Zone1 Are any Christians here interested to know WHY Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Messiah?

[BreezeWood]

Lie. He claimed to be God.

the jews claimed he claimed to be divinity ... a state possible for a mortal in a state of purity for which no jew has ever attained.

jesus new the truth - about judaism.

 

[Meriweather]

Let's assume for a moment that the Sadducees who ran the court conspired in the way you suggest. Then they would have to throw out much of Jewish law and yet still maintain any position of authority within the community. This is untenable. This would also then absolve modern Jews from any claim of deicide as the Sadducee sect died out -- modern Jews developed from the Pharisaic tradition.

Jews--modern or in that day and age--did not commit either homicide or deicide. That is ridiculous. It still seems more of a political issue where those in authority needed (and were even desperate) to preserve their own power. The other thing that argues against deicide is that Jesus himself said he would lay down his life for this friends.

I once read an account that took note of how unlikely Jews were to interrupt their Passover celebration to suddenly convene that evening. It does appear there had been an uprising in Jerusalem that day, and the leaders had been arrested. Then there was that unlikely trade of Jesus for Barabbas. Gamaliel was President or (Rabban) of the Sanhedrin of the time. What if it had been the son of the Rabban (Bar-rabban) that had been arrested, and the Sanhedrin had to convince Rome they had the wrong man--that Rome wanted that man Jesus who called himself Barabbas (Son of the Father). They could even point to the incident at the Temple where Jesus had overturned the money tables.

The last thing the Sanhedrin could afford at that time would be to have been in any way associated with an uprising. It would have been something vital enough to interrupt even a Passover celebration.

Interesting theory, but nothing that could ever be proven. But I was interested that someone noted the unlikely event of the Sanhedrin meeting during a Passover meal--something on par with the Supreme Court suddenly gathering on Thanksgiving or Christmas. For that to happen, something vital would have to be occurring.

 

[BreezeWood]

A Jewish court couldn't use as an excuse something completely unrelated to Jewish law.

jesus renounced moses as a - liar.

 

[TruthNotBS]

so you know how I act? How psychic of you. Now tell me what color shirt I'm wearing.

You need to stop apologizing.

Isa 60:8-22 Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? (9) Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of Yahweh thy Elohim, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath honored thee. (10) And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. (11) Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. (12) For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. (13) The abundance of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet honorable. (14) The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of Yahweh, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. (15) Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. (16) Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I Yahweh am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. (17) For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. (18) Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. (19) The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but Yahweh shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy Elohim thy renown. (20) Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for Yahweh shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. (21) Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be honored. (22) A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I Yahweh will hasten it in his time.


All you had to do was cite the above passage and highlight the end, showing how it will be fulfilled in the messianic age. Now there is war in Israel and Jewish homosexuals thumbing their noses at YHWH in the streets. The only way for the Jewish State to survive is to purge itself of all of its enemies by force (gunpoint), but since Israel is currently a secular, non-Orthodox-led, vassal state of the goyim, namely the United States, it can't do that, without losing its yearly welfare check.

The Orthodox Jews need to take the land for themselves, by force and expel everyone not willing to live Torah. The only people permitted to live in the holy land should be Jewish people and the Noachide, who keep the seven laws of Noach. The non-Jewish friends of Israel. All snakes and scorpions must be expelled.

According to the Talmud:

All the blessings which Gentiles enjoy come to them only because of God's regard for Israel. (BT Yebamoth 63a).

If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed (BT Sanhedrin 58b).

A gentile who strikes a Jew deserves death. Striking a Jew is in God's eyes an assault on the Divine Presence. (BT Sanhedrin 58b)

Gentiles are inclined to bestiality, lewdness, and murder. Gentiles prefer sexual relations with cows more than with their own wives. Eve had sexual intercourse with the serpent, transmitting lust to the gentiles, from which Israelites are exempt. (BT Abodah Zarah 22a)

A Gentile who observes the Sabbath deserves death. (BT Sanhedrin 58b).

God is displeased when Jews show hospitality to Gentiles. (BT Sanhedrin 104a).

It is forbidden to teach Gentiles the Law. (BT Hagigah 13a).

A Gentile who studies the Law deserves death. (BT Sanhedrin 59a).

It is permissible to cheat a Gentile in court. (BT Haba Kamma U3a).

If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile it does not have to be returned. (BT Baba Mezia 24a. Mfirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a gentile." Whoever returns a lost article to a gentile is under the curse of God." (BT Sanhedrin 76a).

Essentially justifying stealing from the goyim. This is also what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):

"...Regarding theft - a thief, a robber, one who takes a (captive) beautiful woman, and the like - these are things it is forbidden for a gentile [to perpetrate] against a gentile, or (against) a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew (to perpetrate) against a gentile."

Property of gentiles is like the desert; whoever among the Jews gets there first, owns it. (BT Baba Bathra 54b).

If a gentile loses something, a Jew may keep it, even if he knows the owner. (BT Baba Kamma 113b).

If the majority of people in an area are Gentiles, a Jew may just keep the lost article. If the majority are Jews, an effort must be made to find the owner. (BT Baba Mezia 24a).

A gentile must pay wages to a Jew, but a Jew does not have to pay wages to a Gentile. (BT Sanhedrin 57a).

The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." (BT Baba Kamma 37b).

If a gentile robs a Jew, he must pay him back. But whatever a Jew robs from a gentile, the Jew may keep.

Dr. Shahak and his co-author, Prof. Mezvinsky, qualify this injunction thus: "The Halacha permits Jews to rob non-Jews in those locales wherein Jews are stronger than non-Jews. The Halacha prohibits Jews from robbing non-Jews in those locales wherein the non-Jews are stronger." (Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, p. 71).

Many rabbinic injunctions are thus qualified by the spirit of the times and the position and power of the followers of Judaism within Gentile society

Some robbery of gentiles is disguised as "confiscation of an unpaid debt" (Bava Kama 1 13b; also Bava Metzia I 1 1b).

According to Tosafos in Bava Metzia 87b (s.v. Ela), even those who propose that gezel of a Cuthian (theft from a Gentile) is permitted admit that it is prohibited by the Torah if the act might lead to the desecration of God's name" (loss of prestige and power in gentile society).

A Gentile, is not a brother or a neighbor:

BT Sanhedrin 52B: "A non-Jew is not considered a neighbor."

cr. Rabbi Shimon Finkelman, Lag Ba'omer: Its observance, Laws and Significance (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1999), p. 39.

"Rashi wrote on the beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael b'goy mutar:

"For 'You shall not exploit your neighbor is written, and it is not written 'a gentile'...

Bava Metzia 111b:

"And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' - and not a gentile. But isn't it appropriate to learn that a gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his brother'? One (phrase) comes to permit exploiting him (a gentile) and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a gentile is permitted."

And thus it is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin 57a. The Rama also ruled this way in Even Ha'ezer, paragraph 28, section 1, and also the Maharsha in "Yam shel Shlomo" on Bava Kama, paragraph 20. The wording for this ruling on the permissibility of stealing from a goy and how gentiles do not qualify as a brother or neighbor is corroborated in Dikdukei Sofrim, see sections 40 and 50; and in the quotations in the novellae of Nachmanides, the Ran, and Tosaphot HaRosh.

As a precaution in case snooping goyim should discover this teaching and raise a storm of protest, the rabbis inserted an escape clause:

"But there is a rabbinic prohibition, according to the one who says that robbery of a gentile is forbidden because of desecration of G-d's name in the last chapter 'HaGozel' (chapter 10 of Bava Batra)."

This deceitful clause has not in any way ameliorated the treatment of the goyim by robber rabbis and other Talmudists. Robbery of a goy is forbidden in case: where such robbery will result in harm to Judaism ("desecration of G-d's name"), This is an example of the rabbinic predilection for inserting decoy texts within their sacred writings.


Rabbi Saadya Grama of Beth Medrash Govoha, "the Lakewood yeshiva," a renowned Talmudic academy located in Lakewood, New Jersey, in his book Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut ("Jewish Superiority and the Question of Exile," published in 2003), states:

"The Jew by his source and in his very essence is entirely good. The goy, by his source and in his very essence, is completely evil. This is not simply a matter of religious distinction, but rather of two completely different species."

According to Rabbi Grama:

"Jewish success in the world is completely contingent upon the failure of other peoples. Jews experience good fortune only when gentiles experience catastrophe...The difference between Jews and gentiles is not historical or cultural, but rather genetic and unalterable."

In Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut, Rabbi Grama further states that the Torah mandates that Jews, while in exile, should employ such means as:

"appeasement, deception, duplicity, and bribery in their dealing with gentiles."

Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut was endorsed by the most eminent rabbinic authorities at the Lakewood yeshiva, including the rosh yeshiva (head of the academy), Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler, who praised Grama's book for its teaching on: "the subjects of the Exile, the Election of Israel and her exaltation above and superiority to all other nations, all in accordance with the viewpoint of the Torah, based on the solid instruction he has received from his teachers."

The Lakewood yeshiva's bachelor and master's degree programs in Talmud instruction are accredited by the State of New Jersey's Commission on Higher Education. The U.s. Congress, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, awarded the yeshiva $500,000 in federal funds to establish a Holocaust memorial library:

"$500,000 shall be awarded to the Beth Medrash Govoha, Lakewood, New Jersey, for equipment and exhibits for the Holocaust Library..." The taxpayer funding was sponsored by New Jersey's U.S. Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg. 4U6 H.R. 2673. l08th Congress.

Rabbi Kook the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency in Jewish fundamentalism, said, 'The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews-all of them in all different levels-is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.'

Rabbi Kook's entire teaching is followed devoutly by, among others, those who have led the settler movement in the occupied West Bank. According to the ideologies which underlie Gush Emunum, the militant West Bank settlers group, and Hasidism, non-Jews have 'satanic souls'. Members of Gush Emunum argue that 'what appears to be confiscation of Arab-owned land for subsequent settlement by Jews is in reality not an act of stealing but one of sanctification.'From their perspective, the land is redeemed by being transferred from the satanic to the divine sphere.

"Common to both the Talmud and the Halacha, Orthodox religious law, is a differentiation between Jews and non-Jews. The highly revered Rabbi Menachem Mandel Schneerson, who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence in Israel as well as in the U.S., explained that:

' The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: 'Let us differentiate.' Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior leveL Rather we have a case of 'let us differentiate' between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of (members) of all nations of the world...A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity'


The Book of Education, a popular Orthodox religious manual that is reprinted in many inexpensive editions subsidized by the Israeli government, was written by an anonymous rabbi in early 14th century Spain. It explains the 613 religious obligations (mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in which they are supposed to be found in the Pentateuch according to Talmudic interpretation. A central aim of this book is to emphasize the 'correct' meaning of the Bible with respect to such terms as 'fellow,' 'friend,' or 'man.'

Thus #219, is devoted to the religious obligation arising from the verse 'thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself is entitled, 'A religious obligation to love Jews,' and explains:

'To love every Jew strongly means that we should care for a Jew and his money as one cares for oneself and one's money'...The verse, 'Thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself (Leviticus 19:13) is understood by classical and present-day Orthodox Judaism as an indication to love one's fellow Jew, not any fellow human being."

Get to work chosen one.

 

[BreezeWood]

The Old Testament specifically details as to why the Old Law was nailed to the cross of Jesus and a new covenant will be established unlike the one written on stone as delivered by Moses....

self determination, without hereditary idolatry, moses and the like - was not what was included in the 4th century c-bible - those in the 1st century had died for.

 

[BreezeWood]

the Romans crucified 250,000 Jews. You tell me.

those few were for sedition, a few hundred at most. pilate knew the unique position he found himself forced into - by cowards.

 

[BS Filter]

the jews claimed he claimed to be divinity ... a state possible for a mortal in a state of purity for which no jew has ever attained.

jesus new the truth - about judaism.

Jesus said he was "I AM". That triggered the pharisees.

• • assage
  • Resources
  • Hebrew/Greek
  • Your Content

John 8:48-59

English Standard Version

​

Before Abraham Was, I Am​

48 The Jews answered him, “Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?” 49 Jesus answered, “I do not have a demon, but I honor my Father, and you dishonor me. 50 Yet I do not seek my own glory; there is One who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word, he will never see death.” 52 The Jews said to him, “Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.’ 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died? And the prophets died! Who do you make yourself out to be?” 54 Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’[a] 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” 57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?”[b] 58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” 59 So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

 

[BreezeWood]

Get to work chosen one.

their great sin - and whatever else you may have included in your - novel - post.

 

[BreezeWood]

Jesus said he was "I AM". That triggered the pharisees.

sure, the narrative of the c-bible not jesus is what is misconstrued for their version as a religion of servitude, the opposite for why jesus and those people in the 1st century gave their lives. self determination.

they use jesus to make their religion heavenly - the same as the jews and their fallacies of hereditary idolatry / their phony etched tablets from the heavens 10 commandments.

 

[BS Filter]

sure, the narrative of the c-bible not jesus is what is misconstrued for their version as a religion of servitude, the opposite for why jesus and those people in the 1st century gave their lives. self determination.

they use jesus to make their religion heavenly - the same as the jews and their fallacies of hereditary idolatry / their phony etched tablets from the heavens 10 commandments.

Have another toke.

 

[BreezeWood]

Have another toke.

jesus new the truth - about judaism.

“If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’[a] 55 But you have not known him. I know him. If I were to say that I do not know him, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and I keep his word

- was that recorded on a microset and preserved till the 4th century - then they burned it up - after including it in their book ... or have you the archives they left behind for posterity. their point though is well taken.

life began on planet earth - the metaphysical forces of the universe made that possible - how that works is real ... hereditary idolatry has no place in the world of religion.

 

[rosends]

Jews--modern or in that day and age--did not commit either homicide or deicide. That is ridiculous. It still seems more of a political issue where those in authority needed (and were even desperate) to preserve their own power. The other thing that argues against deicide is that Jesus himself said he would lay down his life for this friends.

I once read an account that took note of how unlikely Jews were to interrupt their Passover celebration to suddenly convene that evening. It does appear there had been an uprising in Jerusalem that day, and the leaders had been arrested. Then there was that unlikely trade of Jesus for Barabbas. Gamaliel was President or (Rabban) of the Sanhedrin of the time. What if it had been the son of the Rabban (Bar-rabban) that had been arrested, and the Sanhedrin had to convince Rome they had the wrong man--that Rome wanted that man Jesus who called himself Barabbas (Son of the Father). They could even point to the incident at the Temple where Jesus had overturned the money tables.

The last thing the Sanhedrin could afford at that time would be to have been in any way associated with an uprising. It would have been something vital enough to interrupt even a Passover celebration.

Interesting theory, but nothing that could ever be proven. But I was interested that someone noted the unlikely event of the Sanhedrin meeting during a Passover meal--something on par with the Supreme Court suddenly gathering on Thanksgiving or Christmas. For that to happen, something vital would have to be occurring.

It wouldn't have met at night or on a holiday. Separate point -- the Gamliel who might have been the important person named in the gospels would not have been "Ben Rabba(n)" because he wasn't the son of the head.

 

[Meriweather]

It wouldn't have met at night or on a holiday. Separate point -- the Gamliel who might have been the important person named in the gospels would not have been "Ben Rabba(n)" because he wasn't the son of the head.

The author of the theory wasn't suggesting Gamaliel was the son. He was suggesting it was Gamaliel's son. I did look this up, and Gamaliel did have a son who would have been the right age to have been involved in an uprising.

There is no way of ever knowing whether this could have happened. I was intrigued by the theory because someone was apparently as interested as I was in what could have caused the Sanhedrin to meet during Passover. One theory, of course, is such a meeting never happened. However, if it DID happen, I feel as the author did--it was because the Sanhedrin itself was at risk. What was the risk? And how could it be resolved?

Simply an interesting weaving of recorded events that seem unlikely to have happened had it been a usual Passover and a usual trial.

 

[rosends]

You need to stop apologizing.

Isa 60:8-22 Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? (9) Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of Yahweh thy Elohim, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath honored thee. (10) And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee. (11) Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be shut day nor night; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gentiles, and that their kings may be brought. (12) For the nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. (13) The abundance of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree, and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary; and I will make the place of my feet honorable. (14) The sons also of them that afflicted thee shall come bending unto thee; and all they that despised thee shall bow themselves down at the soles of thy feet; and they shall call thee, The city of Yahweh, The Zion of the Holy One of Israel. (15) Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many generations. (16) Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I Yahweh am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob. (17) For brass I will bring gold, and for iron I will bring silver, and for wood brass, and for stones iron: I will also make thy officers peace, and thine exactors righteousness. (18) Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, wasting nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise. (19) The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but Yahweh shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy Elohim thy renown. (20) Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for Yahweh shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended. (21) Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be honored. (22) A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I Yahweh will hasten it in his time.


All you had to do was cite the above passage and highlight the end, showing how it will be fulfilled in the messianic age. Now there is war in Israel and Jewish homosexuals thumbing their noses at YHWH in the streets. The only way for the Jewish State to survive is to purge itself of all of its enemies by force (gunpoint), but since Israel is currently a secular, non-Orthodox-led, vassal state of the goyim, namely the United States, it can't do that, without losing its yearly welfare check.

The Orthodox Jews need to take the land for themselves, by force and expel everyone not willing to live Torah. The only people permitted to live in the holy land should be Jewish people and the Noachide, who keep the seven laws of Noach. The non-Jewish friends of Israel. All snakes and scorpions must be expelled.

According to the Talmud:

All the blessings which Gentiles enjoy come to them only because of God's regard for Israel. (BT Yebamoth 63a).

If a gentile hits a Jew, the gentile must be killed (BT Sanhedrin 58b).

A gentile who strikes a Jew deserves death. Striking a Jew is in God's eyes an assault on the Divine Presence. (BT Sanhedrin 58b)

Gentiles are inclined to bestiality, lewdness, and murder. Gentiles prefer sexual relations with cows more than with their own wives. Eve had sexual intercourse with the serpent, transmitting lust to the gentiles, from which Israelites are exempt. (BT Abodah Zarah 22a)

A Gentile who observes the Sabbath deserves death. (BT Sanhedrin 58b).

God is displeased when Jews show hospitality to Gentiles. (BT Sanhedrin 104a).

It is forbidden to teach Gentiles the Law. (BT Hagigah 13a).

A Gentile who studies the Law deserves death. (BT Sanhedrin 59a).

It is permissible to cheat a Gentile in court. (BT Haba Kamma U3a).

If a Jew finds an object lost by a gentile it does not have to be returned. (BT Baba Mezia 24a. Mfirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b).

God will not spare a Jew who "marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a gentile." Whoever returns a lost article to a gentile is under the curse of God." (BT Sanhedrin 76a).

Essentially justifying stealing from the goyim. This is also what is written in the Tosephta, Avodah Zarah chapter 8, halacha 5 (in the Zuckermandel edition; in the Vilna edition it is chapter 9, halacha 4):

"...Regarding theft - a thief, a robber, one who takes a (captive) beautiful woman, and the like - these are things it is forbidden for a gentile [to perpetrate] against a gentile, or (against) a Jew, but it is permissible for a Jew (to perpetrate) against a gentile."

Property of gentiles is like the desert; whoever among the Jews gets there first, owns it. (BT Baba Bathra 54b).

If a gentile loses something, a Jew may keep it, even if he knows the owner. (BT Baba Kamma 113b).

If the majority of people in an area are Gentiles, a Jew may just keep the lost article. If the majority are Jews, an effort must be made to find the owner. (BT Baba Mezia 24a).

A gentile must pay wages to a Jew, but a Jew does not have to pay wages to a Gentile. (BT Sanhedrin 57a).

The gentiles are outside the protection of the law and God has "exposed their money to Israel." (BT Baba Kamma 37b).

If a gentile robs a Jew, he must pay him back. But whatever a Jew robs from a gentile, the Jew may keep.

Dr. Shahak and his co-author, Prof. Mezvinsky, qualify this injunction thus: "The Halacha permits Jews to rob non-Jews in those locales wherein Jews are stronger than non-Jews. The Halacha prohibits Jews from robbing non-Jews in those locales wherein the non-Jews are stronger." (Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, p. 71).

Many rabbinic injunctions are thus qualified by the spirit of the times and the position and power of the followers of Judaism within Gentile society

Some robbery of gentiles is disguised as "confiscation of an unpaid debt" (Bava Kama 1 13b; also Bava Metzia I 1 1b).

According to Tosafos in Bava Metzia 87b (s.v. Ela), even those who propose that gezel of a Cuthian (theft from a Gentile) is permitted admit that it is prohibited by the Torah if the act might lead to the desecration of God's name" (loss of prestige and power in gentile society).

A Gentile, is not a brother or a neighbor:

BT Sanhedrin 52B: "A non-Jew is not considered a neighbor."

cr. Rabbi Shimon Finkelman, Lag Ba'omer: Its observance, Laws and Significance (Brooklyn, NY: Mesorah Publications, 1999), p. 39.

"Rashi wrote on the beraitha which appears in Sanhedrin 57a, s.v. yisrael b'goy mutar:

"For 'You shall not exploit your neighbor is written, and it is not written 'a gentile'...

Bava Metzia 111b:

"And since the first Tanna learned the law from the phrase 'his brother,' what does he do with the phrase 'his neighbor'? That phrase comes to teach something in his view also, as stated in the beraitha: 'his neighbor' - and not a gentile. But isn't it appropriate to learn that a gentile is excluded from the phrase 'his brother'? One (phrase) comes to permit exploiting him (a gentile) and the other comes to permit robbing him, as he holds that robbery of a gentile is permitted."

And thus it is determined in the commentary attributed to the Ran on Tractate Sanhedrin 57a. The Rama also ruled this way in Even Ha'ezer, paragraph 28, section 1, and also the Maharsha in "Yam shel Shlomo" on Bava Kama, paragraph 20. The wording for this ruling on the permissibility of stealing from a goy and how gentiles do not qualify as a brother or neighbor is corroborated in Dikdukei Sofrim, see sections 40 and 50; and in the quotations in the novellae of Nachmanides, the Ran, and Tosaphot HaRosh.

As a precaution in case snooping goyim should discover this teaching and raise a storm of protest, the rabbis inserted an escape clause:

"But there is a rabbinic prohibition, according to the one who says that robbery of a gentile is forbidden because of desecration of G-d's name in the last chapter 'HaGozel' (chapter 10 of Bava Batra)."

This deceitful clause has not in any way ameliorated the treatment of the goyim by robber rabbis and other Talmudists. Robbery of a goy is forbidden in case: where such robbery will result in harm to Judaism ("desecration of G-d's name"), This is an example of the rabbinic predilection for inserting decoy texts within their sacred writings.


Rabbi Saadya Grama of Beth Medrash Govoha, "the Lakewood yeshiva," a renowned Talmudic academy located in Lakewood, New Jersey, in his book Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut ("Jewish Superiority and the Question of Exile," published in 2003), states:

"The Jew by his source and in his very essence is entirely good. The goy, by his source and in his very essence, is completely evil. This is not simply a matter of religious distinction, but rather of two completely different species."

According to Rabbi Grama:

"Jewish success in the world is completely contingent upon the failure of other peoples. Jews experience good fortune only when gentiles experience catastrophe...The difference between Jews and gentiles is not historical or cultural, but rather genetic and unalterable."

In Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut, Rabbi Grama further states that the Torah mandates that Jews, while in exile, should employ such means as:

"appeasement, deception, duplicity, and bribery in their dealing with gentiles."

Romemut Yisrael Ufarashat Hagalut was endorsed by the most eminent rabbinic authorities at the Lakewood yeshiva, including the rosh yeshiva (head of the academy), Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler, who praised Grama's book for its teaching on: "the subjects of the Exile, the Election of Israel and her exaltation above and superiority to all other nations, all in accordance with the viewpoint of the Torah, based on the solid instruction he has received from his teachers."

The Lakewood yeshiva's bachelor and master's degree programs in Talmud instruction are accredited by the State of New Jersey's Commission on Higher Education. The U.s. Congress, as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, awarded the yeshiva $500,000 in federal funds to establish a Holocaust memorial library:

"$500,000 shall be awarded to the Beth Medrash Govoha, Lakewood, New Jersey, for equipment and exhibits for the Holocaust Library..." The taxpayer funding was sponsored by New Jersey's U.S. Senators Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg. 4U6 H.R. 2673. l08th Congress.

Rabbi Kook the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency in Jewish fundamentalism, said, 'The difference between a Jewish soul and the souls of non-Jews-all of them in all different levels-is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.'

Rabbi Kook's entire teaching is followed devoutly by, among others, those who have led the settler movement in the occupied West Bank. According to the ideologies which underlie Gush Emunum, the militant West Bank settlers group, and Hasidism, non-Jews have 'satanic souls'. Members of Gush Emunum argue that 'what appears to be confiscation of Arab-owned land for subsequent settlement by Jews is in reality not an act of stealing but one of sanctification.'From their perspective, the land is redeemed by being transferred from the satanic to the divine sphere.

"Common to both the Talmud and the Halacha, Orthodox religious law, is a differentiation between Jews and non-Jews. The highly revered Rabbi Menachem Mandel Schneerson, who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence in Israel as well as in the U.S., explained that:

' The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: 'Let us differentiate.' Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior leveL Rather we have a case of 'let us differentiate' between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of (members) of all nations of the world...A non-Jew's entire reality is only vanity'


The Book of Education, a popular Orthodox religious manual that is reprinted in many inexpensive editions subsidized by the Israeli government, was written by an anonymous rabbi in early 14th century Spain. It explains the 613 religious obligations (mitzvot) of Judaism in the order in which they are supposed to be found in the Pentateuch according to Talmudic interpretation. A central aim of this book is to emphasize the 'correct' meaning of the Bible with respect to such terms as 'fellow,' 'friend,' or 'man.'

Thus #219, is devoted to the religious obligation arising from the verse 'thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself is entitled, 'A religious obligation to love Jews,' and explains:

'To love every Jew strongly means that we should care for a Jew and his money as one cares for oneself and one's money'...The verse, 'Thou shalt love thy fellow as thyself (Leviticus 19:13) is understood by classical and present-day Orthodox Judaism as an indication to love one's fellow Jew, not any fellow human being."

View attachment 799344
Get to work chosen one.

Oh you are just so precious! First you tell me to stop apologizing when I didn't apologize, then you cite a passage which proves that Jesus wasn't the messiah and then you start stringing together a series of quotes taken out of context and without understanding.

Here is one example of your ignorance -- you cite BB54B regarding property of a non-Jew being equated to a desert. Had you actually studied the section you would learn that it says

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to the property of a gentile that was sold to a Jew for money, it is ownerless like a desert until the purchaser performs an act of acquisition; anyone who takes possession of it in the interim has acquired it. What is the reason for this? The gentile relinquishes ownership of it from the moment when the money reaches his hand, while the Jew who purchased it does not acquire it until the deed reaches his hand. Therefore, in the period of time between the giving of the money and the receiving of the deed, the property is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it.

This is a subtle point of law regarding ownership in the midst of a transaction. You want to snip it out and pretend it represents an attitude towards theft and personhood. You are wrong. But you can't be troubled with thinking on your own or asking questions...you copy from whatever hate site you find and then are revealed to be horribly ignorant.

You also quote (and put in bold) "BT Sanhedrin 52B: "A non-Jew is not considered a neighbor."
Except that that section is a point of law regarding whether a Jew is held accountable in a religious court for adultery if his cheats with the wife of a non-Jew. This doesn't mean that the action is permissible, just that the religious title "adultery" doesn't apply (because the non-Jewish people don't have a Jewish marriage document) so the religious punishment would be different. This is derived from the textual use of technical term "re'ah" to classify which "cheating" would be covered by religious law. Since that term is used for Jews, the death penalty would not apply to another person or relationship. The commentary of the Tosafot says explicitly that the behavior is still forbidden but the Jewish court cannot impose a death penalty.
So the text doesn't say that a non-Jew is not a neighbor but that the laws derived from the application of the word "re'ah" don't apply. Clearly you don't understand any of this but I'm hoping that anyone else who reads this and has any intellectual curiosity will understand that study is more productive than cutting and pasting without understanding.

I'm not going to go through the rest of your supposed quotes because you don't actually know them (for example, "BT Haba Kamma U3a" is a nonsense citation).
Then you make reference to a self-published book by one person which was disavowed by his former employer

Charedi Rabbis Rush To Disavow Anti-Gentile Book

Leaders of the country’s most prominent ultra-Orthodox yeshiva are scrambling to distance themselves from a book by one of their disciples, which argues that gentiles are “completely evil” and Jews constitute a separate, genetically superior species. Written by Rabbi Saadya Grama — an alumnus of...

forward.com

and you still haven't read through this to see what is considered fringe and unacceptable vs. what is normative and mainstream

https://hakirah.org/Vol%2016%20Balk.pdf

When you want to learn, ask.

 

[rosends]

The author of the theory wasn't suggesting Gamaliel was the son. He was suggesting it was Gamaliel's son. I did look this up, and Gamaliel did have a son who would have been the right age to have been involved in an uprising.

There is no way of ever knowing whether this could have happened. I was intrigued by the theory because someone was apparently as interested as I was in what could have caused the Sanhedrin to meet during Passover. One theory, of course, is such a meeting never happened. However, if it DID happen, I feel as the author did--it was because the Sanhedrin itself was at risk. What was the risk? And how could it be resolved?

Simply an interesting weaving of recorded events that seem unlikely to have happened had it been a usual Passover and a usual trial.

the son would have been around 50CE (Gamliel was president circa 30 and his son, Shimon, in 50). The son was repeatedly called Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel (or "RaSHBaG"). And simply put, the sanhedrin didn't meet on holidays

The Sanhedrin

the account in the gospels would (to be an accurate history) be depicting a legal superstructure that is completely at odds with many clear laws and a conspiracy of an entire community. It makes more sense to me to say that the text was written by someone ignorant of the details or someone who embellished as he wrote.

When I see a text that presents a community completely incorrectly, I find it easier to say that the text and its singular author is at fault than that an entire community conspires and has continued to conspire.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Oh you are just so precious! First you tell me to stop apologizing when I didn't apologize, then you cite a passage which proves that Jesus wasn't the messiah and then you start stringing together a series of quotes taken out of context and without understanding.

Here is one example of your ignorance -- you cite BB54B regarding property of a non-Jew being equated to a desert. Had you actually studied the section you would learn that it says


This is a subtle point of law regarding ownership in the midst of a transaction. You want to snip it out and pretend it represents an attitude towards theft and personhood. You are wrong. But you can't be troubled with thinking on your own or asking questions...you copy from whatever hate site you find and then are revealed to be horribly ignorant.

You also quote (and put in bold) "BT Sanhedrin 52B: "A non-Jew is not considered a neighbor."
Except that that section is a point of law regarding whether a Jew is held accountable in a religious court for adultery if his cheats with the wife of a non-Jew. This doesn't mean that the action is permissible, just that the religious title "adultery" doesn't apply (because the non-Jewish people don't have a Jewish marriage document) so the religious punishment would be different. This is derived from the textual use of technical term "re'ah" to classify which "cheating" would be covered by religious law. Since that term is used for Jews, the death penalty would not apply to another person or relationship. The commentary of the Tosafot says explicitly that the behavior is still forbidden but the Jewish court cannot impose a death penalty.
So the text doesn't say that a non-Jew is not a neighbor but that the laws derived from the application of the word "re'ah" don't apply. Clearly you don't understand any of this but I'm hoping that anyone else who reads this and has any intellectual curiosity will understand that study is more productive than cutting and pasting without understanding.

I'm not going to go through the rest of your supposed quotes because you don't actually know them (for example, "BT Haba Kamma U3a" is a nonsense citation).
Then you make reference to a self-published book by one person which was disavowed by his former employer

Charedi Rabbis Rush To Disavow Anti-Gentile Book

Leaders of the country’s most prominent ultra-Orthodox yeshiva are scrambling to distance themselves from a book by one of their disciples, which argues that gentiles are “completely evil” and Jews constitute a separate, genetically superior species. Written by Rabbi Saadya Grama — an alumnus of...

forward.com

and you still haven't read through this to see what is considered fringe and unacceptable vs. what is normative and mainstream

https://hakirah.org/Vol%2016%20Balk.pdf

When you want to learn, ask.

Thank you. I'll take a look at your link. I tried to attach the ebook from which I got those quotes, but the PDF file is too big, so I can't attach it.

Here is a link to the PDF (the quotes I used are from page 357 onward):

 

[Meriweather]

the account in the gospels would (to be an accurate history) be depicting a legal superstructure that is completely at odds with many clear laws and a conspiracy of an entire community. It makes more sense to me to say that the text was written by someone ignorant of the details or someone who embellished as he wrote.

Kind of like blowing a trumpet causes city walls to fall down...

The point being that in Biblical times no account was in Encyclopedic format. Another thing to consider is Passover is a family event and Caiaphas and Annas were related. They, along with other friends and colleagues may have been celebrating Passover together. Therefore, when authors wrote of the Sanhedrin meeting, it was merely some Sanhedrin members meeting, still gathered around talking after the actual Passover meal had ended. Jesus and his apostles had left the hall where they had celebrated Passover and had returned to their campsite when he was arrested.

I doubt there was a conspiracy then, and there certainly isn't one now. It is more a matter of one faith acknowledging that certain events did happen and so weave or bridge over some of the holes--and the other faith seeing only the holes and so dismissing the entire account. Accusing one or both sides of "conspiracy" doesn't clarify a thing. The authors left out details either forgotten or deemed unimportant. I am interested in what those details might be, but the reality is--even with logic and reasoning--these details can only be imagined. Shrug. I like imagining (with reasoning and logic), but it is still imagining.

 

[TruthNotBS]

the son would have been around 50CE (Gamliel was president circa 30 and his son, Shimon, in 50). The son was repeatedly called Rabbi Shimon Ben Gamliel (or "RaSHBaG"). And simply put, the sanhedrin didn't meet on holidays

The Sanhedrin

the account in the gospels would (to be an accurate history) be depicting a legal superstructure that is completely at odds with many clear laws and a conspiracy of an entire community. It makes more sense to me to say that the text was written by someone ignorant of the details or someone who embellished as he wrote.

When I see a text that presents a community completely incorrectly, I find it easier to say that the text and its singular author is at fault than that an entire community conspires and has continued to conspire.

Have you ever heard of rabbi Tovia Singer?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Oh you are just so precious! First you tell me to stop apologizing when I didn't apologize, then you cite a passage which proves that Jesus wasn't the messiah and then you start stringing together a series of quotes taken out of context and without understanding.

Here is one example of your ignorance -- you cite BB54B regarding property of a non-Jew being equated to a desert. Had you actually studied the section you would learn that it says


This is a subtle point of law regarding ownership in the midst of a transaction. You want to snip it out and pretend it represents an attitude towards theft and personhood. You are wrong. But you can't be troubled with thinking on your own or asking questions...you copy from whatever hate site you find and then are revealed to be horribly ignorant.

You also quote (and put in bold) "BT Sanhedrin 52B: "A non-Jew is not considered a neighbor."
Except that that section is a point of law regarding whether a Jew is held accountable in a religious court for adultery if his cheats with the wife of a non-Jew. This doesn't mean that the action is permissible, just that the religious title "adultery" doesn't apply (because the non-Jewish people don't have a Jewish marriage document) so the religious punishment would be different. This is derived from the textual use of technical term "re'ah" to classify which "cheating" would be covered by religious law. Since that term is used for Jews, the death penalty would not apply to another person or relationship. The commentary of the Tosafot says explicitly that the behavior is still forbidden but the Jewish court cannot impose a death penalty.
So the text doesn't say that a non-Jew is not a neighbor but that the laws derived from the application of the word "re'ah" don't apply. Clearly you don't understand any of this but I'm hoping that anyone else who reads this and has any intellectual curiosity will understand that study is more productive than cutting and pasting without understanding.

I'm not going to go through the rest of your supposed quotes because you don't actually know them (for example, "BT Haba Kamma U3a" is a nonsense citation).
Then you make reference to a self-published book by one person which was disavowed by his former employer

Charedi Rabbis Rush To Disavow Anti-Gentile Book

Leaders of the country’s most prominent ultra-Orthodox yeshiva are scrambling to distance themselves from a book by one of their disciples, which argues that gentiles are “completely evil” and Jews constitute a separate, genetically superior species. Written by Rabbi Saadya Grama — an alumnus of...

forward.com

and you still haven't read through this to see what is considered fringe and unacceptable vs. what is normative and mainstream

https://hakirah.org/Vol%2016%20Balk.pdf

When you want to learn, ask.

Chasidim is fringe? Many Orthodox Jews take the Kabbala position on the distinction between the Jewish and Gentile soul. I've met Israeli Jews, that weren't that religious at all, but were influenced by the Chasidim, and held this position about Gentiles having an inferior soul. One told me that Gentiles are like animals. This causes non-Jews to become anti-semitic.

 

[irosie91]

Kind of like blowing a trumpet causes city walls to fall down...

The point being that in Biblical times no account was in Encyclopedic format. Another thing to consider is Passover is a family event and Caiaphas and Annas were related. They, along with other friends and colleagues may have been celebrating Passover together. Therefore, when authors wrote of the Sanhedrin meeting, it was merely some Sanhedrin members meeting, still gathered around talking after the actual Passover meal had ended. Jesus and his apostles had left the hall where they had celebrated Passover and had returned to their campsite when he was arrested.

I doubt there was a conspiracy then, and there certainly isn't one now. It is more a matter of one faith acknowledging that certain events did happen and so weave or bridge over some of the holes--and the other faith seeing only the holes and so dismissing the entire account. Accusing one or both sides of "conspiracy" doesn't clarify a thing. The authors left out details either forgotten or deemed unimportant. I am interested in what those details might be, but the reality is--even with logic and reasoning--these details can only be imagined. Shrug. I like imagining (with reasoning and logic), but it is still imagining.

the operative concept ----"....weave or bridge over some of the holes...." So true.
My all time fave example of WEAVING comes from a single post on this
board in which a jelly-bean school girl decided that Jesus attacked the money
changers in the Temple courtyard because they were short changing people.
Leave out the fact that THE PHARISEES were dead set against the activities of
the Roman appointed money changers in the Temple Court Yard and do not
even address the fact that the "money changers" were Roman appointed shills.
HOWEVER the really telling hole involves the silly idea that "THE PHARISEES"
desperately wanted Jesus dead but just had no idea HOW PEOPLE CAN GET
KILLED. so they SOMEHOW convinced the Jews of Jerusalem to form a
CRUCIFIXION CHEERING SQUAD to chant "crucify him, crucify him"-----well---
in reading dramatic literature-----SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF is absolutely vital