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.
Conflict Resolution 