|
It's rather
ironic for me to begin this section right now. I've just seen a PBS documentary
in which the Christians are blamed for the burning of Rome, just as Nero
the tyrant claimed and in spite of Tacitus' history. These Christians, of
course, were in reality persecuted mercilessly by Nero -- but only, according
to this documentary, because they were seen as a "radical Jewish sect."
In other words, in today's world, the Christians burned Rome --something
Jewish-Jews would never be accused of on public television -- but were persecuted
by pagan Rome because they were, nonetheless, perceived as being a Jewish
sect. I wonder why the producers of the show failed to mention that Nero's
wife was a Jew named Poppaea and that according to rabbinical writings, Nero
himself converted to Judaism. 1
So much for Christian suffering! If the Christians were persecuted,
it was only because we were considered Jewish, in spite of the fact
that the persecutor's wife was a Jew, and Jews themselves claim that the
persecutor was a Jew. And, besides, we deserved it because we were
arsonists after all! In one stroke, our innocence and our suffering are
stolen. "You only suffered because they thought you were us -- and
besides, you evil Catholics, you deserved it." History denied.
It's funny that
as I tuned in to that show, I thought to myself, "I wonder how they are going
to make us Christians look bad." I knew it was coming (it always does). And
I was right. The more one learns about real history and about the prevalent
anti-Christian, Marxist attitudes and secular premises of our present-day
culture, the more one can place sure bets that, when history is presented,
it will be slanted so that Christians and Western culture appear as bad,
oppressive, "medieval" (used, stupidly, as an insult), backwards, reactionary,
evil, colonialist, aggressive, unenlightened, persecuting, and warlike. Jewish
culture, on the other hand, is ever-innocent, good, wise, persecuted and
suffering. Other nations and peoples are as good or bad as the political
interests of the moneyed class calls for that day. One example is the Muslim
world: before the World Trade Center attacks of 9-11, the Crusades were presented
as an example of Christian "aggression" and "colonialism" against the Muslims,
who are more enlightened (a Muslim invented the number 0 after all
2) and -- well, just wonderfully,
exotically Third World. After the attacks, when it came time to come up with
excuses for attacking Iraq (a country that, while led by a very evil man,
had nothing to do with the attacks on America), newspaper articles began
to appear with headlines like "A Second Look at the Crusades" and which
accurately (finally) described the Crusades as defensive wars on the
part of the Christian West.
But let's start at the beginning and see how our public school, PBS version
of history is designed to support a culturally Marxist-Talmudist view of
the world and which takes from Anglo-Protestant, anti-Catholic, anti-Spain
propaganda as it sees fit.
Beginnings
In the
first section, I explained the fact that modern Judaism
is not the Old Testament religion but is, instead, rabbinic Pharisaism --
a religion which consists of: verbally honoring Torah, but seeing Moses'
Books through the lens of: the Talmud; Kabbalah and other magical practices
and beliefs acquired before and during the Babylonian Captivity, and rabbinical
authority (not priestly authority, as in the Old Testament). The
rabbinical view of history is that the "Jews" were chosen, as a biological
race and because of their genetic superiority, by God to bring about an earthly
Jewish Kingdom in which Gentiles follow the Noahide laws and are subject
to rabbinical authority. Jesus, Whom they consider a blasphemous heretic
sorcerer, came along, the Temple fell, many Jews were "led astray" by the
followers of Jesus, and His Church has been persecuting the Jews ever since,
without cease, for no reason, and never in response to Jewish behaviors and
attitudes.
A typical Protestant view is that Messiah came, but His Church was a
non-hierarchical entity with no priesthood, no Sacraments, no authority but
the Bible (which, apparently, fell out of Heaven into the lap of Tyndale
in the Middle Ages). This Church became corrupted when Constantine's Edict
started a "State religion" (a false notion:
Constantine's Edict of Milan only stopped
the persecution of Christians -- and was followed by the reign of the
Christian-hating Julian the Apostate). Only thereafter did the papacy develop,
they say, and the State Church grew increasingly more corrupt and paganized,
slaughtering the "true Christians" (i.e., the Sola Scriptura-Sola Fide Christians
who, they claim, have always existed alongside the monster Catholic Church
after She sprang into being in the time of Constantine) by the
thousands/millions/billions. During the Protestant "Reformation," the Sola
Scriptura Christians burst forth on the scene, shaking off the yoke of "popish"
Rome, taking the "Church" back to its "true" roots and the inspiring the
world on to enlightenment, freedom, democracy, etc.. Of course, during all
this time, the Catholic Church mistreated the innocent Jews, and for no other
reason than the Church's demonic cruelty and desire for unbridled power.
Since the rise of dispensationalist theology, the Church is seen as not
understanding that the Jews are God's Chosen People who must have
political control of Palestine so that Messiah can return after rapturing
up the "Bible Christians" and letting the Jews have an earthly kingdom until
they, too, are finally converted and "all Israel" is saved -- "Israel" being
a word they use to refer to genetic Jews and not God's people of any race,
the Church.
(Note: nowadays, you might hear presented the idea that there was a "James"
or "Paul" True Church that was opposed to the "Peter" Church, the latter
of which was the "anti-Jew" Church which later became the State Church of
Constantine. This is becoming a typically Jewish view of Christian history,
so as to buttress up the Dispensationalist Zionists against the Catholics.
A typically Protestant version is that the "Church of Peter" was the
Jewish-Law-loving Church in opposition to the Faith Alone Church of Paul,
and which became the Pagan Church of Constantine -- but now, after the rise
of Dispensationalist theology, it was also, somehow, anti-Jew, too, in spite
of its being a Law-loving pseudo-Church. And some people seem to hold all
of these ideas at the same time. Somehow. Any view of history will do as
long as it's not Catholic. I do wish the anti-Catholics would pick a story
and stick to it! And do they not notice that it is the Catholic Church that
put together the Bible which includes the Epistles of Peter and Paul
and James? This pitting of Paul against Peter, and James against Peter
-- everyone against Peter -- is sickening.)
At any rate, that the Catholic Church, with its hierarchy (including the
papacy) and Sacraments, was there from the beginning, in the New Testament,
is easily seen by reading the writings of the earliest Christians. ``Where
the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus
is, there is the Catholic Church'' wrote Ignatius of Antioch in the 1st c.,
appointed to his See by Peter himself. The 1st c. letters of Clement (the
4th Pope after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus) lays out apostolic succession;
the writings of Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Cyril of Jerusalem, etc. can be
read by any Protestant if he so desires, and refute any notion of the Church
and Her Sacraments not existing until Constantine or Charlemagne or whoever
is deemed this week's "real power behind the Catholic Church." (see the
Apologetics section of this site for
more information).
But what were the Jews doing during these early years? Though it's become
unfashionable (and that is a good word for it) and dangerous to say so, the
Jews were persecuting Christians from the get-go and at every chance they
had. From Herod, an Idumean Jew, who tried to kill the Messiah when He was
an Infant, to St. Paul's pre-conversion murdering of Christians, to the plots
on the life of Lazarus, to the murders of St. John the Baptist and St. Stephen
the Deacon, to the later attempts on the convert Paul's life, to the slaughter
of Chrisians during the Bar Kocha Rebellion (A.D. 132-135) against the Romans,
to the likelihood of the Jewish Poppaea instigating her (possibly Jewish
convert) husband Nero's massacres of Christians, the Church has been hated,
and often persecuted, by Jews.
It has become even less fashionable to point out the obvious: Jews are the
ones who wanted Christ dead. I know that it's politically correct to bash
the Romans on this account, but the Romans had no issue with Jesus and "only"
acted as instruments to carry out the Jews' wishes (which is culpability
and cowardice enough, to be sure). The Jews, however, did want Christ dead,
and used Roman power to make it happen. The Russians didn't want it, the
Poles didn't want it, the Ugandans didn't want it, Pilate washed his hands
of the matter: the Jews wanted it.
John 11:45-53 (KJV),
after the raising of Lazarus: Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and
had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him. But some of them went
their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus had done. Then
gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do
we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will
believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and
nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same
year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient
for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation
perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that
year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that
nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children
of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel
together for to put him to death.
Note, though,
please, how many Jews here came to know the Messiah, Who Himself was
genetically (partly) Semitic and Who fulfilled the Old Testament promises.
The point, which I reiterate here, is that "race" and "ethnicity" are not
the issue; the issue is a matter of idealogy, faith, belief, and acts of
the will. Peter, Paul, Matthew, etc. -- most of the Apostles -- were Semitic
followers of the Old Testament religion who came to know that the Old Testament
prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ and who gave up their lives defending
that belief.
In addition, while it is obvious historical fact that, proximately, it was
Palestinian Jews who used Roman power to kill the Messiah, it is also true
-- and has been taught as true since the Church's beginning -- that we are
all responsible. The Catechism of the Council of Trent, issued by Pope St.
Pius V (A.D. 1566-1572), taught:
Furthermore men
of all ranks and conditions were gathered together against the Lord, and
against his Christ. Gentiles and Jews were the advisers, the authors, the
ministers of His Passion: Judas betrayed Him, Peter denied Him, all the rest
deserted Him.
and
In this guilt are
involved all those who fall frequently into sin; for, as our sins consigned
Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow
in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as
in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in
us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle:
If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory;
while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our
actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.
In other words,
Palestinian Jews were historically, proximately responsible for Christ's
Passion and death, just as were those Romans who allowed themselves to be
cowed by them, but culpability for His death lies in us all -- the
more so with Christians who know Him and believe Him, but still offend Him.
While the post-Temple Jewish religion can be described as a "Deicide religion"
in that it glories in Deicide when exulting in the murder of Jesus, "the
Jews" cannot be decribed as "Christ-killers" in any literal sense. This isn't
some new Vatican II teaching that changed the "anti-semitic traditional teaching
of the Church" as anti-Catholics want you to believe so they can shame the
Church into submission; it is what the Church has always taught, and the
only reasons I even bring it up are our inability nowadays to speak of historical
fact as revealed by the Gospels, the willingness of too many people to blame
everyone -- anyone -- but "the Jews" (why it's OK to diss "the Romans"
but not "the Jews" is beyond me as a daughter of Rome), and the stupid,
nerve-wracking idea that the Church "used to be anti-semitic," but now, "since
Vatican II," the Church has changed Her teachings.
That last is only the world's way of dismissing traditional -- i.e,
true -- Catholic teaching altogether and of making the Church seem
wishy-washy, anything but divine, and, above all, malleable ("You've
'changed' your teachings on the Jews, why not change your attitudes toward
sex and priestly celibacy and the 'ordination' of women?") It's a way of
shaming the Church's History and stealing Her rich heritage from those who
love Her. And it's also a way of propping up "the spirit of Vatican II,"
the most destructive force that has ever afflicted Holy Mother Church and
which has rendered the institutional Church impotent and sterile, and has
almost destroyed the Roman Rite. All one has to do to see the "disconnect"
between the what the "the spirit" of this Council really did and how the
Modernists want you to perceive it is to study
the horrific effects of the interpreations of Vatican II
-- and then read how Jews, neo-Catholics, and the media speak of the "great
Council" while they dismiss the "pre-Vatican II Church" as barbarous and
unenlightened.
At any rate, it's rather paradoxical, this clamor on the part of Jews to
absolve "the Jews" of Deicide (note the hysteria in response to Mel Gibson's
"The Passion of the Christ"), especially when in their "holy" books and by
the pens of their "sages," they openly and proudly state that Jews did kill
Jesus. Note what Maimonides, who is considered by Jews to be "The Second
Moses," wrote in his "Letter to Yemen":
[Jesus of Nazareth]
impelled people to believe that he was a prophet sent by God to clarify
perplexities in the Torah, and that he was the Messiah that was predicted
by each and every seer. He interpreted the Torah and its precepts in such
a fashion as to lead to their total annulment, to the abolition of all its
commandments and to the violation of its prohibitions. The sages, of blessed
memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among
our people, meted out fitting punishment to him.
The Jewish historian
Josephus confirms the Gospel account in his "Antiquities":
Now there was about
this time Jesus, a wise man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher.
He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when
Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned
him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;
and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day
[my emphasis].
And see the
Toledoth Yeshu (onsite). Interestingly,
an article appeared on the website of the American Jewish Committee that
affirmed what is being said here about what Jewish writings themselves say
about the death of Jesus. That article disappeared from the site within days
(oops! how'd this get published?), but you may
read the article here on-site.
To continue with the topic: the errors of the Pharisaic rabbis, their legalistic,
"anti-goy" elitism, grew even greater after the Temple fell and the only
priests left were New Covenant priests. Their desires for a restored Jerusalem
and a worldly Messiah-King were not shared by the Christians, ethnically
Hebrew or not, whose Messiah told them to "render unto Caesar that which
is Caesar's"; this Christian anti-Zionism only fueled the Pharisees' hatred
for the Christians.
Around A.D. 100, the Pharisees started a school at Jamnia (often referred
to as the "Council of Jamnia" or "Jabneh") to solidify the Pharisees' power.
They threw out the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, used by the
Palestinian Jews for hundreds of years and cherished by the Apostles, because
this version, which contains the Deuterocanonical Books (referred to as the
"Apocrypha" by Protestants), was used by the Christians to proselytize Jews
due to its more specific language used to convey the Messianic prophecies.
From this "Council of Jamnia," too, came the Birkat ha-Minim -- a
part of the Amida prayer which consists of a curse against Christians
asking God to destroy us. This Amida prayer with its curse against
Christians has been prayed by religious Jews three times a day for almost
two millennia. Rounding out this racism, in A.D. 125, one of the most respected
rabbis (he is quoted over 700 times in the Talmud), Rabbi Simeon Ben Johai,
formally declared that non-Jews are not even human.
Jewish pogroms against Christians took place not only in Palestine (note
the famous Bar Kochba Rebellion of A.D. 135), in Caesarea, Scytpolis, Yemen,
Antioch -- a town through which Jews dragged the body of Patriarch Anastasius
in A.D. 608, after they threw his genitals in his face and disembowelled
him -- and any other place they could get away with it.
When reading the typical history book talking about the "repressiveness"
of the Church, or hearing a typical disensationalist Protestant sermon reviling
the great Saints like John Chrysostom who spoke against the errors of Pharisaic
Judaism (just as Jesus did!), you won't hear a word about the above -- or
how Jews agitated anti-Christian animosity among Kings and Emperors, resulting
in the slaughter of true Israel (the Church). You won't read this, from Sozomen's
(c. A.D. 375-c. 447) "Ecclesiastical History," Book II, Chapter IX:
When, in course
of time, the Christians increased in number, and began to form churches,
and appointed priests and deacons, the Magi, who as a priestly tribe had
from the beginning in successive generations acted as the guardians of the
Persian religion, became deeply incensed against them. The Jews, who through
envy are in some way naturally opposed to the Christian religion, were likewise
offended. They therefore brought accusations before Sapor [King of Persia],
the reigning sovereign, against Symeon, who was then archbishop of Seleucia
and Ctesiphon, royal cities of Persia, and charged him with being a friend
of the Caesar of the Romans, and with communicating the affairs of the Persians
to him. Sapor believed these accusations, and at first, ground the Christians
with excessive taxes, although he knew that the generality of them had
voluntarily embraced poverty. He entrusted the exaction to cruel men, hoping
that, by the want of necessaries, and the atrocity of the ex-actors, they
might be compelled to abjure their religion; for this was his aim. Afterwards,
however, be commanded that the priests and conductors of the worship of God
should be slain with the sword. The churches were demolished, their vessels
were deposited in the treasury, and Symeon was arrested as a traitor to the
kingdom and the religion of the Persians. Thus the Magi, with the co-operation
of the Jews, quickly destroyed the houses of prayer.
You won't hear
how Jews allied themselves with the Christian-born but later professing pagan
Julian the Apostate, Emperor of Rome between A.D. 361 and 363 and fourth
successor of Constantine, who oppressed Christians even as he tried to help
Jews rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, a project that ended when mysterious
balls of fires emanated from the ground (and sky, depending on the account)
at the site, burning the workers to death, and an earthquake struck. (For
fascinating accounts from primary sources as to what happened when the Jews
tried to rebuild the Temple, see this page,
onsite).
You won't hear how the Jews allied themselves with the Persians in attacking
Palestine in A.D. 614 -- and how they reveled in slaughtering the Christians
there and razing their churches, including the one built over Christ's Tomb.
According to Monk Strategius of Mar Saba (Antiochus Strategos), Jews purchased
Christian slaves from the Persians for the sole purpose of slaughtering them
"just as one might buy cattle to slaughter."
3
You won't hear how Jews rose to high levels in medieval Spanish society by
falsely claiming to have converted to the Holy Faith, how many became priests,
rose to prominence in the Church, and then proceeded to Judaize that country's
Catholics. You won't hear how these false converts also cooperated with Muslims
to overtake that country during the Muslim aggressions (oh, so that's why
that nasty Catholic Queen Isabella kicked them out in 1492!)
You won't hear that on Yom Kippur, Jews pray the Kol Nidre, a prayer
that releases them, in advance, of all vows they will make in the upcoming
year, a prayer which allowed them to engage in fraudulent business practices
while still remaining loyal to Judaism.
And you most certainly won't hear about usury -- the other true source of
"anti-semitism" in Christian lands.
Footnotes:
1
"He [God] sent against them [Israel] Nero the Caesar. As Nero was coming
he shot an arrow towards the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He then shot
one towards the west, and it again fell in Jerusalem. He shot toward all
four points of the compass, and each time it fell in Jerusalem. He said to
a certain boy, 'Repeat to me the last verse of Scripture that you have learned.'
He said, ' I will wreak My vengeance on Edom through My people Israel.' Nero
said, 'The Kadosh Barukh Hu [the Holy One] desires to lay waste His Temple
and to lay the blame on me. So he ran away and converted to Judaism, and
Rabbi Meir was descended from him.'" [Gittin 56a]
2
I've read various accounts of the history of zero, some stating that it was
a Babylonian concept that evolved, others stating that it was invented by
an Indian mathematician, others saying what is obvious: that its History
is obscure. A web visitor reminded me that the Mayans, too, had zero, so
why it is attributed with firmness to "Muslims" in our High School textbooks
is beyond me.
3
Schafer, Peter.
The History of the Jews in Antiquity: The Jews of Palestine from Alexander
the Great to the Arab Conquest. Harwood Academic Publishing, Australia, Austria,
Luxemberg, United States, 1995. Cited at
http://www.jewishtribalreview.org/03jech.htm. F. Conybeare's translation
of Monk Stratego's account, found in "Antiochus Strategos' Account of the
Sack of Jerusalem (614)," English Historical Review 25 [1910], p 506-508.
Reprinted in Deno Geanokoplos, Byzantium, (Chicago: 1984), 334-335, 266-67
reads:
Thereupon the
vile Jews, enemies of the truth and haters of Christ, when they perceived
that the Christians were given over into the hands of the enemy, rejoiced
exceedingly, because they detested the Christians; and they conceived an
evil plan in keeping with their vileness about the people. For in the eyes
of the Persians their importance was great, because they were the betrayers
of the Christians. And in this season then the Jews approached the edge of
the reservoir and called out to the children of God, while they were shut
up therein, and said to them: "If ye would escape from death, become Jews
and deny Christ; and then ye shall step up from your place and join us. We
will ransom you with our money, and ye shall be benefited by us." But their
plot and desire were not fulfilled, their labours proved to be in vain; because
the children of the Holy Church chose death for Christ's sake rather than
to live in godlessness: and they reckoned it better for their flesh to be
punished, rather than their souls ruined, so that their portion were not
with the Jews. And when the unclean Jews saw the steadfast uprightness of
the Christians and their immovable faith, then they were agitated with lively
ire, like evil beasts, and thereupon imagined an other plot. As of old they
bought the Lord from the Jews with silver, so they purchased Christians out
of the reservoir; for they gave the Persians silver, and they bought a Christian
and slew him like a sheep. The Christians however rejoiced because they were
being slain for Christ's sake and shed their blood for His blood, and took
on themselves death in return for His death....
When the people were carried into Persia, and the Jews were left in Jerusalem,
they began with their own hands to demolish and burn such of the holy churches
as were left standing....
How many souls were slain in the reservoir of Mamel! How many perished of
hunger and thirst! How many priests and monks were massacred by the sword!
How many infants were crushed under foot, or perished by hunger and thirst,
or languished through fear and horror of the foe! How many maidens, refusing
their abominable outrages, were given over to death by the enemy! How many
parents perished on top of their own children! How many of the people were
bought up by the Jews and butchered, and became confessors of Christ! How
many persons, fathers, mothers, and tender infants, having concealed themselves
in fosses and cisterns, perished of darkness and hunger! How many fled into
the Church of the Anastasis, into that of Sion and other churches, and were
therein massacred and consumed with fire! Who can count the multitude of
the corpses of those who were massacred in Jerusalem?
For a fascinating
account of how the story of the events in Palestine in A.D. 614 have been
presented in antiquity up through the 19th c. as compared to after the Jewish
Holocaust, see the article "The Vengeance of the Jews Was Stronger Than Their
Avarice": Modern Historians and the Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614,"
by Elliott Horowitz, from the Jewish Social Studies Volume 4, Number 2:
http://iupjournals.org/jss/jss4-2.html
(offsite, will open in new browser window).
|
|
