sometimes you get some mud slung on you---while waiting for the worldwide 911hoax revelation\\\

we shall rise from this adversity a much happier world

tAS A REGULAR HUMAN THAT IS SEEKING THE BEST FOR HUMANITY.....

this is a post from libertyforum----posted by the jew haters----

this is their case for why they hate the jews----

if we could have open dialogue about these issues in the world

there would be no more confusion on this---and people on both sides of this would not be confused on this issue
-------

there is some crazy stuff in the talmud----
how do modern jews interpret these more controversial passages?

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US!!!
-----------------------------------------

Jewish Oral Laws (Talmud)

The following are some of the Jewish Oral Laws, contained within the Talmud. They are vociferously against all non-Jews. In fact, they even openly admit in no uncertain terms that they're "anti-Christian" in nature. These are some of the same laws that govern Israel; Jews have incorporated their Talmudic Law into government law. This helps to explain why Jews express such a bitter, fanatical hatred towards the Palestinians, which, after over a half century of unrelenting persecution of Palestinians, has finally begun to turn on Jews. It helps to explain why many Jewish children are molested by their parents, and become hateful and bitter themselves.

USE THE BACK BUTTON OF YOUR BROWSER TO RETURN

Click on the cover page to the right for a large image

Sanhedrin 55b (Full page Viewer): "What if a Jew committed bestiality in ignorance; must there have been a stumbling block and degradation (for the animal to be stoned) and in this case there is only degradation, but no sin; or perhaps for degradation alone without there having been a stumbling block (the animal is stoned)? . . . "

Continuing, Sanhedrin 55b promulgates:

"A maiden aged three years and one day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabits with her, she becomes his" (emphasis added)."

Sanhedrin 59a (Page Viewer): "A heathen [Gentile] who studies the Torah [Old Testament] deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance; it our inheritance, not theirs. . . . [part of the footnote follows] R. Johana's dictum . . . is not to be taken literally. It is also possible that R. Johanan's objection was to the studying of Oral Law [the Talmud] by Jewish Christians, as the possession of the Oral Law was held to be the distinguishing mark of the Jews. It is significant that it was R. Johanan who also said that God's covenant with Israel was only for the sake of oral law." (Talmud's emphasis)

Kethuboth 11b (Page Viewer): "When a grown up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this [Footnote 6: "less than three years old"], it as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood. . . ." Footnote 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" (emphasis added).

These next two passages are particularly interesting, since there has been much recently said about Jewish-Christian relations. In fact, there is none. There are much more similarities between Islam and Christianity, as Islam treats Jesus as one of its prophets. Jews, however, hate Jesus, as noted below in the following two pages in the Talmud. This helps explain why Christians are arrested for even having a cross displayed in their window in Israel, and Christians are jailed for 5 years in prison for seeking to proselytize Jews in Israel as well.

In Sanhedrin 106a-106b (Page Viewer), we see that a woman "who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters."

Looking at footnote number 5 in Sanhedrin 106a-106b, we see this "harlot," notes the Talmud, "though no name is mentioned to show which woman is meant, the mother of Jesus may be alluded to" (emphasis added). We also take note that it "suggests that Balaam is frequently used in the Talmud as a type for Jesus" (emphasis added) in the same footnote, as shown on the full page.

This is also confirmed in the Jewish Encyclopedia (page not shown) where it notes that "Baalam" is just another name for "Jesus." It then goes on to say that "the pupils of the recreant Baalam inherit hell."

As noted below, continuing with the Sanhedrin 106a-b page, "all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for Jesus." So, here we have Jews openly admitting that their Oral Laws are anti-Christian. Yet they always lie and deny it when confronted with this due to their Talmud's vile and hateful nature.

From the Talmud's Sanhedrin 64a, we see this passage referring to Molech:

In Gittin 56b (page viewer), it discusses Baalam (Jesus) again (see the page Sanhedrin 106a-b for clarification of Jesus being Baalam). It says that he was "raised" by Jewish "incantations." Jesus was "then asked: What is your punishment? He replied: 'With boiling hot semen.'" (The footnote 4 says "Jesus" is being referred to here, to avoid any confusion.)

It then states in Gittin 56b that there is a divine punishment given to non-Jews in an after-life: "What is your punishment? They replied: 'With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks the words of the Sages [Talmud] is punished with boiling hot excrement.'"

Abodah Zara 26b (Page Viewer): ". . . minim [Gentiles*], informers, and apostates may be cast in [a deep pit from which they cannot climb out], and need not be brought up" (Talmud's emphasis). *Note: The Jewish Encyclopedia clarifies that minim is used in reference to non-Jews.

Nedarim 23b (Page Viewer). Here we see the Jewish oath of Kol Nidre. This is an oath that they recite every year. It justifies the absolvement of any agreements made with respect to non-Jews during the course of the following year. It says, "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 make in the future shall be null.'"

Sanhedrin 57a (Page Viewer): "'With respect to robbery--if one stole or robbed or (seized) a beautiful woman, or (committed) similar offenses, if (these were perpetrated) by one Cuthean [Gentile] against another, (the theft, etc.) must not be kept, and likewise (the theft) of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained'? . . . 'For murder, whether of a Cuthean by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty'?" Footnote 5: "'Cuthean' (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen) [non-Jew]" (emphasis added).

Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 619, "Gentile" (Page Viewer): ". . . they held that only Israelites are men, quoting the prophet, 'Ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men' (Ezek. xxxiv, 31); Gentiles they classed not as men but as barbarians [Baba Mezia 108b]" (emphasis added).

_______________________

Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 620, "Gentile" (Page Viewer):

"It follows that the Gentiles were excepted from the general civil laws of Moses. For example, the Law provides that if a man's ox gores and kills a neighbor's ox, the carcass and surviving ox shall be sold, and the proceeds divided between the respective owners (half-damages). If, however, the goring ox has been known to be dangerous and its owner has not kept watch over it, he shall pay full damages for the dead ox and take the carcass (Ex. xxi, 35-36, Hebr.). Here the Gentile is excepted, as he is not a 'neighbor' in the sense of reciprocating and being responsible for damages caused by his negligence; nor does he keep watch over his cattle. Even the best Gentile laws were too crude to admit of reciprocity. . . . The Mishnah, bearing such facts in mind, therefore declares that if a Gentile sue an Israelite, the verdict is for the defendant; if the Israelite is the plaintiff, he obtains full damages (Baba Kamma iv, 3). . . .

"The Mosaic law provides for the restoration of a lost article to its owner if a 'brother' and 'neighbor' (Deut. xxii, 1-3), but not if a Gentile (Baba Kamma 113b). . . .

"Similarly, the mandate concerning the oppression of or withholding wages from a hireling brother or neighbor, or a domiciled alien (Deut. xxiv, 14-15) who observes the Noachian laws, is not applicable in the case of a Gentile. This is to say a Gentile may be employed at reduced wages, which need not be paid promptly on the same day, but may be paid in accordance with the usual custom of the place. . . .

"R. Ashi decided that a Jew who sells a Gentile landed property bordering on the land of another Jew shall be excommunicated, not only on the ground that the Gentile laws do not provide for neighbors' boundary priviliges [unknown Hebrew characters], but also because the Jewish neighbor may claim 'thou hast caused a lion to lie on my border'" (emphasis added throughout).

_______________________

The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. X, p. 621, under the heading "Gentile" (Page Viewer), states that property owned by Gentiles "is considered public property, like unclaimed land in the desert." It notes that "discriminations against Gentiles . . . [is] strictly in accordance with the just law of reciprocity and retaliation, [though] seldom practiced. . . . Another reason for discrimination was the vile and vicious character of the Gentiles . . ." Also, "The Torah [Old Testament] outlawed the issue of a Gentile as that of a beast (Mik. viii, 4, referring to Ezek. l.c.)."

Further, the "Talmud comments on the untruthfulness of Gentiles," referring to Gentiles as "'a band of strange children whose mouth speaketh vanity, and their right hand (in rising to take an oath) is a right hand of falsehood'" (emphasis added).

On another page, The Jewish Encyclopedia (Page Viewer) states that the Jewish Talmud says it's OK to overcharge Gentiles but not Jews: "The Jewish law against overcharging one-sixth or more above the current price of marketable merchandise--a violation of which affected the validity of the sale--applied only to a Jew or domiciled alien, not to a Gentile" (emphasis added).

It later goes on to say that "not even on Monday is the Gentile allowed to rest."

Towards the conclusion on that page is one of the most hateful comments ever written. Citing Simon ben Yohai, who is revered even to this day among Jews, the Jewish Encyclopedia cites the quote "often quoted by anti-Semites": "The best among Gentiles deserves to be killed."

So, after reading this, I have to ask you this:

Who are the hateful folks--me, simply because I expose Jewish religious hatred--or Jews for preaching that it's OK to rip-off non-Jews, to steal from non-Jews, to engage in crude acts, to molest children, to murder non-Jews, to refer to non-Jews as "beasts,"

Reply | Private Reply | Flag | First | Last | Context Post Extras: