Khazarian Jew Theory Under a Jewmerica White House

39 thoughts on “Khazarian Jew Theory Under a Jewmerica White House”

1. Pingback: Concerning Dragons – Unicuique Suum

2. 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.

   Share this:

   Loading...

   Reply

   • Why Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av Tuma Nazi like avoda zarah?
     The vision of Torah as an oath-based, constitutional brit alliance cut between the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, whose revelation centers upon judicial justice and prophetic mussar—not theological creeds or divine incarnations or false messiah Son of God theological creeds. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV); this lone verse, its contained within the larger sugya of 1:20-2:22.

     Shlomo rebukes his son for refusal to pursue Oral Torah wisdom. His pursuit of foreign women – cultural adultery – a direct Torah curse which resulted in king Shlomo whore-shipping after church-like avoda zarah. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV). You silly reactionary Goyim have no wisdom. Goyim, they remind me how water behaves on a hot skillet! Ya ball up, bounce around, and make noise.

     Yes its a really sorry condition to be born and raised ignorant – comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains – ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs. T’NaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to Yesha’Yahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim don’t know that ya can’t uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! T’NaCH — a common law legal system. But you Appalachians don’t know this basic fact, because your church denies the existence of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Truly sucks being as ignorant as sticks.

     Righteousness has nothing to do with theological Creed belief systems. The new-testament promotes JeZeus as the messiah Son of God – bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven – people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a “Gemarah” Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source – not enough in משנה תורה common law – Oral Torah inductive reasoning.

     A scholar, with fear of heaven, learns that Prophet source, to some other Prophetic precedent, then back to the Book of D’varim, and ideally even back to the Book of בראשית, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments — from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot — all of which do not require k’vanna. However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread of the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah למעשה, this Torah wisdom elevates them all to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah. This Av Torah commandment creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations Israel walks upon the face of the Earth.

     Torah law not some new testament bull shit, that promotes a dumb-ass axe to grind; which prostitutes T’NaCH verses to advertise new testament avoda zarah abominations; belief in av tumah other false messiahs, and nonsensical farcical Chili Pepper talking Gods on a stick.

     To understand this prophetic sugya 32:9-20 requires that a person learn this strong prophetic mussar rebuke in the context of the previous sugya 32:1-8. Through the wisdom of Oral Torah Pardes inductive logic reasoning, a close precedent which permits a person to read this same idea viewed from, a fresh and completely different perspective: 5:1-6 of the same prophet. Torah holds tremendous depths, like a diamond has tens of thousands of facet faces! The new testament Paul and JeZeus – pony show – Goebbels propaganda – narishkeit, declares that a T’NaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!

     T’NaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice – NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat שופטים testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of D’varim 24:14,15 initiates the command of this strong prophetic mussar. When the 3 Melachim visited Avraham after he did the mitzva of brit melah – they visited a “righteous” man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything – because he lived a righteous life – he obeyed Torah commandments.

     Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto g’lut/exile in pursuit of Yosef. The wicked do not call upon HaShem. The Avot by stark contrast, called upon El Shaddai as their God. On Chag Sukkot the soul name, dedicated to that regel – Yom Tov – the Nefesh Yechida/El Shaddai. Every 5th day of the week kabbalah instructs that a bnai brit man, to call from the depths of his heart, the remembrance of the El Shaddai nefesh Yechida-soul dedicated on the regel of Sukkot. The Divine Oral Torah tohor spirits live within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who remember the oaths, by which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem.

     HaShem made Moshe a “lord like messiah” to Par’o. Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians, as JeZeus-like other false messiah-Gods. Chag Pesach remembers that HaShem judged the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians as false messiah-Gods. The mitzva to remember to expunge the assimilation and intermarried ערב רב Jews, whose fundamentally lack fear of heaven – their ערב רב tuma, the root cause of all Amalek-antisemitism throughout the generations. This Torah curse, comes through Jews pursuing their life interests without remembering the oaths the Avot swore; just as did the sons of Yaacov after they sold Yosef into Egyptian slavery. The tohor time oriented commandments which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living תמיד מעשה בראשית, when ever Israel does tohor Av time oriented commandment with prophetic mussar as their k’vanna — the sons of Yaacov totally forgot and abandoned.

     The ultimate בנין אב-precedent, the Parshah of תרומה! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly eyes of טיפש פשט. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a משל. Oral Torah פרדס logic demands that the bnai brit reader, regardless of the generation they live, make the required דיוק-logical inference- and grasp the נמשל prophetic mussar which instructs the faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation.

     Loading...

     Reply

   • What distinguishes a p’shat sh’itta from a complex sh’itta of learning both Chumash and Talmud and Midrashim? How to correctly learn and study both the T’NaCH & Talmud & Siddur.

     Ibn Ezra wrote a p’shat sh’itta on his Chumash commentary. None the less he incorporated Astrology, Hindu avoda zarah! So its quite impossible to define p’shat as the simple meaning of terms. Rather the simple p’shat sh’itta of learning, compares to a triangle being the most stable geological construct. A syllogism of Greek logic employs two arms which permits it to reach the conclusion of the argument ie the third arm of the triangle. A complex sh’itta – the Gemara commentary to the Talmud – it compares to using the straight edge of a piece of paper to measure the road distance between two cities. Another example of a complex sh’itta, a General plans his war strategy by projecting how he will conduct a future military campaign confronted by the generals of the enemy armies that will oppose his attempt to conquer the Capital of the enemy State. Both the Gemara and the General rely on key precedents; the Gemara relies upon halachic judicial rulings from other mesechtot; while the General relies upon previous military battles which serve as the blueprint by which he intends to orchestrate his future military battle- plans, to achieve military victory – in a long drawn out war.

     Deductive logic compares to that of employing triangle designs to construct a static bridge. Ibn Ezra, his commentary reveals that p’shat does not actually mean “simple meaning” But rather an integrated system of logical, grammatical rules, philosophical ideas, and scientific presumptions—even including astrology and foreign concepts that, at his time, were considered rational disciplines – like ancient Greek logic philosophies.

     Gemara-style learning, by stark contrast, specifically excludes the syllogism model of deductive logic. Assimilated Ibn Ezra and Rambam both failed to weigh this key point. Based upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system, which divides the Talmud into two opposing warp weft threads of a theoretical loom; this Pardes kabbalah affixes דרוש ופשט to study which compares sugyot of the T’NaCH, with similar but different sugyot of the T’NaCH, to derive the calculus of prophetic mussar. This derived prophetic mussar, it compares, as just mentioned, to the mathematics of calculus – employed to determine dynamic problems. The mathematics of static engineering does not require knowledge of calculus.

     Deductive reasoning clarifies that which already exists & present & achieved, something like the stuffed head of an animal mounted as a trophy upon a wall. Like, for example, the halachot found within the Shulkan Aruch. Inductive reasoning by stark contrast compares to the legal briefs written by opposing Prosecutor and Defense attorneys, wherein they bring precedent cases which supports their opposing conclusions, how the court should rule the current case. Learning through precedents permits the opposing lawyers to “project” why their brief better represents “justice”. Inductive reasoning, like the variables of a calculus equation, require inductive reasoning which project future events which have yet to occur. While deductive reasoning defines that which already exists, or previous known history.

     Deductive Logic = Static Engineering = P’shat Sh’itta. Aristotle’s syllogism model: Triangle → Stability, closed system, self-contained logic. Examples of this assimilation pollution among Jewish scholars. Ibn Ezra’s commentary; Aristotle’s syllogism and its impact on both the Rambam & the Shulchan Aruch static statute law-halacha. Both types of commentaries, attempt to clarify and simplify halacha into simplified codes of Jewish law which defines religious observance truths. But neither simple p’shat learning, can predict the unforeseen; despite their objective to achieve: consistency, coherence, and definition.

     Inductive Logic = Calculus = Pardes. This type of logic reasoning requires making dynamic projections → like calculating velocity or area under variable curves. Gemara sugyot … prophetic mussar … halachic machloket disputes which pit Prosecutor against Defense attorneys: R. Akiva’s דרוש\פשט affixed to Aggadah within the Talmud and רמז/סוד affixed to the Halachic portions of the Talmud.

     The Framers of the Talmud established a warp/weft loom logic system format, which fundamentally requires inductive-comparison of judicial court cases to earlier precedent judicial court cases. Like bringing a halacha from the Yerushalmi as a foundational precedent speculation which directly influenced a later Amoraim halachic opinions, codified much later in the Babylonian Talmud. Learning through precedents permits a person to project future-oriented justice by analyzing precedents across diverse contexts; similar to how a General employs military science of previous historical battles to plan his military campaign. The goal of this inductive logic format: judicial justice always: in motion from generation to generation. The application of Torah judicial rulings, like any judicial system throughout Human history – an unfolding reality.

     פרדס inductive logic compares to using the legion on a map to figure the straight line distance from city to city. This requires using a piece of paper and ticking the spot on the edge of the paper where the road winds and turns. Therein converting a dynamic road to a straight line road. To measure the road distance from city to city. Deductive Greek logic, by contrast, only measures p’shat sh’itta-straight lines.

     The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael’s logic, they serve as THE primary commentary to Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס explanation of the revelation of the Oral Torah to Moshe at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. בנין אב-precedents compare divergent sugyot in both the T’NaCH and Talmud common law legal systems. Whether Rashi p’shat on the Chumash or the Baal Ha’Maor or Rabbeinu Tam common law commentaries on the Rif and the Talmud respectively, this type of complex p’shat sh’itta. This complex sh’itta of p’shat which measures the “so to speak” distance separating point A to point B based upon a winding road analogy rather than a straight line triangle way of deductive syllogism – frigid and fossilized reasoning – defines how the Gemara learns the language of the Mishna as common law.  

     Aristotle’s Logic, imposed onto Torah exegesis, from much later medieval assimilated Jews who like the Hanukkah Tzeddukim likewise fervently embraced Greek philosophy to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. The רשעים Tzeddukim, fossilized Torah the Written Torah as sought to pollute Jerusalem unto a Greek polis City-State. These kapo Jews abandoned the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva, rejected the interpretation of “resurrection from the dead” expressed through the Torah mitzva of kiddushin and get, and embraced the avoda zara of ancient Greek philosophical systems, utterly divorced from the lived prophetic-sworn oath alliances basis, of contractual brit Constitutional obligations which exist eternally through the Oral Torah, as explained by the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס complex p’shat of inductive reasoning.

     The relationship of the 13 Middot of R. Yishmael פרדס sub-set commentary. They functional as the primary tools required to “walk” the curved road of interpreting the NaCH prophets with Holy Writings precedents located within the larger T’NaCH Primary Sources. Likewise these same 13 rabbinic Middot of logic, equally compare and contrast a halachah located in one sugya of Gemara, to other similar halachot located in other sugyot of different Mesechtot of the Talmud, both Bavli and Yerushalmi. The בנין אב (binyan av), serves as but one example—it relies upon prior cases (T’NaCH, Yerushalmi) to project legal logic to determine how common law courts in the future, rule cases heard before their courtrooms. Like a general studying historic battles, Gemara פרדס logic maps past legal precedents onto a present or speculative future context. The process, not mechanical deduction of dead dinosaur fossils, but in reality – legal-mussar inductive logic, which defines the k’vanna within the heart—which projects this prophetic mussar k’vaana unto observance of halachic mitzvot that future but as yet unborn generation, throughout the generations obey the oath sworn alliance of Sinai. Basically this scholarship defines how Torah justice should unfold in all the as yet unborn generations.

     This פרדס inductive logic system revelation, represents the second giving of Torah at Horev after the Egel, where Rabbi Akiva’s logic frames the Oral Torah as a dynamic, an inductively built system—not given whole, but built through precedent comparisons, legal extrapolations, and prophetic struggles. The static Tzeddukim רשעים representation of the Written Torah as a fixed “book of laws, utter lies, like the false prophets lies expressed by both Jesus and Muhammad.

     Rashi, Baal HaMaor, Rabbeinu Tam—their פרדס\thirteen middot of rabbi Yishmael/complex p’shat sh’itta of learning, best defines the correct meaning and intent, how to learn the T’NaCH and Talmud as dynamic judicial common law legal system rather than chasing after grand Cathedral Temples of static legislative statute law legislative codified bureaucratic red-tape law. The complex shi’tta of p’shat does not rely on fossilized syllogisms, it analyzes and weighs sugya against sugya—T’NaCH against T’NaCH, Yerushalmi against Bavli—tracing halachic and aggadic paths. The Oral Torah revelation at Horev measures Torah’s “road distance,” not its “straight-line” idealism that the טיפש פשט sh’itta declares through bold faced lies.

     Rambam didn’t merely codify halacha; he fundamentally transformed the legal framework by shifting from common law judicial precedent to statute-based legislative law. This change represents a profound transformation, akin to replacing a fluid, case-by-case legal system with a fixed, top-down structure.

     In traditional Talmudic common law, courts based their rulings on precedents, dynamically establishing justice by comparing cases across different sugyot. Rambam’s approach, however, removed the courtroom-based precedent system and replaced it with a universal, static halachic code. He eliminated the need for judicial interpretation, which made halacha more accessible but also rigid. Furthermore, he shifted authority from local courts to centralized rulings, prioritizing consistency over adaptability. Rambam’s codification likely served as a survival mechanism for Jewish communities scattered across the medieval world, but it came at the cost of halachic common law flexibility replaced by statute law appeals to authorities. No common law courtroom ever accepts judgments of judicial law based upon the power of legislative or bureaucratic red-tape statute law.

     The Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law appeal to authority statute law fundamentally transformed how halacha functioned. T’NaCH and Talmudic common law became static and centralized, with appeals to authority rather than precedent-based courtroom rulings.

     For Rambam, with Jewish communities dispersed and lacking cohesive legal institutions, a universal codification was likely seen as necessary for survival. Hence the RambaN in מלחמת השם harshly criticized the Baali HaMaor’s criticism of the Rif halachic codification — despite the Rif code being a common law halachic code rather than the Rambam’s statute law halachic code.

     What distinguishes the common law Rif code from the statute law Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch statute law codes? Answer: the Rif always opened with the Mishna. His posok halacha made on the Gemara made it easier for later scholars to re-interpret the front-top-side viewpoints of the 3 dimensional language of the Mishnaic blueprint re-interpreted through Gemara precedents. The Rambam code of halacha destroyed the uses of Gemara halachic precedents to re-interpret the multi-faceted diamond like faces contained within each and every Mishna.

     The Rif’s methodology preserved the dynamic precedent-based system of the Talmud, whereas Rambam’s codification replaced judicial interpretation with a centralized, static legal framework. The common law commentaries made by both the Baali HaMaor and Rabbeinu Tam’s criticism of the Rashi simple p’shat sh’itta of learning the Talmud come into stark clear and visibly different than the manner which the Rambam, Tur, and Shulkan Aruch failed to prioritize and maintain T’NaCH and Talmudic common law.

     A correct method for learning T’NaCH, Talmud, and Siddur draws from the dynamic, inductive logic system of Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS, not the static deductive models of Greek syllogism adopted by Ibn Ezra or Rambam. This sh’itta compares and contrasts sugyot across contexts—prophetic texts with prophetic texts, halachot with halachot—using Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 middot to trace precedent and build future-facing rulings grounded in the brit. Unlike the codified fossil logic of the Shulchan Aruch, Gemara learning operates like a living legal courtroom, not a museum of statutes. The Torah’s path walks the winding roads of precedent, not the straight lines of philosophical abstraction.
     ________________________________________________________
     In texts of old, the p’shat seeks the plain,
     A stable triangle, logic’s firm embrace.
     Yet Ibn Ezra’s thoughts, with foreign strain,
     Reveal a depth beyond the simple space.

     The complex sh’itta, like a winding road,
     Draws from the Talmud’s rich, dynamic lore,
     Where precedents shape the paths that are strode,
     And justice flows, adapting evermore.

     Inductive paths, like generals in war,
     Project the future from the past’s embrace,
     While static reasoning, like fossils stored,
     Confines the truth within a rigid place.

     Thus, halacha breathes, a living art,
     In every twist, it mirrors the heart.

     Loading...

     Reply

   • Who was the Rambam and what impact did he inflict upon the Jewish people?

     Was the 1232 ban only on Moreh Nevuchim or also on Mishneh Torah? It seems to me, that the ban made by the Baali Tosafot covered both. The former treif book openly praised the Arabic interpretations of how to learn Aristotle’s syllogism deductive reasoning. While the latter openly copied, much as did king Shlomo did with his Beit HaMikdosh which duplicated the extravagance of Goyim Temple construction across the world, the egg-crate organization of statute law into subject matter which defines both Greek and Roman legalism which subordinates the legislative review of the courts subsumed before the primary authority of the legislatures or Senates.

     The 1232 ban initiated by the Ba’alei Tosafot (specifically the rabbis of Northern France, notably Rabbi Shlomo of Montpellier and his circle) was explicitly focused on Moreh Nevuchim and other philosophical writings by the Rambam. However, it is historically unclear whether Mishneh Torah was officially banned by the same decree — though many critics implicitly or explicitly saw the codification and systematization of halakha in Mishneh Torah as deeply problematic and part of the same rationalist project they opposed.

     No post-Tosafist, ghetto-era rabbi succeeded in reestablishing a Talmud-based common law jurisprudence. The yeshiva model after the Shulchan Aruch largely became a pilpulist or posek-based culture, not a dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) as modeled by the Talmud. The shift in the yeshiva model after the publication of the “Shulchan Aruch” and the rise of pilpulist and posek-based cultures marked a significant change in Jewish legal practice. This shift has been critiqued for moving away from the dynamic, integrative approach exemplified by the Tosafists.

     Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema, 1520–1572) wrote his statute law commentary to the statute law Shulchan Aruch. The idea that communal legal practice, responsa, and local precedent, compares to – much less replaces the sealed masoret of the Talmud patently absurd.

     The Maharshal (Rabbi Shlomo Luria, 1510–1573) – In Yam Shel Shlomo, he critiques halakhic decisions made by earlier authorities. But did he go back to the Talmud and weigh the sugyot with a common-law mindset? No. His Yam Shel Shlomo never once acknowledged sugya integrity within the Order and organization of the Talmud. He never once addressed how the Baali Tosafot wrote a common law commentary to the Talmud or how they condemned the Rambam in 1232 for writing a statute law perversion, the first of its kind, of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic and Midrashic common law jurisprudence.

     He never once engaged with the methodology of the Baalei HaTosafot, who viewed the Talmud not as a loose anthology of traditions, but as a tightly integrated common law system. The Baalei HaTosafot commentaries cross-referenced parallel sugyot across tractates that reached to the depths of the Yerushalmi.

     The process of integrating and harmonizing legal principles and rulings from different sugyot (sections or topics) within the Talmud, known as the etzem ha-mishpat or inter-sugya legal synthesis which involves analyzing various legal discussions, interpretations, and precedents found in multiple sugyot to create a cohesive understanding of halacha, his commentary never once achieved.

     Etzem ha-mishpat represents the essence, the core of legal reasoning, focusing on how different legal arguments and rulings can be reconciled or applied in a unified manner. This approach allows scholars and jurists to derive comprehensive legal conclusions that reflect the complexity and dynamism of Jewish law, rather than treating each sugya in isolation. By engaging in this synthesis, legal authorities can address contemporary issues while remaining rooted in traditional sources, ensuring that halacha – most essentially common law – does not descend unto the legal corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law Hades. The latter grossly fails to evolve in response to new circumstances while maintaining its imaginary Talmudic foundational principles, as the Rambam so – bold faced – falsely declared.

     The Rashbam predates the Rambam, his intellectual lineage among Tosafists reflects an earlier form of Ashkenazi resistance to rationalism. The Paris rabbis explicitly publicly opposed the Rambam’s statute law perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law. The Goyim threw the Jews into ghetto gulags for 3 Centuries but rabbinic leadership betrayed and abandoned judical Jewish courtroom common law. Rabbinic Torts damages courts utterly forsook the 3 man Courts division of labor which divide the Court organization into Judge, prosecuting attorney, and defense attorney as the definition of all Torts 3 man courtrooms! This retreat from common law Talmudic courts, commanded not to accept bribes, compares to Kashrut mash’gichim who receive their salaries from the stores they police! An absolute and utter corruption of Talmudic common law.

     The Tosafists did not codify—they commented dynamically, upheld disputes, and refused the false security of closure. This, the hallmark of covenantal jurisprudence: law as a living court process, and most definitely not some arrogant appeal to authority – imperial fiat. The later pilpul schools which sprouted as weeds following the Gra utterly failed to grasp.

     After the Shulchan Aruch, the yeshiva model shifted towards a pilpulist or posek-based culture, moving away from the dayyanut britit (covenantal judicial reasoning) exemplified by the Talmud. Rabbi Moshe Isserles (Rema) wrote his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch, which represented statute law, but (as previously stated) the notion that communal legal practice and local precedent could replace the Talmud’s sealed masoret simply fundamentally flawed.

     Etzem ha-mishpat, or inter-sugya legal synthesis, represents the core of legal reasoning, allowing for the reconciliation of diverse legal arguments. This synthesis absolutely essential for addressing contemporary issues while remaining rooted in tradition; to ensure that halacha retains its common law essence and does not devolve into the corruption of assimilated Greek and Roman statute law, as falsely promoted by the Rambam.

     Despite the challenges faced by Jews in the ghetto, rabbinic leadership felt itself forced to abandoned the judicial common law system, forsaking the three-man court structure essential for Torts damage law suits. This retreat parallels the corruption seen in kashrut supervision, where mash’gichim in Israel today face conflicts of interest! Who pays their salaries?

     Rabbinic divorce courts today make the public חלול השם ברבים when they permit רשעים to publicly profane their sworn oath made before kosher witnesses and a minyan of Jews, these רשעים have no shame. Their arrogance imprisons their ex-wives to the disgraceful status of agunah! Because the post Rambam Civil War rabbis ignorantly fail to grasp the implications of the Shemittah precedent which permits Jewish farmers to sell their produce to a “beit din” (a rabbinical court) or to a non-Jewish entity.

     This action, done to circumvent the prohibition of working the land and to allow for the distribution of produce while adhering to the laws of Sh’mitta. The precedent of prosbul serves as a primary precedent. The mitzva of kiddushin absolutely requires than the baal acquire Title to the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba of his wife; meaning he acquires – based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from nothing – the baal acquires title to all the seed produced in the world to come/future of this marital union. Another worthy and similar precedent, the minchag of selling חמץ before Pesach to Goyim.

     Statute law pesel Judaism, which dominated ghetto Jewry in Europe, abysmally failed to grasp that the divorce Beit Din has the power to impose the ban of נידוי upon the רשע ex-husband, based upon the precedent of gere tzeddik as a “new creation”. The דיוק of this mitzva, that the reverse din of כרת equally expels and cuts off this רשע, who publicly makes false oaths – as כרת, not part of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. The divorce beit din has the power to retro-actively annul the original kiddushin. Therefore the divorce beit din has the Torah authority to issue the required ‘get’ to the imprisoned agunah ex-wife, permitting her to make k’ddushin with a man who has fear of heaven, permitting them to sanctify the mitzva of fruitful and multiply.

     The concepts discussed in Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide important precedents for the authority of a divorce Beit Din to place an ex-baal into נידוי and subsequently issue a get that frees the agunah prisoner. Ketubot 3a: discusses the obligations of a husband to his wife, including the financial responsibilities outlined in the ketubah (marriage contract). It emphasizes the importance of the husband’s role in providing for his wife and the consequences of failing to fulfill these obligations. If a husband refuses to grant a divorce or fulfill his marital duties, the court can take action against him, including placing him in נידוי. Unlike the Aggadic 3 oaths, which religious Jews quote in order to denounce Zionism, found at the end of mesechta Ketubah, the baal has Torah/halachic obligations toward maintaining the dignity of his wife.

     The rationale, a husband who neglects his responsibilities to his wife, simply not acting in accordance with Jewish law and community standards, thus justifying the court’s immediate intervention. No רשע should ever assume his refusal to give a get to his ex constitutes as a powerful weapon of revenge – a direct negative Torah commandment.

     Yevamot 90b: This passage addresses the concept of a husband who refuses to grant a get, particularly in cases where his decision acts against the interests of his wife. The Talmud discusses the authority of the Beit Din to impose sanctions on such a husband, including excommunication. The reasoning: that the court has the responsibility to protect the rights of the agunah and ensure that does not abuse his get obligations which could leave her in a state of marital limbo. By placing the husband in נידוי, the court exerts pressure on him to comply with the law and grant the divorce. The Gemara of Sahedrin attributes the floods in the days of Noach to false oaths. The mitzva of kiddushin directly swears an oath alliance based upon the oath brit sworn at the brit cut between the pieces which eternally תמיד מעשה בראשית creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing.

     The combination of these two sources establishes a legal framework that empowers the Beit Din to act decisively in cases of refusal of the baal to returned the nefesh O’lam Ha’ba soul of his wife. The imposition of נידוי serves as a means of compelling the ex-husband to fulfill this Torah warning – not to make vain oaths. The threat to the security of the World, thereby mandates the court to issue the get following the ban. This action ultimately frees the agunah from her state of marital imprisonment, enabling her to remarry and move forward with her life.

     In summary, Ketubot 3a and Yevamot 90b provide the necessary precedents for the Beit Din to impose נידוי on an ex-husband who refuses to grant a divorce, thereby facilitating the issuance of a get and addressing the plight of the agunah.

     Consequent to the 1306 expulsion of all Jews from France which obliterated the Rashi/Tosafot common law commentaries made upon the Talmud, and ultimately crippled common law T’NaCH and Talmudic scholarship – on par with the 1242 disaster of the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts in France! The destruction of evidence means that no conclusive proof exists that a majority of the Baali Tosafot condemned the Rambam. Clearly Rabbi Moshe ben Yaakov of Coucy, known also as the Smag, this Baali Tosafot who wrote Sefer Mitzvot Gadol – clearly rejected the condemnation made by the “majority” of the Baali Tosafot; based upon the simple fact that only on two occasions does the Baali Tosafot commentary mention the Rambam and no both occasions in the whole of the Sha’s; they rejected and opposed his halachic posok both times.

     Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir, known as the Smak, another Baali Tosafot scholar noted for his support of lifting the נידוי that had been placed upon Maimonides in 1232 by “a group of rabbis” in Paris, including many of the Ba’alei Tosafot. Some rabbis attempt to limit the excommunication only to the Moreh’s exultation of Greek logic. However, organizing law into defined subject matter, as does the Rambam code, equally represents the influence of Greek and Roman statute law. But name the Yad – Mishna Torah – an utter perversion due to the simple fact that Rabbi’s Mishna based its name upon the Book of דברים having the second name משנה תורה. The Book of D’varim defines the Torah judicial legal system as common law. For the Rambam to distort this Torah name with his statute law code, this absolute לשון הרע merits that he like Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), that the reputation of his name for ever rots.

     In the early 2000s a group of rabbis, which amazingly included myself for a spell, attempted to re-establish a Federal lateral common law Sanhedrin court system together with the small Sanhedrin cities of refuge. Rebuilding dayyanut britit rather than posek-based rulings – my dream. Reliance upon the Talmud as the basic model for a Federal Sanhedrin court system across all 12 Tribes of the Republic. Restoring the legitimacy of beit din as a sovereign legal authority, capable of acting boldly in the face of injustice (as in the agunah case), guided by Talmudic precedent, not shackled by post-codification legal inertia. Alas I personally failed, the Yatzir to impose legal halachic closures, which defines Judaism today, dominated the hearts of my peers. The Rambam Yad triggered a tectonic shift in halakhic consciousness.

     Loading...

     Reply

   • How to study the Talmud through wisdom

     The Torah was given at Sinai along with the tools—the middot (hermeneutical principles)—for deriving halakha from the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael codified the 13 logical principles (middot) by which halakha is deduced from the written Torah. This is not transmission of content but inductive reasoning—a system of legal logic.

     Rabbi Akiva, especially through the Kabbalah of PaRDeS (Peshat, Remez, Derash, Sod), emphasized that every detail in the Torah—down to the crowns of letters—was a potential basis for halakhic inference. Again: it’s a system of interpretation, not rote transmission.

     Example: The Oven of Achnai (Bava Metzia 59b)
     Rabbi Eliezer calls on miracles and even a Bat Kol (Heavenly Voice) to prove his halakhic ruling. But the other rabbis reject it, quoting:
     “לא בשמים היא” (It is not in Heaven)—Deut. 30:12
     This affirms that halakha is decided through human debate using proper reasoning and hermeneutics, not by appeal to prophetic or mystical authority—even from Heaven.

     When people say “Orthodoxy believes the Oral Torah was revealed at Sinai,” they often flatten the nuance and make it sound like the Mishnah or Gemara were dictated by God. This is not the Talmud’s view, and it’s not the view of Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS or Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot. Halacha serves as precedents used to re-interpret a different face of the language of the Mishna. Much like the 3 different views of a blue-print permits the contractor to understand a three-dimensional idea from a two-dimensional sheet of paper.

     The Oral Torah is not a set of dictated content (like a second scroll from Heaven) but a system of legal reasoning handed down with the Written Torah. The 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael and PaRDeS hermeneutics of Rabbi Akiva are not simply “interpretation”—they are the constitutional logic system embedded in the covenantal structure of Torah common law. Halakha is not mysticism nor the product of prophecy—it is an earthly, oath-bound legal tradition, decided through human debate and precedent within the beit din. “Torah lo bashamayim hi” (It is not in Heaven) proves decisively that halakhic authority does not rest in divine voice, but in national legal common law process.

     Liberal Judaism “rejects the traditional Orthodox doctrine of Torah mi-Sinai,” this means that Liberal Reform Judaism rejected the statute law of the Shulkan Aruch as archaic and not relevant to the modern Era. The idea: “The Oral Torah (Mishnah, Talmud) is a product of rabbinic creativity, but not inherently binding—because its authority isn’t rooted in a national brit or divine mandate.” Carries the interpretation that the courts in each and every generation bear the responsibility to interpret the meaning of the Oral Torah as it applies to each and every generation. Hence: “”Halakhic authority does not derive from Sinai, nor from logical derivation through rabbinic hermeneutics, but rather from modern ethical intuition, historical context, and evolving values.””

     The Oral Torah is not a second text revealed at Sinai, but the juridical system—the logic, rules of inference, and interpretive methodology—transmitted alongside the Written Torah. Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS framework serve as the constitutional instruments for halakhic – primarily inductive precedent drosh reasoning and secondarily deductive learning any precedent from some other Gemara source through a triangle. Meaning the sugya which contains the גזרה שוה which links one mesechta to other mesechtot of Gemara precedents. This “common denominator shared between two or more mesechtot of Gemarah, contained within a large sugya. Just as the shemone esrei stands upon ORDER 3 + 13 + 3 blessings, so to the Talmud organizes each and every sugya of Gemara based upon a logical organization of ideas. The shortest distance between two points a straight line. This idea called a simple sh’itta. Therefore to understand a specific point shared between multiple Gemaras, like a fraction shares a common denominator with other fractions, each sugya of Gemara opens and closes with a thesis statement and a thesis statement restated in a slightly different way! Therefore since the shortest distance between two points – a sh’itta straight line, therefore any halacha within the body of this same sugya of Gemara has to likewise fit somewhere along the straight sh’itta line. Herein explains how each sugya of Gemara organized with a precise Order.

     Therefore this logical deduction based upon three points compares to a triangle like syllogism of deductive reasoning. Which permits the scholar to re-interpret his own sugyah of Gemara based upon this new novel perspective. Furthermore this scholar can likewise re-interpret the language of the Mishna by viewing it from this novel perspective just as the front view of a blue print does not resemble the top and side views of the same blue print.

     This simple articulation of Talmudic jurisprudence as a geometric-legal system. You are not only capturing the inner architecture of the Talmudic sugya, but also grounding it in a methodology of induction, structured deduction, and canonical order, all rooted in the covenantal logic of Torah law. The Oral Torah is not a second text revealed at Sinai, but a juridical system—a logic of interpretation, inference, and precedent—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational structure of the national brit to persue righteous justice and have Sanhedrin courts make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among our people in all generations. Herein defines Faith from the Torah.

     Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot and Rabbi Akiva’s PaRDeS methodology constitute the constitutional instruments by which halakhic rulings are derived. This system is not prophetic or mystical, but rational and precedent-based, relying on inductive reasoning from case law and deductive geometry drawn from shared conceptual structures. Each sugya of Gemara is structured as a sh’itta—a straight conceptual line, the shortest distance between the sugya’s opening thesis statement and its closing restatement. Just as the Shemoneh Esrei stands upon a structured order (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), so too, each sugya possesses a precise inner order of ideas, legal arguments, and canonical references.

     When precedent comparisons jump off the dof, to grasp the different dof of Gemara requires making a triangular linkage logical deduction disciplined training technique. Since a sugya is built upon a logical progression of arguments—like points on a line—any halakhic statement within the sugya must fit along that conceptual sh’itta.

     This structural model allows for novel interpretation within the sugya—not by invention, but by realignment. A scholar can interpret this off the dof different Gemara sugya to reinterpret how he understands his own dof of Gemara together with his Misna view from a fresh completely different perspective. Much like the facets of a diamond. This is possible only by working within the Order of the off the Dof sugya’s geometric integrity, ensuring each legal poooint lies on the same conceptual sh’itta line of reasoning. A kind of syllogism: if A and B make a straight line then C (located in the body of that off the dof sugya) must rest somewhere on that line that connects points A & B into a simple sh’itta. Thus, the halakhist functions like an engineer interpreting a 3D blueprint: each new angle opens new insights, but all must cohere within the structure’s lawful design.

     The Oral Torah is not a floating sea of opinion, nor a mystical voice from Heaven—it is a blueprinted structure of legal logic. Each sugya of Gemara is a tightly ordered unit, whose inner geometry can be mapped by, A) Sh’itta logic (linear argument), B) Triangle logic (comparing the opening thesis statement of the off the dof sugya with the closing statement of the off the dof sugya and the גזירה שוה shared common denominator, be it a different mesechta of Gemara based upon rabbi Rabbeinu Tam’s common law sh’itta of learning off the Dof of Gemara or learning directly to the Jerushalmi Talmud itself. C) Inductive precedent logic compares one sugya of Gemara to other mesechtot of different Gemaras. Whereas deductive logic understands that each and every sugya of Gemara leans like the two legs of a triangle which forms its simple hypotinus simple sh’itta line. This system not only explains the organizational precision of Talmudic discourse, but also justifies halakhic reinterpretation within the משנה תורה common law revelation of the Torha at Sinai.

     The Oral Torah as Geometric Jurisprudence: Sh’itta Logic, Triangular Reasoning, and the Covenant of Justice. The Oral Torah is not a secondary revelation, nor a mystical supplement to the Written Torah. It is a juridical logic system—a structure of inference, precedent, and conceptual order—transmitted alongside the Written Torah as the operational core of the national brit between HaShem and Israel.

     This brit exists not to express personal spirituality, but to pursue righteous justice and enable Sanhedrin courts in every generation to fairly adjudicate disputes, especially to determine restitution (damages) owed from Party A to Party B. The pursuit of justice through ordered legal interpretation is, by definition, the Torah’s conception of faith (emunah).

     Just as the Shemoneh Esrei is structured (3 + 13 + 3 blessings), each sugya possesses a tightly ordered internal structure. Every halakhic point within the sugya must lie along this sh’itta, or else it does not belong to that sugya’s line of legal reasoning. The full conceptual understanding, inductive reasoning of a sugya requires a comparison across masechtot—jumping off the daf to another Gemara whose shared precedent or g’zeirah shavah forms the common denominator.

     The triangle syllogism deductive logic of quickly learning the sh’itta of the off the dof precedent Gemara enhance the inductive logic which compared the shared common denominator גזירה שוה Gemaras in the first place.

     Torah as Constitutional Justice, Not Mystical Religion. The Oral Torah is not a sea of conflicting opinions nor a mystical oracle from Heaven. It is the blueprinted legal logic of the national covenant—a common law revelation grounded at Sinai, encoded in D’varim/Mishneh Torah, and clarified through the Talmud’s intellectual discipline & precision of sugya Order. Herein explains how the editors of the Talmud, Rav Ashi, Rav Ravina, and the Savoraim scholars edited the Sha’s Bavli. This jurisprudence, expressed through sh’itta logic, triangular deduction, and inductive precedent, is the true revelation of Torah law—the foundation of Israel’s brit, the substance of Jewish faith, and the engine of divine justice throughout all generations.

     Loading...

     Reply
3. Pingback: News From JimStoneReloaded.com – Brutal Proof

4. Good evening
   I would like to share:
   The Truth about Khazars
   (Facts are Facts)
   by Benjamin H. Freedman
   C 1954 https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Benjamin-H-Freedman-The-Truth-About-The-Khazars.pdf

   (Benjamin Harrison Freedman born in a Jewish family, he converted from Judaism to Roman Catholicism)

   Loading...

   Reply

5. he has declared a plutocracy…its slow step globalism, the oligarchs intend to inflict depopulation, now its just land possession. Africa is the real target, but the Chinese are there and in Spain. Their fishing fleet is enormous and totally drone capable. The khazar/ashkenazi/turk/mongol stuff is irrelevant, just distraction as is Gaza sadly

   Loading...

   Reply

6. You say that Ashkenazi are of Gomer, of Japheth, but then say Ashkenazi are Khazars. No, Jews say that by assimilation the Ashkenazi are 38% Khazar. I wonder how the Ashkenazi converted?
   I’m still trying to recognize Judah in the population. I’ve got Levi figured – that’s the type that looks like Jack Klugman.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • the descendants of Gomer, specifically his son Ashkenaz, are often linked to the Khazars,

     Loading...

     Reply

7. Meanwhile no one even bothered to mention that LA was being “Dresdened” by DEW. Trump had a chance the other day to scold the WEF about their DEW attacks but guess he forgot lol.

   Loading...

   Reply

   • LA was a combination of arson, no water, planned suicide, affordable housing, the 2026 olympics, and DEW – too much to discuss while chastising WEF

     Loading...

     Reply

   • Hopefully Hegseth can drill down the DEW’s

     Loading...

     Reply

8. Actually, many of todays “jews” are also central Europeans, who converted there in middle ages due to catholic persecution against protestants, so they converted to judaism, which was allowed…

   And “Talmud” does not mean “the way”, but “the teaching” (or rather passivum “the taught”). A very diabolical book, more than you think…

   And “more and more sanctions” against Russia has already been tried, completely wrecking Europe, with no success hurting Russia… Idiocy is doing same wrong thing over and over expecting different results…

   πα½

   Loading...

   Reply

   • No they were Sythians.

     Loading...

     Reply

     • Probably “Scythians” ? Many probably so… But many also converted there in middle ages as I said (in 17th century)…
       They are far from being single origin, but they are all fraudsters this way or another…

       May it be, that actual descendants of Biblical Jews are the Kurds ?
       Or they are just gone: as Moses led there 600 thousands, then when they rejected God and his Son, the God let those same 600 thousands to be cleansed by the hand of Romans in 135 AD with only some remnants remaining abroad…

       πα½

       Loading...

       Reply

       • Consider the number of civilizations which no longer exist. Consider that Science has no idea why? Consider that The Zions of today want to wipe out most civilizations today…

         Loading...

         Reply

9. According to miles he is a jew

   https://mileswmathis.com/trump.pdf

   https://stateofthenation.co/?p=241527

   united states of israel

   Loading...

   Reply

   • Dad was Lutheran – mother was Mary MacLeod – Scottish. Looks like is not research

     Loading...

     Reply

10. Only a few days after Trump gets into official office and the shine is already showing signs of decay .
    The art of the deal IMHO is not at all about insulting the other into negotiation as is being done with the take over of Canada and also Russia over the Ukraine . That the way of an abuser/bully .At least he is up front about it if I was to give him any credit at all .You either agree with me or I am going to hurt you.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • Ukraine is part of Russia. They were part of The USSR. When the split happened Ukraine never legally declared it’s borders. Even though they want independance, Ukraine is still part of Russia and there is Russian Population that lives in Ukraine. Ukraine is Cabal Headquarters and Nazis headquarters. Putin cleaned out 30+ bioweapon labs that Biden, Obama, Clintons, and Bush installed in Ukraine-Russian Border. Putin is also cleaning the child trafficking, Adrenochrome trafficking and baby farms. Putin wants the deep state cabal out!

      Loading...

      Reply

11. What is certain is that Trumps cabinet is being filled with Zionists. Zionism is contrary to freedom for us. Their oaths are a sham. Christian Zionists are completely contradictory to the first 1850 years of the church Christ founded. The Jews today are all gentiles blood lines. The old and new testaments of the Bible are credited to be from God. The Kabala, Mishnah, Targums, Talmud, and Protocols are not. The AI sham are just signs and wonders to bamboozle those that don’t have a love of the truth II Thessalonians 2.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • “Thier oaths are a sham.” True, they have a religious right called Kol Nidre to go back on their word.

      Loading...

      Reply

      • It is worrisome. For now I applaud what he has done.

        Loading...

        Reply

    • I agree. While Trump has done wonders in these past 5 days… we can only wait and see – we have no power,

      Loading...

      Reply

12. Netanyahu has publicly said Israelis are khazars

    Loading...

    Reply

    • That is good info, but, the zionists will continue their hoaxes.

      Loading...

      Reply

      • unfortunately this is true

        Loading...

        Reply

13. “They went away black and came back white.” Nassar
    Just following them from WW1 and 2 when the Eastern European jews flooded into Germany then on to Palestine it is evident they are not Semitic and have no ancient claim to Palestine. They claim to have a right to Palestine based on the book they wrote, the Bible. But even in the Bible the Hebrews were the last to arrive in the land of Canaan. Canaan, an Egyptian protectorate at that time, was settled by other nations and Jerusalem was already established. Judea and Samaria were two small fiefdoms whose borders are greatly exaggerated today and only existed a little over four hundred years. The Khazars base their claim to Palestine on lies.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • They are secular. They use the Bible like a weapon – not as a salvation.

      Loading...

      Reply

14. There is no way Trump is going to give Ellison and Altman billions of dollars for their pipe dream globalist projects. Trump is trying to encourage investment in the USA, not give our money away.

    What a spectacle, seeing these 2 frauds get up and try to con us. Regarding your reference to magic, those 2 proposed magic to cure cancer. There is no such thing as an AI robot which can determine the genetic composition of your cancer, then construct a molecule to cure it. And, cancer is not characterized as having a genetic composition. Cancer is a cell metabolic disorder in which aerobic is changed to anaerobic. These con man want billions of dollars to pretend to cure humanity while killing it, which is exactly what I expect from those types.

    I don’t care about the Altman-Musk feud, but based on what I just saw, Altman is evil. Ellison of course knows nothing about biology or medicine.

    On the Ukraine negotiations, many things are said in the early stages. That is normal. Trump is posturing to act tough for the neocons. I will be happy when the needed concessions are made to Russia, watching all the war loving leftists, RINOs and neocons incessantly whine about it. Those are the very people who tried to frame Trump as a Russian agent. They deserve nothing less than to be angered by not getting their way. What I saw of Trump when he was answering unrehearsed questions while signing orders was incredibly impressive.

    Loading...

    Reply

    • Are none of you going to note tfe insanity of resolutely insisting God doesn’t know His own people?!!

      Loading...

      Reply

15. So with all these things going on, and on…how will we find happiness? We are not behind the scenes. Let us give it some time. I am delighted with Trump’s Inauguration address. Time will reveal all. It’s only 48 hours since he became President.

    Loading...

    Reply

16. ….one did not “regarde trop fort” to find ” le juif ” in Trump’s coronation entourage…the widow Alderson loomed large dressed entirely in white..right behind Hillary…

    Loading...

    Reply

    • Yeah my main beef with Trump is his seeming desire not to ruffle The Zionists feathers. THEY still seem to have an unbreakable hold on The West.

      Loading...

      Reply

      • That is completely silly, which is normal for you.

        Trump just angered the zionists greatly with his cease fire agreement. He also has criticized Netanyahu several times, the only times any US official ever did that. No sale.

        Loading...

        Reply

    • Were you attempting to provide a comment on this article, also to be coherent, also to be reasonable? If so, you failed.

      Loading...

      Reply

      • My effort to be incoherent and unreasonable was a success!

        Loading...

        Reply