Judaism discovered

The Modern Line: Blame the Romans, anyone but the Pharisees

Don't expect straight talk from the Vatican on much of anything except when it comes to "combatting antisemitism," then the unambiguous, pro-forma peals of thunder and bolts of lightning will indeed roll. With regard to other issues however, their tongues are forked as a matter of course, since they are so utterly submerged in the philosophy of the Talmud, Kabbalah, Mishneh Torah, Machiavelli, Hegel and Husserl. Therefore we must watch closely and with the utmost attention in order to detect the line promoted by the Pope's own homilist, the previously introduced Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa. Judaism's campaign against Christianity involves more than

.

415

episodic concealment/divulgence of the Talmudic "counternarrative." Judaism also pursues this goal in the realm of apportioning responsibility for the murder of Jesus; a campaign pursued as much in the media and the popular culture of books and cinema as in the realm of suborning theologians and university scholars. The main point, emphasized with a sledgehammer in recent televised dramas about ancient Rome, and, on the other hand, with the finesse of Machiavelli by Cantalamessa, is that the Pharisees are not guilty, or they are of lesser guilt painted in existential shades-of-gray intended to confuse and disarm Christians. The main villain in these accounts is the Romans. It's a sure test of rabbinic influence when one encounters a supposedly Christian source expounding on the notion that the principal movers and shakers behind the killing of Christ were the Romans. As we read the text of the sermon by the Pope's personal preacher, keep in mind that it is the Pharisees and not the Sadducees who are the founders of rabbinic Judaism. Note how he blames the Sadducees and lessens the guilt of the Pharisees (with the requisite qualifications of course):

The True Jesus of the Gospels (Part 3). Commentary by Father Raniero Cantalamessa Vatican City, May 16, 2007, (Zenit.org). — Here is a translation of the Italian-language commentary by Capuchin Father Raniero Cantalamessa, preacher of the Pontifical Household... "Joachim Jeremias has shown the anti-Pharisaic motivation present in almost all of Jesus' parables. The Gospel data is just that much more credible insofar as the contrast with the Pharisees is not at all prejudicial or general. Jesus has friends among them (Nicodemus is one of them); we find him at dinner in one of their houses; they are willing at least to dispute with him and to take him seriously, unlike the Sadducees. Without denying therefore that the later situation did something to further the contrast, it is impossible to eliminate every opposition between Jesus and an influential part of the Jewish leadership without completely unraveling the Gospels and making them historically incomprehensible...Of course Pilate was not so sensitive to the demands of justice to be worried about the fate of an unknown Jew; he was a hard and cruel type, ready to suppress with blood the tiniest hint of rebellion. All of that is true enough. However, he did not try to save Jesus out of compassion for the victim but only to score a point against his accusers with whom he had been in a cold war since his arrival in Judea. Naturally, this does not at all diminish Pilate's responsibility in Christ's condemnation. He was just as

416

responsible as the Jewish leaders. ...the New Testament sources which on the one hand highlight the participation of the Jewish authorities (of the Sadducees more than the Pharisees) in the Chrisfs condemnation, and on the other hand often excuse them, attributing their actions to ignorance (cf. Luke 23:34; Acts 3:17; 1 Corinthians 2:8). Raymond Brown also comes to this conclusion in his 1608 page book on The Death of the Messiah." (End quote from Cantalamessa).

"...they are willing at least to dispute with him and to take him seriously..." Father Cantalamessa is grasping at straws. Seeking to ingratiate himself with his rabbinic masters, he's desperate to find anything positive to say about the Pharisees. He seizes on their penchant for setting crafty verbal traps for Jesus as a means of embarrassing and discrediting Him in public. Rev. Cantalamessa finds virtue in this! In the Roman Pilate, who declared he could find nothing evil in Jesus, the papal preacher locates the axis of iniquity: "...he did not try to save Jesus out of compassion for the victim but only to score a point against his accusers." How does Father Cantalamessa know this? Pilate risked the ire of his superiors in Rome by seeming to seek to spare Jesus, a "rabble-rouser" who a majority of own Jewish people despised and wanted dead. "Pilate sought to release Him: but the Jews cried out, saying, if thou let this man go, thou are not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." (John 19:12).

And Pilate only really risked this, not because of any justice in himself, but as a "cold-warrior" merely seeking to score some "points" against his Pharisaic adversaries? How does Cantalamessa know this? What is his evidence — his own prestige as capo of the ecclesiastic Mafia in the Vatican? All the available evidence about Pilate testifies to the contrary. Cantalamessa concludes with two lies, the latter a real whopper: 1. that the Sadducees were more guilty of deicide than the Pharisees, and 2. that Pilate was "just as responsible as the Jewish leaders." This is a boldface lie. In John 19:11, Jesus tells Pilate, "He that delivered Me unto thee hath the greater sin."

417

BT Sanhedrin 43a on Jesus* relationship with the Roman authorities

Moreover, the Babylonian Talmud, for what it's worth, in Sanhedrin 43a taught Judaics that the Romans were favorable toward Jesus and did not want to execute him: "Rather it must be that the case against Jesus was different, because he had close connections with the non-Jewish authorities, and those authorities were interested in his acquittal." ⁴⁷⁴

Writing in Oxford University's sophisticated and cerebral The Oxford Bible Commentary, CM. Tuckett engages in the modernist fad of casting doubt on the authenticity of the New Testament account of the life, trial and death of Jesus: "There are perennial problems of the historical reliability of John...The Markan account has been somewhat embroidered and we certainly cannot simply read it as a straight transcript of what actually happened." ⁴⁷⁵ Yet, Tuckett relies upon the rabbinic Mishnah (Sanhedrin 7:5) for supposedly correctly perceiving the charge of blasphemy against Jesus by the Sanhedrin, as related in Mark 14:64. For Tuckett, the Mishnah is credible. The Gospel of Mark is not. Tuckett is so duplicitous however, that he omits quoting from the rabbinic texts when the citation would undercut his thesis. For example, he leaves out all reference to the Babylonian Talmud's account in Sanhedrin
418

43a of Jesus having Roman friends in high places when he wants to echo Cantalamessa and make the point that Mark's "picture of Pilate...in no way squares with what we know from elsewhere of the man, viz., a cruel tyrant who would not have had the slightest compunction in executing an odd Jew or two...Pilate simply ordered Jesus' crucifixion without any compunction at all." ⁴⁷⁶

The modern world conspires to qualify, modify, moderate and mitigate, like a shyster lawyer, the guilt of the founders of the religion of Judaism.⁴⁷⁷ This is very important to them due to the fact that the book you are reading offers evidence that the religion of Orthodox Judaism is the direct descendant and continuation of the religion of the Pharisees. We have offered this evidence since the year 2000, in this book's predecessor, Judaism's Strange Gods.⁴⁷⁸ As this knowledge leaks out, it is more than ever incumbent upon operators like the Vatican's Cantalamessa and Oxford's Tuckett to make certain that the Romans take the lion's share of the blame for that which the Jewish leaders, including the Pharisees, are guilty.

What is there to debate after 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15? "...the Jews Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." To argue that the Romans bear the lion's share of responsibility for the death of Jesus is a contrived debate motivated by a desire to serve and appease rabbinic and Zionist power on earth. We have the unambiguous statement of Scripture in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15. This Scripture statement was made by the Apostle Paul without qualifications of any kind.

.

419

"It is generally agreed that I Thessalonians was written about A.D. 50, and certainly Paul would have had the idea that Jews killed the Lord Jesus long before he wrote this letter. Indeed, since Paul was in Jerusalem and hostile to Christians shortly after Jesus' death (Gal. 1:13, 18), this passage is a very serious challenge to the thesis that there was no Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus."

It was by the Jewish leaders' malice that Christ was killed and there was nothing new in that: "This is the heir, let us kill him" (Matt. 21:38). Those who killed Jesus were, by their own testimony, "the descendants of them that killed the prophets" (Matt. 23:31). The spirit of persecution was a tradition with them, descending from one generation to another and Jesus prophesied that they would continue these crimes: "Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town" (Matt. 23:34). Paul testified that this was transpiring in his time: they were contrary to all men, that is, hindering the course of the Gospel appointed for humanity's salvation and despising all other nations in comparison to themselves. This situation continues in our day, with the difference being that those priests and ministers in our time who call themselves followers of Jesus and imitators of Paul, assist Judaism in hindering the course of the Gospel.

In the next passage in Thess., v. 16, Paul states that the leaders of the Jews are under God's "wrath" for these actions of theirs. So too are all the ones masquerading as "Christians" who, so as to be seen as respectable in the eyes of the world and its media, and to advance their business, career, celebrity, power or bank account, defend to lesser or greater degrees, the Pharisees, the Talmud, Midrash or Kabbalah, the rabbis or the Israeli Zionism that is the product of these spiritual plagues, these Christ-killing ideologies.

Granted, it is absolutely wrong to call a person of Judiac descent a "Christ-killer." The Talmudists have really made hay out of that one: "Prior to the Holocaust, as a child of six, the Christians chased me down the street, calling me a Christ killer." By hearing stories like that one many times in a variety of forums and venues, horrified Christians are persuaded of an enormous non-sequitur: that we are not to regard the religion of Orthodox Judaism (the continuation of the creed of the Pharisees), as a Christ-killing ideology. But if we are indeed Christians, then it is certainly fitting, necessary and just, to

420

dare to speak as Jesus and Paul did, and to call the ideology of Judaism a Christ-killing phenomenon whose recurrence was prophesied.

Gentile racists do the work of the rabbis when targeting some hapless Judaic child, who did not choose his or her Judaic ethnicity, as a "Christ killer." This is contrary to Scripture: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Ephesians 6:12). A synonym for this spiritual wickedness is the Christ-killing ideology. The Romans embodied no such spirituality or ideology. Roman citizenship protected the Apostle Paul. Roman armies fulfilled Christ's prophecy concerning the religion of Judaism by destroying the Temple of Jerusalem. The Reformation doctrine of identifying Rome as the Antichrist, was a factor in producing the lamentable predicament in which we find ourselves today, wherein the Gospel has been counterfeited and Rome has replaced the leaders of the first century Jews as the alleged central malefactor in the New Testament.

Much rabbinic deceit is based on distraction. It is an irony that some Reformation biblicists removed Judaism from principal focus as the primary example of spiritual wickedness in high places, as indicated by the preceding Scripture verses, and, derogating those passages, replaced Judaism with Rome, a move which continues to disarm Christians of the twenty-first century by distracting attention away from the premier Christ-killing ideology on earth, now as in the first century A.D., rabbinic Judaism. That Judaism allies with a subordinate, apostate Rome we neither deny nor minimize. But for Protestants to believe that Rome surpasses Judaism in iniquity, or for Catholics to believe the same about Protestantism, is the sucker trap that undergirds centuries of shameful sectarian wars of religion that have pitted Christian against Christian to the delight of the rabbinate, who, depending on the time and circumstances, gave aid to one side or the other, the better to fan the flames of Christian fratricide and divide and conquer.

We will grant that there is room for discussion on New Testament passages that speak of certain persons who "know not what they do" as they crucify Christ (Luke 23:34; also cf. I Cor. 2:8; Acts 3:17), although for us this issue is definitively resolved in light of the precedence we must assign to Christ's own words about the condemnation of these persons in John 3:19; and more

421

specifically the key passage in John 15:22 about there being no excuse; also John 15:24. John MacArthur's comment on Luke 23:34 is insightful: "...their ignorance certainly did not mean that they deserved forgiveness; rather, their spiritual blindness was itself a manifestation of their guilt (John 3:19).^{w 479} Dr. MacArthur seems to be giving voice to Thomas Aquinas, who stated:

"...their ignorance did not excuse them from crime, because it was, as it were, affected ignorance. For they saw manifest signs of His Godhood. Hence, He Himself says of them in John 15:22: 'If I had not come, and spoken to them they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.' And John 15:24 'If I had not done among them the works that no other man had done, they would not have sin....Bede likewise says, 'It is to be observed that he does not pray for those who, understanding Him to be the Son of God, preferred to crucify Him rather than acknowledge Him.'...All this shows that while they beheld Christ's marvelous works, it was owing to their hatred that they did not allow him to be the Son of God...The rulers of the Jews knew that he was Christ: and if there was any ignorance in them, then it was affected ignorance, which could not excuse them...Among the Jews, some were elders, and others of lesser degree...those of lesser degree—namely the common folk...The Jews of the common order sinned most grievously as to the kind of their sin: yet in one respect their crime was lessened by their ignorance...they were deceived ...by their rulers so that they did not believe Him to be the Son of God or the Christ."⁴⁸⁰

.

422

The Institutionalization of Child Molestation in the Religion of Judaism Sexual Intercourse with Boys Less than Nine Years of Age: "Not a Significant Act"

GEMARA 3T "ligjj rrrirp 2T\ "inK Rav Yehudah said in the name of Ravi If a young boy less than nine years old has intercourse with a grown woman, his act places her in the category of a woman who has been injured by a stick, and whose hymen was ruptured as a result. Even though intercourse with a boy under nine years old is not considered a significant sexual act, it is no less intrusive than a stick that causes the hymen to be ruptured. Therefore, according to the Sages who maintain that a woman who was injured by a stick is no longer considered a virgin, a woman who has had intercourse with a boy less than nine years old is also considered a non-virgin, entitled to a ketubah of only 100 dinarim. Rav Yehudah continued: When I reported this ruling before Shmuel, He said; ⁶The laws pertaining to a woman who was injured by a stick do not apply in a case where the woman's body was penetrated by the flesh of a young boy. Thus, according to Shmuel, even the Sages — who maintain that a woman who was injured by a stick is no longer treated as a virgin — agree that a woman who has intercourse with a boy younger than nine years old is entitled to a ketubah of 200 dinarim when she marries.

"...intercourse with a boy under nine years old is not considered a significant sexual act..."

object of sodomy. If a boy

under the age of nine perpe trated sodomy upon ^n adult, the adult is not liable for punishment, for the intercourse of a boy under nine years of age is not legally an act of intercourse. Since a child less than nine years old cannot commit sodomy, he can also not be the

object of sodomy.

"...a child less than nine years old cannot...be the object of sodomy" (even if he has been sodomized)

BT Sanhedrin 54b

423

This Baraita supports Rav, for it teaches that if a man engaged in homosexual intercourse with a child under the age of nine, he is exempt from liability.

BT Sanhedrin 54b

("Baraita" denotes a tradition that emanates from the Gemara or post-Gemara rulings rather than from the Mishnah).

The Signposts of the Religion of Babylon

What are the signposts of the religion of Babylon? First, homosexual predation, especially homosexual sex with young children. If the Talmud reflects the religion of pagan Babylon, and not the laws and truths of the Bible, the Talmud will allow homosexual congress with young boys and here is the evidence that it does, photographically reproduced directly from the Steinsaltz Talmud (and this is probably why publication of the volumes of the Steinsaltz Talmud was stopped midway through publication and dropped completely. It's now out of print, in favor of redacted translations such as the recent Artscroll/Schottenstein edition).

If the reader were to ask a rabbi about the uncensored text of Sanhedrin 54B, after the rabbi recovered from his shock that you even were aware of it, he's likely to fob you off with the oft-heard claim that this Talmud passage was "just Rav's opinion in a debate with Shmuel." What he is not likely to reveal to you is that the post-Talmudic codifier of Judaic law, Moses Maimonides, confirmed that Rav's ruling about sex with a boy less than nine years old was the correct one — the adult is exempt from liability for having sex with a boy less than nine years of age. (Maimonides' decision in favor of Rav's depraved ruling may be found in Issurei Biah 1:14).

Moreover, the text of BT Ketubot lib and of Sanhedrin 54b photographically reproduced from the Steinsaltz Talmud on the previous page, fully support the halakha that the age of nine is the key factor in

424

determining when sex with a boy is permissible. Judaism's halakha, as derived from the "sages" of the Babylonian Talmud, amounts to a free pass for Talmudic child molesters. ⁴⁸¹

Wl ^$ 'Our Rabbis taught the following Ba-ratta: If a woman acted lewdly with her minor son, in the course of which he engaged with her in the Hist stage of sexual intercourse, ²the School of Shammai say: He disqualified fecr from marrying into the

priesthood. ³And the School of

Met disagree and say that she

remains fit to marry into the

priesthood.-

BT Sanhedrin 69b

HALAKHAH 1fJ9 Mil ijijy y«;n fji_ne years and one day old. "If a and he is exempt. If he is less than nine, both the woman "°y who is nine years and one day old has sexual and the boy are exempt, following the School of Hillel." 'niercourse with a woman who is forbidden to him, she is (Rambam, Sc/cr Kedushah. Hilkhot issurei Bi'ah 1:13; shul-■iabLe to be punished (and becomes a zonah so that she is ban Anikh, Even HaEzer 6.9; 167: l.) ■hereafter disqualified from marrying into the priesthood),

Sex between a Judaic woman and a child: the halakhah (law) of BT Sanhedrin 69b as recorded by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, the head of the modern Sanhedrin. ⁴⁸²

In terms of sex with a male child, the age of nine is a determining factor in Judaism, no matter what the gender of the pederast, whether an adult woman, or an adult man. In BT Sanhedrin 69b, it is argued that a woman having sex with a boy less than nine is an act that is exempt from punishment (and therefore permissible), and does not render her a zonah (prostitute) or disqualify her from a marrying a Judaic priest, because sex with male children less than age nine is not considered sex. We have photographically reproduced the relevant passage from the Steinsaltz

.

425

Talmud, above. The actual reference in Sanhedrin 69b is to sex between a mother and her own son! If her son is less than nine years-of-age, then it's rabbinically permissible for her to engage in it with him.

While the school of Shammai objected to her being eligible to marry a priest, they were overruled by Maimonides and the other penultimate halachic decisor, Rabbi Karo, in the Shulhan Aruch; but the original ruling exempting the punishment and disqualification of the incestuous molesting mother, which came to be accepted as halakha by the majority, was made by Hillel, the one we're repeatedly told was the "good Pharisee" who allegedly has "so much in common with Jesus." Yet here's that "good Pharisee" establishing the utterly depraved and barbaric principle that sex between a mother and her son does not actually qualify as sex, if the son is less than nine years-old.

426

The Halacha of Mesirah

Most of these acts of perversion performed between Orthodox Judaic men and young boys, or Orthodox Judaic women and young boys are hushed up, thanks to a culture of silence, because in Judaic law, a moser (also spelled moisser) is one who stoops to "maser" (inform) on a fellow Judaic; which is, technically, a death penalty offense drawn from the halachic conception of mesirah, defined as "handing over a Judaic to an "antisemitic" state government that could do harm to the Judaic in question." In England in the summer of 1991 the Judaic parents of a little girl allegedly molested by Philip Eli Cohen were violently attacked after "Cohen, 18 was convicted at Southwark Crown Court of indecently assaulting a five year old girl. After the conviction more than 100 members of the community attacked the home of the girl's parents with bricks and iron bars, reviling the parents as moissers, the Yiddish word for informants. Even as they chanted 'moisser, moisser, moisser,' they kept to their rigid gender separations — men threatening from one side of the street, women on the other. The police had to find the family a safe-house, fearing for their lives and those of their two young children."

Under such circumstances the criminality of the Judaic is not an issue. This is quite an enormous loophole for Judaic perpetrators when we consider that the rabbis view almost all gentile governments as "antisemitic" to one degree or another. Occasionally however, some reports of these crimes having been allegedly perpetrated, reach the media, particularly in the Israeli state:

"A couple from the community of Elad was arrested on Thursday on suspicion of abusing their 11-month-old son. The mother was allegedly filmed by her husband performing oral sex on the boy and simulating the movements of sexual intercourse....The wife's attorney, Noga Sidi, said this weekend that her client was 'upset, confused and in shock' and that she fainted when she saw the videotapes during her interrogation. She was briefly hospitalized and then examined by a psychiatrist, who determined that she could be held in detention. Sidi intends to request a more thorough examination. 'When she saw the pictures she said she wanted to die. She doesn't remember her actions because she was under the influence of tranquilizers that her husband gave her, according to her,' Sidi said. The woman told police her husband apparently edited out from the tapes his own

427

verbal instructions to her. Relatives of the woman said yesterday that the husband's actions were a bid to win 'Brownie points' in their divorce proceedings. 'He wants to get custody of the baby and to divorce her without having to pay alimony. He was sure the best way to do it was to frame her and present her as mentally ill,' the woman's brother told Haaretz yesterday....Elad is a community for ultra-Orthodox Jews." ⁴⁸³