Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Chief Rabbi: ‘The Jewish people and the Anglican Church should join forces’

In an article for the Church Times, one of Cranmer’s communicants, Dr Irene Lancaster, has set out comprehensively why the roots of Zionism matter. The Archbishop of Canterbury and the two Chief Rabbis of Israel, Shlomo Amar and Yonah Metzger, signed an historic agreement almost a year ago which set out a framework for continual dialogue. Archbishop Williams said: "This is a most significant step in developing mutual understanding and trust between the Anglican Communion and the Chief Rabbinate and worldwide Judaism."

The signatories agreed on the need for a sense of urgency in the search for long-term peace, justice, and security in the Middle East in general, and in Israel and the Palestinian Territories in particular. This should include, they said, both the physical infrastructure, and the emotional and psychological relations of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim believers.

The text of the agreement mentions the ‘all too many times of violence and persecution by Christians of Jews’. Importantly, it celebrates the fact that ‘the United Kingdom, encouraged by its Christian community, was involved in the origins of the State of Israel’. It continues:

‘Among our profound concerns is the rise of anti-Semitism in Britain and the rest of Europe, in the Middle East and across the world… Where it is fostered by governments or political parties, we will openly oppose it…recognising that there have been times when the Church has been complicit in it.’

Importantly, Chief Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, the chairman for interfaith relations of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel Council, defined as blasphemous the idea of divine sanction for suicide and homicide as a ‘religious’ sacrifice.

That won’t go down very well in some quarters…

He continued: "Unfortunately, we continue to witness in Israel, Britain, and elsewhere, people who think they are serving God by killing people. Therefore, it is imperative for us - the Jewish people and the Anglican Church - to join forces to combat those religious leaders who purport to be speaking in the name of God, but who are actually preaching bloodshed and terror.”

Hmm…

Cranmer can hardly wait. He hopes they have more luck than Channel 4, but half expects the Archbishop and Chief Rabbi to be reported by the police and a file sent to the CPS accusing them of incitement.

The Chief Rabbi acknowledges: “The Palestinians have their cultural and religious rights. However, the religious rights of the Jewish people cannot be sacrificed. Although religion can be a source of tension, it may also prove to be the principal vehicle through which a solution may be found. We are meant to live together here, and to love and respect each other… Zionism is therefore not merely a relatively recent political movement, but a religious injunction incumbent on all Jews.”

As Dr Lancaster observes: ‘The true meaning of Zionism, as described here, has not always been understood by those in the Church of England. She quotes from the Revd Dr James Parkes’ A History of the Jewish People:

The roots of Zionism are to be found…everywhere and in every century of Jewish history. One thing has been constant - a determination to maintain roots in the 'Promised Land'. Much of the modern discussions of Zionism would have been clearer if this had been realised. It was no case of “Jews returning to a land they had left two thousand years ago”. As a people, they had never left it either physically or spiritually…All through the centuries Jews had intended to return to it.

It is brave indeed of Archbishop Williams to be party to a declaration which fuses ‘secular’ Zionism with the deeply spiritual Jewish desire to live in the Holy Land. Cranmer just wonders what he’ll say the next time he meets the various and disparate leaders of Islam in the UK…

53 Comments:

Blogger 16words said...

Fine words will not alter the fact that Zionism is a neo-colonial project that has no legitimacy outside Judaism (and limited legitimacy within Judaism). The notion that the world should embrace an apartheid state like Israel is repugnant to all true liberals. Britain's involvement with the project is to its eternal shame.

21 August 2007 at 11:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

Does the statement that "among our profound concerns is the rise of anti-Semitism in Britain and the rest of Europe, in the Middle East and across the world… Where it is fostered by governments or political parties, we will openly oppose it…" mean that the Church will campaign against Kenn Livingstone? One of the most overtly anti-semitic politicians since 1945.

21 August 2007 at 13:17  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

Thanks for posting Your's Truly's article. As for 16 words.

He or she needs a lesson in history and theology.

First this blog posting.


http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/08/not-rosh-but-no.html

Then Your's Truly's book, Deconstructing the Bible, which has just been brought out in paperback and is available from Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Bible-Abraham-Ezras-Introduction/dp/0415444446

I will show His Grace's article to the Chief Rabbi. Maybe if His Grace would care to visit Israel, he might be willing to accept an invitation to visit the humble abode of Yours Truly, with a stunning view of Haifa Bay and also the home of the Chief Rabbi, Your's Truly's neighbour, which has a most unusual design, even by Israeli standards.

21 August 2007 at 14:50  
Anonymous sparkyd said...

I'm afraid that I'll have to side with 16words on this one, the state of Israel was a neo-colonial act, designed to ultimately push the Palestinians out of their homeland (ever heard of Plan Dalet?). To claim that Jewish people "..never left it [Israel] either physically or spiritually…All through the centuries Jews had intended to return to it." is nonsense, there were a number of sites listed as possible places for the state of Israel to be formed, this in itself suggests that they were willing to settle elswhere...

21 August 2007 at 15:02  
Anonymous billy said...

I believe that Jews deserve their homeland.
They fought for it against a numerically bigger enemy who attacked first in the most cowardly fashion. They won, they hold it still and they remain the only democracy in the Middle East.

21 August 2007 at 18:03  
Anonymous Voyager said...

there were a number of sites listed as possible places for the state of Israel to be formed, this in itself suggests that they were willing to settle elswhere...

That is really fatuous. Why should Jews live distant from Jerusalem ? Besides Jews have always lived in the area around the River Jordan, for thousands of years - you make it sound like they were settlers in Australia or New Zealand or Massachusetts.....which is fatuous.

Jews have lived continuously longer in what is now Israel than they have in Britain or in France or in Poland or Germany....you'll be telling us next Muslims should leave the Indian Subcontinent as they were colonisers.....

The fact that some in the Church of England harbour the ludicrous Replacement Theory is a very good reason for the Church to establish some closer links with Judaism; another is that we might finally get some of the texture of the original New Testament back by looking at midrash and Jewish parables to understand what Jesus was really saying instead of gliding along the surface as is too often the case.

21 August 2007 at 18:07  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

He who sups with the Devil needs a long spoon. If we continue to believe that the interests of the West and Israel are identical, we will continue to dig ourselves deeper into the pit. Zionists want us to believe that for obvious reasons, but it ain't so.

21 August 2007 at 18:08  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the state of Israel was a neo-colonial act

How could that be ? The Neo-Colonial Act was when Sykes-Picot decided what to do with the remnants of an Ottoman invasion of the Byzantine Empire.....after all France created Lebanon and Syria and transferred the Bekaa Valley to Lebanon, putting the Jumblatt family in a fortress.....and Britain created Iraq and Transjordan and The Hejazwas stolen from the Hashemites and they had the kingdom of Iraq and Jordan as compensation.

That Israel recovered territory in Transjordan merely prevented Greater Syria from swallowing Lebanon and Iraq and Jordan.

Without Israel countries like Lebanon would not have survived, nor would Jordan, and it is the antipathy towards Israel that has prevented the whole Arab world imploding like Iraq because none of the polities are stable unless held together with brutal force.

21 August 2007 at 18:11  
Anonymous Voyager said...

If we continue to believe that the interests of the West and Israel are identical,

There is NO "West".

The interests of Germany are not those of Greece or Italy or Japan; and the interests of the United States are not to act as Cerberus for European statelets who think they have subcontracted their defence.

The "West" is an old Cold War concept which is defunct. The new world has China, India, Russia and North America.....

21 August 2007 at 18:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Received from Dr Lancaster, who was having trouble posting:

‘First of all, thank you very much for publishing my piece in the Church Times.

No doubt that organ will be tickled pink as well, seeing as they probably don't see eye to eye with His Grace on a number of issues.

However, it is just because of views like the first one you have posted above that the meetin g a t Lambeth, the joint declaration and the very recent discussions in Jerusalem are so important.

Who would you rather believe, your first poster, or myself?

Let's give you a clue: I have taught Bible and Jewish theology (a democratic theology if ever I saw one) for yonks, and also Jewish history. Then I was invited to become a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts because of innovative dialogue attempts with Muslims.

Then Lord Carey rang me and told me how much he admired what I was doing and asked me to join his Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East, CEO Canon Andrew White of Iraq; Chair, one of HMG's former ambassadors to Iraq (not a 'neo-colonial plot', then - far from it).

Then, Lambeth Palace and the Council of Christians and Jews had a complete change of personnel at the top (no, I don't mean the current ABC) and now they are both in constant touch with me, rather than fobbing me off.

Let's do a bit of history.

Jews have always lived in Israel , despite attempts by the Romans, early Churches and successive Muslim rulers to oust them.

So, as James Parkes says (and why would he, if it wasn't true), the Balfour Declaration wasn't so much a novelty, as a confirmation of what was already the situation.

Now let's look at the accusations of 'apartheid'.There is less apartheid at Haifa University than at Manchester University, where during my classes Muslims refused to sit next to non-Muslims and used to disrupt the class. Not the case in Haifa at all, where it's often hard to make any sort of differentiation by religion or ethnicity.

So the first posting on this blog is a pack of lies in every respect.

Yes, Livingstone is a disgrace. The eminent historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, has called his statements 'antisemitic rubbish' and Richard Littlejohn implied as much in his recent programme about the persecution of Jews in 21st-century Britain (he called it a 'war', actually).

Finally, many liberals do indeed support Israel , not least the blogger:

http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/

and myself, of course!

21 August 2007 at 18:51  
Blogger Livingsword said...

Although I support the existence of the state of Israel, followers of Jesus are supposed to love everybody.

Anybody that is “religious” and/or attempting to get things right with God by rituals, or being “good” is not a follower of Jesus, which means they are all in the same position, be they Jewish or Muslim, etc.

21 August 2007 at 19:41  
Anonymous Voyager said...

followers of Jesus are supposed to love everybody.

Is that really the case ? Could you elaborate ?

21 August 2007 at 20:13  
Blogger Surreptitious Evil said...

"followers of Jesus are supposed to love everybody.

Is that really the case ? Could you elaborate ?"


I think our Lord's injunction was "love thy neighbour as thy self". When questioned what he mean by 'neighbour', he was both specific and rather dismissive of the overtly devout.

It does have to be admitted that it takes a considerable degree of understanding of Jewish purity laws (and the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans) to fully understand the parable. An understanding, I note that our Lord's direct audience had that we now lack.

21 August 2007 at 20:34  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

There is NO "West".

There's rapidly ceasing to be, but whites in Europe and America have interests in common that they defend to recognize and start defending.

Yes, Livingstone is a disgrace. The eminent historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, has called his statements 'antisemitic rubbish' and Richard Littlejohn implied as much in his recent programme about the persecution of Jews in 21st-century Britain (he called it a 'war', actually).

Dr Lancaster sounds like a dimmer version of Mel Phillips (and that's pretty dim). The people suffering most from 'persecution' in 21st-century Britain are not Jews but the native white British. Does the name Kriss Donald ring any bells, for example? Jews have consistently supported and facilitated the mass immigration responsible for creation of the Muslim fifth column and if they are now suffering as a result, they know who to blame.

21 August 2007 at 21:03  
Blogger 16words said...

As for 16 words... He or she needs a lesson in history and theology

Thanks for both of those links which, while superficially resembling self-serving plugs, were, I am sure, intended to be absolutely to-the-point.

Sadly, I still don't get it. The kind of thing that would convince me would be a return to the 1967 borders. How about that for starters?

21 August 2007 at 21:40  
Anonymous Fred said...

I think it would be wise to leave behind the scrapping about how we came to be here, and instead concentrate on what is now to be done, for the time is short.

God gave the land of Israel to His people for ever, and has never recanted of that decision. We know that to be the case because there is no record of it in His Word. We do know that He repented of flooding the iniquity from the world in the time of Noah, because it is written there, along with the reason for the existence of the rainbow. Equally, despite that development of the heresy that is replacement theology, God has never repented of calling the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be His people. The rest of us who claim Christ as Saviour do so only as the wild olive grafted in to His people.

So the basic decision that we must all make is this: Do we agree with God that God is right, or do we claim that God is wrong? If we choose to rebel against the one true God who made heaven and earth, then we really are making life difficult for ourselves and choosing a very unpleasant eternity.

At this stage we must support the people of Israel. They are in a fight for their very survival. Any withdrawal/appeasement is seen by their enemy as a sign of weakness to be exploited.

21 August 2007 at 21:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

The kind of thing that would convince me would be a return to the 1967 borders.

I have always favoured the Turks returning to their borders of 1071....I think that should be a sine qua non of dealings with the cause of all miseries in the Middle East and The Balkans

I also favour India having its 1946 borders

21 August 2007 at 22:20  
Blogger Livingsword said...

The command to love everybody is very clear in Scripture.

Here we are commanded to love our enemies:

43"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.' 44"But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
- - Matthew 5:43-44 (NASV, high cap is from this translation pointing out quote is from the OT))

Here we are commanded to love one another, if you want to take this portion of Scripture as only meaning loving other Christians you are still bound to love everybody else by the quote from Matthew:

7Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. 10In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
- - 1 John 4:7-11 (NASV)

Please note these are direct commands not parables, and it is clear followers of Jesus are to follow these teachings.

Those two commands cover everybody, love everybody.

21 August 2007 at 22:24  
Anonymous Fred said...

But, livingsword, it was rather tough love that Jesus meted out to the traders in the Temple, wasn't it? There was nothing nicey picey about what he called them! There comes a time when love must be tough, when being soft and soppy helps no-one. We are at one of those times now.

21 August 2007 at 22:31  
Anonymous sparkyd said...

Voyager, when you said that my comment was 'fatuous', I assume you meant 'factual'. I was just stating a fact, maybe one which you don't like. I know how both the pro-zionists and the pro-Palestinian sides like to plug their ears at such inconvenient FACTS.

"Why should Jews live distant from Jerusalem ?"

No, you're right, they should use every trick in the book to undermine the vast Palestinian majority and push them out of a territory which was theirs. tens of thousands still have the keys to the homes they are not allowed to return to... GREAT. The argument here is not that Jews didn't deserve a homeland, it was the way that this was implemented, every act, from buying up all of the fertile land, to using military assaults to grab land, was designed to sweep away people's lives and families. But I'm sure that you don't want to hear about that do you? No, just poke your fingers in your ears at this point, close your eyes and hum.

"Jews have lived continuously longer in what is now Israel than they have in Britain or in France or in Poland or Germany....you'll be telling us next Muslims should leave the Indian Subcontinent as they were colonisers....."

No one is saying that they should leave now, but really you should have a more balanced view of what actually occurred during this period. You will quite happily sweep all of the injustices which Jews have committed, under the carpet and pretend that they committed no injustices at all! Well that just isn't factual, that is fatuous.

I await your no-doubt wise response with baited breath.

21 August 2007 at 22:59  
Anonymous Jack Target said...

No solution to the Israel/Palestine problem will be reached without taking on at least one of three vested interest groups:
- AIPAC
- the Israeli settler lobby
- the Palestinian terrorist movement

For as long as the USA continues it's constant support of Israel, for as long as Israel refuses to pull back to the 1967 borders and for as long as Palestinians are harming their cause worldwide and in Israel by continuing to bomb civilians nothing will change. If any one of those things could be changed, then a solution could be found, either by international pressure in the first case, by a unilateral Israeli solution in the second, or by an Israeli victory in the third.

You can argue about who's in the right and who's in the wrong until the cows come home if you like, but nothing will change. Israel should never have been founded, should never have built settlements on Palestinian land, should not be building the wall, etc. Palestinians sacrificed their right to sort things out on their own when they attacked Israel in the earlier wars, when they failed to curtail suicide bombings, etc. There are grievances on both sides, many of which are legitimate, but it's all irrelevant, because nothing will change.

In my view AIPAC's power is the most vulnerable to being changed, and doing so would be the most productive solution to the problem. It would restore the USA as a credible broker of peace and would enable international pressure to be brought to bear in a way which could create a solution that almost the entire would could agree on.

The settlers would also be a suitable target, but are reportedly even more tenacious and influential as a pressure group than AIPAC. If they were removed then Israel could unilaterally return to 1967 borders and build a new wall on those lines, unilaterally creating an enforced peace until things have calmed enough for a normalisation of relations dozens of years down the line.

Attempting to stop the suicide bombers would be like trying to catch a greased piglet, and even if it were somehow managed it would result in the most unfair and unbalanced 'solution'. There would be peace though.

22 August 2007 at 00:01  
Anonymous Grant said...

"Equally, despite that development of the heresy that is replacement theology, God has never repented of calling the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to be His people. The rest of us who claim Christ as Saviour do so only as the wild olive grafted in to His people."

Back up a couple of chapters:

"For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: 'through Isaac your descendants will be named.' That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants."

22 August 2007 at 00:43  
Blogger Livingsword said...

Fred;

it was rather tough love that Jesus meted out to the traders in the Temple, wasn't it? There was nothing nicey picey about what he called them! There comes a time when love must be tough, when being soft and soppy helps no-one. We are at one of those times now.

Excellent point, I am not one of those who believe in a sappy sickeningly sweet churchianity “love”, or one to ignore what some would label as His “muscular actions” in the temple.

However it is all too often that we forget this command to love. Followers of Jesus are to love their enemies; we should not expect them to love us in return.

I also do not misinterpret this as a command to the State; the State has different responsibilities to that of the individual follower of Jesus.

But please let us not ever disguise evil as “tough love”, I am not saying that this is currently the case but it is something we should guard against.

22 August 2007 at 00:45  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

16words, thank you very much for comparing me to Melanie Phillips. I love you already. You are invited to Haifa immediately.

Even the new producer of the Moral Maze, another great friend of mine, has told me how much he rates her (the surprise this caused him on first meeting, after I had smoothed the way, was completely overwhelming, apparently).

I was not plugging my own book - that is what publishers are for.

The book may be of interest, because it looks at how Jews, Christians and Muslims regard their sacred texts. From there you will see, for instance, that the injunction to 'Love Your Neighbour as Yourself' comes from the Hebrew Bible (OT) and that Jesus (the Jew) was merely repeating what he had learned, probably at school.

Which is why I get on very well with my Jewish (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform), Muslim (Sunni, Shia, non-practising), Druze, Bahai, Christian (Greek Catholic, Latin Catholic, Church of England, Scotland, Lutheran of all hues and others) etc, here in Haifa, in a way that was difficult in Britain due to the prejudices that some of the posters to this blog have demonstrated.

History lesson:

all visitors to the region without exception depict the absolutely vile wilderness that Israel had become (known as Palestine simply because the Romans renamed Judea as such, after the Philistines, to demonstrate how they despised the Jews)under the Ottomans.

Documentary evidence demonstrates that people were willing to sell their property because that property was not flourishing. There was no 'fertile' land until Jews arrived and legally obtained property WHIC WAs NOT WANTED bY THOSE LIVING THERE.

The vast majority of Israelis, including myself, are quite keen on a two-state solution, with the proviso that something is done about Hamas, currently in charge in Gaza, which has constantly stated and recently reiterated that it wishes to destroy the entire Jewish people (Charter of 1988).

It is difficult for Brits to believe such language, but you have no doubt seen what they have done - and are still doing - to fellow Muslims in Gaza: decapitations, throwing out of windows to their deaths, etc.

You have also experienced well-educated Cambridge doctors trying to blow themselves up with British citizens in London and Glasgow, despite the mayor of London being shall we say not exactly pro-Jewish and extremely pro Muslim, and Glasgow being twinned not with Jerusalem or Haifa, but with a Palestinian town, I believe.

As for Arab refugees, there were more Jews thrown out of countries in the Middle East, (where in some cases they had lived since 500 BCE)during the 1948 War of Independence than vice versa. But the world doesn't go soft at the knees about them, and Israel absorbed them, quietly!

What comes over in some of your bloggers is an intense dislike of the USA, which is endemic in Britain at present.

This was very obvious when the Church of England Synod voted last year to divest from Israel. The transcript of the debate, and previous such, demonstrated beyond doubt that it is the war between the Church left and the Church right which was at stake.

It therefore might surprise you to learn that the vast majority of Israelis have a certain left-liberal tinge, certainly on social issues; that every Arab who I have met here in Israel (20% of the population) would rather stay in Israel, where they are doing very well, rather than become a Palestinian when that State is formed and that we Jews are the only people who seem to have to defend our right to exist to the wider world.

By the way, I was/am only 1st generation Brit, as my parents were Holocaust survivors from Poland who met in Britain, when my Dad escaped Poland and joined the Scottish Black Watch.

So, as someone said, Jews have lived in Israel for much longer (at least 3,500 years at last count) than they have in Europe.

Although Jews did predate Christianity in Germany, Spain and Italy, having lived there for over 2000 years, and the role of these countries in World War II was not exactly praiseworthy!

Keep them coming!

22 August 2007 at 07:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Please note these are direct commands not parables, and it is clear followers of Jesus are to follow these teachings.

Those two commands cover everybody, love everybody.


What does Love mean ?

22 August 2007 at 08:14  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Jack Target..why do you think there are always "solutions" ? Isn't that part of the Western mindset you have been programmed with through education - to define a problem for yourself and then propose mechanistic solutions ?

Has it ever occurred to you that this mindset is only shared by those who have been through the same educational processing as you have.

It might be simply that you see the world through one angle of a prism and others see it differently. You think by trading one thing another will barter with you, but what if that is not in his mindset ?

We have been so often down this path before thinking negotiation is linear rather than a helix, it is the problem of Westerners to understand that in parts of the world where they read books back to front they do not always think or act in accordance with Western prescriptions.

It is also why I believe Western Christianity to be a very different hellenised culture from that of The Nazarene

22 August 2007 at 08:21  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Voyager, when you said that my comment was 'fatuous', I assume you meant 'factual'. I was just stating a fact, maybe one which you don't like. I know how both the pro-zionists and the pro-Palestinian sides like to plug their ears at such inconvenient FACTS.

I apologise 16words for not making clear that I try to use words precisely and that you did not see that the word fatuous was my assessment of your comment.

FACTS are rarely neutral but are often sharpened into little arrows by people such as yourself as bits are hewn off to make the penetrating point.

Your obsession with Zionism shows you are a fan of Herzl....why was Herzl so wrong in your view in a way that Jinnah was not ? Do you think the Kurds should simply ignore their dreams ?

Why do you think Kemal Ataturk was so wrong ? Or Garibaldi ? I am at a loss to know why Simon Bolivar was so wrong ?

Do you think Ibn Al-Saud was similarly misguided, or Faisal bin Al Hussein Bin Ali El-Hashemite ?

I am at a loss to understand your particular objection to Theodor Herzl over any of the others ?

22 August 2007 at 08:29  
Blogger 16words said...

I was not plugging my own book: My mistake.

Jews arrived and legally obtained property WHIC WAs NOT WANTED bY THOSE LIVING THERE.: I feel sure that you would not wish this reference to events in the medieval era to be confused with the ethnic cleansing that followed the war of 1948.

...keen on a two-state solution, with the proviso that something is done about Hamas: It may be too late now. They have their history and vision, too. Why wouldn't they regard themselves as cruelly oppressed? The West appears to have squandered all its opportunities so far and nothing will happen while lame-duck Bush is in power.

...the mayor of London being shall we say not exactly pro-Jewish and extremely pro Muslim: Aside from one ill-judged outburst (there may have been more of which I am unaware) which does indeed reflect on his character, my sense is that Red Ken's views on Israel are representative of a growing minority of the well-informed secular in Britain.

What comes over in some of your bloggers is an intense dislike of the USA: It is quite remarkable, isn't it! The Hecklers program, which replaced The Moral Maze, last Saturday night at Chatham House gave a striking example. Having recently lived in the USA for over 10 years, I can give you my personal assurance that there is every justification for this animosity. Taken as a whole, Americans are culpably ignorant. They desperately need a massive kick in their national butt - and they're about to get it.
Of course there are many Americans who are aware of how they have been steered into hazard. You will no doubt be aware of Mearsheimer and Walts' paper on the influence of the Israel lobby which had to be published in the London Review of Books for reasons that you can imagine: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html

It therefore might surprise you to learn that the vast majority of Israelis have a certain left-liberal tinge: Not at all. Haaretz is available online (and is worth reading) and anyone who's taken an interest knows that Israel was founded on socialist principles.

You are invited to Haifa immediately: Thanks. I'm sure we'd get on well. Really.

22 August 2007 at 09:22  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It may be too late now. They have their history and vision, too

I know - irredentist claims are what inspired Hitler to shield his Teuton brethren from the depredations of Woodrow Wilson's Versailles states hewn out of the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian empire and its collapsed Russian and Prussian cousins.

Such it is when empires corrode and men like Woodrow Wilson seek to create a new order, those with a feeling of grievous injustice hurl themselves at the ramparts waiting for someone to open the door so they can stor the castle

22 August 2007 at 11:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cranmer

22 August 2007 at 13:51  
Blogger Livingsword said...

What does Love mean ?

The kind of love indicated in the Greek for both of the portions of Scripture I quoted is “agapao” love which means: to love, indicates a direction of the will and finding one’s joy in something, or someone.

It is not a sappy love; it is the kind of love that is driven by the will, a determination to love, and a love that is active in pursuit.

22 August 2007 at 20:21  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Therein lies the problem in the restricted vocabulary English has for some terms.....which is why the KJV uses Charity

22 August 2007 at 21:26  
Blogger Livingsword said...

It seems to me that the context the word love is used in the verses I quoted is actually quite sufficient to understand the intent. In the first verses I quoted loving and praying for enemies that are actually persecuting you is clear in how to put it in action, and in the second passage I quoted the kind of Christ like sacrificial love commanded of us is very apparent.

I think that perhaps to most in modern society the word charity would be lost upon them (particularly here in North America).

I quite like how the paraphrase the Message handles these portions of Scripture:

"You're familiar with the old written law, 'Love your friend,' and its unwritten companion, 'Hate your enemy.' I'm challenging that. I'm telling you to love your enemies. Let them bring out the best in you, not the worst. When someone gives you a hard time, respond with the energies of prayer, for then you are working out of your true selves, your God-created selves. This is what God does. He gives his best—the sun to warm and the rain to nourish—to everyone, regardless: the good and bad, the nice and nasty. If all you do is love the lovable, do you expect a bonus? Anybody can do that. If you simply say hello to those who greet you, do you expect a medal? Any run-of-the-mill sinner does that.
- - Matthew 5:43-47

7-10My beloved friends, let us continue to love each other since love comes from God. Everyone who loves is born of God and experiences a relationship with God. The person who refuses to love doesn't know the first thing about God, because God is love—so you can't know him if you don't love. This is how God showed his love for us: God sent his only Son into the world so we might live through him. This is the kind of love we are talking about—not that we once upon a time loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as a sacrifice to clear away our sins and the damage they've done to our relationship with God.
11My dear, dear friends, if God loved us like this, we certainly ought to love each other.
- - 1 John 4:7-11

You may find the mini-series of articles I am currently posting on politics and religion (Life on the Blade) interesting; I believe your comments would be fascinating.

22 August 2007 at 22:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I think that perhaps to most in modern society the word charity would be lost upon them (particularly here in North America).

The Fate of Books depends upon the capacity of the reader

23 August 2007 at 06:56  
Blogger Livingsword said...

With this we are in accord.

23 August 2007 at 20:02  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

@ Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA

What evidence do you have that Jesus was a Jew?

I think you may be speaking with forked tongue. Consider the following:

Matthew 24:9 ~~ Jesus telling his followers:

"They shall (the Jews) deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake."

Luke 21:12 ~~

"But before all these (wars, earthquakes, famines,) they shall lay hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues (note!) and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake."

PROTOCOL XVII ~~

"We have long past taken care to discredit the priesthood of the goyim and thereby ruin their mission on earth which in these might be a great hindrance to us."

-----------------------

Would you care to elaborate Dr. Irene, without boasting about your connections to the Pravda BBC? I'll give you 9 out of 10 if you get by without using the 'a-s' word.

24 August 2007 at 13:40  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

I think it is perfectly obvious to anyone reading the New Testament in the original Greek that Jesus was Jewish.

More than this, his words are 80% at least taken practically verbatim from Jewish teaching of the time, both written and oral, especially the 'Sermon on the Mount'.

I am unacquainted with the Protocol that you have so kindly quoted.

Whoever wrote it, its views are total anathema to any practising Jew, for whom - contrary to the case in some other religions - all people are equal and potentially capable of salvation.

The onus in Judaism is how we live in this life, not where we will go when we die.

I have no connections to the Pravda BBC, never having been to Russia, nor speaking the language.

But if you would like to offer me a job in Moscow, I would probably find it too cold - thanks very much.

However, I do think that you have a point. Learning Russian would be very useful in Haifa - after Arabic of course.

As for the 'a-s' word, do let on. It sounds very exciting indeed.

Much love

Irene

24 August 2007 at 16:29  
Blogger Livingsword said...

Was Jesus Jewish?

May I make the obvious remark that if you take the Bible seriously this is so clear and evidential that you must be going out of your way to not see it; Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give extensive genealogies that clearly indicate Jesus was and is Jewish.

24 August 2007 at 17:51  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Seems you have dodged my earlier question dear Doctor. Aah ... Doctor of what may I enquire?

FRSA might stand for the "Florida Roofing, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, founded in 1922" (I kid you not).

On the other hand, you may be sharing your Fellowship with Benjamin Franklin, Karl Marx, Adam Smith, William Hogarth, Charles Dickens and Guglielmo Marconi ... founded in 1754 and granted a Royal Charter in 1847. I only ask as it might be relevant to your thesis on Jesus.

Your answer is predicated on the hope that no one visiting this Blog can read Greek and has access to a New Testament thus written.

Your second sentence seems to be suggesting we Christians are all students of Jewish teachings. How is that so, pray tell?

Clue ... Moses (+ Commandments) is not the basis of Christianity. Indeed, it could be argued the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christianity.

So, Irene, we must take it you have read the New Testament in the original Greek? In which case why not provide us with some samples to prove YOUR assertion that Jesus was a Jew.

As for your connections to Russia, may I ask if you are an Ashkenazi Jew?

Yes, I was already well aware that the Russian Mafia is well entrenched in Israel. Their Borsche Soup is quite tasty, no?

24 August 2007 at 18:01  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

Mission impossible said 'Indeed, it could be argued the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christianity.'

How wrong you are and I am guessing you are not a Christian, or else have no understanding of what the true belief is. No matter what you do believe the roots of Christianity lie in the Old Testament. The hope of all Christians should be the hope of Israel; that is the kingdom of God on earth. It was only by the promises made to Abraham in the Old Testament that all nations of the earth could be blessed.
These promises can be shared by true believers.
The Old Testament is also a valuable source of history and prophecy that shows the working hand of God in the earth and as Paul wrote in his second letter to timothy all scripture is given by inspiration of God. So surely to ignore the Old Testament would be an act of total ignorance and would cloud true understanding.

25 August 2007 at 00:01  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Here we go ... the organized wave of Jewish responses to any challenge. Let it be known, your days of self-awarded, moral superiority are coming to an end.

The Old Testament is also a valuable source of history and prophecy.

That is correct. Very well done Mr. Hebrew. I can wholeheartedly agree with that.

My earlier post: Indeed, it could be argued the Old Testament is irrelevant to Christianity.

This I wrote from a pedagogical standpoint. Without the Crucifixion and Resurrection (both New Testament) there would be no Christianity. Quite elementary really ... is it not?

The hope of all Christians should be the hope of Israel; that is the kingdom of God on earth.

Why? Judaism and Christianity are not one and the same faith. The hopes and wishes of Israel do not enter my thoughts when I read the Bible or pray. Nor need they enter any other Christian's mind unless he/she is ravaged by misplaced guilt, or a false sense of history, or belongs to a Marxoid Church.

<> Christianity promises the salvation of man.

<> All Judaism does (or can do) is celebrate the 'nation of Israel.' In which case, Judaism is not a religion at all, but a self-serving cult.

Therefore, Christian leaders have no business allying with it.

Meanwhile, I am waiting for you Jews to demonstrate, on these pages, why you keep trying to claim that Jesus was a Jew. I don't care how many deeply confused Christians there are in the world today ... that's a given. What I want is you to explain your motives.

25 August 2007 at 06:49  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

What a lot of sad people! It's not up to me to prove that Jesus is Jewish. I suggest you have a word with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is an expert on the subject.

His Grace has reproduced my Church Times article and linked to the Lambeth Statement of September 2006, in which the Archbishop speaks of the incredibly close ties between Judaism and Christianity.

For those who are interested and in answer to the specific questios, this is more about me:

PhD, Religious Studies
PGCE, Religious Studies (1st Prize: Teacher of the Year, plus gov bursary for 'Excellence in Teaching)

Trustee: Foundation for Reconciliation in the Middle East (appointed by Lord Carey 2006)

Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (invited to become a Fellow for services to interfaith relations, by the President of the RSA)

Patron: Christian Friends of Magen David Adom UK (2006 - )

Academic and Interfaith Advisor: Anglican Friends of Israel (2006 -(delighted that His Grace has linked to this great organization)


Member: Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Haifa University

Chair of Education, Hadassah Israel, Haifa (one of Israel's largest charities)

Member: Israel Translation Association


Blog: Irene Lancaster's Diary: http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog

The London Times has named it, together with His Grace's as one of the Top 30 Most Influential Religion Blogs

Ruth Gledhill, The Times Religion Correspondent, has nominated my blog in both the religion and the politics categories of 'Bloggers Awards 2007. Anyone who wishes can vote for me there.

Author: Deconstructing the Bible (Routledge 2003), just reissued as a paperback and available at Amazon.

25 August 2007 at 20:54  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

Well MI, I don’t really care whether or not you think Jesus is a Jew. The Bible makes it quite clear that he is and if you ever bothered to read the Old Testament you would see that he was promised to David. Of course as you obviously seem to know the New Testament so well you would know this as the genealogy of Jesus is given in its first book.

Concerning these so called Christian leaders, I do not follow them and want nothing to do with them.
And maybe our time of 'self-awarded, moral superiority' are coming to an end, but clearly one as ignorant and slow minded as you will not be the one to stop us.

26 August 2007 at 00:19  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Mr. Hebrew ... the Bible does NOT make it 'quite clear' that Jesus was a Jew. And if you had the courage of your convictions, you would have pointed to those verses which you believe prove your assertion. The Bible does not belong to Jews; it is a Christian book. Therefore, kindly mind your own business, and stop trying to tell Christians how to interpret their own holy book. If you continue to try and do so, you will only increase our intolerance and wrath.

Only recently, Jewish organizations had the gall to complain to Pope Benedict XVI over the Vatican's decision to revert to the Latin Mass. Can you imagine that? Jews actually believe they can influence or determine how the Catholic Church conducts its mass. What arrogance!

I wonder how many Cranmer readers know why your Jewish organizations got so uppity about the Vatican’s decision? Do you know, Mr. Hebrew? Would you like to admit it here on this Blog? Why don’t you tell us, and show us how petty and neurotic those of the so-called Jewish ‘faith’ are?

The holy book of the Jews is the Talmud, and this is also the book your men in funny hats keep hidden from view, so that Christians are prevented from knowing the extent to which it is filled with spite and hate towards both Jesus and Christianity.

I don’t care what you think of my level of ignorance or the speed of my mind. Your attempt to use personal insults are de rigueur for Jews; to be freely used against any detractor, and this tactic has been for two millennia. Everything and everyone that comes into contact with your belief system eventually becomes poisoned.

The genealogy of Jesus is stated in both Matthew 1 and Luke 3, as livingsword kindly reminded us (see above). But, that genealogy still does not state or prove that Jesus was a Jew; unless that is, you believe that Adam or Noah (or even God himself) were/are Jews.

I will not (yet) explain why Jesus was NOT a Jew because neither you, nor this nitwit Doctor with an ego the size of a Jumbo-jet, has yet made a proper attempt to explain why Jews keep claiming that Jesus is a Jew. I and other readers want to know why Jews keep trying to brainwash Christians into believing Jesus was a Jew! Why don’t you stop writing and speaking lies, and give us the plain truth for once?

And maybe our time of 'self-awarded, moral superiority' are coming to an end, but clearly one as ignorant and slow minded as you will not be the one to stop us.

Well, thanks Mr. Hebrew for confirming, and from your perspective, that you Jews have indeed awarded yourselves moral superiority, and of trying to get away with it for almost a century. I never said I would be the one to stop you, I would never be so presumptuous, but my refusal to accept the cock & bull stories of Jews has shocked and frightened you, has it not? You thought you already had my country, England, in your pocket, right? There will be more like me soon don’t you worry. No, I won’t be the one to stop you, but I will surely help to get the ball rolling.

The Jewish Century ended seven years ago. It was the worst century ever experienced by mankind: full of mayhem, slaughter, murder, waste, destruction, lies, and the birth of Jewish money-making myths … followed by social and cultural decay in the West. There will never be another Jewish Century, not even a Jewish Decade, ever again in the history of humanity. You have played your last cards because most of you are not Jews; you are the descendants of pagan impostors from the Steppes of Asia.

We know. The truth is out. Let us now play out the final chapter.

26 August 2007 at 07:11  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Hello my dear Irene; or should I doff my cap and address you as Dr. Lancaster? What an insecure little person you are. Why post your whole CV in a Blog, in response to a couple of questions? My, my, you even got to squeeze in a little advert for your book.

No, I wasn’t impressed, and I will tell you why.

You are part of an incestuous circle of people that have brought my country down to levels perilously close to social mayhem. This circle is well-connected (for historical reasons) and has embedded itself in our once healthy and proud institutions. This incestuous circle is what is commonly referred to by plebs as ‘the elite.’ Unfortunately for you, reality insists that all elite members are subject to the same limitations and mental illnesses as the rest of humanity. Ruth Gledhill, The Times Religion Correspondent, along with The Times in its entirety, is part of this equation, as they act (because their income depends on it) as disseminators of your wrong-headed and vitriolic theories.

You award each other prizes, gongs, and more awards, simply to add symbolic puffery to your intellectual pretensions so you may intimidate weaker people than I. When dressed in your finery and gongs, and pedating, you must sound like a herd of Swiss Cattle, though not so tuneful I fear.

I too could wave my high academic certificates and professional association memberships (they fall short of yours; but engineering qualifications have always been 2 to 3 times harder to acquire than those in the pretentious and ubiquitous Arts) but I don’t believe in trying to intimidate other Blog contributors like you evidently do. People can make their own judgements from the quality of my posts. This eminent blog has attracted (and may it continue to attract) many deep thinkers. I notice I have already shamed you into removing the ‘FRSA’ suffix from the latest incarnation of your Blog name. Progress!

People like you have a habit of talking at people, not to people. Frankly, I think you are more of a liability to my culture than you even suspect.

Nonetheless, I congratulate you on your Fellowship of the RSA. But, all this interfaith work is ultimately just another extension of Cultural-Marxism, and a demonstration of the extent to which the Church of England has completely lost its plot and its backbone.

I can respect Lord Carey for his efforts and sincerity, and his humanity, but like many others, I also believe he is seriously misguided and was a terribly weak Archbishop of Canterbury. His successor is a joke. So, you may safely assume I will not be “having a word with him.”

To you, interfaith work is nothing more than an opportunity to Judai-ophy Christianity, which is why you have committed yourself so zealously to your work. This is also why you want Christians to believe the lie that Jesus was a Jew. With such passion and zealotry, you were bound to attract plaudits in this crazy multicultural age. You truly think you are working towards the perfection of man, and you are using my country for your experiment. But you are sadly misguided and with luck, one day you will be stopped and stripped of your inflated status.

By the way, why does a Jew (i.e., you) need to deconstruct the Bible?

Isn’t it about time Christians began to deconstruct the Talmud? Ah, but of course, Martin Luther did that didn’t he. He took time to learn and master Hebrew. He was kindly towards Jews, until after he had finished reading the Talmud. What he discovered transformed him.

This next quote is taken from Martin Luther’s book “The Jews And Their Lies,” which has been expunged from most Lutheran school libraries after the Lutheran Church got down on their knees and apologized to world Jewry. I bet you enjoyed that Ms. Irene, right?

". . . my dear Christian, next to the Devil you have no more bitter, more poisonous, more vehement enemy than a real Jew (Pharisee) who earnestly desired to be a Jew. It all agrees with the judgment of Christ that they are poisonous, bitter, vindictive and malicious serpents, assassins, and children of the devil who kill and inflict injuries by stealth because they cannot do it openly."

Now of course, this is rather extreme language, more typical of the 16th century, but all Christians (and nominal Christians) should study their history and remain wary. The question is: do, or can, leopards change their spots?

Or alternatively, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and waggles its tail like a duck, why do Jews keep telling us, “aah don’t worry, it’s only a pigeon”?

All readers should take careful note that Dr. Irene Lancaster, FRSA has now twice declined to explain why she felt compelled to write in her earlier comment (see above, 7:42AM) >>>

From there you will see, for instance, that the injunction to 'Love Your Neighbour as Yourself' comes from the Hebrew Bible (OT) and that Jesus (the Jew) was merely repeating what he had learned, probably at school.

You will note also that she has referred to the Bible, not as the Holy Bible, or the Christian Bible, but as the 'Hebrew' Bible, which surely reveals the contempt she holds for the autonomy of Christianity and her strange Talmudic belief that we Christians owe our existence to Jews and to Judaism.

As I said in the beginning, she speaks with forked tongue. Martin Luther’s assessment, for all its extremity, still has relevance. Please be warned fellow Christians and all Hearts of Oak. Your way of life is in mortal danger.

26 August 2007 at 08:32  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

Well MI, it might surprise you to know that despite my being a Jew I am a Christian by faith.
For you information the old testament books were written by Jews selected by God and Jews still read these books today. Recent discoveries in the Qumran caves have yielded scrolls of almost every old testament book written by Jewish scribes.
So now that that’s out of the way we can come to your hatred of the Jews. Latin mass for starters. I don’t care if the Catholics pray for our conversion or not. The Catholics would have once burned us in the streets if we had not just as they killed anyone who disagreed with the false system of so called worship. We should be grateful that they are only praying for us now.
im not going to bother trying to prove that Jesus was a Jew, simply because you seem to arrogant to accept my views. I am a Jew after all and compared to you and your mighty gentile brain we are nothing.....and because you seem to have a way of not noticing sarcasm ill add this....not!
Now to your blaming the Jews for everything including 'social decay in the west'. Hmmmm sounds like someone else from not very long ago. As I recall the world destroyed his country and he shot himself. Now after centuries of persecution we have our own country as promised by God in Ezekiel 37. Further more we have defended this nation form destruction against the surrounding nations all with Gods help, even if many of us don’t know it.
So when I see these great things i ask myself how can anyone say God is not with us.
There will be a time when we will call on God for help and he will answer us at the second coming. And in those days people will take hold of the hem of Jewish garments and will follow us up to Jerusalem.
People who have hatred in their hearts like yourself shall be left behind. As God promised Abraham ‘I will curse them that curse you’. We can see that that is true. Centuries of murder and we are still here.

26 August 2007 at 10:17  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

Thank goodness most of the Christians I know, including those at Lambeth Palace and the new Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, are not of the ilk of some on this blog.

One of your recent posters is right about one thing, though. Luther really hated Jews for not choosing to convert to his brand of religion.

As a result, many of the of the Einsatzfuhrer, when carrying out the Holocaust at the bidding of their masters, stated:

'We are just following in Luther's footsteps'.

The 'Hebrew Bible' does not include the NT, because it is the original Bible, written in Hebrew. The NT came afterwards and was not written in Hebrew, but in Greek, with a bit of Aramaic.

If Jesus wasn't Jewish, what was he?

But if he isn't Jewish, then all the promises etc are in vain.

That doesn't bother me, as I'm not a Christian, but it should bother Christians.

Shalom

Irene

26 August 2007 at 12:50  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

Toda Irene.
With relation to Jesus and whether or not he was a Jew I think that this can no longer be debated.
In my previous post I said I had no desire to argue but I dislike ignorence.
We are told that Jesus at aged twelve went with Mary and Joseph up to the temple to worship. Jews were required to do this three times a year every year. A Jew would buy a sacrifice enter the temple and present it to the LORD.
The Court of the Gentiles was where the bazaar was held and all could enter it. However it was not here that one could worship. In order to present a sacrifice one would have to pass though the various courts and give it to the priests. To present this sacrifice you would have to pass behind a point in the temple that only Jews could pass. The penalty for a gentile passing this point was death. So to worship at the temple you had to be Jewish.

26 August 2007 at 13:34  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

This has been an interesting and enlightening exchange, but not for the reasons I had hoped, or that are particularly obvious to non-participants.

NB: My earlier use of the term ‘Jews’ and ‘Jewish’ are too ambiguous. This is not an issue concerning a whole people (even though the word ‘Jew’ is not synonymous with any race). What I actually mean is Talmudists and Ashkenazi Jews. Furthermore, out of the total Ashkenazi Jewish population (which form circa 80% of all Jews) we are only looking at a troublesome minority, even though it has been a highly influential one. One needs to remember that Ashkenazi Jews were the authors and originators of Marxism, Bolshevism, and Communism. They are also the ones (mainly from the United States) who bullied the Catholic Church into their ill-judged (in retrospect) and some would say heretical liberalization, known as ‘Vatican II.’

TALMUD NOTES:
The Talmud is more central to Jewish life than most know. "The Talmud is the world's oldest continuously practiced legal code." (as quoted by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein)

The spilling of human blood in the name of religion ("blood sacrifice") has been part of the fabric of Judaism from the beginning. "Multitudes are decapitated … R. Simeon said: The Holy One, blessed be He, declared, If ye execute judgment upon the seduced city, I will ascribe merit to you as though ye had sacrificed to me a whole offering." (Sanhedrin 111b).

About circumcision in accordance with the Talmud: After the mohel cuts the foreskin, he must put his mouth on the child's penis and suck blood from the wound. He must and he does, and the practice has spread deadly diseases. Ask your politicians to take a stand on this public health issue.

Jewish Harems in Talmud Law: Though a medieval synod discouraged polygamy because it upset Christians, some still do it in Israel. The Word of God in the Talmud provides laws for handling a harem. Up to 48 wives are permitted, perhaps.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS SMALL SAMPLE, JUDAISM IS NOT CHRISTIANITY, AND ANY CLOSE BONDING BETWEEN THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY AND THE CHIEF RABBIS IS A CHRISTIAN HERESY.

===========================================

Lancaster writes: Whoever wrote it [i.e., the Protocol I quoted earlier] its views are total anathema to any practising Jew, for whom - contrary to the case in some other religions - all people are equal and potentially capable of salvation.

The Protocols, are almost certainly (but we will never know for sure) a forgery, and could not be attributed to a Jewish author (such as a Rabbi) but, and this is the key point, the Protocols do have an amazing correspondence with real historical events, including the broad sweep of the 20th Century. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s, in the USA and Britain especially, were also predicted by one or more of the Protocols. So, even though they may be a forgery, they can certainly offer us many insights.

As to Lancaster’s assertion in her second part: contrary to the case in some other religions - all people are equal in her faith of Judaism.

I dislike the tone of snobbery and smug sense of superiority in her “contrary to the case in some other religions” comment. As for the equality bit, this is NOT true, and she should know that. Try asking the Ethiopian Jews or the Sephardic Jews who live in Israel: it is my understanding they are in fact treated as 2nd class citizens by the majority Ashkenazis, who tend to be much more aggressive and dominant.

Lancaster is supposed to be a Doctor of Religious Studies and was once awarded a ‘Teacher of the Year,’ yet she wastes little time descending into the use of derogatory statements -- What a lot of sad people! … and … are not of the ilk of some on this blog – simply because someone has disagreed with, or challenged her. Very sad to see, and certainly not fitting for a Fellow of the RSA.

Furthermore, she relies rather too much on name dropping in order to maintain a false air of intellectual and moral superiority, such as: Thank goodness most of the Christians I know, including those at Lambeth Palace and the new Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, not to mention her intimate references to Lord Carey and Ruth Gledhill (of The Times). She made three responses following my initial post on this topic thread, and in each one she refused to properly address my question, and I will re-quote the repeat of it here: Meanwhile, I am waiting for you Jews to demonstrate, on these pages, why you keep trying to claim that Jesus was a Jew.

Lancaster then posits: The hope of all Christians should be the hope of Israel; that is the kingdom of God on earth.

What would a “Kingdom of God on earth” look like, in the context meant by Lancaster? We have already seen how Communism (a messianic Ashkenazi Jewish theory) made a “godless” attempt. We are currently being assaulted by Transnationalists (whose legions include international bankers) the membership of which is disproportionately made up of what some people call, “international Jews.” If successful, who would be the leader or leaders of this “Kingdom of God on earth?” The Jews? Zionsists? People sitting in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, or New York? During the Clinton Presidency, the United Nations and International Law tried to plant the seeds of World Government, and the European Union looks more like the new Soviet with every passing month.

It is surely time we began to ask searching questions. In fact, it is gone past the time we should have started to demand answers.

Lancaster then writes: One of your recent posters is right about one thing, though. Luther really hated Jews for not choosing to convert to his brand of religion.

My understanding is a little different. Luther had good relations with Jews until he had mastered Hebrew and finished reading the Talmud. His anger at being deceived, rather than any “biological hatred for Jews” caused him to write his notorious book.

Furthermore, our modern judgements on Luther’s outspoken and often expletive filled outbursts against not only Jews, but the Church and the Pope also, have to be tempered by evidence of his slow death. Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Luther's rugged health began to show marks of depleting vitality and unchecked inroads of disease. Prolonged attacks of dyspepsia, nervous headaches, chronic granular kidney disease, gout, sciatic rheumatism, middle ear abscesses, above all vertigo and gall stone colic were intermittent or chronic ailments that gradually made him the typical embodiment of a supersensitively nervous, prematurely old man [ … ] Even prescinding from his congenital heritage of inflammable irascibility and uncontrollable rage, besetting infirmities that grew deeper and more acute with age, his physical condition in itself would measurably account for his increasing irritation, passionate outbreaks, and hounding suspicions, which in his closing days became a problem more of pathological or psychopathic interest, than biographic or historical importance.

Sometimes, if one is administered poison, in small doses and over a significant length of time, a person can exhibit similar metabolic and psychological breakdown.

Unfortunately, and in desperate defence, Lancaster had to (predictably?) descend to yet another reference to the Holocaust by writing:

As a result, many of the Einsatzfuhrer, when carrying out the Holocaust at the bidding of their masters, stated: 'We are just following in Luther's footsteps'.

Again, I would strongly disagree. The Einsatzfuhrer following Luther’s footsteps, is certainly one interesting interpretation, but of course, Luther never killed anyone. Another interesting interpretation concerns the German knowledge of what had been done by the Bolsheviks to Christians in Russia. We demonize (and quite rightly) the Nazi S.S., but unfortunately, we completely overlook its inspiration, the Ashkenazi Jew dominated CHEKA.

Everybody in Germany (and indeed most of the civilized world) knew what had been done by Jews to Christians in Russia. Even Winston Churchill was moved to write newspaper articles about the violence, blood-letting, and anarchy going on in the former Russian Empire. Today, history seems to begin and end with the Jewish ‘holocaust.’ We appear to have been blinded to what came long before it. What about the Ukrainian holocaust, or the Armenian genocide? Can we squeeze these in somehow? Why the endless TV programmes about Hitler and Nazi Germany still pouring out of our screens, over 60 years after it all ended?

As a reminder: the CHEKA (secret police) arrested, tortured and killed all opponents. Elections were held in November 1917 for a new government – the Assembly. The Bolsheviks won 175 seats and the Social Revolutionaries won 370 seats. When it met in 1918, Lenin (another Jew) used the Red Guards to close it, and killed anybody who objected. One needs to remember that Ashkenazi Jews worldwide, from as far away as the United States were pouring into Russia to join the Bolsheviks. Had this not happened, there would likely have been no Nazi Germany.

In 1922 Dzerzhinsky transformed the CHEKA into the Government Political Administration (GPU). Then, in 1934 the GPU became known as the Peoples Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD).

Under Lenin, religion was banned, churches destroyed and defiled (the Bolsheviks used them as toilets) and priests were killed. Science was encouraged, and ‘useless’ subjects like History were banned. Free love, divorce and abortion were all allowed, if not encouraged. All this might remind you about Britain under Tony Blair's New Labour. What the promotion of free love, divorce and abortion did, was to encouraged a marked increase in miscegenation to the clear detriment of native Russians. In other words, destroy the ancient people of Russ by mongrelization.

So, how could Jesus be a Jew if this is how Jews can behave when given the opportunity?

Alternatively, can we at last agree that the vast bulk of Ashkenazi Jews are not real Jews at all, but impostors: descendants of the Khazar Empire who converted en masse to Jewry in the 10th Century AD??

=========================================

Mr. Hebrew writes: it might surprise you to know that despite my being a Jew I am a Christian by faith.

This is nonsense. He cannot be a Jew and a Christian. He can be an Israelite and Christian, yes. Perhaps that is what he meant to say? Furthermore, and I repeat, the word 'Jew' does not describe a racial identity; it designates a belief system.

Then Mr. Hebrew gets all upset and throws his dummy out:

So now that that’s out of the way we can come to your hatred of the Jews.

[M.I. Clarification: I have never said or written or thought ‘I hate Jews’ – but unfortunately this appears to be the stock accusation of anyone who is Jewish when he/she feels they are being challenged in debate. What I don’t like is the calculated suppression of truth, and the ongoing attempts to control the way free people think; including, I might add, the shameful and totalitarian-state imprisonment of people who have simply dared to question the honesty and accuracy of the Jewish Holocaust, amongst several other ‘Jewish’ accounts of history, and on good evidence. Furthermore, I am not seeking, nor have I ever suggested, the destruction of Israel. Quite the contrary.]

One feels compelled to write these silly denials in anticipation of the gutter-level aspertions that others stoop to whenever these topics crop up.

Mr. Hebrew continues:

I don’t really care whether or not you think Jesus is a Jew. The Bible makes it quite clear that he is.

With relation to Jesus and whether or not he was a Jew I think that this can no longer be debated.

In my previous post I said I had no desire to argue but I dislike ignorence.[sic]


OK then, nothing left to discuss. Only he can be right and I am ignorunt [sic]. So, let’s ignore Mr. Hebrew shall we? On recent performance, he isn’t worth my or your time of day.

==========================================

Lancaster then throws out a challenge (presumably because her Doctorate in Theology has failed to equip her to answer the simple question I posed to her in the beginning of this dialogue):

If Jesus wasn't Jewish, what was he? But if he isn't Jewish, then all the promises etc are in vain.

OK then, here goes ... (For my own convenience, I will be quoting or pasting extracts trusted sources below, not my own words) >>>

The term ‘Jew’ entered common parlance in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

By the time of Jesus the word Edom or Edomite had been translated by Greek and Latin into Ioudaios and Iudaeus meaning a Judean or person living in Judea. The original King James version of the Bible, 1611, translated Idumaean-Judean into Iewes. It wasn't until the revised editions of the King James Bible, that the word 'Jew' appeared. The word Jew does not mean Israel or Israelite! We must conclude therefore that the first "Jews" were Canaanite-Edomite-Hittite. It is certain, according to the Bible, that Jews are not Israel.

The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" (i.e., Ashkenazi’s) today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are one and the same.

Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

Judea and Galilee were two separate states and political entities, as illustrated on the map of Palestine in the time of our Saviour in your Bible. Jesus Himself was not a Jew (Judean) or resident of Judea, He was a Galilean or resident of Galilee (Matthew 26:69; John 7:41), and a Judahite or descendent of the Tribe of Judah.

The Judeans of prominence were not of the Tribe of Judah, but of Edomites. Pilate was being ironic when he wrote the sign "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Judeans" for the Cross (John 19:19). That is, "the Galilean who was King of the Judeans," as in "Queen Victoria of England, Empress of India."

Jesus grew up in Nazareth in Galilee. His disciples were fishermen from the Sea of Galilee. And although He visited Jerusalem, he spent most of His life in his home country of Galilee. John 7:1, "After this Jesus stayed in Galilee; for He could not walk in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him." His followers were constrained "for fear of the Jews" (John 7:13, 19:38, 20:19).

Psalm 83:3 says God's elect are "hidden" or protected ones, and that they are under attack from a coalition of evil groups led by Edom

The Jewish scholar Cecil Roth in his Concise Jewish Encyclopedia (1980) says on page 154, "John Hyrcanus forcibly converted [Edom] to Judaism. From then on they were part of the Jewish people.

Terrible judgements against Edom are made in most of the prophecies of the Old Testament. For instance, Isaiah 34, 63, Jeremiah 49, and the entire book of Obadiah.

Jehovah of the Old Testament "hated Esau (Edom), against whom He has indignation forever" (Malachi 1:2-4). If Jesus will destroy Edom when He returns, then Edom is present today, and obviously evil, and anti-Christian.

Christ demonstrated a very real antipathy towards the people we now call Jews, in Bibles published after about 1776, but who would be more accurately described as Judeans, or residents of the Edomite-dominated territory of Judea.

Jesus said to the people we now call Jews "You do not believe because you are not of My sheep" (John 10:24-27). "I was only sent to the lost sheep of the House of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

In fact, Christ referred to "those Jews (or residents of Judea regardless of religion, race or color) who believed on him," as "of their father the devil" for although they were children of Abraham, they were not children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and heirs of the blessing of Abraham, nor did they have the faith of Abraham, and were in all probability descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Esau (John 8: 31,44).

In contrast, Jesus instructed His disciples - who were from Galilee of the Gentiles, not Judea (Acts 1:11; 2:7) - to pray to AND in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, Jesus speaks of "those who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan".

Jesus told "those Jews who believed in Him . . . You are of your father the devil, and lust for what is forbidden. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him . . . as he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:31-44).

This characteristic is confirmed by the dictionary definition of the verb jew.

But do Jews ever come up with such brazenly audacious lies, lies so enormous in scope and implication as to qualify as "chutzpah," so admired by Jews?

Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York says:

"The Holocaust has proven to be an indispensable ideological weapon. Through its deployment, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, has cast itself as a ‘victim’ state, and the most successful ethnic group in the United States has likewise acquired victim status. Considerable benefits accrue to this specious victimhood – in particular, immunity to criticism, however justified" (Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry (2000) published by Verso, p. 3).

==========================================

To sum up then. Clearly, one could go on and on discussing this. Jews (or more accurately Talmudists) will never accept that Jesus was not a Jew, because they have calculated this lie is vital to their survival: they have calculated they must dominate (and thus destroy) Christianity because they believe Catholic beliefs led to their persecution under the Nazis, full stop; nothing else to add.

If you care to search the Internet, you will find over 80% of the sources claiming that Jesus IS a Jew are sponsored and/or operated by Jewish individuals, Jewish entities, or official bodies sponsored by Israel. I wonder why that is? Isn’t it time you wondered too?

Christians and Christianity do not need Judaism to function. But, Jews and Judaism appear to need Christianity and stupid, Marxist dupes like Dr. Rowan Williams to thrive, just as a flea needs the coat of a cat or dog to live and breed.

The book of Luke states Mary was of the house of Levi. The house of Levi was not Jewish. The house of Levi could never be called Jews by anybody, nor could Judah be called Jewish, nor can you call the other ten tribes (the so-called lost tribes) Jews by any stretch of the imagination, for they were not identified with the Kingdom of Judah.

Jews are trying to identify themselves with the house of Abraham by saying they are Judeans, and that they descended from Judah. They only dwelt in the land of Judea, but they were never citizens of the house of Abraham, nor did they come through Judah.

Jesus was of a virgin birth. Even if the geneology fails to convince you, you must accept that no Jewish blood could have passed into his body.

And finally, Jesus Christ could not be a Jew, because He was before any Jew existed. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist.


=========================================

FOOTNOTE: Remember the CHEKA? Well, a watered-down version of it exists in bodies like the Anti-Defamation League in the United States (and associated bodies in Tel Aviv) who monitor almost every Blog in the whole of the Internet, for what they call anti-Semitism. These are essentially secret police bodies who are dedicated to harrassing anyone who refuses to 'toe the line' by questioning assumptions put forward by embedded Jews, such as Irene Lancaster. Welcome to the world you have been foolish enough to tolerate. This is what Political Correctness is all about! We are being quietly led into Aldus Huxley's Brave New World unless, that is, you are prepared to make a stand now and act!

28 August 2007 at 10:03  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

You seem to talk a lot about the Talmud and then ask the question how could Jesus be of Jewish if the things it permits allow this. Let me explain dear MI; The Talmud has two components, the Mishnah written in 200 CE, and the Gemara written in 500 CE. Both, as you can see were written long after Christ died.
The act of circumcision was something that was required by God and Jesus himself was circumcised. This act was later replaced by baptism, or the circumcision of the heart.
Towards the end you mention that Mary was of the tribe of Levi. Wrong she was of the tribe of Judah as was Joseph.

Most Christians would immediately say "Judah", this is clear, they never heard anything else. But since the Qur'an speaks about Mary as the "sister of Aaron" (Sura 19:28), Muslims try to make a case that Mary is a descendant of Aaron and from the tribe of Levi to ease the problem inherent in this statement.

What is the Muslim argument?

In Luke 1:5 and 36 we read that

In the time of Herod king of Judea there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah; his wife Elizabeth was also a descendant of Aaron.
Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

Elizabeth is called the "relative" or "kinswoman" of Mary in all other translations, only in the KJV we read "thy cousin Elisabeth." And hence the Muslim argument is:


Since Elizabeth and Mary are cousins and Elizabeth is a descendant of Aaron, therefore Mary is a descendant of Aaron as well.
But the Greek word is "syngenis" which means "relative" which might be a cousin, or an aunt or any kind of nearer or wider family relationship for that matter.

The Israelites from the various tribes regularly intermarried and the children of a marriage are counted to belong to the tribe their father came from. There is absolutely no problem, neither when it was a distant family relationship between Mary and Elizabeth nor even when they were cousins which is quite unlikely since they are probably over 40 years apart in age.

Whether the Mother of Mary was the sister of Elizabeth or the sister of Elizabeth's Father, making Elizabeth either an aunt or a cousin of Mary, there is no problem for Elizabeth to be a descendant of Aaron and Mary from the tribe of Judah, and descendant of David.

And that it the Biblical testimony, since we read in Luke 1:

30 But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary,
you have found favour with God.
31 You will be with child and give birth to a son,
and you are to give him the name Jesus.
32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David,
33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever;
his kingdom will never end."
34 "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"
35 The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,
and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.
So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child
in her old age, and she who was said to be barren
is in her sixth month.
37 For nothing is impossible with God."


Since the angel just announced that this child will not have any earthly father and Mary is not even married, the statement that God will give him the throne of his father David only makes sense when Mary is a descendant of David herself, since otherwise how will her son be descendant of David?

This is confirmed as well in Hebrews, where we read in 7:14


For it is clear that our Lord descended from Judah, and in regard to that tribe Moses said nothing about priests
and the whole argument of the passage is that Jesus is NOT a descendant of Aaron.

There is no evidence in the Bible whatsoever that Mary is from the tribe of Levi and member of a priestly family to qualify to be called "a daughter of Aaron" like Elizabeth. Even though it is never clearly stated which tribe Mary belongs to, all statements that are made are only sensible when she is from Judah and this is the implicit assumption.

If Muslims want to claim that Mary is from the tribe of Levi, then they will have to make their argument apart from the Bible.

Does Christianity need Judaism to function? Of course it does. Without the Jews many of the prophecies contained within scripture would be false.

Now lets take a look at who a Jew is. A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew or any person who has gone through the formal process of conversion to Judaism.

It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe or what you do. A person born to non-Jewish parents who has not undergone the formal process of conversion but who believes everything that Orthodox Jews believe and observes every law and custom of Judaism is still a non-Jew, even in the eyes of the most liberal movements of Judaism, and a person born to a Jewish mother who is an atheist and never practices the Jewish religion is still a Jew, even in the eyes of the ultra-Orthodox. In this sense, Judaism is more like a nationality than like other religions, and being Jewish is like a citizenship.

Jews are an ethnic group; An ethnic group or ethnicity is a population of human beings whose members identify with each other, either on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. The Jewish race came from Abraham.

And your final point; 'Jesus Christ could not be a Jew, because He was before any Jew existed. He was before all things, and by Him all things consist'. This only counts if you believe in the doctrine of the trinity, which I don’t.

FOOTNOTE: please see my last post as you seem to have ignored this.

28 August 2007 at 18:19  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

One of the unfortunate side-effects of being an Ashkenazi Jew, apart from throwing up the occasional brilliant scientist, such as Albert Einstein, is the high incidence of genetic defects (both physical and mental) within that Asiatic population. This handicap is a result of being one of the most mongrelized human populations on the planet.

If mongrelization were intrinsically a good thing, then we wouldn't be celebrating pedigree in horse or dog populations to the extent we clearly do, and then paying a high price for them.

These genetic defects often manifest themselves in extreme levels of paranoia and irrationality, that the afflicted person then doggedly interprets as persecution, alongside a passionately embraced sense of injustice. After all they are, in their own words: "God's chosen" ... so how could anyone possibly criticise a member of such a 'special' species? As a weapon of choice, they have developed a phenomena known as 'chutzpah.' This allows them to assert the most outrageous nonsense, in the full expectation of getting away with it.

In consequence, they will argue, and argue ... and argue ... over even infinitesimal issues if necessary, whenever someone presents them with irrefutable evidence their whole world-view is based on an illusion, and a pack of lies.

De asini vmbra disceptare.

This is one reason (amongst several) why it is very advisable to have as little to do with them as is practically possible. Keeping them at arms length results in a healthier Gentile society. As Jesus said, "I am not one of them."

Avarus animus nullo satiatur lucro.

29 August 2007 at 08:33  
Anonymous דָנִיֵּאל said...

ooooo looks like someone’s loosing his temper. What’s wrong MI, afraid of loosing to a Jew!
Spreaders of disease he calls us! Well I don’t want to jump to conclusions but I think we have a bit of a Hitler fan in front of us. Been reading his book recently. The whole thing smacks of anti-Semitic clap trap!

Why don’t you stick to trying to prove me wrong instead of saying stupid things that you think you can get away with. Sounds like your a bit Jewish doesn’t it :P

Oh and the quotes, 'To argue about the shadow of an ass, A greedy mind is satisfied with no gain'. I do believe your trying to show off. Well since you’ve resorted to simple verbal abuse im just going to say debate over bad looser! Unless there’s something else you want to rant about?

29 August 2007 at 18:10  
Blogger Meg said...

This blog is a joke.


It can't be a serious blog. I have to say it is a tongue in cheek blog because NO ONE is this stupid.

...or hypocritical.

Man.

4 September 2007 at 08:06  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older