Skip to comments.Report: Ultra-Orthodox [Jews] Spitting at Christian Clergy in Jerusalem
Posted on 11/04/2011 7:56:36 PM PDT by marshmallow
Details, from a Jewish paper in Israel:
Ultra-Orthodox young men curse and spit at Christian clergymen in the streets of Jerusalems Old City as a matter of routine. In most cases the clergymen ignore the attacks, but sometimes they strike back. Last week the Jerusalem Magistrates Court quashed the indictment against an Armenian priesthood student who had punched the man who spat at him.
Johannes Martarsian was walking in the Old City in May 2008 when an young ultra-Orthodox Jew spat at him. Maratersian punched the spitter in the face, making him bleed, and was charged for assault. But Judge Dov Pollock, who unexpectedly annulled the indictment, wrote in his verdict that putting the defendant on trial for a single blow at a man who spat at his face, after suffering the degradation of being spat on for years while walking around in his church robes is a fundamental contravention of the principles of justice and decency.
Needless to say, spitting toward the defendant when he was wearing the robe is a criminal offense, the judge said.
When Narek Garabedian came to Israel to study in the Armenian Seminary in Jerusalem half a year ago, he did not expect the insults, curses and spitting he would be subjected to daily by ultra-Orthodox Jews in the streets of the Old City.
When I see an ultra-Orthodox man coming toward me in the street, I always ask myself if he will spit at me, says Narek, a Canadian Armenian, this week. About a month ago, on his way to buy groceries in the Old City, two ultra-Orthodox men spat at him. The spittle did not fall at his feet but on his person. Narek, a former football player, decided this time not to turn the other.....
(Excerpt) Read more at patheos.com ...
I don't know, some of the prophecies are pretty scary (such as Milchemet Gog uMagog, the "birthpangs of Messiah," and the last pre-Messianic generation having the characteristics of a dog). At any rate, sweetness always seems to be in short supply and horrors are always readily available. How long can the world go on this way? I know: stupid question. It's always gone on regardless of circumstances.
The Talmud records Some of the descendants of Haman [who in turn was a descendant of Amalek, converted to Judaism and] studied the Torah in public, and even names R. Shmuel bar Shilas. No one is without hope.
Yes, even I have heard the teaching about Haman's descendants. It does give hope.
Now that's more like it! Thank you for taking a stand.
...I queried a Chabad Mashpia this past week before I wrote the previous article commented upon. My question was, “Please clarify for me, did the Rebbe say that the Geulah _can_ come without all the negative prophecies of the Nach (biblical prophets) or _will_ come without all the negative prophecies?” He answered, “The Rebbe said the Geulah _CAN_ come without all the negative prophecies.” And I’ll add the Rebbe clearly defined that SOME of the prophecies have already been fulfilled...
...The Melitzer Rebbe, my esteemed and beloved teacher and spiritual guide, explained to me yesterday - in the exact words that he heard from the holy Rebbe Aaron of Belz of blessed memory - that the murder of 6,000,000 Jewish martyrs in the Nazi Holocaust was the pinnacle of Gog and Magog’s attack against Am Yisroel, the people of Israel. As a result, a third of the Jewish people was destroyed.
Gog and Magog are dead...
I have also been told that the turmoil of the previous few centuries could be Milchemet Gog uMagog.
So when do Jews start burying their bodies in Gei Hamon Gog?
Not saying I agree exactly, but the typical explanation is that it is a spiritual occurrence. This is the type of topic best discussed with an actual live teacher familiar with specifics.
Another explanation is that Jews will not be among the dead. Interestingly, it is attributed to the Vilna Gaon that the culmination of the war will last 12 minutes!
With appropriate respect, "lying" is the proper word. The poster spread vicious lies and slander about Orthodox Judaism, which almost certainly came from his/her own sick imagination and/or prejudices. It is absurdly inconceivable that a convert to Orthodox Judaism would describe a "conversion" ceremony that involved standing naked and having water poured over her in front of men, or spitting on a Bible. No such ceremony exists, and such a ceremony would violate at least a half a dozen Torah commands. It is nearly akin to someone saying "a Jewish friend of mine told me that they add a ceremonial drop of Christian virgin blood to Passover matzah" or "a Jewish friend of mine told me that Jews like to stab the consecrated host." It is far, far more probable that the poster himself/herself invented this lie to spread vicious falsehoods about Jews and Judaism. I have no tolerance for that crap, and neither should FR.
I would strongly disagree with this. Haredi Judaism is more akin to Reform Judaism, except on the right. Whereas Reform Judaism abolished Torah commandments to fit in, the Haredim have added stringency upon stringency for the point of walling themselves apart in a mock 18th century Poland. Its ideology is no more than two hundred years old. Traditional Judaism was not Haredi, stressed leniencies, and interacted with the modern world. The greatest Hakhamim of all time, such as Rambam and Yehudah HaNassi, would feel much more at home in a Modern Orthodox congregation than a Haredi backwater.
You are incorrect. The Inquisition was an instrument of the Church itself. In fact, its direct descendant, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, survives today as an office office within the Church, and was until 2005 headed by the future Pope Benedict XVI. The Inquisition's tribunals were entirely ecclesiastical, were conducted by priests, and under canon law.
It would be more accurate to say "the Inquisition targeted Jews who had been forced or coerced to have insincere conversions to Christianity on pain of death, exile, and/or abject poverty; it employed torture, and often handed over those Jews to secular authorities for execution."
A quick post before I retire but there were two different and distinct Inquisitions. It was the Roman Inquisition that was set up by the Church to combat the Albigensians in southern France. It never operated in Spain. The Spanish Inquisition was established by the Spanish crown and served the interests of the state, not those of the Church. Its attacks against the Conversos were a product of the state to eliminate those who were feared to be politically subversive; its purpose was not to target Jews to force their conversion. Failure to understand this distinction is a failure to understand history.
Sigh. Its purpose was pretty clearly to target Jews and Muslims who, the Church believed, had insincerely converted to Catholicism. Why did they insincerely convert? Because they were threatened with death, exile, or loss of property. Study up on the massacres committed in 1391, which were incited by the Archdeacon of Ecija, or the conditions imposed on Jews in 1492. If Spain hadn't forced or coerced Jews to convert, often on pain of death, it wouldn't have had the problem of "insincere" converts to go after through an Inquisition. Do you deny the century of massacres, oppression and hatred that preceded the expulsion? Do you excuse it? Do you really think it matters that much if some people who aren't super history scholars attribute those atrocities to the Inquisition, instead of local priests, angry Christian mobs, and the Spanish crown?
The story reminds me of claims made about Mormon temple ceremonies and the anointing of private body parts. And likewise Mormon Freepers may accuse the poster of vicious error but he must not read the other Freeper's mind, i.e. that he intended to deceive.
Flame wars easily ignite when posters turn from issues to persons. Condemning the statement in no uncertain terms is not "making it personal." Debunking it is not "making it personal." Telling the poster he has been fed false information is not "making it personal."
“libelous” ? Don’t make me laugh. Your revisionism is what stinks.
I can't tell if you're just supremely ignorant, or something much worse. Denying the massacres, torture, and property seizures that Sephardi Jews encountered en masse between 1391 and 1492 is denying history (not to mention the expulsion in 1492, which directly caused thousands of deaths in transit, and the Inquisition thereafter of conversos who secretly practiced Judaism). It is on par with denying the Holocaust. Learn your history.
Petronius makes up his own history.
Yes, I have. Historically, it is a concept with a singularly foul odor.
(whom you look on as proto-chr*stians)
Drop the attempted mind-reading.
. then you are against Judaism, the true religion.
Wrong, "Chico". The true religion is Christianity. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you keep it to yourself.
And then (to quote Razor Ramon), you an' me got a really big problem, Chico!
Your problems, again, are your own. Again, I suggest you keep them to yourself.
And yes, I do suggest that folks refrain from mass murder. And, for that matter, that they refrain from such disgusting behaviour as spitting on their opponents. I am very much against cultures which condone these things.
Once more, if you have a problem with that, I suggest that you keep it to yourself.
I'd suggest you look up the phrases "free country" and "First Amendment." You don't like what ZC says, don't listen to him or read his posts. Personally, I find pretty much all missionizing annoying, whether its Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Bahai. But "suggesting" that people should "keep" religious views you don't agree to themselves is anti-American.
Hehe. Sure seems to me that, given recent developments, a whole bunch of zotted posters are owed an apology and should be invited back from exile to Stormfront!
BTW, in your opinion is spitting on folks with whom one disagrees (even to the point of considering their religion false and idolatrous) an acceptable behaviour? That's what this thread is really about, not that other individuals beliefs with which I disagree.
But "suggesting" that people should "keep" religious views you don't agree to themselves is anti-American.
I did not suggest that he keep his religious views to himself, I suggested that he keep his "problems" (his word, not mine) with other folks beliefs to himself. If he wants a fight, I'm not terribly interested in obliging him.
I am sorry for posting this. I thought it would be similar to the subject at hand. This is not a lie on my part. It was something that was told to me, and that I have found very disturbing. I hope it is not true.