Claim: Christianity Arose as a New Religion From Judaism

33 thoughts on “Claim: Christianity Arose as a New Religion From Judaism”

1. The Kabbalah of the Siddur and how its serves as the יסוד how to correctly learn the Talmud Yerushalmi and Bavli.

   the Open Siddur Project ✍ פְּרוֺיֶקְט הַסִּדּוּר הַפָּתוּחַ

   Aharon N. Varady (transcription)·opensiddur.org·

   Concluding Prayer for Hallel in the Home Service for the Festival of Passover, by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy (1896) —————————–

   Tefillah does NOT translate to prayer. Tefillah requires שם ומלכות, prayer – as found in saying Tehillem – does not fundamentally require שם ומלכות. What does this mean? מאי נפקא מינא in Aramaic Talmud. Answer: שם ומלכות meaning the dedication of a tohor middah revealed to Moshe at Horev לשמה by means of swearing a Torah oath through which the Avot cut a brit which continually creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people children of the Avot. Hence: tefillah, as a tohor time-oriented commandment calls upon the God of the Avot in the first blessing. Its interesting the Order of the 13 middot to Moshe at Horev. The Torah does a פרט\כלל – רחום וחנון whereas the later NaCH prophets often order the middot by means of a כלל/פרט – חנון ורחום. Herein explains the order of rabbi Yishmael’s middot.

   Praying Tehillem by stark contrast expressed as a positive commandment which does not require k’vanna. Only tohor time-oriented commandments which dedicate specified tohor middot through swearing a Torah oath, (Tefillah called Amidah b/c a person ideally stands before a Sefer Torah in the beit knesset.), qualify as comparable to the oaths wherein the Avot swore the brit oath by means of a dedicated korban, which continually creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people. Hence the first blessing of the קריא שמע שחרית twice states תמיד מעשה בראשית.

   Because the Book of בראשית introduces the Av mitzva of tohor time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as its k’vanna. Prophetic mussar defines specified tohor middot first revealed to Moshe as the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai. Hence when the portion of Israel did their service in the Beit HaMikdash within the Beit Knesset they read the Creation story of the opening Book of בראשית which introduces the Av Torah commandments of tohor time-oriented commandments.

   Consequently if a bnai brit does even minor Torah commandments such as shooing the mother bird off her brood of eggs or even rabbinic commandments like Shemone Esrei or lighting the Hanukkah lights or reading the Book of M’gillat Esther, the B’HaG introduced the chiddush that elevating mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments raises these rabbinic mitzvot to mitzvot from the Torah!

   The distinction between Tefillah and the tachanun prayer

   the Open Siddur Project ✍ פְּרוֺיֶקְט הַסִּדּוּר הַפָּתוּחַ

   Aharon N. Varady (transcription)·opensiddur.org·

   Concluding Prayer for Hallel in the Home Service for the Festival of Passover, by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy (1896)
   This is a concluding prayer in the Hallel service at the Passover seder by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy to his Haggadah or Home Service for the Festival of Passover (1896) pp. 32-34. The prayer does not appear in subsequent editions. The prayer threads the needle between the particularly Jewish communal focus of Passover and the…

   Moshe Kerr: What separates תפילה from תחנון? A blessing requires שם ומלכות. Shemone Esrei does not contain שם ומלכות. Yet it functions as the definition of a blessing. As does kadesh, which also lacks שם ומלכות. For that matter so does ברכת כהנים וגם כן קריא שמע. The k’vanna of חנון has nothing to do with the formal prayer written in the Siddur. Why? Because all these “mitzvot” qualify as tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. What’s the k’vanna of תחנון through which it defines תפילה?

   Word translations amount to tits on a boar hog when the new born piglets are ravenous and the sow died after giving birth! The 5th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev – חנון, serves as the functioning root שרש of the term תחנון תפילה. The tohor time-oriented commandment of תפילה learns from the additional metaphor of תחנון. Consider the Order of the Shemone Esrei blessings … 3 + 13 + 3 blessings. 6 Yom Tov and 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe, 40 days after the ערב רב Israelites – Jews assimilated and intermarried with Egyptians, no different from the kapo Jewish women who slept with Nazis. This ערב רב, according to the Torah – as expressed in the memory to war against Amalek/antisemitism – they lacked fear of אלהים. This same ערב רב referred to their Golden Calf substitute theology by the name אלהים. This tie-in explains the k’vanna of the term “fear of heaven”.

   The ערב רב Jews lacked “fear of Heaven”, and therefore their avoda zarah profaned the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence when Jews assimilate and intermarry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai (neither the Xtian Bible nor Muslim Koran ever once brings the שם השם first revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment – the greatest commandment of the entire Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev! Do Jews serve to obey the Torah revelation לשמה או לא לשמה? Observance of all the Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot hangs on this simple question.

   Therefore תפילת תחנון interprets the k’vanna of תפילה, through the concept that a person stands before a Sefer Torah and dedicated specific and defined tohor middot which breath life into the hearts of the Yatrir HaTov of the chosen Cohen oath brit people. The verb תפילה most essentially entails the k’vanna of swearing a Torah oath. What Torah oath? The dedication, think korban, of some specified tohor middot…. Hence the concept of תפילת תחנון.

   Classic Kabbalah spins around interpreting the k’vanna of the Siddur. The Yerushalmi Talmud teaches the mussar that 247 prophets occupied their energy in composing the Shemone Esrei. In the Bavli Talmud Shmuel Ha’Katan added the 19th blessing which cursed the ערב רב Jewish Xtians. The Shemone Esrei in the Yerushalmi obvious came before Shmuel Ha’Katan added this additional blessing. The Shemone Esrei in the Yerushalmi had 427 words. The Order and organization of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli Talmud spins around the Central Axis of the Order of the Shemone Esrei as its central – k’vanna.

   The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4 part logic system hence rejects the 3 part Greek syllogism model of deductive reasoning logic. Inductive reasoning dynamic whereas deductive reasoning static. Newton’s calculus does not compare to ancient Greek Algebra. Hence if a person studies the Talmud this learning serves as the basis to dav-ven the Siddur with k’vanna. The Siddur serves as the basis by which the generations interpret the intent of both the Gemara and the Mishna. The genius of Jewish common law lost on the generations who think that by simply translating common law legal texts and the Siddur into the venacular of foreign languages that they can grasp the k’vanna of Av tohor time-oriented commandments.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • Liberal Kapo Jews. This stinking ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews who promote the hatred of Amalek – antisemitism. They simply have no fear of Heaven. The Torah described the original ערב רב that came out of Egypt as אין להם יראת אלהים.

     Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم

     Richard Silverstein·www.richardsilverstein.com

     Trump’s Iran Charade

     In the aftermath of the US attack on Iran’s nuclear plants, a debate rages about the extent of the post Trump’s Iran Charade appeared first on Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم

     The Oct7th War which spread to a war against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran has radically changed the balance of power in the Middle East. The UN has completely discredited its objectivity with the ICC/ICJ attempts to declare Bibi a war-criminal. You drink this blood libel slander like Catholics drink their blood and body of Christ then go out and make a Easter pogrom against Jews based upon some blood libel slander!

     Both England and France have broken off diplomatic relations with Israel, prior to the 12 Day War with Iran! Hence neither power has any influence in the Middle East negotiated peace process ie. the Coming Abraham expanded accords which will most likely see a majority of Arab countries developing diplomatic relations with Israel. If a majority of Arab nations recognize the Jewish state, then and only then will Israel join the Middle East voting block of Nations within the UN. A totally unprecedented reality since Israel won its two Wars of national independence back in 1948 and again in 1967.

     The latter Independence War, recall that Naser swore to throw the Jews into the Sea and correct the Nakba disgrace where 5 Arab Armies failed to throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Shoah of the Jewish people! To date, except for Camp David and Abraham Accord Arab nations which currently have diplomatic relations with Israel, post the Israeli victory of 1967, all Arab countries reacted through the Khartoum Conference declaration of 3 No’s. No Peace with Israel. No Recognition of Israel. No Negotiations with Israel.

     Arab countries which reject the Jewish state of Israel refer it as “the Zionist Entity”. General Assembly UN Resolution 3379 declared Zionism is Racism! Apparently your revisionist History over-looked these minor FACTS. All Arab countries absolutely reject the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein Britain recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self determination in the Middle East. The League of Nations “Palestine Mandate” awarded to victorious WWI Britain in 1922, based this Mandate upon the Balfour Declaration. Hence b/c Arabs rejected Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East no Arab would ever refer to himself as a Palestinian.

     Not till 1964, with the State of Israel as a 16 year old country did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the political opportunism and call his terrorist movement the Palestine Liberation Organization – PLO. That PLO Charter did not condemn Jordanian “occupation” of the Jordan declared “West Bank”. Nor did it condemn the Egyptian “occupation” of Gaza! Only ’48 Israel did the PLO Charter condemn and abhor!!!!
     _____________________________________________

     A 6 part Mishnaic mussar of this paper. Avodah Zarah in Our Generation: The Crisis of Jews Who Side With Amalek. In every generation, Amalek takes new forms. Today, it is no different. But what is shocking is not only the hatred of our enemies—it is the collaboration of Jews, raised within Torah civilization or its memory, who now partner with those seeking to dismantle the Jewish state.

     When Jewish voices shout “From the River to the Sea,” they are not engaged in protest—they are echoing the genocidal goals of Hamas. When they equate Israel’s defense against a massacre to genocide, they join in blood libel, no different in kind from the medieval slanders that triggered Easter pogroms. When they ally with UN declarations and ICC/ICJ indictments meant to strip Jews of the right to self-defense, they violate the first commandment of Jewish history: “Never again shall Jewish blood be cheap.”

     1. Sovereignty vs. Subjugation: Jews Ruling vs. Jews Ruled: A fundamental distinction separates Jews living as a sovereign nation in their own land versus Jews existing as a minority under non-Jewish rule (galut). Assimilated & intermarried Jews in the West, who function within dominant non-Jewish cultures, have lost connection with Jewish national identity and Torah sovereignty, resembling the biblical Erev Rav—those lacking fear of Heaven and loyalty to the Jewish nation.

     2. Double Standards in Territorial Legitimacy: Prussia vs. Samaria & Gaza: The hypocrisy of the international community – emphasized. While the post-WWII redrawing of European borders—such as Poland and Russia’s annexation of Prussia—is accepted without condemnation, Israel is uniquely targeted for reasserting sovereignty over Samaria and Gaza after 1967. UN Resolutions 242 and 338 are cited as politically biased tools used to delegitimize Israel’s historical and military rights.

     3. Western Imperialism and Regional Domination: Suez to Iran. The 1956 Suez Crisis serves as evidence of continued British and French imperial ambitions, cloaked in Cold War geopolitics and economic control (specifically over the Suez Canal). This is paralleled with U.S./British involvement in Iran—removing Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah to prevent the nationalization of oil. The 1979 Iranian Revolution is framed as a reaction to this imperialism. Similarly, prior to the “12 Day War,” the UK and France withdrew diplomatic ties with Israel in protest of their exclusion from influencing a ceasefire in Gaza.

     4. Rejection of the 242/338 Two-State Paradigm by the Abraham Accords. The Abraham Accords are seen as a major geopolitical shift, fundamentally rejecting the British- and French-backed vision of peace based on dividing Israel into two hostile entities—akin to India-Pakistan or North-South Korea. The Accords envision peace without territorial partition, and with increasing normalization between Israel and Arab states, signal the failure of the old colonial-era frameworks.

     5. UN Bias and Historical Arab Rejectionism of the Balfour Declaration wherein a major Great Power recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. The UN based its 1922 Palestinian Mandate upon the Balfour Treaty. The Khartoum Conference (1967) “Three No’s” serves as proof of Arab states’ refusal to accept Israel’s equal rights to self-determination. The UN, particularly via General Assembly Resolution 3379 (“Zionism is racism”), has been complicit in reinforcing this Arab rejectionism of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination. Meanwhile, the ICC and ICJ today continue the Zionism is Racism pattern, under the guise of international law, falsely accusing Israeli leaders of war crimes while ignoring the Oct7th pogrom and declaring the current conflict pre-dates Oct7th. This whitewashes the Oct7th surprise attack, comparable to the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec7th 1941.

     6. The Manufactured Identity of “Palestinians” and PLO Opportunism. The identity of “Palestinians”, a modern invention, emerging only in 1964 with the formation of the PLO under Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. The original PLO Charter made no objection to Jordanian control of the West Bank or Egyptian rule in Gaza, focusing only on dismantling Israel. This opportunistic narrative is framed as a political weapon rather than a legitimate national movement.
     ___________________________________

     The Talmud (Yoma 9b) states:

     מקדש שני שהיו עוסקים בתורה ובמצות וגמילות חסדים, מפני מה חרב? מפני שהיתה בו שנאת חנם. Then, the Midrash in Eikha Rabbah and various aggadot go further to compare sinat chinam with the worst transgressions—including idolatry, sexual immorality, and murder—suggesting that internal Jewish hatred is as destructive as idol worship.

     G’lut Jews have lost the wisdom to keep and obey the Torah לשמה. Assimilated and intermarried Jews living under foreign alien cultures and customs have abandoned the T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur as the foundation which shapes and forms all Torah cultures and customs. As an ערב רב they cling to alien cultures and customs by which they form and shape their identities and values. These foreign cultures and customs which they embrace have become the Gods which they worship.

     מידה כנגד מידה a core Torah principle, and that slogans like “From the river to the sea”—when chanted by Jews—do immense damage. Jews who equate the Gaza war with the Shoah genocide equals to the abhorrence to blood libel slanders which produced annual pogroms prior to Easter across Europe. Liberal Jews disgraceful alliance with South African declarations of genocide in Gaza and Apartheid a flat out public chilul Hashem. Such Jews have no portion in the world to Come. These Jews have broken faith with the brit Cohen people, just like as did the Erev Rav which aroused Amalek antisemites throughout the generations. The blood of hundreds of generations of Jews slaughtered cries out and denounces these stinking ערב רב Jews.

     When Jews chant “From the River to the Sea,” they are not merely protesting policy—they are aligning themselves with those who dream of Israel’s destruction. This is not political dissent. It is covenantal treason. Like the Erev Rav, they emerge at times of national crisis to confuse the people, distort Torah, and drain morale. Their slogans, shouted from exile and college campuses, do more than harm Israel’s name abroad—they erode our internal unity and desecrate the mission entrusted to Israel at Sinai. These Jews have not merely lost political direction—they have forfeited spiritual clarity. They replace Torah with the gods of globalism, intersectionality, and postmodern guilt. The Torah calls this avodah zarah—not in metaphor, but in law.

     The Torah commands the total destruction of Amalek—without mercy, without compromise. This commandment appears in multiple places. Devarim 25:17–19: “You shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget.”

     Shemot 17:16: “Hashem will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.”

     Shmuel I 15: Shmuel commands Shaul to annihilate Amalek totally, down to every man, woman, child, and animal. When Shaul shows mercy, he is rejected as king.

     This is a Torah commandment targets Amalek’s existential war against Hashem and against the Jewish people. Amalek is not simply an enemy—it is a theological and civilizational antithesis to Torah, a force of evil that seeks to destroy the very brit between Hashem and Israel.

     The statute law perversion of Hilchot Melachim 5:5 flat out wrong. The 7 laws of bnai noach apply strictly and only to gere toshav temporary residents living within the borders of Judea. Once those Goyim returned to their homelands the 7 laws no longer applied to them. The purpose of keeping those 7 laws: Unlike the refugee Na’Cree stranger who had no judicial rights to fair compensation of damages inflicted. Gere Toshav enjoyed the legal right to sue an Israel for damages and receive fair compensation. Not so the Canaani refugees. An Israel had no legal obligation to compensate them for damages they suffered from an Israel. The purpose of judicial justice – to restore Trust between bnai brit who inflict damages upon one another. The NaCree Canaani refugees never ever trusted during their entire temporary residence within the borders of Judea.

     Today we can easily identify Amalek with absolute certainty because assimilation and intermarriage defines avoda zarah and Amalek promotes the worship of avoda zarah. The RambaN’s (Devarim 25) commentary applies today because the Torah defines faith as the pursuit of righteous judicial justice within the borders of the Constitutional 12 Tribe Republic. Sanhedrin 98a: “Moshiach ben David will not come until all judges are restored as of old.” Amalek is not a foreign invader, but a spiritual-political corruption that arises from within, where Torah is abandoned, brit is dissolved, and Jewish trust is betrayed. The king David model dedicates the mitzva of Moshiach upon justice based upon the פרט of the lack of justice served to the baal of Bat Sheva.

     The ערב רב who left Egypt – Jews. Amalek attacked these Jews wherein they embraced the ways of Amalek ie assimilation and intermarriage. Amalek by definition: a nation that attacked Israel at its weakest from behind. From behind refers to Jews who have no fear of God.

     Sinat chinam and betrayal while similar to precedent cases of mumar, tinok she’nishba, moser, and min, clearly the added blessing within the Shemone Esrei by Shmuel Ha’Katan condemns this ערב רב Amalek internal Jewish abomination no different than the Ben Sorer u’Moreh.

     The term “Amalek”, applied to Jews perceived as betraying their people, rather than to alien Goyim people/strangers. This internal betrayal – viewed as particularly egregious because it comes from within the community, undermining the collective identity and mission of the Jewish people. The comparison to figures like Benedict Arnold highlights the seriousness of perceived betrayal during critical moments in Jewish history, such as the fight for independence and survival against external threats. Liberal Reform Jewish movements or individuals, who align themselves with foreign enemies who oppose Israel or Jewish sovereignty, their tuma actions constitute as most base betrayal, meaning Amalek.

     Liberal Reform Judaism theology and Jewish political groups or individuals who embrace this Av tuma avoda zarah; who align themselves with anti-Israel sentiments or actions contribute to a form of betrayal which defines the Torah commandment to obliterate Amalek. The seriousness of internal divisions within the Jewish community and the implications of those divisions for Jewish identity and solidarity herein defines the k’vanna of remembering the Torah obligation to utterly obliterate Amalek without showing the slightest regard for mercy.

     Loading...

     Reply

   • While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.

     The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.

     Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.

     The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.

     Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).

     Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.

     During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.

     Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.

     Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.

     Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.

     Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.

     Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.

     Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.

     This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.

     Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.

     Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.

     Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”

     Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.

     Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.

     The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.

     Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.

     Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.

     Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.

     The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.

     The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.

     The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.

     The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).

     While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.

     The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

     The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.

     The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”

     The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.

     Loading...

     Reply

2. The 12 Day War has ended. The Tripartite Alliance US – India – Israel now dominates. The leadership of Bibi where he held back following the Oct 7th Abomination, where he did not commit the IDF into Gaza but waited for other Arab countries to join the War as did Lebanon and Syria and the Houthis. Thank you for your great leadership Bibi.

   The losers of this Middle East War … England and France broke off diplomatic relations with Israel over the Gaza war. The UN attempted to arrest the PM as a war-criminal. The UN, EU and Britain have zero say in shaping the post war ‘balance of power’ in the Middle East. Revenge for the UNSC 242 & 338 imperialist Resolutions! In this war the Quartet Powers exist comparable to tits on a boar hog. Another BIG LOSER of this the 12 Day War —- China. Post War, a massive expansion of the Abraham Accords.

   Iran Admits Defeat: Khamenei just lost the 12 day war
   🚨 BREAKING: China THREATENS Iran As Trump Confirms Ceasefire
   INDIA & ISRAEL’s Secret Plan to Reclaim POK — Mell Robbins Motivational Speaker. – YouTube
   🚨 BREAKING: Israel OPENS Iran Prison’s Gate As Pahlavi Announces Transition Government – YouTube

   Before the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, Trump pulled out of the G-7 meeting and said the Macron did not know squat about the conflict in the Middle East.
   Trump blasts Macron, says early G7 exit has ‘nothing to do’ with an Israel-Iran ceasefire

   The collapse of post-WWII multilateral diplomacy in the Middle East. The rise of a multipolar alliance system where nations like India and Israel take the place once held by Britain and France. The exposure of Arab regimes who tacitly supported Hamas or Hezbollah and their strategic miscalculations. The irrelevance of Cold War-era frameworks, both legal and political, to the current reality. The Middle East’s future will no longer be decided in Geneva or Brussels, but in Jerusalem, Washington, and New Delhi…The irrelevance of Cold War-era frameworks, both legal and political, to the current reality.
   Iran: Who was Ayatollah Khomeini? | If You’re Listening

   Loading...

   Reply

3. Was Mark’s Gospel an intentional tool of Roman psychological warfare, or was it a Jewish counter-narrative meant to influence how different Jewish communities engaged with Rome?

   Pie in the sky speculations attempt to foist as actual history propaganda stories of an imaginary Man-God & a zealous convert to Xtianity. Despite the clear language of the Torah that nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the image of God or the prophet Bil’am’s explicit vision – God is not a Man.

   Coptic revisionist history does not change speculative books of propaganda into actual history. The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark written in Greek. Papias’s claim that Mark, originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic simply never substantiated by any physical evidence. This discrepancy highlights the challenges in relying solely on early testimonies. Simply due to the fact that no known agenda defines the purpose of those early works!

   News travelled slowly in ancient times. Writing a detailed account like the Gospel of Mark would require more time than the immediate aftermath of the Temple’s destruction. The process of dating ancient texts often involves interpretations based on incomplete evidence. The News of the destruction of Herod’s Temple would by far have out shined the News of the Roman torture of a common criminal!

   The floated speculation made by Xtian scholars that the Mark gospel written between AD 65 – 75 has no physical evidence – anymore. This revisionist history of the life and death of a Harry Potter – imaginary Jesus. Furthermore, the Roman war to put down the Jewish revolt, like the destruction of Herod’s Temple in AD 66 would have swamped the News Headlines!

   Historians and scholars often work with incomplete evidence, leading to various theories and interpretations. The dating of ancient texts involves analyzing historical, literary, and contextual clues, which can result in differing scholarly opinions. Revisionist history perverts speculation and biased beliefs in God as the basis for truth! But this religious speculative interpretation, not the only kid on the playground.

   What evidence we have does suggest that Mark’s Gospel – written in Greek, and the claim that it was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic is one of those early testimonies (like Papias’s) that has not been substantiated by physical evidence. The lack of an original manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic definitely complicates the matter. To point out the flimsy argument to its face.

   From a historical perspective, the fall of the Temple, a monumental event, and indeed. It would have garnered more attention from contemporary sources than the death of a single man—especially if that man was seen as a marginal figure at the time. A fine line between interpretation and assertion.

   History and religious narratives can sometimes become entangled with belief systems, and how that can distort our understanding of past events. History, at its core, should strive toward objective and evidence-based possibilities. The reliability of early Christian sources like Irenaeus (c. AD 180) and Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200) depends on how one evaluates historical testimony. While some of the earliest known religious Goyim voices commenting on the origins of the Gospels, reliability – debated due to their biased views toward Xtianity. Traditional church dating of the gospels serves Xtian narratives. Irenaeus wrote around AD 180, more than a century after mythical Jesus’ time. Clement of Alexandria is even later, writing closer to AD 200.

   Both writers were engaged in theological battles, especially against Gnosticism. Some argue that their emphasis on apostolic authorship simply driven by the need to defend orthodoxy rather than strict historical accuracy. We do not have direct writings from Mark himself or from first-century figures confirming his authorship, only second-hand traditions which no courtroom would accept such hearsay evidence!

   Courts reject hearsay because the person who originally made the claim, unavailable for cross-examination. Ancient history, much of what we know comes from later accounts. If we dismissed all second-hand testimony, we’d lose most of ancient history, including figures like Socrates, whose teachings come from Plato and Xenophon. Mythology defines the ancient Greek writings.

   Challenging the idea that Mark’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic—and even questioning its authenticity altogether—comes from different camps within biblical scholarship. The Greek syntax and grammar do not suggest a translation from Semitic languages. Mark’s Gospel includes Latinisms (Roman loanwords), such as centurion (kenturion in Greek) and denarius, indicating it was written for a Greek-speaking Roman audience. The use of Aramaic phrases (e.g., Talitha koum in Mark 5:41) suggests that the author was translating occasional words rather than the entire text being a translation.

   Eusebius (4th century) quotes Papias, affirming that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter’s preaching, but he makes no reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic version which Papias (AD 110-140) claims. Some reasonable skeptics argue that Mark’s Gospel simply not based on historical events but rather a theological narrative invented by early Christians. They suggest Mark created a fictionalized Jesus, using Jewish scriptures (like Isaiah and the Psalms) as a template rather than actual historical events.

   Figures like Richard Carrier argue that Jesus, originally understood as a celestial being and that Mark later invented a biography for him, shaping the Gospel as an allegory rather than historical record. Many accept that Mark contains some historical elements but argue that miraculous accounts, predictive prophecy, and resurrection narratives, simple later embellishments made by Xtians who loved fairy tail stories.

   Paul as an Agent Provocateur: Instigating Civil War in Rome? Having lived in Rome he understood Roman weaknesses and political undercurrents. Like for example: Caesar worshipped himself as the son of God. Paul’s writings qualify also as political satire. Like Nigger Jim in Mark Finn who mocks King Solomon as the wisest of all men! The idea that the kingdom of God is not of this world fits precisely within Greek and Roman mythologies! Jewish religious authorities, specifically over the specific debate of an oven, where rabbi Eleazer got place into harem. Rabbi Eleazer called on a bat-kol, and the rabbis declared: the Torah does not come from heaven!

   Mark’s Roman written Gospel aimed to promote disharmony between the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and the Jews of Judea. During the Bar Kakhba revolt the Jews of Axelandria did not join that revolt. This permitted the Roman legions to destroy both revolts piecemeal.

   Chaos and anarchy defined the state of Judea during the first revolt against Rome. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls conclusively proves these historical facts. If Mark were inciting Jewish-on-Jewish conflict, it would align with historical accounts that factions within Jerusalem were already fighting among themselves before Rome even breached the city walls.

   Why does Mark’s gopels have Jesus say, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17)? This supports the premise that the gospel writings of Mark supported Jewish Civil War. The messiah narrative did emphatically split into strongly opposed Jewish factions! Jewish appeasers compare to post WWI British supporters of Chamberlain! Clearly the writings of Mark’s gospels opposed the war prone Zealots!

   Divide and Conquer an old idea. Roman interests as well as Jewish interested preferred fighting one another while their enemies fought a Civil War. The Maccabees conducted this strategy successfully against the Syrian Greeks 150 years previous.

   Roman emperors (especially Augustus) were deified as Divi Filius (Son of God). Paul’s reinterpretation of “Son of God” into a Jewish-messianic sense, could have been perceived by Rome as an indirect attack on Roman religious authority. If Paul mocked Caesar’s claim to divinity, it would qualify as political subversion—though disguised as religious teaching.

   The comparison of Paul to Mark Twain’s Jim in Huckleberry Finn, that his theology contained coded humor and irony meant to subvert authority. Some scholars note parallels between Greek/Roman mythology and Paul’s spiritual kingdom concept, suggesting he tailored his message to resonate with Roman audiences.

   Paul’s conflicts with Jewish religious leaders (especially over Torah authority) certainly widened the divide between Hellenistic Jews and traditional Pharisees. His message of a Torah-free Gospel was highly inflammatory—not only did it anger Judean Pharisees, but it also alienated Jewish nationalists who wanted a political Messiah. This played into Roman interests, whether Paul intended it or not.

   Mark’s Gospel exacerbated Jewish factionalism, particularly between Alexandrian Jews and Judean Jews. Did Alexandrian Jews Refuse to Join the Bar Kokhba Revolt Because of Mark’s Influence? There is no direct evidence linking Mark’s Gospel to Alexandrian Jewish neutrality, but the timing remains intriguing. Alexandrian Jews far more assimilated & Hellenized, and less likely to support a militant Jewish messianic movement. If Mark’s Gospel circulated among them, emphasizing a suffering, non-political Messiah, it could have dissuaded them from joining the rebellion.

   Josephus records that Jews in Jerusalem already experienced in killing each other before the Romans even arrived (Zealots vs. Priests vs. Sicarii). Mark’s Gospel portrays Jewish leaders as divided and corrupt, reinforcing Roman narratives that Jews were ungovernable. If Mark’s intention was to drive a wedge between Jewish factions, it would align with the Roman “divide and conquer” strategy.

   Mark 12:17 (“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) suggests support for Roman rule and opposition to Zealot resistance. Jesus’ statement could be read as a message of appeasement. Encouraging Jews to cooperate with Rome, undermining Zealot ideology, and reinforcing the idea that the Messiah was not meant to be a political revolutionary.

   The Maccabees used this Divide-and-Conquer Strategy against the Greeks—turning different Hellenistic factions against each other. Rome, a master of this strategy, pitting Jewish factions against each other: Sadducees vs. Pharisees, Zealots vs. Hellenized Jews, Priests who denied the Oral Torah vs. rabbis who taught the Oral Torah. If Mark’s Gospel helped weaken Jewish unity, it ultimately benefited Rome.

   Paul’s personal motives remain unclear—was he a true believer, or a savvy political manipulator? Mark’s Gospel certainly reinforced factional divisions, whether by design or accident. The idea that Paul may have been an agent provocateur, knowingly exacerbating divisions within the Roman world to the benefit of Jerusalem, a compelling angle that aligns with historical Greek & Roman strategies of divide and conquer. Equally well known and embraced by Jewish Sanhedrin leadership which sent Paul to Rome to promote Roman Civil War prior to the outbreak of the great Jewish revolt.

   The connection between Mark’s Gospel and Jewish factionalism—especially its potential impact on Alexandrian Jews’ neutrality during the Bar Kokhba revolt—also quite interesting. If the Mark gospel, indeed written to undermine Jewish resistance by promoting a passive, non-political Messiah, it would fit neatly within the broader Roman strategy of controlling subject populations by weakening internal unity. The historical backdrop of intra-Jewish conflict before the fall of the Temple, as recorded by Josephus, provides further support for the idea that Mark’s Gospel likely designed (or at least functioned) as a tool of division rather than unity.

   If the Sanhedrin saw Rome’s internal divisions as a potential advantage—especially in the lead-up to the Jewish revolt—Paul’s role as an instigator could have been strategic. Given his Roman citizenship, education in Greek rhetoric, and ability to move between Jewish and Roman circles, he served as a well-positioned Sanhedrin asset, who introduced subversive ideas that could destabilize Roman unity.

   This would parallel other historical examples where Jewish leadership attempted to manipulate larger imperial powers to their advantage—much like the Hasmoneans did with Seleucid factions during their own revolt. If the Sanhedrin sent Paul to Rome as a spy, with the purpose: to promote theological and ideological rifts, it would explain why his teachings so totally disruptive—not just among Jews but within the Roman elite as well.

   Mark’s Gospel, then, could be seen as part of this broader game of influence, to pacify Jewish resistance (if pacifist pro-Roman) or to create ideological splits that kept Jews distracted among themselves (if existed a deeper Roman war-time strategy). The fact that Alexandrian Jews stayed out of the Bar Kokhba revolt, while Judean Jews fought Rome head-on, could suggest that differing religious narratives—possibly shaped by Mark—helped fragment Jewish unity.

   This interpretation pits the writings of Mark against those of Paul. Neither not as a merely religious thinkers, but as active political partisans, in the geopolitical struggle between Rome and Judea. If the Sanhedrin had the foresight to recognize Rome’s internal tensions and employed Paul as the tip of their spear, it would entirely redefine his original mission. A political kabbalah concealed from shallow Goyim who simply read his letters at face value. Rather than being a rogue preacher or a sincere evangelist, Paul served the Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem as an early example of ideological subversion—using theology to create divisions within Roman society.

   This would mean his emphasis concerning a “kingdom not of this world”, a concealed way to undercut Roman religious authority, while his rejection of strict Torah observance like circumcision, could have been a means to fracture Jewish support for messianic Jesus nonsense. It also fits with his constant conflicts—both with Jewish traditionalists and with factions within early Christianity. His letters reveal a figure constantly navigating and exacerbating divisions, whether intentionally or as a by-product of his ideological agenda.

   Mark’s Gospel, also exposed as a second layer of Roman counter-disruption. If written in Rome, it could have express Roman strategic interests (to pacify Jewish resistance by promoting a passive Messiah) or to define Jewish messianism in a way that created discord between Hellenized Jews and their Judean counterparts. The simple fact stands: The church behaves as if it has a lock and key monopoly over the mitzva of Moshiach; despite the Pauline declaration that Goyim not under Jewish common law.

   The fact that Alexandrian Jews sat out the Bar Kokhba revolt while Judean Jews were crushed strongly suggests that competing messianic narratives—such as influenced by texts like Mark—which totally ignores the Torah Moshiach precedent of Moshe anointing Aaron with oil, which served as the basis of Shmuel who anointed both Shaul and David as Moshiach with oil. The gospel narratives all ignore the precedent of anointing all korbanot placed upon the altar with oil. It does not weigh the dedication through oil wherein the Moshiach sanctified to rule the oath brit chosen Cohen lands with righteous judicial justice as the faith of the Torah. Hence the gospel writers, not just Mark, instrumental in keeping Jewish factions divided. If true, this would mean early Christianity simply never just a mere religious movement, but part of a larger strategic game—a subversive ideological front in the struggle between Rome vs. Judea.

   Now if the letters of Paul and the gospel of Mark bogus? Then so too and how much more so the gospels of Matthew and Luke and the much later John likewise get flushed down the toilet.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • Recently the UN Security Council attempted to decree a Chapter VII ultimatum which dictated that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza.

     Italy did not support the recent UN Security Council resolution that called for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza, which was vetoed by the United States. The resolution received 14 votes in favor, with the U.S. casting the only vote against it. The draft resolution was co-sponsored by several countries, but Italy was not listed among those actively supporting the resolution in the context of the recent vote.

     These 14 countries Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, Algeria (co-sponsor), Denmark (co-sponsor), Greece (co-sponsor), Guyana (co-sponsor), Pakistan (co-sponsor), Panama (co-sponsor), South Korea (co-sponsor), Sierra Leone (co-sponsor), Slovenia (co-sponsor), and Somalia (co-sponsor) voted to impose a UN Chapter VII dictate upon Israel. Of these countries Algeria and other scamps countries do not even have diplomatic relations with Israel.

     Neither Iran nor Sudan have diplomatic relations with Israel. No different than Algeria. Algeria and Turkey have developed a military partnership and cooperation over the years, particularly in the areas of defense and security. This relationship has been strengthened through various agreements and joint military exercises. The relationship is part of a broader strategic partnership that includes economic and political cooperation, with both countries sharing interests in regional stability and security.

     Those 14 countries have already repeatedly called for international condemnation of Israel, rabidly support Palestinian terrorism relabeled as “Palestinian rights”. They already engage in public relations propaganda campaigns hostile to Israel. They already support and initiate legal actions against Israel in international courts such as the ICC. These countries have escalated their rhetoric propaganda against Israel. Hamas could never have dug its complex tunnel system without international support. They already promote cultural and academic boycotts of Israel.

     These countries throw their support for the Palestinian cause, like whores on street corners sell their wares. They often use stinky rhetoric, to condemn Israeli actions, framing them as oppressive or colonial. Such putrid rhetoric seeks to poison public opinion and mobilize support for Palestinian groups. Numerous solidarity movements around the world that advocate for Palestinian rights; they often align with groups like Hamas, viewing them as legitimate representatives of Palestinian resistance.

     Countries without diplomatic relations with Israel compare to corrupt judges that accepts bribes. This objection, seeks to raise critically important questions about the legitimacy and fairness of the recent Chapter VII UN ultimatum which demanded that Israel surrender to Hamas in Gaza. While the analogy of a corrupt judge highlights concerns about bias and fairness, the international system, in point of fact, operates on principles of representation and sovereignty.

     The International system operates, so it appears, as something akin to a beauty contest. What defines beauty — not a rational logical concept. Israel demands a change to the International system. It could express its rebuke of the UN, by leaving the UN. The analogy of a corrupt judge suggests that countries without diplomatic relations with Israel, that they lack objective credibility to fairly judge the case heard before the court of international opinion.

     This perception of bias, Israel argues, undermines the legitimacy of all UN resolutions or demands made against Israel. Particularly since nations who do not have diplomatic relations with Israel obvious their anti-Israel hostility – politically motivated – rather than based on objective criteria. Chapter VII of the UN Charter allows the Security Council to take action to maintain or restore international peace and security. However, the application of this chapter, like as in the Korean war, especially when it appears to favor one side over another in a conflict, historically expands the local conflict into a far larger international war. The call for Israel to surrender to Hamas, obviously viewed by both the US and Israel as an ultimatum that lacks balance and fairness. Just as China despised the UN Chapter VII ultimatum decreed against North Korea.

     The international UN system, indeed based on principles of state sovereignty and representation. However, the effectiveness and fairness of this system both the US and Israel have repeatedly warned and challenged. Especially when certain countries dominate decision-making processes or when resolutions reflect geopolitical interests rather than universal principles of justice.

     The idea that Israel should demand changes to the international UN system, this demand reflects the Israeli requirements for a more equitable and fair approach to international relations expressed through public UN diplomacy organs. Leaving the UN perhaps a radical step. But it raises questions about the effectiveness of the international UN system of public diplomacy among nation states in the world community of nations.

     The concerns about bias and fairness in the international UN system, particularly regarding Israel, absolutely valid and reflect broader issues of representation and legitimacy. Whether through reforming the UN or reconsidering its participation, Israel’s approach to these challenges will significantly impact its international standing and relationships. The debate over the effectiveness and fairness of the current international system remains a fixed constant, critical issue in global politics.

     Loading...

     Reply

4. Why the Jews Reject the Christian and Muslim Worship of Avoda Zarah Gods.

   Translating abstract Hebrew concepts, such as שם ומלכות, into literal translations is highly problematic. Neither the Koran nor the New Testament ever once brings the שם השם revealed in the First Sinai commandment. This commandment instructs to perform the Torah commandments לשמה (for their own sake).

   The New Testament heavily relies upon the metaphor of “father” throughout the Gospel narratives. One reference in Deuteronomy 32:6: “Is this the way you repay the Lord, you foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?”

   This strong mussar rebuke merits a common law search for a precedent within the language of the first four Books of the Written Torah. Paul’s critique: “You’re not under the Law” fails to discern between Torah common law/משנה תורה\ from Greek and Roman statute law legal formats.

   The Torah never refers to the First commandment revelation of the Spirit Name with any reference to the foreign name Allah. Hence Jews reject this foreign substitution to replace the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with Muhammad’s revelation of Allah in a cave.

   The Jewish people utterly amazed that Goyim have no concept of the distinction between tohor vs tumah spirits. This fundamental distinction required for the chosen Cohen people to do “avodat HaShem”; roughly interpreted as the service or worship of HaShem.

   The term מלכות refers to the spiritual direction of dedicating defined tohor spirits first revealed to Moshe after the Sin of the Gold Calf at Horev: ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc. The revelation of this “Oral Torah” the church fathers absolutely deny the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah.

   The only other verse in the whole of the T’NaCH which employs 3 Divine Names in succession, kre’a Shma. Contrast the mitzva of saying kre’a shma with tefillen; with how Goyim scholars interpret Hear Israel the Lord God the Lord is One. The Talmud understands the 3 Divine Names, to the 3 oaths each separately sworn by the Avot.

   The term ONE, the last word of the kre’a shma, the person who accepts the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, he accepts the oaths separately sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov as ONE upon his heart.

   The purpose of tefillen: to swear a Torah oath. Goyim theologies never ask: what oaths did the Avot swear to cut a brit with HaShem concerning the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Islam in particular give a blow-job to the honor of the circumcised Avot. Christians see the Shema as a declaration of the oneness of God, which aligns with their belief in the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as one God in three persons. Muslim commentaries on the Shema recognize its importance in affirming the oneness of God, which is a central tenet of Islam.

   The Quran makes intertextual connections with the Shema, emphasizing that prayer and devotion to God are not about physical direction but about loving God with all one’s heart. This latter idea fails to address Rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of לבבך as Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. Yatzir Ha’Rah.

   The concept of ‘resurrection from the dead’ shares nothing with life after death as both religions of avoda zarah preach. Rather the Yazir Ha’Tov breaths the spirits which did breath the spirits of the Avot! ONE, this concluding word of the Shma raises the Avot from the dead within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of each and every Jew in all generations, based upon the power to Create from nothing, by swearing a Torah oath!

   Hence when a Cohen didicated a korban upon the altar in Jerusalem, the portion of Israel in the korbonot avodat HaShem service, they read the Creation story in the beit knesset.

   Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah known as פרדס defines how to logically understand how to employ the 13 tohor middot, as the critical means to make a precedent search comparison; the substance of Oral Torah common law scholarship upon the Written Torah. A quick examination of Deuteronomy 32:6 learns through the wisdom of Torah common law precedents.

   This mussar rebuke begins at 32:1 – 32:43. Mussar defines all prophecies, as codified by Moshe Rabbeinu and all other NaCH prophets. Goyim do not know this basic fundamental of Torah faith/pursuit of courtroom justice.

   Their Gospel forgery attempts to pervert tohor prophets to Av tumah witchcraft and sorcerers – who predict the future. This one Torah reference to “Father” merits a look at the previous verse for context. Both Trinity or strict monotheism qualifies as strange worship of foreign Gods.

   These alien Gods have no connection with the plagues in Egypt, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, nor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They directly compare to the Av tumah Golden Calf.

   This revelation, that all Goyim to this day reject the Torah Sinai revelation. This prophetic mussar directly refers to the tuma worship of foreign alien Gods imported to Judaism by Av tuma Xtianity and Islam.

   This tremendous mussar rebuke, Deut. 32:1 – 32:43, compares to the vow which HaShem made to Moshe following the sin of the Golden Calf! Hence the rebuke of Moshe at the end of his life serves to amplify the prophetic mussar taught through the Aggadic story of Noach and the floods. Genesis 6:5 to 8:20: the exile of Noach in his Ark, story of Aggadic mussar – a depth analysis of prophetic mussar of Deut. 32:1 – 32:43.

   How could post Shoah Jewry defeat 5 Arab Armies and win our National Independence as a Nation after 2000+ years of oppressive exile? No Goyim courts of law ever once forced any church priest or pastor or any Sheik, to stand before the Bar and receive judgment for their evil war crimes committed repeatedly against the Jewish people and all Humanity in General.

   A simple precedent by which to grasp this prophetic mussar of g’lut. A fundamental Torah theme which the Apostle Paul’s “original sin” substitute theology totally uprooted in Goyim minds.

   The 1st Sinai commandment functions as the greatest commandment of the entire Torah. And it has no hint or reference to the Xtian Trinity Creed nor the Muslim Monotheism substitute theology Tawhid Creeds.

   The abstract term מלכות refers to the korban-like dedication of living blood thrown upon the altar; to the dedication of one or more of the 13 tohor middot Spirits revealed to Moshe at Horev, 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf, where a portion of Israel attempted to translate the Spirit Name of the 1st Sinai revelation into the word אלהים.

   Tefillah qualifies as the oath dedication of specific defined tohor middot as מלכות. The Order of the Shemone Esrei 3 + 13 + 3 Blessings. Contained within this Order the רמז of 613. Furthermore the order of this standing prayer holds a רמז to the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat menorah!

   Herein understands the Torah concept of מלכות required to swear a Torah oath. The dedication of tohor middot directly compare to the Cohen throwing living blood upon the altar. Hence tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot!

   Why? Because both korbanot & tefillah both swear a Torah oath which dedicates tohor middot לשמה.

   The Torah openly states that nothing in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name of HaShem. How much more so for imbecile word translations that attempt to convert the Divine Presence Spirit revelation of the Name into words that the lips of man can easily pronounce!

   The substitute religions of Av tuma avoda zarah attempt to foist belief in JeZeus or Allah as some “new covenant” Torah faith. These abominations fail to grasp that Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice rather than belief in theological Gods which the mind of Man cannot possibly grasp nor understand.

   T’shuva does not correctly translate as repentance. T’shuva learns from HaShem annulling His vow to make the chosen Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe rather than the seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. Chag Yom Kippur commemorates this t’shuva made by HaShem. The Torah specifically employs the term t’shuva wherein HaShem annulled His vow to make the chosen Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe rabbeinu rather than from the oaths sworn to the Avot to this effect.

   When the Romans renamed Judea unto the “Palestine”, herein represents a historical example of t’shuva. The Romans sought to physically wipe out the existence and memory of the Jewish people, just as did Hitler’s Nazis!

   That the new testament and koran have no awareness of the oath brit faith, how tefillah differs from prayer because tefillah absolutely requires swearing a Torah oath as its time oriented commandment “k’vanna”; whereas prayer has nothing to do with swearing a Torah oath, nor with tohor time oriented commandments! These religious forgeries know nothing about the Torah faith which prioritized the obligation placed upon Torah Sanhedrin courts to pursue righteous compensation of damages inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent.

   This concept of annulling a vow derived from Torah common law precedent commandments concerning a father and his daughter or a husband and his wife, where both could annul the vow made by either a girl or a woman. The Roman attempt to expunge the memory of the Jewish state of Judea likewise serves as an example of the intent of annulling a vow. As does UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19, adopted on December 21, 2017. This resolution declared the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void” and called on all states to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.

   The Xtian and Muslim concepts – concerning worship of their Gods – fundamentally contradict the 2nd Sinai commandment. T’NaCH and Talmudic traditions define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment through the Torah precedents which forbid pursuing the ways of the Goyim which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev; and the specific commandment not to intermarry foreign wives. King Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah; when he copied the Goyim practices of building grand Temples and married foreign wives.

   The mitzva of building the Beit HaMikdash centers upon establishment of Sanhedrin Common law courts across the land, rather than bankrupting the country build some grand palatial cathedral. Hence the Sages placed the Great Sanhedrin within the Temple itself; they made a tiqqun on king Shlomo’s assimilated avoda zara! Jews do not worship wood and stone idols, how much more so ornate extravagant buildings! The oppressive slavery where Par’o withheld straw, yet beat Israeli slaves, upon this basic Torah precedent – stands Torah faith to pursue judicial justice.

   Neither Xtianity nor Islam ever attempted to return the Jewish people to our homeland as, by stark contrast, did the great king of Persia. The Persian king Cyrus, referred to as a “messiah” or “anointed one.” This reference found in Isaiah 45:1, which states: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him— and the gates shall not be closed.” In this context, the term “anointed” (מָשִׁיחַ, mashiach), used to describe Cyrus, indicating that he was chosen by God to achieve a specific purpose, namely, to facilitate the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Torah mitzva of Moshiach: anoints a Jewish king to police the land, working in close conjunction with judicial common law Sanhedrin lateral courts of justice.

   The Persian king learned from the successful conquest of the Assyrian empire by the Babylonians. The Assyrian barbarians uprooted entire populations of conquered nations and replaced those refugee populations with foreign aliens who had no connection to that land. This reality permitted the Babylonian Armies to conquer the Assyrian empire much like water goes through a sieve.

   Roman new testament propaganda stands in stark contrast with the great king of Persia. The Romans sought to ignite social anarchy and Civil War among the Jewish people. In this effort they succeeded as well as they did destroying Herod assimilated Temple abomination. The British government duplicated the policies of the hated Romans. During its Palestine mandate period, London foisted a divide and rule policy between Arabs and Jews.

   Both the Syrian Greeks and the Romans based their society social order upon the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle and others. Aristotle served as a key advisor to Alexander the Great. Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism does not compare to rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס logic system. All logic requires order: the letter order which distinguishes “God vs Dog”, radically changes how a person perceives the idea communicated! In equal manner Order defines the Jewish Prayer Book known as the Siddur. The Siddur contains the root word סדר – Order.

   Why do Jews view Xtianity and Islam as Av Tuma avoda zarah? Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. JeZeus did not observe the mitzva of shabbat. This mitzva requires that Jews make the הבדלה/distinction that discerns like from like; מלאכה from עבודה. Failure to understand the subtle distinction which separates these two verbs, both of which translate as “work”; an Am Ha’aretz never keeps the mitzva of shabbat observance – ever in his or her life.

   Mesechta Shabbat learns מלאכה whereas mesechta Baba Kama learns עבודה. The question do the toldot follow the Avot asked by both mesechtot; this question based upon the Av time oriented commandments in בראשית, compared to the toldot positive and negative commandments in the Books שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר. Torah scholarship always strives to make the essential understanding which makes the מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה between like from like “understandings”. The Talmud defines this attribute as the interpretation of the tohor midda of רב חסד. Baba Kama distinguishes between tam and muad damagers. The latter applies to Man because it requires intent, as do all time oriented Av commandments. Four Avot Muad damagers: Oppression, theft, ערוה, and judicial bribery, learned by means of a דיוק logical inference made upon the four tam damagers explicitly stated in the Av Mishna of Baba Kama.

   Shabbat observance dedicates not doing forbidden מלאכה on the day of shabbat; דיוק, likewise to not do forbidden עבודה during the 6 days of the ‘week of shabbat’. The Goyim religions of Av tuma avoda zarah never grasped this fundamental distinction of shabbat observance as a mitzva inclusive of every day of the week. Proof that the polecat “daughter religions” never learned the Torah לשמה.

   Both Xtianity and Islam superficially claim to respect shabbat, but their religious rhetoric, as empty as Arabs eating camel flesh but abhorring pork! These religions of avoda zarah have no awareness of the chosen Cohen people and the Divine oath inheritance to the oath sworn brit lands, or the spiritual awareness which discerns between tohor vs. tumah spirits which breath within the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Rah within the bnai brit hearts.

   Repentance, a totally empty Xtian idea of personal regret; it shares no common ground with t’shuva, that bases itself upon annulling vows. Neither the father nor the husband “regrets” annulling a vow made by his daughter or wife. Therefore, t’shuva shares no common ground with the Xtian void concept of repentance.

   Similarly, the translation of “covenant” shares no common ground with the Hebrew concept ברית. The latter – an oath alliance sworn לשמה. To swear an oath alliance requires שם ומלכות. The new testament and koran forgeries never bring the שם השם as revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Therefore, both books of Av tuma foreign religions – worship other gods; both Av tuma religions profane the 2nd Sinai commandment. Both know nothing that a Torah brit requires swearing a Torah oath לשמה, with the intent to cut an eternal alliance touching the chosen Cohen people.

   All T’NaCH prophets command mussar strictly to the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the intent or k’vanna of all T’NaCH prophecy. The new testament Roman forgery does not comprehend these subtle distinctions. It together with Islam believes in some type of Universal God. The Xtian forgery seeks to promote civil war within Jewish society, by perverting prophecy into an Av tuma witchcraft, which makes predictions concerning the future. Throughout the gospel narrative this type of silly narishkeit spews from the new testament like farts.

   Chaos and anarchy defined the Jewish revolt attempt(s) against the Romans. Multiple and many Jewish sects dominated the 66 rebellion. Bar Kokhba’s revolt failed to unite Jews of Judea with a well-timed & coordinated Jewish revolt together and united with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt. Furthermore, that general failed to drive the Roman legions out of Damascus, Syria, a critical error.

   Bar Kokhba’s critical errors of judgment doomed this second Jewish revolt at Betar. Jewish social anarchy and civil war greatly contributed to the Roman victory over the Jewish revolts in both 66 and 135. The key concept of Torah faith revolves around the righteous pursuit of judicial justice within the borders of the oath-sworn brit lands – the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen nation, Bar Kokhba as a military messiah failed to achieve.

   The Av tuma avoda zara religions, worship other gods; they pervert the Torah vision of faith – forcibly converted into some theological creed-based personal belief system. These substitute theologies attempts to subvert the Torah faith that spins around the central axis: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice obligations; which makes a fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B. Av tuma avoda zara religions seek to substitute the pursuit of righteous justice with a personal belief in JeZeus or Allah.

   Av tuma Avoda zara substitute theologies attempt to supplant their creed based personal belief in theologically defined belief systems, that define their gods as either a 3-part One God mystery or a simple One God monotheism. Despite the simple fact that monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Because if only one God then no need to command not to worship other Gods. Moshe travelled to Egypt, and the 10 plagues judged the gods of Egypt. Just as did HaShem judge the Gods worshipped by the Canaanite kings. Avoda zara plagues all generations of Israel; all generations struggle with assimilation and intermarriage.

   The sworn oath brit cut at GilGal, as expressed through the Rashi tefillen recalls the fact that Goyim worship other Gods. No such reality as a Universal God. The lights of Hanukkah, for example, reject Greek philosophy. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four basis logic system radically differs from Aristotle’s 3 part syllogisms. Attempts made by assimilated rabbis to interpret the T’NaCH and Talmud based upon Greek logic formats – an utter abomination on the order of Xtianity and Islam.

   Greek philosophy qualifies as a foreign substitute theology; an Av tuma on par with the Christian and Muslim avoda zara repeated attempts to convert Jews with their replacement theologies. Hence Jews who study ancient Greek philosophy, they err in Av tuma avoda zara as much as do Jews who convert to Xtianity and Islam; as much as did Moshiach Bar Kachba failure to coordinate the revolt together with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and to carry the war into Syria with the objective of conquering both Damascus together with all its major naval ports.

   The Jewish concept of Moshiach a פרט to the כלל function of the Torah and the Oral Torah in interpreting key aspects of Jewish common law and prophecy; Moshiach: an Oral Torah commandment. Indeed, the Jewish approach to the concept of the Messiah, as found in both the T’NaCH and the Oral Torah Talmud codification, quite different & distinct from how the gospel counterfeit portrays Jesus within Christian theology. The following discussion reflects the different views on this matter, particularly in relation to how Jewish scholars might interpret the failure of the Gospel narrative to align with both the Torah’s precedence based common law legalism, and the traditional understanding of the Moshiach as understood through T’NaCH prophetic mussar.

   The Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach, deeply rooted in how the Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of the Written Torah; just as the time oriented commandment of tefillah requires שם ומלכות as its oath k’vanna. Particularly through the common law precedents set by Moshe’s anointing of the House of Aaron, as well as the later anointing of King Shaul by the prophet Shmuel.

   The notion that the Moshiach must come from the lineage of David, himself a descendant of Judah, a latter tiqqun added to the mitzva of Moshiach. This latter tiqqun sought to ensure that the line of the House of David, completely rejects the Xtian theological “Father God” of JeZeus mythology. This latter revisionist history attempt directly compares to the mythology of how Zeus fathered Hercules! Adultery an Av tumah Capital Crime. JeZeus the offspring of Zeus as the father of the Gods, represents a Torah abomination.

   The Talmud’s emphasis on the Torah sage being held in greater regard than a king of Israel, a critical piece Talmudic understanding concerning the priority of spiritual leadership. The Torah Talmid Chacham, perceived by the sages of the Talmud as the one who understands and interprets the Torah common law; possessing the wisdom to guide the nation in matters of our destiny path of truth-faith, which commits the chosen Cohen people to pursue righteous judicial justice. The role of the Moshiach in Oral Torah logic, not just a political or religious leader. Nor some military figure comparable to Bar Kachba; rather, Moshiach represents the Oral Torah interpretation of someone who restores the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Republic; the Oral Torah as the basic model of lateral common law courtrooms. As such, the Moshiach’s anointing, deeply tied to the oath brit relationship established by Avram at the brit cut between the pieces and the tradition Oral Torah learning.

   Just as “swearing” an oath blessing requires שם ומלכות, so too the Order established by the Framers of the Talmud affixed a warp/weft loom like relationship between the Aggada narratives opposed by the Halachic portions of the Gemara common law precedent based commentary to the Mishna. Stripping a garment of either its warp or weft threads destroys the fabric of that garment. The statute law halachic codifications of the Middle Ages made this precise abomination. To correct the Rambam halachic perversion requires affixing any and all Rambam posok halacha in his statute law perversion to the identical halacha within the B’HaG, Rif, or Rosh common law halachic codifications. These kosher halachic common law codes always affix their Halachic Gemara rulings to a Primary Source Mishna.

   Torah scholarship requires a sharp critical eye which can discern Like from Like. The Talmud refers to this skill as the definition of understanding. Just as swearing a oath blessing requires the warp/weft of שם ומלכות, so too and how much more so ritual halachic observance requires its Aggadic דרוש\פשט learning to T’NaCH Primary sources which makes a common law precedent comparison search that explores the depths or facets of prophetic mussar which defines the פשט of the Talmudic aggada warp. Oral Torah: just as the Gemara makes a multiply faceted משנה תורה\legislative review (re-interpretation) of the diamond like faces of Mishnaic language, so too and how much more so precedent based research gleans prophetic mussar tohor middot comparisons from sugyot of NaCH compared to the identical sets of tohor middot located in other sugyot of NaCH. This depth analysis of prophetic mussar determines the k’vanna of Torah mitzvot and Talmudic halachot observances.

   The concept of anointing with oil in the context of sacrifices (korbanot) in the Temple, also fundamental to understanding the Jewish approach to Moshiach. This oil, used in the service of the Temple, symbolized the sanctification of Israel’s offerings and the anointing of its leaders. The Messiah, in Jewish thought, will be anointed in a similar manner to those figures who came before him—especially the kings and priests of Israel, in accordance with the Torah’s stipulations. A concrete act of divine selection and empowerment.

   The Xstian claim that JeZeus fulfills the role of Moshiach simply at odds with the traditional Jewish understanding of the term. From the Jewish perspective, Jesus’ life and actions do not align with the Oral Torah’s requirements for Moshiach. The Gospels narrative fail to engage with the Oral Torah’s teachings about the Moshiach, and they do not acknowledge the precedent established in common law, the anointing of the House of Aaron or the priests and kings of Israel. In Jewish tradition, the Moshiach must be a descendant of King David (through his father, not his mother), a precondition which the so called ‘virgin birth’ failed to achieve. Furthermore, the bogus Xtian narrative specifically failed to “fulfill” the specific roles, re-establishment of the Federal Sanhedrin common law system of Torts and Capital Sanhedrin courtrooms which achieved judicial justice in the oath sworn lands of the chosen Cohen nation. None of these pre-conditions did JeZeus accomplish in any the historical context.

   The failure of the Gospel narrative to align with the Torah’s precedent for the anointing of the Moshiach another of the many points of contention. In Jewish tradition, anointing with oil – an essential part of the mitzva of Moshiach. As exemplified in the Torah’s precedents of Moshe & Aaron, and of course kings Shaul & David. JeZeus never depicted as being anointed, except by a prostitute. Such a narrative compares to the judicial injustice and brutal torture which the gospel narrative portrays the JeZeus “sacrifice” upon the Roman altar of death. For Jewish scholars, this vile depiction makes only a fictional story. The gospel narrative does satisfy the Torah’s vision of Moshiach, which requires restoration of the Torah Constitutional Republic and the Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal court system. A prostitute anointing the feet of a man hardly qualifies as holy korban.

   The Talmudic teachings on the Moshiach, make clear that the Messiah not only restores the Torah as the constitution of the Republic, but just as significant, the Moshiach re-establish Torah Sanhedrin lateral common law courts. The gospel narrative of a spiritual Moshiach, while not entirely foreign to Judaism, based upon the false messiah movements lead by Sabbatai Zevi and Yaacov Frank; based upon these latter false messiah examples the gospel fictional narrative hardly stands as authentic. Talmudic common law rejects such ‘spiritual messiahs as utterly false.

   The Oral Torah\Talmud give a specific definition of a prophet as someone who guides the people of Israel toward t’shuva and adherence to the mitzvot (commandments) expressed through Av tohor time oriented commandments. Prophets, employ the 13 tohor middot as the basis of T’NaCH mussar common law sugya comparisons to other T’NaCH sugyot. Prophetic mussar, functions as the warp/weft loom like opposing threads of Talmudic halacha. T’NaCH prophetic mussar, based on a comparison of similar middot configurations within NaCH sugyot, defines the wisdom of learn the NaCH kabbalah לשמה. Time oriented commandments require prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna within the heart.

   The concept of prophecy in Judaism, not about foretelling the future, a trait known to tuma false prophets, who according to the gospel narrative “fulfil” the words of the prophets. Utterly absurd. Time oriented Av Torah commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna of tohor Oral Torah middot, apply equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. The gospel narative did not grasp the essence of Torah observance of Av tohor time oriented commandments. Time oriented commandments require prophetic mussar for the generations to observe this unique type of Av commandments לשמה. The idea that JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets as absurd as a prostitute pouring oil onto his feet transforms this work of fiction into both Moshiach and the son of God.

   The Xtian tradition, judged upon the scales of Oral Torah Av time oriented commandments, clear as the Sun on a cloudless day a false messiah depiction on the order of Harry Potter fiction. Allah Voldemort – dead. JeZeus particularly not only specifically ignorant of the mitzva of Shabbat & the כלל of Av time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar which define the k’vanna of Oral Torah middot. JeZeus, as a specific example taught “prayer” as “Our father who lives in Heaven” rather that tefillah a matter of the heart. Prophetic mussar k’vanna – a matter of the heart. Tefillah entails swearing a Torah oath לשמה to dedicate a specific defined tohor midda in order to make a tiqqun how a man interacts in the future with his wife, children, family, neighbours and people. The k’vanna of tefillah dedicates tohor defined prophetic mussar middot לשמה.

   Xtian theology places JeZeus in a perverse position where the gospel narrative declares that he “fulfilled the Law”, oblivious that the gospels have not the least bit of a clue what Torah common law means nor how it functions. JeZeus’s departure from Torah common law, particularly in matters like Shabbat observance, cited as but one obvious example of how this imaginary man cannot and does not ‘fulfil’ the prophets.

   The Jewish rejection of Jesus as Moshiach, or even as the koran narrative as a Torah prophet rests squarely upon the failure of the gospels to address Av tohor time oriented commandments. Besides the failure to align with the Torah’s specific precondition which learns the mitzva of Moshiach from korbanot anointed with oil together with the restoration of the Sanhedrin lateral common law court Federal court system. The Roman fraud gospel framers did not understand Constitutional Torah law.

   This fundamental blatant error concerning the nature of prophetic mussar as the definition through precedent comparison which define the k’vanna of tohor middot, as the definition and purpose the Oral Torah Horev revelation. Implications of strange Xtian doctrines, such as salvation through grace, or Jesus’ fulfilment of the Law, judged as Av tuma avoda zarah; the forerunner of Sabbatai Zevi’s antinomian doctrine. The absolute ignorance of the gospel narrative to Av tohor time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna within the heart definitively proves that JeZeus failed the “one in 10,000” may attain the level of Torah scholarship and prophetic merit.

   The Gospel narratives simply understood as a perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic Moshiach mussar prophecies. Xtian theology and creeds ignores the foundational principles of achieving Av time oriented commandments, wherein the bnai brit Cohen people breath the tohor spirits of the Creator of the Universe from within the Yatzir Tov of our hearts; the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

   Muslim theologians approach the issue of JeZeus and Muhammad being referred to as Old Testament prophets, based upon the false assumption that the gospel narrative merit respect. Latter day Islam which declares the Torah as corrupt compares to the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. Many Xtian theologians draw a line of comparison between Muhammad and Smith. Both “prophets” introduced their own new order of scriptures.

   Both Islam and Mormonism highly revers the treif gospel narratives. Goyim have a deep infatuation with T’NaCH prophets, despite their total ignorance of tohor middot and Av time oriented commandments. Muhammad’s message of monotheism, likewise declares that JeZeus predicted the coming of Muhammad. JeZeus in the Quran has absolutely no concept of the mitzva of Moshiach as interpreted by the Oral Torah פרדס logic system and tohor middot.

   The koran regards Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin), despite not having the least bit of a clue how the T’NaCH understands the function and role of prophets. Clearly Islamic thought resembles the prophet Adam Smith far more than any T’NaCH prophet. The koran does not position Muhammad as a continuation of the Jewish prophetic line in a direct, historical sense. Muhammad according to the koran narrative lived as the final prophet who brought the ultimate revelation from God. Both the koran and Mormon holy books supersede all the scriptures which preceded them.

   Neither the gospels, koran nor book of Mormon brings the שם השם revealed in the first Sinai commandment. These latter day Goyim “prophets” confuse the Hebrew “oath alliance”/ברית as one in the same with the sophomoric translated term covenant. Lacking the שם השם no man can cut a Torah ברית. Hence, covenant cannot mean brit. A difference of apples and oranges. Which these Goyim prophets remained completely oblivious in their bliss & ignorance. In many ways these spiritual reformers compare to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, John Wesley, and Mary Baker Eddy. While not all these individuals directly hated or despised one another, certainly significant theological disagreements and conflicts erupted among them.

   Luther believed in the doctrine of consubstantiation. Zwingli, on the other hand, viewed the Eucharist as purely symbolic. John Calvin’s theology was influenced by both Luther and Zwingli, but he developed his own distinct doctrines, particularly on predestination and the sovereignty of God.

   William Tyndale focused on translating the Bible into English, and his fugitive status continually forced him to hide from English authorities. John Wesley, came much later and had different theological focuses. He disagreed with Calvin’s predestination doctrine, emphasizing free will and personal holiness. Wesley’s Arminian views such as: Free Will, Prevenient Grace that precedes and prepares the soul for salvation; Conditional Election upon faith, Universal Atonement: that salvation is available to everyone, but only those who accept it will be saved. These “prophesies” put him at odds with Calvinist traditions.

   Mary Baker Eddy, her teachings were often seen as unorthodox or heretical by mainstream Xtian denominations. The debates and tensions among them highlight the diversity and complexity of the Reformation and subsequent religious movements. Comparatively speaking, Muhammad fits right into the crowd of these religious reformers and prophets.

   Bottom line: Justice: fair judicial compensation for damages inflicted. Not forgiveness for sin. The Pauline substitute theology of original sin perverted the key Torah theme of g’lut\exile. Starting with the exile of Adam from the garden, Noach’s exile in the Ark, and the exile of Israel in Egypt. And concluding with the 40 year exile in the Wilderness. The Holy Writings Book of Job likewise teaches the mussar of g’lut/exile.

   Share this:

   Loading...

   Reply

5. Judas writes of displeasure and passion, and of the need to restrain passions, and it can be clearly seen from the Gospels, the works of the apostles and other sources that the Judean were very passionate and made riots and riots throughout the region. Wherever Paul traveled, he was met by a mob of Judeans ready to lynch him. Therefore, it should not be surprising that in the rebellions against Rome, the leaders of the rebels were most often called ‘Judas’.
   And it was only Judas who was Iscariot, who was half-hearted in betraying Jesus for the thirty pieces of silver coin.

   The word “Jew” is a modern word with many ambiguous meanings, but neither by race, residence, nor religion was Jesus Christ a “Jew” and He certainly isn’t a bastard of a whore boiling in feces as Jews insist.

   In his book The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed drills that point home most eloquently;

   What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jew”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith’” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not
   true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons). *

   This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew”, is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour.

   The English abbreviation, “Jew” is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all
   other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world).

   If the statement, “Jesus was a Jew”, has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew” if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time.

   Race, residence, religion, then.

   This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus’s racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question.

   The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy.

   As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; the Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah’s prophecy that “a ruler” would come out of Bethlehem”.

   The Jewish Encylopaedia insists that Nazareth as Jesus’s native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’s birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah.

   Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans.

   Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jew”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue.

   It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses.

   If today the Zionists are “the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes. but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foes of God and man and that he used an especial, scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today’s Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism.

   Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then.

   None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.

   *Rabbi Stephen Wise, the leading Zionist organizer in the United States during the 1910-1950 period, used this phrase for the obvious political motive, of confusing non-Jewish hearers. Speaking to such an “inter-faith” meeting at the Carnegie Hall at Christmastide 1925, he stated “Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian”(Christianity was born with the death of Jesus). For this he was excommunicated by the Orthodox Rabbis Society of the United States, but a Christian Ministers Association “hailed me as a brother”. Rabbi Wise adds the characteristic comment: “I know not which was more hurtful, the acceptance of me as a brother and welcoming me into the Christian fold, or the violent diatribe of the rabbis”.

   Loading...

   Reply

6. Dear Helena

   My dear sister emailed me this article.
   Excellent.
   I will publish tomorrow, possibly as the lead post, on https://EarthNewspaper.com

   Love Is The Answer
   Mark R. Elsis

   Loading...

   Reply

   • Thank You! I appreciate the repost.

     Loading...

     Reply

   • Guess who helped Lennon write Imagine – and why he was killed?

     Loading...

     Reply

7. This was great but can you write a follow up addressing objections to this? What about the Dead Sea scrolls and Septuagint or some of the others older texts and other objections. If you’re right this is imprtnant and need to address additional things or explain why they are not relevant

   Loading...

   Reply

   • OK – I can do that! I have already done some research – particularly in papyrus and ink…

     Loading...

     Reply

8. Wow, Helena. You really ought to delve into the massively conclusive evidence of the King James Bible being faithful to the Word of God. Later translations evoke thoughts of “filthy lucre” motives. Modern translations must be at least 10 percent different from all previous “translations” to qualify for copyright lucre.

   And the word “Jews” appears many times in the New Testament. Most of the Jews certainly did reject Jesus as Messiah, as the book of Isaiah said they would (chapter 53). And Jesus himself said God had taken the kingdom of God from them and given it to a “people bearing the fruit thereof”. So the “grafted” branch of born-again Gentiles became part of God’s children and the heirs of the promises God had make in the Tanukh to the Jews.

   –Alan

   Loading...

   Reply

   • I believe the King James was revised 3 times. Why? The word Jew did not exist until modern times. Israel was anyone under Judah and Jacob. Oldest Hebrew Bible dated in the 12th or 11th century – disputed. Please don’t read 16th century scripture to me – my son is a pastor – he is learning Greek just for this cause. WHAT IS TRUTH. There are roughly 192 translations and revisions – almost all date from 17th century forward. Which included upwards of 19,000 ‘edits’. The Bible was written in Greek. I suggest you find that one and translate. Jews never existed. They rewrote history inserting themselves as the constant ‘victim’. Same time frame; beginning in the 12th century…

     Loading...

     Reply

9. It really is that simple, when one consults enlightened independent sites like this one to get some reality. Jesus was not a Jew. There were no Jews back then. Israelites went to Europe. The people in Israel are not Israelites and not related to them. Modern scriptures are deliberate distortions.

   We were taught some of the falsehoods in Catholic grade school, but it is much worse in evangelical churches and classes. Lots of evangelicals have near worship of Israel. These big money evangelical and multi-denominational preachers giving devotion to Israel have to be paid parts of the plot. The not so subtle message is “worship Israel if you want to go to heaven”.

   The propaganda is effective, it has developed over the years, where nowadays people in congress, Christian leaders, and so on, openly declare allegiance to Israel and zionism. There may come a time in which some Christian organizations actually convince and recruit young Christian American men to go sacrifice their lives fighting for Israel in the Middle East.

   Loading...

   Reply

10. Helena, please look into the Hebrew Gospel of Cochin which they claim are manuscripts from the first century. These were found in a Jewish Temple in Cochin, India.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • The first extant translation of the four Gospels into Hebrew is to be found in a late fifteenth-century manuscript kept in the Vatican … 15th century

      Loading...

      Reply

11. You are one of the biggest mind blowers on the Internet Helena. So much food for thought.

    Loading...

    Reply

12. The Greek word “loudaios” translated Jew or Judean which Christ certainly was.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • That word originated as a geographical term only.

      Loading...

      Reply

      • the translation I found was ‘sorcerer’. As in the Romans view of Him was certainly the same as the hypocritical, semites who turned on Christ. WHY would Rome hang Christ on a cross and then write something ‘positive’. ALSO the term KING did not exist then. Middle Ages.

        Loading...

        Reply

    • original translation = Shaman

      Loading...

      Reply

13. I have been reading your articles and I must say, you have such a wealth of knowledge!

    Loading...

    Reply

14. They lie and have been lying for a very long time .They lie about the lie and it never ends.
    Thank you for this record , I have read about this before and it needs to be exposed widely .

    Loading...

    Reply

15. So, having dealt with that, superbly i might add, lets correlate info on what We know is intended and how We got there and some viewpoints on where its intended to go

    https://odysee.com/@CJBbooks.com:8/2024-12-10-14-25-50:e

    https://www.fatima.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/The-Mystery-of-Iniquity.pdf

    heres a short 2 minute video covering the ear slit “bondage slave” relevance and the proposed timeline of Oct 2027

    https://jeanbaptisteguillory.substack.com/p/real-endemic-psychosis?utm_source=podcast-email&publication_id=1445010&post_id=148454552&utm_campaign=email-play-on-substack&utm_content=watch_now_button&r=ri8cr&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

    appologies for the long link,

    as what is intended becomes clearer and We see the utter obedience of those in power as We are marched toward this dire appointment, so the burden of responsibility and knowledge shifts (seemingly) onto a ever smaller minority who are able to see past the accepted consrtaints (blinkers) of “reality”

    i doubt any that have studied this far could or would revert to a former condition of ignorance?
    i ponder often that in Our seemingly impotent roles We are here merely to witness ?/!

    i found the archived articles contained here most usefull in my instruction:

    https://hiddeninthecrag.wordpress.com/

    Loading...

    Reply

16. Thank you for setting the record straight Helena!

    Loading...

    Reply

17. Be not deceived my beloved brethren.” James 1:16

    Loading...

    Reply

18. Helena. Wie geht es? You might enjoy the book, The Mystery of the Gentiles. By Ted Weiland. He knows a ton. Find it by going to the web site missiontoisrael.com or .org. I can’t remember which one it is. Bis spater.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • danke. Found it –

      Loading...

      Reply

19. Are you familiar with the Babylonian Talmudic philosophy ?

    Loading...

    Reply

    • I am familiar – thou not a scholar on The Bible, The Talmud, The book of Mormon, Hinduism, Janism, Taoism, Buddhism, Catholocism, and Christianity. beginning roughly 30 years ago.

      Loading...

      Reply

      • enjoyed reading this and very enlightening, are you aware of the work of
        Mauro Biglino a twenty year vatican translator ? his book ‘the naked bible’
        makes the connection between original bible translation and some of the sumerian texts, some of these translations show a clear likeness to these
        ancient bible texts and vedic mythology

        Loading...

        Reply