By Janet Levy, INN
In his new book, “The Vatican Against Israel: J’Accuse”, Giulio Meotti explores the theological foundation for 1,700 years of Catholic enmity toward Jews and how this is played out against Israel since the start of modern Zionism.
With the election of Pope Francis this past March as the 266th Pope of the Catholic Church, hopes have run high for a much-needed turnaround in Jewish-Catholic relations that would finally extinguish centuries-old, Catholic anti-Semitism and its concerted efforts to sabotage the Jewish State.
Those hopes took shape when, as cardinal of Argentina, he maintained close ties with the local Jewish community, attended Rosh Hashanah services, co-hosted a Kristallnacht memorial ceremony, and was the first public figure to condemn the 1994 bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires by the Islamic terrorist group, Hezbollah.
But the jury is still out on how the relationship will progress with the new papacy, especially in light of a recent meeting Pope Francis held with Malaysian politician, Anwar Ibrahim, a prominent Muslim Brotherhood (MB) operative and founder of the MB front organization, the International Institute of Islamic Thought. Ibrahim has kept alive charges of Islamophobia in the West and has close ties with Bosnian imam Mustafa Ceric, another Muslim Brotherhood member who himself is tied to controversial Egyptian Islamic theologian, Youssef Qaradawi, who has been banned from entering a number of Western countries because of numerous anti-Israel, anti-U.S. statements.
Pope Francis may indeed be struggling against the weight of the past. The Catholic Church has an extensive history of anti-Semitism beginning with a belief that the destruction of Judea by the Romans, the fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Holy Temple in the first century signified rejection and punishment of the Jews by G-d.
The fall of Jerusalem, or “Deicide City”, is enshrined in Christian liturgy and teaches Christians that they have been substituted for the “broken branches” of the Jews and “grafted on the stem of the Covenant.”
Ostensibly a religion of “love and goodness,” Catholicism has harbored animosity and intense hatred for the Jews and been complicit, directly and indirectly, in many crimes and atrocities against them.
In his new book, “The Vatican Against Israel: J’Accuse”, Giulio Meotti uses the famous title that publicist Emil Zola coined for his public revealing of the French anti-Semitism that destroyed the life of Alfred Dreyfus in the late nineteenth century.
Meotti explores the theological foundation for 1,700 years of Catholic enmity toward Jews that led to manifold persecutory actions and atrocities through the centuries and how it continues to play out in Church policy toward the Jewish State today.
Mr. Meotti explains how the Catholic Church has continued to undermine Jews through its politics, statements, and contemptuous relationship with the state of Israel. Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the Vatican has consistently worked against the best interests of the Jewish state and aided and abetted its enemies.
This extensive, historical Church enmity toward the Jews and the attendant atrocities have led to today’s shocking alliance with Islam and, even more surprisingly, has prevented the Church from aiding persecuted Christians throughout the Muslim world. By disavowing Jewish roots and forging a strategic Muslim-Christian alliance, the Church has embarked on a precarious path for the future of Christendom.
Furthermore, the Church’s adoption of the Muslim narrative on Palestine precludes the recognition of a very real problem jeopardizing the lives of thousands of Christians in majority Islamic nations.
The Church steadfastly ignores the reality behind the Muslim chant, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people,” which scripturally links Jews and Christians as the infidel, “People of the Book,” making both targets for violence and repression. However, for Church leadership to admit their vulnerability in this regard would require them to grant legitimacy to the Jewish people in their ancestral land of Israel, abandon the idea of punishment for the deicide, and bear the Jews’ ultimate insult, namely, failure to follow the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Church and the Death of Jesus
In his book, Mr. Meotti explains that anti-Jewish sentiments were founded on Church pronouncements that Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. He shows how, until very recently, the Church taught that Jewish history ended with the appearance of Christianity and that Jews were a cursed people who killed Jesus, rejected Christ’s gospel, and were destined to wander the earth for eternity.
Catholic religious leaders have taken the position that the Church constituted the “new Israel” and Jews were forever abandoned by G-d. It is this well-entrenched theological doctrine, he says, that resulted in banishment of Jews throughout Europe, ghettoization and marginalization of the Jewish community, levying of heavy fines on Jews, forced conversions, kidnapping of Jewish children to be raised as Christians, confiscation of Jewish property (including synagogues transformed into churches), and the torture and murder of Jewish people.
Mass anti-Jewish actions included the Crusades, the Inquisition, Russian pogroms, and ultimately the Holocaust, which annihilated one-third of world Jewry.
Meotti’s book reveals that not only these actions, but the genocide that was the Holocaust were made possible by the fertile environment of anti-Semitism created over centuries by the Church.
The Church and World War II
In “The Vatican Against Israel”, the author examines how the Church has continued to be a willing and eager partner in the destruction of the Jewish people in the modern era.
The Church helped promulgate the anti-Semitic hoax of a Jewish plan for global domination as set forth in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The first translation of this damaging blood libel was translated by Arab Christians and published by a periodical of the Catholic Community in Jerusalem in 1926.
When Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany, the Vatican was the first state to formally recognize the legitimacy of the Third Reich and it maintained diplomatic relations with the Nazi government through the very end of the war.
Mr. Meotti reports that during the Holocaust, the British envoy to the Holy See provided daily briefings on the Nazi atrocities. Meotti reveals that Pope Pius XII chose to remain silent and resisted many calls for help from the Jewish people. While Jews were being gassed throughout Europe, most Christian churches failed to respond. Some even collaborated with the Nazis.
Astonishingly, in 1943 at the height of the Jewish genocide, Pius XII reaffirmed in his encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi, the supersession of Christianity over Judaism and the replacement of the Jewish Bible, which had been abolished, with the Christian Bible.
At the end of World War II, in the vilest disregard for the memory of millions who perished during the Nazi genocide, the Vatican sheltered from prosecution a number of Nazis, in effect, granting tacit approval for the actions of these Nazi butchers. War criminals, including Adolph Eichmann, Dr. Joseph Mengele, Klaus Barbie, Franz Stangl, and others fled through Italy with assistance from the Catholic network.
Mr. Meotti reports that Vatican support and admiration for the Nazis didn’t end there. In 1994, Pope John Paul II conferred papal knighthood on documented Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim, who had gone on after World War II to become Secretary-General of the United Nations. The papal honor, given despite a well-known 1985 controversy over Waldheim’s Nazi past, was in effect spitting on the memory of Holocaust victims, survivors, and their descendants.
To further confer disgrace on its actions, the Vatican recognized Waldheim’s “efforts for peace,” demonizing Israel for defending itself against Arab-Palestinian terrorism which had occurred during Waldheim’s tenure as Secretary-General. By welcoming Waldheim to the Vatican as an honored visitor, the Vatican was symbolically cleansing him of the stain of his Holocaust crimes and glorifying his work on behalf of the U.N. to destroy the Jewish State.
The Church and Creation of the Jewish State
In “The Vatican Against Israel”, the author reveals how the Church initially fought against the British Mandate for Palestine that established Israel and, after its founding, demonized and delegitimized Israel’s existence. Even as Jews were being gassed during the Holocaust, the Church was consumed with stopping the creation of Israel and the return of Jews to their ancestral land, because this ran counter to Church theology that Jews were condemned to eternal homelessness for their crime of deicide almost 2,000 years earlier.
The Church stridently maintained the position that Zionism was anti-Christian and anti-Catholic and that the sole route to salvation was through conversion. The ultimate founding of the Jewish State was problematic for the Catholic Church because it invalidated the church’s replacement theology and its doctrine about the Jewish people – that all Jews for generations to come were to be cursed and punished for deicide. As late as 1904, Pope Pius X told Theodore Herzl, Zionism’s founder, that he would never approve the movement as “the Jews have not recognized our Lord.”
It was not until 1965, 1,700 years after the Church had condemned Jews for all eternity, that the Vatican issued Nostra Aetate, releasing the Jews of today from responsibility for the death of Christ. However, the document failed to apologize for past Christian anti-Semitism and did not validate Judaism or recognize the Jewish State, which by then had existed for 17 years.
The Church and Arab Muslims
As for political involvement in the Arab-Muslim war against Israel, Meotti describes how the Vatican made common cause with Arab-Palestinians, supporting their apocryphal claims to territory and even excusing acts of terrorism.
Pope John Paul II went so far as to publicly brand as an Israeli-initiated Shoah, what were actually falsified accounts of Israeli oppression of Palestinians.
Pope John Paul II granted several audiences to Yasser Arafat, the father of modern terrorism and the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), who had ordered and carried out attacks against Jewish civilians and was seeking publicity and legitimacy on the world stage. While openly proclaiming hatred of the Jews and plans to annihilate Israel, Arafat and his henchman were granted respectability by the Catholic Church.
In 1974, the Vatican formally recognized the Palestinian Liberation Organization. It wasn’t until 1993, almost 20 years later, that the Church recognized the State of Israel.
When PLO Chairman Arafat died in 2004, the Pope eulogized the terrorist as a great leader in this “hour of sadness” and spoke fondly of his closeness to the Arafat family.
Meanwhile, Church acceptance of Israel has been tepid at best. Every attempt is made to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State and support the Arab-Palestinian narrative even following scores of suicide bombings and tens of thousands of rocket attacks on Israeli land. The Church advances the view that Palestinian violence is a justifiable reaction to “oppression and humiliation” by the Israelis.
Never mentioned are the openly stated goals of Hamas and Hezbollah to destroy the Jewish state. No Vatican condemnations have been made for over 11,000 rocket attacks that have murdered and maimed hundreds of Israeli civilians. Israel’s attempts to defend itself have been characterized as acts of aggression.
In 2002, at the height of the Intifada, the Church condoned and legitimized Palestinian terrorism by terming the attacks against Israel as a “cry for justice.” At a pro-Palestinian protest parade in Rome in 2002, Archbishop Capucci, who had used his Vatican immunity in the past to smuggle arms and explosives to Fatah terrorists, defended suicide bombers and stated, “Greetings to the sons of the Intifada and to the martyrs who go and fight as if they were going to a party. . . . We want our land, or we will die with dignity . . . Intifada till victory.” No criticism or repercussions were forthcoming from the Vatican.
In addition to the above, Meotti lists a multitude of Catholic NGOs such as Trocaire, Pax Christi, Cordaid, and Caritas which legitimate terrorist activities and demonize Israel through boycott, divestment, and sanction (BDS) campaigns. The NGOs also compare Zionism to Nazism and stage events in which Israel’s security barriers, which have saved Jewish lives, are labeled as “apartheid walls.”
Even today, many Vatican Christian pilgrimage and tourist tour maps fail to mention Israel. Instead, the area is labeled “Holy Land” or “Palestine.” The Church’s anti-Israel propaganda is intensified by tours that are purposely designed to cast the Jewish state in a negative light. Palestinian guides focus exclusively on controlled visits to the Palestinian territories and instill hatred of Israel by skewing the narrative and insuring that visitors leave ignorant of the true nature of the Jewish State, the only democracy in the region.
Meotti , in this excellent account of Vatican history, prophesies that the Church’s actions toward the Jews and Israel will result in tragic consequences for both Jews and Christians. By attacking Israel and resisting significant ties with Jews and the Jewish state in favor of a deadly Christian-Muslim alliance, the Church is sowing the seeds of its own demise. The future for Christians is glaringly spelled out by the drastically diminished populations of Bethlehem, Ramallah, Gaza, and the ‘West Bank'”, where Christians are used as human shields and Christian homes serve as rocket launch sites.
Throughout Muslim countries in the Middle East, Christians are being massacred and forced out of the land. The bombing of Christian shops, schools, and churches, and the torture and murder of priests has become almost daily fare, he shows.
This is the future that awaits the Church and its Christian followers if they persist in aligning with Muslims and fail to overcome their historic and current anti-Semitic acts.
The writer, MBA, MSW, is an activist, world traveler, and freelance journalist who has contributed to American Thinker, Pajamas Media, Full Disclosure Network, FrontPage Magazine, Family Security Matters and other publications. She blogs at www.womenagainstshariah.com.
@ honeybee:
But honeybee dear, no one is disputing this….
I merely wondered how did dweller know???
🙂
@ the phoenix:
Darlin, I am the only mensch on this blog!!!!!!!!!!! And don’t you forget it Chico, even Yamit82 is to afraid to face me. I eat dweller’s lunch every day.
@ dweller:
Hmmmmm…. Surprise surprise…. His master’s voice…..
And how pray tell did you get to know his ‘mensch’hood…. (Wether in full or in half…. 🙂 )
@ the phoenix:
Mebbe so, mebbe no.
But then, MOST posters (here, or anywhere else) ain’t HALF the mensch that Curio is.
@ Shy Guy:
Gam’liel [the First] WAS a contemporary of Paul (and of most of the parties in question here); nobody questions that. Yet HE seems to have been less perturbed at the above affirmation than you.
Or do you have a record of his having ‘CHALLENGED’ the public assertions of Paul as to their relationship?
yamit82 Said:
When I started posting on this website, I did not expect to gain any knowledge regarding a religion. Thanks to Ted Bellman for allowing us to have a free exchange of ideas with mutual respect on various subjects. I am now able to see some biblical truths from Jews and Christian perspectives.
The following post could, be an answer to your comment.
“The first claim of some modern rabbis:
Almah, the Hebrew word that Isaiah uses does not mean “virgin,” but rather “young woman” or “young maiden.”
The text of Matthias quotes from the Septuagint (LXX), the Jewish translation of Tanakh into Greek. Its text of Isaiah was translated about 200 years before Matthias wrote. Since three-fourths of the Jewish population lived in the Greek Diaspora in the first century, the LXX was probably the most widely used Jewish text of the Scriptures in the first century. The Jewish translators of the LXX chose to translate almah into Greek as parthenos, i.e. “virgin”. That is how they understood it two centuries before the Common Era.
Most first-century Jews, therefore, had a text that was virtually identical with that of Matthias. The only difference is that in LXX, “will call”/kaleseis is in the singular; in Matthias, “will call”/kalesousin is in the plural.)
…
The second claim of some modern rabbis:
If Isaiah, or God, had wanted to indicate a virgin, he would have used the Hebrew word betulah.
Some people think that betulah is the clear, unequivocal word for “virgin”. That is simply not true. To know what betulah means — or, more accurately, to know what betulah meant — we need to look at how it is used in Tanakh and Talmud.
Here are the relevant verses from Tanakh:
Gen. 24:16, “And the girl [Rebekah] was very beautiful, a betulah, and no man had known her…”
Ex. 22:15-16 (vv.16-17 in non-Jewish translations), “And if a man seduces a betulah who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for betulot [plural of betulah].”
Dt. 22:13-20,23,28 (from v.13), “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find evidence of her virginity [betulim].’ Then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity [betulei] to the elders of the city at the gate. And the girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find evidence of your daughter’s virginity [betulim].” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity [betulei].’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a betulat of Israel and she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days. But if this charge is true, that evidence of the girl’s virginity [betulim] was not found…
…
The Lord told Isaiah to go with his son, She’ar Yashuv — which means “a remnant will return” — and go to meet Ahaz. (v.3)
Chapter 8 refers to this same military confrontation between Judah and the allied enemies, Aram (Syria) and Israel (with its capital in Samaria). There is also mention of Isaiah’s second son Maher Shalal Hash Baz, which means “swift is the booty, speedy is the prey,” and of Emmanuel, whose name means “God with us”.
Chapter 9 continues to address this confrontation with Rezin of Syria and with Samaria. It also refers to a special son to be born, one who will be called many impressive names, among them “Mighty God,” signifying that God is dwelling with His people — in other words, “Emmanuel/God with us.” He will rule from David’s throne over David’s kingdom, i.e. Judah and Israel.
Chapter 10 addresses the issue of the Assyrian king, Tiglath-pileser, whom God is going to use to destroy Syria and Israel (Ephraim) and to stop their war against Judah. It also contains (v.21) the promise of the name of Isaiah’s first son, She’ar Yashuv, i.e. “a remnant will return.” The chapter ends with the promise that the Lord will cut down the forest of Judah’s enemies.
Chapter 11 begins with the promise that the Lord will bring forth a new shoot from the cut down royal family of David, son of Jesse. In the days of this “branch,” this son of David, God will regather the remnant of Judah and the exiles of Israel from Assyria and the four corners of the earth — i.e. a remnant will return. The hostility between Ephraim/Samaria/Israel and Judah will cease.
Chapter 12 describes what it will be like “in that day.” All Israel will recognize, “God is my salvation,” and not look to Assyria for deliverance.
Chapter 13 is an oracle about Babylon, and clearly belongs to another context. Therefore, the historical, scriptural context of Is. 7:14 is chapters 7-12. (The chapter and verse numbers are not part of the Biblical text. They were added later to help us refer to and locate specific texts.)
Some parts of this prophetic portion were fulfilled within three years following the invasion of Judah. Some were fulfilled later, and some have not yet been fulfilled.
What fulfills the prophecy?
“Some modern rabbis maintain that Isaiah 7:14 was completely fulfilled in the birth of Isaiah’s second son, Maher Shalal Hash Baz. They claim that his mother, “the prophetess” of Is. 8:3 is the almah of Is. 7:14. As we will see, that is not the case.”
Read more at: http://www.elijahnet.net/modern%20rabbis.html
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Was the girl “Mary” portrayed in the “gospel” stories a virgin or wasn’t she?
by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha’ivrit, Y’rushalayim
The Mattai-writer states explicitly that the girl “Mary” in his story was already ????????????? (mnesteutheises) to “Joseph” when she was “found to be pregnant” (1:18), and the author of Lukos uses the same Greek word twice (1:27 & 2:5) to describe her marital status. The Mattai-writer also says that this happened ???? ? ????????? ?????? (prin e sunelthein autous), or “before they came together”.
Now what exactly does the Greek term ????????????? (mnesteutheises) mean? “King James’s Per-Version” translates it as espoused, an archaic and long-obsolete word in English (later christian Per-Versions use the more modern betrothed) and, when the majority of christians are told that this is the same as saying she was “engaged” to him, they are perfectly content to accept this as the truth. And yet “Mary” and “Joseph” are supposed to have been Hebrews living in 1st century Galilee, and the modern Western concept of “engagement” is unknown in Hebrew culture—so this pathetic, transparent “explanation” simply doesn’t work.
A Hebrew wedding is celebrated in two parts. In ancient times, there was an interval of several weeks, or even longer, between the two ceremonies and this is so even today among the descendants, such as myself, of the few ancient communities that still survive in eretz yisrael (although nowadays the majority of Hebrews in eretz yisrael, and all Hebrews living in hutz la’aretz—that is to say, outside of eretz yisrael—combine the two ceremonies and perform one immediately after the other).
The first wedding ceremony is called in Hebrew ?????????? eirusin (and in Rabbinic writing often ??????????? kiddushin). These words are usually translated as “betrothal”, but only because that is the closest word that exists in English; the word “betrothal”, however, is only a very approximate equivalent of the Hebrew words and must always be understood in the sense of the original Hebrew terms. It is clear from chapter 22 of D’varim (which deals with the law of rape), for example, that a girl who is described as ?????????? ??????? m’orasah l’ish (“betrothed” to a husband) in D’varim 22:23 already has the status of a legally married woman (the text only refers to her as ?????? ????????, “a virgin girl”, to include the exceptional case in which sexual intercourse has to be delayed, such as if there are medical reasons why first intercourse must be deferred, or if the bride is ?????? (i.e. if she is menstruating). The eirusin (or kiddushin) ceremony has three elements which are required by Hebrew law for the “betrothal” to be legally valid; they are detailed in the opening paragraph of the Mishnah treatise Kiddushin and one of the three mandatory elements is that sexual intercourse must take place.
It is therefore a logical absurdity to describe a Hebrew girl as ????????????? (mnesteutheises), or “betrothed”, and then to go on to say that she is still a virgin: if she is “betrothed” she cannot still be a virgin, and if she is still a virgin, she cannot be said to be “betrothed”. Aha, christians gleefully retort, but Mattai says this was before ????????? ?????? (sunelthein autous), which literally means “before they came together”—and that (they are told) means before they first had sexual intercourse! But it doesn’t mean that.
The reference in Mattai to “Mary” and her husband “coming together” does not refer to sexual intercourse (although the gentile author of that book may well have thought that it does, and very likely intended it to mean that). Unless there are exceptional reasons why this is impossible (as mentioned above), a newly-married Hebrew couple normally consummate their union immediately after their eirusin (“betrothal”) ceremony to “complete” the ceremony and make it legally valid and binding; there is a parallel to this in modern (Western) law, under which a marriage that has not been consummated can be annulled, or declared to have been null and void from outset—i.e. it was never a legal marriage in the first place (“annulment” is a very different thing to divorce, the dissolving of a marriage that was originally legally valid).
I mentioned earlier that the celebration of a Hebrew wedding takes place in two parts, and I mentioned the first of the two ceremonies; but so far I have not mentioned the second ceremony. What actually happens is this. There is no period of “engagement” in Hebrew culture: we consider an extended interval during which a couple have made their commitment to each other public, but are not actually married yet and are therefore restricted by cultural mores from indulging in physical intimacy (or even from being alone together), to be an unacceptable temptation for them, because the instinctive biological urge to engage in sexual activity with someone you love is so strong that few people can resist it for very long (if at all). Instead, once a couple have agreed to marry, the wedding is arranged at the earliest possible opportunity and, if possible, immediately. But they do not start to live together right away.
Instead the wife, although legally married to her new husband, remains in her parents’ home (or in her own home if she is an adult), while her husband sets about building or buying a house (or apartment) for them to share, and furnishing and decorating it in readiness for the day his new wife will come to live with him. He can visit her in her parents’ home whenever he wants to, and even sleep with her (providing she agrees to it!)—it is therefore not unusual in any way for the wife to fall pregnant during this interval and, indeed, she very often does. When the new home is ready and the furnishings and decorations are to the wife’s liking, a second celebration is held: there is a colourful, festive procession and the wife is brought by her whole family and all her friends to the new marital home, where the joyful “Seven Benedictions” (or sheva b’rachot) of nissu’in are sung for her as she enters to take up her position as “queen” of the house.
In practice, though, it is recognised that some people are wealthier than others, and sadly some are very poor indeed. A bride should not be humiliated on her wedding day—in fact, the Rabbis taught that no-one should ever be humiliated in public: the Hebrew term used in Rabbinic writing for publicly humiliating someone is mal’bin p’nei haveiro barabbim, or “whitening” his face in public, and this is considered as equivalent to “shedding blood” in a very real sense (because the blood drains from a person’s face when he is humiliated and his face turns white). For this reason, at a very early stage in Hebrew history (certainly in Scriptural times), the “home-bringing” procession would bring the bride to a ceremonial “canopy” which was usually erected in the town’s market-square, symbolically representing the marital home, rather than to the actual home (so that poor people should not be embarrassed and humiliated by the modest nature of their house or apartment). The bridal “canopy” was called in Hebrew huppah, and to this very day the Hebrew marriage ceremony is performed under a huppah. Several Scriptural references, such as those to “a bride coming from her huppah” (Yo’él 2:16) and to “a bride-groom coming from his huppah” (T’hillim 19:6), testify to how ancient this practice is.
There can be no doubt that the term ????????? ?????? (sunelthein autous) or “coming together”, used in Mattai 1:18, is in fact a reference to the huppah ceremony and does not refer to sexual intercourse at all.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Read Full Essay with Hebrew and Greek translations Here
AbbaGuutuu Said:
The root of the name ????????????? H?izkiyyahu is ???, a verb stem that can mean
strengthen, fortify in the PI’ÉL (??????),
hold, seize in the HIF’IL (???????), and
gather one’s strength, take courage in the HITPA’ÉL (??????????).
It also spawns a number of nouns, including
??????, ???????, ??????? strength, and
??????? taking hold, seizing, occupying, presumption [of entitlement]
as well as the adjectives
?????, ????? chazak- strong.
Accordingly, ????????????? H?izkiyyahu can be said to “mean” something like Strengthened by God.
Hizkiyyaho (Hezekiah) and Emmanuel are one and the same in meaning.
Final point: the last three words of the prophet’s statement, v’kara’t sh’mo Immanu’él, mean “and she will name him [literally, ‘she will call his name’] Immanu’él” – that is to say, the baby’s mother will give this name to her child. Grammatically the form ?????? kara’t is the 2nd person feminine of the past tense in the simple or “kal” conjugation of the root ?-?-?, kuf-resh-alef (to call), i.e. “you [fem.] called” – and the “inverting vav” changes the tense from past into future: v’kara’t, “and you [fem.] will call”: the wording is identical to B’réshit 16:11 where an angel says to Hagar ???????? ?????? ??????????? v’kara’t sh’mo yishma’el, “you [fem.] will name him Yishma’el“. However, in Y’shayahu 7:14 the prophet is speaking to King A?az of Y’hudah and it is hardly likely that he would have addressed the king in the feminine gender; the classical commentators are therefore in unanimous agreement that ????????? v’kara’t is being used as a poetic variant of the 3rd person feminine form ????????? v’kar’ah, i.e. “and she will call” – in other words the prophet is was predicting that the baby boy he was speaking about was going to be named Immanu’él by its mother (which was far more significant then than it may seem today because in those times a baby would normally be named – i.e. formally given its name – by the father). Even the christian pseudo-septuaginta Greek translation of the early 4th century is in agreement on this point: it has ??? ???????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? (kai kaleseis to onoma auto Emmanouel), “and she will call his name Emmanuel”.
However in the story that the “Matthew” book tells, the young mother does not name her baby “Emmanuel” – in fact, she doesn’t name him at all: the “angel” that her husband dreams about in the story instructs him (the husband) to name the child Yéshu (1:21), which he does (1:25). And indeed, Yéshu is never called “Emmanuel” by his mother or by anyone else anywhere in the “Matthew” book, or anywhere else in the entire “New Testament” either, for that matter. This being the case, the “Matthew” book’s author couldn’t very well quote Y’shayahu 7:14 exactly as it stands even in the pseudo-septuaginta, because such a glaring inconsistency could hardly be explained away – so he resorts to the most dishonest of all tricks: he simply changes the word ???????? kaleseis (3rd person feminine singular, “she will call”) into ?????????? kalesousin (3rd person plural, “they will call”) andpretends that the prophet said ??? ?????????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? (kai kalesousin to onoma auto Emmanouel), and they will call his name Emmanuel. This satisfies most christians, because they can say that theycall him “Emmanuel”; but it’s thoroughly dishonest because it isn’t what Y’shayahu said! The most astonishing thing of all is that nobody ever even notices this small but hugely significant alteration – we Hebrews don’t pay much attention to this verse because it isn’t actually that important to us (and we don’t waste our time reading pagan garbage like “Matthew” anyway), and christians are so mesmerised and hypnotised by the “name” the prophet says was going to be given to the child (and by what they are told it “means”) that they rush past the part that says who was going to give the child this name in such an orgasm of excitement that they don’t even give it a second thought.
The correct translation of Y’shayahu‘s statement is thus as follows. Pointing to a girl who must have been obviously very pregnant (we know he was actually pointing her out as he spoke because he uses the word hinneh), he says to King A?az: “There is a pregnant al’mah – she’s about to give birth to a son, and she’s going to name him Immanu’él…” The reader may notice that I have left the word al’mah untranslated; I guess she could have been a virgin (although this is rather unlikely, given that she was very obviously heavily pregnant), but would anyone (apart from the prophet himself, perhaps) have even known? In the 8th century BCE in Y’hudah, girls who had never experienced sexual intercourse didn’t generally walk around with the word “Virgin” tattooed on their foreheads or with flashing neon signs hanging over their heads! And furthermore, if it had been an important aspect of his prophecy that she was a virgin, wouldn’t Y’shayahu have made this absolutely clear by using the explicit word for a virgin, i.e. ????????? b’tulah?
Another point: the English word virgin refers specifically to a female, and is derived from the Latin word virgo, virginis which is a feminine noun. Although the word is used metaphorically in English to mean “unspoiled” (e.g. virgin snow, virgin forest, etc.), its application to a male is a very recent development in English usage. The Hebrew word ????????? b’tulah, a virgin, has no equivalent masculine form (it would be ??????? batul if it existed), but??????? al’mah does have a corresponding masculine form, ?????? elem, which is rarely used in the Scriptures but does occur in Shmuel Alef 17:56 and 20:22. I am not aware of anyone who suggests that both David (in 17:56) and Yonatan‘s servant who he sent to retrieve the arrows during his archery-practice (in 20:22) had never slept with a woman prior to this incident! And if ?????? elem has no relevance to prior sexual activity, why should the cognate feminine form ??????? al’mah have such a connotation?
virgin, young woman
(a) of mariageable age, or
(b) maid or newly married
and appending an irrelevant and ludicrously dishonest note by R. Laird Harris et al. (authors of Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, or “TWOT”):
“There is no instance where it can be proved that ??????? al’mah designates a young woman who is not a virgin. The fact of virginity is obvious in Gen. 24:43 where ??????? al’mah is used of one who was being sought as a bride for Isaac.”
As it happens, the first of these remarks is true, but so what? Consider the specious logic of that argument: just because it cannot be proved that ??????? al’mah doesn’t designate a non-virgin, does that mean the word definitely does designate a virgin? It also can’t be proved that the word ??????? al’mah designates a young woman who isn’t a blue-eyed, blonde, hunch-backed, 93-year-old woman with a beard – so perhaps Y’shayahu 7:14 should really be translated:
“Behold, the blue-eyed, blonde, hunch-backed, 93-year-old woman with a beard shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son…..”
To AbbaGuutuu
It looks like my response to you is going to take ‘a month of Sundays’ to go thru so here it is another way. I have figured out a way around the ‘moderation monster’. 🙂
A mere aThanks for your comment. I have read a report that Pope Francis is going to visit Israel on May 24, 2014. I didn’t know how much discussion regarding the Vatican was made on this website. It makes me very angry when I read the diabolical committed by the Vatican during the crusades against the Jews and the state of Israel by siding with the Arabs. Has the Vatican ever apologized for the Inquisition, its role for the crusades and participation in Hitler’s satanic acts? If not, how about demanding from the current pope an official apology (at least)?
A mere apology would never cut it. Actions speak louder than words. As far as I am concerned the Vatican now owns ‘the golden calf’ and are so far unrepentant. Look what happened in Canada and the U.S. with the natives that were abused at th residential schools. Who paid for the compensation? The Canadian and American people paid for it and most of them aren’t even catholic!!
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Honeybee couresponses with my given name, I have a Hebrew name, of which I am very proud because it fits my combative temperament. Don’t seat the posters,we like to fight,as Yamit82 say “stiff-necked” .
Oh ya. Back to having my comments in moderation I see. Hey Ted, do you ever moderate Dweller? I think it’s time to stop his neverending bible bashing on this site.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
A mere aThanks for your comment. I have read a report that Pope Francis is going to visit Israel on May 24, 2014. I didn’t know how much discussion regarding the Vatican was made on this website. It makes me very angry when I read the diabolical committed by the Vatican during the crusades against the Jews and the state of Israel by siding with the Arabs. Has the Vatican ever apologized for the Inquisition, its role for the crusades and participation in Hitler’s satanic acts? If not, how about demanding from the current pope an official apology (at least)?
dweller Said:
A christian concoction, as ludicrous as the Gospel of Gamliel.
@ yamit82:
You haven’t established any such ‘contradictions,’ so far.
So the star pupil of Rabban Gam’liel was a ‘goy’? (I daresay the two of them are having a good snort over that one, right about now.)
This is more than wrong; it’s downright silly.
And even if it were true (which it isn’t, but even if it were true), it would mean nothing by way of showing that Paul ‘wasn’t’ Jewish.
There are LOTS of Jews — many of whom read (and even post on) this website daily — who know nothing of Judaism, and who speak neither Ivrit nor Amrit.
— Nu? They aren’t Jewish?
You are begging the question.
You haven’t yet SHOWN that he was at all ‘wrong’ in those remarks (let alone, “so” wrong).
Common assumption; never confirmed.
— Actually there is substantial circumstantial evidence that he was not a gentile.
Half right. Half wrong.
The fall of Jerusalem WAS taken as evidence (by both Xtns AND Muslims) of God’s ‘rejection of the Jews.’
However, those phrases [above] from Romans 11 are absolutely NOT the basis for Replacement Theology (Supersessionism).
— That came much later, with Justin Martyr (1st of the non-Jewish, Xtn theologians) — over 100 yrs after the death & resurrection of Jesus, and over 60 yrs after the writing of the Letter to the Romans.
If the phrases from Romans 11 were the basis for Replacement Theology, then the REST of that chapter would make no sense whatsoever:
dove Said:
I agree with your comment.
Thanks for your comment. I have read a report that Pope Francis is going to visit Israel on May 24, 2014. I didn’t know how much discussion regarding the Vatican was made on this website. It makes me very angry when I read the diabolical deeds committed by the Vatican during the crusades against the Jews and the state of Israel by siding with the Arabs. Has the Vatican ever apologized for the Inquisition, its role for the crusades and participation in Hitler’s satanic acts? If not, how about demanding from the current pope an official apology (at least)?
@ AbbaGuutuu</
I am too painfully aware of what the Vatican has in store for the Jews. It has been discussed to death here on Israpundit. I am focusing on how to get us through it. The Israelis are the frontliners and really are 'under the gun'.
the phoenix Said:
I can not agree more! Thanks for your kind words as well.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
I hope one of the more knowledgeable bible residents will pick up just such an exchange. I look forward to learn more on this subject.
I only wish to commend you, for your respectful approach.
How refreshing.
Curious american, you ain’t.
🙂
the phoenix Said:
Thank you so much for the You Tube video. I agree with what that priest said.
honeybee Said:
Thanks for your kind words and insight. From your comments, I have observed so far, I can see your intelligence and patience. I am glad that you are proud of your heritage from which I and billions of others even benefited. Your name says it all, Honeybee!!! 🙂
dove Said:
Were you objecting to my comments or you have a better idea regarding what yamit82 has said? Although I was hesitant to respond to yamit82, there are some new stuff I was able to know (such as, The Septuagint Bible which was prior to Masoretic Hebrew Bible by about 1,000 yrs and it mentions about the virgin birth (Esaias 7:14) and also prophecies that should be fulfilled by the Messiah prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD). I do not want anyone to be inconvenienced regarding a controversial religious issues. However, it is not bad to exchange our views with mutual respect as friends. There are many issues on which I agree with you and others on this website. Thanks.
dove Said:
@ the phoenix:
This video starts off good. As soon he said that it is human nature to love Muslims I tuned out. They are a reflection of their religion – nothing to love there!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EERTY563_Zk&feature=player_detailpage
This video is more on target. Love DOES conquer hate!
@ AbbaGuutuu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Mda4h1YGMM0
@ AbbaGuutuu:
I personally have nothing against Christians,in fact I am surrounded by them, always have been. I pretty much take people as they come, the cowboy way. However I ask them to stay off my doorstep ,so to speak! I am proud of my Jewish heritage,but rules don’t suite me. As they say in Texas, I am not “easy broke and rear at a saddle”. I am somewhat intelligent and enjoy the discussions . You are a favorite!
@ AbbaGuutuu:
I submit to you sir, that there is only ONE kind of Muslim: the one who follows Islam (translation: submission) unquestioningly. And since it is written in that plagiarized pile of garbage that the unbelievers must be stricken at their necks….why, it is an obvious conclusion that there could NEVER be ‘peace’ wherever there is a Muslim.
For the simple reason that it is his religious DUTY to convert the dar alharb and its infidel occupiers to Islam.
The only way to have the Muslim world peaceful, as you said, would be to have a complete and total separation of the two worlds,encourage deportations ad lib and stop ALL immigration from musloid countries.
Of course, this will never happen any more than your utopian “peaceful Muslim world” (which in itself, is an oxymoron).
@ honeybee:
There are many things that both Christians and Jews have in common. It is good that you explain about Judaism to any person that may ask you.
This morning while flipping through cable channels, I came across a documentary on one of the channels. It was moderated by one of the former government officials of the state of Israel. As I was far way from the TV, I did not write down his name. I know he is a Jew Christian. He was speaking about one Orthodox Christian from Egypt, Father Zechariah. Aliqaida wants to pay $60 million to any person who may murder him. That guy is extremely bold in exposing the Koran on TV and radio. There were also testimonies by about two former Arab Muslims. They testified saying “Jesus appeared to them in a dream before they were converted”. One of them said, ” after I became a follower of Yahshua, I was filled with love for Israel and started praying for their return to their home land.” He added, ” I realized not only fighting with Israel but God Himself”. The other former Muslim is from Iraq. He said, “after becoming a follower of Yahshua, I was kidnapped by the Jihadists who asked for a $350,000.00 ransom. When he could not come up with the money, he was tortured. When they reduced the amount to $50,000.00,he could not afford as well (except $30,000.00 from his fiend). He said, “they shot me in my temple and then, Jesus again appeared to me in a dream and said ‘even in this suffering I will be with you and won’t forsake you”. He was taken to the hospital by an ambulance and got healed. Then, the moderator said: ” There are three kinds of people among Muslim Arabs: 1) The Jihadists/Islamists who want to change the world violently; 2) moderate ones who still believe in Islam but reject violent means and 3) Revivalists who believe in Yahshua and totally reject Islam.
I wish if the revivalists get an upper hand (absent a miracle this may not be possible).
As a person, I welcome anything that makes the Muslim world peaceful not only for Israel but for the world.
@ yamit82:
No! Paul did not invent the virgin birth. Where did you get such idea?
Let me post something I saw on the YouTube to which you referred me:
Isaiah 7:14 – “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. Hezekiah was not called Immanuel, and he was not “God with Us”. The name of a person in Hebrew gives you their character. Its not a simple title. Nor was his birth miraculous. What is the Sign/Miracle in a normal birth? None. The girl was very beautiful, a virgin, and no man had had relations with her (Ge 24:16) the maiden who comes out (Genesis 24:43).”
@ yamit82:
I thought you may not deal further about the difference between an orthodox Jew’s and a christian beliefs as the article under discussion deals with Vaticans stand against Israel. I have never said Israel as a nation was not chosen by Yahweh. The difference I see between Orthodox Jews and christians in general is whether Yahshua is the promised Jewish Messiah or not.
Let me post something that is relevant to this. I donot think any one of us could resolve the difference in this area (better to leave to individual to choose whatever they want to believe based on the free will given to them by Yahweh) and concentrate on those who want to destroy first the people of Saturday and then Sunday.
According to prophecies included in the Tanak & Brit Hadasha, if Yahshua is not the Jewish Messiah, Daniel’s prophecies (Chapter 9: 24-27), Jacob’s (Genesis 49:10) and Haggai 2:7 among others should be false, according to some both Jew and gentile Bible scholars. The website erroneously spells Yahshua’s (the correct birth name) as Yeshua.
“One in Messiah Congregation
Yeshua has to be the Messiah – ????????
I will prove by the scriptures that :
1. When Messiah had to come.
2. The Temple had to be standing.
3. New Covenant Jer. 31:31 ???????? ??????? , not renewed.
4. Messiah is the messenger of the covenant ??????? .
5. Scripture proves scripture (Tanak & Brit Hadasha ???????? ???????
6. Messianic Prophecies fulfilled in the Brit Hadasha ( N.T.)
7. Elijah the prophet came – Mal. 3:1, 4:5 ???????? ?????????
8. Elijah was the messenger, forerunner sent before Yeshua fulfilled in John
9. Yeshua foretold of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple ??????
10. Messiah has to be Yeshua.
Read more at: http://oneinmessiah.net/Yashua.htm
@ yamit82:
I thought you were WISE in these matters?? It’s ” Immaculate Conception”.
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Did Paul Invent the Virgin Birth?
@ AbbaGuutuu:
http://twocent2c2.wordpress.com/2014/01/09/introducing-dr-james-d-tabor/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU0aJ3Xgy1M
AbbaGuutuu Said:
Paul and the Christian Corruption of the Jewish Scriptures
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKW9g85S-no
@ AbbaGuutuu:
Yawn! Been there, done that, heard this, heard that….yadda yadda yadda.
yamit82 Said:
I did not expect the kind of response you gave to my comment, which I think was a balanced and reasonable. I do not think a person who has a strong belief in anything could easily give up on his belief through arguments on this or other websites. What a standard did use to say: “Paul was not a real apostle in strictest sense; what factual basis do you have for Paul not being Jew (when he calls himself a pharisee of a pharisee who studied under one of the Torah scholars (Gamaliel and claim to be from the tribe of Benjamin and speaks various langues including Hebrew as per the Bible)?
In the book of Acts, Paul said, he met Jesus when he was going to Damascus to put the followers of Yahshua in prison and even have them killed as he did in Jerusalem. I donot expect from a person of your stature to insult christians as though they “believe” in a demi-god. It is your God given right to believe or not believe in any one or anything. Although I would like to avoid any religious controversy, some of your assertions should be corrected so that we all may have a reasonable discussion regarding political, economic and social issues that affect Israel/Jews.
I did not say Luke was a disciple of Yahshua (though he was one of the four individuals (the only none Jew)who wrote one of the four gospels). Paul said all of the revelations he received were from the risen Christ. Although this is not the right forum for a religious discussion, I can reasonably defend Judaism or /and Christianity against any other beliefs.
please read the following regarding the verses you quoted from 1 Corinthians 7:29-31: “This entire discussion leads us to the brief passage assigned for today. It is especially important to notice Paul’s use of the words “as though not” (ho?s me?) five times over in these three verses. So, Paul says, one is to live “as though not” married, mourning, rejoicing, making purchases, and (in summation) dealing with the world in general.
Basic to his thinking is that one is to disengage from the world, for all is transitory. There is no point in becoming consumed or even entangled with the world and its concerns, for the “present form of this world is passing away.”
However, this approach is not the sum and substance of everything Paul has to say concerning life in this world. There is plenty more. In Romans 12:9-21, Paul provides a sustained discussion on Christian behavior within the community of believers (12:9-13) and in the larger community outside (12:14-21). In Romans 13:1-10, he urges that believers should be subject to the governing powers and should practice love for one another. In Philippians 4:8-9, he endorses and commends basic values and virtues as giving guidance for the Christian life. Twice in his letters, he sums up the Ten Commandments with the Love Commandment (Romans 13:9-10; Galatians 5:14).
Amidst these examples, it is helpful to put side-by-side two words: “disengagement” and “engagement.” In his ethical thinking, and in our passage for today, Paul calls upon persons of faith to disengage from the world and its ways of living. One should step back and see how being entangled with it can be a captivity preventing one from living the new life in Christ. But that is not the end of the matter, for we continue to live in this world and have to deal with it. In Paul’s way of thinking, disengagement is not an end in itself. Rather, being disengaged and set free, a person can engage the world from the perspective of being one who is “in Christ.” And Paul provides a lot of exhortation in his letters concerning that life, as mentioned above.
People who hear this passage read at worship will find it puzzling. They do not have a sense of the imminent coming of Christ, and they can hardly live day-to-day “as though not” having dealings with the world. It is important therefore, if this text is the basis for a sermon, to set it in the context of 1 Corinthians and within the larger framework of Paul’s ethical teaching, as done here.”
Read more at: http://www.workingpreacher.org/preaching.aspx?commentary_id=228
yamit82 Said:
its gross! those folks keep trying to stab the jews in the back, or any way they can. Places like that and the aqsa mosque should not be active but just museums. Muslims should not pray on the mount.
yamit82 Said:
King David Tomb, really is this true?????
AbbaGuutuu Said:
Trying to learn to copy and paste. You are correct “not all Christians are the same”. One Christian interest in Judaism and her questions began my renewed interest in Judai, ater my own relatives rejection.
@ bernard ross:
Questions Continue to Loom Over Mount Zion as Pope Prepares to Visit Israel
READ FULL ARTICLE
Israel Promotes Jesus and the Pope
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zRRpY8XmCk
yamit82 Said:
I really enjoyed Singer’s short talk. Especially his thoughts on sin and forgiveness. Such a sensible religion 🙂
The radio host was on a high speed sell. Of the 3 religions Judaism does not push its goods in high pressure sales. Islam has the highest pressure “sales” 😛
whatever happened to the world beating a path to the door of a better mousetrap?
@ yamit82:
These so-called Christians were frustrated and angry because the rabbi could not be tricked into accepting their views and he stood up very well under their pressure. The Christians did not want to engage in respectful discussion but they showed a deep animosity which contrasted with their religion of “love”.
AbbaGuutuu Said:
Your Paul said a lot of things much of it in contradiction to other things he said.
A- Paul was not a real apostle in the strictest sense. B- He was not Jewish. (Knew little to nothing about Judaism and did not speak Hebrew or Aramaic.) C- He never met in person your demi-god. D- and all of his revelation narrative is his alone. You either believe it or not.
1 Cor 7:
29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,
30 those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess,
31 and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away
If he was so wrong here why accept anything else he had to say?
Luke was not even though he was a doctor. 🙂
True but tell us what you believe and how you support Israel and the Jews?
We have a long negative history with the Church and would never confuse them with others who sided against the Church with the arch Jew Hater Luther and the reformation spinoff denominations. While I agree with everything and more that “Giulio Meotti” writes The Vatican and main stream Protestant denominations have pretty much given up trying to convert the Jews. Supporting those who would wipe us out physically yes, but have more or less left the field of missionizing to the Jews to all of the evangelicals. So we have today at least two main versions of anti-Jewish christians those who seek our physical demise and those who seek our spiritual demise. I suppose the third would be one who is not in the other two categories.
Where in this complexity do you fit?
I hope you do not threat the bad and good Christians the same. As it is not possible to make the entire world to have the same religion, the best thing to do is to have as many friends as possible from Christians as well as others to counter the ant-semitic trend that we now observe all over the world.
Biblical Christianity doesn’t support the so called Replacement Theology, a repeated lies being accepted by some misinformed and misguided Christian denominations. This satanic doctrine was not taught by YaHshua (the birth name of Jesus (not a Jewish name but the distorted and anglicized name by the Catholics/others) and His disciples who were all Jewish.
All Christians are not the same. There are some misinformed and misguided ones like the Presbyterian church. I believe YaHshua was/is and will be supporting Israel and the Jews.
Biblical Christianity doesn’t support the so called Replacement Theology, a repeated lies being accepted by some misinformed and misguided Christian denominations and others. This satanic doctrine was not taught by YaHshua (the birth name of Jesus (not a Jewish name but the distorted and anglicized name by the Catholics/others) and His disciples who were all Jewish.
There are many evangelicals who vehemently oppose the replacement theology and support Israel and the Jews. It is advisable not to attack Christianity because of the misguided policy/actions of the Catholics leadership – which doesn’t represent the Protestants but misused the religion.
In one of his epistles, even Rabbi Shaul (Apostle Paul) wrote the following:
Paul’s Anguish Over Israel
Roman’s 1:1-5 (NIV)
“1 I speak the truth in Christ—I am not lying, my conscience confirms it through the Holy Spirit— 2 I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race, 4 the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption to sonship; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises. 5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, who is God over all, forever praised”.
A little bit of Jewish knowledge makes christians leave skid marks in debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3218180505&feature=iv&src_vid=sf8AKSnyljY&v=cyFl5WnG8gw
@ bernard ross:
Nicely and accurately described…
It appears to me that the greatest demonstration of the illegitimacy of Christianity and Islam is the evil with which they have associated themselves over history. Christianity appears much worse. I suspect that the apparent “secular” euro war against the Jews is actually actively propagated by the Vatican. Seeming irrationality becomes understandable when viewed in this light. Everything stems from this, this explains everything. Why assume that the Vatican tolerated Waldheim? I will wager that he was their agent, as were many others. The Vatican paints itself as a bystander but I wager they are the ongoing prime cause.
A 2000 year, multinational, global, tax exempt, privately held business has a perpetual thorn in its side which it perpetually seeks to remove and yet keep. The prime example of the multi generational corporation propagated outside of human descendancy. The unmasking of the devil.
I have said for a long time that much of christianity(supersessionists)have a vested existential interest in the failure of the Jews in the land of Israel. The land has begun to blossom as prophesied after the beginning of the ingathering of the Jewish people.
How can it be the real Jews under whom the land blooms rather than the christian replacement Jews? Has Hashem chosen the real Jews instead of the replacement Jews? This is the greatest fact which bankrupts the theology of the Catholic Church, and other supersessionist Christians. The existence of this current phenomenon directly contradicts the major dogma of the catholic Church. Either G_D is mistaken or the Church is mistaken. At all costs, in order to remain alive, the Church must destroy the success of the Jews in israel and render them at best as a secondary inhabitant of the land of Israel.
For the Catholic church the best scenario would be that G_D demonstrates His Choice, through the muslim murder of the Jews in Israel.
For the Catholic Church this would leave them innocent of Jewish murder but elevate them back as the chosen replacement Jews.
Esau incites Ishmael to murder Jacob!
The real explanation for the behavior of the christian and muslim world towards the Jews. The ongoing cabal and conspiracy to murder.
The Catholic Church is older than Islam. Islam itself was born as a tool of the Roman Catholic Church to be applied against the Byzantine Empire, Romans in the East, the birth place of Christianity. Constantinople, the seat of Constantine, the first Christian emperor is now Istanbul. At the beginning of WWI, Islam finished the job it started in Turkey by successfully exterminating Armenians from their homeland in East Turkey. The alliance between the Turks and the Kurds to murder the Armenians resulted in what the Kurds now claim as their homeland.