Wednesday, November 27, 2013

Pope Francis: Judaism is not engaged in idolatry; serves the true God

"Evangelii Gaudium of the Holy Father Francis"
A Palimpsest of Papal Prevarication

By Michael Hoffman • Copyright ©2013 

On Nov. 24 Pope Francis issued an "Apostolic Exhortation." Two sections in the 50,000 word-document are of interest. One is centered on the Money Power, but Francis, like all his predecessors since the Renaissance, merely issues a lot of hot air and toothless semantics. The empty rhetoric will mollify some activists no doubt, but it will do little or nothing to curb the power of the corporate-financier elite or the bought-and-paid for churchmen who have been serving them since the days of the Medici. The only way to curb the Money Power is to restore the infallible doctrine that charging interest on loans of money is a mortal sin and absolution for this sin of theft requires restitution in the form of a return of the ill-gotten gains. Then the Overlords of the Cryptocracy would howl and then Francis would feel their wrath, rather than their adulation.

The "Apostolic Exhortation" also contains a section on Judaism, rendering it immune to missionary activity, which is the non-negotiable demand of the rabbis to which Rome has submitted, as promulgated by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Hence, there’s nothing particularly new from Francis here, though his post-Vatican II colleagues presented this revolutionary distortion of St. Paul with far more guile and sophistication, whereas Francis blurts it out without much theological embroidery:

247. "We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9)." [Source: Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium of the Holy Father Francis to the Bishops, Clergy, Consecrated Persons and the Lay Faithful on The Proclamation of the Gospel in Today's World].

The historic Church never taught this distortion of Romans 11:29, though it is a fixture of the theology of the soon-to-be-saint John Paul II and the supposedly arch-conservative counter-pope to Francis, Benedict XVI. JP II and Benedict were firmly in the Talmudic/rabbinic camp and Francis is no different. Twisting Romans chapter 11 into a saved-by-race pledge of eternal security is about as anti-Christ as it gets. If the Jews of first century Palestine had an irrevocable covenant with God, why would the Son of God have bothered to incarnate on earth and be crucified for their sake?

Jesus declared to the Jewish Pharisees, whose ideological descendants today are the rabbis of Orthodox Judaism: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.” (John 8:39-40). 

Why didn’t Jesus speak as the popes of Rome do, and acknowledge the Pharisees on the basis of their flesh, and their racial prestige? Jesus rejected the doctrine of salvation by race. He taught that the children of Abraham are those who do the works of Abraham. 

By Our Lord’s definition, the spiritual heirs of those who have built a religion on the refusal to accept Jesus as the Messiah of Israel, are most certainly not the children of Abraham. The modern popes are guilty of contradicting Christ. They obstinately continue to disseminate the same error as the Pharisees, that the racial prestige of “Jews,” whether of the first or the twenty-first century, is sufficient to qualify them as heirs of the promises which God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3. 

John the Baptist, the greatest of the prophets (Luke 7: 26-28), declared to the Jews:  “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 3: 9-10).

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also.” (1 John 2:22-23).

Why are so many persons strongly deluded into believing that those who deny Jesus Christ, are somehow Abraham’s children? Because: "...they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12).

Bob Burrdige writes, "In the time between Abraham and Jesus, the tree was the nation of the Jews. In the time after Jesus, the tree is the Apostolic church, God’s Spiritual Israel (see Romans 9:6). As the elect from all nations are evangelized and brought in, the tree grows toward fulness. As the apostate and unbelieving are removed, the tree improves in purity. It is in this way that all of God’s true Israel will be saved. The New Testament Church does not replace Israel. The Church is Israel in her completed form."

This was the infallible official teaching of the Church until the coming of Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the now rather uncouth Francis, who is not quite as adept at accompanying the betrayal of the Gospel with high-falutin' theological dissembling, and therefore the hellish papal doctrine of Jew-worship is more obvious in his pontificate than in previous ones that had undeserved reputations for "conservatism."

We have saved the most flagrant papal lie for last. In Evangelii Gaudium Francis exhorts: "...we cannot...include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God." 

Pope Francis insists that the "Jews" do not follow idols and have not rejected the true God. Really? What did we just read in 1 John 2: 22-23? What are the words out of the mouth of Jesus Himself in John 8: 39-40? And from John the Baptist in Matthew 3: 9-10? All of those Scriptures have to be abolished or explained away in order to claim that contemporary “Jews” are not engaged in idolatry. Moreover, the rabbis are witnesses against themselves in this matter of idolatry:
"Since God already gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Mt. Sinai we no longer pay attention to heavenly voices. God must submit to the decisions of a majority vote of the rabbis.” —Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 59b.
Let's see now, the rabbinic halacha declares that Judaics no longer pay attention to heaven and that God must submit to them, and the pope of Rome declares that Judaism gives service to the true God and is not engaged in idolatry.

The only people who could possibly fall for this risible papal bunkum are those who want to be deceived, who "take pleasure in unrighteousness" and who "refuse to love the truth and be saved." 

Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.
______

On the Contrary is reader-funded. It is published today thanks to donations from readers like you, and the sale of Hoffman's books, newsletters and recordings. Join other truth-seekers in giving something back for that which you have received, thereby helping to ensure the continuation of this service.

Michael Hoffman • Box 849 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816 USA 

Donations   |   Bookstore

***

17 comments:

apsterian said...

Hoffman Should Think Twice About His Pharisaical Recent Work On Usury
(Apollonian, 27 Nov 13)

Hoffman: I read ur books, "Judaism's Strange Gods," and "Judaism Discovered"; they're out-standing good works and u deserve much credit.

But when it comes to "usury" subject, u're all wet, comrade, and u need to get a clue--IT'S NOT MERE CHARGING OF INTEREST. U don't know what u're about, so UTTERLY IGNORANT of economics--and money & banking--u obviously are.

What usury refers to is, first of all, the issuing of EXCESS money substitutes, or RECEIPTS, for gold (or silver) that's deposited in banks, which banks are, simply, warehouses for the real money which must be commodity, like gold and silver--which have their own "intrinsic" value and are finite in quantity.

The interest charged is SECONDARY in importance, mere "icing" on proverbial cake. Let me explain.

Note bankers are sometimes & often authorized by depositors to lend out their deposited money (gold or silver) for a fee, the depositors relying upon the banker to know what's BEST INVESTMENT--the banker then pays the depositors a fee, called "interest," for use of the money the banker is authorized to lend. Note then, this "interest" is, FIRST, paid BY THE BANKER to the depositor.

And note the banker is willing to pay this interest fee because the banker plans and intends to make a money profit for himself. The fee the banker pays is INCENTIVE to encourage the depositor to authorize the use of HIS money for the bankers' investing. The banker is eager to have the money, thus quite willing to pay the "interest."

Note there's LIMIT on what can be lent--only what has been deposited and authorized. Thus when the bankers lend money out--INVESTING--they usually don't actually give the borrowers the gold, but rather RECEIPT(S) for that gold, or, not even that, but rather, simply a credit account upon which the borrower writes checks. Originally, it was probably just the receipts, the credit system coming later.

Thus receipt money came to circulate at least as much as actual gold or silver, and the depositors rarely had to exchange the receipts for the gold on deposit--why should they, as long as everyone, buyers and sellers, treated the receipts like the real thing (the gold or silver)?

But as humans are sinners, the bankers began to issue EXCESS receipt money and loans WHICH WERE NOT BACKED BY ANY REAL, COMMODITY MONEY, THE GOLD OR SILVER. There came to be more receipt money than there was gold or silver to back it--get it?

And the bankers were able to get away w. these fraudulent loans as, for one thing, they would charge a lesser interest rate--than what they were required to pay the original depositors. This lesser interest rate was the way they encouraged people to take out the loans of the un-backed receipt-money offered.

* * * * * * * *
[----SEE BELOW FOR PART TWO-----]

apsterian said...

[----------BELOW IS PART TWO TO ABOVE PART ONE------------]

* * * * * * * * * *


And this whole process, including, NECESSARILY, the fraudulent (un-backed) receipt-money was what was referred-to as "usury" NOT NOT NOT NOT just the charging of interest, that charging-of-interest merely secondary part of the large scam.

So I realize this foregoing expo totally blows the entire premise of the Pharisaical book u wrote on the usury subject, and u won't publish this comment, but still, u may consider urself duly informed of the real truth and facts regarding money and banking, interest, and usury.

The complications and consequences to this fraudulent banking practice is NOT DUE PRIMARILY TO CHARGING OF INTEREST, but rather, the effective COUNTERFEITING (proliferation and replication) of the original receipt money--the charging of interest is mere side-issue which the frauds and liars pretend is the real, primary issue--which fallacy u urself have fallen for.

When the people begin to suspect the bankers' fraudulent issuing of excess receipt-money, they typically rush to redeem their own receipt money for the original gold and silver, and a general "DEFLATION" is observed, this attributed to high interest rates, but actually just the natural (and necessary) reduction of circulating receipts to conform w. the real quantity of gold & silver on deposit.

Thus later governments issued "Legal Tender" laws by which people were forced to accept the receipt-money, even though it was un-backed and fraudulently issued by the criminal bankers who now were in quite closely w. the government, actually controlling the government. This sort of money became to be known as "fiat-money."

In conclusion, note the entire, basic pt. to "usury" issue is the effective COUNTERFEITING of the money supply--though of course, gold & silver cannot be counterfeited themselves. "COUNTERFEITING" thus actually refers to the illegitimate proliferation of ostensive receipt-money, which is not backed by the necessary commodity money, gold & silver.

Note charging of interest is simply a contractual agreement btwn parties which entails no criminality or fraud on part of the parties, long as they both consent to the agreement, as w. any other sort of contractual agreement.

Such is the complexity of the subject of USURY, which ur un-fortunate book totally mis-understands--and, in fact, actually perpetuates. Usury entails FAR MORE than mere charging of interest, which by itself, is not sinful in the least.

How is it, Hoffman, u imagine urself competent to pontificate upon matters of business and economics WHICH U KNOW SO LITTLE ABOUT? Do u really think u hit upon something everyone else overlooked?

U should immediately withdraw ur book on usury in order to save the genuine attraction and appreciation of ur other works, which I've read and noted above

Michael Hoffman said...

apsterian has not read my book “Usury in Chritendom” and his argument is flawed from its very premise — that the prohibition on usury is a prohibition against excess interest. History teaches otherwise.

Read my book and answer my documentation.

Michael Hoffman said...

In his second comment apsterian writes:

“...charging of interest is simply a contractual agreement btwn parties which entails no criminality or fraud on part of the parties, long as they both consent to the agreement, as w. any other sort of contractual agreement.”

This is libertarian capitalism, not Christian doctrine.

My usury book is an exposition of the history of the overthrow of the Biblical teaching on loans of money.

Denouncing a book in advance of reading it and citing its arguments is not a very effective or impressive means of persuasion or polemical discourse.

apsterian said...

Hoffman: I have indeed read ur book on usury. And the Bible prohibition is upon USURY--NOT NOT NOT NOT charging of interest, "excessive" or otherwise.

Further, I don't make any case whatsoever regarding the amount or rate of interest--there's no such thing as "excessive" interest. Again, the subject of charging-of-interest is strictly a matter of free contract btwn parties--it doesn't matter how great or small is the rate agreed upon--it could be 150% or just 2%--the pt. is it's ENTIRELY up to the free consent to agreement of the parties.

Only other thing I forgot was to provide references, the best being G. Edward Griffin's, "The Creature From Jekyll Island. Others are Murray Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking," and Groseclose's "Man and Money."


apsterian said...




Hoffman: again, note I DID read ur recent work on usury, every word, fm front to back, never doubt.

I DON'T TAKE ISSUE w. ur general argumentation which isn't bad for logic, given ur premises.

BUT, u must realize u're operating upon FALSE PREMISE, as I've noted: "USURY" IS NOT SAME THING AS MERE CHARGING OF INTEREST, and charging-of-interest is NOT NOT NOT NOT the problem.

Problem is the (legalized) COUNTERFEITING of the "money-supply"--which nowadays, especially, consists of paper money ("notes"), originally receipts for the real money which should be commodity in nature.

"Charging-of-interest" is ancillary and mere side-issue to the general USURY problem--get a clue.

The Church only properly prohibits USURY, properly understood, beginning w. the legalized COUNTERFEITING of the money supply, this "money" referring to the supposed receipts which are illegitimately proliferated/replicated by fraudulent bankers.

Charging of interest if perfectly legitimate, and NOT NOT NOT properly subject to prohibition by church officials pretending to authority given fm Heaven.

apsterian said...

That last sentence to above note of mine should be: "Chargin of interest IS perfectly legitimate...." Sorry about that mis-spelling.

Eric Robinson said...

Aspterian,

I can assure you that anyone who reads this blog is privy to the fact that banks can and do loan money without the tangible assets necessary to back up those loans.

If you really have read Mr. Hoffman's book on usury, you should already know that your claim that the Bible's interpretation of usury doesn't include interest is a blatant lie. ANY INCREASE upon lending is usury. Hoffman's overview of William Greenhill's irrefutable 1651 treatise on the subject proves it quite well.

And just in case you require a secular source to explain that any INCREASE in the "Art of Acquisition" should be considered as usury at its basest form, here's Aristotle's explanation of usury:

"The trade of the petty usurer is hated most, and with most reason: it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process (i.e., of exchange) which currency was meant to serve. Currency came into existence merely as a means of exchange; usury tries to make it increase (as though it were an end in itself). This is the reason why usury is called by the word we commonly use (the word tokos, which in Greek also means breed or offspring); for as the offspring resembles its parent, so the interest bred by money is like the principal which breeds it and it may be called 'currency the son of currency.' Hence we can understand why, of all modes of acquisition, usury is the most unnatural."

apsterian said...

Eric: Like I said, I read Hoffman's entire work. And I didn't say "usury" didn't include charging-of-interest. What I said was that it (usury) was MORE than just charging-of-interest. Further, I explained that the charging-of-interest part WAS NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT the real, essential, primary problem. Finally, I pt'd out that the prohibition was properly upon usury--the entire, whole problem--NOT NOT NOT NOT merely upon charging-of-interest.

U need to realize there's serious problem for the real definition and how "usury" was understood--not very well. The thing we take away nowadays (and throughout history, evidently) is that it, "usury," involved charging-of-interest, BUT that wasn't all there was to the large usury problem. In fact, as I note, charging-of-interest was/is mere side-light and secondary.

The essence of usury is the issuance of bogus receipt-money which isn't backed by the real thing, the commodity-money (gold/silver). Note this issuance of un-backed receipt-money is actually COUNTERFEITING which has now been legalized by governments, beginning in Renaissance Italy, through today's US Federal Reserve Bank, along w. the Legal Tender laws, etc.

Charging-of-interest upon this initial COUNTERFEITING is certainly onerous, but it's merely a complication, and isn't, as I note, the PRIMARY problem to usury.

Note charging-of-interest rather tends, not only to complicating and obfuscating the initial problem, but actually even seems to legitimize the original crime/fraud, the COUNTERFEITING in the first place.

Note further, in later yrs the frauds and criminals sought to justify the whole process, including the primary problem--COUNTERFEITING--by pt-ing to the relative harmlessness of charging interest and the patent absurdity of banning this charging-of-interest, esp. in view of not mentioning the primary problem--COUNTERFEITING.



Eric Robinson said...

Undermining the usurious practice of interest taking whittles away at the very foundation of the for-profit banking industry and is rightfully targeted as the main culprit by Hoffman. You say that interest is “relatively harmless” yet how many humans (and nations) have been utterly ruined by its persistent bite? How much wealth has been transferred to these vultures, who, in your morally bankrupt opinion, would be more than welcome to that “relatively harmless” interest if their activities were fueled by supposed precious metal holdings? Returning to a “gold standard” is a far more absurd proposal for solving the problem because it's just a single commodity and is subject to “stock jabbing”, which doesn't make for a very predictable/stable/crime-free economy.

The "counterfeiting" you speak of is a byproduct of interest being allowed to thrive throughout Christendom for centuries as moneylenders became more brazen and the proles grew less capable of understanding and/or became apathetic to the economy's inner workings. Hoffman's book does not associate usury solely with interest... the love of money is the actual root of the problem and enables usury, in all its forms, to exist.

gedjad said...

Perhaps the popes refer to righteous jews who follow natural law. If a jew loves the truth then he loves Jesus who is the truth, even though said jew may not agree the the man living 2000 years ago was God in the flesh;
still, I don't think he would be rejected for that oversight; as neither would a jungle dweller. I do agree that the pope may be feeding into the extreme presumption of many jews however

apsterian said...




Ho ho ho--in my "morally bankrupt opinion"?--WHO do u actually think u are? I gave u excellent references, and u can go now and read-up to find out what it's all about.

U're the one who can't read--as u mis-represent what I said in first place.

And what do u know about the gold-standard?--it's only been in use now for AT LEAST 5,000 yrs, and has always worked. If u simply look at history u'll see commodity-money (gold and/or silver) goes w. free & prosperous societies, which needs no gov. to enforce.

ONLY Dictatorship can remove the commodity/gold/silver money standard, and they do this because they want to COUNTERFEIT (legally) the money supply--like present US Federal Reserve Bank--get a clue. For by means of this legally COUNTERFEITED money criminal gov.s can spend nearly endlessly.

Charging interest is mere icing-on-the-cake to the basic, primary scam which works so well to distracting those who aren't too bright, eh?--as we see. Ho hoo ho ho ho


Eric Robinson said...

As I had said in the first sentence of my original response, no one here needs any explanation from you on fractional reserve banking. To your claim that I'm “misreading” your comments, I'd have to attribute that to the fact that you appear to be schizophrenic or mentally retarded. Let me show you what I mean:

You said: “Usury entails FAR MORE than mere charging of interest, which by itself, is not sinful in the least.” and “And the Bible prohibition is upon USURY--NOT NOT NOT NOT charging of interest, "excessive" or otherwise.”

When I proved these above claims to be false, you changed your story: “And I didn't say 'usury' didn't include charging-of-interest. What I said was that it (usury) was MORE than just charging-of-interest.”

Now, I never claimed to be a morally superior being, but at least I don't advocate for-profit banking, which only a true slave would so fervently defend as you're doing now.

I assume you are engaging in gold worship because perhaps you have some precious metals that you'd like to see grow in value and you foolishly perceive that a "commodity-currency" will bring that frequently parroted pipe-dream to fruition.

A return to the gold standard at this point in time would only serve the current banking system, as all countries bound by it have been paying their debt with their gold reserves. Your pathetic notions that during gold's “5000” year rule, governments autonomously served the people and were not subject to criminal politics are just asinine.

Do us all a favor and prove you're not a mindless troll/shill by quoting from a page of Hoffman's book, let's say lines 4-7 of page 363.

apsterian said...



By golly, Eric: u're sooooo smart and sooooooo virtuous, what more can I or anyone say, eh?

But I've made my case, and people can judge for themselves fm this blog's previous dialectic--Hoffman deserves credit for publishing.

I just wanted Hoffman to understand usury is not merely charging-of-interest--there's more to it. Hence there can be no proper banning of mere charging-of-interest which is mere matter of free contract btwn parties.

But what's wrong w. "for-profit banking"?--is it just the "for profit" u're really against?--like any Pharisaical, anti-human statist-socialist?

For banking is perfectly legitimate profession, providing for literal ware-housing of gold/silver which is heavy and bulky--why shouldn't honest people be able to make a fair living fm such valuable service?

But u don't have to answer, Eric; people can already see what u're really all about.




anathoth said...

Thanks Michael for again, exposing the pope's apostate statements - this time on the fatal premise of "grace by race" where the Jews are concerned. I just launched a site in part dealing with this very thing "The politically incorrect Son of God" where several of the verses you quoted from scripture are also made use of on my site. http://www.theremnant24.com

Sorry, no comment on usury here ;-)

messianicdruid said...

"For banking is perfectly legitimate profession, providing for literal ware-housing of gold/silver which is heavy and bulky--why shouldn't honest people be able to make a fair living fm such valuable service?"

Because they already have all the gold and silver and the rest of us have no need for their "service"?

apsterian said...

Banking is legitimate profession: (a) in first place, it's simply warehousing for storage of commodity money, gold/silver being best, most popular forms.

For note a good producer/businessman will tend to accumulate larger quantities, and it's not always easy to carry it all around w. him. Second, note there is problem of security for these quantities of money. Thus the need for SECURE banking-warehousing is obvious.

This first kind of bank-warehouse corresponds w. present-day checking-account. Note the svc is done by the bank-warehouse, and the depositor would properly pay the bank for such valuable svc of secure warehousing.

(b) The other sort of banking I've already discussed (above), corresponding to present-day savings-accounts, when the depositor relies upon the bank to invest the money which, if stored in first sort of bank, pure ware-housing, would earn nothing.

Don't forget, many folks lack confidence in their ability to invest and rely upon professionals who then pay to be able to use funds of depositors.

"USURY" is entirely different--purely criminal activity involving the bogus (fraudulent) issuance of bank-receipts for commodity money which doesn't exist. The huge joke upon people is that charging-of-interest is the primary problem.

And once again, note this issue of the real nature of money in the first place was ALWAYS very little understood throughout history, even to this very day. Thus the popular attention was drawn to the charging-of-interest, the people mis-informed and distracted to the real problem of (legalized) COUNTERFEITING--nowadays blatantly perpetrated by present US Federal Reserve Bank (Fed).