Liam Sweat: A Biblical Theology in Three Acts

My response:

Greetings Liam,
You have written on your blog:

[[[“””The second verse that speaks of sweat is Ezekiel 44:18. It comes in the final main section of the book (40-48) where, having spoken about the exile and destruction of the Temple, Ezekiel prophecies about a new Temple, re-inhabited by God’s glory. It is a vast structure, full of order and life. Whilst this section of Ezekiel’s vision may be one of the most challenging passages of Scripture to interpret, it seems that he is prophesying about the New Creation, where the fall will be reversed, and God’s presence will finally dwell among His people in a renewed Eden-like Temple, that doesn’t simply occupy a tiny portion of the world, but stretches across the whole New Earth (cf. Isaiah 66:17).”””]]]

First order of business. Ezra and the Men of the Great Assembly sealed the Cannon of the Hebrew T’NaCH. The later new testament Greek manuscripts in no manner or form compare to the authority of the T’NaCH. Xtian propaganda foists the false notion of Old and New Testaments, as if they shared parity as equals. The latter in no way shape manner or form shares authority with the T’NaCH, because it worships avoda zarah alien foreign Gods.

Church priests and pastors of avodah zarah, they reject the revelations of HaShem made at Sinai and Horev respectively. Likewise the alien Arabs who preach the Koran avodah zarah, they too, like the church abomination, reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Oral Torah at Horev. Both Bible and Koran fail to obey the 1st Commandment of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and ispo fact, by that inevitable result they both worship other Gods; both religions of avodah zarah make flagrant violations of the 2nd Commandment of the Torah revelation at Sinai. Therefore in no manner shape or form does the new testament avodah zarah compare to the literature of the 66 Books that comprise the sealed cannon of the T’NaCH.

The interpretation of both T’NaCH sources and much later Talmudic legalism both this and that learn by way of precedents as expressed through Common Law courtrooms. The basis of blessing or curse … life or death centers upon the Divine Judgment of — Justice Justice Pursue (דברים טז:יא). Justice defined as — court imposed judicial compensation for damages inflicted, either intentionally or by accident, upon others. Neither the new testament nor koran theology addresses the Torah chief cornerstone of faith – justice. HaShem took Israel out from the oppression of Egyptian bondage to accomplish the oath alliance mutually sworn by both HaShem and Avraham, that the chosen cohen seed of Avraham would rule the oath sworn lands of Canaan with justice.

The new testament theology which preaches “the messiah saves Man from sin” and the koran theology that preaches that “belief in Allah as the one God and Mohammad as the prophet of the One God” makes any Man who accepts this theology into a Muslim, neither theology emphasizes justice as does the Torah oath brit alliance faith.

As previously mentioned, both T’NaCH and Talmudic literature learn and interpret by means of prior precedents. The Xtian bible translations, one and all, evil. The Church unilateral decision to impose chapters and verses upon the Hebrew T’NaCH perverts the T’NaCH unto avodah zarah, comparable to Man making love with other homosexual male partners – an abomination. It requires no great skill to read English translations of the T’NaCH. The false Roman new testament writers, their theology cherry picked T’NaCH p’sukim\verses – stolen from their sugia contexts; their speculation perverted these stolen p’sukim\verse comparable to a woman laying with an animal – an abomination.

The study of T’NaCH and Talmudic Primary Sources, as mentioned above, learns by means of comparing precedent Case\Din/Rule studies. The latter style defines Jewish common law. The arbitrary expunging of sugiot from the T’NaCH followed by the replacement “order” of chapters and verses (which defines every Xtian biblical translation of abomination), this error supported the Church preference of belief in theologies, creeds, and dogmatism above the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, whereby Moshe the prophet received and accepted the Oral Torah revelation, wherein he thereafter commanded 611 additional commandments which serve as the primary commentary to the revelation of the opening first two commandments, which all Israel accepted at Sinai, and which all Goyim to this very day reject.

The verses which your blog cherry picked, followed by your reactionary 2 dimensional speculations, they sit within 2 separate sugiot. T’NaCH does not follow the Xtian organization of chapters and verses. But for clarity, since you do not read Hebrew, shall likewise employ them to designate a sugia. יחזקאל מד:א-ח,,,מד:טו-לא. The logic of Oral Torah as opposed to halachic laws codified within the pages of the Talmud (((The Church confuses the latter with the former, in their denunciation of the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah; Oral Torah logic sharply contrasts and differentiates itself from ancient Greek Philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle who developed Greek logic formats. Oral Torah, this unique logic format, this discipline of rational thinking, the Sages throughout the generations, (stars in the sky the promised future born seed of Avram), they derive halachic laws, just as and similar to Moshe the prophet used this exact same Oral Torah logic to derive 611 Torah commandments as his commentary to the revelation of the opening first two commandments of the Sinai revelation of the Torah.

A distinct, basic, and fundamental distinction which forever separates Oral Torah “logic” from the codification of Jewish halachic laws. T’NaCH “common law” learns by comparing sugiot precedents (((with other similar or contrasting sugiot))) within both the same Book of a Prophet or by comparing similar\contrasting sugiot of other T’NaCH Books. In like as similar fashion the Gemara commentary upon the Mishna brings precedents collected from any of the 6 Orders of the Mishna whereby the Gemara compares the Case\Rule of a specific Mishna to other Mishnaic precedents scattered throughout the whole of the 20 volume Talmud Bavli.

A sugia precedent comparison ישעיה כט:ט-ל:יח. T’NaCH prophets command mussar NOT speculation which so defines new testament preaching and vain empty noise. Compare the mussar of Isaiah to יחזקאל ו:א-יד. As HaShem, no JeZeus mamzer son of Mary, brought Israel out of the oppression and slavery of Egypt and revealed the revelation of the Torah at both Sinai and Horev, so too
יחזקאל מד:ג : את הנשיא השיא הוא ישב בו לאכול לחם לפני ה’ מדרך אולם השער יבוא ומדרכו יצא
Which “prince” does the navi refer? To the baali t’shuva of all and every generation who return to obey the Torah לשמה. The opening Mishna of גיטין teaches that g’lut Jewry lost the ability to do and keep mitzvot commandments לשמה; similar to all the Xtian biblical evil translations which never even once bring the Name of HaShem. Your speculation confuses JeZeus son of Zeus with the generations of faithful bnai brit Israel who do mitzvot commandments לשמה.

Your blog then proceeds to speculate on יחשקאל מד:טו-לא. Compare this sugia with ישעיה א:י- יז. Contrast the strong mussar of Isaiah. An abomination those who offer sacrifices comparable to a buffet barbeque made unto Heaven. On par with evil men who keep and observe the halachah established by Talmudic codifications of law, made by famous Reshon scholars, as if halachah has any connection with Torah commandments without prophetic mussar woven into the fabric of halachic observances. Religious worship of forms of faith which lacks the substance of prophetic mussar defines keeping and doing the commandments לא לשמה. The Torah does not breath the Spirit of HaShem without mussar. All the Priests and Pastors for 2000+ years, not one of these evil men knew that all T’NaCH prophets command mussar as the definition of their prophesy. A person does not “believe” the mussar which the prophets command. Rather the generations of bnai brit Israel have the Torah obligation to “own” the mussar which the T’NaCH prophets command.

The Talmud teaches that the Sages did not know how to teach mussar. Why? Preaching ‘fire and brimstone’ can go into one ear and out the other ear of the preached at congregation. Not so mussar. Mussar compares to a seed planted within the heart, and from this soil does that mussar spout from within the heart of Man himself. Mussar does not exist as an foreign idea preached at by others, but rather a native idea which sprouts from within the heart of that individual Man himself, as his own an internal original idea\chiddush – known to no one else other than that Man alone.

Mussar does not attempt to inform or tell people what theology or creed or dogma that they should believe. All belief systems worship the tumah of avodah zarah. T’NaCH mussar learns by comparing a sugia of the T’NaCH with similar or contrasting sugiot from the T’NaCH. This way of learning goes by the Hebrew term sh’itta\method of learning profound wisdom.

Compare that sugia of Isaiah with יחזקאל יז:יא-יח. The Torah stands upon the oath brit. Brit cannot mean “covenant” as found in the pathetic Xtian translations of their bibles. To swear a Torah oath לשמה requires the Name of HaShem, and the Name of HaShem no where found on any page of any Xtian bible abominations of avodah zarah which worships foreign alien gods like JeZeus the mamzer son of Mary.

9 thoughts on “Liam Sweat: A Biblical Theology in Three Acts

      1. This is not a conversation. This is you tossing ad hominem insults at me while not responding directly to my questions and/ or comments.


      2. I do not know a single question that you have asked. You employ none sense words that have no definition and display very poor communication skills.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s