Q Indirectly about Sts Simon of Trent and Andrew of Rinn

Q Indirectly about Sts Simon of Trent and Andrew of Rinn · Nope, Not for "Blood Libel" · Yehoshua Feigon is Back

In common parlance we may speak of "Saint" Andrew, but technically he is "Blessed". A Catholic who doesn't think he was a martyr simply has to not live in the diocese where Rinn is - but the bishop there forbidding the cultus is a misdeed of the Vatican II sect.

Q

Why did Jews in ancient times drink human blood? What kind of rituals were they following?
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Jews-in-ancient-times-drink-human-blood-What-kind-of-rituals-were-they-following/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters Latin & Greek, Lund University

Answered Sat, June 5

As far as I know, no Jew actually drank the blood of the child martyrs concerned.

They were slaughtered like lambs, which emptied the blood, but it was a pseudo-death penalty with legal stoning exchanged for pseudo-rituals referring to Christian theology and a preference for boys before puberty, since Christians after puberty would be “guilty of all other sins too”.

This is my theory of why certain known boys were found with blood emptied like at kosher butchery.

The papacy did not state that their blood was drunk, but that they were killed by Jews “in hatred of the Christian religion”. This is about the cases St. Simon of Trent and St. Andrew of Rinn.

The last cases of child killings I know of are later, namely a boy in Xanten and another boy in Russia with the Beyliss case.

As for matzot with blood, this was probably a way of signalling the outcome - white matzot would have signalled the boy was “agreeing” to become Jew and was “adopted”. I suspect this was the outcome of the boy in Blois, where Jews before execution protested that the Christian judges had no dead body to prove a murder had taken place. In Xanten, the main accused had an alibi, in Beyliss case witnesses started contradicting themselves.

Yehoshua Feigon

Sun, June 6

Word for word the blood libel.

a)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sun, June 6

Depends on how you define it, but I don’t think it was judicially a libel.

I think it was in more than one case - I was perhaps wrong about Blessed Andrew of Rinn - a correct verdict.

Pretending the purpose was to ritually drink blood, as per question, is sth I did not say. That would be a libel, especially if waged against Jews trying to observe the Torah.

Simon of Trent - Wikipedia

“An examination of the corpse by city doctors determined that Simon had not died of natural causes but had been exsanguinated.”

William of Norwich - Wikipedia

“Thomas of Monmouth arrived in Norwich around 1150. He decided to investigate the murder by interviewing surviving witnesses. He also spoke to people identified as "converted Jews" who provided him with inside information about events within the Jewish community. He wrote up his account of the crime in the book The Life and Miracles of St William of Norwich.”

Yehoshua Feigon

Mon, June 7

The idea that observant Jews would ever slaughter innocent Christian children for religious purposes or that they would use matzah dough as a “litmus test” for how well such a “sacrifice” had gone are both libels. It’s astonishing that you believe or are promoting either outright falsehood. Or perhaps not so astonishing. I don’t know you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, June 7

You attribute to me things I did not say.

I did not say they were performing a religious ceremony as observant Jews.

The Catholic Church when venerating the victims never said so either.

How about reading what I actually W R O T E instead of what you imagine I wrote before answering?

Yehoshua Feigon

Mon, June 7

By claiming that these Christian children were killed by Jews as at the slaughterhouse and that matzah dough was used to diagnose whether that slaughter was “acceptable,” the implication is unavoidable that this was a ritual murder. The story has in fact always been promoted by the Church EXACTLY thus, as an attack on Jews and on Jewish religious practices. Matzah dough is not used to diagnose anything. It is to be baked into matzah as part of the 3,000-year-old religious celebration of the Passover.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, June 7

I have never pretended “matzah dough was used to diagnose whether the slaughter was acceptable”.

I have said, white matzah = boy was circumcised, “accepted” adoption by Jews

Red matzah = boy was executed for the “crime” of Christianity.

You M A Y know some Jews who D O consider Christianity a crime?

“It is to be baked into matzah as part of the 3,000-year-old religious celebration of the Passover.”

Now you are talking about the religious use of matzah. Sth totally different. By the way, Passover started 1510 BC, so 3500 year old.

What I describe was a pragmatic use. Linked to a not strictly religious killing but one motivated by religious hatred.

Yehoshua Feigon

Mon, June 7

Jews do not slaughter Christian children to save them from a life of “crime”.

Christians, on the other hand, have historically quite often converted Jewish adults and children, forcibly or otherwise, to “save” us from the crime of being Jewish. The myth of ritual child slaughter of Christians is therefore a projection to begin with. The story was deliberately rehearsed among Christians in various communities as an incentive to murder Jews, before it was exported to the Muslim world.

I was an adult convert to Judaism. I assure you, matzah is no part of the conversion procedure, but the Passover/Easter season was used in Europe as a common occasion to slaughter Jews, both in Western and Eastern Europe, and involving matzah as a key element in the blood libel certainly seems important to whoever invented that libel as an added incentive to kill us at Passover time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, June 7

“Jews do not slaughter Christian children to save them from a life of “crime”.”

Key word “do” - present tense.

Check out how Jews in Cheka and Red Army felt about Christians about 100 years ago. The last known case, the Beyliss case, is even older, 1911.

“but the Passover/Easter season was used in Europe as a common occasion to slaughter Jews, both in Western and Eastern Europe,”

Common? In Western Europe?

I assure you that your historical knowledge is flawed (or I don’t, you won’t believe me obviously).

As what Jews do now to save Christian children, check out child protection services (aka child welfare), checkout psychiatry, check out compulsory schools. By now Jews have PLENTY of power opportunities that either did not exist or were not open to them a few centuries ago.

“whoever invented that libel as an added incentive to kill us at Passover time.”

How about checking if it was some kind of Jewish maffia playing at “no, we haven’t given up sovereignty, we still punish Christianity with death penalty”.

b)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon, June 7

[linked here to notify the dialogue is republished]