PJ#223, BIRTHING THE PHOENIX VOL. 2

PJ 223

CHAPTER 9

2/16/91 #2 HATONN

CONTINUATION: FREEDMAN-GOLDSTEIN

[QUOTING:]

In the existing crisis it is neither logical nor realistic to drive Christians out of the Christian "fold" in relatively large numbers for the dubious advantage to be obtained by bringing a com­paratively small number of so-called or self-styled "Jews" into the Christian "fold".

It is useless to try to deny the fact that today finds the Chris­tian faith on the defensive throughout the world. This realiza­tion staggers the imagination of the few Christians who un­derstand the situation. This status of the Christian faith exists in spite of the magnificent contributions of the Christian faith to the progress of humanity of civilization for almost 2000 years. It is not my intention in this letter to expose the conspirators who are dedicating themselves to the destruction of the Christian faith nor to the nature and extent of the conspiracy itself. That ex­posure would fill many volumes.

The history of the world for the past several centuries and current events at home and abroad confirm the existence of such a conspiracy. The world-wide net-work of diabolical con­spirators implement this plot against the Christian faith while Christians appear to be sound asleep. The Christian clergy ap­pear to be more ignorant or more indifferent about this conspir­acy than other Christians. They seem to bury their heads in the sands like the legendary ostrich. This ignorance or indifference on the part of the Christian clergy has dealt a blow to the Chris­tian faith already from which it may never completely recover, if at all. It seems so sad.

Christians deserve to be blessed in this crisis with a spiritual Paul Revere to ride across the nation warning Christians that their enemies are moving in on them fast. My dear Dr. Gold­stein, will you volunteer to be that Paul Revere?

Of equal importance to pin-pointing the enemies who are making war upon the Christian faith from the outside is the ne­cessity to discover the forces at work inside the Christian faith which make it so vulnerable to its enemies on the outside. Ap­plying yourself to this specific phase of the problem can prove of tremendous value in rendering ineffective the forces respon­sible for this dangerous state of affairs.

The souls of millions of Christians who are totally unknown to you are quite uneasy about the status of the Christian faith to­day. The minds of countless thousands among the Christian clergy are troubled by the mysterious "pressure" from above which prevents them exercising their sound judgment in this situation. If the forces being manipulated against the Christian faith from the inside can be stopped the Christian faith will be able to stand upon its feet against its enemies as firmly as the Rock of Gibralter. Unless this can be done soon the Christian faith appears destined to crumble and to eventually collapse. An ounce of prevention is far preferable to a pound of cure you can be sure in this situation as in all others.

With all respect rightly due to the Christian clergy and in all humility I have an unpleasant duty to perform. I wish to go on record with you here that the Christian clergy are primarily if not solely responsible for the internal forces within the Christian faith inimical to its best interests. The conclusion on my part indicates the sum total of all the facts in my book which add up to just that. If you truly desire to be realistic and constructive you must "hew to the line and let the chips fall where they may". That is the only strategy that can save the Christian faith from a fate it does not deserve. You cannot pussy-foot with the truth any longer simply because you find that now "the truth hurts",--someone you know or like.

At this late hour very little time is left in which to mend our fences if I can call it that. We are not in a position to waste any of our limited time. "Beating it around the bush" now will get us exactly nowheres. The courageous alone will endure the pre­sent crisis when all the chips are down. Figuratively and possi­bly literally there will be live heroes and dead cowards when the dust of this secular combat settles and not dead heroes and live cowards as sometimes occurs under other circumstances. The Christian faith today remains the only "anchor to windward" against universal barbarism. The dedicated enemies of the Christian faith have sufficiently convinced the world by this time of the savage methods they will adopt in their program to erase the Christian faith from the face of the Earth.

Earlier in this letter I stated that in my humble opinion the apathy of the Christian clergy might be charged with sole re­sponsibility for the increasing dilution of the devotion of count­less Christians for the Christian faith. This is the natural conse­quence of the confusion created by the Christian clergy in the minds of Christians concerning certain fundamentals of the Christian faith. The guilt for this confusion rests exclusively upon Christian leadership not upon Christians generally. Con­fusion creates doubt. Doubt creates loss of confidence. Loss of confidence creates loss of interest. As confusion grows more, and more, and more, confidence grows less, and less, and less. The result is complete loss of all interest. You can hardly dis­agree with that my dear Dr. Goldstein, can you?

[H: Now it would appear from the pronouncement of "polls" and the rolls of the so-called Christian Churches that there is a great renewal of faith and seeking and coming back into the Christ-path in all "faiths" of whatever the "Christ" is called. This is not so in the "Western cultures"--THERE IS ONLY A RETURN INTO THE CHURCH HOUSES AND INTO NEW DOCTRINES WRITTEN FOR THIS NEW AND "MODERN RELIGION"--whatever that might be?!? Most of the church houses do not house Christianity. They DO hold bigoted, unforgiving and misled parishioners who anticipate a momentary "lift-off" to some nebulous being in the clouds the minute the Zionists get the temple going in Jerusalem and the temple is desecrated. Let me assure, good people--the temples of God have been so desecrated that there is naught left with which to desecrate them--and the Zionists have simply led you a merry chase through the primroses.]

The confusion in the minds of Christians concerning funda­mentals of the Christian faith is unwarranted and unjustified. It need not exist. It would not exist if the Christian clergy did not aid and abet the deceptions responsible for it. The Christian clergy may be shocked to learn that they have been aiding and abetting the dedicated enemies of the Christian faith. Many of the Christian clergy are actually their allies but may not know it. This phase of the current world-wide campaign of spiritual sab­otage is the most negative factor in the defense of the Christian faith.

Countless Christians standing on the sidelines in this struggle see their Christian faith "withering on the vine" and about ripe enough to "drop into the lap" of its dedicated enemies. They can do nothing about it. Their cup is made more bitter for them as they observe this unwarranted and this unjustified ignorance and indifference on the part of the Christian clergy. This apa­thetic attitude by the Christian clergy offers no opposition to the aggressors against the Christian faith. Retreat can only bring defeat. To obviate surrender to their dedicated enemies the Christian clergy must "about face" immediately if they expect to become the victors in the invisible and intangible ideological war now being so subversively waged against the Christian faith un­der their very noses. When will they wake up?

If I were asked to recite in this letter the many manners in which the Christian clergy are confusing the Christian concept of the fundamentals of the Christian faith it would require vol­umes rather than pages to tell the whole story. Space alone compels me here to confine myself to the irreducible minimum. I will limit myself here to the most important reasons for this confusion. Brevity will of necessity limit the references cited to support the matters presented in this letter. I will do my best under the circumstances to establish the authenticity of the incontestible historic facts I call to your attention here.

In my opinion the most important reason is directly related to your present activities. Your responsibility for this confusion is not lessened by your good intentions. As you have heard said so many times "Hell is paved with good intentions". The confusion your articles create is multiplied a thousand-fold by the wide publicity given to them as a result of the very high regard in which you personally are held by editors and readers across the nation, Christian and non-Christian alike. Your articles con­stantly are continually reprinted and quoted from coast to coast.

[H: And thinking back to the PROTOCOLS, I am sure you will instantly remind me that "The press is controlled!" Ah, indeed, we are making progress! Only the infiltrators from the Zionist element would be given such ear and forum.]

The utterance by the Christian clergy which confuses Chris­tians the most is the constantly repeated utterance that "Jesus was a Jew". That also appears to be your favorite theme. [H: LISTEN UP PLEASE, TO THIS NEXT FOR IT IS FAR BEYOND JUST IMPORTANT!] That misrepresentation and distortion of an incontestible historic fact is uttered by the Christian clergy upon the slightest pretext. They utter it con­stantly, also without provocation. They appear to be "trigger happy" to utter it. They never miss an opportunity to do so. Informed intelligent Christians cannot reconcile this truly unwarranted misrepresentation and distortion of an incon­testible historic fact by the Christian clergy with information known by them now TO THE CONTRARY WHICH COMES TO THEM FROM SOURCES BELIEVED BY THEM TO BE EQUALLY RELIABLE.(Emphasis mine.)

This poses a serious problem today for the Christian clergy. They can extricate themselves from their present predicament now only by resorting to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". That is the only formula by which the Christian clergy can recapture the lost confidence of Christians. As ef­fective spiritual leaders they cannot function without this lost confidence. They should make that their first order of business.

My dear Dr. Goldstein, you are a theologian of high rank and a historian of note. Of necessity you also should agree with other outstanding authorities on the subject of whether "Jesus was a Jew". These leading authorities agree today that there is no foundation in fact for the implications, inferences and the innuendoes resulting from the incorrect belief that "Jesus was a Jew".

Incontestible historic facts and an abundance of other proofs establish beyond the possibility of any doubt the incredi­bility of the assertion so often heard today that "Jesus was a Jew". [H: Now aren't you glad you stuck with us through that boring introduction? PUT THE STONES BACK ON THE GROUND LEST YOU SHOW YOUR TOTAL IGNORANCE OF FACTS!]

Without any fear of contradiction based upon fact the most competent and best qualified authorities all agree today that Je­sus Christ was not a so-called or self-styled "Jew". They now confirm that during His lifetime Jesus was known as a "JUDEAN" and not as a "Jew". Contemporary theologians of Jesus whose competence to pass upon this subject cannot be challenged by anyone today also referred to Jesus during His lifetime here on Earth as a "Judean" and not as a "Jew".

[H: Satanalways must wear a sign and our old fraud is be­ginning to show his a bit? Ah, you say, "Hatonn, but you said that once you experienced as a Jew!" Ah and so I did--­both--I said it and I did so. I come this time in company with the one you should know as Emmanuel. Jesus is even incorrect for that label was given this perceived Christed being by Paul the apostle who was both confused and scrambled throughout his days and remains so in many ways, unto this very day and yet efforts to bring clarity to that confusion. So be it, let us continue.]

During his lifetime here on Earth Jesus was not regarded by Pontius Pilate nor by the Judeans among whom He dwelt as "King of the Jews". The inscription on the Cross upon which Jesus was Crucified has been incorrectly translated into the English language only since the 18th century. [H: Now just who do you think would change such important facts to mislead the generations and species of human?) Pontius Pilate was ironic and sarcastic when he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". About to be Crucified, with the approval of Pontius Pilate, Jesus was being mocked by Pontius Pilate. Pontius Pilate was well aware at that time that Jesus (Emmanuel, son of Mary) had been denounced, defied and denied by the Judeans who alas finally brought about His Crucifixion as related by history. (Hatonn: And incorrectly at that! I sug­gest you read, And They Called His Name Immanuel--I Am Sananda. The correct spelling would have been represented as Jmmanuel had it been correctly translated.]

Except for His few followers at that time in Judea all other Judeans abhored Jesus and detested His teachings and the things for which He stood. That deplorable fact cannot be erased from history by time. Pontius Pilate was himself the "ruler" of the Judeans at the time he ordered inscribed upon the Cross the Latin words "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum: in English "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". But Pontius Pilate never referred to himself as "ruler" of the Judeans. The ironic and sarcastic reference of Pontius Pilate to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans" can hardly be accepted as recognition by Pontius Pilate of Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". That is inconceivable by any interpretation.

At the time of the Crucifixion of Jesus Pontius Pilate was the administrator in Judea for the Roman Empire. At that time in history the area of the Roman Empire included a part of the Middle East. As far as he was concerned officially or person­ally the inhabitants of Judea were "Judeans" to Pontius Pilate and not so-called "Jews" as they have been styled since the 18th century. In the time of Pontius Pilate in history there was no religious, racial or national group in Judea known as "Jews" nor had there been any group so identified anywhere else in the world prior to that time.

Pontius Pilate expressed little interest as the administrator of the Roman Empire officially or personally in the wide variety of forms of religious worship then practiced in Judea. These forms of religious worship extended from phallic worship and other forms of idolatry to the emerging spiritual philosophy of an eternal, omnipotent and invisible Divine diety, the emerging Yahve (Jehovah) concept which predated Abraham of Bible fame by approximately 2000 years. As the administrator for the Roman Empire in Judea it was the official policy of Pontius Pi­late never to interfere in the spiritual affairs of the local popula­tion. Pontius Pilate's primary responsibility was the collection of taxes to be forwarded home to Rome, not the forms of reli­gious worship practiced by the Judeans from whom these taxes were collected.

As you well know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the Latin word "rex" means "ruler, leader" in English. During the lifetime of Jesus in Judea the Latin word "rex" meant only that to Judeans familiar with the Latin language. The Latin word "rex" is the form of the noun from the Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi, rec­tus". The Latin verb "rego, regere, rexi, rectus" in English means as you also well know "to rule, to lead". Latin was of course the official language in all the provinces administered by a local administrator of the Roman Empire. This fact accounts for the inscription on the Cross in Latin.

With the invasion of the British Isles by the Anglo-Saxons the English language substituted the Anglo-Saxon "king" for the Latin equivalent "rex" used before the Anglo-Saxon invasion. The adoption of "king" for "rex" at this late date in British his­tory did not retroactively alter the meaning of the Latin "rex" to the Judeans in the time of Jesus. The Latin "rex" to them then meant only "ruler, leader" as it still means in Latin. Anglo-Saxon "king" was spelled differently when first used but at all times meant the same as "rex" in Latin, "leader" of a tribe.

During the lifetime of Jesus it was very apparent to Pontius Pilate that Jesus was the very last Person in Judea the Judeans would select as their "ruler" or their "leader". In spite of this situation in Judea Pontius Pilate did not hesitate to order the inscription of the Cross "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudeorum". By the wildest stretch of the imagination it is not conceivable that this sarcasm and irony by Pontius Pilate at the time of the Crucifix­ion was solely mockery of Jesus by Pontius Pilate and only mockery. After this reference to "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" the Judeans forthwith preceeded to Crucify Jesus upon that very Cross.

[H: Dharma, I am sorry, chela, but this is GOING TO BE WRITTEN AND WE ARE GOING TO WRITE IT, DEAR ONE. Beloved Joy may now go and rejoice with Peace within her heart for I was going to ask her and NB to pen these truths. It can wait no longer for it has been buried in the lies piled upon lies and now you have the proof of who and why it has been dumped upon humanity. Do not cower, child, for I stand at your front, back, and both sides and none shall strike you except for their foolish words--i.e. Mr. Cooper, who only shows his ignorance beyond all belief unto the world. Oberli, make sure that NB and Joy receive this as it comes forth. Can you now see how a whole civilization can be victims of a lie begun with intent for world control? So be it. We will herein cover a lot of territory in historical importance--better yet, it is laid forth by one who would be referred to as "Jew"--my, "What a tangled web ye weave when first ye practice to deceive!"]
In Latin in the lifetime of Jesus the name of the political sub­division in the Middle East known in modern history as Pales­tine was "Iudaea". It was then administered by Pontius Pilate as administrator for the Roman Empire of which it was then a part. The English for the Latin "Iudaea" is "Judea". In Latin "Iudaeus" is the adjective for the noun "Iudaea". In English "Judean" is the adjective for the noun "Judea". The ancient na­tive population of the subdivision in the Middle East known in modern history as Palestine was then called "Iudaeus" in Latin and "Judean" in English. Those words identified the indigenous population of Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. Who can deny that Jesus was a member of the indigenous population of Judea in His lifetime?

And of course you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, in Latin the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" is "Iudaeorum". [H: I believe our "Friar Pope" will enjoy checking this out for all you non-Latin "Priests" of the Holy Church!] The English translation of the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeorum" is "of the Judeans". In­scribed upon the Cross on which Jesus was Crucified was "Iudaeorum". It is utterly impossible to give any other English translation to "Iudaeorum" than "of the Judeans". Qualified and competent theologians and historians regard as incredible any other translation into English of "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" than "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans". [H: Further, there is no mistaking the label "Iesus" by which he was called in many places as in "Esu, Issa, Iisa," etc., Christ, Christos, Christed, etc.--you can even now get away with Iesus Sananda and be in the correct "ball-park".] You must agree that this is literally correct.

At the time Pontius Pilate was ordering the "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum" inscribed upon the Cross the spiritual leaders of Judea were protesting to Pontius Pilate "not to write that Jesus was the ruler of the Judeans" but to inscribe instead that Jesus "had said that he was the ruler of the Judeans". The spiritual leaders of Judea made very strong protests to Pontius Pilate against his reference to Jesus as "Rex Iudaeorum" insisting that Pontius Pilate was not familiar with or misunderstood the status of Jesus in Judea. These protests are a matter of historical record, as you know.

The spiritual leaders in Judea protested in vain with Pontius Pilate. They insisted that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans" but that Pontius Pilate was "not to write that Je­sus was the ruler of the Judeans". For after all Pontius Pilate was a foreigner in Judea who could not understand the local situations as well as the spiritual leaders. The intricate pattern of the domestic political, social and economic cross-currents in Judea interested Pontius Pilate very little as Rome's administra­tor.

The Gospel by John was written originally in the Greek lan­guage according to the best authorities. In the Greek original there is no equivalent for the English that Jesus "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans". The English translation of the Greek original of the Gospel by John, XIX, 19, reads "Do not inscribe ' the monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios), but that He Himself said I am monarch (basileus) of the Judeans (Ioudaios)". "Ioudaia" is the Greek for the Latin "Iudaea" and the English "Judea". "Basileus" is the Greek "monarch" in En­glish. "Rex" is the nearest word in Latin for "basileus" in Greek. The English "ruler", or its alternative "leader", define the sense of Latin "rex" and Greek "basileus" as they were used in the Greek and Latin Gospel by John.

Pontius Pilate "washed his hands" of the protests by the spir­itual leaders in Judea who demanded of him that the inscription on the Cross authored by Pontius Pilate be corrected in the manner they insisted upon. Pontius Pilate very impatiently replied to their demands "What I have written, I have written". The inscription on the Cross remained what it had been, "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum", or "Jesus the Nazarene Ruler of the Judeans" in English.

The Latin quotations and words mentioned in this letter are verbatim quotations and the exact words which appear in the 4th century translation of the New Testament into Latin by St. Jerome. This translation is referred to as the Vulgate Edition of the New Testament. It was the first official translation of the New Testament into Latin made by the Christian Church. Since that time it has remained the official New Testament version used by the Catholic Church. The translation of the Gospel by John into Latin by St. Jerome was made from the Greek lan­guage in which the Gospel of John was originally written ac­cording to the best authorities on this subject.

The English translation of the Gospel by John, XIX, 19. from the original text in the Greek language reads as follows, "Pilate wrote a sign and fastened it to the Cross and the writing was 'Jesus the Nazarene the monarch of the Judeans' " . In the origi­nal Greek manuscript there is mention also made of the demands upon Pontius Pilate by the spiritual leaders in Judea that Pontius Pilate alter the reference on the Cross to Jesus as "Ruler of the Judeans". The Greek text of the original manuscript of the Gospel by John establishes beyond any question or doubt that the spiritual leaders in Judea at that time had protested to Pon­tius Pilate that Jesus was "not the ruler of the Judeans" but only "had said that He was the ruler of the Judeans".

There is no factual foundation in history or theology today for the implications, inferences and innuendoes that the Greek "Ioudaios", the Latin "Iudaeus", or the English "Judean" ever possessed a valid religious connotation. In their three respective languages these three words have only indicated a strictly topo­graphical or geographic connotation. In their correct sense these three words in their respective languages were used to identify the members of the indigenous native population of the geographic area known as Judea in the lifetime of Jesus. Dur­ing the lifetime of Jesus there was not a form of religious wor­ship practiced in Judea or elsewhere in the known world which bore a name even remotely resembling the name of the political subdivision of the Roman Empire, i.e. "Judaism" from "Judea". No cult or sect existed by such a name.

[END OF QUOTING FOR THIS SEGMENT]

Please allow to break the writing at this place. I ask that as the portions are given forth, please make sure that our beloved RK be given them in the segments produced.

We realize this is very heavy to accept and absorb but none-the­-less the time of Truth is upon the lands and so shall it be written for the hourglass lies empty if Man sees not the errors of his journey and acceptance of the lies.

So be it and may the blessings of peace which passes your understanding see you through this time of confrontation. Saalomé

Hatonn to stand-by.

PJ 223

CHAPTER 10

2/17/91 #2 HATONN

CONTINUATION OF THE FREEDMAN LETTER

I desire to take no time in current comments until we have fin­ished this portion and presented the work in point. There IS NOTHING more important for, if you do not set your thinking to straight, there is no point in anything else about your physical circumstance.

Yes, it will be through those who are considered "JEWS" who will make sure truth prevails from out of the lies of the Zionists for it is they who have suffered most and have been sorely treated by those they were taught were their elders and truth-bearers. It will be these beloved ones from the Judean races who MUST set it to right that Man can see the truth and facts of the deceit. As ones of God's people check into the information as given, the confirmation will flow as from the lifespring.

Let us continue:

TERM "JEW" CREATED
IN 1775--A.D.

[OUOTING:]

It is an incontestable fact that the word "Jew" did not come into existence until the year 1775. Prior to 1775 the word "Jew" did not exist in any language. The word "Jew" was introduced into the English for the first time in the 18th century when Sheridan used it in his play "The Rivals", II,i, "She shall have a skin like a mummy, and the beard of a Jew". Prior to this use of the word "Jew" in the English language by Sheridan in 1775 the word "Jew" had not become a word in the English language. Shakespeare never saw the word "Jew" as you will see. Shakespeare never used the word "Jew" in any of his works, the common general belief to the contrary notwithstanding. In his "Merchant of Venice", V.III.i.61, Shakespeare wrote as follows: "What is the reason? I am a Iewe; hath not a Iewe eyes?".

In the Latin St. Jerome 4th century Vulgate Edition of the New Testament Jesus is referred to by the Genitive Plural of "Iudaeus" in the Gospel by John reference to the inscription on the Cross,--"Iudaeorum". It was in the 4th century that St. Jerome translated into Latin the manuscripts of the New Testa­ment from the original languages in which they were written. This translation by St. Jerome is referred to still today as the Vulgate Edition by the Roman Catholic Church authorities, who use it today.

Jesus is referred to as a so-called "Jew" for the first time in the New Testament in the 18th century. Jesus is first referred to as a so-called "Jew" in the revised 18th century editions in the English language of the 14th century first translations of the New Testament into English. The history of the origin of the word "Jew" in the English language leaves no doubt that the 18th century "Jew" is the 18th century contracted and corrupted En­glish word for the 4th century Latin "Iudaeus" found in St. Jerome's Vulgate Edition. Of that there is no longer doubt.

The available original manuscripts from the 4th century to the 18th century accurately trace the origin and give the complete history of the word "Jew" in the English language. In these manuscripts are to be found all the many earlier English equiv­alents extending through the 14 centuries from the 4th to the 18th century. From the Latin "Iudaeus" to the English "Jew" these English forms included successively "Gyu", "Giu", "Iu", "Iuu", "Iuw", "Ieuu", "Ieuy", "Iwe", "Iow", "Iewe", "Ieue", Iue", Ive", "Iew", and then finally in the 18th century, "Jew". The many earlier English equivalents for "Jews" through the 14 centuries are "Giwis", "Giws", "Gyues", "Gywes", "Giwes", "Geus", "Iuys", "Iows", "Iouis", "Iews", and then also finally in the 18th century, "Jews".

With the rapidly expanding use in England in the 18th cen­tury for the first time in history of the greatly improved printing presses unlimited quantities of the New Testament were printed. These revised 18th century editions of the earlier 14th century first translations into the English language were then widely distributed throughout England and the English speaking world among families who had never possessed a copy of the New Testament in any language. In these 18th century editions with revisions the word "Jew" appeared for the first time in any En­glish translations. The word "Jew" as it was used in the 18th century editions has since continued in use in all editions of the New Testament in the English language. The use of the word "Jew" thus was stabilized.

As you know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, the best known 18th century editions of the New Testament in English are the Rheims (Douai) Edition and the King James Authorized Edition. The Rheims (Douai) translation of the New Testament into English was first printed in 1582 but the word "Jew" did not appear in it. The King James Authorized translation of the New Testament into English was begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The word "Jew" did NOT appear in it either. The word "Jew" ap­peared in both these well known editions in their 18th century revised versions for the first time.

Countless copies of the revised 18th century editions of the Rheims (Douai) and the King James translations of the New Testament into English were distributed to the clergy and the laity throughout the English speaking world. They did not know the history of the origin of the English word "Jew" as the only and as the accepted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". How could they be expected to have known other­wise? The answer is they could not and they did not. It was a new English word to them.

When you studied Latin in your school days you were taught that the letter "I" in Latin when used as the first letter in a word is pronounced like the letter "Y" in English when it is the first letter in words like "yes", "youth" and "yacht". The "I" in "Iudaeus" is pronounced like the "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht" in English. In all the 4th century to 18th century forms for the 18th century "Jew" the letter "I" was pronounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "young", and "yacht". The same is true of the "Gi" or the "Gy" where it was used in place of the letter "I".

The present pronounciation of the word "Jew" in modern En­glish is a development of recent times. In the English language today the "J" in "Jew" is pronounced like the "J" in the English "justice", "jolly", and "jump". This is the case only since the 18th century. Prior to the 18th century the "J" in "Jew" was pronounced exactly like the "Y" in the English "yes", "youth", and "yacht". Until the 18th century and perhaps even later the English "you" or "hew", and the word "Jews" like "youse" or "hews". The present pronounciation of "Jew" in English is a new pronounciation acquired after the 18th century.

The German language still retains the Latin original pronoun­ciation. The German "Jude" is the German equivalent of the English "Jew". The "J" in the German "Jude" is pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht". The German "J" is the equivalent of the Latin "I" and both are pronounced exactly like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth" and "yacht". The German "Jude" is virtually the first syllable in the Latin "Iudaeus" and is pronounced exactly like it. The German "Jude" is the German contraction and corruption of the Latin "Iudaeus" just as the English "Jew" is the contraction and cor­ruption of the Latin "Iudaeus". The German "J" is always pro­nounced like the English "Y" in "yes", "youth", and "yacht" when it is the first letter of a word. The pronounciation of the "J" in German "Jude" is not an exception to the pronounciation of the "J" in German.

The English language as you already know, my dear Dr. Goldstein, is largely made up of words adopted from foreign languages. After their adoption by the English language foreign words were then adapted by contracting their spelling and cor­rupting their foreign pronounciation to make them more easily pronounced in English from their English spelling. This process of first adopting foreign words and then adapting them by con­tracting their spelling and corrupting their pronounciation re­sulted in such new words in the English language as "cab" from their original foreign spelling. Hundreds of others must come to your mind.

By this adopting-adapting process the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" finally emerged in the 18th century as "Jew" in the English language. The English speaking peoples strug­gled through 14 centuries seeking to create for the English lan­guage and English equivalent for the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" which could be easily pronounced in English from its English spelling. The English "Jew" was the resulting 18th century contracted and corrupted form of the Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios". The English "Jew" is eas­ily pronounced in English from its English spelling. The Latin "Iudaeus" and the Greek "Ioudaios" cannot be as easily pro­nounced in English from the Latin and Greek spelling. They were forced to coin a word.

The earliest version of the New Testament in English from the Latin Vulgate Edition is the Wiclif, or Wickliffe Edition published in 1380. In the Wiclif Edition Jesus is there men­tioned as One of the "iewes". That was the 14th century En­glish version of the Latin "Iudaeus" and was pronounced "hew­weeze", in the plural, and "iewe" pronounced "hew-wee" in the singular. In the 1380 Wiclif Edition in English and Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "ihesus of nazareth kyng of the iewes". Prior to the 14th century the English language adopted the An­glo-Saxon "kyng" together with many other Anglo-Saxon words in place of the Latin "rex" and the Greek "basileus". The An­glo-Saxon also meant "tribal leader".

In the Tyndale Edition of the New Testament in English pub­lished in 1525 Jesus was likewise described as One of the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition published in 1535 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes". In the Coverdale Edition of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, reads "Jesus of Nazareth, kynge of the Iewes". In the Cranmer Edition published in 1539 Jesus was again described as One of the "Iewes". In the Geneva Edi­tion published in 1540-1557 Jesus was also described as One of the "Iewes". In the Rheims Edition published in 1582 Jesus was described as One of the "Ievves". In the King James Edition published in 1404-1611 also known as the Authorized Version Jesus was described again as one of the "Iewes". The forms of the Latin "Iudaeus" were used which were current at the time these translations were made.

The translation into English of the Gospel by John, XIX.19, from the Greek in which it was originally written reads "Do not inscribe ' the monarch of the Judeans' but that He Himself said 'I am monarch". In the original Greek manuscript the Greek "basileus" appears for "monarch" in the English and the Greek "Ioudaios" appears for "Judeans" in the English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judea" in English. "Ioudaios" in Greek is "Judeans" in English. There is no reason for any confusion.

My dear Dr. Goldstein, if the generally accepted under­standing today of the English "Jew" and "Judean" conveyed the identical implications, inferences and innuendoes as both rightly should, it would make no difference which of these two words was used when referring to Jesus in the New Testament or else­where. But the implications, inferences, and innuendoes to­day conveyed by these two words are as different as black is from white. The word "Jew" today is never regarded as a synonym for "Judean" nor is "Judean" regarded as a synonym for "Jew".

As I have explained, when the word "Jew" was first intro­duced into the English language in the 18th century its one and only implication, inference and innuendo was "Judean". How­ever during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries a well-organized and well-financed international "pressure group" created a so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" among the En­glish-speaking peoples of the world. This so-called "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" bears no relation whatsoever to the 18th century original connotation of the word "Jew". It is a misrepresentation.

The "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today bears as little relation to its original and correct meaning as the "secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" bears to the original and correct meaning for the word "camel", or the "secondary meaning" today for the word "ivory" bears to the original and correct meaning of the word "ivory". The "secondary meaning" today for the word "camel" is a cigarette by that name but its original and correct meaning is a desert animal by that ancient name. The "secondary meaning" of the word "ivory" today is a piece of soap but its original and correct meaning is the tusk of a male elephant.

The "secondary meanings" of words often become the gener­ally accepted meanings of words formerly having entirely dif­ferent meanings. This is accomplished by the expenditure of great amounts of money for well-planned publicity. Today if you ask for a "camel" someone will hand you cigarette by that name. Today if you ask for a piece of "ivory" someone will hand you a piece of soap by that name. You will never receive either a desert animal or a piece of the tusk of a male elephant. That must illustrate the extent to which these "secondary mean­ings" are able to practically eclipse the original and correct meanings of words in the minds of the general public. The "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" today has practically totally eclipsed the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew" when it was introduced as a word in the English lan­guage. This phenomena is not uncommon.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the "secondary meaning" of words. The highest court in the land has established as basic law that "secondary meanings" can ac­quire priority rights to the use of any dictionary word. Well-planned and well-financed world-wide publicity through every available media by well-organized groups of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for three centuries has created a "secondary meaning" for the word "Jew" which has completely "blacked out" the original and correct meaning of the word "Jew". There can be no doubt about that.

There is not one person in the whole English-speaking world today who regards a "Jew" as a "Judean" in the literal sense of the word. That was the correct and only meaning in the 18th century. The generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" today with practically no exceptions is made up of four almost universally-believed theories. These four theories are that a so-called or self-styled "Jew" is (1) a person who to­day professes the form of religious worship known as "Judaism", (2) a person who claims to belong to a racial group associated with the ancient Semites, (3) a person directly the de­scendant of an ancient nation which thrived in Palestine in Bible history, (4) a person blessed by Divine intentional design with certain superior cultural characteristics denied to other racial, religious or national groups, all rolled into one.

The present generally accepted "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew" is fundamentally responsible for the confusion in the minds of Christians regarding elementary tenets of the Chris­tian faith. It is likewise responsible today to a very great extent for the dilution of the devotion of countless Christians for their Christian faith. The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the word "Jew" today, to the preponderant majority of intelli­gent and informed Christians, is contradictory and in complete conflict with incontestible historic fact. Christians who cannot be fooled any longer are suspect of the Christian clergy who continue to repeat, and repeat, And repeat ad nauseam their pet theme song "Jesus was a Jew". It actually now approaches psy­chosis.

Countless Christians know today that they were "brain washed" by the Christian clergy on the subject "Jesus was a Jew". The resentment they feel is not yet apparent to the Chris­tian clergy. Christians now are demanding from the Christian clergy "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". It is now time for the Christian clergy to tell Christians what they should have told them long ago. Of all religious groups in the world Christians appear to be the least informed of any on this subject. Have their spiritual leaders been reckless with the truth?

Countless intelligent and informed Christians no longer ac­cept unchallenged assertions by the Christian clergy that Jesus in His lifetime was a Member of a group in Judea which practised a religious form of worship then which is today called "Judaism", or that Jesus in His lifetime here on Earth was a Member of the racial group which today includes the preponder­ant majority of all so-called or self-styled "Jews" in the world, or that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the lineal descendants of the nation in Judea of which Jesus was a national in His lifetime here on Earth, or that the cultural characteristics of so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today correspond with the cultural characteristics of Jesus during His lifetime here on Earth and His teachings while He was here on Earth for a brief stay. Christians will no longer believe that the race, religion, nation­ality and culture of Jesus and the race, religion, nationality and culture of so-called or self-styled "Jews" today or their ancestors have a common origin or character.

The resentment by Christian is more ominous than the Chris­tian clergy suspect. Under existing conditions the Christian clergy will find that ignorance is not bliss, nor wisdom folly. Christians everywhere today are seeking to learn the authentic relationship between the so-called or self-styled "Jews" through­out the world today and the "Judeans" who populated "Judea" before, during and after the time of Jesus. Christians now insist that they be told correctly by the Christian clergy about the racial, religious, national and cultural background of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today and the basis for associating these backgrounds with the racial, reli­gious, national and cultural background of Jesus in His lifetime in Judea. The intelligent and informed Christians are alerted to the exploded myth that the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today are the direct descendants of the "Judeans" amongst whom Jesus lived during His lifetime here on Earth.

Christians today are also becoming more and more alerted day by day why the so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world for three centuries have spent uncounted sums of money to manufacture the fiction that the "Judeans" in the time of Jesus were "Jews" rather than "Judeans", and that "Jesus was a Jew". Christians are becoming more and more aware day by day of all the economic and political advantages accruing to the so-called or self-styled "Jews" as a direct result of their success in making Christians believe that "Jesus was a Jew" in the "secondary meaning" they have created for the 18th century word "Jew". The so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world today represent themselves to Christians as "Jews" only in the "secondary meaning" of the word "Jew". They seek to thereby prove their kinship with Jesus. They emphasize this fiction to the Christians constantly. That fable is fast fading and losing its former grip upon the imaginations of Christians.

To allege that "Jesus was a Jew" in the sense that during His lifetime Jesus professed and practised the form of religious wor­ship known and practised under the modern name of "Judaism" is false and fiction of the most blasphemous nature.

If to be a so-called or self-styled "Jew" then or now the prac­tise of "Judaism" was a requirement then Jesus certainly was not a so-called "Jew". Jesus abhored and denounced the form of religious worship practised in Judea in His lifetime and which is known and practised today under its new name "Judaism". That religious belief was then known as "Pharisaism". The Christian clergy learned that in their theological seminary days but they have never made any attempt to make that clear to Christians.

[END OF QUOTING FOR THIS SEGMENT]

Dharma, here is a good point at which to break the writing. We will continue at the section regarding the Jewish Theological Seminary of America--often referred to as "The Vatican of Ju­daism". Thank you. Salu.

PJ 223

CHAPTER 11

2/17/91 #3 HATONN

THE VATICAN OF JUDAISM
JUDAISM/PHARISAISM

[CONTINUATION OF QUOTING:]

The eminent Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, the head of the The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, often referred to as the "The Vatican of Judaism", in his Forward to his First Edi­tion of this world-famous classic "The Pharisees, The Sociologi­cal Background of Their Faith", on page XXI states:

". . Judaism. . .Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Midieval Rabbinism, and Midieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes in name. . .the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered. . .From Palestine to Babylonia; from Babylonia to North Africa, Italy, Spain, France and Germany; from these to Poland, Russia, and eastern Europe generally, ancient Pharisaism has wandered. . .demonstrates the enduring importance which attaches to Phari­saism as a religious movement. . ."

The celebrated Rabbi Louis Finkelstein in his great classic quoted from above traces the origin of the form of religious worship practiced today under the present name "Judaism", to its origin as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus. Rabbi Louis Finkelstein confirms what the eminent Rabbi Adolph Moses stated in his great classic "Yahvism, and Other Dis­courses", in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi H.G.Enelow, published in 1903 by the Louisville Section of the Council of Jewish Women, in which Rabbi Adolph Moses, on page 1 states:

"Among the inumerable misfortunes which have befallen. . .the most fatal in its consequences is the name Judaism. . .Worse still, the Jews themselves, who have gradually come to call their religion Judaism. . .Yet, neither in biblical nor post-biblical, neither in talmudic, nor in much later times, is the term Judaism ever heard. . .The Bible speaks of the religion. . .as 'Torath Yahve', the instruction, or the moral law revealed by Yahve. . .in other places. . .as ' Yirath Yahve', the fear and reverence of Yahve. These and other appelations CONTIN­UED FOR MANY AGES TO STAND FOR THE RELIGION. . .To distinguish it from Christianity and Islam, the Jewish philosophers sometimes designate it as the faith or belief of the Jews. . IT WAS FLAVIUS JOSEPHUS. WRITING FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF GREEKS AND ROMANS. WHO COINED THE TERM JUDAISM, in order to pit it against Hel­lenism. . .By Hellenism was understood the civilization, com­prising language, poetry, religion, art, science, manners, cus­toms, institutions, which. . .had spread from Greece, its original home, over vast regions of Europe, Asia and Africa. . .The Christians eagerly seized upon the name. . .The Jews them­selves, who intensly detested the traitor Josephus, refrained from reading his works. . THE TERM JUDAISM COINED BY JOSEPHUS REMAINED ABSOLUTELY UN­KNOWN TO THEM. . .IT WAS ONLY IN COMPARA­TIVELY RECENT TIMES. AFTER THE JEWS BECAME FAMILIAR WITH MODERN CHRISTIAN LITERATURE.. THAT THEY BEGAN TO_ NAME THEIR RELIGION JU­DAISM." (emphasis supplied)

This statement by the world's two leading authorities on this subject clearly establishes beyond any question or any doubt that so-called "Judaism" was not the name of any form of religious worship practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus. The Flavius Josephus referred to in the above quotation lived in the 1st cen­tury. It was he who coined the word "Judaism" in the 1st cen­tury explicitly for the purpose recited clearly above. Religious worship known and practiced today under the name "Judaism" by so-called or self-styled "Jews" throughout the world was known and practiced in Judea in the time of Jesus under the name "Pharisaism" according to Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, head of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and all the other most competent and qualified recognized authorities on the subject.

The form of religious worship known as "Pharisaism" in Judea in the time of Jesus was a religious practice based exclu­sively upon the Talmud. The Talmud in the time of Jesus was the Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, the Con­stitution, and the Bill of Rights, all rolled into one, of those who practiced "Pharisaism". The Talmud today occupies the same relative position with respect to those who profess "Judaism". The Talmud today virtually exercises totalitarian dictatorship over the lives of so-called or self-styled "Jews" whether they are aware of that fact or not. Their spiritual leaders make no at­tempt to conceal the control they exercise over the lives of so-called or self-styled "Jews". They extend their authority far be­yond the legitimate limits of spiritual matters. Their authority has no equal outside religion.

The role the Talmud plays in "Judaism" as it is practiced to­day is officially stated by the eminent Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, the Director of Interreligious Activities of the American Jewish Committee and the President of the Jewish Chaplains Associa­tion of the Armed Forces of the United States. In his present capacity as official spokesman for The American Jewish Committee, the self-styled "Vatican of Judaism", Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer wrote a most revealing and comprehensive article with the title "What is a Jew" which was published as a feature article in Look Magazine in the June 17, 1952 issue. In that ar­ticle Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer evaluated the significance of the Talmud to "Judaism" today. In that illuminating treatise on that important subject by the most qualified authority, at the time, Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer stated:

"The Talmud consists of 63 books of legal, ethical and his­torical writings of the ancient rabbis. It is a compendium of law and lore. IT IS THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS." [H: Please obtain of copy of RAPE OF JUSTICE by Eustace Muffins--which can, I believe, be obtained through America West--to see just how far the judicial system is entangled and practices "law" by the rules of the "Talmud".]

In view of this official evaluation of the importance of the Talmud in the practice of "Judaism" today by the highest body of so-called or self-styled "Jews" in the world it is very neces­sary at this time, my dear Dr. Goldstein, to inquire a little fur­ther into the subject of the Talmud. In his lifetime the eminent Michael Rodkinson, the assumed name of a so-called or self-styled "Jew" who was one of the worlds great authorities on the Talmud, wrote "History of the Talmud" . This great classic on the subject was written by Michael Rodkinson in collaboration with the celebrated Rabbi Isaac M. Wise. In his "History of the Talmud" Michael Rodkinson, on page 70, states:

"Is the literature that Jesus was familiar with in his early years yet in existence in the world? Is it possible for us to get at it? Can we ourselves review the ideas, the statements, the modes of reasoning and thinking, ON MORAL AND RELI­GIOUS SUBJECTS, which were current in his time, and MUST HAVE BEEN REVOLVED BY HIM DURING THOSE THIRTY SILENT YEARS WHEN HE WAS PONDERING HIS FUTURE MISSION? To such inquiries the learned class of Jewish rabbis ANSWER BY HOLDING UP THE TALMUD. Here, say they, is THE SOURCE FROM WHENCE JESUS OF NAZARETH DREW THE TEACHINGS WHICH ENABLE HIM TO REVOLUTIONIZE THE WORLD; and the question becomes, therefor, an interesting one TO EVERY CHRISTIAN. What is the Talmud? THE TALMUD. THEN IS THE WRIT­TEN FORM OF THAT WHICH. IN THE TIME OF JESUS WAS CALLED THE TRADITIONS OF THE ELDERS AND TO WHICH HE MAKES FREQUENT ALLUSIONS. What sort of book is it'?" .

Stimulated by that invitation every Christian worth of the name should immediately take the trouble to seek the answer to that "interesting" question "to every Christian". My dear Dr. Goldstein, your articles do not indicate whether you have taken the time and the trouble to personally investigate "what sort of book" the Talmud is either before or after your conversion to Catholicism. Have you ever done so? If you have done so what is the conclusion you have reached regarding "what sort of book" the Talmud is? What is your personal unbiased and unprejudiced opinion of the Talmud? Is it consistent with your present views as a devout Roman Catholic and a tried and true Christian? Can you spare a few moments to drop me a few lines on your present views?

In case you have never had the opportunity to investigate the contents of the "63 books" of the Talmud so well summarized by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer in his illuminating article "What is a Jew", previously quoted, may I here impose upon your precious time and quote a few passages for you until you find the time to conveniently investigate the Talmud's contents personally. If I can be of any assistance to you in doing so please do not hesitate to let me know in what manner you can use my help.

From the Birth of Jesus until this day there have never been recorded more vicious and vile libelous blasphemies of Jesus, of Christians and the Christian faith by anyone, anywhere, or any­time than you will find between the covers of the infamous "63 books" which are "the legal code which forms the basis of Jew­ish religious law" as well as the "textbook used in the training of rabbis". The explicit and implicit irreligious character and im­plications of the contents of the Talmud will open your eyes as they have never been opened before. The Talmud reviles Jesus, Christians and the Christian faith as the priceless spiritual and cultural heritage of Christians has never been reviled before or since the Talmud was completed in the 5th century. You will have to excuse the foul, obscene, indecent, lewd and vile lan­guage you will see here as verbatim quotations from the official unabridged translation of the Talmud into English. BE PREPARED FOR A SURPRISE.

In the year 1935 the international hierarchy of so-called or self-styled "Jews" for the first time in history published an offi­cial unabridged translation of the complete Talmud in the En­glish language with complete footnotes. What possessed them to make this translation in English is one of the unsolved mysteries. It was probably done because so many so-called or self-styled "Jews" of the younger generation were unable to read the Tal­mud in the many ancient languages in which the original "63 books" of the Talmud were first composed by their authors in many lands between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D.

The international hierarchy of so-called or self-styled "Jews" selected the most learned scholars to make this official transla­tion of the Talmud into English. These famous scholars also prepared official footnotes explaining passages of the Talmud where they were required. This official unabridged translation of the Talmud into English with the official footnotes was printed in London in 1935 by the Soncino Press. It has been always referred to as the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. A very limited number of the Soncino Edition were printed. They were not made available to any purchaser. The Soncino Edition of the Talmud is to be found in the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library. A set of the Soncino Edition of the Talmud has been available to me for many years. They have become rare "collector's items" by now.

[H: Do you also see that it is up to you-the-people as to whether or not these Journals end up removed from the hands of the world population and fall among the "rare" publications accidentally missed in the mass destruction of the information? It is up to you, citizens of the world, as the world nears destruction at the hands of those who have stolen your very "Truth of God Creator". How can you know Truth if all documentation thereof is destroyed by the would be KINGS AND CONTROLLERS OF THE PLANET?]

The Soncino Edition of the Talmud with its footnotes is like a double-edged sword. It teaches the Talmud to countless millions of the younger generation of so-called or self-styled "Jews" who are not able to read the Talmud in the many ancient languages in which the Talmud was written by its authors between 200 B.C. and 500 A.D. It also teaches Christians what the Talmud has to say about Jesus, about Christians and about the Christian faith. Someday this is bound to back-fire. Christians will some day challenge the assertion that the Talmud is the "sort of book" from which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enabled him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious sub­jects". The rumbling is already heard in places.

[H: As you read the quotations, I want (especially you ones who objected to Germain and Hatonn using Bull-shit to see if a scribe would edit it out) to have you REALLY PAY AT­TENTION AS WE PUT THIS INFORMATION INTO YOUR HANDS AND SEE IF YOU STILL BELIEVE THE CHRIST FRAGMENT OF GOD/CREATOR/CREATION WOULD LIKELY UTILIZE THESE TERMS.]

The official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud pub­lished in 1935 was "Translated into English with Notes, Glos­sary and Indices" by such eminent Talmudic scholars as Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches, Rabbi Dr. Israel W. Slotki, M. A., Litt, D., The Reverend Dr. A. Cohen, M.A., Ph.D., M.Sc., Jacob Schater, A. Mishcon, A. Cohen, M.A., Ph.D., Maurice Simon M.A., and the Very Reverend The Chief Rabbi Dr., J. H. Hertz wrote the "Foreword" for the Soncino Edition of the Talmud. The Very Reverend Rabbi Hertz was at the time the Chief Rabbi of England.

The following are but a few of the many similar quotations with footnotes from the Soncino Edition of the Talmud, the "sort of book" form which Jesus allegedly "drew the teachings which enable him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious" subjects:

(Book) Sanhedrin, 54b-55a: "What is meant by this?--Rab said: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Ped­erasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that (2). What is the basis of their dispute?--Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual inter­course, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt (upon the actual offender); whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty (in that respect) (3). But Samuel maintains: Scriptures writes, (And thou shalt not lie with mankind) as with the lyings of a woman (4). It has been taught in accordance with Rab: Ped­ erasty at the age of nine years and a day; (55a) (he) who com­mits bestiality, whether naturally or unnaturally: or a woman who causes herself to be bestiality abused, whether naturally or unnaturally, is liable to punishment (5)."

Footnotes:

(1) The reference is to the passive subject of sodomy. As stated in supra 54a, guilt is incurred by the active participant even if the former be a minor, i.e. less than thirteen years old. Now, however, it is stated that within this age a distinction is drawn. (emphasis is in original, Ed.)
(2)Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
(3)At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
(4)Lev. XVII1,22.
(5)Rashi reads ("xxx") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) instead of ("zzz") (Hebrew characters, Ed.) in our printed texts. A male, aged nine years and a day, who commits etc. There are thus three distinct clauses in this Baraitha. The first--a male aged nine years and a day--refers to the passive subject of pederasty, the punishment being incurred by the adult offender. This must be its meaning: because firstly, the active offender is never ex­plicitly designated as a male, it being understood, just as the Bible states, Thou shalt not lie with mankind, where only the sex of the passive participant is mentioned; and secondly, if the age reference is to the active party, the guilt being incurred by the passive adult party, why single out pederasty: in all crimes of incest, the passive adult does not incur guilt unless the other party is at least nine years and a day? Hence the Baraitha sup­ports Rab's contention that nine years (and a day) is the mini­mum age of the passive partner for the adult to be liable." (emphasis in original, Ed.)

Before giving any more verbatim quotations from the "sort of book" from which it is falsely alleged Jesus "drew the teachings which enable him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and re­ligious subjects" I wish to here again recall to your attention the official statement by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer in Look Magazine for June 17, 1952. In that official statement made by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer on behalf of the American Jewish Commit­tee, self-styled "The Vatican of Judaism", informed the 20,000,000 readers of Look Magazine that the Talmud "IS THE LEGAL CODE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW AND IT IS THE TEXTBOOK USED IN THE TRAINING OF RABBIS". Please bear this mind as your read further.
Before continuing I wish also to call your attention to another feature. Confirming the official view of Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer, the New York Times on May 20, 1954 ran a news item under the headline "Rabbis Plan a Fund to Endow Two Chairs". The news item itself ran as follows: "Special to the New York Times, Uniontown, Pa. May 19--Plans for raising $500,000. for the creation of two endowed chairs at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America were announced today at the fifty-fourth annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly of America. THE PROFESSORSHIPS WOULD BE KNOWN AS THE LOUIS GINSBERG CHAIR IN TALMUD. . .! This is further proof that the Talmud is not yet quite a dead-letter in the "TRAINING OF RABBIS". Is further proof needed on that question?

The world's leading authorities on the Talmud confirm that the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud translated into English follows the original texts with great exactness. It is almost a word-for-word translation of the original texts. In his famous classic "The History of the Talmud" Michael Rodkinson, the leading authority on the Talmud, in collaboration with the celebrated Reverend Dr. Isaac Wise, states:

"With the conclusion of the first volume of this work at the beginning of the twentieth century, we would invite the reader to take a glance over the past of the Talmud, in which he will see. . .that not only was the Talmud mi destroyed, but was so saved that NOT A SINGLE LETTER OF IT IS MISSING; and now IT IS FLOURISHING TO SUCH A DEGREE AS CAN­NOT BE FOUND IN ITS PAST HISTORY... THE TALMUD IS ONE OF THE WONDERS OF THE WORLD. During the twenty centuries of its existence. . .IT SURVIVED IN ITS EN­TIRETY, and not only has the power of its foes FAILED TO DESTROY EVEN A SINGLE LINE, but it has not even been able materially to weaken its influence for any length of time. IT STILL DOMINATES THE MINDS OF A WHOLE PEO­PLE WHO VENERATE ITS CONTENTS AS DIVINE TRUTH. . .The colleges for the study of the Talmud are in­creasing almost in every place where Israel dwells, especially in this country where millions are gathered for the funds of the two colleges, the Hebrew Union College of Cincinnati and The Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York, in which the chief study is the Talmud. . .There are also in our city houses of learning (Jeshibath) for the study of the Talmud in the lower East Side, where many young men are studying the Tal­mud every day."

[END OF QUOTING FOR THIS SEGMENT]

***Dharma, there is something wrong with your computer key­board--write no more until it is checked and cleared. We will take a respite while this is taken care of, please.***

PJ 223

CHAPTER 12

2/17/91 #4 HATONN

[QUOTING CONTINUED:]

This "divine truth" which "a whole people venerate" of which "not a single letter of it is missing" and today "is flour­ishing to such a degree as cannot be found in its history" is il­lustrated by the additional verbatim quotations which follow:

(Book) Sanhedrin, 55b: "A maiden three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his. The penalty of adultery may be incurred through her; (if a niddah) she defiles him who has connection with her, so that he in turn defiles that upon which he lies, as a garment which has lain upon (a person affliected with gonorrhea).' (emphasis in original text of Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(Book) Sanhedrin, 58b. "R. Eleazar said in R. Hanina's name; If a heathen had an unnatural connection with his wife, he incurs guilt; for it is written, and he shall cleave, which ex­cludes unnatural intercourse (2). Raba objected: Is there any­thing for which a Jew is not punishable and a heathen is? (3). But Raba said thus: A heathen who violates his neighbor's wife is free from punishment. Why so?--(Scripture saith) To his wife, but not to his neighbor's; and he shall cleave, which ex­cludes unnatural intercourse (4).
Footnotes: (2) His wife derives no pleasure from this, and hence there is no cleaving.
(3)A variant reading of this passage is: Is there anything permitted to a Jew which is forbidden to a heathen. Unnatural connection is permitted to a Jew.
(4)By taking the two in conjunction, the latter as illustrating the former, we learn that the guilt of violating the injunction 'to his wife but not to his neighbor's wife' is incurred only for natu­ral but not for unnatural intercourse." (emphasis in original, Ed.)
(Book) Sanhedrin, 69a. "'A man': from this I know the law only with respect to a man: whence do I know it of one aged nine years and a day who is capable of intercourse? From the verse, And 'if a man'? (2)--He replied: Such a minor can pro­duce semen, but cannot beget therewith; for it is like the seed of cereals less than a third grown (3)."
(footnotes) "(2) 'And" (') indicates an extension of the law, and is here interpreted to include a minor aged nine years and a day.
(3)Such cereals contain seed, which if sown, however, will not grow.
(Book) Sanhedrin, 69b. "Our rabbis taught: If a woman sported lewdly with her young son (a minor), and he committed the first stage of cohabitation with her,--Beth Shammai say, he thereby renders her unfit for the priesthood (1). Beth Hillel de­clare her fit. . .All agree that the connection of a boy nine years and a day is a real connection; whilst that of one less than eight years is not (2); their dispute refers only to one who is eight years old.
(footnotes "(1) i.e., she becomes a harlot whom a priest may not marry (Lev. XXL,7.).
(2)So that if he was nine years and a day or more, Beth Hillel agree that she is invalidated from the priesthood; whilst if he was less than eight, Beth Shammai agree that she is not."
(Book) Kethuboth, 5b. "The question was asked: Is it allowed (15) to perform the first marital act on the Sabbath? (16). Is the blood (in the womb) stored up (17), or is it the result of a wound? (18).
(footnotes) "(15) Lit., 'how is it'?

• (16) When the intercourse could not take place before the Sabbath (Tosaf).
• (17) And the intercourse would be allowed, since the blood flows out of its own accord, no wound having been made.
• (18) Lit., or is it wounded? And the intercourse would be forbidden."

(Book) Kethuboth, 10a-10b. "Someone came before Rabban Gamaliel the son of Rabbi (and) said to him, 'my master I have had intercourse (with my newly wedded wife) and I have not found any blood (7). She (the wife) said to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin' . He (then) said to them: Bring me two handmaids, one (who is) a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him (two such handmaids), and he placed them on a cask of wine. (In the case of) the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through (2), (in the case of) the virgin the smell did not go through (3). He (then) placed this one (the young wife) also (on a cask of wine), and its smell (4) did not go through. He (then) said to him: Go, be happy with thy bargain (7). But he should have examined her from the be­ginning (8)."
(footnotes) "(1) i.e., the smell of wine.
(2)One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi). (3)One could not smell the wine from the mouth.
(4)i.e., the smell of wine.
(5)Rabban Gamaliel.
(6)To the husband.
(7)The test showed that the wife was a virgin.
(8)Why did he first have experiment with the two hand­maids."
(Book) Kethuboth, 1 la-1 lb. "Raba said, It means (5) this: When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this (6), it is as if one puts the finger in the eye (7); but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown up woman, he makes her as 'as a girl who is in­jured by a piece of wood' ".
(footnotes) "(5). Lit., 'says'.

• (6) Lit., 'here', that is, less than three years old.
• (7) Tears come to the eyes again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years."

(Book) Kethuboth, lla-1 lb. "Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown up woman makes here (as though she were) injured by a piece of wood (1). Al­though the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."
(footnotes) "(1) Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nevertheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood."
(Book) Hayorath, 4a. "We learnt: (THE LAW CONCERN­ING THE) MENSTRUANT OCCURS IN THE TORAH BUT IF A MAN HAS INTERCOURSE WITH A WOMAN THAT AWAITS A DAY CORRESPONDING TO A DAY HE IS EX­EMPT. But why? Surely (the law concerning) a woman that awaits a day corresponding to a day is mentioned in the Scrip­tures: He hath made naked her fountain. But, surely it is writ­ten, (1)--They might rule that in the natural way even the first stage of contact is forbidden; and in an unnatural way, however, consummation of coition only is forbidden but the first stage of contact is permitted. If so, (the same might apply) even (to the case of) a menstruant also! (2)--The fact, however, is (that the ruling might have been permitted) (3) even in the natural way (4) alleging (that the prohibition of) the first stage (5) has refer­ence to a menstruant woman only (6). And if you prefer I might say: The ruling may have been that a woman is not regarded as a zabah (7) except during the daytime because it is written, all the days of her issue (8)." (emphasis appears in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)
(footnotes) "(13) Lev. XV,28.

• (14) Cf. supra p.17,n.10. Since she is thus Biblically consid­ered unclean how could a court rule that one having intercourse with her is exempt?
• (15) Lev.XX,18.

(1)Ibid.13. The plural "xxxx" (Hebrew characters, Ed.) im­plies natural, and unnatural intercourse.
(2)Why then was the case of 'a woman who awaits a day cor­responding to a day' given as an illustration when the case of a menstruant, already mentioned, would apply the same illustra­tion.
(3)The first stage of contact.
(4)In the case of one 'who awaits a day corresponding to a day'; only consummation of coition being forbidden in her case. (5)Cf. Lev.XX,18.
(6)Thus permitting a forbidden act which the Sadducees do not admit.
(7)A woman who has an issue of blood not in the time of her menstruation, and is subject to certain laws of uncleaness and purification (Lev.XV,25ff).
(8)Lev.XV,26. Emphasis being laid on days."
(Book) Abodah Zarah, 36b-37a. "R. Naham b.Isaac said: They decreed in connection with a heathen child that it would cause defilement by seminal emission (2) so that an Israelite
child should not become accustomed to commit pederasty with it. . .From what age does a heathen child cause defilement by seminal emission? From the age of nine years and one day. (37a) for inasmuch as he is then capable of the sexual act he likewise defiles by emission. Rabina said: It is therefore to be concluded that a heathen girl (communicates defilement) from the age of three years and one day, for inasmuch as she is then capable of the sexual act she likewise defiles by a flux.
(footnotes) "(2). Even though he suffered from no issue."
(Book) Sotah, 26b). "R. Papa said: It excludes an animal, because there is not adultery in connection with an animal (4). Raba of Parazika (5) asked R. Ashi, Whence is the statement which the Rabbis made that there is no adultery in connection with an animal?--Because it is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog etc.; (6) and it has been taught: The hire of a dog (7) and the wages of a harlot (8) are permissable, as it is said, Even both of these (9)--the two (specified texts are abominations) but not four (10). . .As lying with mankind. (12) But, said Raba, it excludes the case where he warned her against contact of the bodies (13). Abaye said to him, That is merely an obscene act (and not adultery), and did the All-Merciful prohibit (a wife to her husband) for and ob­scene act?" (emphasis in original text, Ed.)
(footnotes) "(4) She would not be prohibited to her husband for such an act.
(5). Farausag near Baghdad v.BB.(Sonc.Ed.)p.15,n.4. He is thus distinguished from the earlier Rabbi of that name. (6)Deut.XX111,19.
(7)Money given by a man to a harlot to associate with his dog. Such an association is not legal adultery.
(8)If a man had a female slave who was a harlot and he ex­changed her for an animal, it could be offered.
(9)Are an abomination unto the Lord ibid.

• (10) Viz., the other two mentioned by the Rabbi.
• (11) In Num. V,13. since the law applies to a man who is in­capable.
• (12) Lev.XVD1,22. The word for 'lying' is in the plural and is explained as denoting also unnatural intercourse.

•(13) With the other man, although there is no actual coition." (emphasis appears in original Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(Book) Yebamoth, 55b. "Raba said; For what purpose did the All-Merciful write 'carnally' in connection with the designated bondmaid (9), a married woman (10), and a sotah (11)? This in connection with the designated bondmaid (is required) as has just been explained (12). That in connection with a married woman excludes intercourse with a relaxed membrum (13). This is a satisfactory interpretation in accordance with the view of him who maintains that if one cohabited with forbidden rela­tives with relaxed membrum he is exonerated (14); what, how­ever, can be said, according to him who maintains (that for such an act one is) guilty?--The exclusion is rather that of intercourse with a dead woman (15). Since it might have been assumed that, as (a wife), even after her death, is described as his kin (16), one should be guilty for (intercourse with) her (as for that) with a married woman, hence we are taught (that one is exoner­ated).
(footnotes) (9) Lev.XIX,20.

• (10) Ibid.XVIII,20.
• (11) Nwn. V,13.
• (12) Supra 55a.
• (13) Since no fertilization can possibly occur.
• (14) Shebu.,18a,Sanh.55a.
• (15) Even though she dies as a married woman.
• (16) In Lev.XXI,2. where the text enumerates the dead rela­tives for whom a priest may defile himself. As was explained, supra 22b, his kin refers to one's wife." (emphasis in Soncino Edition original, Ed.)

(Book) Yebamoth, 103a-103b. "When the serpent copulated with Eve (14) he infused her (15) with lust. The lust of the Is­raelites who stood at Mount Sinai (16) came to an end, the lust of idolators who did not stand at Mount Sinai did not come to an end."
(footnotes) "(14) In the garden of Eden, according to tradi­tion.

• (15) i.e., the human species.
• (16) And experienced the purifying influence of divine Rev­elation."

(Book) Yebamoth, 63a. "R. Eleazar further stated: What is meant by the Scriptural text, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (5)? This teaches that Adam had intercourse
with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he cohabited with Eve.
(footnotes) "(5) Gen.I1,23. emphasis on This is now." (emphasis appears in original Soncino Edition, Ed.)
(Book) Yebamoth, 60b. "As R. Joshua b. Levi related: ' There was a certain town in the Land of Israel the legitimacy of whose inhabitants was disputed, and Rabbi sent R. Ramanos who conducted an enquiry and found it in the daughter of a proselyte who was under the age of three years and one day (14), and Rabbi declared her eligible to live with a priest (15)."
(footnotes) "(13) A proselyte under the age of three years and one day may be married by a priest.

• (14)And was married to a priest.
• (15)i.e., permitted to continue to live with her husband."

P (Book) Yebamoth, 59b. "R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest (4). Likewise it was taught: A woman who had inter­course with that which is no human being (5), though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning (6), is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest (7).
(footnotes) "(4) Even a High Priest. The result of such in­tercourse being regarded as a mere wound, and the opinion that does not regard an accidently injured hymen as a disqualification does not so regard such an intercourse either.
(5)A beast.
(6)If the offense was committed in the presence of witnesses after due warning.
(7)In the absence of witnesses and warning."
(Book) Yebamoth, 12b. "R. Bebai recited before R. Naham: Three (catagories of) women may (7) use an absorbent (8) in their marital intercourse (9), a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor (10) because (otherwise) she might (11) become pregnant, and as a result (11) might die. . .And what is the age of such a minor? (14). From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under (15), or over this age (16) must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner."
(footnotes "(7) (So Rashi.R.Tam: Should use, v.Tosaf s. v.)
(8) Hackled wool or flax. To prevent conception.

• (16) May use an absorbent.
• (17) Lit., 'perhaps' .
• (14) Who is capable of conception but exposed thereby to the danger of death.
• (15) When no conception is possible.
• (16) when pregnancy involves no fatal consequences."

(Book) Yebamoth, 59b. "When R.Dimi came (8) he related; It once happened at Haitalu (9) that while a young worn an was sweeping the floor (10) a village dog (11) covered her from the rear (12) and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest.
(footnotes) "(8) From Palestine to Babylon.
(9)(Babylonian form for Aitulu, modern Airterun N.W. of Kadesh, v.S. Kelin, Beitrage,p.47).

• (10) Lit., 'house'.
• (11) Or 'big hunting dog' (Rashi), 'ferocious dog' (Jast.), 'small wild dog' (Aruk).
• (12) A case of unnatural intercourse.

[H: Is any of this beginning to be a bit outlandish to any of you? Dogs? "A village dog' covered her from the rear.."? Is this not the most confusing bunch of nonsense you have ever seen? Does it cross anyone's mind that you might be dealing with rules set up by ones totally unfamiliar with much of anything suitable to behavior by Earth Human? Oh yes, you have bestiality but hardly anything so allowable as "trivial" in being covered from the rear by a dog--while sweeping the floor yet? Would you believe such a tale if anyone walked up to you and told you this--today? Does anyone begin to relate anything in these outlandish displays of obscenities with what you have heard of the activities of "little gray aliens"?] To continue:

(Book) Kethuboth, 6b. "Said he to him: Not like those Babylonians who are not skilled in moving aside (7), but there are some who are skilled in moving aside (8). If so, why (give the reason of) 'anxious'?(10)--For one who is not skilled. (Then) let them say: One who is skilled is allowed (to perform the first intercourse on Sabbath), one who is not skilled is forbidden?--Most (people) are skilled (11). Said Raba the son of R. Hanan to Abaye: If this were so, then why (have) groomsmen (12) why (have) a sheet?(13)--He (Abaye) said to him: There (the groomsmen and the sheet are necessary) perhaps he will see and destroy (the tokens of her virginity) (14).
(footnotes) "(7) i.e., having intercourse with a virgin with­out causing a bleeding.
Thus no blood need come out, and 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not apply.

• (9) If the bridegroom is skilled in "moving sideways'.
• (10) He need not be anxious about the intercourse and should not be free from reading Shema' on account of such anxiety.
• (11) Therefor the principle regarding 'Let his head be cut off and let him not die!' does not, as a rule, apply.
• (12) The groomsmen testify in case of need to the virginity of the bride. V. infra 12a. If the bridegroom will act in a man­ner that will cause no bleeding, the groomsmen will not be able to testify on the question of virginity.

•(13) To provide evidence of the virginity of the bride. Cf.Deut.XXII,17 .

• (14) It may happen that he will act in the normal manner and cause bleeding but he will destroy the tokens and maintain that the bride was not a virgin; for this reason the above mentioned provisions are necessary. Where however he moved aside and made a false charge as to her virginity, the bride can plead that she is still a virgin (Bashi)."

After reading these verbatim quotations from the countless other similar quotations which you will find in the official unabridged Soncino Edition of the Talmud in the English lan­guage are you of the opinion, my dear Dr. Goldstein, that the Talmud was the "sort of book" from which Jesus "drew the teachings which enable him to revolutionize the world" on "moral and religious subjects"? You have read here verbatim quotations and official footnotes on a few of the many other subjects covered by the "63 books" of the Talmud. When you read them you must be prepared for a shock. I am surprised that the United States Post Office does not bar the Talmud from the mails. I hesitated to quote them in this letter. [H: I also hesitated to quote them herein because the next barrage of accusations and denouncing will pile upon my people--but truth is truth and if you ones will not take time to look it up for self then hope for your journey is slim in­deed. I MOST CERTAINLY DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO FIND TRUTH BY SIMPLY ASKING A NICE RABBI OR CLERGYMAN. I would like, herein, to remind you of something regarding these Zionists; Your own Jerry Falwell stood forth as leader of your "Moral Majority" and stated before the world: "I am proud to say that I am a Zionist!" Does it mean that he KNEW all these things of heinous con­tent? No, he is simply another of the ignorant and inten­tionally uninformed!]

In support of the contention by the top echelon among the outstanding authorities on this phase of the present status of the Talmud, further proof of the wide influence exerted by the Tal­mud upon the so-called or self-styled "Jews" is supplied by Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer's article "What is a Jew" in the June 17, 1952 issue of Look Magazine. Rabbi Morris N. Kertzer's article contains a lovely picture of a smiling man seated in a chair with a large opened book upon his lap. Seated around him on the floor are about a dozen smiling men and women. They are paying close attention to the smiling man in the chair with the opened book upon his lap. He is reading to the persons on the floor. He emphasizes what he is reading by gestures with one of his hands. Beneath this photograph of the group is the following explanation:

"ADULTS STUDY ANCIENT WRITINGS, TOO. RABBI IN THIS PICTURE, SEATED IN CHAIR, LEADS GROUP DISCUSSION OF TALMUD BEFORE EVENING PRAYER." (emphasis supplied)

This picture and explanation indicate the extent the Talmud is the daily diet of so-called or self-styled "Jews" in this day and age. The Talmud is first taught to children of so-called or self-styled "Jews" as soon as they are able to read. Just as the Tal­mud is the "textbook by which rabbis are trained" so is the Tal­mud also the textbook by which the rank-and-file of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" are "trained" to think from their earliest age. In the translation of the Talmud with its texts edited, corrected and formulated by the eminent Michael Rodkinson, Reverend Dr. Isaac M. Wise, on page XI, it states:

"THE MODERN JEW IS THE PRODUCT OF THE TALMUD" . (emphasis supplied)

To the average Christian the word "Talmud" is just another word associated by them with the form of religious worship practised in their synagogues by so-called or self-styled "Jews". Many Christians have never heard of the Talmud. Very few Christians are informed on the contents of the Talmud. Some may believe the Talmud to be an integral part of the religious worship known to them as "Judaism". It suggests a sort of bible or religious text book. It is classed as a spiritual manual. But otherwise few if any Christian has an understanding of the con­tents of the Talmud and what it means in the daily lives of so-called or self-styled "Jews". As an illustration, my dear Dr. Goldstein, how many Christians have any conception of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer recited in synagogues on the Day of Atonement?

[H: For you readers of AND THEY CALLED HIS NAME IMMANUEL, allow me to point out that the original release of this information was titled TALMUD JMMANUEL. I think it is now evident as to WHY Sananda chose to relabel it. There is now a new copy of the book translated by Billy Meier--again called the TALMUD IMMANUEL. I suggest you be most careful in the reading thereof for it is printed solely for the monetary value and these ones who are repro­ducing the work have done everything they could do to STOP our publishing of the truth. "Talmud" is a perfectly good word but as is always the case with the great deceiver, you do not get goodness and light--but lies and deceit. Therefore, God will refrain from utilizing terms which will mislead you who are efforting to find Truth. A word placed so blatantly upon the cover indicates misuse of the intent if it is there to connote TRUTH!]

In Volume VIII of the Jewish Encyclopedia on page 539 found in the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library and libraries of all leading cities, will be found the official translation into English of the prayer known as the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer. It is the prologue of the Day of Atonement services in the synagogues. It is recited three times by the standing congregation in concert with chanting rabbis at the al­tar. After the recital of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer the Day of Atonement religious ceremonies follow immediately. The Day of Atonement religious observances are the highest holy days of so-called or self-styled "Jews" and are celebrated as such throughout the world. The official translation into En­glish of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer follows:

"ALL VOWS, OBLIGATIONS, OATHS, ANATHEMAS, whether called 'konam', 'konas', or by any other name, WHICH WE MAY VOW, OR SWEAR, OR PLEDGE, OR WHEREBY WE MAY BE BOUND, FROM THIS DAY OF ATONEMENT UNTO THE NEXT, (whose happy coming we await), we do repent. MAY THEY BE DEEMED AB­SOLVED, FORGIVEN, ANNULLED, AND VOID AND MADE OF NO EFFECT; THEY SHALL NOT BIND US NOR HAVE POWER OVER US. THE VOWS SHALL NOT BE RECKONED VOWS; THE OBLIGATIONS SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATORY; NOR THE OATHS BE OATHS." (emphasis supplied).
[H: Go right back now and REALLY READ THAT PRAYER FOR YOU DID NOT PICK UP THE POINT THE FIRST TIME!]

The implications, inferences and innuendoes of the "Kol Nidre (All Vows) prayer are referred to in the Talmud in the Book of Nedarim, 23a-23b as follows:

(Book) "And he who desires that NONE OF HIS VOWS MADE DURING THE YEAR SHALL BE VALID, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'EVERY VOW WHICH I MAY MAKE IN THE FUTURE SHALL BE NULL (1). (HIS VOWS ARE THEN INVALID,) PROVIDING THAT HE REMEMBERS THIS AT THE TIME OF THE VOW." (emphasis in original and supplied, Ed.)

(footnotes) "(1) This may have provided a support for the custom of reciting Kol Nidre (a formula for dispensation of vows) prior to the Evening Service of the Day of Atonement (Ran). . .Though the beginning of the year (New Year) is men­tioned here, the Day of Atonement was probably chosen on ac­count of its great solemnity. But Kol Nidre as part of the ritual IS LATER THAN THE TALMUD, and, as seen from the fol­lowing statement of R. Huna b. Hinene, THE LAW OF REVOCATION IN ADVANCE WAS NOT MADE PUBLIC. (emphasis supplied and in original text,Ed.)

The greatest study of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer was made by the eminent psycho-analyst Professor Theodor Reik, the celebrated pupil of the famous Dr. Sigmund Freud. The analysis of the historic, religious and psychological background of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer by Professor Reik pre­sents the Talmud in its true perspective. This important study is contained in Professor Reik's "The Ritual, Psyco-Analytical Studies". In the chapter on the Talmud, on page 168, Professor Reik states:

"THE TEXT WAS TO THE EFFECT THAT ALL OATHS WHICH BELIEVERS TAKE BETWEEN ONE DAY OF ATONEMENT AND THE NEXT DAY OF ATONEMENT ARE DECLARED INVALID." (emphasis supplied)

Before explaining to you how the present wording of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer was introduced into the Day of Atonement synagogue ceremonies, my dear Dr. Goldstein, I would like to quote a passage to you from the Universal Jewish Encyclopedia.
The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia confirms the fact that the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer has no spiritual value as might be believed because it is recited in synagogues on the Day of Atonement as the prologue of the religious ceremonies which follow it. The secular significance of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer is indicated forcefully by the analysis in the Uni­versal Jewish Encyclopedia. In Volume VI, on page 441, it states:

"The Kol Nidre HAS NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL IDEA OF THE DAY OF ATONE­MENT. . .it attained to extraordinary solemnity and popularity by reason of the fact that it was THE FIRST PRAYER RE­CITED ON THIS HOLIEST OF DAYS."

My dear Dr. Goldstein, prepare for the shock of your life. Compelled by what you have now read here about the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer you must be shocked to learn that many Christian churches actually "pealed their bells" on the Day of Atonement in celebration of that holy day for so-called or self-styled "Jews". How stupid can the Christian clergy get? From what I have learned after a cursory inquiry I am unable to say whether it was a case of stupidity or cupidity. With what you already know, together with what you will additionally know before you finish this letter, you will be able to judge for yourself whether it was stupidity or cupidity. There is not one single fact in this entire letter which every graduate of a theo­logical seminary did not have the opportunity to learn.

The following news item was featured in the New York on October 7th only a few days ago. Under a prominent headline "JEWISH HOLIDAYS TO END AT SUNDOWN" the New York World Telegram gave great prominence to the following story:

"Synagogues and temples throughout the city were crowded yesterday as the 24 hour fast began. Dr. Norman Salit, head of the Synagogue Council of America, representing the three major Jewish bodies, had called on other faiths TO JOIN THE FAST.
.Cutting across religious lines, MANY PROTESTANT CHURCHES IN THE CITY PEALED THEIR BELLS LAST NIGHT TO SOUND THE KOL NIDRE,TRADITIONAL MELODY USED AT THE START OF YOM KIPPUR. THE
GESTURE OF GOOD-WILL WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE MANHATTAN OFFICE OF THE PROTESTANT COUNCIL." (emphasis supplied)

That just about "tops" anything I have ever had come to my attention revealing the ignorance and indifference of the Chris­tian clergy to the hazards today facing the Christian faith. From my personal contacts with the Manhattan Office of the Protes­tant Council in the recent past I hold out very little hope for any constructive contribution they can make to the common defense of the Christian faith against its dedicated enemies. In each instance they buckled under the "pressure" exerted upon them by the "contacts" for so-called or self-styled "Jews". If it was not so tragic it would be comic. It was a joke indeed but the joke was on the Christian clergy. Ye Gods! "Many" Christian churches "pealed their bells", as the Protestant Council reports the event, "TO SOUND THE KOL N1DRE, TRADITIONAL MELODY USED AT THE START OF YOM KIPPUR". Just where does betrayal of a trust and breach of faith begin?

The present wording of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer dates from the 11th century. A political reversal in eastern Eu­rope compelled the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Eu­rope to adopt the present wording of the "Kol Nidre" (All Vows) prayer. That story involves the history of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" in eastern Europe.
Before relating here as briefly as possible the history of the so-called or self-styled "Jews" of eastern Europe I would like to quote here another short passage from the Jewish Encyclopedia in Volume VII, on page 540, states:

"AN IMPORTANT ALTERATION IN THE WORDING of the 'Kol Nidre'was made by Rashi's son-in-law, Meir ben Samuel, WHO CHANGED THE ORIGINAL PHRASE 'FROM THE LAST DAY OF ATONEMENT TO THIS ONE' to 'FROM THIS DAY OF ATONEMENT UNTIL THE NEXT' " .

(emphasis supplied)

[END OF QUOTING FOR THIS SEGMENT]

We will herein stop quoting and for that matter, stop the writing at this point for this sitting. Thank you for the long hours of service, Dharma. I ask you to be particularly attuned to my call for you are in danger and hence is why we had to disengage
your prior computer. We will simply have to work our way through the next few days of bringing forth this information for as you might well note--THE EVIL BROTHERHOOD DOES NOT WANT IT BROUGHT FORTH! When human realizes how he has been duped he shall rise up and stop this madness. Ah, and may it be "in time".

Hatonn to stand-by. I shall keep the shielding in place but I must ask that you remain within my commands lest you be dam­aged. The Truth is going to come forth now and it has confir­mation and credentials of proof--just as you were told at onset by "The Command"--"that you would be given credentials and credibility from that which is the Silver Clouds and would be forthcoming from Earth-place." And so it shall be put to print that Man may see how sadly he has been made the dupe.

Good evening. God grants his protection of his servants. Salu.