For once, ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministries are Wrong on Some Points

Inquisition, Crusades & Pogroms, really are from Jesus?
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 14.I.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITM_FCP1NrE

I

Is the blood libel a horrible deed against your people (part of my own ancestry too)?

Or are child murders a horrible deed by extreme Jews who hated Christians so much they wanted to "execute" a Christian guilty of no other thing (they could have considered that any Christian past puberty was stoneable for other offenses and so wanted as young and innocent a Christian as possible)?

Or were they done by a synagogue of Satan in the sense of Molochists, hidden by the Jews, within Jewry, but not being part of it?

We do know very well that Andrew Ochs[n]er was found killed in a way resembling kosher slaughter of lambs, we also know he was before that frequent guest in a Jewish home, before being killed, so, while he was a Christian boy, it is likely he had some Jewish ancestry and could therefore be "justiceable" by Jews.

Note, the Christian interpretation of Genesis 49:10 means that as Jews had lost the right to public execution (even kept in Babylonian captivity, see Daniel 13) by the Romans, the Messiah had to come before that.

And it could be some intrigue on part of Jews was claiming, first through Pagan Imperial executioners and then through these child murders that no, the sceptre (and sovereignty, and right to execute capital punishment) was still with Judah.

As you may know, one Ariel Toaff wrote a book with an admission of the blood libel, on his theory extreme Jews. More like hate crimes. He was more or less forced to take it back.

Oh, red matsoth were not for food consumption, I am not claiming there was a confusion involving Christian human blood to be kosher (though some might have pretended so in a tit-for-tat accusation against the Eucharist), but the perpetrators knew they could not transport the body of Andrew Ochser, and so red matsoth would have been used for documentation (before you had cameras and internet tweets).

Dear St Andrew Ochs[n]er, pray for us and for the conversion of the Jews!

I think the rabbi who fed feces to children would very probably be one argument for the existence of the kind of extreme hatemongers within Jewry I envisage as culpable for killing of Bl Andrew Ochser and Simon of Trent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_Oxner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent

Quoting from the latter:

"Town magistrates arrested eighteen Jewish men and five Jewish women on the charge of ritual murder — the killing of a Christian child in order to use his blood in Jewish religious rites."

Note, the part of "religious rites" may come from a false confession previously planted to give Christians a confusion about the exact nature of these proceedings. Have you read Da Vinci Code? Saunière to his killer confesses a false secret.

So, obviously, using Christian blood in a Pesach rite is not kosher. But, if someone had planted this info, this could involve an attempt to hide the real nature of the proceeding.

If they wanted to make it out they publically executed Simon of Trent for being a Christian, they would consider within the Synagogue as public enough, and consider whether Christians knew it was an execution or not didn't matter.

Or would you disagree on the Talmudic attitude to Christians?

Similarily, if it was a recurring band of Molochists, they would have needed Christians to suspect normal Jews in order to keep Jewish solidarity sheltering them from Christians.

Note, it is also possible that people sent on a mission to kill a toddler were already criminals among the Jews and Jewish justice used Gentile justice to dispose of them.

II

2:02 The common people did have access to Holy Scriptures up to 800 in a Latin pronounced basically as they spoke, and when Latin pronunciation was restored to a few centuries older and became incomprehensible, the Gospel reading was each Sunday and Holiday by a decision in 813 translated in what is the origin of the compulsory sermon.

Ostendite mihi numisma census. At illi obtulerunt ei denarium. (from Matthew 22)

Pronounced before 800 (fair linguistic guess):

Ostenditz-mei nümisma tsens. At li optulayrent ey denier.

Pronounced from 800 in Gospel reading:

Ostenditay meehee noomisma tsensoos. At illee optulayroont e-ee denahrioom.

After the ritual thanking Christ for the Gospel, the priest would, from 813 on say (also, fair linguistic guess):

Ostenditay meehee noomisma tsensoos. Tso est, ostenditz-mei la moneye le tsens.
At illee optulayroont e-ee denahrioom. Tso est, meis li monstrayrent ey ün denier.

[Pikardy, like Italy would have pronounced chens, chensoos, rather than tsens, tsensoos]

Not only popular pronunciation, previously to 800 the correct one, but also replacing the less known old words with more usual ones. And adding definite articles, which aren't there in Latin (they were taken over by calque from Greek, Hebrew or Arabic later than St Jerome's translation). Perhaps even indefinite articles too.

A priest who missed this part could get imposed to fast if it was occasional, or he could be deposed from parish service, and confined in a monastery, where his reading Mass involved one server who also was too bad at Latin to give a good translation, or not. Arguably, most priests were able to and did comply.

2:06 The average Christian could not read the New Testament on his own. Technically correct.

Some have argued an average Galilaean in Our Lord's time would not have been able to read the Old Testament on his own.

Arguably, if he couldn't, he didn't have to. If he went to Synagogue on the Sabbath (not a command by Moses, by the way), after a reading in Hebrew there might be some comment in Aramaic. A Targum on the meaning of the text would be appropriate if the audience included people not able to read Hebrew.

When Our Lord had read from Isaiah, either the Gospel doesn't mention the Targum part, or, it was not needed, because everyone in that particular synagogue either knew Hebrew or the text well enough to know what Our Lord meant, when He added his explanation of what Isaiah had prophecied.

III

2:38 Jews were widely impopular for economic reasons (read up on how debtors were tied to creditors and on how much interest Jews could charge when they were allowed that business).

This means that some people had a real itch to beat Jews to death.

What religious leaders at least in Western Europe have done was try to limit this.

After a pogrom in 1300's in Germany, a monk chronicling the events and with a very large sympathy for this popular hatred and very little sympathy for the Jews was writing things like "unfortunately we simply can't kill off all Jews, God has reserved Himself to use them later on," and references to both conversion of some and their adherence to Antichrist of others were either given or omitted as already known "but let us pray that up to then, they may find a land far from good Christians where they may live on their own".

Any Jew in New York or Tel Aviv can verify New York is across the Atlantic and Tel Aviv is across the Mediterranean, as the German Antisemite had prayed for ...

Violent and evil Christians ... not sure they were more violent and evil than a synagogue who in a pogrom (I recall it was even the one recorded by the antisemite) on being given the alternative to convert or die set fire on their own synagogue, so as to prevent conversions by weakness - or [than] the killers of blessed Andreas or Simon.

I mean, punching a Jew on the nose on Good Friday is not good, but it is less bad than such acts.

3:22 I would hardly consider a Catholic delivered up to child killing or Russian Revolution and its aftermath (Jews in Cheka were killing in Ukraine some months before what is now considered breakout of WW-II, before the death of Pius XI) were less disciples or less Jewish than the ones standing before Christ in Matthew 24:9.

3:40 How binding do you consider Matthew 5:39 is to an average Christian when it is far beyond just the striking on the cheek?

Do you consider Christian civil authorities have a right or duty to defend Christians, if for instance a toddler is killed for being Christian?

3:55 Matthew 5:44 was spoken to the chosen disciples.

And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him.

On another occasion (Luke 6), perhaps an hour later same day, He was speaking to a multitude:

And all the multitude sought to touch him, for virtue went out from him, and healed all. And he, lifting up his eyes on his disciples, said: Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

No going up to a mountain this time. Here he is not saying: pray for them that persecute and calumniate you as to the chosen disciples, but Bless them that curse you, and pray for them that calumniate you

Meaning, ordinary Christians are not necessarily called to put up with persecution, if there is a possibility for defense. That also seems implied in a warfare going on in Apocalypse - as where presumably both sides make use of weapons of the kind that physically hurt and kill.

4:27 As you mention Romans, how about chapter 13, where St Paul says "the magistrate beareth not his sword in vain"?

5:55 It is dubious to interpret "his brother" in [1 John 2:9] as including persecutors, including Christ-rejecting Jews who persecute Christians.

In fact, the very same John in Apocalypse received words about them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.

And in Gospel, instead of quoting words of Jesus involving a vocative to Pharisees and Sadducees, and whoever, he instead omits what Jesus called them and starts the quote by "and Jesus spoke to the Jews and said" - implying the Christ-rejecting Jews are NOT our brothers. Especially not if persecuting Christians.

IV

8:13 Have you conferred Deuteronomy 28 with Matthew 28?

The covenant in Deuteronomy 28 is conditional, because God knows Jews will reject Him.

The covenant in Matthew 28 is not stated in conditional but in categoric terms.

Therefore, unlike the old nation of Israel, the Church that Jesus founded is indefectible. Individual members may indeed be in a state of mortal sin (sometimes involving a pogrom against a Jew), but the Apostles are always there with Christ to guide His Church and that specifically in their successors, as before 10 days had passed, Judas got a successor.

So Moses and Josue went and stood in the tabernacle of the testimony: And the Lord appeared there in the pillar of a cloud, which stood in the entry of the tabernacle. And the Lord said to Moses: Behold thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, and this people rising up will go a fornicating after strange gods in the land, to which it goeth in to dwell: there will they forsake me, and will make void the covenant, which I have made with them, And my wrath shall be kindled against them in that day: and I will forsake them, and will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured: all evils and afflictions shall find them, so that they shall say in that day: In truth it is because God is not with me, that these evils have found me. But I will hide, and cover my face in that day, for all the evils which they have done, because they have followed strange gods.

Can the same thing happen to the Church Christ founded?

Could for instance the Catholic Church have been following strange gods in the days of the Inquisition and so on?

Well, not unless there is another Church with better claim to continue since Apostles.

See here:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

This means, the Apostolic Church, whichever it is, cannot have failed as Old Testament Judaism failed, sometimes wholesale all or nearly all of the people, and at one important point 2000 years ago, in those who rejected Christ - and His Church.

9:47 Confer the perverse generation in [Deuteronomy 32:20] which is echoed more than once by Our Lord [Matthew 17:16], [Luke 9:41] AND by St Peter [Acts Of Apostles 2:40] with [Matthew 24:34] and [Mark 13:30] and [Luke 21:32] - presumably referring to the generation of the Catholic Church, which has not passed since those words were said.

The generation that will not pass, that is.

[Matthew 23:37] would imply a hint on why Roman rather than Hierosolymite Church is the mother and teacher of all Churches. (Roman Catholics claim this for Rome, some at least Greek Orthodox for Jerusalem).

In AD 70 (or whenever Titus came), the Church obeyed Christ's words of fleeing to the mountains, so they fled to Pella.

There are more places than one that are called Pella. No, it is not to 40° 45′ 36″ N, 22° 31′ 09″ E that they fled, a place in Ancient Macedon and modern Greece. Nor 35° 25′ 00″ North, 36° 23′ 00″ East, better known as Apamaea. It is to 32° 26′ 57″ N, 35° 36′ 54″ E that they fled, to what is now Tabaqat Fahil or Tell al-Hosn in Jordan, and was in ancient times part of Edom, Moab and Ammon - fulfilling Isaiah 11:14.

As to "fly upon the shoulders of the Philistines by the sea" (same verse) that might mean Romans (culturally related to Greeks and Philistines, worshippers of Dagon / Poseidon) were chasing the Church so closely, some of them were even able to touch the shoulders of Romans - or that they sometimes behaved better to Christians fleeing Jerusalem (obeying both Christ and Titus) than to Jews (who were disobeying Titus after saying "we have no king but Caesar" when disobeying Christ).

V

12:53 I cannot agree to compare Crusades and Inquisition to Holocaust.

At all.

I cannot agree to consider people taking part in Crusades or Inquisition as automatically evil people.

Some incidental acts by the Crusades (massacre of Jerusalem which Godfrey of Bouillon tried to stop and finally did stop) or of Inquisition (like the episcopal Inquisition by a bishop Cauchon of Beavais trying St Joan of Arc or by some English bishops considering people as Lollards simply for having some Bible access or access to prayers in English), yes.

But you cannot condemn the Kingdom of Judah because Herod massacred the innocents, and you cannot condemn Aaronite priesthood because Kaiaphas perpetrated the so far most ultimate rebellion against God.

Similarily with Christians states and with the priesthood of the New Covenant, including when at war against infidels (for some other reason than them just not being believers!) in Crusades on the state side or in Inquisition on the Church side.

13:39 Indeed I do love Israel, first and foremost, in honour if not personal closeness, Christian Palestinians, who are the remnants of the earliest Jewish and Samarian part of the Church.

And next, people like you and ...

Israeli News Live
https://www.youtube.com/user/BenDeNoon

Those of Jewish or Muslim confession come after and proportionally to their peace with or love for Christians.