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
Forwarded from 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥
Since you are all aware by now the inferior position that Scripture holds in Rabbinic Judaism—in general and compared to the Oral Torah (Talmud, Mishnah, Midrash, Kabbalah, Haggadah, Aggadah, homiletical interpretation of Rabbis)—let’s take a closer look about what the Rabbis have to say about the Old Testament prophets, kings and patriarchs.
First I shall start with these verse from the Talmud:
“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” — BT Bava Metzia 59b
“The Holy One, Blessed be He, speaks Torah out of the mouths of all rabbis.”
— Haggadah 15b
The non-Biblical basis of Judaism is acknowledged in the Mishnah itself:
“The laws concerning the Sabbath, Festal-offerings and acts of trespass are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant Scriptural basis but many laws” —Mishnah Hagiga i, 8.
Now, onto the nonsense:
In BT Menachot 29b, the rabbis claim that God transported Moses into the future, to the yeshiva of the second-century Rabbi Akiva. Moses is depicted as sitting at the back of the class, listening to the day's lesson, which is on the Mosaic law. Yet Moses can't understand the teaching that is being imparted by Rabbi Akiva! Here the Gemara itself is admitting that Talmudic Judaism had so diluted and distorted the Pentateuch with rabbinic traditions that Moses himself no longer recognized the teaching ascribed to him.
It is written in the Babylonian Talmud that the prophet Isaiah was justifiably killed for stating that the Israelites had unclean lips.
—BT Yebamoth 49b.
About Noah, the Holy Bible teaches: Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9).
The Talmud falsely interprets the phrase “in his generation” to mean that in any other generation Noah would not be holy or significant: "Noah was only righteous in his generation; had he lived in the generation of Abraham, he would not have been considered significant at all.” [B.T. Sanhedrin 108a]
In Hebrew “blameless" denotes without flaw. Noah is a precursor of Abraham, not less than Abraham. What is required of Noah, God also requires of Abraham: to walk before Him and be blameless. The Talmud is wrong to denigrate Noah. And it gets worse. The rabbinic Midrash declares that no good was found in Noah (Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I [Soncino 1983, vol. 1], p. 289). This Midrash also teaches that Noah was an alcoholic who was castrated when he was on his way to have coitus. (Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I [Soncino 1983, vol. 1], pp. 290-291; 293). These texts give evidence for the fact that Judaism’s "Noahide Laws” are not a reference to the Biblical Noah, despite public dissimulation to the contrary. Judaism’s misnamed "Noahide Laws" are a Talmudic subterfuge. They are not of Noah or the Old Testament.
A typical example of Talmudic nonsense about Biblical patriarchs concerns King Solomon and the sacred Temple. Who could believe such rubbish about King Solomon and God's Temple except the self-deluding denizens of the synagogue? The Babylonian Talmud teaches that "hobgoblins" (mischievous devils) helped to build the Temple, and that King Solomon was succeeded as King of Israel not by Rehoboam as the Bible says, but by Ashmodeus, the king of the demons, as the Talmud says.
The sages inform us that "everyone helped in the construction of this Temple - even the spirits, the hobgoblins, the angels" (Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:5).
...Thereafter, although he (Solomon) is successful politically and militarily, his inner world begins to crumble till finally he is "replaced" by Ashmodeus, King of the underworld spirits (Talmud, Gittin 68b).
Yebamoth 63a also claims that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden, and in Zohar 1:55a the Rabbis say that Adam engendered female demons from his spilled semen and that Eve copulated with Satan and conceived Cain.
First I shall start with these verse from the Talmud:
“Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” — BT Bava Metzia 59b
“The Holy One, Blessed be He, speaks Torah out of the mouths of all rabbis.”
— Haggadah 15b
The non-Biblical basis of Judaism is acknowledged in the Mishnah itself:
“The laws concerning the Sabbath, Festal-offerings and acts of trespass are as mountains hanging by a hair, for they have scant Scriptural basis but many laws” —Mishnah Hagiga i, 8.
Now, onto the nonsense:
In BT Menachot 29b, the rabbis claim that God transported Moses into the future, to the yeshiva of the second-century Rabbi Akiva. Moses is depicted as sitting at the back of the class, listening to the day's lesson, which is on the Mosaic law. Yet Moses can't understand the teaching that is being imparted by Rabbi Akiva! Here the Gemara itself is admitting that Talmudic Judaism had so diluted and distorted the Pentateuch with rabbinic traditions that Moses himself no longer recognized the teaching ascribed to him.
It is written in the Babylonian Talmud that the prophet Isaiah was justifiably killed for stating that the Israelites had unclean lips.
—BT Yebamoth 49b.
About Noah, the Holy Bible teaches: Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God. (Genesis 6:9).
The Talmud falsely interprets the phrase “in his generation” to mean that in any other generation Noah would not be holy or significant: "Noah was only righteous in his generation; had he lived in the generation of Abraham, he would not have been considered significant at all.” [B.T. Sanhedrin 108a]
In Hebrew “blameless" denotes without flaw. Noah is a precursor of Abraham, not less than Abraham. What is required of Noah, God also requires of Abraham: to walk before Him and be blameless. The Talmud is wrong to denigrate Noah. And it gets worse. The rabbinic Midrash declares that no good was found in Noah (Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I [Soncino 1983, vol. 1], p. 289). This Midrash also teaches that Noah was an alcoholic who was castrated when he was on his way to have coitus. (Midrash Rabbah: Genesis I [Soncino 1983, vol. 1], pp. 290-291; 293). These texts give evidence for the fact that Judaism’s "Noahide Laws” are not a reference to the Biblical Noah, despite public dissimulation to the contrary. Judaism’s misnamed "Noahide Laws" are a Talmudic subterfuge. They are not of Noah or the Old Testament.
A typical example of Talmudic nonsense about Biblical patriarchs concerns King Solomon and the sacred Temple. Who could believe such rubbish about King Solomon and God's Temple except the self-deluding denizens of the synagogue? The Babylonian Talmud teaches that "hobgoblins" (mischievous devils) helped to build the Temple, and that King Solomon was succeeded as King of Israel not by Rehoboam as the Bible says, but by Ashmodeus, the king of the demons, as the Talmud says.
The sages inform us that "everyone helped in the construction of this Temple - even the spirits, the hobgoblins, the angels" (Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:5).
...Thereafter, although he (Solomon) is successful politically and militarily, his inner world begins to crumble till finally he is "replaced" by Ashmodeus, King of the underworld spirits (Talmud, Gittin 68b).
Yebamoth 63a also claims that Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden, and in Zohar 1:55a the Rabbis say that Adam engendered female demons from his spilled semen and that Eve copulated with Satan and conceived Cain.
Forwarded from 𝘑𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥
Rabbi Chabad-Lubavitch (the founder of Hasidism) in his sicko ramblings also claims that Isaac was actually a female soul born into a male’s body until he prayed to god so that god would swap his soul from the soul of Eve to that of Abel (Source) (Source)
BT Shabbat 15c (also cf. Baba Metzia 33A), comes also gives three levels of study, ranked from lowest to highest, pointing to the place noscripture has in Judaism:
A. "He who occupies himself with Scripture gains merit that is no merit.
B. "He who occupies himself with Mishnah gains merit for which people receive a reward.
C. "He who occupies himself with Talmud—there is no source of merit greater than this.”
Here I conclude with Rabbi Yehiel Ben Joseph who says:
“Without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as noscripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own... anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."
BT Shabbat 15c (also cf. Baba Metzia 33A), comes also gives three levels of study, ranked from lowest to highest, pointing to the place noscripture has in Judaism:
A. "He who occupies himself with Scripture gains merit that is no merit.
B. "He who occupies himself with Mishnah gains merit for which people receive a reward.
C. "He who occupies himself with Talmud—there is no source of merit greater than this.”
Here I conclude with Rabbi Yehiel Ben Joseph who says:
“Without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible... God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as noscripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own... anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."