Forwarded from Catholic Femininity Realm
Continuation of the Holy Gospel according to Luke
Luke 1:39-47
In that time, Mary, rising up, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth. And so on.
Homily by St. Ambrose, Bishop (of Milan)
Commentary on Luke, Bk. ii. c
When any one asketh another for credence, he is bound to give some reasonable ground. And so the Angel, when he announced to Mary the counsel of God, gave, as a proof, the conception of Elizabeth, then aged and barren, that Mary might perceive, by this example, that with God nothing is impossible. When the holy Virgin had heard it, she arose and went to visit her cousin. She did not go to see if what she had heard was true, because she did not believe God, or because she knew not who the messenger had been, or yet because she doubted the fact adduced in proof. She went joyfully as one who hath received a mercy in answer to his vow goeth to pay the same. She went with devotion, as a godly person goeth to execute a religious duty. She went into the hill country in joyful haste. And is it not something that she went up into the hills? God was already in her womb, and her feeling bore her continually upward. The grace of the Holy Spirit knoweth no slow working.
Godly women will learn from the example of the Mother of God to take a tender care of their kinswomen who are with child. In pursuance of this charity, Mary, who had hitherto remained alone at home, was not deterred by her maidenly shyness from entering on a public journey; she faced for this end the hardships of mountain travelling; and encountered with a sense of duty the weary length of the way. The Virgin left her home, and went into the hill country with haste, unmindful of the trouble, and remembering only the office to which her cousinly love prompted her, in spite of the delicacy of her sex. Maidens will learn from her not to idle about from house to house, to loiter in the streets, nor to take part in conversations in public. Mary, as she was hasteful to pass through the public roads, so was she slow again to enter on them she abode with her cousin about three months.
As the modesty of Mary is a pattern for the imitation of all maidens, so also is her humility. She went to see Elizabeth, like one cousin going to visit another, and as the younger to the elder. Not only did she first go, but she first saluted Elizabeth. Now, the purer a virgin is, the humbler ought she to be. She will know how to submit herself to her elders. She that professeth chastity ought to be a very mistress of humility. Lowly-mindedness is at once the very ground in which devotion groweth, and the first and principal rule of its teaching. In this act of the Virgin then we see the greater going to visit and to succour the lesser Mary to Elizabeth, Christ to John.
Luke 1:39-47
In that time, Mary, rising up, went into the hill country with haste into a city of Juda. And she entered into the house of Zachary, and saluted Elizabeth. And so on.
Homily by St. Ambrose, Bishop (of Milan)
Commentary on Luke, Bk. ii. c
When any one asketh another for credence, he is bound to give some reasonable ground. And so the Angel, when he announced to Mary the counsel of God, gave, as a proof, the conception of Elizabeth, then aged and barren, that Mary might perceive, by this example, that with God nothing is impossible. When the holy Virgin had heard it, she arose and went to visit her cousin. She did not go to see if what she had heard was true, because she did not believe God, or because she knew not who the messenger had been, or yet because she doubted the fact adduced in proof. She went joyfully as one who hath received a mercy in answer to his vow goeth to pay the same. She went with devotion, as a godly person goeth to execute a religious duty. She went into the hill country in joyful haste. And is it not something that she went up into the hills? God was already in her womb, and her feeling bore her continually upward. The grace of the Holy Spirit knoweth no slow working.
Godly women will learn from the example of the Mother of God to take a tender care of their kinswomen who are with child. In pursuance of this charity, Mary, who had hitherto remained alone at home, was not deterred by her maidenly shyness from entering on a public journey; she faced for this end the hardships of mountain travelling; and encountered with a sense of duty the weary length of the way. The Virgin left her home, and went into the hill country with haste, unmindful of the trouble, and remembering only the office to which her cousinly love prompted her, in spite of the delicacy of her sex. Maidens will learn from her not to idle about from house to house, to loiter in the streets, nor to take part in conversations in public. Mary, as she was hasteful to pass through the public roads, so was she slow again to enter on them she abode with her cousin about three months.
As the modesty of Mary is a pattern for the imitation of all maidens, so also is her humility. She went to see Elizabeth, like one cousin going to visit another, and as the younger to the elder. Not only did she first go, but she first saluted Elizabeth. Now, the purer a virgin is, the humbler ought she to be. She will know how to submit herself to her elders. She that professeth chastity ought to be a very mistress of humility. Lowly-mindedness is at once the very ground in which devotion groweth, and the first and principal rule of its teaching. In this act of the Virgin then we see the greater going to visit and to succour the lesser Mary to Elizabeth, Christ to John.
Forwarded from Helferin: Female Support Squad (FSS)
Remember to never let the jews steal your beautiful sense of hope and faith in Jesus Christ.
Further proof that Modern Jews have absolutely nothing to do with ancient Judeans, Israelites or Hebrews.
The word “Jew” is a modern word with many ambiguous meanings, but neither by race, residence, nor religion was Jesus Christ a “Jew”
and He certainly isn’t a bastard of a whore boiling in shit as Jews insist.
In his book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed drills that point home most eloquently;
“What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jew”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith'” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons). *
This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew”, is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.
The English abbreviation, “Jew” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).
If the statement, “Jesus was a Jew”, has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew” if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.
Race, residence, religion, then.
This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus's racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.
The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.
As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah's prophecy that “a ruler” would come out of Bethlehem”.
The Jewish Encylopaedia insists that Nazareth as Jesus's native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.
The word “Jew” is a modern word with many ambiguous meanings, but neither by race, residence, nor religion was Jesus Christ a “Jew”
and He certainly isn’t a bastard of a whore boiling in shit as Jews insist.
In his book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed drills that point home most eloquently;
“What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jew”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith'” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons). *
This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew”, is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.
The English abbreviation, “Jew” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).
If the statement, “Jesus was a Jew”, has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew” if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.
Race, residence, religion, then.
This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus's racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.
The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.
As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah's prophecy that “a ruler” would come out of Bethlehem”.
The Jewish Encylopaedia insists that Nazareth as Jesus's native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.
↟ Modernists Go To Hell ↟
Further proof that Modern Jews have absolutely nothing to do with ancient Judeans, Israelites or Hebrews. The word “Jew” is a modern word with many ambiguous meanings, but neither by race, residence, nor religion was Jesus Christ a “Jew” and He certainly…
Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans.
Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jew”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue.
It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.
If today the Zionists are “the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes. but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foes of God and man and that he used an especial, scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today's Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.
Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.
None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.
*Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, used this phrase for the obvious political motive, of confusing non-Jewish hearers. Speaking to such an “inter-faith” meeting at the Carnegie Hall at Christmastide 1925, he stated “Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian” (Christianity was born with the death of Jesus).
For this he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Rabbis Society of the United States, but a Christian Ministers Association “hailed me as a brother”. Rabbi Wise adds the characteristic comment: “I know not which was more hurtful, the acceptance of me as a brother and welcoming me into the Christian fold, or the violent diatribe of the rabbis”.
The Controversy of Zion
by Douglas Reed, First Printing 1956, p. 59 ff.
Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jew”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue.
It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.
If today the Zionists are “the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes. but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foes of God and man and that he used an especial, scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today's Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.
Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.
None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.
*Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, used this phrase for the obvious political motive, of confusing non-Jewish hearers. Speaking to such an “inter-faith” meeting at the Carnegie Hall at Christmastide 1925, he stated “Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian” (Christianity was born with the death of Jesus).
For this he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Rabbis Society of the United States, but a Christian Ministers Association “hailed me as a brother”. Rabbi Wise adds the characteristic comment: “I know not which was more hurtful, the acceptance of me as a brother and welcoming me into the Christian fold, or the violent diatribe of the rabbis”.
The Controversy of Zion
by Douglas Reed, First Printing 1956, p. 59 ff.
My arguments about how Christianity isn’t Jewish and what led to the birth of communism are so ‘stupid’ every pagan I’ve spoke with has refused to respond to them. Funny how that works.
These people are prideful cowards who are so right and confident in their beliefs that they refuse to entertain any well thought out argument that challenges their claims. Because if Christianity isn’t Jewish, their whole system goes down the trash and then they have no other option but to become a Christian. This is why they are so scared.
These people are prideful cowards who are so right and confident in their beliefs that they refuse to entertain any well thought out argument that challenges their claims. Because if Christianity isn’t Jewish, their whole system goes down the trash and then they have no other option but to become a Christian. This is why they are so scared.
Forwarded from RACIST ARCHIVE 1488 333
No fuckin way. Did a bit of digging into Robert Sepehr's family line. He's not Iranian.
Forwarded from RACIST ARCHIVE 1488 333
The father of Robert Sepehr is Benhur Shokuhisepehr, an independent film director from LA.
Forwarded from RACIST ARCHIVE 1488 333
Ben Hur Shokuhisepehr received 66 awards for his anti-Nazi film, "The Desperate."
His directing of a movie about Jews, full of Jewish actors, while shilling for Jews on his facebook basically confirms it all.
His directing of a movie about Jews, full of Jewish actors, while shilling for Jews on his facebook basically confirms it all.
Forwarded from RACIST ARCHIVE 1488 333
Robert Sepehr is Jewish. Can't say that it's surprising.
Forwarded from 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥
“The sacred texts Sifra, Mishnah, Gemara and Midrash are deceptive foils for rabbinic Judaism’s mission of seeking to pair extra-noscriptural traditions with passages from the Bible; giving neutral words a Talmudic meaning, and fabricating derashot (doctrine presented in the form of homilies) that have no logical connection to Biblical verses, thereby throwing fidelity to the integrity of the Old Testament to the wind. True Christians acknowledge the integrity of pshat (the literal meaning of the Biblical text). By insisting that Biblical interpretations be in strict harmony with the text, Christians differ radically and markedly from rabbinic Judaism....
Forwarded from 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥
Our critics assert that the sacred rabbinic texts do not constitute law (Halakhah) but only commentary and debate. The truth is very different: Halakhah is made up of the traditions found in the rabbinic texts. Those texts as a whole comprise the Oral Law, what Josephus termed, paradôsis (“tradition”). Rabbinic law is grounded in the traditions of men, just as Jesus said (cf. Mark 7; Matthew 15). Those traditions consist of extra-Biblical superstitions and occultism, self-worship, racist hatred for non-Jews and sheer nonsense.”
- Michael Hoffman
- Michael Hoffman
Forwarded from 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥
"...there are no Jews to be met with who adhere to the Old Bible without Talmud-Traditions ...the word Talmud (which makes so great a Noise in the World) it may suffice to observe, that by a sort of Metonymy, it signifies the Book containing the main Doctrines of the Jews...For it is very observable, that the Talmud is oftener brought in Vindication of their religion, than Moses, the Prophets, and Holy Writings: insomuch that they make it, and not the Old Bible, the touchstone of their doctrine, and that into which they resolve the decision of all their cases…the Talmud of Babylon...this later hath obtain’d public honor and belief among them: and at this day is universally received as the authentic body of their Law.
"The first among Christians who took more solemn cognizance of the Talmud, was Justinian the Emperor, who about the 551 year of Christ, gave Toleration to the Jews to read the Sacred Bible in their synagogues in the Greek Tongue; but utterly prohibited them the reading of the Mishnah, as being neither adjoyned to the Sacred Books, nor delivered from above to the Prophets; but a mere invention of earthly men, who had nothing of Heaven in them. ...the Mishnah Torah was composed out of the kabbalistics and anagogics of the Jews...allegorical interpretations, pretended to be derived from Moses. When the Jews were setled in Italy and France, the bishops of Rome began to take severe cognizance of the Talmud. For Pope Innocent IV. commanded all the copies thereof that could be found in France to be burned, because it contained manifest blasphemies against God, Christ, and the Virgin Mary, inextricable abuses, erroneous and unheard-of fooleries.'
— Lancelot Addison (1632-1703), The present State of the Jews (more particularly relating to those in Barbary) wherein is contained an exact account of their customs, secular and religious : to which is annexed a summary discourse of the Misna, Talmud, and Gemara (London: Printed by J.C. for William Crooke and to be sold by John Courtney, 1675), pp. 239-240; 244; 248-249.
"The first among Christians who took more solemn cognizance of the Talmud, was Justinian the Emperor, who about the 551 year of Christ, gave Toleration to the Jews to read the Sacred Bible in their synagogues in the Greek Tongue; but utterly prohibited them the reading of the Mishnah, as being neither adjoyned to the Sacred Books, nor delivered from above to the Prophets; but a mere invention of earthly men, who had nothing of Heaven in them. ...the Mishnah Torah was composed out of the kabbalistics and anagogics of the Jews...allegorical interpretations, pretended to be derived from Moses. When the Jews were setled in Italy and France, the bishops of Rome began to take severe cognizance of the Talmud. For Pope Innocent IV. commanded all the copies thereof that could be found in France to be burned, because it contained manifest blasphemies against God, Christ, and the Virgin Mary, inextricable abuses, erroneous and unheard-of fooleries.'
— Lancelot Addison (1632-1703), The present State of the Jews (more particularly relating to those in Barbary) wherein is contained an exact account of their customs, secular and religious : to which is annexed a summary discourse of the Misna, Talmud, and Gemara (London: Printed by J.C. for William Crooke and to be sold by John Courtney, 1675), pp. 239-240; 244; 248-249.
Forwarded from 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥
“I am not disparaging, Heaven forbid, the importance of the Talmud. Yet for once let's talk about the religious people who strictly adhere to the mitzvahs, yet are unfamiliar with the Bible...And this is not an anomaly – this is the norm. The only Biblical verses familiar to yeshiva students are those quoted by Talmud sages, and that's that. The Bible is seen as a sort of inferior genre that is appropriate for young children (or for women)...”
Source: Ynetnews.com | Feb. 10, 2010
Source: Ynetnews.com | Feb. 10, 2010