. Rather they were glad for us,
  and blessed us, as would he, who loved all men.

  And after three long, lonely days, like years,
  in which I roamed the gardens of my grief
  seeking for him, my one friend who had gone from me,
  he rose from sleep, at dawn, and showed himself to me before
  all others. And took me to him with
  the love that now forever dares to speak its name.

  James Falkender Kirkup, writer, translator and poet; born South Shields, Co Durham 23 April 1918; died Andorra 10 May 2009. Kirkup spent 91 years on this earth, but he will spend ETERNITY in the Lake of Fire.
  Now we will see what the Jews have to say about Jesus Messiah:
  Toldot Yeshu
  This is a derogatory version of the life of Jesus, growing out of the response of the Jewish community to Christianity. The tradition presented here is most commonly dated to approximately the 6th century CE. The text it self is closer to the 14th c. There is no scholarly consensus on to what extent the text might be a direct parody of a now lost gospel. H.J. Schonfield argued that it was so closely connected to the Gospel of the Hebrews that he attempted to reconstruct that lost work from the Toldot. There is not just one version of the story, and I have not found Goldstein vorlage on line, but there seems to be a version in Hebrew here.
  Text from Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, pp. 148-154. Most of the notes are mine, but they are clearly marked ([G] = Goldstein, [AH] = me)
  In the year 3671[1] in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah.
  Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing.
  At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will.
  Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam. Whereupon Yohanan went to Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah and related to him the tragic seduction. Lacking witnesses required for the punishment of Joseph Pandera, and Miriam being with child, Yohanan left for Babylonia.[2]
  Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu. On the eighth day he was circumcised. When he was old enough the lad was taken by Miriam to the house of study to be instructed in the Jewish tradition.
  One day Yeshu walked in front of the Sages with his head uncovered, showing shameful disrespect. At this, the discussion arose as to whether this behavior did not truly indicate that Yeshu was an illegitimate child and the son of a niddah[3]. Moreover, the story tells that while the rabbis were discussing the Tractate Nezikin, he gave his own impudent interpretation of the law and in an ensuing debate he held that Moses could not be the greatest of the prophets if he had to receive counsel from Jethro. This led to further inquiry as to the antecedents of Yeshu, and it was discovered through Rabban Shimeon ben Shetah that he was the illegitimate son of Joseph Pandera. Miriam admitted it.[4] After this became known, it was necessary for Yeshu to flee to Upper Galilee.
  After King Jannaeus, his wife Helene[5] ruled over all Israel. In the Temple was to be found the Foundation Stone on which were engraved the letters of God’s Ineffable Name. Whoever learned the secret of the Name and its use would be able to do whatever he wished. Therefore, the Sages took measures so that no one should gain this knowledge. Lions of brass were bound to two iron pillars at the gate of the place of burnt offerings. Should anyone enter and learn the Name, when he left the lions would roar at him and immediately the valuable secret would be forgotten.
  Yeshu came and learned the letters of the Name; he wrote them upon the parchment which he placed in an open cut on his thigh and then drew the flesh over the parchment. As he left, the lions roared and he forgot the secret. But when he came to his house he reopened the cut in his flesh with a knife an lifted out the writing. Then he remembered and obtained the use of the letters.[6]
  He gathered about himself three hundred and ten young men of Israel and accused those who spoke ill of his birth of being people who desired greatness and power for themselves. Yeshu proclaimed, “I am the Messiah; and concerning me Isaiah prophesied and said, ‘Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.’” He quoted other messianic texts, insisting, “David my ancestor prophesied concerning me: ‘The Lord said to me, thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee.’”
  The insurgents with him replied that if Yeshu was the Messiah he should give them a convincing sign. They therefore, brought to him a lame man, who had never walked. Yeshu spoke over the man the letters of the Ineffable Name, and the leper was healed. Thereupon, they worshipped him as the Messiah, Son of the Highest.
  When word of these happenings came to Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin decided to bring about the capture of Yeshu. They sent messengers, Annanui and Ahaziah, who, pretending to be his disciples, said that they brought him an invitation from the leaders of Jerusalem to visit them. Yeshu consented on condition the members of the Sanhedrin receive him as a lord. He started out toward Jerusalem and, arriving at Knob, acquired an ass on which he rode into Jerusalem, as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah.
  The Sages bound him and led him before Queen Helene, with the accusation: “This man is a sorcerer and entices everyone.” Yeshu replied, “The prophets long ago prophesied my coming: ‘And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse,’ and I am he; but as for them, Scripture says ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly.’”
  Queen Helene asked the Sages: “What he says, is it in your Torah?” They replied: “It is in our Torah, but it is not applicable to him, for it is in Scripture: ‘And that prophet which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.’ He has not fulfilled the signs and conditions of the Messiah.”
  Yeshu spoke up: “Madam, I am the Messiah and I revive the dead.” A dead body was brought in; he pronounced the letters of the Ineffable Name and the corpse came to life. The Queen was greatly moved and said: “This is a true sign.” She reprimanded the Sages and sent them humiliated from her presence. Yeshu’s dissident followers increased and there was controversy in Israel.
  Yeshu went to Upper Galilee. the Sages came before the Queen, complaining that Yeshu practiced sorcery and was leading everyone astray. Therefore she sent Annanui and Ahaziah to fetch him.
  The found him in Upper Galilee, proclaiming himself the Son of God. When they tried to take him there was a struggle, but Yeshu said to the men of Upper Galilee: “Wage no battle.” He would prove himself by the power which came to him from his Father in heaven. He spoke the Ineffable Name over the birds of clay and they flew into the air. He spoke the same letters over a millstone that had been placed upon the waters. He sat in it and it floated like a boat. When they saw this the people marveled. At the behest of Yeshu, the emissaries departed and reported these wonders to the Queen. She trembled with astonishment.
  Then the Sages selected a man named Judah Iskarioto and brought him to the Sanctuary where he learned the letters of the Ineffable Name as Yeshu had done.
  When Yeshu was summoned before the queen, this time there were present also the Sages and Judah Iskarioto. Yeshu said: “It is spoken of me, ‘I will ascend into heaven.’” He lifted his arms like the wings of an eagle and he flew between heaven and earth, to the amazement of everyone.
  The elders asked Iskarioto to do likewise. He did, and flew toward heaven. Iskarioto attempted to force Yeshu down to earth but neither one of the two could prevail against the other for both had the use of the Ineffable Name. However, Iskarioto defiled Yeshu, so that they both lost their power and fell down to the earth, and in their condition of defilement the letters of the Ineffable Name escaped from them. Because of this deed of Judah they weep on the eve of the birth of Yeshu.
  Yeshu was seized. His head was covered with a garment and he was smitten with pomegranate staves; but he could do nothing, for he no longer had the Ineffable Name.
  Yeshu was taken prisoner to the synagogue of Tiberias, and they bound him to a pillar. To allay his thirst they gave him vinegar to drink. On his head they set a crown of thorns. There was strife and wrangling between the elders and the unrestrained followers of Yeshu, as a result of which the followers escaped with Yeshu to the region of Antioch[7]; there Yeshu remained until the eve of the Passover.
  [8] Yeshu then resolved to go the Temple to acquire again the secret of the Name. That year the Passover came on a Sabbath day. On the eve of the Passover, Yeshu, accompanied by his disciples, came to Jerusalem riding upon an ass. Many bowed down before him. He entered the Temple with his three hundred and ten followers. One of them, Judah Iskarioto[9] apprised the Sages that Yeshu was to be found in the Temple, that the disciples had taken a vow by the Ten Commandments not to reveal his identity but that he would point him out by bowing to him. So it was done and Yeshu was seized. Asked his name, he replied to the question by several times giving the names Mattai, Nakki, Buni, Netzer, each time with a verse quoted by him and a counter-verse by the Sages.
  Yeshu was put to death on the sixth hour on the eve of the Passover and of the Sabbath. When they tried to hang him on a tree it broke, for when he had possessed the power he had pronounced by the Ineffable Name that no tree should hold him. He had failed to pronounce the prohibition over the carob-stalk[10], for it was a plant more than a tree, and on it he was hanged until the hour for afternoon prayer, for it is written in Scripture, “His body shall not remain all night upon the tree.” They buried him outside the city.
  On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.
  Queen Helene demanded, on threat of a severe penalty, that the body of Yeshu be shown to her within a period of three days. There was a great distress. When the keeper of the garden saw Rabbi Tanhuma walking in the field and lamenting over the ultimatum of the Queen, the gardener related what he had done, in order that Yeshu’s followers should not steal the body and then claim that he had ascended into heaven. The Sages removed the body, tied it to the tail of a horse and transported it to the Queen, with the words, “This is Yeshu who is said to have ascended to heaven.” Realizing that Yeshu was a false prophet who enticed the people and led them astray, she mocked the followers but praised the Sages.
  The disciples went out among the nations—three went to the mountains of Ararat, three to Armenia, three to Rome and three to the kingdoms buy the sea, They deluded the people, but ultimately they were slain.
  The erring followers amongst Israel said: “You have slain the Messiah of the Lord.” The Israelites answered: “You have believed in a false prophet.” There was endless strife and discord for thirty years.
  The Sages desired to separate from Israel those who continued to claim Yeshu as the Messiah, and they called upon a greatly learned man, Simeon Kepha, for help. Simeon went to Antioch, main city of the Nazarenes and proclaimed toe them: “I am the disciple of Yeshu. He has sent me to show you the way. I will give you a sign as Yeshu has done.”
  Simeon, having gained the secret of the Ineffable Name, healed a leper and a lame man by means of it and thus found acceptance as a true disciple. He told them that Yeshu was in heaven, at the right hand of his Father, in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. He added that Yeshu desired that they separate themselves from the Jews and no longer follow their practices, as Isaiah had said, “Your new moons and your feasts my soul abhorreth.” They were now to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, the Resurrection instead of the Passover, the Ascension into Heaven instead of the Feast of Weeks, the finding of the Cross instead of the New Year, the Feast of the Circumcision instead of the Day of Atonement, the New Year instead of Chanukah; they were to be indifferent with regard to circumcision and the dietary laws. Also they were to follow the teaching of turning the right if smitten on the left and the meek acceptance of suffering. All these new ordinances which Simeon Kepha (or Paul, as he was known to the Nazarenes) taught them were really meant to separate these Nazarenes from the people of Israel and to bring the internal strife to an end.
  [1] About 90, BC. [G]
  [2] Some traditions say ‘Egypt’. [AH]
  [3] Sexual impurity (incest, adultery, prostitution, etc.). [AH]
  [4] In one version of this admission, she confesses that not only is Yeshu the product of an illicit union, but she was ritually unclean from menstruation at the time as well (Sexual contact even with a woman’s husband is not lawful during, or, in Rabbinic law, for some time after, menstruation). [AH]
  [5] Salome Alexandra. [G]
  [6] Consistent, apparently, with the general tenor of Jewish criticism of Jesus’ miracles going at least as far back as Celsus (2nd c.) this tradition does not deny Jesus’ ability to perform miracles, accusing him instead of practicing magic. This version even accepts the divine origin of the miracles, attributing them to his misuse of the divine name, with its inherent powers. In the Alphabet of Ben Sira, Lilith is accused of the same crime, using the power of the name to escape from the Garden of Eden. [AH]
  [7] Some traditions say ‘Egypt’. [G]
  [8] In a variation on the story, Judah is able to out-miracle Yeshu in the sign contest without defiling him. Yeshu is discredited and arrested, and, as in this story, his followers are able to break him free, but he still remembers the Ineffable Name. He escapes to Egypt in hopes of learning Egyptian magic as well (regarded as the best magic in the world). Judah comes to Egypt and infiltrates the disciples, posing as one himself. It is from this vantage point that he is able to cause Yeshu to forget the magical Name, resulting in the later’s desire to return to Jerusalem and relearn it. Judah sends warning to the Sages, along with his plan to arrest him. [AH]
  [9] Aramaic: Ga’isa. [G]
  [10] Or cabbage stalk. [AH]
  Prepared by Alan Humm

Next Page