Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10120
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 9:10 pm
Location: Packing my stuff and moving to Denver like you should be doing

PostMon Nov 02, 2009 6:05 pm » by Savwafair2012

:obsessed: I find this so insane. Why would we even go to war for them?
:o :o :top: :top: :o :o
Article II. - What the Talmud Teaches About Christians :o

In the preceding chapter we saw what the Jews think of the Founder of the Christian religion, and how much they despise his name. This being so, it would not be expected that they would have any better opinion about those who follow Jesus the Nazarene. In fact, nothing more abominable can be imagined than what they have to say about Christians. They say that they are idolaters, the worst kind of people, much worse than the Turks, murderers, fornicators, impure animals, like dirt, unworthy to be called men, beasts in human form, worthy of the name of beasts, cows, asses, pigs, dogs, worse than dogs; that they propagate after the manner of beasts, that they have diabolic origin, that their souls come from the devil and return to the devil in hell after death; and that even the body of a dead Christian is nothing different from that of an animal.


Since Christians follow the teachings of that man, whom the Jews regard as a Seducer and an Idolater, and since they worship him as God, it clearly follows that they merit the name of idolaters, in no way different from those among whom the Jews lived before the birth of Christ, and whom they taught should be exterminated by every possible means.

This is best demonstrated by the names they give to Christians, and by the unmistakable words of Maimonides which prove that all who bear the name of Christian are idolaters.(42a) And anyone who examines Jewish books which speak of the "Worshippers of the Stars and Planets," "Epicureans," "Samaritans," etc., cannot but conclude that these idolaters are none other than Christians. The Turks are always called "Ismaelites," never idolaters.

(42a) Vide Infra. ch. II, p. 42


Maimonides in Hilkoth Maakhaloth (ch. IX) says:

"It is not permitted to drink the wine of a stranger who becomes a convert,(43) that is, one who accepts the seven precepts of Noah, but is permitted to gain some benefit from it. It is allowed to leave wine alone with him, but not to place it before him. The same is permitted in the case of all gentiles who are not idolaters, such as the Turks [Ismaelites]. A Jew, however, is not permitted to drink their wine, although he may use it to his own advantage. All the best known Rabbis agree on this. But since Christians are idolaters, it is not allowed even to use their wine to advantage."

(43) There are two kinds of Jewish converts; some are called Gere Tsedekh, converts to justice, who embrace the Jewish religion and accept the whole law of Moses, not for external reasons only, but for the glory of God and for the sake of true religion; others are called Gere Toschabh, convert strangers, who are neither circumcized nor baptized, and who observe only certain laws, namely those given to the sons of Noah, which are: (1) Justice; (2) Praise of God; (3) Shunning idolatry; (4) about fornication; (5) the shedding of blood; (6) Rape; (7) not touching an animal's organ. Vide, Sanhed, 56a.


In Abhodah Zarah (22a) it says:

"A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles because they are given to the shedding of blood."

Likewise in Iore Dea (153,2):

"An Israelite must not associate himself with the Akum [Christians] because they are given to the shedding of blood."

In the Abhodah Zarah (25b) it says:

"The Rabbis taught: If a Goi joins an Israelite on the road, he [the Jew] should walk on his right side.(44) Rabbi Ismael, the son of Rabbi Jochanan the nephew of Beruka, says: if he carries a sword, let the Jew walk on his right side.(45) If the Goi carries a stick, the Jew should walk on his left side.(46) If he is climbing a hill or descending a steep incline, the Jew must not go in front with the Goi behind, but the Jew must go behind and the Goi in front, nor must he stoop down in front of him for fear the Goi might crack his skull. And if he should ask the Jew how far he is going, he should pretend he is going a long way, as Jacob our Father said to the impious Esau: Until I come to my Lord in Seir (Gen. XXXIII, 14-17), but it adds: Jacob set out for Sukoth."

(44) So that if the Gentile should raise his hand to strike him, the Jew can more quickly ward off the blow with his right hand.
(45) So that the Jew's right hand be nearer to the Gentile's sword, and if he tries to draw it, the Jew can obstruct his right hand.
(46) So that the Jew be nearer to the Gentile's right hand which holds the stick, and so may be able to grasp it quickly with his left hand.

In Orach Chaiim (20,2) it says:

"Do not sell your overcoat (Talith) with the fringes to an Akum, lest he should join up with a Jew on the road and kill him. It is also forbidden to exchange or lend your overcoat with a Gentile, except for a short time and when there is nothing to be feared from him."


In the Abhodah Zarah (15b) it says:

"Animals of the masculine sex must not be left in the barns of the Gentiles with their men, nor animals of the feminine sex with their women; much less must animals of the feminine sex be left with their men and of the masculine sex with their women. Nor must sheep be left to the care of their shepherds; nor must any intercourse be had with them; nor must children be given into their care to learn to read or to learn a trade."

In the same tract a little farther on (22a) it is explained why animals must not be allowed in the barns of Gentiles, and why Jews are not permitted to have sexual intercourse with them:

"Animals must not be allowed to go near the Goim, because they are suspected of having intercourse with them. Nor must women cohabit with them because they are over-sexed."

In fol. 22b of the same book the reason is given why animals especially of the feminine sex must be kept away from their women:

"...because when Gentile men come to their neighbors' houses to commit adultery with their wives and do not find them at home, they fornicate with the sheep in the barns instead. And sometimes even when their neighbors' wives are at home, they prefer to fornicate with the animals; for they love the sheep of the Israelites more than their own women."

It is for the same reason that animals are not to be entrusted to Goi shepherds, nor children to their educators.

5. UNCLEAN :censored:

The Talmud gives two reasons why the Goim are unclean: because they eat unclean things, and because they themselves have not been cleansed (from original sin) on Mount Sinai. In Schabbath, (145b) it says:

"Why are the Goim unclean? Because they eat abominable things and animals that crawl on their belly."

Likewise in Abhodah Zarah, 22b:

"Why are the Goim unclean? Because they were not present at Mount Sinai. For when the serpent entered into Eve he infused her with uncleanness. But the Jews were cleansed from this when they stood on Mount Sinai; the Goim, however, who were not on Mount Sinaim were not cleansed."


"When ten persons are praying together in one place and they say Kaddisch, or Kedoschah, anyone, even though he does not belong there, may respond Amen. There are some, however, who say that no dung or Akum must be present."

In Iore Dea (198, 48) Hagah, it says:

"When Jewish women come out of a bath they must take care to meet a friend first, and not something unclean or a Christian. For if so, a woman, if she wants to keep holy, should go back and bathe again."

It is worthy of note that the following list of unclean things is given in Biur Hetib, a commentary on the Schulchan Arukh:

"A woman must wash herself again if she sees any unclean thing, such as a dog, an ass, or People of the Earth; a Christian (Akum), a camel,(47) a pig, a horse, and a leper."

(47) In the Vilna ed. of 1873, camel is omitted, since there are no camels there; but People of the Earth, and Akum are included.

7. NOT LIKE MEN, BUT BEASTS :obsessed:

In Kerithuth (6b p. 78) it says:

"The teaching of the Rabbis is: He who pours oil over a Goi, and over dead bodies is freed from punishment. This is true for an animal because it is not a man.(48) But how can it be said that by pouring oil over a Goi one is freed from punishment, since a Goi is also a man? But this is not true, for it is written: Ye are my flock, the flock of my pasture are men (Ezechiel, XXXIV, 31). You are thus called men, but the Goim are not called men."

(48) The same holds for the dead body of any man.

In the Tract Makkoth (7b) he is said to be guilty of killing "except when, if intending to kill an animal he kills a man by mistake, or intending to kill a Goi, he kills an Israelite."

In Orach Chaiim (225,10) it says:

"He who sees beautiful creatures, even though it be an Akum or an animal, let him say 'Blessed art thou Our Lord God, King of the Universe, who has placed such things on the earth!' "


In Midrasch Talpioth (fol. 225d) it says:

"God created them in the form of men for the glory of Israel. But Akum were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form, and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him."

We can quote here also what is said in Orach Chaiim, 57, 6a:

"If pigs are to be pitied when they suffer from disease, because their intestines are similar to ours, how much more should the Akum be pitied when thus affected."(49)

(49) In Taanith (21b) it says: "How much more the Nokhrim since they are similar to Israelites."

9. ANIMALS :headscratch:

In Zohar, II, (64b) it says:

"...People who worship idols, and who are called cow and ass, as it is written: I have a cow and an ass..."

Rabbi Bechai, in his book Kad Hakkemach, ch. I, beginning with the word Geulah—redemption—referring to Psalm 80, v. 13: The boar out of the wood doth waste it, says:

"The letter ain is dropped [suspended] the same as these worshippers are followers of him who was suspended."

Buxtorf (Lex.) says:

"By wild pig the author here means the Christians who eat pork and, like pigs, have destroyed the vineyard of Israel, the City of Jerusalem, and who believe in the 'suspended' Christ. Else the letter ain is dropped in this word because they, as worshippers of Christ who was hanged, are also dropped."

Rabbi Edels, in commenting on Kethuboth (110b) says:

"The Psalmist compares the Akum to the unclean beast in the woods."


Rabbi Schelomo Iarchi (Raschi), famous Jewish commentator, explaining the law of Moses (Deuter. XIV, 21) forbidding the eating of meat of wounded animals, but which must be given to the 'stranger in thy gates,' or which, according to Exodus (XXII, 30) is to be thrown to the dogs, has this to say:

"...for he is like a dog. Are we to take to word 'dog' here literally? By no means. For the text in speaking of dead bodies says, Or thou mayest sell it to an alien. This applies much more to the meat of wounded animals, for which it is permitted to accept payment. Why therefore does the Scripture say it may be thrown to 'dogs?' In order to teach you that a dog is to be more respected than the Nokhri."


In the Sanhedrin (74b) Tosephoth, it says:

"The sexual intercourse of a Goi is like to that of a beast."

And in Kethuboth (3b) it says:

"The seed of a Goi is worth the same as that of a beast."

Hence it is to be inferred that Christian marriage is not true marriage.

In Kidduschim (68a), it says:

"...How do we know this? Rabbi Huna says: You can read: Remain here with the ass, that is, with a people like an ass. Hence it appears that they are not capable of contracting marriage."

And in Eben Haezer (44, 8):

"If a Jew enters into marriage with an Akum (Christian), or with his servant, the marriage is null. For they are not capable of entering into matrimony. Likewise if an Akum or a servant enter into matrimony with a Jew, the marriage is null."

In Zohar (II, 64b) it says:

"Rabbi Abba says: If only idolaters alone had sexual intercourse, the world would not continue to exist. Hence we are taught that a Jew should not give way to those infamous robbers. For if these propagate in greater numbers, it will be impossible for us to continue to exist because of them. For they give birth to sucklings the same as dogs."


In Zohar (I, 28b) we read:

"Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field, etc. (Genes. III, 1.) 'More subtle' that is towards evil; 'than all beasts' that is, the idolatrous people of the earth. For they are the children of the ancient serpent which seduced Eve."(50)

(50) This ancient serpent, the parent of Christians, that is, the devil in the form of a serpent, is called, Sammael (cf. Targum Iobi, XXVIII, 7). Rabbi Maimonides writes in More (Bk. II, ch. 30) that Sammael took the form of a serpent and seduced Eve. He is also called the 'Angel of Death,' and 'the Head of the assembly of evil ones.' Debbarim Rabba (208c) calls him "Sammael the impious one, "the prince of all devils." Rabbi Bechai (in Mikkets) calls him "The Impious Sammael, the Prince of Rome."

The best argument used by the Jews to prove that Christians are of the race of the devil is the fact that they are uncircumcized. The foreskin on non-Jews prevents them from being called the children of the Most High God. For by circumcision the name of God—Schaddai—is completed in the flesh of a circumcized Jew. The form of the letter Isch is in his nostrils, the letter Daleth in his (bent) arm, and ain appears in his sexual organ by circumcision. In non-circumcized gentiles, therefore, such as Christians, there are only two letters, Isch and Daleth, which make the word Sched, which means devil. They are, therefore, children of the Sched, the devil.(51)

(51) cf. Sanhedrin Jud. p. 88


The teaching of the Jews is that God created two natures, one good and the other evil, or one nature with two sides, one clean and the other unclean. From the unclean side, called Keliphah—rind, or scabby crust—the souls of Christians are said to have come.

In Zohar (I, 131a) it says:

"Idolatrous people, however, since they exist, befoul the world, because their souls come out of the unclean side."

And in Emek Hammelech (23d) it says:

"The souls of the impious come from Keliphah, which is death and the shadows of death."

Zohar (I, 46b, 47a) goes on to show that this unclean side is the left side, from which the souls of Christians come:

"And he created every living thing, that is, the Israelites, because they are the children of the Most High God, and their holy souls come out from Him. But where do the souls of the idolatrous gentiles come from? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the left side, which makes their souls unclean. They are therefore all unclean and they pollute all who come in contact with them."


The Elders teach that Abraham sits at the gate of Gehenna and prevents any circumcized person from entering there; but that all the uncircumcized go down to hell.

In Rosch Haschanach (17a) it says:

"Heretics and Epicureans and Traitors go down into hell."


The bodies of Christians after death are called by the odious name of Pegarim, which is the word used in Holy Scripture for the dead bodies of the damned and of animals, but never for the pious dead who are called Metim. Thus the Schulchan Arukh orders that a dead Christian must be spoken of in the same way as a dead animal.

In Iore Dea (377,1) it says:

"Condolences must not be offered to anyone on account of the death of his servants or handmaidens. All that may be said is 'May God restore your lost one, the same as we say to a man who has lost a cow or an ass.' "

Nor must Christians be avoided for seven days after they have buried someone, as the law of Moses commands, since they are not men; for the burial of an animal does not pollute one.

In Iebhammoth (61a) it says:

"The Nokhrim are not rendered unclean by a burial. For it is said: Ye are my sheep, the sheep of my pasture; ye are men. You are thus called men, but not the Nokhrim."
Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, . http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10609
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:11 pm

PostMon Nov 02, 2009 6:34 pm » by Cornbread714

savwafair2012 wrote::obsessed: I find this so insane. Why would we even go to war for them?

And you think this represents modern Judaic thought?

Just what war are you talking about, anyway?
Where's the beer and when do I get paid?
- Jimmy Carl Black (the Indian of the group)

Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:06 am
Location: Toronto

PostMon Nov 02, 2009 6:52 pm » by Justhuman

Usually I do not respond to this kind of crap, but I think this one just got on my nerves.
Since you savwafair2012 seem to be obsessed with jew hatred, I was wondering what your sources are?
I took the time and checked one small paragraph of your "great work" here and just could not find the same thing you stated. Or maybe I am blind?
Here is the full text of Ktuboth 3b, where i could not find the comparisson of non-jew's semen to the semen of a beast... I also checked the 2b and the 4b, just in case, but nope - it is not there.
What is [the reference to] shakedu? [For] it has been taught: Why did they say that a maiden is married on the fourth day? 'Because if he had a claim as to virginity he could go early [next morning] to the court of justice. But let her be married on the first day in the week and if he had a claim as to virginity he could go early [on the morning of the second day in the week] to the court of justice? — The Sages watched over the interests of the daughters of Israel so that [the man] should prepare for the [wedding-]feast three days, the first day in the week, and the second day in the week, and the third day in the week, and on the fourth day he marries her. And from [the time of] danger and onwards the people made it a custom to marry on the third day and the Sages did not interfere with them. And on the second day [of the week] he shall not marry; and if on account of the constraint1 it is allowed. And one separates the bridegroom from the bride on the nights of Sabbath at the beginning,2 because he makes a wound.3

What [was the] danger? If I say that they4 said, 'a maiden that gets married on the fourth day [of the week] shall be killed', [then how state] 'they made it a custom'? We should abolish it entirely! — Said Rabbah: [That] they said, 'a maiden that gets married on the fourth day [of the week] shall have the first sexual intercourse with the prefect.'5 [You call] this danger? [Surely] this [is a case of] constraint!6 — Because there are chaste women who would rather surrender themselves to death and [thus] come to danger. But let one expound to them7 that [in a case of] constraint [it] is allowed?8 — There are loose women9 and there are also priestesses.10 But [then] let one abolish it?11 A decree12 is likely to cease, and [therefore] we do not abolish an ordinance of the Rabbis on account of a decree. If so, on the third day he [the prefect] would also come and have intercourse [with the bride]? — Out of doubt he does not move himself.13

[It is stated above:] 'And on the second day [of the week] he shall not marry; and if on account of the constraint it is allowed.' What constraint [is referred to]? Shall I say [that it is] that which we have said?14 There,15 one calls it 'danger' 'and here, one calls it [mere] 'constraint'! And further, there [it states], 'they made it a custom', [whilst] here, 'it is allowed'!16 — Said Raba: [it is that] they say 'a general has come to town.17 In what case? If he comes and passes by,18 let it be delayed!19 — It is not necessary [to state this but] that he came and stayed. Let him, [then], marry on the third day [of the week]!20 — His21 vanguard arrived on the third day. And if you wish I may say: What is [the meaning of] 'on account of the constraint'? As it has been taught: If his bread was baked and his meat prepared and his wine mixed22 and the father of the bridegroom23 or the mother of the bride died,24 they bring the dead [person] into a room and the bridegroom and the bride into the bridal chamber,25
So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
And we never even know we have the key.

Lyrics from Already Gone, peformed by the Eagles for their 1974 On the Border album

Master Conspirator
Posts: 11824
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:08 am

PostMon Nov 02, 2009 7:38 pm » by Boondox681

thank god for religion. :flop:

Posts: 1539
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:45 am

PostMon Nov 02, 2009 11:08 pm » by Wolfbane7272

I often wonder what motives people have when they bring forth controversial and startling ideas and dicoveries ..or revelations if you will ..is it it to incite forum groups to be at war with each other ..or merely a posting ..harmless ..I am on the fence about that but i do watch this kind of thing closely


Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 1:06 am
Location: Toronto

PostTue Nov 03, 2009 12:56 am » by Justhuman

wolfbane7272 wrote:I often wonder what motives people have when they bring forth controversial and startling ideas and dicoveries ..or revelations if you will ..is it it to incite forum groups to be at war with each other ..or merely a posting ..harmless ..I am on the fence about that but i do watch this kind of thing closely

I was wondering the same myself. This is kind of things that can only start a fight/war between people. It is never harmless and the posters know that damn well.
So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
And we never even know we have the key.

Lyrics from Already Gone, peformed by the Eagles for their 1974 On the Border album

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10609
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:11 pm

PostTue Nov 03, 2009 11:40 am » by Cornbread714

This poster frequently puts up inflammatory or useless, irrelevant material, usually with no sources or comment.

A plot?

I don't think so.

Just a moron.
Where's the beer and when do I get paid?
- Jimmy Carl Black (the Indian of the group)

User avatar
Posts: 3920
Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:01 pm

PostTue Nov 03, 2009 1:03 pm » by Zegtelzegtel

savwafair2012 wrote::obsessed: I find this so insane. Why would we even go to war for them?

WAR for WHO???

Master Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 10609
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 10:11 pm

PostTue Nov 03, 2009 1:25 pm » by Cornbread714

Here's the source. Savwa won't print it but I will:


A little info I found on the author:


The Reverend I.B. Pranaitis was a turn-of-the-century Russian anti-Semite who was "Master of Theology and Professor of the Hebrew Language at the Imperial Ecclesiastical Academy of the Roman Catholic Church" in Old St.Petersburg, Russia. He also had a criminal record. In 1892, with the support of his Archbishop, he published an anti-Semitic tract in Latin called "Christianus in Talmude Iudaeorum" or as it became known in English, "The Talmud Unmasked, The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians" which was translated into English by American anti-Semites around 1939.

Pranaitis is revered by anti-Semites as a "Talmud Scholar". For example at a hate-site on the Web, http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/factindx.htm#Facts are Facts we find "The Rev. Pranaitis was the greatest of the students of the Talmud. His complete command of the Hebrew language qualified him to analyze the Talmud as few men in history". (Interestingly, a vast majority of the Talmud is not even written in Hebrew, but this minor problem will be ignored for the moment.) The reality concerning this "scholar" is very different as was even proven in an anti-Semitic court.

This occurred in the infamous "blood libel" case of Mendel Beiliss in Russia in 1912 where Beiliss was accused of murdering a Christian child to take his blood for alleged Jewish rituals and to put in Passover Matzah (unleavened bread). (Incidentally, the first known "blood libel" case occurred in Norwich, England in 1144.)

Pranaitis was called as a prosecution witness to testify to the allegedly horrible things said about Christians in the Talmud. His credibility, however, was quickly destroyed by the defence who asked him a few basic questions which anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the Talmud would be expected to know:

The particular questions that Panaitis was asked under cross-examination that completely destroyed his credibility were as follows:

Q: What is the meaning of the word Hullin?
A: I don't know.
("Hullin" means "ordinary produce" in Hebrew as opposed to "sanctified produce".)

Q: What is the meaning of the word Erubin?
A: I don't know.
("Erubin" means "domains which have been set up to allow Jews to carry outside their homes on the Sabbath".)

Q: What is the meaning of the word Yevamot?
A: I don't know.
("Yevamot" means "brothers in law in reference to Leverite marriage - a certain type of marriage relating to the command to marry one's dead brother's wife if he died without children".)

Q: When did [BANNED] Bathra live and what was her activity?
A: I don't know.
([BANNED] Bathra was not a person but it is a Talmudic Tractate.)

Ref: "Blood Accusation: The Strange History of the Beiliss Case" by Maurice Samuel. Quote supplied by Joseph Hertzlinger (jhertzli@ix.netcom.com)

Other books concerning this "trial" are:

"The Russian Jew under the Tsars and Soviets" by Salo W. Baron

"History of the Jews in Russia and Poland", S. M. Dubnow

"The Decay of Czarism: The Beilis Trial" by Alexander B. Tager.

"The Beilis Transcripts: The Anti-Semitic Trial that Shook the World", E. Leikin, Aronson, New Jersey, 1993, ISBN 0-87668-179-8

So much for Pranaitis' credibility. Nevertheless, his quotes keep getting circulated and most recently were even taught in the class room of school teacher Mr James Keegstra in Eckville, Alberta, Canada. He was dissmised from his post in 1982. (See http://www1.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/peopl ... ourt/facts)

The majority of the Talmud "quotes" in this document are derived from Pranaitis' book.

Pranaitis in the Beiliss "Blood Libel" trial.

This is an extract of "Scapegoat on Trial: The Story of Mendel Beiliss – The Autobiography of Mendel Beiliss" Shari Schwarz, editor. [Note the variant spelling of Pranaitis.]

The star witness for the prosecution was the Catholic priest Pronaitis. He was not a reputable Russian Orthodox priest; indeed, one could not be found to do such "dirty work" at the bidding of the authorities. They were lucky to have found someone like Pronaitis at all. He was presumably well versed in both the Talmud and Kabbalah. In short, he presented himself as a great Hebraist and was introduced to the court as such. But when this "expert" began to speak, it was obvious to all that he was nothing short of an ignoramus, his only talent being the ability to talk a good game. However, since the authorities needed his long-winded verbiage to carry some weight, they feigned to respect him as a holy man of great stature.

He began his lecture by stating matter-of-factly that the Jews offered human sacrifices and the Jewish religion commanded its adherents to murder gentiles. He even "interpreted" a sentence from the Talmud that supposedly said, "Murder the best of the gentiles." In the same vein, after finishing with the Talmud, he went on to the Kabbalah.

However, in spite of all this, when the procurator asked him if he had any direct knowledge of Jews using Christian blood, he said he did not. His expert opinion had made an impression on no one. In fact, many in the audience occasionally laughed out loud when he clearly became confused and couldn't even intelligibly answer some of the questions asked by my lawyer.

A minor sensation was produced when the testimony dealt with the number thirteen, a number which was supposed to have great significance when used in a Jewish context. The prosecution insisted that the thirteen wounds which Professor Sikorsky had discovered on Andriusha's body proved that they had been inflicted in accordance with "Jewish ritual." When it was discovered afterwards that there were actually fourteen wounds, the ritual murder charge lost even more credibility.

Furthermore, all the perverse and ridiculous lies that Pronaitis had postulated were completely refuted by the brilliant, decisive testimony given by the well-known and universally respected Rabbi of Moscow, Rabbi Mazeh. He delivered a long, detailed speech quoting passages from the Torah, the Talmud and many other books to conclusively reveal both the absurdity and the stupidity inherent in the testimony of such "experts" as Pronaitis. Any intelligent person could see that the priest had no knowledge whatsoever of the Talmud and could hardly even read a passage in Hebrew.

Savwa, I'm neither Jewish or some Israel apologist. I just dislike racism. This shit is low.
Where's the beer and when do I get paid?
- Jimmy Carl Black (the Indian of the group)

User avatar
Posts: 2370
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 11:43 am

PostTue Nov 03, 2009 2:10 pm » by Electrobadgr

justhuman wrote:
wolfbane7272 wrote:I often wonder what motives people have when they bring forth controversial and startling ideas and dicoveries ..or revelations if you will ..is it it to incite forum groups to be at war with each other ..or merely a posting ..harmless ..I am on the fence about that but i do watch this kind of thing closely

I was wondering the same myself. This is kind of things that can only start a fight/war between people. It is never harmless and the posters know that damn well.

Not long ago i attacked a guy called Zioncon76 for posting stuff about jews that i found to be "anti-semitic", he then challenged me to do some research on the claims he made and i did.... All i will say is we don't know what modern jews are taught about "gentiles" today, but there are many passages in their scriptures which do not talk about christians favourably. I avoid this subject now as i feel it is too big for me, it is a dangerous area but all i will say is there is no smoke without fire.....

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly. time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor


  • Related topics
    Last post