The Following Message Has Been Transcribed And Edited For
Clarity, Continuity Of Thought, And Punctuation By
The CCK Transcribing & Editing Team.
The message for today is called Capital Punishment. The secondary name is The Torah Vs. The Talmud. This message is given to us by divine instruction. I had no intention of doing anything like this at all. I am going to tell you what led up to it, and what I went through this morning. Then we are going to take a look at it, and we will see what comes out under the anointing. I was in my Bible class that the rabbi gives. The people there, especially the women, are very carnal. Most of the men are carnal too. There may be one or two men who actually read the Torah. The Torah is the five books of Moses. That is their Torah. The books like Chronicles and Kings, they call that the writings, and then they have the prophets, but they focus on the Torah. This movement, the Chabad, they consider the Talmud equal to the Torah. The Torah is divinely inspired. We know Moses wrote the Torah. Christians believe that the Torah is inspired. I do not believe the Talmud is divinely inspired, although this Chabad movement believes that it is.
You have to realize how fragmented the Jewish people are, brethren. Not only are there reformed, conservative, and orthodox, and ultra Orthodox, each of those categories is fragmented in itself. This Chabad movement is ultra Orthodox, and they believe the Talmud is equal to the Torah. What is the Talmud? The Talmud is the codification of the oral law. Oral means spoken. What we are told is that when Moses wrote down the law in the five books; Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, that there was a further explanation. I have no problem believing that there was a further explanation of it because we see how there is a further explanation of every word in the Torah. This further explanation was never written down. It was transferred or relayed from generation to generation by word of mouth from one set of elders to the other set of elders.
Sometime after the destruction of the temple, after Jesus was rejected as Messiah, a Jewish philosopher by the name of Mamomides wrote some things. He was not the only one. Brethren, I did not even intend to start like this. I do not want to get my history wrong. I had no intention of starting like this. Please, if you have any questions, just check it out on the internet yourself. I thought it was Maimonides who was the first one to codify the oral law. At the time that he wrote it down in a book, there was a big controversy. Many of the rabbis of that day thought that it was wrong of him to write it down in a book. I think it was wrong of him to write it down in a book. Once you write down something in a book, it is this whole concept of having all of these multiple potentials in the spirit, and the one that becomes concrete, then all the other potentials collapse. We are talking about the wave function. Does anyone not know what I am talking about?
This is a quantum mechanics principle that applies to the spiritual life. I believe that God’s law is fluid. It needs to flow through an anointed vessel. For the God of justice to manifest His justice it needs to flow through a human vessel that is set aside for that purpose, for the purpose of being a channel of the Spirit of righteousness. Once you write a law down in a book, that does away with this potential for the creative imposition of the law, based upon God Himself, Jehovah, ministering in every individual situation. Once you cut a plate law, your only hope of personal justice is lost, which is what God requires for us. It is His will that we should have personal justice. I believe that with all my heart. Once you write it down in a book, your only hope of receiving personal justice is if the judge is anointed to that degree, that they hear that closely from God, despite what is written in the book, that you will get personal justice. That is because as soon as you try to apply one law to everybody, somebody if not everybody, is going to get hurt. Does anyone not know what I am talking about?
God desires personal justice for each of us at the hands of an anointed judge, someone who judges not based upon what he sees with his eyes or hears with his ears. Someone who judges based upon his discernment of the reality of the facts, but even more so, the will of God that flows down from above. It has to be a combination of a comprehension of the facts, and a comprehension of the facts from a scriptural point of view, from a point of view of the mind of Christ, and not from the point of view of the carnal mind. Then the ultimate decision comes from above. We are talking about justice that arises out of a communication between the Lord Jesus Christ and hopefully Christ Jesus in the judge. The Lord Jesus Christ is speaking through Christ Jesus in the judge. This is the ultimate justice. I do not think it should have been written in a book. Many rabbis of the day opposed what Maimonides did, but they were overridden.
Over time, in my opinion, carnal authorities in Judea, which is what we have today, the carnal authorities subscribed as the presence of a man who truly was that vessel for God. Man is used generically, men and women. As such a man was harder and harder to find in Judah, the carnal authorities cleaved unto the written law, and made it equal to the Torah. Now the only one who could do that is God Himself. The only One who can say, this is my book, and the Torah says; And Jehovah said to Moses, tell the people. There are no such words in the Talmud to my knowledge. What we find in the Talmud is this rabbi came down with that opinion, and that rabbi came down with another opinion, and that other rabbi came down with yet another opinion. I do not hear anything about Jehovah, using someone’s name, tell the people. On that basis, I do not count the Talmud equal to the Torah.
Even more so, I have not read the whole Talmud, but I have come up against passages in the Talmud that only God Himself, descending from Mt. Sinai, would be able to convince me it came from Him. A couple of them completely oppose what the Lord has taught me, and this is one of the criteria by which He has placed me in an anti-christ situation. I have told you this for years, whether I am reading a piece of literature, or whether I am present in a class, where I am being instructed by someone who denies Christ. That is what I mean by anti-christ. I am based there under the rules of the God who raised me up. I believe him to be Jehovah speaking to me through his viceroy, through his agent, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the first fully saved man, who has entered into the light of immortality that no mortal man can attain to. He is not just a servant. He is the initial manifestation of the reality of God’s will for all mankind. He is a great spiritual being, but he is not God. He is not God because someone gave him his power. He has all power over heaven and earth, but someone gave him his power. He is not the first cause, and therefore he is not God.
He has all the power of God except over God. He has no authority over God. He wields all the power of God, but he has no authority over God. He is subject to God, the God that saved my life, that healed me from incurable disease, and all kinds of emotional and spiritual problems, to prepare me to teach you in His name. He has instructed me when I am present in an anti-christ situation, to weigh what I am taught against what He has already taught me. It is the same principle that you should not be reading any anti-christ message, or anything esoteric, if you do not first have the truth of God in your heart. That is your anchor. That is your touchstone. This is what you bounce everything off of, and that is what I do. If I hear something that I cannot compare to what he has already taught me, if it does not offend me spiritually, and I do not mean out of pride, if it does not offend my sensibilities, and I just think something is wrong, because I do have the Spirit of God, then I believe it until the Lord tells me otherwise.
I have told you before that these are the rules by which He sends me into, spiritually speaking, into enemy territory. It is just like Paul said, the Jews are beloved. They are my country men, but for the gospel’s sake, they are my enemy. I go to this Bible class, and do not think that it does not bother me that I come back and preach against what they are teaching. I am tormented in my consciousness and in my conscience until God reminds me that it is the exposure of the truth that will ultimately save them. I heard things in that place that are completely diametrically opposite to what the Lord has taught me. It is in their text books that they teach with from the Talmud. Do you know how big the Talmud is? It is like 32 volumes of reading law books. I have not read everything. A couple of years ago, I believe the Lord took me to a website on the internet which replicated passages of the Talmud, saying that if a child, a young girl, was sexually molested, there was no consequence under Talmudic law. I thought it was surely antisemitism.
I went running to the rabbi. I was horrified. It was talking about a three and a half year old child, a girl, that if a man had sex with her, all he had to do was pay her father money. I was shocked that the rabbi acknowledged that it was there in the Talmud. I was all upset. I said, why can they not change it? He walked away from me, which is the way he deals with something that is not to be discussed. No, we cannot change the Talmud. He just walked away from me. I started this message last night. What happened to me this morning, I believe it arose out of something that I heard in the class last night, which I will share with you shortly. I went online and I found the first exhibit that I have given you. I found that article, which gave me somewhat of an explanation. I woke up this morning, and the direction that I went in this morning was absolutely upsetting to me. That is exhibit #2. It started out because the rabbi teaches that there are four different kinds of capital punishment. That was what I was looking for. I was looking on the internet for the four different kinds of capital punishment, which I cannot find in the Scripture.
I cannot find pouring hot lead down somebody’s throat in the Scripture. I am sorry, I cannot find it there. Then the article that I found, which outlines these four different types of execution, which was all that I was looking for, is apparently up there on the internet by someone who is not Jewish. You have to ask yourself is it antisemitic? I have to tell you, if there is antisemitism behind it, I do not see it. It is the same writer that the Lord led me to a couple of years ago when I found out about the three and a half year old girl. Then when I spoke to the rabbi about it, he told me that there was no criminal penalty for rape in the Scripture, in the Torah and the Talmud. That is what he told me. This morning I was already to preach, and I just wanted one more witness or information for you as to the four different kinds of execution. This website turned out to be written by the same person who told me about the little girl. It went into the sexual sin that is tolerated in the Talmud, not in the Torah, but in the Talmud.
In case I did not make it clear, the Torah is written by Moses, under the influence of God. The Talmud is post Jesus. The Talmud comes from the rabbis that took authority after the Levite priesthood was destroyed. I do not have any witness that God gave these rabbis any authority. They just filled the void in. I have told you that before, so the Talmud comes from the rabbis, not from the Levitical priesthood, not from the Torah, but from a group of men, who I do not doubt were Bible scholars. These were medieval men anyway. The question is was it the Spirit of God writing this book through them? That is the question. There are passages in it that I cannot believe came from God. One of them being the situation that you could have sex with a three and a half year old girl. I do not even have the details here. It had to do with very young children. I go from getting the four kinds of execution for you, just looking over the exhibit to the next page, and it goes into this sexual permissiveness that the writer is saying exists in the Talmud. It goes on to talk about homosexuality with young boys.
Now if this was me three years ago, I would be running to the rabbi, saying look at this antisemitism, but it is the same woman who told me about men having sex with three and a half year old girls. The rabbi had said yes, it is there. Quoting the Talmud, it is saying to have sex with a boy less than nine years old, it is not considered a crime. If a man or a woman has sex with a boy, after he is nine or nine and a half years old, something like that, it becomes a crime. I got to the point when I heard you all walking in, that I said, Lord, I do not know if I can preach this. I started out with a good message on capital punishment, and I am reading all of this, and my mind is going round and round. There has been a case, which I believe has ended now, and who knows how many years it goes back. I lose tract of time. It was in the newspaper about a rabbi who was accused of molesting little boys.
Apparently, the whole ultra orthodox community rallied to the defense of the rabbi, and attacked the one man who had the guts to go to the secular authorities because the community would do nothing about it. He claimed he was molested, and that this rabbi was molesting little boys for years. The community would do nothing about it. He went to the secular authorities and brought a law suit, which looked like he was going to win. I am sorry, brethren, I did not expect to be telling you this, but I am sure you could find it on the internet if you want to look for it yourself. The whole Jewish community, according to him, turned against him. They wielded political power to influence people elected to office, and the whole case turned against him. I think the last that I heard is that he dropped it, bitterly complaining his whole life was ruined, and he spent all of his money. There was just so much political power wielded that the case was lost. In other words, they did not convict the rabbi. It was a lawsuit that was going strong at the beginning, but political power was exercised and it was turned around.
I remember thinking about it at the time. Now this is what comes to my mind when I am reading this. That is so strange that the whole community would defend this rabbi, who apparently has molested many little boys over the years. How could they do that? Here I am reading this article that is telling me the Talmud will not prosecute as long as the child is under 9 years of age. They will not prosecute with regard to a little girl if she is under the age of 3. I think that it the age. They say that at such a young age her hymen would grow back, which I do not believe. I am saying that is why the community rallied to defend the rabbi. According to the Talmud it is not a crime. Also my mind is going click, click, because I attend this rabbi’s class, who has a 9 year old boy, himself. The practice in this Chabad community is that a man cannot touch a woman. You are not allowed to shake hands with a woman, except maybe your mother or your sister. You can kiss them if you want to. If you are not an immediate relative you cannot even touch the hand of a woman. You are not to touch another woman.
Someone told me recently that the rabbi’s oldest son is now under that instruction. He will not touch a woman. At the time that I heard it, I said they are starting them young, but I did not think anything of it until I am reading this article, that as of 9 years old, sexual connection becomes a crime. That is with a man or a woman. They are starting him at 9 years old to not touch a woman, because the Talmud deals with a 9 year old little boy having sex with a woman. That is one of the issues that they deal with. I now have two witnesses in my mind, plus the quoted passages from the Talmud, plus I know that it is the same woman from whom I learned about the situation with the little girl. I have to tell you, my emotions were not happy at all. They were in disarray. Although I am sworn to fairness and truth, because you know I am Jewish, and this is like killing me to even tell you this, and I am doing it publicly. My service is to God. My commitment is to God.
I tell you, in my honest opinion, I do not perceive any antisemitism in this article. She has four different web pages. I find this very interesting. Her concern appears to be, according to what she has to say, is the influence of Jewish law in the United States. She quoted a case, which was actually a lawsuit, that was brought up in 1999, which is not that long ago. A group of people actually brought an amicus brief before the United States Supreme Court with regard to a particular case that I will not go into, citing Talmudic law. Here I am all upset that the courts are actually considering Islamic law in certain cases, and I find out that the same thing has happened with Judea law, with Talmudic law. Although Islamic law is being pushed harder, it does not matter, that at least in 1999, there were Jewish forces moving to influence the United States judicial system with Talmudic law, which is very different than Christian law, which says justice for all.
It was a long article. I finished reading it, and I felt the whole anointing had left me. I said, Lord, how am I going to go out there and preach this morning? First of all, I am all upset about what I had just read about the justification of child/man sex. The anointing is all gone. I said, Lord, what if this is antisemitism in this article? I do not want to be irresponsible. What do you want me to do here? What is going on here this morning? The only thing that brought me to some kind of reasonable calm was what the Lord said to me next. This is what He said to me. I am paraphrasing because it was something like this, because it was not an audible voice. He said, Sheila, you know that antisemitism is on the rise again in the world. Things are very bad in Turkey, I hear. There have even been instances in Brooklyn, New York. It is all over Europe. Antisemitism is on the rise and that is an established fact. You all know what happened in Germany in World War 11.
What is going on here with the Jewish people? I believe, and I have told you openly, that I believe that the holocaust was a judgment. Either you believe that God is in control of everything or you do not believe that God is in control of everything. You cannot say God is in control of everything, and that the holocaust was not a judgment. The rabbi that I study under says the holocaust was something that should have never happened. Do you believe that God is in control of everything? What do you mean by it should have never happened. Is God in control or is He not in control? If He is in control, you have to say it was a judgment. What is going on? The Jews are the chosen people, I have heard a few people say over the years. I just heard it at the Jewish conference that I was at. Thank you Lord, but it is okay with me if you choose somebody else. In other words, this is what God wants for the Jewish people, that He called the Jewish people knowing that He was subjecting them to this.
This is the same mind set that says God made Adam, knowing that he would fall and be subject to the wickedness of this world. I believe God knew he would fall, but He hoped that he would not. Adam did not have to fall. The key is that Adam did not have to fall. Yes, God knew he would, but he did not have to fall. God did not make him so that he would fall. God then said to me, or the thought that came to me was, antisemitism is on the rise. The Arab world plus other European nations are threatening Israel. Jews everywhere are in danger. What is wrong? Where is their God? Is He in control or is He not in control? Is this a judgment or is it not a judgment? If it is a judgment, why is it a judgment? Why? What is wrong? I speak to the rabbi in the synagogue, and he tells me God is still mad at us because of the sin of the golden calf. God is still mad at us because of the sin of the golden calf? What about the wicked kings of Judah? What about the Israelite citizens burning their children in the fire to Molech?
The reason I am sitting before you with any kind of emotional stability right now is knowing that some day God will use this. I do not know who is going to be listening to this, but I am going to be called antisemitic by some. The thought that came to me that this exposure is God’s attempt to save His people, so I am out here doing it. What also helped me was that God took me into exhibit #1, which I read again, and I believe this is what happened. I believe that the rabbis filled up the void. Is God in control or is He not? Someone had to fill up the void, but already Israel was under judgment. They lost their kings. They lost their king. They lost the Levitical priesthood. There were no more prophets. Israel had been turned over. Of course, everything is the will of God. Does He sit down and does He write every little detail? No! He turns you over, and then the principles of cause and effect come into play. Somebody filled the void. These rabbis filled the void.
What God did was to turn Israel over. He took the Davidic king, the last legitimate Davidic king off of the throne. He said, you are not going to have any more children. That is it. No more kings from this line. No more prophets. The Levities all dissipated, and then whatever happened from there on in was sowing and reaping, so these rabbis filled the void. If you can understand that, it is not contradictory to saying it is the will of God that these rabbis filled the void. Can you understand what I am saying? He does not write every little detail. He makes a judgment up here, either you are blessed or you are cursed. If you are blessed, it means you are connected to Him, and He is in involved in your every day life. If you are cursed, He is not connected to you, and whatever will be will be. I believe that these rabbis that took over were really trying to do the right thing, but they do not have the mind of God.
The writers of the Talmud were politically correct, and the writers of the law, that was eventually written down in the Talmud were politically correct. They were trying to correct what they perceived to be the errors of the Torah with regard to capital punishment. I have nothing more to say about child adult sex. That just completely floored me. I have nothing more to say about that in this message, other than to use it as a witness that I do not believe that the Talmud is divinely inspired. It was written by men who added laws that I do not believe that God would have ever, ever, ever, agreed to. That means that some things written in the Talmud may be very valid, but other things are very invalid. No one can tell me that the Talmud is equal to the Torah, which the beloved rabbi told me. I love him very much, but that is what he told me. When I said no, I do not believe it is equal to the Torah, he got visibly upset.
You cannot tell me that the things that I just spoke to you about come from God. You cannot tell me that. I will not believe you. That is all I have to say about that. The rest is about capital punishment, but the overall picture, the bottom line, is that the Talmud is really anti capital punishment. I hope to show you today is the contradiction in their teachings, which I have seen over, and over, and over again; contradictions. God is not in confusion, brethren. 1 Corinthians 14:33 says God is not the author of confusion. God is not confused. This issue is all arising out of the class from Tuesday night at the synagogue, with regard to Tamar and Judah. Just to refresh your memory, Judah is the one who was destined to bring forth David and the whole Davidic line of kings through Solomon. That line came forth through Judah’s incestuous intercourse with his daughter-in-law. I cannot take the time to relate that whole account to you, but I will tell you it is in Genesis, chapter 38, particularly verse 26.
Judah found out she was his daughter-in-law, Tamar. He did not know she was his daughter-in-law. He thought she was a prostitute. When he found out that he had been with his daughter-in-law, the famous line in the Scripture is she should be burnt, in verse 24, and in verse 26 Judah says; She hath been more righteous than I. Of course she was not burnt. I asked the rabbi what he meant by burnt. We will get to that a little later. Right now what I am trying to tell you is that I find many contradictions in the teachings, and I believe that this rabbi teaches right out of the book of the people who trained him, and I love him. On another occasion I said this to him in the class. That is the last that the Torah talks about Tamar, the mother of Judas’ children, Pharez and Zarah. David came out of the line of Pharez. That is the last you hear about her. She dressed up as a prostitute and got her father-in-law to have sex with her, and she had the twin children. Judah said she should be burnt, but she has been more righteous than I am, so I will not do it.
What happened to her? I said to the rabbi, you told me on one occasion that he married her. I knew verse 26 says Judah knew her again no more. Now you are saying that he could never touch her again because that is Judaic law. I am sorry, brethren, to be so vague. I do not know exactly what the crime was, whether you were with a prostitute, or whatever the story was, but you could not touch her again. I said to the rabbi, at one time I had asked you what happened after that. I could not find it in the Torah, and you told me he married her. Now you are telling me the law says that he could not touch her again. What does that mean? Did he marry her but never touch her again? The rabbi that I love said to me, yes, I said he married her. I said what happened to the children? Who took the children? He said, I would assume it was the father. See, he did not know. Why he said that Judah married Tamar, I do not know, but this is not the first contradiction that I heard out of his mouth. What I am trying to tell you is that there is a spirit of political correctness, at least in this ultra Orthodox movement. I am sent to this movement, which is taking the position that they are the leaders of the Jewish people today, and they are sent to bring the people back to God. They are out there evangelizing, but they just evangelize Jewish people. They are not interested in converting Christians. They just want Jews. There is a political correctness there that is against everything that I understand God to be, which is the Spirit of Truth. He is the Spirit of Truth. It is impossible for God to lie. God does not do things like that. Sometimes you improvise. I will tell you it looks to me like this is probably it, but maybe I will get a better revelation down the road. When it comes to something like that, I do not speak with authority. I am not making my point.
There is a political correctness there, whereby the rabbis teach with an agenda. They have an agenda. Their agenda is to bring all the Jews that they can under their cover. There really is nothing wrong with that, until or unless you manipulate the Word of God to support your agenda. There is something wrong with that. There is also something wrong with you claiming an authority that God never gave you. There is also something wrong with that. There is something wrong with you teaching that it says in the Talmud that there is a legitimate form of execution where you pour hot metal down somebody’s throat, and it is even worse than that. I do not read anything like that in the Scripture. I do not accept that torturous method of death. Then you tell me it is a merciful form of execution. This is what made this tolerable for me. I believe the Lord told me this from exhibit #1. I think we are going to read that whole article.
These rabbis that took authority, I think they realized that they really did not have the authority of God. They became very loathe to execute any kind of capital punishment. The Torah, the five books of Moses, talks about capital punishment. That is what my notes are about. I have most of the scriptures for you, maybe not all of them, all of the conditions in which capital punishment is required. Several of the verses say, he shall surely die. There is one verse there that says you cannot ransom him. You cannot plea bargain. You cannot do anything to get him off. If he does this particular crime, he has to die. Then we see in the post Messianic era, in the post Jesus Christ era, a group of rabbis saying, yes, we believe in capital punishment, but we believe that you have to be as kind and humanitarian to the person that is being executed as possible. There are four kinds of execution, only one of which appears in the Torah, as far as I am concerned. You can burn them. You can strangle them. You can kill them with the sword. You can cut off their head.
I will read it to you. I do not have it exactly here. Their interpretation of burning is pouring hot metal down the person’s throat. You can burn them, you can strangle them, you can cut off their head, and kill them with the sword, and stoning is there as well. They say, oh yes, we believe in that absolutely. The Torah says there is capital punishment. Then in the next breath something else is said. It is in the article. I heard my beloved rabbi preach this multiple times. Here I found an article saying the same thing. I believe he is very faithful to what is being taught in this movement. Then out of the other side of his mouth, he says, but it is very rare that anyone has ever been executed, because in order to pronounce a death penalty on somebody, you have to have a court of 23 rabbis having an unanimous death decision. He said, you show me 23 judges that can agree with each other. What?
Then he says, for someone to be executed for murder, you not only have to have a court of 23 in agreement, you have to have two witnesses, and the witness has to go up to him and say, if you do that you are subject to capital punishment. It is like reading them their rights. If you do this, do you know that you are going to be executed? If they do not have those rights read to them, you cannot pronounce the death sentence on them. Yes, we have capital punishment, but no one is ever executed because the laws of capital punishment are impossible to fulfill. It is the same principle as my beloved rabbi teaching the scripture that talks about having an unruly son. Maybe you are blessed, and you have wonderful children, and you cannot imagine having a child that might be threatening your life, but children do commit matricide and patricide, the killing of one’s parents. Thank God it is not common, but it happens that children kill their parents. It is something that is on the record. It has happened. The Torah makes a provision for it. If you see that your child is that far away from God, you are supposed to expose them to the congregation, and turn them over for execution before they kill you.
When he talks about that scripture, he says, oh that will never happen. It has never happened in Israel that a child was turned over by their parent and executed. That never happened and it never will, so what is it doing in the Torah? This is what we are talking about today, the doublespeak, the double mindedness, the contradiction of the authentic Word of God by the unauthentic word of God. I believe that what made it possible for me to come out here today, and talk to you like this, is that I believe the Lord told me that the men who are responsible for this, going all the way back, for this kind of doublespeak, that their motives were good, but ungodly. They were the good motives of the carnal mind. They were trying to deal with the death penalty in the Torah, and they were afraid to pronounce death penalties because they knew that they really did not have the authority, plus they were under Rome, and everything became very confusing. They were trying to reform what God had given Moses. They were trying to reform the Old Testament. Somehow that made it a little tolerable for me to come out here and tell you all this.
This is what we are going to look at today. The Lord tells me that this is to save His people. There is another wave of serious antisemitism sweeping the world today. It can only be happening if it were a judgment. God does not put His people through this to test them. He does not burn people in ovens to test them. It is the sowing and reaping judgment. For what? What are they doing? Well, they are denying the authority of God in the Torah, by raising up these crazy rules, that you cannot even execute someone that commits a serious crime. You have to know the guy is going to do it, and as he is ready to plunge the knife into somebody, you have to appear and say, if you do that, do you know you are going to be executed. Is that not ridiculous or what? That is the same kind of law that the Muslims have for a woman with regard to rape. If you do not have two men witnessing that you were raped, it is assumed that you were consensual.
I believe we have a group of men that are very patriarchal in this Chabad movement. They are believing in this Talmud, and that the Talmud was basically written by a group of rabbis trying to reform the Torah without the mind of Christ. They have many Jews following them, the result of which was the holocaust, and whatever is coming on the world in the future. God’s people are not protected. Their only hope is someone, or ones with true spiritual authority preaching the truth, even if it is in this little room, and nobody hears it. It is going out in the spirit. The Lord is telling me that that authority is here. It is Christ Jesus in me, and the collective Christ Jesus in the ministry. We are going to speak the truth in the hopes of helping them, because Judah is in the grips of an unauthorized priesthood that is not teaching them the truth. The truth is that they are presenting themselves as a harmless pacifist religion, and their book is otherwise. Their book is otherwise.
The intention of this woman who has these web sites, she is concerned about the influence of Talmudic law on our government. I do not know if that is true anymore, but the Islamic law is coming in. The question is, is there really any difference, if you have a law that will not punish manchild sex? Now there is another element here. The sexual laws of this nation are being done away with. Do you all know that there has been a movement around for years to legitimize man/boy sex. It is call Nambla, which stands for North American Man Boy Love Association. They have a political lobby and they have been trying to do that for years to make it legal. All of the sexual morality laws are being torn down. We are seeing a contradiction here, a hypocrisy in the article, which I did not print out. When it came to the homosexual part, I did not print that out, but at the end of the article is the URL if you want to go and look for the sexual part of it. You can do that yourself.
There is a contradiction here. They cited Dr. Laura, who was actually taken off the air because she was anti-gay and pro-life. This article points out that she is lined up more with the Christian church than with the Talmud who tolerates these things. We have a lot of usually secular Jewish people that are very big behind all of this sexual liberation legislation. They are anti-life. They are pro-homosexual. A large part of the Jewish community has gone off, has departed from God when it comes to the moral law. Then we have the ultra-orthodox who look holy on the surface, but are tolerating a rabbi who is molesting little boys for years because the Talmudic law will not prosecute. All of this holiness, and this peacefulness that they project is not real. That is what this woman is saying. It is not real. Brethren, this is killing me. I am Jewish and this is killing me doing this. I also told you over the last year or so that I told this to a couple of the sexual women in the synagogue, and they do not believe me.
In the heart of this ultra-orthodox Chabad community, they believe that the temple will be rebuilt, that the sacrifices will be reinitiated, and that will result in secular and military power to Judaism. Now we know the state of Israel has military power now, but that is not what they are talking about. They are talking about secular and military power under a theocracy. Israel in the Middle East is not a theocracy. It is a western Democracy. I do not know whether it is a republic or not. It is a western nation. It is not a theocracy. They are talking about the restoration of military power ruled through by God, under the Old Testament law, and the Talmudic law, which was not the law when Israel was a theocracy. The Talmud was not a law when Israel was a theocracy, although that is what they believe because someone wrote it down and said, my father told my father, who told my father, etc. and that was okay.
We do not know what the oral law was. We do not know what Moses said the oral law was. It was not written down when God was still present in Israel. Here is the key. It was said from ear to ear to ear, and it got to a bunch of secular ears, where God was no longer moving in understanding and law, and they were the ones that wrote it down. I am not going to believe that Moses told them that man/boy sex under 9 years old is okay. Do you know what that means, that up to 9 years old is okay? It means up until a point that the little boy could have an organism it is okay to have sex with him. That is what it means. You cannot have sex with a boy and cause him to have an organism. Then you are doing what the Scripture says you are lying with mankind. But he is under 9 years old, and he cannot have an organism because he is not a man yet, so it is okay. That is what that means. That is what that means.
This is the plan. I mean I do not think for a second that it will come to pass, but this is their mind set, that almost nobody knows about. Israel should become a theocracy with theocratic military power directed by God, not by the world’s standards, that the whole world should come under the benevolent rulership of Israel, which is Talmudic law. We see a whole new outlook here, brethren. Not only am I saying to you I do not really believe the temple will be rebuilt. It is clear, maybe not in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, it is clear that the third temple is a temple of human beings. Paul made that very clear in 2 Corinthians 6:16 and in several other scriptures, where he says ye are the temple of the living God. I do not really think a literal temple will be rebuilt, but if it is rebuilt, it will not have any power. Even that is not accurate because it could be much worse. That temple being rebuilt, brethren, can become a temple of witchcraft.
This is a whole new ball game. If that temple is rebuilt and animal sacrifices are reinitiated, to a God that is going to enforce the Talmud, I declare to you that is not the God Jehovah that I know. I do not believe that for one second that sex with little boys under 9 years of age was okay with Moses. I do not believe it for a second. God will have to correct me, and would I be sitting here preaching this if it were true. Now everything is changed. I am no longer saying I do not think that they will be able to rebuild the temple again. I am not really worried about it. They are just spinning their wheels wasting their time, so if they rebuild it, they rebuild it. No! If they succeed it is trouble. Why do you think the dome of the rock is on that land? God does not want the temple rebuilt because the people that want to rebuild it are going to be rebuilding it in His name, implementing a law that is not His law, and they will be serving a spirit that is not His Spirit. Does anybody not know what I just said? Does anyone have any questions or comments before we start looking at this article?
Congregation: I do not know if you are aware of it, but just in the past two weeks Newsday has had articles on rabbis molesting young boys, and one rabbi going after a three year old girl. It is in the air.
Pastor Vitale: No, I did not know that.
I believe it is possible that the Torah indicates that Rebecca was three years old. It is almost beyond comprehension when she went to marry Isaac. I do believe, without going into that in any more detail, there are indications that that might be true. I rejected it completely until I recently found an article about a five year old girl having a baby in South America. I do believe it is possible that in Bible times the children were much more mature than they are today. I do not want to get into that today, but I cannot believe that she was a three year old toddler. If in fact she was three years old, if the calculations of the ages are correct, she was feeding her father’s cattle. They let her make her own decision, whether she wanted to go or not. It is beyond my comprehension to understand how a three year old could have been that mature in Bible times. Let us say it was possible. She was not a three year old like a three year old is a three year old today. She had a mature mind, and we do not know what she looked like. I do not want to get into that right now. What I am trying to say is let us just say, hypothetically, in Bible times it was possible for a three year old to be that mature. I told you that my grandfather came over here from Europe at thirteen years of age, not speaking the language, not knowing anybody. What thirteen year old boy could do that today? I see eighteen year old boys that I would not know that they could handle that today. Right? You are a mother of two boys over there. It is possible that children were much more mature. Let us say, hypothetically, at three years old, she was mature enough to be feeding and watering her father’s cattle, and answering the question, and saying yes, I will go with this man and marry him. Let us say she was mature enough to do that, hypothetically. That cannot justify you going with a three year old toddler today who is not in that state of maturity. Does anyone not know what I just said?
I can see where a corrupted mind, meaning the Talmud, is saying it is okay with a three year old, something to do with three years and one day, that it is okay. I can see a corrupted mind reading that and imposing it on a modern day three year old, which is a total abomination. It is a total abomination. I have known for awhile that there is sexual corruption bubbling out of the orthodox community. Over the years, little witnesses have come to me. I said, well, not to justify it, but I guess it is one of the manifestations of them being separated from God. But it never, ever, ever occurred to me that it was rising out of a spiritual fountain, a spiritual law that was justifying it, that it was the manifestation of a spiritual law that was justifying it. Never in a million years did it occur to me.
I am sort of sick about this subject. It is making me ill. It is just tolerable to me with the understanding that this exposure is for their good. Whatever the Lord will do with what is being preached here, we are the intercessors. I tell you that there might be other anointed ministries, but I do not know anyone else that is preaching this word, which is an indication of the degree of authority that we have. I was telling someone yesterday that I received a phone call from a Christian man in Florida, representing a group that had been studying with a rabbi for two years. That group broke up, and he was looking for someone to teach him Kabbalah. What he was looking for was someone to teach him Kabbalah in view of Christ, and he could not find it. He said we were the only web site, and he was all over the web, and the only ones he could find that is teaching Kabbalah, and actually integrating Christ into it, was us. Unless the Lord tells us otherwise, I do not think it is a spirit of pride to acknowledge our responsibility.
There is an anointing on this ministry that very well may not exist anywhere else in the world today, and the Lord is using it because we are His tool. We are His weapon. Everything He does, He does through His people, so He is ministering through us to do His best to protect the Jewish people. Brethren, it is the sins of the fathers. That is another thing. They deny the sins of the fathers. This was my first conflict with this beloved rabbi. I love him. He says to me it says in the Talmud, and he quoted it to me, you shall not blame your parents. I know I should not blame my parents, but the sins of my fathers are upon me. I can acknowledge the truth. He could not tell the difference. They deny the sins of the fathers. They deny the judgments going on the individual person. They deny that sickness is a judgment unto the third and fourth generation. They are denying everything, all the truth that will set God’s people free. He stands up there, my beloved friend and rabbi, and he says the Jewish people are good. They would never do anything wrong. Why would a Jew violate God? The only time they do something wrong it is because of the body that they are in. The body does the sins and the soul which we are is overcome. It is a complete lie. It is a complete lie.
Again, this message is in the hopes of bringing understanding, because what could we do? I do not have any credibility at all. I do not even have any credibility in the Christian world. That is the truth. I only have credibility with people that can recognize the anointing on me. I do not have any credibility to influence this world in any way, other than what God is doing through us right now on a spiritual level. There is no secular respect for this ministry, because secular respect comes from the trappings. You need lots of people, and you need money, and you need followers, and you need a big building. Then you get secular respect. We do not have any secular respect, but we are God’s weapon. He knows how much we can tolerate because there is always retaliation when He ministers something radical like this. There is millions of them praying daily. There is always retaliation. We can only tolerate so much. In addition, there are the sins in our own sins. We can only tolerate bringing down so much judgment, or so much exposure without Him hurting us. We are still very, very, very young. Christ Jesus, here in this ministry, is very, very young, but he is ruling and reigning on the level that he is capable of ruling and reigning upon. That is what we have got here. This is Jehovah’s justice.
Let us take a look at exhibit #1. I am going to start reading from exhibit #1 and unless I feel to stop, we will read the whole thing. It is a few pages. This is the article that describes the death penalty and how the modern day Jewish authorities would not even implement it if they could. It is the politically correct exposure of what is going on in Judaism today. Let us read it together. The Bible prescribes the death penalty for a large number of offenses, including religious offenses, such as idol worship and profaning the sabbath. The question of capital punishment, an actual practice in ancient Jewish society, is extremely complicated. I did not make it clear earlier that some Jewish people had written an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. What was that brief for? It was fighting against capital punishment based upon the Talmud, which is the post Torah law of the rabbis. The Torah is for capital punishment, but the law of the Talmud is against capital punishment.
These Jewish lawyers appeal to the Supreme Court to do away with the death penalty based upon the Talmud, which diametrically opposes the Torah. This is the Judaism that is being presented to the world today, Talmudic Judaism. It is not Torah Judaism. The Torah Judaism is Christian law, the laws that were on this nation before they began to be ripped to pieces. It is the Christian understanding of the law of the Old Testament. The Talmudic Jewish law is post Torah, and it is the exact opposite of the Torah, in addition to being hypocritical. This is Talmudic restrictions. I believe it is just a section and this is their document; the Sanhedrin. I do not think they have a Sanhedrin in Israel today. The Sanhedrin was the spiritual court of law that existed in Jesus’ day. According to the Mishnah, the death penalty could only be inflicted after trial by a Sanhedrin, composed of 23 judges, and there were four types of death penalty; stoning, burning, slaying by the sword, and strangling. A bare reading of these and the other accounts in the Tractate would seem to suggest a vast proliferation of the death penalty. It sounds like they are very pro-death penalty. Yet, throughout the Talmudic literature, the whole subject is viewed with unease, so much so that according to the rules stated in that literature, the death penalty could hardly ever have been imposed.
For instance, it is ruled that two witnesses are required to testify, not only that they witnessed the act for which the criminal has been charged, but that they had warned him before hand that if he carried out the act, he would be executed, and he had to accept the warning, as he held the knife in a rage, stating his willingness to commit the act despite the awareness of its consequences. The criminal’s own confession is not accepted as evidence, moreover circumstantial evidence is not admitted. No circumstantial evidence, and a confession is not accepted. You have to have two witnesses that warned him, as he was in a wild rage, that he would be punished for this. From practice to theory, it has to be appreciated, however, that practically all this material comes from a time when the right to impose the death penalty had been taken away from the Jewish courts by the Roman authorities. According to one report in the Talmud, the power of the Jewish courts to the death penalty ceased around the year 30 B.C.E According to another report, it could only have been imposed while the temple stood. It must have come to an end not later than 70 C.E. when the temple was destroyed.
This means that although all the traditions may be present in the Mishnah formulations, the whole topic, including the restrictions is related in the Mishnah and the Talmud in a purely theoretical way. It is hard to believe that when the courts did impose the death penalty, they could only do so when the conditions above are obtained. Who would commit a murder in the presence of two witnesses, when these had solemnly warned him that if he persisted, they would testify against him to have him executed for his crime? That the Mishnah material is purely on the theoretical level can be seen from the oft quoted statement, a Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Eliezer Ben Azariah says, even once in 70 years. In other words, you are a bad court if you execute somebody even once in 70 years. Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon say, had we been in the Sanhedrin, none would have ever been put to death. Rabbi Simeon Gamaliel says, they would have multiplied the shedders of blood in Israel.
If this is the Rabbi Gamaliel that Paul studied under, he said this new Christian religion, do not worry about it because if it is not of God it will fall away. He was the rabbi that imposed that wisdom. We have one set of rabbis saying, if we had been in the Sanhedrin, there would have been no death penalty. Rabbi Gamaliel was supposedly the wise man that said do not fight this Christianity, and if it is not God, it will fall away. He said that if they were in control, they would have multiplied the shedders of blood in Israel. In other words, he did not agree with them. He agreed with the Torah in the death penalty. We see political correctness going all the way back to Jesus’ day in Judaism. The remarks of Rabbi Isaac Herzog in an article on Sanhedrin, published in 1932 are worth noting. Herzog begins. I have often heard it remarked that the restoration of the Jewish state, in accordance with Jewish law, would isolate the Jewish people from the modern civilized world, for the Hebrew penal code includes the death penalty for purely religious offenses such as willful desecration of the Sabbath, etc.
Herzog quoting the material mentioned above in other Talmudic sources, which make the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin dependent on the rebuilding of the temple in the Messianic age, demonstrates in his reply that until the advent of the Messiah, it is illegal to impose the death penalty for any offense, even for murder. I wanted to make a comment there. What did I want to say? Yes, it says here that it would have been a problem establishing such a Jewish law in a modern civilized world. The answer, brethren, is that Messiah has come. Messiah has come. Messiah has reformed certain aspects of the law, but they do not believe Messiah has come. That is why they are in all of this trouble. They have made up their own story. Their own literature said that he was destined to come 2,000 years ago, and they still deny that it is Jesus. The difficulty in question is therefore a matter which can only arise in the Messianic age, and need not enter into any practical calculations affecting the reconstitution of the Jewish state in Palestine. Of course, in view of the actual position, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, as distinct from a national home, quite irrespective of the restoration of the temple is in itself rather a Messianic hope than a question of practical politics.
They are saying it is not until Messiah comes that the law will be reestablished, so he was putting it off, saying we really do not have to deal with this issue right now because it is going to be dealt with in the Messianic age, and Messiah is not here yet, and there is no state of Israel. We do not have to worry about it. The next paragraph says, little did Rabbi Herzog think when he wrote this, that the state of Israel would be established, and that he would become its chief rabbi. When the state of Israel was established, the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, did debate whether or not to retain the death penalty, as in the law established under the British mandate, but the Knesset was not acting as a religious court or Sanhedrin, only as a secular body, albeit one influenced in its decisions by the Jewish religious tradition.
Brethren, what is being said here, and it is killing me saying this, but I know that it is true that the liberalism that is sweeping this country has a large Jewish element in it. They are not all Jewish, but there is a powerful Jewish propellant involved in this liberal politically correct movement that has corrupted the whole country. It is the truth. I have known it for a long time. It is the truth. The debate between Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Simeon Gamaliel, was referred to the Knesset debate and it was eventually decided to abolish capital punishment entirely, except for treason committed in time of war. This information is a kind of reflection on the whole law of capital punishment faced with the clear Biblical injunctions. It is clearly in the Bible. It clearly states that capital punishment is of God. Faced with this, the rabbis mentioned this. They could not simply say that capital punishment was wrong because it is in the Bible. It is in the Torah.
After all, the Bible states that it is right, and has to be imposed on the guilty, but this statement seems to imply that the rabbis welcomed the development by which the Sanhedrin no longer function with the power to impose the death penalty, and Rabbi Akiba, and Rabbi Tarvant speculate that even when the Sanhedrin did possess this power, various legal means could have been adapted to negate the imposition of the penalty. We find a body of lawyers seeking to circumvent and nullify the Torah as Moses wrote it. It is not so much as Jewish apologists maintain, but the rabbis consciously attempted to reform the law, but rather that when the power to inflict the death penalty fell into abeyance when they lost it, because they become vassals of Rome. In any event, this development was interpreted as being fully in accord with the Torah’s regard for human life. In other words they lost their power to implement the death penalty because they were vassals of Rome.
It says here that it was not confessed that we can no longer implement the death penalty because we have been castrated as a nation. Rather they said this lack of the death penalty is really in accord with the Torah’s regard for human life. The question is, did they really believe this or was this pride operating? Did this complete 180 degree opposite position, with regard to the death penalty, arise out of a spirit of pride that would not admit that they were nationally castrated, and no longer had the ability or the authority to implement the death penalty? I do not know what was behind it, but that was what happened. The death penalty fell into abeyance because of their state of being a vassal before Rome. In any event, this development was interpreted as being fully in accord with the Torah. It is a lie. The justification for it is the Jewish regard, the Torah’s regard, for all human life, including the life of the criminal.
That is what we are up against in this country today. This is not new. This political correctness is not new. In a sense, it was felt to the good that the death penalty could no longer actually be imposed. It was simply left on the books for theoretical discussion. Once the matter was discussed on a purely theoretical basis, the gruesome details could be described in all their starkness, while at the same time restrictions could be piled on in order to make the death penalty virtually impossible. In practice it became illegal for a Jewish court to impose the death penalty. They claim that it was because they were humanitarians. I just want to make sure you understand this could very well be God’s will that the Jewish court lost its power to impose the death penalty. The issue is that they are lying about why that happened. The Jewish court lost their power to impose the death penalty because they lost their authority with God, and they were no longer a nation. They lost their power, not because they were a humanitarian nation that does not believe in the death penalty. This is classic justification.
Everything that is being preached here today is a glaring, blaring, example of the long term result of justification of penalties that have been imposed upon you. I am going to say it again. The Jewish courts lost their power to impose the death penalty. That was a penalty upon them. That was God’s penalty upon them. That was the result of God lifting His authority off of them and their losing their nation. They justified it. They did not accept it. Brethren, you have got to hear this. I was just talking about this the other day, and it is with regard to our sister who is in trouble today. Penalty, upon penalty, upon penalty, is falling upon her and she maintains it is for the good, or it is not a penalty. I believe it is in Jeremiah. It says the bills are burning. The blacksmith has made the fires very hot, and we are in the fire, but the wicked are not pulled out, because the judgment does not produce the required result. Because the person that is being burnt up, they are blind, they are this, they are that, their cancer is killing them, and they will not admit it is a judgment from God that they have sinned and must throw themselves on the mercy of God to save them from destruction. They say no, it is because we are a humanitarian nation. We no longer kill people. We are civilized. No, you lost your power to execute the death penalty. That is why you do not do it. You have no power to do it. We are on the next page. Extra legal punishment. Against all this is the Talmudic statement, that as a emergency measure, when the generation requires it, a court has the power to act against the Torah. They are saying imposing the penalty of death upon someone is acting against the Torah. They have completely reversed the truth. It is a complete lie. To order an execution or other illegal physical penalties. Illegal is in quotes meaning they are saying that the penalties listed in the Torah are illegal. Against all this is the Talmudic statement, that as an emergency measure when the generation requires it, a court has the power to act against the Torah, and to order an execution or other illegal physical penalties. In other words, although it is illegal to impose the death penalty, the court can on rare occasions act illegally, if the aim is to protect the Torah. Naturally, it all depends on the circumstances that would warrant executions without the due process of the law. The statement was never interpreted as meaning that what the law took away with one hand, it gave back with the other.
This is written by a rabbi denying what I am saying, that they say one thing with one side of their mouth, and something else with the other side of their mouth. Let us read this again, and try to understand what he is saying. Yes, all of this is the Talmudic statement that in an emergency measure, when the generation requires it, a court has the power to act against the Torah. That is in quotes, act against the Torah. A court has the power to act against the Torah, and to order an execution or other, quote, unquote, illegal penalties. In other words, although it is illegal to impose the death penalty, which it is not illegal to impose the death penalty, the court can on rare occasion act illegally by imposing the death penalty to protect the Torah. Naturally, it all depends on the circumstances that would warrant executions without the due process of law. They are saying that the law is that you cannot execute. To execute somebody is to override the due process. It is total confusion.
Then the rabbi writing this article says, the statement was never interpreted as meaning that what the law took away with one hand, it gave back with the other hand, but that is exactly what it is doing. The German and French communities of the Middle Ages ignored the statement altogether, and never imposed the death penalty, not even when circumstances seemed to call for it. It was not so in Muslim Spain, where the Gentile authorities gave the Jewish courts a good deal of autonomy. In Spain, albeit on rare occasions, the courts did rely on the Talmudic statement, and imposed otherwise illegal penalties such as (mutilation) found nowhere in the classical sources of certain offenders. They also executed offenders such as informers who endanger the community. When Asher Ben Yehiel came from Germany to Toledo in Spain, he expressed his horror at the Spanish practice, totally unknown in Germany, although later on, he himself, conformed to the Spanish norm. I do not know what they mean by mutilation, but what it means to me is some kind of castration for sexual offenders. That is what is on my heart.
Brethren, I want to make it very clear to you, this message is not a pro capital punishment message. The message is the contradiction between the Torah and the Talmud. I do believe in the death penalty. The Torah believes in the death penalty. I think for certain crimes, the death penalty is appropriate, but that is not the point of the message. I am not making a point of pro death penalty. I am exposing the contradiction in the Jewish leadership of the community in the hopes that God will do something spiritually with this. That is why I told you a few minutes ago, I have no secular authority. Nobody would even listen to me. Nobody listens to me. It is just the whole way God set everything up here. We have nothing that the secular world would respect. In addition, for some reason, anyone that is looking for the person who is preaching all these messages, they never think it is me. My appearance never lines up to what they would expect from somebody. It is my appearance, it is my voice, it is the whole persona of the ministry. We have no secular impact, at all. We have no respect from anyone in the secular world, or in the church, or anything else like that. That is the way God wants it.
The whole authority that we have here is spiritual. What does that mean? We are such a small group. The only good that can come out of this is what God decides to do with it. He is going to take what is happening here spiritually, because this message will not be published, other than for the members of the ministry. We are way behind on transcribing our messages. It will be a long time before anyone in the secular world would even see this message. The issue is what God going to do with what is happening here spiritually. The collection of the sons of God, Christ Jesus manifesting in a body, is facing this truth and exposing this truth. The question is what is God going to do with it to help all the millions of people that are every day more and more in danger because the sowing and reaping judgment is descending upon them once again.
Modern considerations. There the matter rested until the establishment of the state of Israel. Remarks of Rabbi Herzog in an article on Sanhedrin published in 1932 are worth noting. Herzog begins. I have often heard it remarked that the restoration of the Jewish state in accordance with the Jewish law would isolate the Jewish people from the modern civilized world, for the Hebrew penal code includes the death penalty for purely religious offenses such as the wilful desecration of the Sabbath, etc. Now in Israel today, and is actually happening in this country too, there are sections where the ultra orthodox live, that if you drive a car into their streets, they will pelt you with tomatoes and eggs. I think at one point, someone was dragged out of their car. I am not sure about that. That is not very common if it did happen. I think it was happening right here in that area of Cedarhurst. It is in Long Island, right on the borderline of Queens, New York, where there was a religious community. They were closing the streets. There was a complaint made. The streets are public streets. You cannot close the streets and throw tomatoes at cars that are driving on the street. Brethren, this is what is happening when they do not have any secular authority. They have no secular authority. Could you imagine what might be going on if they had the legitimate authority to punish people who were driving their cars on Saturdays? They would be physically punishing them.
For the Hebrew penal code includes the death penalty for purely religious offenses such as the wilful desecration of the Sabbath, etc. Herzog quoting the material mentioned above and other Talmudic sources, which make the reestablishment of the Sanhedrin dependant on the rebuilding of the temple in the Messianic age, demonstrates in his reply that until the advent of the Messiah it is illegal to impose the death penalty for any offense, even for murder. These follow the statement. The difficulty in question is therefore a matter which could only arise in the Messianic age, and need not enter into any practical calculations affecting the reconstitution of the Jewish state of Palestine. But of course, in view of the actual position, the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine, quite irrespective of the restoration of the temple, is, in itself, rather a Messianic hope. In other words, it does not exist now. Let us not talk about it now. There is no state of Palestine and we do not have to worry about it now. I think this is a repeat.
Little did Rabbi Herzog think that when he wrote this, that the state of Israel would be established and that he would become its chief rabbi. I think this paragraph is a repetition. At the end of the article I give you the URL if you want to read it for yourself. Now again, my whole point here, and the Lord’s whole point here, is this presentation of modern Jewry as a humanitarian religion. Now we are going to look at some of the methods of execution as laid out in the Talmud, which are not being practiced right now, but they are there, and this is the law that will be instituted should the orthodox Jewry ever achieve their dream of becoming again the mediator between God and the world’s people, and being the enforcers of the law, being the secular law. Why multiple methods for execution? I do not see this in the Bible anywhere; multiple methods for execution. The only method for execution that I see in the Torah is stoning. There are two scriptures that talk about burning. I have been asking the Lord about that for a long time. The rabbi that I love, if he heard this message, would probably be devastated, but there is nothing I can do about it.
He is preaching what we are about to read. The few scriptures that talk about burning, somehow they translate that to be hot lead poured down their throat. For the life of me, that is absolutely hideous. When I asked the Lord about it, He told me it concerns the case of witchcraft. We will get into that when we look at the scriptures. In some cases, if it is determined that the crime is committed because of a spiritual pollution such as witchcraft, it is an ungodly spirit that is driving you, and I only see it with regard to witchcraft and harlotry for a priest’s daughter. I am pretty sure that is all it is. After you stone them to death, you burn the bodies. The Torah never ever meant to be burnt alive. It means that particular person did what they did because they were demonized. They did not want the soul to escape. Now listen! This is the whole teaching about the soul, brethren. When the body dies, the soul departs from the body, and flows into other family members. Remember that teaching?
No human being, as we know human beings today, is possessed of a whole soul. Whole souls are very great, and they can possess a whole nation, a whole tribe of people. The whole purpose of burning means that particular cell, if you think of the soul as a body, the whole tribe of people as one body, one soul, that particular cell in that body is corrupted. They worshiped other gods. They committed harlotry. After you kill them, burn the body, so that the soul does not go into anyone else in that spiritual family. That is what it means. Now just as an aside, you all need to understand what cremation means. I do not want to hurt anyone’s feelings, but this is what is coming out. Cremation means that the soul in that person does not go into anyone else’s body after the person dies. Cremation is spreading through this nation greatly. It is a cheap way to deal with the dead, but that is what it means. It means that the soul of that person does not go on. That is what it means.
It means you kill the body and you kill the soul. Think twice. I am not telling you what to do, but there is no cremation in the Scripture that I know of. You need to know that. You need to know what the spiritual consequences are of what you are doing. My people perish for lack of knowledge. What does that mean that the soul does not go on? I really do not even know. I can say what does it mean that the soul does not go on. If the person was a person of God, maybe it would result in salvation of their children, or the other members of their family. It would have to be the exact opposite of someone being burnt for witchcraft. You would not want that evil to go on to other members of the family. Think brethren, think, and ask God. What are you doing when you change tradition, you really need to ask God is that what you want to do. Is that what He wants you to do? What are the consequences of changing tradition? There is a consequence for everything.
Why multiple methods of execution? Elon, Lewin, et al states that Jewish law provides four methods of execution; stoning, burning, strangulation, and decapitation. The Talmud, not the Torah, the Talmud which was written by men, who took over the Levitical priesthood after God departed from Israel. The Torah just talks about stoning. The burning is of the body after the body is killed. I could only find one scripture that sounds like hanging, but when I prayed about it, and looked at it in the Interlinear text, it is talking about hanging of the body after they die. The only form of capital punishment in the Bible is stoning, brethren. As we shall see, the rabbinic law of the Talmud, prescribes a number of other methods of capital punishment as well, but let us begin by raising a question. This is their claim, and and I have heard my beloved rabbi say the same thing. If the rabbis of the Talmud intended that execution should be carried out as quickly and as painlessly as possible, why did the rabbis not prescribe just one method of execution, the quickest and the least painful? Why did they prescribe so many different forms of execution?
It says here that the brief gives a hint. This is talking about that amicus brief that was sent to the Supreme Court claiming to be against capital punishment based upon Talmudic law. They are saying that Talmudic law is against capital punishment. This article that we are reading is pointing out the contradictions in that brief. This is quoting from the brief. The particular form of execution to be administered under Jewish law depended upon the nature of the offense. Each of these forms, however, had to be administered in the most humane way possible. That is what the brief said. The person who wrote this article is making this very important point. She says why would a Jewish organization of Jewish people present an amicus brief to the Supreme Court speaking against capital punishment? What would possibly be the reason for that? They do not even mention any of the amendments to the Constitution, just Talmudic law.
Her conclusion, which may be true, is that they were trying to get Talmudic law into the case law of the country. That is what the Muslims are doing right now. I do not know what is happening to day. This was 1999. There is a definite move from those on the inside. They do not openly say what their agenda is, but they have an agenda to bring the country and the world under the laws of modern Jewry, which are not the laws of the Bible. They oppose Christian law and they are not honest about what they are trying to do. Some methods of execution are more severe than others. Elon, Lewin, is the name of the law firm. What they reveal is interesting, but what they omit is vital. By their selection they paint a false picture. The writers of the Talmud rank the methods of execution according to the suffering and pain that each brought. Some crimes were more grievous than others. The worst crimes deserved the most severe death. Let us now turn to the Soncino Talmud and read the words of the rabbis.
Now I do not have it here, and I meant to look for it on the internet, but I ran out of time. My beloved rabbi, whose heart I would break if he heard what I was preaching, but there is nothing I can do about it. He was the one who told me that it was one of the prophets that was persecuted by the Jewish leaders, and that they cut his body in half. It was Isaiah. They cut his body in half and killed him by breaking his spinal cord. He was hiding in a tree and they cut down the tree, and severed his body right along with it. That I heard from the rabbi. In other words, the prophet brought the word of the Lord to the Jewish leaders, and they rejected it and executed him in that way. Let us now turn to the Soncino Talmud and read the words of the rabbis in the Mishnah. The Mishnahs is the collection of oral laws which forms the basis of the Talmud. A Gemara is a commentary on the Mishnahs. He who incurs two death penalties imposed by the Beth din. The Beth din is the Jewish court. We have Beth dins in this country. It operates sort of like Judge Judy’s court. You can take your case before it if you want to, and the New York legal system recognizes the determinations of that court because the people have gone before it willingly. I do not think it is a criminal court, but I do not really know. It is basically for civil actions, I think. He who incurs two death penalties imposed by the Bethine is executed by the severer. If he committed one sin, for which a two fold death penalty is incurred, he is executed by the severer. I think that is the one that executes the judgment. The Gemara says now we find this law of execution by the sword when one murdered a slave. Whence do we know that this law holds good if he murdered a free man? Surely this can be deduced by reasoning from the minor to the major. If the murderer of a slave is decapitated, shall he who slays a free man be only strangled? Now this answer agrees with the view that strangulation is an easier death, but what of the view that strangulation is more severe?
I guess when they say death by the sword, they are talking about when God pronounces judgment on a nation, and He sends forth the Israeli army to wage war against them, and then they die by the sword. I was not thinking in those terms when I said the only judgment of death that I know of in the Scripture is stoning. I was thinking about an individual person for an individual crime. Gemara; might it not be argued that the reason the Divine Law wrote, and that is a Hebrew word, yumath, is to indicate an easier death, IE. to commute death by the sword to death by strangulation. The Lord just reminded me that when Saul failed to kill Agag, the Amalekite king, Samuel picked up the sword and hewed Agag in pieces in 1 Samuel, chapter 15 verse 33, so there is death by sword to a national enemy. Now on the view that strangulation is a severer death, it is correct; but according to the view that strangulation is an easier death than capitation, what is there to be said against it? To me that is gruesome, anyway.
If anybody ever transcribes this, we will have the exhibits and all of the references here. This is all from the Babylonian Talmud. That is what the Babylonian Talmud is. It is these rabbis having this discussion. It is like case law in this country. It is like the Supreme Court. Now these discussions as to what is the interpretation of the law. Stoning is severer than burning, since lest the blasphemer and the idol worshiper are executed, wherein lies this particular enormity of these offenses because they constitute an attack upon the fundamental belief of Judaism. On the contrary, is not burning more severe, since that is the punishment of a priest’s adulteress daughter? Wherein lies the greater enormity of her offense, in that she profanes her father. This is the discussion that the rabbis are having as to their opinion as to which is the worst or the most severe offense.
I admit there are things in the Torah that I have a problem with, but I know that that is an inspired work. I believe God inspired Moses to write it. I do not understand the lack of respect for women, and I just leave it alone, because I do not know what to do with it. There was a different world than what we live in and I just leave it alone. We all know that when the Sodomites were banging on Lot’s door and demanding the angels, that Lot said I will give you my two virgin daughters. I do not understand that, and I do not understand the account in Numbers where if a woman is accused of adultery by her husband, with no witnesses, that she is given poison to drink. If her belly swells up she is guilty. I do not understand that and I just leave it alone.
Stoning is severer than slaying by the sword, since it is the punishment of a blasphemer and an idol worshiper, the greater enormity of whose offense has already been stated. On the contrary, is not death by the sword more severe, since that is the penalty for the inhabitants of a seduced city, the greater character of whose sin is proved by the fact that their property is destroyed? Now let us consider: whose crime is greater; that of the seducer or of the seduced? Surely that of the seducer. It has been taught: the seducers of a seduced city are executed by stoning. These are all conversations that the rabbis are having trying to decide what form of execution should be applied to which crime.
I think this was written while they were in Babylon. The Jews were in Babylon for 70 years. I may be mistaken about that. I do not want to say anything wrong. First of all I am not sure. I think it has to do with the language. Either it is written in Arabic as opposed to Hebrew or something like that, and it came out of Babylon. It is something like that. I will see if I can look it up for you when we take a break, but that is the main one that they use. From this we see that the National Jewish COLPA/IAJLJ statement is that the rabbis intended the quickest, least painful, most humane execution possible, and do not represent the rabbinical views fairly. I guess this is the organization that hired the lawyers. In other words, they were not blood thirsty men. The reason they were having this discussion was that they were trying to find the least painful, quickest, and most humane execution possible.
What I am reading from now is the people that are against the Talmud. This brief is the people that do not want Talmudic influence in United States law. Let us turn to the statements of the National Jewish brief, made in all solemnity to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is getting complicated. I will try to clarify it for you. The position is this group, COLPA/IAJLJ, brought this brief to the Supreme Court, and they are claiming that Talmudic law, with regard to capital punishment, looks for the quickest, least painful, most humane executions possible, and they are trying to write this into United States law, and they are really against capital punishment. The person writing the article says they are phonies, and it is not true. Their own law says that they are into capital punishment and in gruesome ways. This is the article now, talking about the details of the four kinds of execution. The person writing the article says stoning is probably the most famous of all Jewish execution methods. It is to that method we will first turn our attention.
Now this person writing the article is responding to the brief that is pro Talmudic law. From Mr Lewin’s statement in the preamble that the rabbis of the Talmud worked within the framework of the Biblical text, we might expect the Talmud to require stonings as described in Leviticus 24:14, the first stoning in the Bible. That form of stoning has been portrayed by Christian artists through the centuries, but the Talmud has its own forms. That is the people opposing this amicus brief to the Supreme Court. They are saying the lawyer’s statement is within the framework of Biblical text, and makes the Biblically uneducated person think that this brief is talking about stoning, because that is really the only form of execution that Christiandom has talked about, as far as we know in recent years, but the opponent to the brief is saying that is not true. They want you to think that they are talking about stoning only, but they are not, because I read their book. That is what the opposition is saying. Are you all following me?
Then they quote the Talmud and say this is what they really believe. This is quoting the Babylonian Talmud. The biblical obligation to be sensitive to fellow human beings led the rabbis to prescribe the least painful, and least disfiguring means, for implementing the four forms of execution. This is still the opposition. A casual reader of the Bible text might assume that the execution described as stoning is carried out by hurling stones at the condemned individual, until he dies from the force of the objects thrown at him, and that burning is accomplished by subjecting the condemned to a burning flame, after tying the condemned to a stake or casting him or her on a funeral pyre. The oral tradition is the Talmud. The oral tradition, however, as explicated by the rabbis of the Talmud, demonstrates that neither of these descriptions is the stoning and burning envisioned by the Bible. According to the Talmud this is not what the Bible is talking about. If you have the notes, what is in the yellow highlighting, means that it is a quote, and that was stated by the National Jewish, COLPA IAJLJ, whatever they are.
I need to clarify that again. What this Jewish organization is saying, is that Christiandom has thought that the judgment of stoning, as described in the Bible, means that the people picked up stones and threw it at people, or that they burnt someone tied to a stake, like they did in the Inquisition, and that is what the Bible means. But the Jewish organization is saying, no that is not what the Bible is talking about. We are going to tell you now what the Bible was really talking about. This is what the Bible meant by stoning. Now we are going to read that. This is on the authority of the Talmud. This is what they claim the Bible meant by stoning. The Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 45a, describes execution by stoning. The condemned defendant was pushed from a platform set high enough above a stone floor, that his fall would possibly result in instantaneous death. The Talmud explains that the height from which the accused was pushed, was substantial enough that death was virtually certain. Again this is that National Jewish organization, COLPA/IAJLJ.
Now the opposition lawyer says I am going to expose this organization that is basing their law on Talmud because I do not think they are telling the truth. Now he says in response, note that although Lewin cites Sanhedrin 45a, he does not quote the words of the translation he was using. When we read the Soncino translation of Sanhedrin 45a, we get a different picture from the one Lewin paints. In all Talmud cites, in all citations quoting the Talmud, the bracketed interpolations occur in the Soncino text. They were not added by the person writing this article. We have a quote from the Talmud, and then the text inside of the brackets was put there by the English translators, the Jewish publishers call Soncino. They were not added by the writer of this article quoting the Mishnah. The place of stoning was twice a man’s height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips so that he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled his duty, but if not, the second witness took the stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby he had done his duty, but if not, he, the criminal, was stoned by all Israel. That is a quote from the Babylonian text.
Now the opposer, the person who is saying I am exposing the contradiction here, says the translator, Jacob Schacter, tells us in a footnote, that this height would be six cubits, the normal height to the shoulders being three cubits. Schacter estimates a height between eight and a half and eleven feet, an estimate that should be modified in light of recent information about the smaller stature of men in these times. All other things being equal, a fall of six cubits would not guarantee either a painless or an instantaneous death. Despite what the advocates say, the Talmud text reveals that, in a significant number of cases, the condemned man did not die from a fall twice a man’s height, since witnesses, and sometimes onlookers, would have to stone him to death. In other words, the fall did not kill him, so it would have been necessary for the people of Israel to cast stones and stone him to death. A fall of eight and a half to eleven feet might often injure, but less often kill. However, the fall might be useful. Injury sustained in the fall might immobilize the condemned man, and make him an easier target for the stoners. Know also that this method of execution is called stoning rather than falling or pushing. The appellation gives witness: Death resulted from stoning, not falling.
Coming and hear the rabbis discussing the issue in the following Gemara. The writer of the article is saying where did you get this from? The Scripture says stoning. It does not say pushing anybody off of a cliff. This is what the discussion of the rabbi said. Just as a pit to be reckoned as causing death must be ten handbreaths, so must all other excavations be sufficient to cause death. Then they quote the scripture that says love your neighbor as yourself. In other words, choose an easy death for him, but if sown, the place of stoning should still be higher. That, however, is not so to prevent disfiguration. In other words, they do not want the form of execution to cause disfigurement. The opposer, the writer of this article is saying, but the death that they describe causes disfigurement. You push somebody off of a cliff and they get disfigured. These are all quotes from the Babylonian Talmud.
Now this is the opinion of the opposer right now. In contrast to the statement in the brief, the Soncino translation does not mention either a platform or a stone floor. That is the Soncino translation of the Talmud. It does not even mention a platform or a stone floor. Instead the convict is pushed into a pit. The statement in the brief that the height was sufficient to cause instantaneous death is simply not credible when we put the details in a real setting. On the subject of disfigurement, being hammered, bludgeoned, or being crushed to death by stones or boulders, might be every bit as disfiguring as dying from the fall, and a good deal slower.
Back to the Babylonian Talmud now. But it has not been taught, Rabbi Simeon B. Eleazar says, a stone was there which it took two men to lift. He lifted that and then dropped it on the victim’s chest. The opposer says it is unlikely that a large stone, one that took two men to lift, dropped on a standing or a prostrate man, could be aimed accurately enough to hit only the chest and avoid the face or head. The claim of Lewin and the Talmud Sages that avoidance of disfigurement was a major concern should be carefully evaluated. I just want to repeat that for you. The opposer to the brief is saying that the claims of the Jewish organization, that Jewish execution seeks to be kind to the criminal by not disfiguring them, the opposer is saying the types of execution described in the Talmud completely belies their statement that one of their concerns concerning the instrument of execution is to avoid disfigurement. The opposer is saying that statement is opposed by the words of their own Talmud.
Now they are talking about being stoned and then hanged. Now this is the opposer, the opposition to the brief. The orthodox advocates failed to mention that in some, or all cases, after the condemned man or woman was stoned to death, he or she was hanged as well. That is not hung by their neck, but hanged on a wall. Well, they did that in medieval times. They hung up bodies. It was not just them. Many nations did that as a sign to the other people. This is the Mishnah, the collection of oral laws, which forms the basis of the Talmud, and the Gemara is a commentary on the Talmud They are both the Babylonian Talmud. All who are stoned are afterwards hanged. This is Rabbi Eliezer’s view. The sages say only the blasphemer and the idolater were hanged. A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows. This is the view of Rabbi Eliezer.
The opposer to the brief is saying, these people that wrote the brief are saying that the Talmud prescribes humane forms of execution. They fail to tell you that after the person was stoned, the bodies were hanged in some cases. Is that a sign of humanity? Is that a sign of loving your brother as yourself? Now remember this person, this woman, who is opposing the brief, is not saying whether or not she agrees or disagrees with the forms of execution laid out in the Talmud. What she is saying is that the forms of execution laid out in the Talmud are different than that impression that is being conveyed by the brief. The brief to the Supreme Court says we are talking about humane execution based upon Jewish law. The one opposing the brief is saying, how can you approach the Supreme Court petitioning for humane execution, and no death penalty, saying that what the Talmud is saying is humane? When I read the Talmud, I see all these violent forms of execution. Is everybody okay with what I am saying?
Again, her purpose of writing all of this is that she is concerned about Talmudic law being written into the United States case law, which is what the Muslims are doing right now. The woman in opposition asks the question, how are the bodies hanged? This is the answer in the Mishnah. The post is sunk into the ground with a cross piece branching off of the top. He brings his hands together, one over the other, and hangs him up thereby. Rabbi Hosea said the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up after the fashion of butchers. That is interesting because it sounds to me a lot like the pictures I have seen of the way Jesus was hanged. I do not know how accurate they are. That was the Babylonian Talmud.
Again, this is the person opposing the brief. Those already dead can feel no pain, so hanging a dead man’s body after the fashion of butchers cannot be deemed cruel. However, we might expect his body would become even more disfigured by a post mortem hanging. Certainly a post mortem hanging would do nothing to preserve the dignity of the deceased. To the modern mind, the only conceivable purpose for this hanging would be to shame the corpse and thereby frighten the general public into conforming behavior. Moreover the rite of hanging after stoning is not prescribed in the Bible. Well, it is. I disagree. I found one scripture with regard to the hanging, that the Lord told me that was what it meant. So this person opposing made one mistake. The Sanhedrin of 45b ritual of stoning is not within the framework of Biblical texts. It is certainly disfiguring, and rather than preserving his dignity, publicly degrades the condemned. The opposition to the brief is saying, the form of stoning where you throw a man off a cliff, and drop a boulder on his chest, that is not what the Bible prescribes.
It is not what the Bible prescribes. It is humane, it is disfiguring, it is tormenting, because they do not even always die from it, and you cannot use the Talmud that prescribes this form of death as a witness to the humaneness of the execution by Jewish law. Is everybody okay with what is being said here? Now this is the opposition brief. If we are to find out about each others’ faiths, as Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks urges, it is essential that we all be truthful. It is indeed disappointing to learn that Rabbi Judge Elon, an Israelite Supreme Court justice, retired, and visiting lecturer to U.S. universities, participated in such a misrepresentation of the Talmud on the subject of capital punishment. This rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, I think he is the one that is up on Glenn Beck’s TV program a lot. I hear all these things and I remember them. There was some issue there on anti-Semitism that was raised up. What he said was, yes, the people still mention the Rothschilds, but there really are no more Rothschilds. I believed him, until shortly thereafter I was reading a financial document showing the Rothschilds are alive and well, and they are still in banking.
Obviously, they are the descendants of the original notorious Rothschild banking family. He said that there really are no more Rothschilds, but their descendants are still in banking, so what did he mean by that? What is being revealed here? There is a coverup going on. Modern Judaism is presenting itself as this really pacifist humane type religion. The book that they are founding this position on is violent, but it is not the Bible. It is the Talmud. This could be used for antisemitism, but this is not antisemitic. Brethren, do you want to know what the Lord is doing here? He is coming against the pharisees. That is what He is doing here. He is doing what Jesus did. He is rebuking the pharisees. That is what is happening today. That is what this message is all about. The Lord is exposing the pharisees. This is not the religion of God. Now that does not mean that anybody hearing this should go out and burn people, or put them in jail, or destroy families that have been taught this since they are born, and believe it. You do not go out hurting people.
If this message is used for antisemitism, there is nothing I can do about it. The Lord is doing what Jesus did and He is doing it through this ministry. He is exposing the pharisees that have seized authority over Jews that have been separated from God because of sin. It is not only because of the sins of the kings, but because of the sins of their ancestors, that burned incense to the queen of heaven, and burnt their children to the god Molech. The modern day Jews are the descendants of the Jewish people that committed these crimes. They need to know it because they do not even read the Bible. The average Jew does not even have a clue. If there is any jealousy involved in antisemitism, at all, it certainly is not the whole thing. It is a judgment for serious crimes that the Jewish people need to be confessing and repenting of, and begging God to protect them. The people, the men who have seized power through the rabbinate, they are not even protecting the people. They are lying to the Jewish people. They are not only lying to the Supreme Court, they are lying to the Jewish people. The bottom line is that at the core of their teaching is a desire for power. At the core of their teaching is a desire for political and military power. They are not only lying to the world in general, they are manipulating their own people, all of these secular Jewish people that are subject to be hurt, because they are believing the lies. They are betraying their own people. This is a war against the pharisees by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now there is a paragraph on stoned while standing. This is the writer of the article who is opposing the brief now. Record what the National COLPA and the other Jewish organization, IAJLJ said. This is a quote of what they told the Supreme Court. A casual reader of the Bible text might assume that the execution described as stoning is carried out by hurling stones at the condemned individual until he dies from the force of the objects thrown at him. That is a quote from their brief. Now the writer of the article, the one who is in opposition says, let us see whether the words of the sages support this assertion. Come and hear. That come and hear is the will of the Jewish spiritual literature. It is even in the Book of Revelation; come and see. It is a very Jewish statement. Now I am quoting the Gemara. Shila taught, in the case of a betrothed damsel, who played the harlot, if witnesses appeared against her in the house of her father-in-law testifying that she had played the harlot in her father’s house, she is stoned at the door of her father’s house, as if to say, see the plant that you have reared. If witnesses came to testify against her in her father’s house, that she played the harlot in his house, she is stoned at the entrance of the gate of the city. That is the Babylonian Talmud.
Now the writer of the article in opposition. Note that in the above, there is no mention of digging a pit, so the victim could fall to her death, and still no mention of the stone floor. Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman adds an historical note to a nearby passage that may shed light on this question, quoting the Babylonian Talmud, #6. In Scripture, stoning is first mentioned as that was the means of bringing about the actual death. Here hurling down is dealt with first, as that is preliminary to the other. I am not sure I understand that. Noting the above, there is no mention of digging a pit. Then he says this rabbi adds an historical note that this was what was done. In Scripture, stoning is first mentioned as that was the means of bringing about the actual death, and here hurling down is dealt with first, as that is preliminary to the other. This is the commentary of the one in opposition. Those words, “stoning was the means of bringing about the actual death,” coming from the pen of a Talmud scholar and translator, Rabbi Freedman, seem to carry more weight than a statement by a Washington lawyer and a retired Israeli judge. Could Elon/ Lewin, and all the lawyers writing the brief be attempting to make Talmud document more acceptable to other death penalty reformers, who might read the brief? They quote a rabbi opposing the position that is stated in this brief. What they are trying to do in this brief is to attempt to make Talmudic doctrine more acceptable to other death penalty reformers. In other words, if you are already against the death penalty, we want you to think that we are against it too. The person writing this article opposing the brief, is saying, they are being dishonest with you. They really believe in violent execution.
Now the writer of the article is opposing stoned after being pushed from the scaffold. He is quoting the Gemara. The scaffold for stoning was of the height of two men statures, and it has been taught regarding this, when you add the stature of the convict, there will be there the height of three statures. Now if you assume that a fall can be fatal, even from a height of less than ten handbreaths, why was such a great height that necessary? Even according to your argument, why not make the height ten handbreaths only?
This must therefore be explained in accordance with Rabbi Nahman, for Rabbi Nahman stated that someone else had said, Scripture says, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, which implies thou shalt choose for a convict the easiest possible execution, but if so, why not raise it still higher? He would then become disfigured all together. The writer in opposition says this about the whole concept of being pushed from a scaffold. The people writing the brief are saying that it is the intention of Talmudic law to not disfigure the person. The person writing in opposition says, according to the Talmud, the forms of execution listed in the Talmud would cause disfigurement, so the people writing the brief are not being honest. That is what he is saying. The people writing the brief are not being honest.
This is the article now, of the person, in opposition. Baba Kamma, 51a portrays the condemned man falling from the scaffold the distance of two men statures. A footnote refers us to Sanhedrin #45a with its explanatory footnote. The condemned would land on the ground where the stoners are standing. If he landed prostrate, stones would descend upon him from a height of three or four feet, depending upon the height of the stoners. If he landed on his feet, he would be stoned in the same fashion as the betroth damsel who played the harlot, stoned standing, by standing stoners. Note; Expressing humanitarian concerns about disfigurement. That is the whole point, humanitarian concerns about disfigurement. The rabbis prescribe a fall from a height they believe would not always kill. Falling from a great height would kill instantly. Had the rabbis wanted the quickest, and least painful death, the scaffold would be raised as high as possible. At this point, we must begin to suspect Elon/Lewin, the lawyers and his colleagues, did not expect us to read the Talmud ourselves.
As responsible Americans, curious about Judaism, concerned about capital punishment, that is exactly what we are doing. Again, the writer of this article, I do not know whether she is antisemitic or not, but as far as the article goes, it is a response to a brief to the United States Supreme Court, claiming that Talmudic law is humanitarian when it comes to implementing the death penalty, and they wanted this to be put in the literature with other sources in America opposing the death penalty. The writer of this article, who is opposing the brief given to the Supreme Court, says they are not being honest. What they are saying in their brief is different than what is in the Talmudic law. He is quoting all these passages of the Babylonian Talmud to prove his or her point, that the lawyers writing the brief are lying, or being dishonest, about the source that they are quoting. The writer of the article, the one in opposition, goes on to say, New Testament reportage of stonings. Before we leave our discussion of stoning, we should point out that the stoning described in Tractate Kethuboth 44b-45a, a betrothed damsel who played the harlot is more in accord with the stoning that Christians have always understood from the New Testament. Read about the stoning of Stephen in the Book of Acts, Chapter 7 verses 57 to 60. The narrative depicts just such a stoning as Christian painters have depicted for centuries, level ground, no pushing, no scaffolds, or pits with stone floors. The victim apparently died from no cause other than the force of the objects thrown at him. Despite Elon/Lewin, the lawyer’s representation to the Supreme Court, the New Testament also contains the famous incident described in John 8:7, wherein a woman arrested in the act of adultery is brought to Jesus. Jesus challenges the pharisees, he that is without sin among you let him first cast a stone at her. There is no mention of a pit, nor a stone floor, nor did Jesus challenge anyone to push the woman.
John 10:22 thru 39 give accounts of attempts by the pharisees to stone Jesus, particularly in verse 31. There is no mention of a pit or a scaffold. There are many other verses where the Pharisees sought to destroy him. This is a quote from John 8:59. They took up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. He disappeared in the midst of them. It is clear that the stonings in these accounts were to be performed with the stoners and the victims at ground level. This is still the article. This is the one in opposition. It is clear that the stonings in these accounts were performed with the stoners and the victims at ground level.
The next category is Burned with molten lead. Mr. Lewin, the attorney, refers us to two Old Testament verses on execution by burning. Leviticus 20:14. If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. Leviticus 21:9. And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father; she shall be burnt with fire. This is the article writer now, the opponent. But the orthodox advocates make it clear that the Jewish religion not only rejects, but condemns the Old Testament model. The brief of the Jewish organization now says, burning was intended to be quick, and relatively painless, non disfiguring form of execution. The Mishnah in Sanhedrin #52a also described the procedure for burning and stated clearly that it did not involve actual resort to fire or flames. Rather an extremely hot object or a wick was inserted into the mouth of the condemned individual, so as to cause instantaneous death. Hereto the object was to cause death quickly, and without mutilation to the body. Indeed the Mishnah concludes with the very revealing passage that condemns any court that would put an accused to death with actual flames.
Rabbi Elazar, the son of Rabbi Tzadok said, an incident once occurred with the daughter of a priest who committed adultery. They surrounded her with bundles of branches and burnt her. The other rabbis responded to him, that was done because the court that performed this execution was not knowledgeable. That is what is said by the Jewish organization, COLPA, that is writing this brief. Now the opponent, who is the writer of the article that we are reading, challenged that and said, why was the court that burnt the rabbis’s daughter in the biblical fashion not knowledgeable, because the court should have followed the directives in the Talmud instead of those in the Bible. Apparently this writer thinks that the Bible says you should burn people at the stake. I do not believe that. That is definitely an interpretation and an assumption of the Scripture to burn people at the stake.
The Lord wants me to say this, so I am going to say it. When I was in Nigeria, I found it very interesting how scriptural the lifestyle of the Nigerians were, not only in their lifestyle, but in their attitudes. In a conversation that I had with the evangelist, with whom I traveled to several states in Nigeria, we were talking about the tribal customs of identifying a woman as a witch. It is usually a woman. He said that he killed her and then they burnt her body. There was no burning at the stake. They killed her and they burnt her body. That is what the Scripture means. You execute the person, and you burn the body. You have to ask yourself what the purpose of burning the body is. Maybe this woman is Catholic. According to the Catholic Church, you get burnt as a punishment, that you should feel the pain as a punishment, but that is not the reason for the burning. The reason for the burning is to stop the soul from polluting the other people that share the same soul. Does anybody not know what I just said? The reason for the burning of the body is to stop the corrupted soul that is practicing witchcraft from flowing into the other people that share the same soul. It is like cauterizing a wound. It is like killing cancer cells, so they do not kill the rest of the body. There is no burning for the sake of punishment. The punishment is the removal of the convict from society in order to protect society.
I hope we get to it today. The scriptures that I took out of the Bible for you indicate that clearly, that if the person executing the judgment has vengeance in their heart, it will disannul the execution. It has to be a dispassionate act of justice. Vengeance is not justified, because if you are out for vengeance, if you are out for blood, you, yourself, are in sin. Let us say someone killed your relative. They killed your son, and you are out for blood, well you are in sin yourself. That is vengeance in your heart. It is very interesting the way the Scripture describes the execution of someone who has committed a serious crime, or a murder. It says the avenger of blood is to meet him in the way. When you meet him, when you meet the one that killed your son. It does not say anything at all about throwing people off of cliffs, or anything. It says the avenger of blood. The head of the family, that had just lost their loved one, when you meet the person who did it, you slay him.
I looked at that word, and I prayed about that. The combination of the scripture that says if you do it with ought in your heart, you are in sin also. You are suppose to meet him. When you meet him, you slay him. What does that mean? This is what the Lord said to me. You go out as the head of the family to execute justice, and you do it in a fair fight, believing that God will be the one executing justice through you. You do not have to lay in wait. You do not have to hide. You do not have to be secretive. You do not have to trap him. When you find him, believe that God is with you. He could have a sword. He can try to defend himself. If you are the legitimate avenger of blood, God is with you, and the other one will die. You do not have to worry about who is going to win this fight. You do not have to lay in wait for him or set a trap. There is a difference between vengeance and justice. Does anyone not understand what I just said?
The Orthodox advocates make it clear that the Jewish religion not only rejects, but condemns the Old Testament model. Once again let me just close with this statement. The position of the opposing article is that the Jewish people today are being led by the same pharisees that Jesus came up against, and opposed, and rebuked, and the same pharisees that crucified him for their exposure of the fact that they are not ruling the Jewish people under Biblical law, and they are lying to them. That is what we are exposing here today. The article writer says, but the Orthodox advocates made it clear that the Jewish religion not only rejects, but condemns the Old Testament model, and their brief states, quoting the Talmud, burning was intended to be a quick, and relatively painless, non figuring form of execution. I think I read this already. Yes, the court that burnt someone at the stake, did it because they were not knowledgeable. The opposing writer says, why was the court that burnt the rabbi’s daughter in the Biblical fashion not knowledgeable? Because the court should have followed the directives in the Talmud instead of those in the Bible. This must be a Christian writer, or Catholic writer, thinking that the Bible really does prescribe burning at the stake, but it does not do that either.
The burning in the Bible is the burning of the dead body, the purpose being not for punishment, but for preventing the corrupted soul from flowing into the other people that share the same soul. Note that the Elon/Lewin brief, that is the lawyers, does not quote the Talmud directly when describing execution by burning, but let us go directly to the text of Sanhedrin #52a. The manner in which burning is executed is as follows. He who had been thus condemned was lowered into dung up to his armpits. This is horrible, brethren. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound around his neck, and the two loose ends pulled in opposite directions, forcing him to open his mouth. A wick was then etc, etc. This is the Babylonian Talmud tract Sanhedrin #52a, Soncino 1961 edition, page 349. It reminds me of the coming attractions of some movie. I never saw the movie. I just saw the coming attraction of the woman that was stoned to death because she was accused of adultery, and they had her buried up to her neck. It was called the stoning of somebody. Did anybody see it? I never wanted to see it.
It seems to me that these laws are very similar to Islamic laws; very, very similar. Maybe it is the same spirit. The opposing writer says, and the writer of this article says, we will postpone discussion of the practice of burying the condemned in animal manure until later. Notice however, Elon/Lewin, that is the lawyers, failed to mention that aspect of the Talmud execution law. For now, let us focus on the wick our orthodox advocates say will bring instant death. I do not even see how. You pour hot metal down someone’s throat. I do not see how that produces instant death. That is horrible. Come and hear the discussion as the Sage asks. He is now quoting the Babylonian Talmud. What is meant by a wick? Rabbi Mathna said, a lead bar. Babylonian Talmud tract Sanhedrin 52a. The opposing writer of this article says, Talmud scholar Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, the translator of this section of the Soncino Talmud’s Tractate Sanhedrin, appended a footnote to this passage. ‘Lit’ in the Mishnah, will therefore mean ‘melted.’ It is a melted lead bar that is inserted into the mouth. The opposing writer says so now we learn that “wick” thrown into the condemn’s mouth was actually a melted lead bar.
You will get more information on death by burning from Tractate Yebamoth, 6b. The Sages are discussing whether it is permissible to kindle a fire on the Sabbath, provided the fire is used to execute someone. In a footnote to the discussion, the Talmud scholar, Rev. Dr. Israel Slotki, a translator of the Soncino Tractate Yebamoth states, IE, execute no death penalty of burning on the Sabbath. The death penalty of burning was executed by pouring molten lead through the condemned man’s mouth into his body, thus burning his internal organs. The opposing writer says, now let us continue with Tractate Sanhedrin doctrines on the wick. A wick was then lit and thrown into his mouth so that it descended into his body and burnt his bowels. Babylonian Talmud Tractate 52a. The opposing writer says if molten lead were thrown into the mouth of the condemned, it seems unlikely it would travel all the way down into the digestive tract to reach the bowels. I would not think so. Every tissue it would touch would be destroyed, including the structures in the neck. The actual cause of death would likely be suffocation, whether it were thrown or poured. It would splash on his face and cause significant disfigurement.
Now again, the opposing writer is opposing the statement that Jewish forms of execution do not seek in every way to avoid disfigurement. This is what he is coming against. On the other hand, if it were a hot lead bar, it would conceivably be shoved down the condemned man’s throat with enough force to reach his bowels. However, the force of this operation would surely tear the lips, smash the teeth, sear the lower face, possibly crush the spinal column, and cause severe disfigurement. Both processings sound painful. Thus we see the medical details of execution by means of a wick that descended into his body and burned his bowels are arguable. Let us continue with the Mishnah. Rabbi Judah said, should he, however, died at their hands, being strangled by the bandage before the wick was thrown into his mouth, or before it could act, he would not have been executed by fire as prescribed. Hence it was done thus. His mouth was forced open with pincers against his wish, the wick lit, melted, and thrown into his mouth so that it descended into his body and burnt his bowels.
The opposing writer of this article says, this passage indicates a quick death was not the top priority. The rabbis expressed concern that the condemned will die too soon to experience the intended death by molten lead. Once again, the Elon/Lewin lawyer’s brief, misstates both the fact, and the motive, behind Talmud executions. Let us review a statement from the brief. This is the brief that the lawyers representing the Jewish COLPA wrote. Remember their purpose was to align themselves with political forces in this country that are against the death penalty, and to inscribe, or include Talmudic law in the case law for that purpose. It is clear that the rabbis sought to administer the most humane forms of capital punishment then available. This principles should be applied by this court to evaluate whether execution by the electric chair, as administered in Florida, results in unnecessary pain and disfigurement. If electrocution, as currently administered, results in needless pain and mutilation, it would not meet the rationale of Jewish law, as administered two thousand years ago, and should not be acceptable today under the evolving standards of the 8th Amendment.
The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. Please note Jewish law as administered two thousand years ago is not Biblical law. It is Talmudic law and they are not telling the truth. The brief, the lawyers representing this Jewish organization, that wants to align themselves with liberal forces in this country that are anti-death penalty, are presenting the Jewish forms of execution as benign, and not disfiguring, when their own literature says the exact opposite. The opposing writer says this about The Humanitarianism of Judah, the prince. It is significant that Rabbi Judah also known as Judah the prince, Judah Ha-Nasi, or simply rabbi, is the speaker in the above Mishnah, Sanhedrin 52a. Recall that in More Critical Words of Talmud Study, we learn that he formulated the Mishnah. That means he wrote it. Among other things the Mishnah specifies which crimes are capital crimes, and specifies the various procedures for execution. Rabbi Judah, also called Judah the prince, was born in 132 A.D. and he died in 219 at age 87. He was a hereditary Chief Priest because he inherited that from his father, of the Sanhedrin, thus called the prince. He is one of the more revered rabbis in Judaism. Of Judah the prince, Rabbi Dr. Herzog writes, he was a descendant of Hillel. Hillel is a famous Bible teacher. He had a whole school of philosophical thought behind him. I have heard it in the classes that I take, it is always Hillel says this and the other school says that. They are always having opposing views, so he is very famous.
Rabbi Judah was a descendant of Hillel in the seventh generation, and a man of uncommon ability, wide culture and lofty virtue. Hillel, the Babylonian, another Talmud giant, lived in the first pre-Christian century. Judah the prince came from a wealthy and influential family. He was well educated and versed in Greek thought and philosophy. He was especially acquainted with the Greek language, which he preferred to Syriac, the popular language of Palestine at that time. According to Rabbi Michael Rodkinson, it is inconceivable that Judah the prince was not familiar with Plato’s Phaedo, wherein Plato gives a graphic and moving account of Socrates’ gentle execution in the year 399 B.C. by means of a cup of hemlock, made from the weed of conium maculatum. Quoting Steinsaltz: According to the sources, Rabbi Judah not only edited the Mishnah, but also utilized it in practice in the course of his studies with his contemporaries. He sometimes changed his opinion on certain issues, and consequentially introduced amendments into the mishayot. At times he was unable to introduce certain of his new formulations or theories into the works since a previous ruling had already been accepted.
His point is that this is ongoing Biblical law. It is not Biblical law. The opposing writer says, we see here that this highly influential rabbi changed his opinion on some issues. Had he chosen, he could have replaced stoning, burning, strangling, decapitation, etc. with a gentle hemlock of the Greeks, if indeed humanitarianism were the prime concern of the Talmud Sages. Instead, however, as shown by the Mishnah above, Rabbi Judah refined the regulations for molten lead, arguing that the condemned should not be allowed to die by strangulation before the molten lead was poured in his mouth. According to scholars at Bar-llan University in Israel, conium maculatum, which grows wild in Israel, is the poisonous plant mentioned in Jeremiah 8:14 and Deuteronomy 32:23. The Bar-llan scholars point out that the plant was a well known nuisance in the countryside, and its poisonous properties were well known, appearing as a frequent metaphor in the Scriptures. Recall that the National Jewish COLPA and the IAJLJ argue that the rabbis of the Talmud are a model of humanitarianism that we should follow.
Quoting from that brief. The relevant passages from the Talmud demonstrate that the rabbis sought with the scientific knowledge and means available to them at their time to formulate the quickest, least painful, and least disfiguring methods of execution that the technology of the day would allow within the framework of Biblical texts. That is what the lawyers for the National Jewish COLPA said. Again, the writer of this article is saying that is not true. The writer of the article says we can now see that the statement is untrue. If the rabbis had wanted the most humane executions, they could have taken a page from the Greeks and used hemlock, a local and well known weed. True, poison hemlock is not prescribed by the Old Testament, but neither are pouring molten lead down the throat, or a number of other Talmudic execution methods that we will examine in a moment. Neither humanitarianism nor Biblical exactness seems to be the prevailing concern.
Heading: Strangled in a Pit of Dung. Quoting the Babylonian Talmud Tractate Sanhedrin 52b. Strangulation was thus performed. The condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound around his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. It is horrible.
Heading; Decapitated With Sword or Axe. Quoting the Babylonian Talmud Tractate, Sanhedrin 52b. That is page 354. Execution by the sword was performed thus. The condemned man was decapitated by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. Rabbi Judah said this is a hideous disfigurement, but his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They replied, no death is more disfiguring than this. The opposing voice says, it is noteworthy that decapitation, the most disfiguring form of execution, in the opinion of the rabbis, is mandated for non Jews who break the rabbinical Noahide Laws. For more information on the Noahide Laws, see America’s New Government Church. I have heard it myself from the local rabbi. There are Noahide laws that, in the hour that Jewry should receive secular authority again, they would impose the Noahide laws upon nonbelievers. People are not required to convert, but they are required to comply to the Noahide laws. I do not know what the penalties are for non compliance, but I do not like the sound of it so far.
Heading: Hanged on the gallows. This is the opposing writer saying this. Hanging on a gallows is mentioned in the Sanhedrin Gemara. Note that the gallows were provided by the community. Quoting the Gemara. This is the Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 43a page 279. Rabbi Huna said: It is obvious to me that the stone with which one is stoned, the gallows on which one is hanged, the sword with which one is decapitated, and the cloth with which one is strangled, are all provided by the community. The opposing writer says, in Tractate Sanhedrin 45b, a case is discussed of 80 women hanged for witchcraft. There was a link to the accusation in the trial, but I did not read it.
Heading: Smashing Skull With Clubs. The opposing writer says, a priest who performs ritual while unclean gets no formal trial. I find this totally unscriptural, to not have a trial. A priest who performs ritual while unclean gets no formal trial; his skull is smashed with clubs by his colleagues when they notice his offense. I guess this is what unclean means. I think it was like when King Uzziah went into the temple, and tried to offer up incense, and the priests opposed him in 2 Chronicles, Chapter 26. Maybe that is what they are talking about here, maybe spiritually unclean. It is not that they did not take a bath that day, but spiritually unclean.
Mishnah: If a priest performed the temple service whilst unclean, his brother priests do not charge him therewith at Beth Din, but the young priests take him out of the temple court and split his skull with clubs. Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 81b, Soncino 1961 Edition, page 542.
Poisoning With Bitter Water: Now this is in the Bible. I do not know what to say about this. The Lord has never really spoken to me about it, other than on a spiritual level. He told me that the female Adam committed adultery, and she brought forth an illegitimate child. She drank the bitter water. She
was poisoned. She died. She brought forth a spiritual child, which is mankind as we know it today. The Lord has told me that. Here is the comment by the opposing force. When a man suspects his wife of infidelity, but has no definite evidence, he may request the priest put her through a trial by ordeal (prescribed in Numbers 5:12-31). The suspected woman (the sotah) is brought to the temple where she is forced to drink “bitter water.” By the magic of the ordeal, the sotah, the accused woman, dies if she is guilty, but lives if she is innocent. We will have more to say about the dignity accorded the sotah, the accused woman, during the trial procedure in Accusation and Trial. I did not read that.
Quoting the Babylonian Talmud. This water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away. That is right out of the Book of Numbers, Chapter 5. I know it is there. If the woman is guilty, she dies, and if she be not innocent, she reverts to dust. The Babylonian Talmud says, if she be not innocent, she reverts to dust. The opposing commentator says, if the woman is guilty, she dies. Then the opposing writer says, the translator, Rev. Dr. Abraham Cohen, amplifies the text with this footnote: Dies from the effect of the water. Again, we see that it is a supernatural principle. Brethren, these laws are for a theocratic nation, for a people living under the rulership of Jehovah, and everything here has a supernatural flavor to it. The principle is that if the woman in innocent, Jehovah will protect her, but that is pretty horrible, thinking that a man without any witnesses can accuse his wife, and put her through that.
The Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah 20a, page 101 now says this. Now this is not in the Bible. The first part was in the Bible, but this is not. She had scarcely finished drinking when her face turns green, her eyes protrude, and her veins swell; and it is exclaimed, remove her that the temple-court be not defiled.
Heading: Stomach Bursting. The opposing commentator writes this. For a portrayal of this mode of execution, read Tractate Sanhedrin 81b, both Mishnah and Gemara. The condemned is fed the “bread of adversity and water of affliction” which shrinks and blocks his intestines. Then he is fed barley bread until his stomach bursts. For further discussion, see Accusation and Trial. (10) That is not for a woman. That is a similar execution for a man.
This apparently was submitted to the Supreme Court. This is not just some anti-Semite writing an article on the internet. Apparently it was submitted to the Supreme Court and the case was, we do not want Talmudic Law written into the United States Law. It is in opposition to Christian law, she is saying. Let us see how fast we can do this. These are all just scriptures right out of the Old Testament. I am looking at your notes now. Capital punishment, the Torah Vs. The Talmud. In Exodus 20 I am reading you certain verses because we need to know who is saying this. In the Book of Exodus, the Lord Jehovah said to Moses; You shall say to the children of Israel. Ye have seen that I have talked to you from heaven. This is Moses speaking. You children of Israel, you have seen that God has spoken to me from heaven, and now I am telling you what He said. These are the judgments which you shall set before them. There are three major ones with no specific method of execution described. In Exodus 22; Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Whoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death. That is man or woman. He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed. Now that is the Lord speaking. He is not saying man should execute you. That is what is going to happen to you if you commit these crimes. These are major crimes. Aside from the original ten commandments, these are major crimes. You shall not practice witchcraft. You shall not practice bestiality. You shall not sacrifice unto another god.
Leviticus 20:1; And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, again, thou shalt say unto the children of Israel. It is a direct commandment coming from God. Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel. Also, I have noticed this throughout the Scripture multiple times, that you shall treat the non Jew that dwells with you as the same as you treat your brother. Now I do not see that principle in Chabad. I do not see it. I wish it were true, but I do not see it. Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech, he shall surely be put to death. Molech is the god that they burnt their children to. The people of the land shall stone him with stones. This Talmudic Court of 23 rabbis, I do not read anything about a court here. This is like my main principle when I put these scriptures together. The people of the land, the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In our country today, there are too many of us, and that is how the jury system came into existence. It is the government by the people, and the job of the judge is to instruct the people so that they should make the right decision. That is right here in the Scripture, except that our jury system is failing today. The reason that our jury system is failing is that the country is departing from God, and the minds of the people are morally corrupt, so the jury system is failing, but God provides judgment by the people.
Leviticus 20:14; If a man take a wife and her mother, they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they, that there be no wickedness among you. Now I know that it is not clear, but this is what the Lord said to me. If a man take a wife and her mother, if he is fornicating with both a wife and her mother, they are subject to the execution by stoning, and then you burn the bodies, so that the corrupt soul does not pass into the other people.
Leviticus 20:27; A man, also a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death. They shall stone them with stones, and their blood shall be upon them. We see that the judgment for witchcraft is a stoning with stones. It not one big stone that falls off a cliff, but they, the people of Israel, shall stone them with stones, and their blood shall be upon them.
Leviticus 21:9; The daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father. She shall be burnt with fire. These are crimes, witchcraft and this kind of harlotry, especially the daughter of a priest, her dead body should be burnt that she should not pollute her father or any other member of the family. These are crimes that arise out of a corrupted soul. We are not talking about a man, who in a moment of anger, picked up a piece of iron and slew somebody. Anybody is capable of that under the right circumstances. We are talking about a soul polluted with demons, practicing witchcraft, it is something inherent in your soul that must be prevented. It must be cauterized. Killing you is not enough. The soul must be prevented from going into another person. With regard to the daughter of the high priest, her soul who has committed fornication or adultery, must be prevented from passing into the priest. Therefore, she must be burnt after she is stoned to death. There is no concept of punishment here at all. The concept is the protection of the law abiding people of Israel.
Leviticus 24:16; And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord. That is an anti-christ spirit. He shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation. No court of 23 judges that have to agree with each other. All the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death. It is the anti-christ spirit.
Leviticus 24:23; And Moses spake to the children of Israel, that they should bring forth him that had cursed (cursed God) out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses. The whole community did it, no court of 23 judges, no rabbis holding court; the people did it.
Deuteronomy 1:1; These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab. Now these infractions are of the civil law. They are not for witchcraft or harlotry, which is witchcraft.
Numbers 35:1; And the Lord spake unto Moses. This law came down from Jehovah, not from any rabbi. The Lord spoke to Moses in the plains of Moab by Jordan near Jericho, saying. I skipped several verses there. We are continuing with verse 9 now. And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, Verse 10. Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come over Jordan into the land of Canaan; Verse11. Then ye shall appoint you cities to be cities of refuge for you; that the slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person at unawares. That the slayer that kills somebody unawares. You did not intend to do it. It was not premeditated. That the unpremeditated slayer may flee thither, which killeth any person unawares. This is the provision for someone who kills somebody by accident, or in a moment’s rage, I guess. They shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger. Who is the avenger? The head of the family whose job it was to execute justice. Someone killed a member of the family. The Scripture says a life for a life. It was his job to take the life. Verse 12. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not. In other words, if it was an accident, or you really did not mean to do it, the Lord wants to make a provision for you to not die. And they shall be unto you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the manslayer die not, until he stand before the congregation in judgment. No court of 23 judges. It was before the congregation.
We see that the position of the woman who wrote the article is that Talmudic law is not in sync with United States law. The United States law says you should be tried by your peers, by the people. Talmudic law says you go before a court of 23 judges. It is not the same law. It is not Biblical law. The United States law is more biblical than the Talmudic law. Verse 13. And of these cities which ye shall give six cities shall ye have for refuge. Verse 14. Ye shall give three cities on this side of Jordan, and three cities shall ye give in the land of Canaan, which shall be cities of refuge. 15. These six cities shall be a refuge , both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger. I emphasize that because I have heard it so many times coming out of this Chabad organization, this Chabad movement. They do not consider the stranger is equal to themselves, the stranger, the Americans amongst whom they dwell. For the sojourner among them; for the children of Israel, for the stranger, and the one who is just visiting you. You are all subject to the same law and to the same mercy of God. That every one that killeth any person unawares may flee thither. You did not mean to do it, unpremeditated, you can flee into one of these cities.
Numbers 35:16. And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Now if you knew what you were doing, you are a murderer. If you kill someone with an iron weapon, the murderer shall surely be put to death. Verse 17. And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Now this word surely that is here, I looked it up. What does it mean to surely be put to death? It is the word put to death repeated twice. The person that murders with premeditation, you die in your body, and you die in your soul. You shall surely be put to death. How do you die in your body and in your soul? Based on what I am being taught today, is that your body gets burnt after you are stoned. That is how you die in your soul.
Numbers 35:18. Or if he smite him with an hand weapon of wood wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death. Verse 19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer: when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. When he meeteth him, when he encounters him, when he sees him around the block. Verse 20. But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die; Verse 21. Or in enmity smite him with his hand, that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. I think that these verses are so strange that I looked them up in the Interlinear text. Listen to how it reads. I thought it would be different in the Interlinear text . Verse 19. The revenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer when he meeteth him, he shall slay him. Well, why is it there if verse 20 is still talking about the different kinds of murder? Right? Verse 16 talks about smiting with an instrument of iron. Verse 17 talks about smiting with throwing a stone. Verse 18 talks about smiting with a hand weapon of wood. Verse 20 talks about thrusting him with hatred or hurling at him or laying in wait. Verse 21 talks about enmity, smiting him with his hand that he die. Why do we read after verse 18 of smiting with a weapon of wood, in verse 19, the avenger of blood himself shall slay the murderer when he meeteth him, he shall slay him? Then it goes back in verse 20; But if he thrust him of hatred, or hurl at him by laying of wait, that he die. Then in verse 21; Or in enmity smite him with his hand that he die: he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer: the revenger of blood shall slay the murderer, when he meeteth him. Why is it repeated twice? This is what I believe I am hearing from the Lord. Verses 20 and 21 is talking about the avenger of blood. It is suppose to be an act of justice. If you go after the one that murdered a member of your family, and you thrust him out of hatred. Now these two verses I apply to both the murderer that is not an avenger of blood, and the avenger of blood. If you thrust him out of hatred, or you hurl at him by laying in wait, that he die, or in enmity, smite him with his hand, and he die; he that smote him shall surely be put to death; for he is a murderer, whether you are the first murderer or whether you are the avenger of blood going after the murderer. You are not to go with an attitude of vengeance. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord. You go as an executioner of justice for your family.
Verse 22. But if he thrust him suddenly without enmity, or have cast upon him any thing without laying of wait. Verse 23. Or with any stone, wherewith a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, that he die, and was not his enemy, neither sought his harm: If you just happen to cast a stone over your shoulder and hit someone in the head and kills him, but they were not your enemy, neither did you seek them any harm. Verse 24. Then the congregation, (the people, no court of 23 judges playing political correctness) the people shall judge between the slayer and the revenger of blood according to these judgments. I think it is very ambiguous there. If you are a person that did that, and the family, the revenger of blood wants to kill you, you can go running to the court for justice, saying it was just an accident, or you could be the avenger of blood, being guilty of this.
Verse 25. And the congregation, (the people). See, that is what is happening in this country today. The people are being robbed, not only of their rights to rule, but their soul is being robbed. Their minds are being corrupted, so that they are not capable of ruling or thinking properly. The congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled. Apparently, he fled to the city of refuge and they took him out to have the trial. That is the way it is written. And he shall abide in the city of refuge, until the death of the high priest, which was anointed with holy oil. Verse 26. But if the slayer shall at any time come without the border of the city of his refuge, whither he was fled; Verse 27. And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the avenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood. You have to stay within the guidelines of the judgment upon you. You are on probation. You leave the state and they can lock you up. You have to stay within your local area.
And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the avenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood. The revenger of blood shall not be guilty of blood. I find that so interesting because what came to mind was the commission that King David put on Solomon when he died. He named his enemies that he wanted Solomon to deal with after King David died. In 1 Kings, Chapter 2 verses 36 thru 46, one of the men named was Shimei. Solomon locked Shimei up in his house. He said, if you come out of your house, I am going to kill you. The man came out of his house to go after two of his servants that ran away, and Solomon killed him. I did not know until I did this study that what Solomon did was based on Biblical law. The man came out of his house of safety.
Verse 28. Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until the death of the high priest: but after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession. Of course that has significance with Jesus being the high priest, but we are not going there today. Verse 29. So these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings. Verse 30. Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. Verse 31. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer. I looked up the word satisfaction and it means ransom. You shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer. There is no escape for the murderer which is guilty of death: but he shall surely be put to death; body and soul. Verse 32. And you shall take no satisfaction, you shall take no ransom for him that has fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. No plea bargaining. You have to serve the sentence. Verse 33. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are; for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. Blood for blood. Verse 34. Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel. Of course that has a spiritual significance. Our land, which dies from generation to generation can only be purified by the killing of the fallen nature within us, the one who slew Abel and caused us to come into this condition.
These are the judgments for serving other gods. Deuteronomy 13:1 thru 3. If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder. Now I learned something from this. I always thought that the Scripture read that if their prophecy does not come to pass, any kind of a prophecy, like you are going to go to school tomorrow; you are going to get a red dress for a present. I thought that you were suppose to be killed. The answer that I gave was this only applied to the Hebrew prophets that gave national judgments, but it is not even that. It is not that they gave a national judgement, because the truth is that Isaiah prophesied things that have not come to pass yet, and as far as we know, he is a legitimate prophet. Today I understand, if there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth you a sign or a wonder. Verse 2. And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto you saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them. Verse 3. Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. He is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul.
Deuteronomy 13:4. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. Verse 5. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death. If I give you a prophecy, I might not say it is a prophecy, and it does not come to pass, that does not mean that I am subject to being stoned to death. That is only if I am telling you to follow another god. That stoning to death, that prophet or that dreamer should be put to death, because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage. Aside from that, any prophecy with regard to a human being is conditional. The prophecy that comes down on a nation is not conditional. If God said it, and it is a prophecy on a nation, it will come to pass. What is not set in stone is what will happen to any individual human being. That depends on the person, on their relationship with God, their appetence, and their commitment to him. Any prophecy given on a personal level, for me or anyone else, is conditional upon you satisfying the terms that God agrees to fulfill that word. The reason it is not conditional when it comes down on a nation, or possibly even on a family, is because it is not subject to one person doing what God expects them to do to bring the prophecy to pass. Even if it is a judgment that comes down on a family, if this person serves God, and that person does not. Let us say it is a prophecy of destruction, and the current family members are serving God, it will not come to pass, but in the following generation, where wickedness appears, God will execute the prophecy. Any prophecy that depends on one person doing something is conditional. It could change depending on what the person does. Does anyone not understand what I just said?
If anyone gives you a sign or a wonder, and they do a miracle, and they say, now look at me, I am a prophet of God. I healed you. I prayed for you and you got healed. That makes me a person of God. Now I am going to tell you it is okay to go and worship Buddha. Of course it would not be that obvious. If someone gives you a sign or a wonder, and they demonstrate to you that they have spiritual power, so you now believe whatever they say because they are a person of spiritual power. Now you believe their doctrine, and they teach you to serve another god. According to the laws of National Israel, that person should die. Of course it is not that way today. It does not particularly say stoning. That is interesting. They shall be put to death because he has spoken to turn you away from the Lord, your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. It does not particularly say stoning. Let us just read the rest of it. Maybe it is going to come out in future verses.
Verse 6. If your brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods, which thou has not known, thou, nor thy fathers. That is your husband or your wife, or your mother, or your father, which you have known your whole life. If they say let us go and serve other gods, namely the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto you, or far off from thee. Whether they are close to you, or far away from you, from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth, whether they are telling you to go to India to worship the Hindu gods, or if it is right around the corner telling you to celebrate Christmas, for instance. Verse 8. Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him. You should not keep it a secret because it is your beloved relative.
Now this is National Israel in Verse 9. Anyone that seeks to seduce you to worship other gods, you shall surely kill him, body and soul. In this country, in this dispensation, we do not do that. In this dispensation, we separate them, we break the soul tie, and we do not associate with them, and we pray spiritual warfare if necessary. Verse 9. But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people. No court of 23 judges. It is the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones. Okay, so the method of judgement is stones. Verse 10. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. Verse 11. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
Now brethren, all of these laws ceased to exist when Israel ceased to exist as a nation. Israel was a theocracy. America is not a theocracy. Our jurist prudence is based on the Bible, but we are not a theocracy, so these laws no longer apply. Verse 12. If thou shalt hear say in one of the cities, which the Lord thy God hath given you to dwell there, saying, Verse 13. Certain men, the children of Belial, are gone our from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known. Verse 14. Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Verse 15; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle, thereof, with the edge of the sword.
Now the woman who wrote the brief, in another part that I did not read to you, she cites this as a negative to the Old Testament. I do not agree with everything that she says, obviously. Israel was a theocracy. They were a nation unto God, and therefore it was given, or imparted to them, or imputed to them, supernatural powers and protection. If these rules were not followed, the presence of God would have departed from them. These rules were absolutely legitimate under the circumstances of the Old Testament of the relationship with Jehovah, and the times in which they existed, but they no longer exist today. There is a counterpart of it today, which is spiritual judgment, and that is up to the Lord. Verse 17 talks about the cursed thing. It is getting late so we are going to move on.
This is Leviticus 20:1; The Lord spake unto Moses, saying, and have gone and served other gods, and worshiped them, either the sun or the moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded. That is astrology, brethren. And it be told thee, that thou hast heard it, and inquired diligently to make sure that it is true, you shall bring forth the man and the woman, and you shall stone them, and they shall die. That is in a theocracy where the introduction of another god would have resulted in the departure of Jehovah. Verse 6. At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death, be put to death, but at the mouth of one witness, it shall not be put to death. Verse 7. The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of the people, so thou shalt put the evil away from among you. It is the people, the people, the people.
Now this is important. Verse 8. If there arise a matter too hard for you, the average person, if it is not staring you in the face, and you are not sure what is right and wrong, if the judgment is between blood and blood, if it is your family, and you are having a problem with it, if it is between plea and plea. They are innocent, they are guilty, between stroke and stroke. Was it deliberate or was it not deliberate, being matters of controversy within your gates, then shall you arise and get up into the place which the Lord God shall choose. God is in the midst of your judgment. That is what we are losing in this country. We started out with God in the midst of our judgment. Now the ten commandments are being torn down from the courts. We are in grave danger, grave, grave, danger. I honestly do not know if it is reversible at this time. There is always hope, but it does not look very good. We will see what God will do. Whatever happens, the kingdom of God is going to arise out of the ashes.
If it is too hard for you to judge, you go to the priest. You go to the priest, who will explain the law to you. Down at verse 11. He will teach you. That is the job of the judge in the courtroom, to instruct the jury. It is up to the jury to convict or not convict a person. Then we have the part around Deuteronomy Chapter 21, about the rebellious son. I actually already preached that in another message. Deuteronomy 22 verse 20 has to do with a woman being given to a man in marriage, and if it turns out that she is not a virgin. Brethren, this was the culture at the time. If they find out that she was not a virgin at the time, they would stone her with stones. Joshua 7:25. Joshua said, why have you troubled us. The Lord shall trouble you this day, and all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire after they had stoned them with stones. There is the one verse that makes it clear, after they had stones them with stones, they burnt them with fire to prevent the soul from flowing into unpolluted cells of that same soul. I had another verse for you. I do not know where it was. Either I did not put it in here or I went past it because I am rushing, but it is about the hanging. You only hang the dead bodies after they are killed, and it is an act of disrespect. If a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be need to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but thou shalt in any wise, bury him that day. My understanding is that it was an act of disrespect to hang him on a tree, but you do not let him hang more than a day. You have to bury him that same day. This is all National Israel. Be very careful about blaspheming the Word of God. That was National Israel when Israel was a theocracy. That is not Israel today. That is not Talmudic Judaism today, and that is not God’s law for the post Messianic era.
I do not hear anything about these ultra orthodox people saying we are going to rebuild the temple. We are going to start the sacrifices. We are going to institute Talmudic law and this heart set will change after Messiah comes. No, I do not hear that. After Messiah comes, we will have the power to build the temple, re-institute the sacrifices, and institute Talmudic law. This is their vision for the future of the world, with rabbinic Judaism at the helm. Only they are neck and neck, and face to face , and forehead to forehead, against the Lord Jesus Christ, and they do not even know it. I want to end this with a prayer for them.
Father, in the name of Jesus, we just pray for your people Israel, Judah, and the tribes that no longer have a tribal identity. This tribe of Judah that has refused to lay down to your Lordship, Lord, that has refused to submit to you, but have continued, based on your instruction to me, they are what you have told me is a spiritual ghost. They simply refuse to die. We pray that you have great mercy on them, Lord, especially the people today, Lord, because they look at Christianity, and Christianity is completely pagan. This is a terrible, terrible thing that has happened, Lord, that Christianity is so corrupt, that Judaism is so corrupt, and we need each other in the truth, and neither side has enough of the truth to come together. We forgive sins, Lord. We just pray for mercy with all of our hearts for Talmudic Judaism. I do not know what you want to do with the Talmud, Lord, but I declare that it is not equal to the Torah. It may have some very good principles in it, and wisdom in it, but it was written by men. It was not inspired by God. I renounce it, especially the incestuous parts of it, and the parts of it that we discussed today. We just pray for great mercy, Lord, on Judaism today. With anti Semitism rising in the world, we pray that you take whatever you are taking out of this message, the thought forms that have been formed, Lord, and that you use them to bring a great and a mighty deliverance. We have exposed the sins of modern day Judaism, Lord. We have done what you have done in the days of your flesh. I, as a Jewish person, this has broken my heart to have to do this, but my allegiance is to you, Lord, and to you alone. Whatever it is that you would require me to do, I pray that you have great mercy on my people, Lord, and on the Christians, which I believe are Israel, that are almost as far astray, but who is even to compare the two? Be glorified in this, or be magnified, and bring forth truth in both bodies, that we might come together as one Israel, in which you shall be glorified in all of your power and might, in mercy and in righteousness, and in truth. We await your coming. Come quickly, Lord Jesus. Amen and Amen.
7/1/14 – Transcribed by VerbalFusion
7/16/14 – 1st Edit CAS
12/02/15 mjs Re-Transcribed
12/06/15 mjs 2ndEditor