THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN PART 1
[The following is written from a Christian perspective, using the holy books of the Jews, and the Bible]. Given the use of Judao-Christian false 'brotherhood of man' theology and false Biblical claims to Palestine by the Khazars [modern Jews], this work is most relevent... so non-Christian readers, do bear with us.
Thanks to the reader who sent this in:
Part 1: The Talmud;
Part 2: The Zohar.
By Bobby Ripp 6-6-1998, updated 6-10-98 > -------------------- >
For the past eight years I have studied and researched everything there is to know about Satan's schemes and the methodologies he employs for each deception. And these studies encompassed the history of mankind's seduction of Satan, from its genesis to our modern times. Without doubt, and with a high degree of certainty I believed there were no more dark mysteries that needed uncovering.
However, recently while researching material for a new book I am writing, titled 'Who is a Jew?' I came across some interesting material. Material, which reeks blasphemy and even till this day has bewildered my ability to comprehend how for the most part, that such blasphemous information had remained hidden from public viewing.
And more astounding except for a short period during the medieval times and a few other rare occurrences this material also has for the past two thousand years been kept hidden from the Christian community. This material which is of Jewish origin is known as the Babylonian Talmud (oral law) and Zohar (hidden mysteries/wisdom).
And contrary to that, which is commonly taught throughout Christianity that the Torah (written > law, which consist of the five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch) is the primary teaching of Judaism, these two ancient Jewish teachings (Babylonian Talmud and Zohar) are the true essence of Judaism.
At the time of Christ, the Talmudic teachings, which were taught by the Scribes and Pharisees, was known as the 'Traditions of the Elders'. And the Zoharic teachings were then known as 'Merkabah.' The rabbis of Judaism teach that Moses received three teachings from God on Mount Sania. Which are, the written law (the Torah), the commandments or oral law (the Talmud, Mishnah) and the hidden mysteries/wisdom (the Zohar). Perspectively, the rabbi reads or recites passages from the Torah.
Talmud, on the other hand is the interpretation of the Torah. And the Zohar is the hidden or deeper meaning of the Torah. In essence, when a rabbi teaches Torah, he expounds from the Talmud. And when a rabbi or an elite (Tzadik) of Judaism, Hassidic (ultra orthodox) want to understand the deeper meaning of Torah, they study or contemplate Zohar.
The scope of these two ancient teachings is voluminous. Where the Hebrew version of the Talmud encompasses 26 volumes and the English translation known as the Soncino edition contains 16 volumes. And the Zohar (which is also known as the 'Book of Splendor') is not as large as the Talmudic work, but also is quite extensive with the English Soncino edition covering 4 volumes.
Note, within the scope of this article it would be impossible to expound on the teachings of the Talmud to great length. Notwithstanding, it is my hope that from this article, the reader would at least ascertain a key that could open the door to understanding the grandest of all the hidden mysteries' of Satan. And more importantly, because a large percentage of the New Testament writings warn us of these blasphemous teachings of the Scribes and Pharisees (Rabbinical Judaism), it is also my hope that the reader attain a greater understanding of the Truth which the Gospel contains.
Prior to my present knowledge of the true teachings of Judaism, I perceived Judaism as a religious body, who had failed to emulate the teachings and writings of the Old Testament. However, from my own research reviewing large segments from both the Talmud and Zohar writings, I now know that my earlier perception of Judaism was immensely off based. In other words,
I now know that the Jews did not fail in their efforts to live accordingly to the written law, instead what they did, by the Talmudic teachings they rewrote God's commandments in such away and to such a degree that God's commandments became corrupt and non effective. Also, I now have a better understanding why Jesus was so adamant in declaring judgment and condemnation upon the Scribes, Pharisees and Sadducees: NKJV Luke 11:52; "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered." KJV Matthew 16:6; Then Jesus said unto them, "Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."
In order to grasp the significance and depth of these heretical teachings; let us examine excerpts from the Babylonian Talmud. Note: Warning, the following material to some may be repulsive and disillusioning. Nevertheless, as incredible and shocking it is, the following are excerpts verbatim taken from my own private collection of Soncino's English edition of the Babylonian Talmud.
The Talmud Exodus 20:3; "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
Thus saith the LORD! Yet, Rabbi Says; Regarding Devotion to Other gods, There are Ways that are Permissible.
"Mishnah: HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH."
"GEMARA: The Mishnah teaches idolatry and giving to Molech. R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 64a: Exodus 20:7; "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
Thus saith the LORD! Yet, Rabbi Says; If Your Anger is not Directed towards God, it is Permissible to Profane God's name: "For blasphemy is an indictable offence only if it is mentally directed against God. If however, one reviles the Divine Name, whilst mentally employing it to denote some other object, he is not punished. Consequently, since the essence of the offence is mental, the slight action is disregarded."
Footnote #17, Talmud Mas. Sanhedrin 65a: Exodus 20:4; "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: " Thus saith the LORD! Yet, Rabbi Says; Only when the Last Stroke is made is the Thing Considered an Idol "WHEN, HOWEVER, HE REACHES THE CUPOLA IN WHICH THE IDOL IS PLACED [HE MUST NOT BUILD]. Said R. Eleazar in the name of R. Johanan: If, however, he did build, the pay he received is permitted. This surely is obvious: it is a case of appurtenances of idols, and appurtenances of idols, whether according to R. Ishmael or according to R. Akiba, are not forbidden till actually worshipped! Said R. Jeremiah: It is necessary in the case of the idol itself. This would be right according to the one who holds that [to derive any benefit from] the making of an idol for an Israelite is forbidden forthwith, but from the making of one for an idolater, not until it is worshipped.
In that case this is very well; but according to the one who holds that even when made for an idolater [any benefit] is forbidden forthwith, what is there to be said? But, said Rabbah b. 'Ulla, the statement is necessary in regard to the last stroke of work; for what is it that makes the idol fit for worship? It is its completion; and when is the completion brought about? With the last stroke. But the last stroke does not constitute the value of a perutah! Consequently, he holds the opinion that the wage is earned from the beginning to the end [of the work]."
Talmud - Mas. Avodah Zarah 19b: Exodus 20:8-10; "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates."
Thus saith the LORD! Yet, Rabbi Says; Only for the Purpose of Destruction, is work Permissible during Sabbath: "One is not liable for desecrating the Sabbath when his work is destructive; but if he demolishes a house in order to rebuild, it is regarded as constructive. Now, extinguishing a wick, thereby destroying its light, is the equivalent of demolishing a house; if the purpose is to save the wick to be used again later, it is analogous to demolishing a house to build on the same site, since it is the wick which is extinguished and the wick which is to be relit. But if the purpose is to save the oil or the lamp, it is analogous to demolishing a house in order to rebuild elsewhere, for whereas the wick is extinguished, it is the oil or lamp that is saved for subsequent use."
Footnote: Talmud, Mas. Shabbath 31b: Exodus 20:12; "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." Thus saith the LORD! Yet, Rabbi Says; It is Permissible to Strike Parents As long as You do not Wound Them.
"Mishnah. He who strikes his father or his mother is liable only if he wounds them. In this respect, cursing is more stringent than smiting, for, he who curses [his parents] after death is liable, whilst he who smites them after death is not."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 85b: Yet, Rabbi Says; it is Permissible to Curse Parents As long as You do not use God's name
"Mishnah. One who curses his father or his mother is not punished unless he curses them by the divine name. If he cursed them by an attribute, R. Meir held him liable, but the sages ruled that he is exempt."
Talmud, Mas Sanhedrin 66a: Exodus 20:13; "Thou shalt not kill."
Thus saith the LORD! Yet, Rabbi Says; Only if the Assailant directly Caused the Death is he Responsible.
"MISHNAH, THE FOLLOWING ARE DECAPITATED: A MURDERER, AND THE INHABITANTS OF A SEDUCED CITY. A MURDERER WHO SLEW HIS FELLOW WITH A STONE OR AN IRON, OR KEPT HIM DOWN UNDER WATER OR IN FIRE, SO THAT HE COULD NOT ASCEND THENCE, IS EXECUTED. IF HE PUSHED HIM INTO WATER OR FIRE, BUT SO THAT HE COULD ASCEND, YET HE DIED, HE IS FREE [FROM DEATH]. IF HE SET ON A DOG OR A SNAKE AGAINST HIM [AND THEY KILLED HIM], HE IS FREE FROM DEATH. BUT IF HE CAUSED A SNAKE TO BITE HIM [BY PUTTING HIS JAWS AGAINST HIM]. R. JUDAH RULED THAT HE IS EXECUTED; THE SAGES, THAT HE IS NOT." "OR KEPT HIM DOWN UNDER WATER. The first clause teaches the extreme limit of the law, and so does the last. Thus, the first clause teaches the extreme limit of the law, that though he himself did not push him [into the water], yet since he could not ascend, [through being held down], and so died, he is executed. The last clause likewise teaches the extreme limit, that though he actually pushed him into the water, yet since he could have ascended, but died, he is free from death."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 76b: "Raba said: If one bound his neighbor and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution. Raba also said: If he bound him in the sun, and he died, or in a place of intense cold and he died, he is liable; but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not. Raba also said: If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable: before mosquitoes, [who stung him to death] he is. R. Ashi said: Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 77a: "It has been stated: If one overturned a vat upon a man [who then died of suffocation], or broke open a ceiling above him, Raba and R. Zera [differ]: One ruled that he is liable, the other that he is not. It can be proved that it was Raba who ruled that he is not liable, for he said: If one bound his neighbor and he dies of starvation, he is not liable."
"Raba said: If one thrust his neighbor into a pit, in which there was a ladder [so that he could have climbed out], and then another came and removed it, or even if himself hastened to remove it, he is not liable [for the victim's death], because when he threw him in he could have climbed out. Raba also said: If one shot an arrow at his neighbor, who was holding a shield, but another came and snatched it away, or even if he himself [the thrower] hastened to do so, he is not liable, because when he shot the arrow its force was spent."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 77a: "Our Rabbis taught: If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow. R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And he that killeth kol nefesh [lit., 'all life'] of man shall surely be put to death. The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies the whole life; but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 78a: "IF HE SET ON A DOG OR A SNAKE AGAINST HIM, etc." "R. Aha b. Jacob said: If you will investigate [the grounds of the dispute, you will learn that] in R. Judah's opinion the snake's poison is lodged in its fangs, therefore, one who causes it to bite [by placing its fangs against the victim's flesh] is decapitated, whilst the snake itself is exempt. But in the view of the Sages the snake emits the poison of its own accord; therefore the snake is stoned, whilst he who caused it to bite is exempt."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 78a: Exodus 20:14; "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Thus saith the LORD!
Yet, Rabbi Says; When a Woman has Sexual Intercourse with a Boy the Degree of Wrong is as Being Injured by a Piece of Wood.
"GEMARA. Rab Judah said that Rab said: A small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman makes her [as hough she were] injured by a piece of wood. When I said it before Samuel he said: 'Injured by a piece of wood' does not apply to flesh. Some teach this teaching by itself: [As to] a small boy who has intercourse with a grown-up woman. Rab said, he makes her [as though she were] injured by a piece of wood; whereas Samuel said: 'Injured by a piece of wood' does not apply to flesh. R."
Talmud, Mas. Kethuboth 11b: Yet, Rabbi Says; When a man has Intercourse with a Little Girl it is Nothing "Raba said. It means this: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye; but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as 'a girl who is injured by a piece of wood.' and [with regard to the case of] 'a girl injured by a piece of wood.' itself, there is the difference of opinion between R. Meir and the Sages."
Talmud, Mas. Kethuboth 11b: Yet, Rabbi Says; A Little Girl must be Three Years Old to have Intercourse "An objection was raised: A girl of the age of three years and even one of the age of two years and one day may be betrothed by intercourse; so R. Meir. But the Sages say: Only one who is three years and one day old."
Talmud, Mas. Nidah 44b: Yet, Rabbi Says; If a Little Girl is Forced to have Intercourse before She is Three, No Problem, on the Third Time it is as Though a Finger Being Dipped in Honey. "Our Rabbis taught: A story is told of a certain woman who came before R. Akiba and said to him, 'Master, intercourse has been forced upon me when I was under three years of age; what is my position towards the priesthood?' 'You are fit for the priesthood', he replied. 'Master', she continued, 'I will give you a comparison; to what may the incident be compared? To a babe whose finger was submerged in honey. The first time and the second time he cries about it, but the third time he sucks it'."
Talmud, Mas. Nidah 45a: Intercourse with Animals..."This represents the view of R. Meir, while Rab holds the same view as R. Eleazar. If [Rab holds the same view] as R. Eleazar, what was the object of pointing to her previous carnal intercourse when [her prohibition] could have been inferred from the fact that she was a harlot, R. Eleazar having stated that an unmarried man who cohabited with an unmarried woman with no matrimonial intention renders her thereby a harlot! R. Joseph replied: When, for instance, the woman was subjected to intercourse with a beast, where the reason of 'previous carnal intercourse may be applied but not that of harlot. Said Abaye to him: Whatever you prefer [your reply cannot be upheld], If she is a be'ulah she must also be a harlot; and if she is not a harlot she cannot be a be'ulah either! And were you to reply: This case is similar to that of a wounded woman, [it may be pointed out] that if [the disqualification should be extended to] unnatural intercourse also, you will find no woman eligible to m arry a [High Priest [since there is not one] who has not been in some way wounded by a splinter! No, said R. Zera, in respect of a minor who made a > declaration of refusal."
Yet, Rabbi Says; A Women who had Intercourse with an Animal is Eligible to Marry a Priest "R. Shimi b. Hiyya stated: A woman who had intercourse with a beast is eligible to marry a priest. Likewise it was taught: A woman who had intercourse with that which is no human being, though she is in consequence subject to the penalty of stoning, is nevertheless permitted to marry a priest." "When R. Dimi came he related: It once happened at Haitalu that while a young woman was sweeping the floor a village dog covered her from the rear, and Rabbi permitted her to marry a priest. Samuel said: Even a High Priest. But was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi? Rather, [Samuel meant]: Fit for a High Priest." "Raba of Parzakaia said to R. Ashi: Whence is derived the following statement which the Rabbis made: Harlotry is not applicable to bestial intercourse? It is written, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, and yet we learned that the hire of a dog and the price of a harlot are permitted because it is said, Even both these, two only but not four."
Talmud, Mas. Yevamoth 59b: Exodus 20:15; "Thou shalt not steal." Thus saith the LORD!
Yet, Rabbi Says; "Scripturally, Only the Abduction of Human Beings is to be Considered Stealing "R. Josiah said: From Thou shalt not steal. R. Johanan said: From They shall not be sold as bondsmen. Now, there is no dispute: one Master states the prohibition for stealing [i.e., abduction], the other Master for selling [the kidnapped person]. "Our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt not steal. - Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings. You say, Scripture refers to the stealing of human beings; but perhaps it is not so, the theft of property [lit., 'money'] being meant? I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted. [one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context: of what does the text speak? of [crimes involving] capital punishment: hence this too refers [to a crime involving] capital punishment." "Another [Baraitha] taught: Ye shall not steal: The Writ refers to theft of property. You say thus, but perhaps it is not so, Scripture referring to the theft of human beings? I will tell you: Go forth and learn from the thirteen principles whereby the Torah is interpreted,[one of which is that] a law is interpreted by its general context. Of what does the text speak? of money matters; therefore this too refuse to a money [theft]."
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 86a: "It was taught: R. phinehas b. Yair said that where there was a danger of causing a profanation of the Name, even the retaining of a lost article of a heathen is a crime. Samuel said: It is permissible, however, to benefit by his mistake as in the case when Samuel once bought of a heathen a golden bowl under the assumption of it being of copper for four zuz, and also left him minus one zuz. R. Kahana once bought of a heathen a hundred and twenty barrels which were supposed to be a hundred while he similarly left him minus one zuz and said to him: 'See that I am relying upon you.' Rabina together with a heathen bought a palm-tree to chop up [and divide]. He thereupon said to his attendant: Quick, bring to me the parts near to the roots, for the heathen is interested only in the number [but not in the quality]. R. Ashi was once walking on the road when he noticed branches of vines outside a vineyard upon which ripe clusters of grapes were hanging. He said to his attendant: 'Go and s ee, if they belong to a heathen bring them to me, but if to an Israelite do not bring them to me.' The heathen happened to be then sitting in the vineyard and thus overheard this conversation, so he said to him: 'If of a heathen would they be permitted?' He replied: 'A heathen is usually prepared to [dispose of his grapes and] accept payment, whereas an Israelite is generally not prepared to [do so and] accept payment."
Talmud, Mas. Baba Kama 113b: Exodus 20:16; "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Thus saith the LORD!
Yet Rabbi Says; Burn the books of the Minim (pseudonym for Christians) "The blank spaces and the Books of the Minim (Christians), we may not save them from a fire. R. Jose said: On weekdays one must cut out the Divine Names which they contain, hide them, and burn the rest. R. Tarfon said: May I bury my son if I would not burn them together with their Divine Names if they came to my hand. For even if one pursued me to slay me, or a snake pursued me to bite me, I would enter a heathen Temple [for refuge], but not the houses of these [people] (Christians), for the latter know (of God] yet deny [Him], whereas the former are ignorant and deny [Him], and of them the Writ saith, and behind the doors and the posts hast thou set up thy memorial. R. Ishmael said: [One can reason] a minori: If in order to make peace between man and wife the Torah decreed, Let my Name, written in sanctity, be blotted out in water, these, who stir up jealousy, enmity, and wrath between Israel and their Father in Heaven, how much more so; and of them David said, Do not I hate them , O Lord, that hate thee? And am I not grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate then with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies. And just as we may not rescue them from a fire, so may we not rescue them from a collapse [of debris] or from water or from anything that may destroy them" (alluding to Christians).
Talmud, Mas. Shabbath 116a: Exodus 20:17; "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." Saith the LORD!
Yet Rabbi Says; It is Permissible to Steal a heathen's (Gentile - non-Jew) Lost Property "R. Bibi b. Giddal said that R. Simeon the pious stated: The robbery of a heathen is prohibited, though an article lost by him is permissible. His robbery is prohibited, for R. Huna said: Whence do we learn that the robbery of a heathen is prohibited? Because it says: 'And thou shalt consume all the peoples that the Lord thy God shall deliver unto thee'; only in the time [of war] when they were delivered in thy hand [as enemies] this is permitted, whereas this is not so in the time [of peace] when they are not delivered in thy hand [as enemies]. His lost article is permissible, for R. Hama b. Guria said that Rab stated: Whence can we learn that the lost article of a heathen is permissible? Because it says: And with all lost thing of thy brother's: it is to your brother that you make restoration, but you need not make restoration to a heathen. But why not say that this applies only where the lost article has not yet come into the possession of the finder, in which case he is under no obligation to look round for it, whereas if it had already entered his possession, why not say that he should return it. Said Rabina: And thou hast found it surely implies that the lost article has already come into his possession."
Talmud, Mas. Baba Kama 113b: Rabbi Says, Heathens (Gentiles) are not Considered as Man, but Instead are on a Level as Animals "OR USES OIL OF ANOINTING. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over heathens or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man [adam] shall it not be poured; and cattle and vessels are not man. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not man. But why is one exempt in the case of heathens; are they not in the category of adam? No, it is written: And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are adam [man]: Ye are called adam but heathens are not called 'adam. But is it not written: And the persons [adam] were sixteen thousand? - Because it is used in opposition to cattle. But is it not written: And should I not have pity on Nineveh [that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons [adam]? This too is used in opposition to cattle. Or, if you wish, I might explain i t in the light of what a Tanna recited before R. Eleazar: Whosoever is subject to the prohibition 'he shall not pour' is subject to [the law] 'it shall not be poured [over him]'; but he who is not subject to 'he shall not pour' is not subject to 'it shall not be poured [over him]'."
Talmud, Mas. K'rithoth 6b: Rabbi Says, Heathen's Prefer having Intercourse with Israelite Cattle over Their Own Wives "Said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: Because heathens (Gentiles/Christians/Cutherans) frequent their neighbours' wives, and should one by chance not find her in, and find the cattle there, he might use it immorally. You may also say that even if he should find her in he might use the animal, as a Master has said: Heathens prefer the cattle of Israelites to their own wives, for R. Johanan said: When the serpent came unto Eve he infused filthy lust into her. If that be so [the same > should apply] also to Israel!"
Talmud, Mas. Avodah Zarah 22b: Note, the passages which follow are those which the Talmudic Rabbis portray Jesus Christ. The pseudonym Balaam, is used in place of Jesus' name. The reason the Jewish editors used the pseudonym is because of earlier persecutions and censorship from the secular-Christian communities over the past 2,000 years. Furthermore, it is extremely important to note that even though the Talmud advocates a coming Messiah, the Messiah that is advocated is not Jesus Christ but an entirely different Messiah. I mentioned this because throughout Christendom today, many false Christian teachers are teaching that the Talmudic writings allude to the coming Messiah. Yes, it is true that a Messiah is coming. However, as Christians we are taught that the Messiah has come already, and the next coming we await is His second coming. Therefore, since we are waiting for Messiah's second coming, the Messia which the Talmud alludes to obviously differs from the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
Rabbi Says, Jesus was a has-been Prophet that was Cursed by God, Thereafter Lowered to the Status of Soothsayer "Balaam (Jesus) also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword]. (40) A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. (41) R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters.' (42)"
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 106a: Sanhedrin 106a footnotes: (38) V. ibid, XXV, 1-9: since Israel was thus seduced and punished through his advice, as stated above, he demanded payment. (39) So Balaam (Christ), demanding a reward, lost his life. (40) Joshua XIII, 22. (41) As a punishment for wishing to curse Israel he was degraded from a prophet to a soothsayer. (42) 'Shipdraggers,' (v. Rashi). Herford, Christianity in the Talmud, p. 48, suggests that Balaam is frequently used in the Talmud as a type for Jesus (v. also pp. 64-70). Though no name is mentioned to shew which woman is meant, the mother of Jesus may be alluded to, which theory is strengthened by the statement that she mated with a carpenter.
The Munich MS. has rcd in the margin instead of hrcd, i.e., singular instead of plural.). Rabbi Says, regarding Talmud pseudonyms, Balaam alludes to Jesus, and Considered anti-Christian "A certain min3 (Christian) said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam (Jesus) was? He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their days, (4) [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. (5) He rejoined: Thou hast said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's Chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam (Jesus) the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.' (6) Mar, the son of Rabina, said to his sons: In the case of all [those mentioned as having no portion in the future world] you should not take [the Biblical passages dealing with them] to expound them [to their discredit], excepting in the case of the wicked Balaam (Jesus): whatever you find [written] about him, lecture upon it [to his disadvantage].
Talmud, Mas. Sanhedrin 106b: Sanhedrin 106b footnotes: (3) Heretic, v. Glos. (4) Ps. LV, 24. (5) cf. p. 471. n. 1. (6) [According to the view that all the Balaam passages are anti-Christian in tendency, Balaam being used as an alias for Jesus, Phinehas the Robber is thus taken to represent Pontius Pilatus, and the Chronicle of Balaam probably to denote a Gospel (v. Herford op. cit. 72ff.). This view is however disputed by Bacher and others: cf. Ginzberg, Journal of Biblical Literature, XLI, 121.]. Rabbi converses with Onkelos, who allegedly via magical arts (altered state of consciousness) spoke to Jesus in Hell "Onkelos son of Kolonikos was the son of Titus's sister. He had a mind to convert himself to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the dead by magical arts, and asked him; 'Who is most in repute in the [other] world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He said: Their observances are burdensome and you will not be able to carry them out. Go and attack them in that world and you will be at the top as it is written, Her adversaries are become the head etc.; whoever harasses Israel becomes head. He asked him..."
Talmud, Mas. Gittin 56b: Rabbi Says, Jesus is in Hell, Boiling in Semen. Continuing from Gittin 56b "...what is your punishment [in the other world]? He replied: What decreed for myself. Every day my ashes are collected and sentence is passed on me and I am burnt and my ashes are scattered over the seven seas. He then went and raised Balaam by incantations. He asked him: Who is in repute in the other world? He replied: Israel. What then, he said, about joining them? He replied: Thou shalt not seek their peace nor their prosperity all thy days for ever. (1) He then asked: What is your punishment? He (Jesus) replied: With boiling hot semen. (2) He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel. (3) He asked them: Who is in repute in the other world? They replied: Israel. What about joining them? They replied: Seek their welfare, seek not their harm. Whoever touches them touches the apple of his eye. He said: What is your punishment? They replied: With boiling hot excrement, since a Master has said: Whoever mocks at the words of the Sages is punished with boiling hot excrement. Observe the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the other nations who worship idols. It has been taught: Note from this incident how serious a thing it is to put a man to shame, for God espoused the cause of Bar Kamza and destroyed His House and burnt His Temple."
Talmud, Mas. Gittin 57a: footnotes: (1) Deut. XXIII, 7. (2) Because he enticed Israel to go astray after the daughters of Moab. V. Sanh. 106a. (3) [MS.M. Jesus]. .Author's note: The 'he' in item (2) is alluding to Jesus Christ.