Xtianity compares to replacing real gold and silver as money with paper currency because the government tells you that the value of gold vs. paper are equal

Michael F. Bird, Romans: Lexham Interpreter’s Translation

Jesus Christ substituted with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. C.S. Lewis’s portrayal of Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia serves as a direct metaphor to the New Testament replacement theology. While Lewis did not explicitly address replacement theology, his imaginative depiction of Aslan provides insights into his theological perspectives. Lewis clarified that Aslan is not a mere allegory of Christ but a “suppositional” incarnation. He imagined that if there were a world like Narnia, Christ might incarnate there as a lion, the king of beasts, paralleling His incarnation as a man in our world.

In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Aslan’s voluntary death on the Stone Table to save Edmund mirrors the Christian narrative of Jesus’s sacrificial death. The subsequent breaking of the Stone Table upon Aslan’s resurrection symbolizes the fulfillment and transcendence of the old law, echoing themes found in Christian theology.

Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah. Xtianity compares to war-time Fiat currencies. During the American Civil War Lincoln’s greenback replaced the gold based commodity currency with a monopoly paper fiat currency measured against the fiat faiths of Islam and Hinduism.

Fiat currency replaces commodity-backed actual gold or silver with state-controlled monopoly paper money; grounded not in intrinsic value but in collective faith—much like the metaphysical belief systems underpinning religious traditions of Xtianity Islam and Hinduism.

2 Corinthians 6:16 as a clear example of what could be called substitution or replacement theology. Torah (e.g.,Sh’mot 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” HaShem’s indwelling, tied to the Torah mitzvot of building the Mishkan as an essential “sign” of the oath brit alliance which testifies that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; through specific mitzvot, place, and priestly function (Cohanim and Levites).

2 Corinthians 6:16 removes the Cohanim, the physical Mishkan/Temple, and the Torah framework, replacing them with a spiritualized “body of believers” in Christ. Paul dissolves Israel’s unique brit and transforms it into a universal spiritual status. Holiness is no longer rooted in obedience to national sworn oath alliance (mitzvot, korbanot, land), which all generations of the Cohen people – duty bound to remember the original oaths sworn by the Avot. 6:16 perverts and profanes the Torah by changing this oath brit alliance to simple acceptance of but Jesus as both the messiah and Son of God.

This intentional subversion of the Torah oath brit alliance unto a theological belief system which introduces an entirely different God represents theft through redefinition. Paul weaponizes Torah phrases to justify dismantling the Torah itself and nullify the role of the Jewish people as a priestly nation – theological colonialism.

Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 37 where HaShem promises to dwell in the midst of the nation Israel—never in a universal body of non-Israelites. This Pauline move mirrors Rome’s imperial tactics: co-opt the sacred language, erase its national context, and declare the empire to be its true fulfillment.

Some of the most flagrant examples of the corruption introduced by the Apostle Paul: Romans 12:1 – Replacement of Korbanot: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Here Paul redefines the korban system as merely symbolic, internal, and personal. He strips the muscle of Torah commandments away from the bones of the Mishkan superstructure. He therein uproots the very Name of HaShem from the Mishkan, the oath brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from the seed of Avraham, the altar employed to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut this Cohen brit in the first place and to pass its remembrance down unto all generations of Israel. The oath which established the tribe of Levi in the stead of all the first-born, to remember the replacement theology of the sin of the Golden Calf – utterly obliterated.

The Xtian believer in the Godhead of Jesus now replaces the Beit HaMikdash. The in’dwelling of the Shechinah, hijacked and relocated from Zion to the individual “believer in Christ.” Erased: Yerushalayim as the chosen dwelling place of HaShem; the prophetic vision of a rebuilt Temple (e.g., Ezekiel 40–48); the national and communal dimensions of kedushah.

Galatians 3:28–29 – Erasure of National Identity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Distortion: This dismantles the foundational category of brit by birth and nation; replaces Zera Avraham with a universal, faith-based identity that erases lineage, halakhah, and the very creation of the Cohen nation through the oath brit faith. It removes the Name of HaShem, a directed negative commandment within the Torah. No substitute “scripture” ever once includes the 1st commandment Sinai Name לשמה.

Specifically the brit bein ha-betarim (Genesis 15); the chosen cohen status of Israel (Exodus 19:6); the Torah requirement placed upon all down-stream generations of Israel to remember the sworn oath cut by the Avot.

Hebrews 8:13 (attributed to Paul or Pauline school), which invalidates the sworn oath alliance cut at the Sinai Torah revelation brit. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Unlike a vow, not even HaShem can annul a sworn oath. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot which consequently resulted in Yom Kippur where HaShem made t’shuva and annulled His vow to make the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.

Hebrews 8:13 perverts Jeremiah 31 and replaces the new covenant/new testament for the re-categorized ”old testament”. This effectively erases the eternal nature of Torah (D’varim 29:28; Tehillem 119). And the Jewish people’s everlasting brit with HaShem (e.g., Vayikra 26:44–45).

Hebrews 9:11–12 – Jesus the messiah and Son of God equally elevated to the position of “Cohen Ha’Gadol”. This directly invalidates the oath sworn to the House of Aaron, violating halakhic lineage (must be a descendant of Aaron). Furthermore it redefines Yom Kippur service as a metaphysical sacrifice in a heavenly Temple. This substitute theology erases the Torah commandment which obligates the generations of Israel to remember the oath by which the Levitical Cohen Tribe obligated to teach the Torah to the Jewish people for all generations.

The messiah son of God now become the one and almighty replacement of the Torah to serve as the Constitution of the Cohen National Republic? By erasing the identity of Israel as defined through mitzvot (e.g., Shemot 31:13 – “Shabbat is an eternal sign”). Likewise it evacuates Vayikra 23, the calendar of holiness set by HaShem.

This classic avoda zarah, compares to all other forms of graven images which seek to implant some super-sessionist alien “Greek” logic; the syllogism of Aristotle and Plato replaces the Pardes kabbalah logic taught by rabbi Akiva. Pardes – an acronym in Hebrew that stands for four levels of interpretation of the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod. This method shaped both the Mishna and Talmudic texts.

Jewish thought and Kabbalah based upon Par’des inductive logic to derive the deeper meanings from Primary Source texts. Inductive reasoning in this context involves moving from specific instances or interpretations to broader generalizations about the text and its meanings. Hence the Gemara commentary to the Mishna defined through the precedent halachic cases it bring to interpret the 70 faces within the language of the Mishna.

Syllogism deductive logic, by contrast is a form of reasoning that involves drawing a specific conclusion based upon at least two premises that are generally accepted as true. Inductive reasoning generally builds from specific precedents brought for making a deeper comparison aimed to achieve a completely different perspective. The legal briefs developed by the opposing attorneys, obviously rely upon different sets of precedents. The different faces of a blue-print serve as a profound example of precise inductive reasoning.

Alien Greek syllogism Logic, by stark contrast employs deductive reasoning which bases itself upon accepted general principles which serve as a basis to arrive at specific conclusions. Pardes inductive logic, ideal for Courtroom conditions where lawyers introduce precedent based-briefs organized to support their contentions made before a common law courtroom.

Greek syllogism logic has no connection whatsoever with Torah משנה תורה-common law. In a courtroom, lawyers must build their cases inductively by presenting specific Case halachic examples as precedents that lead to differing perspective conclusions concerning how the Court should rule the case at hand. This common law sh’itta of learning applicable not simply the specific sugya of Gemara, as the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud restricted itself. Rather just as outside sources function as precedents to interpret different perspectives how to interpret a sugya of Gemarah, so too and how much more so to re-interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna itself.

This aligns with the inductive reasoning nature of Pardes logic, which seeks to explore and establish connections between specific instances and overarching principles. Greek syllogism logic, as a form of deductive reasoning, operates on established premises to reach specific conclusions. While it is a powerful tool in static engineering, like designing a bridge, this logic does not align with the interpretative nature of Torah common law, which continually asks מאי נפקא מינא between the former Case and the latter Case?Torah common law entails & involves a more nuanced and interpretative approach. Similar to the layers of meaning, Pardes logic defines the sh’itta of separating halachic common law from aggadic common law; this warp\weft loom which creates the fabric garments of the Talmud texts which weave halachic ritual practices together with aggadic T’NaCH prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of ritual halachic observances. This unique Oral Torah wisdom transforms both toldot positive and negative plus all Talmudic halachot potentially to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah, based upon the Av Sefer בראשית which introduces the distinction between Av time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna from positive and negative toldot commandments located in the next 3 Books of the Written Torah

The application of Torah common law prioritizes context – כלל-פרט, p’shat of aggadic stories which teach prophetic T’NaCH mussar to all generations of Israel, and the interpretative dynamic traditions of all judicial common law courtrooms, which contrast and completely differs from the rigid structure of Greek syllogistic statute law fossilized deductive reasoning, which during the Hanukkah Civil War attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah, as recalled in the ברכת המזון.

Shmot 24:7 – A national oath, not a private belief. D’varim 30:19 the Sinai oath sworn by the Cohen nation of Israel in the presence of witnesses – heaven and earth. Goyim, they reject to this day, this means: they did not & do not ever stand at Sinai. Hence no Goy can ever be “grafted” into the chosen Cohen “root” other than through the gate of ger tzedek. Even the ger toshav, only a temporary permit which permits Goyim refugees to establish courts of law among their communities within the borders of Judea; does not permit Goyim living in other countries to be “grafted” into some Universal Bnai Noach belief system. As if the tribal God of Israel lives as some Universal God. Despite the Rambam minority opinion otherwise.

A divine oath cannot be replaced without divine breach—a theological impossibility within the Torah’s legal logic. Emunah simply not a metaphysical belief but relational loyalty within the legal structure of the brit. Paul’s definition of faith as trust in Jesus’ atoning for death (Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:25) shares no verb-like 3 letter root in the Torah. Rather, this replacement false messiah derives from a Hellenistic moral-philosophical framework centered on guilt, substitution, and internalized salvation.

Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” This has-been phrase, weaponized by the church to appear faithful to Torah while effectively supplanting its mitzvot with symbolic reinterpretations. Korban → “present your body” (Rom. 12:1); Kohen → “Melchizedek priesthood” (Heb. 7); Mikveh → “baptism”; Shabbat → “rest in Christ”. “Fulfill” in this context does not mean uphold, but complete and close—a theological sleight of hand.

Grafting Goyim into Israel while rejecting the mitzvot: like claiming citizenship without accepting the constitution. Jeremiah promises a renewal of the brit with the house of Israel and Judah, not its replacement. The phrase “new covenant” (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of fidelity within the same legal framework: “I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The Torah, not replaced, rather the t’shuva which judges the hearts of all generations of Israel— internalized—a return, not a rupture where all Mankind becomes saved through the blood of Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ.” Erases the very categories that the Torah uses to define justice, holiness, and brit. It promotes universalist flattening under a spiritual abstraction, rather than honoring the unique, eternal identity of Am Yisrael and the terms of our sworn oaths.

The New Testament, simply not a replacement for the Oath Brit. The Torah, not a religion; Torah as the constitution of the Jewish Republic: a legal, national oath brit, sworn at Sinai. The new testament attempts to supplant the “grafted Goyim” who still reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with personal atonement, spiritual priesthood, and universal inclusion through belief in messiah Jesus as the Son of God.

The classic themes preached by Xtianity throughout the period of Jewish g’lut-exile when we lived as stateless refugees with no rights among the Goyim: Torah, Temple, and Brit: Not Abolished, but Transfigured in this False-Messiah. Paul’s Theology: Not Avodah Zarah, but the Mystery of Inclusion? The Temple: Transcended, Not Torn Down? Jesus as High Priest: Fulfillment, Not Usurpation? Korbanot and Romans 12:1? Colossians 2: Shadow and Substance? New Covenant: A Return, Not a Rupture? Final Response: Fulfillment Is Not Erasure?

Isaiah 42:21: “HaShem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious.” This false Messiah magnifies—not mutilates—the Torah? The New Covenant does not erase the old, but internalizes it (Jeremiah 31:33) through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3–4), writing Torah on hearts rather than stone?

Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians are not meant to dismantle the Sinai brit but to explain its fulfillment and expansion through his false Messiah—a fulfillment promised by the Prophets themselves?

Alas to quote any T’NaCH prophetic source requires learning through legal common law precedents. The definition of the 2nd name of the Book of D’varim – משנה תורה. Simply not enough to quote verses stripped of their surrounding contexts and robbed of all judicial precedents. Here represents common Xtian attempts to support their belief in messiah Jesus as the son of God. Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob… I will also make You a light of the nations.” Zechariah 2:11: “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be My people.”

Galatians 3:28 that there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” rooted in Genesis 12:3: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Ezekiel 36:27: “I will put My Spirit within you…”; Joel 2:28: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.” Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Bamidbar 25:13 touching Phinehas, Hebrews 7:16 outshines with “indestructible life”. Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Genesis 15:6: “And he believed (he’emin) in the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”

The phrase ‘new covenant’ (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of…a restoration of the original Torah oath, renewed with the same nation, in the same land, under the same constitution—never with a foreign faith, foreign priesthood, or foreign God affixed to 3 dimensional idol “history”. The T’NaCH commands mussar rather than actual physical history. Just as the Creation Story introduces the Av mitvot of tohor time oriented commandments rather than the actual creation of the world in 6 Days.

Paul’s super-sessionism, not merely a different theology — rather an intentional theological hijacking of Torah’s oath alliance framework. It redefines the foundational terms of Jewish nationhood, nullifies halakhah, and dissolves the eternal brit in favor of a Greco-Roman abstraction. This avodah zarah abomination — not idolatry of statues, but rather of ideas — foreign Greek logic smuggled into sacred Pardes kabbalah.

The new testament re-defines holy as — Power through Substitution. This av tuma perversion fails to grasp that korbanot define “holy”; specifically through the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach which dedicates as “holy” the righteous pursuit of justice through the expression of tohor middot as the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach.

Power through substitution”: a false algebraic commutative principle that declares the New Testament equal to the Old—an inversion rooted in Greek deductive logic. Torah-based PaRDeS inductive reasoning utterly rejects this framework as Av Tumah; the primary source of spiritual avoda zarah pollution in all generations and in all times. Paul’s theology resembles Roman statute law that over-rules common law precedents via statute law imperial fiat.

Xtianity replaces the Fiat replaces a commodity based currency with a monopoly paper fiat currency measured against the fiat faiths of Islam and Hinduism. Fiat currency replaces commodity-backed money with state-controlled paper money, grounded not in intrinsic value but in collective faith—much like the metaphysical belief systems underpinning religious traditions of Xtianity Islam and Hinduism.

The Multiverse Hypothesis: No Escape from the Question of God

A comprehensive rebuke of Xtian avoda zarah

I will be their God, and they shall be my people

Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah

Deconstructing the theological architecture of super-sessionism and exposing how Paul systematically dismantles the national, Cohen, and oath alliance framework of Torah and replaces it with Xtianized avodah zarah (foreign worship) merits a close study. Some of the most flagrant examples of the corruption introduced by the Apostle Paul: Romans 12:1 – Replacement of Korbanot: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Here Paul redefines the korban system as merely symbolic, internal, and personal. He strips the muscle of Torah commandments away from the bones of the Mishkan superstructure. He therein uproots the very Name of HaShem from the Mishkan, the oath brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from the seed of Avraham, the altar employed to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut this Cohen brit in the first place and to pass its remembrance down unto all generations of Israel. The oath which established the tribe of Levi in the stead of all the first-born, to remember the replacement theology of the sin of the Golden Calf – utterly obliterated.

The Xtian believer in the Godhead of Jesus now replaces the Beit HaMikdash. The in’dwelling of the Shechinah is hijacked and relocated from Zion to the individual “believer in Christ.” Erased: Yerushalayim as the chosen dwelling place of HaShem; the prophetic vision of a rebuilt Temple (e.g., Ezekiel 40–48); the national and communal dimensions of kedushah.

Galatians 3:28–29 – Erasure of National Identity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Distortion: This dismantles the foundational category of brit by birth and nation; replaces Zera Avraham with a universal, faith-based identity that erases lineage, halakhah, and the very creation of the Cohen nation through the oath brit faith. It removes the Name of HaShem, a directed negative commandment within the Torah. Specifically the brit bein ha-betarim (Genesis 15); the chosen cohen status of Israel (Exodus 19:6); the Torah requirement placed upon all down-stream generations of Israel to remember the sworn oath cut by the Avot.

Hebrews 8:13 (attributed to Paul or Pauline school), which invalidates the sworn oath alliance cut at Sinai Torah revelation brit. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Unlike a vow, not even HaShem can annul a sworn oath. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot which consequently resulted in Yom Kippur where HaShem made t’shuva and annulled His vow to make of the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.

Colossians 2:16–17 – Dismantling of Mitzvot: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” This revisionist history perverts and annuls Torah mitzvot observance relegated to the “shadows of Hedes”. The messiah son of God now become the one and almighty replacement of the Torah to serve as the Constitution of the Cohen National Republic. It erases the identity of Israel as defined through mitzvot (e.g., Shemot 31:13 – “Shabbat is an eternal sign”). Likewise it evacuates Vayikra 23, the calendar of holiness set by HaShem.

This classic avoda zarah, compares to all other forms of graven images which seek to implant some super-sessionist logic; the syllogism of Aristotle and Plato replaces the Pardes kabbalah logic taught by rabbi Akiva. Pardes is an acronym in Hebrew that stands for four levels of interpretation of the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod. This method is often used in Jewish thought and Kabbalah to derive deeper meanings from texts. Inductive reasoning in this context involves moving from specific instances or interpretations to broader generalizations about the text and its meanings.

Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning that involves drawing a specific conclusion from two or more premises that are generally accepted as true. Inductive reasoning generally builds from specific precedents brought for making a deeper comparison aimed to achieve a completely different perspective. The different faces of a blue-print serve as a profound example of precise deductive reasoning.

Syllogism Logic, by stark contrast employs deductive reasoning which bases itself upon accepted general principles which serve as a basis to arrive at specific conclusions.

Pardes logic ideal for Courtroom conditions where lawyers introduce precedent briefs which supports their contentions made before a common law courtroom. Syllogism logic has no connection whatsoever with Torah common law. In a courtroom, lawyers may build their cases inductively by presenting specific examples and precedents that lead to broader conclusions about the law or the case at hand. This aligns with the inductive nature of Pardes logic, which seeks to explore and establish connections between specific instances and overarching principles. Syllogism logic, as a form of deductive reasoning, operates on established premises to reach specific conclusions. While it is a powerful tool in formal logic and reasoning, it does not align with the interpretative nature of Torah common law.

Torah common law entails & involves a more nuanced and interpretative approach. Similar to the layers of meaning Pardes logic defines the sh’itta of separating halachic common law from aggadic common law; the warp\weft loom which creates the fabric garments of the Talmud texts. The application of Torah common law prioritizes context – כלל-פרט, p’shat of aggadic stories which teach prophetic mussar to all generations of Israel, and the interpretative traditions of all judicial common law courtrooms, which contrast and completely differs from the rigid structure of syllogistic statute law deductive reasoning.

Shmot 24:7 – A national oath, not a private belief. D’varim 30:19 the Sinai oath sworn by the Cohen nation of Israel in the presence of witnesses – heaven and earth. Goyim reject to this day, meaning they did not stand at Sinai. Hence no Goy can ever be “grafted” into the chosen Cohen “root” other than through the gate of ger tzedek. Even the ger toshav only a temporary permit which permits Goyim refugees to establish courts of law among their communities within the borders of Judea, does not permits Goyim living in other countries to be “grafted” into some Universal Bnai Noach belief system.

A divine oath cannot be replaced without divine breach—a theological impossibility within the Torah’s legal logic. Emunah is not metaphysical belief but relational loyalty within the legal structure of the brit. Paul’s definition of faith as trust in Jesus’ atoning death (Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:25) is not rooted in Torah, but in a Hellenistic moral-philosophical framework centered on guilt, substitution, and internalized salvation.

Grafting Goyim into Israel while rejecting the mitzvot is like claiming citizenship without accepting the constitution. Jeremiah promises a renewal of the brit with the house of Israel and Judah, not its replacement. The phrase “new covenant” (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of fidelity within the same legal framework: “I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The Torah, not replaced, but t’shuva internalized—a return, not a rupture where all Mankind becomes saved through the blood of Jesus.

The New Testament simply not a replacement for the Oath Brit. The Torah, not a religion; Torah as the constitution of the Jewish Republic: a legal, national oath brit, sworn at Sinai. The new testament attempts to supplant the “grafted Goyim” who still reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with personal atonement, spiritual priesthood, and universal inclusion through belief in messiah Jesus as the Son of God.

The classic themes preached by Xtianity throughout the period of Jewish g’lut exile when we lived as stateless refugees with no rights among the Goyim: Torah, Temple, and Brit: Not Abolished, but Transfigured in Messiah. Paul’s Theology: Not Avodah Zarah, but the Mystery of Inclusion. The Temple: Transcended, Not Torn Down. Jesus as High Priest: Fulfillment, Not Usurpation. Korbanot and Romans 12:1. Colossians 2: Shadow and Substance. New Covenant: A Return, Not a Rupture. Final Response: Fulfillment Is Not Erasure.

Isaiah 42:21: “HaShem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious.” Messiah magnifies—not mutilates—the Torah. The New Covenant does not erase the old, but internalizes it (Jeremiah 31:33) through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3–4), writing Torah on hearts rather than stone.

Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians are not meant to dismantle the Sinai brit but to explain its fulfillment and expansion through Messiah—a fulfillment promised by the Prophets themselves. Alas to quote any T’NaCH prophetic source requires learning through legal precedents. Simply not enough to quote verses stripped of their surrounding contexts and robbed of all judicial precedents. Here represents common Xtian attempts to support their belief in messiah Jesus as the son of God. Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob… I will also make You a light of the nations.” Zechariah 2:11: “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be My people.”

If Goyim truly “believed” the perverted distortions made on these specific T’NaCH verses, they would have gone to the trouble to humbly ask how Torah common law and Pardes logic interprets these T’NaCH Primary sources! But the facts irrefutable, this humility no Goy in any generation has ever exemplified. Hence Jews retort: “by their fruits you shall know them”.

Paul’s supersessionism, not merely a different theology — rather an intentional theological hijacking of Torah’s oath alliance framework. It redefines the foundational terms of Jewish nationhood, nullifies halakhah, and dissolves the eternal brit in favor of a Greco-Roman abstraction. This avodah zarah abomination — not idolatry of statues, but rather of ideas — foreign Greek logic smuggled into sacred Pardes kabbalah.

Yet another example of New Testament substitute theology Acts 5.

MAY 5, 2025 FOLLOWING JESUS IN A POST-ASCENSION WORLD #11 THE HOLY SPIRIT CAN OPEN PRISON DOORS AND SET CAPTIVES FREE!

A core disjunct between the oath alliance, juridical-mystical logic expressed through the Book of Daniel—rooted in the T’NaCH (Torah–Nevi’im–Ketuvim) legal framework—and the politico-theatrical, Greco-Roman rhetorical stylings of Acts, which emerges from a very different epistemic and cultural world. Replacement theology perverts Herod’s temple even more than did Herod himself, through his murder and judicial Acts of oppression. Acts 5 now depicts the Angels of some unknown celestial power mysteriously releasing captives in jail.

Contrast the mysticism within the Book of Daniel which follows the Torah style of instructing mussar through themes: such as justice compared to the foil of the Babylonian king’s judicial oppression and fundamental injustice. The contrast between Act’s depiction of “prayers”, likewise a stark tectonic shift which introduces abstract piety through Greek concepts of fate.

The Book of Acts introduces the theatrics of Greek tragedy. It uses the Sanhedrin Court as but a prop in its morality play. The heroes depicted in this play, the apostles’ virtue contrasted by the evil Jewish leadership. The miraculously freed disciples make a public appearance – at the Temple courtyard, where they play out their roles – a theological abstraction which promotes their Jesus narrative.

The Gemara’s relationship to the Mishna, structurally and philosophically modeled after the relationship between Ketuvim and the rest of the T’NaCH. Ketuvim—like Daniel, Tehillim, Mishlei, Iyov—establish deep frameworks for interpretive logic (PaRDeS) and case-based reasoning (כלל ופרט). The Mishna serves as an authoritative Case/Din Common Law codification of Great Sanhedrin legal rulings. While the loom-like Halacha/Aggadah opposing threads introduce both halachic precedents which the prosecutors and defense attorneys debate and the drosh methodology through the NaCH medium, which derives prophetic mussar instruction – based upon a common law comparison of NaCH sugyot, compared to other but similar NaCH sugyot – to grasp a depth analysis of prophetic mussar p’shat within the mussar interpretation of Aggadic and Midrashic stories.

Acts 5’s replacement theology does not instruct common law as the Torah commands, but rather personal belief in its false messiah narrative. Acts’ Greco-Roman dramaturgy promotes a spectacle at Herod’s Temple. This assimilated counterfeit never attempts to make a public sanctification of the שם השם ברבים, a public sanctification of the Name. (The greatest Torah commandment being to do mitzvot commandments לשמה.) Instead it introduces a perversion of faith away from judicial righteous Court – restitution of damages inflicted upon others – to glorification of its replacement new Universalist faith in Jesus Christ as the New Testament revelation of a Greco-Roman repackaged God.

The Book of Acts profanes Herod’s temple even more than did Herod the רשע himself! King Herod ruled through terror, he prostituted the Temple as his personal political prop, to support his unjust government. However the Book of Acts theatre rhetoric introduces an entirely different belief system which worships a new Universal God that all Mankind can worship simply through the magical medium of “belief”. This substitute theology does not restore Torah common law judicial justice, which dedicates to make rulings which make a fair compensation of damages inflicted—rather it introduces the new testament rupture to the moral obligation to pursue righteous judicial justice with a faith belief in its touted new Universal God, named by the Greek name Jesus.

This rhetoric of utter perversion debases faith as judicial justice and remembrance of prophetic mussar rebukes – as they apply equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people of the oath brit alliance. Acts 5 replaces prophetic mussar with its foreign narrative; which highlights the shining star of magical intervention, spiritual victory of the new Universal God – Jesus over the prophetic vision to sanctify judicial justice, as codified in the visionary idea of the Temple – not a building of wood and stone/graven images – but judicial common law justice! Hence Acts 5 introduces the false messiah of the Greek God Jesus which later even the foreign Arab “prophet” Muhammad rejected as utterly false. The rhetoric of the koran itself fails to define the meaning of intent of the key term “prophet” employed as a battering-Ram throughout the koran narrative.

Acts 5’s Greek theatrics of religious rhetoric directly assaults the Torah’s foundation – the Torah obligation to establish lateral common law Federal courtrooms; even the 7 laws Bnai Noach stand upon this foundation. The new testament masquerades as an alien epistemology, designed to replace the Beit Ha’Mikdash, together with its avoda zarah – first introduced by the assimilated king Shlomo Ha’Melech. Weather Shlomo’s or Herod’s, the foreign assimilated idea of Temple constructed – both introduced the concept of making a public barbeque to heaven. Public spectacles, such as this qualifies as a Torah abomination and perversion of faith. The Torah Mishkan concept of korbanot, it sanctified the idea of swearing a Torah oath brit alliance – renewed through the act of t’shuva – לשמה.

Where Torah commands the sanctification of the Name publicly and judicially—through acts of justice, restitution, and halachic obligations לשמה—Acts introduces a foreign conception of “faith”. Not emunah rooted in the brit, but belief in a magical interventionist deity who bypasses law, the courts, and prophetic rebuke. Even Moshe addressed the court of Par’o. Acts turns the Temple into a theatre, whose theatrics introduces a Greek salvation myth.

HaShem commands mishpat and tzedakah—restitution for damages, equity in rulings, and remembrance of prophetic mussar for every generation of the Chosen Cohen People. Only this Chosen Cohen People accept, to this very day, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Acts 5 makes a Kiddush of Hellenism. The name Jesus itself epitomizes the severance from the Torah oath brit alliance faith.

Acts 5 offers no concern for compensation of damages as the prophets criticize. It has no awareness of the layered depth concept of t’shuva. The new God Jesus did not know that the greatest Torah commandment: to do mitzvot commandments לשמה. Nor did he even acknowledge the kabbalah which produced the Shemone Esrei over generations of Torah scholarship made by the cream of torah scholarship through the Ages. The New Testament does not grasp the NaCH’s rebuke of eternal Civil War. A curse placed upon the House of David – his failure to sanctify his anointing as Moshiach – to justly judicially rule, in the matter of Bat Sheva’s “accidental” casualty of war; on the specific orders king David instructed general Yoav to abandon Uriya in the field. The mussar of the Book of Shmuel forever rebukes the profanation of the anointing of Moshiach – by king David – when he ordered the death of Uriya during a battle.

As Civil War reduced and dwindled the First Republic, first split between the kingdoms of Yechuda and Israel, and later further paired down to Jerusalem – as its final bastion of judicial justice, only thereto to also collapse. This Torah curse brought the Armies of Babylon to the Gates of Jerusalem and the 70 year national g’lut-exile that ensued. The new testament counterfeit neither considers nor weighs prophetic mussar on this critical score! Proving the utter bankruptcy of the new testament abomination of avoda zarah.

Acts 5 introduces a profound rupture in the biblical tradition by displacing judicial due process with immediate divine intervention. Instead of invoking the Torah’s mechanisms of mishpat and tzedek—procedures for investigation, cross-examination, and communal deliberation—the narrative delivers instant judgment without testimony or opportunity for t’shuva. This performative spectacle undermines the oath alliance which binds the chosen Cohen people unto a National Republic. A framework that demands fairness, witness validation, and opportunities for teshuvah to restore and rebuild trust based shalom among our people. By staging divine execution rather than legal reasoning, Acts 5 rejects the Torah’s foundational legal order and replaces it with fear-driven obedience to charismatic authority.

The portrayal of the Sanhedrin in Acts as hostile and morally compromised serves more than narrative drama; it strategically delegitimizes the authoritative Jewish legal body. Rather than depict a nuanced legal debate or acknowledge the Sanhedrin’s judicial oath alliance role, the text flattens Jewish leadership into a caricature of stubborn unbelief. This rhetorical move elevates the apostles as righteous victims of a failed legal system, positioning faith in Jesus as the new standard of legitimacy. Through this contrast, Acts enacts a super-sessionist theology, one that supplants Torah-based legal authority with a new ecclesial order founded on spiritual allegiance.

Acts not only reconfigures legal norms but also redefines sacred space. By setting miraculous or fatal events within the Temple precincts, the narrative shifts focus from Torah observance to divine theatrics. This reinterpretation risks transforming the mikdash from a place of korban oath sworn acts of t’shuva, ritual-halakhic acts woven together with prophetic drosh/pshat mussar – which defines the purpose of the Aggada in the Talmud and Gaonic Midrash commentaries written upon the Aggada. Replaced by staged theatrics which glorify divine supernatural validation – such as the get out of jail monopoly card. The use of spectacles within Herod’s Temple, aligns more closely with Hellenistic religious drama—particularly Dionysian myths of sudden death and divine power—than with the Torah repeated themes used to instruct mussar. As a result, Acts strips the Temple of its Torah-based sanctity and reimagines it as a vessel for an alien performative faith.

Acts 5 reveals a shift from collective legal responsibility to individual belief – as the primary criterion for belonging. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira reflect not a violation of law adjudicated by a court, but a failure of sincerity before God—measured not by public evidence, but by divine omniscience. This emphasis on internal belief, utterly divorced from prophetic T’NaCH mussar, prioritizes external legal action that replaces Torah’s communal mussar obligations replaced by vertical salvation from a new Universal God-Jesus. Faith becomes the new halakhic boundary, severing identity from brit-based obligation, the national oath brit alliance Av time oriented Torah commandment which continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing/בראשית. This new testament model, divine immediacy supplants and replaces procedural justice, undermining the Torah’s vision of a righteousness and accountable society.

Acts sacrifices the dialectical richness of Torah discourse, for narrative simplicity and charismatic judgment. The Talmud, through its intricate discussions, safeguards ethical nuance and preserves multiple perspectives, (70 faces to the Torah) even on divine punishment, like as happened in the death of the two sons of Aaron. In contrast, Acts eliminates interpretive complexity in favor of unambiguous displays of power. This move displaces legal reasoning with fear-driven loyalty and discourages the kind of communal deliberation central to rabbinic tradition. Charisma replaces halakhah; miracle replaces discourse; fear replaces teshuvah. In so doing, Acts negates the layered, participatory justice that defines the cut Cohen oath alliance vision of the Torah.

Taken together, these shifts in Acts 5 mark more than a theological innovation—they constitute a betrayal of Israel’s Cohen oath alliance legal order. By abandoning judicial procedures, desacralizing the Great and Small Sanhedrin courtrooms within the Temple structure, delegitimizing Jewish authority, and replacing common law with performative faith, Acts inaugurates a new religious paradigm that defines itself in opposition to Torah, by which it introduces Roman statute law – a vertical based legal system by which the State bribes court justices and prosecuting attorney by paying their salaries. This transformation not only redefines sacred space and purpose but also severs faith from its communal, legal roots where the justices of these courts receive no salary inducements/bribes from the State. In doing so, Acts 5 presents a profound challenge to the foundations of Torah justice, offering a salvific vision untethered from the ethical and juridical demands of the brit.

Tying Reflexology with Shiatsu

Had a reflexology foot message together with Karen and my daughter. HaDassah she’s in her first year of Chinese medicine. Attempting to show her that reflexology functions as the basis of Chinese Daoism. The first year student who worked on my feet learning the wisdom. The low price goes directly to the school where she learns.

Meditation spins around the axis of feelings felt. The kabbalah of Jewish souls (plural) affixes to the 7 days of the week. Its day 1 in the week. The Jewish soul named Ya affixed to the thumb/lungs\the small toe of the opposing foot diagonal. When the 1st year student worked on my left foot i held my right thumb. Sensitive to feeling the pulse in that thumb. The Po (魄), soul affixed to the thumb – little toe. The Po is often translated as the “corporeal soul” or the “animal soul,” and it is connected to the physical, sensory, and instinctual aspects of a person.

Deep breathing using the diaphragm made self hypnosis upon myself as the first year worked on my foot. The affixed feeling to the thumb and little toes “worry”. With each breath, (both exhale and inhale) directed my Chi nefesh Ya unto my feet being messaged by the first year practitioner. The reflexology session lasted an hour. Afterwards put my moccasins back on. This type of foot wear permits me to feel the ground.

Karen and HaDassah wanted to go to the shook/Flea Market so I accompanied them. So cool now I am walking in a way wherein I prioritizes walking on the side of my foot with the little toe. This type of walking after the reflexology a form of shiatsu. How a person walks on their feet changes their posture and balance. Going straight down from the little toe, by placing weight on the side of the little toe, this impacts the shoulder, the lung, the liver, the ascending large intestine colon and the sciatic nerve.

Hope to consciously walk on the little toe/lung\worry line for the entire week till my next reflexology session. Where I hope to change to the emotion of Shame/big toe – little finger. The yin organ of the kidney primarily affixed to the big toe. Zhi (志), often translated as the “will” or “willpower.” The soul affixed to the Big Toe. The Zhi soul, believed to be responsible for the capacity to be resilient, determined, and to maintain one’s essence over time.

Understanding how a person affixes a soul to a specific finger/toe gives the person the power to employ this soul to transport his Chi. A very abstract thought indeed. But it seems to me that this Chinese concept of Chi aligns with the mitochondrion work horse of the cells; it converts low energy ADP to high energy ATP. Deep breathing permits the person to meditate and self hypnotize and employ a specific soul to transport Chi throughout the body at command. That’s how martial arts employ their Chi to both attack and defend. Shiatsu directs Chi energy to heal rather than attack or destroy.

Another disgusting example of Xtian new testament replacement theology avoda zarah

The connection made between the abundance of fish and the “abundance of life in Christ” is a typical Xtian interpretation, often focused on the symbolism of fruitfulness and mission. The Gospel narrative by definition prioritizes a Christian theological lens over any more direct connection to the Hebrew Bible or Jewish tradition.

Even in later Gaonic midrashic stories, you’d be more likely to see the miracle of birds rather than fish, as a remembrance of everlast faithfulness to oath sworn alliance cut with Israel, the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot. Never any invitation to some foreig universal mission or personal salvation. Xtian reinterpretation of the T’NaCH, they redefine and replace the Jewish cultural identity entirely. Herein explains why, the gospel narrative prioritizes a Xtian theological lens over the deeply rooted cultural and pursuit of judicial common law absolute priority, as defined throughout the Tanach.

In the Xtian reading, the focus on the abundance of fish becomes an individualistic metaphor for the promise of salvation, where it no longer matters whether you’re part of a Jewish community under a oath national alliance which continuously creates, through performance of time oriented Torah commandments, the chosen Cohen people throughout all generations unto eternity. The gospel counterfeits instead focus, as its eye on the prize, on individual, personal, often transcendent experience of being “saved” or “reconciled” – for the Universal Ego I. The mishpat of the Torah, concerned with tzedek (justice) in both the spiritual and societal realms, defined as the preservation of national identity. This focus of k’vanna, very much on living out Torah commandments as part of a national project, rather than Xtian substitute theology which prioritizes Universal individual pursuit of personal born-again salvation.

Thus, the Gospels and Xtian teachings effectively erase the essence of Jewish national identity, legal common law structure, the very definition of Jewish identity as expressed through the Hebrew Bible. This Torah-based brit, rooted in historical oath alliances, made to a specific people with the purpose of establishing justice, righteousness, and divine order of Oral Torah tohor middot. The new testament forgery replaces with its foreign and utterly alien “universal” framework that fundamentally conflicts with the Torah Constitutional foundation which defines the cultures and customs of the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations. Xtian theology imposes its own perverse reinterpretations. Designed to strip the T’NaCH from its original legal and national dimensions. Changed and corrupted to present a message of personal, spiritual born-again salvation.
mosckerr

Denials Deleted by Love

Israel ain’t a UN Protectorate Territory.

Rabin’s assassination had deeper implications that went beyond the official narratives presented at the time. Instead of focusing on generalized political struggles or surface-level issues, particularly the role of government and business monopolies, and how Rabin’s political stance might have catalyzed his tragic assassination.

The assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was not just the result of a single political act—it was a consequence of a deeper, often obscured battle within Israel between different power structures: the government, business monopolies, and external geopolitical forces. While the immediate narrative focused on the killer’s ideological motives, what’s often overlooked is how Rabin’s policies, particularly his stance on territorial concessions and the Oslo Accords, exposed Israel to internal and external pressures that many saw as detrimental to the country’s security and sovereignty.

Rabin’s decision to pursue peace with the Palestinians, epitomized by the Oslo Accords, came on the heels of Israel’s monumental victory in the Six-Day War of 1967, a war that secured not only territorial gains but also a strong strategic position in the Middle East. However, Rabin’s approach in the 1990s represented a drastic shift: his defeatism and willingness to surrender territories re-captured in 1967, including East Jerusalem, almost all of Samaria, and Gaza, in exchange for Pie in the Sky promises of peace. Arafat lost Gaza and Hamas does not recognize the Oslo Accords – this proves that the Foreign Power dictate which the Oslo Accords and UN 242 represents betrays Israeli strategic interests in favor of turning Israel into a banana republic.

For many Israelis, especially those who viewed the 1967 victory as a turning point in Israel’s survival and sovereignty, Rabin’s negotiations were seen as a perverse reversal of Israel’s triumph. To them, this was not a pursuit of peace, but a relinquishment of hard-won territorial advantages, and it signified a move towards European-dominated peace frameworks that would undermine Israel’s military and strategic autonomy.

Rabin’s assassination also underscored the tensions between the political elite and the wider Israeli public, particularly regarding the role of business monopolies and entrenched government interests. In Israel, like in many nations, government policies often work hand-in-hand with powerful business entities. These monopolies, which control large swaths of the economy, exert significant influence over government decisions, including those related to security, defense, and foreign policy.

Rabin’s pursuit of peace with the Palestinians was seen by some as Chamberlain’s imposed “Peace” upon the Czech Republic! Critics who viewed such agreements as appeasement rather than genuine peace. Rabin’s assassination in this context can be viewed as the culmination of a larger struggle: one between those who believed Israel’s future lay in economic integration with Europe and the West, and those who believed that Israel’s security and sovereignty could only be preserved by maintaining its territorial integrity and military strength. Rabin’s policies were interpreted by some as a betrayal of the national ethos that had been built on strength, independence, and the strategic use of military power.

Rabin’s willingness to cede territory in exchange for peace was not only a threat to the right-wing’s vision for Israel but also to those in power who benefited from the status quo. The deep-seated distrust of political elites in Israel, particularly from sectors who believed that peace deals undermined Israel’s defense posture, painted Rabin’s actions as a form of appeasement to foreign powers, particularly the European Union, and a surrender of Israel’s hard-earned strategic advantages.

Rabin’s political vision also reflected external pressures—primarily from Europe and the United States, which played pivotal roles in shaping Israel’s diplomatic strategy during the 1990s. These powers, particularly the European Union, sought to mold the Middle East through frameworks of peace agreements that often involved heavy concessions. Rabin’s policies, while aimed at securing peace, were seen by many critics as the Israeli leadership capitulating to foreign influence, diminishing Israel’s autonomy in favor of European dominance in the region.

n this sense, the assassination symbolized not just a political rift within Israel but a broader conflict over Israel’s future path in the Middle East—whether it would maintain its independence, military strength, and territorial integrity, or whether it would align more closely with international peace processes that could dilute its sovereignty.

Rabin’s policies—particularly the Oslo Accords—did not merely seek peace; they represented a historic reversal of Israel’s greatest geopolitical achievement: the June 1967 victory. That war secured critical territories such as East Jerusalem, Samaria, and Gaza, and reestablished Israel as a dominant force in the Middle East. Yet in the 1990s, Rabin, under the guise of diplomacy, chose to surrender those very gains. His defeatism—the readiness to hand over land in exchange for “peace”—was perceived by many Israelis not as pragmatic statesmanship, but as an act of capitulation. The result was a perverse transformation of a monumental Israeli victory into a strategic and moral defeat.

The Oslo Accords, negotiated with a weakened and delegitimized PLO, culminated in Israeli recognition of Yasser Arafat—an architect of terror. Gaza was already lost to Arafat, and later fell into the hands of Hamas, which explicitly rejects the Oslo framework. This collapse illustrates a bitter truth: foreign-imposed “peace” plans like Oslo and UN Resolution 242 were never about Israeli security. They were about reconfiguring the Middle East to fit Western and especially European neo-colonial interests. Israel, in this arrangement, was expected to behave as a compliant client state—a banana republic masquerading as a sovereign nation.

To many Israelis, especially those shaped by the ethos of self-reliance and defense that emerged post-1967, Rabin’s policies were not a road to peace but a betrayal of the Zionist mission. The peace process came to symbolize the ascendancy of foreign values and pressure over national interest and strategic necessity.

Rabin’s assassination exposed more than a political fault line—it revealed the extent to which Israeli governance had become enmeshed with business monopolies and unelected elites. A powerful network of entrenched interests—economic, bureaucratic, and judicial—operated behind the scenes, advancing a globalist agenda in lockstep with the European Union and United States. These interests pushed for a peace process not to secure Israel’s future, but to open its markets and borders, and to subsume its national policy within a broader Western framework.

To many, this echoed Neville Chamberlain’s forced “peace” upon Czechoslovakia in 1938. Rabin, like Chamberlain, was seen as capitulating to international pressure at the expense of his nation’s security and dignity. The Oslo Accords were not a bilateral agreement; they were a dictated framework designed to neutralize Israel’s strategic superiority and force it into moral and territorial retreat.

Thus, Rabin’s assassination was not merely an isolated act of extremism. It was the tragic flashpoint in a broader ideological civil war: between Israelis who trusted in the permanence of strength and sovereignty, and those who sought salvation through integration with Europe, normalization with sworn enemies, and submission to foreign demands.

In this light, the assassination cannot be understood without reckoning with the foreign pressures that guided Rabin’s hand, and the domestic oligarchs who supported it. His death did not end the struggle—it revealed it. And the questions it raised remain as urgent now as they were in 1995: Will Israel be ruled by its own citizens and protected by its own military? Or will it continue to yield to unelected elites and foreign powers that see it not as a sovereign nation, but as a geopolitical pawn?
mosckerr

The People’s Republic of Israel

Another example of the arrogance of Xtian revisionist history & substitute theology

VerseD: Ephesians 3:20-21

The doxology in Ephesians 3:20–21 is not just stylistically distinct from mussar; it functions within a fundamentally different theological paradigm—one that reflects Hellenistic rhetorical norms and advances a Xtocentric reinterpretation of the Torah oath alliances, effectively sidelining the Torah-based framework of the prophets. Replacement Theology ie avoda zarah – Embedded in Ephesians 3:20–21. The phrase “in the church by Christ Jesus” centralizes the Church—not the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot—as the eternal vessel of divine glory. This shifts the Torah oath brit cut at the brit between the pieces to some Universalist Christ-mediated church. The revelation of the Divine Presence/Shekinah\HaShem’s glory — revealed continuously to Moshe at the Mishkan. The dedicated place where the Sanhedrin court ruled judicial justice among the chosen people. Paul’s rant ”power that worketh in us…”, utterly ignores the Torah faith of judicial justice. The phrase “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” is pure rhetorical hyperbole (hypér ek perissou in Greek)—a technique foreign to the sober legal reasoning and moral clarity of Hebrew prophetic speech. Ephesians 3 dismantles all of this by erasing national election (seed of Avraham through Yitzhak and Yaakov), supplanting legal brit oath alliance with a foreign universalized grace and mystical power, and transferring divine kavod from the Mishkan to an imaginary religious fraud: “the Church by Christ Jesus.” The phrase: “according to the power that worketh in us…” This is a radical internalization of divine presence—common in Stoic or Neoplatonic thought—but utterly foreign to the Torah’s national-legal vision. Torah emunah is not mystical “power within” but fidelity to mishpat (Deut. 16:20 – “Tzedek, tzedek tirdof…”). Justice perverted through acceptance of bribes (Isaiah 1:17 and Amos 5:24) has nothing to do with the Greek/Roman mystical power within as Paul declares. This phrase: “exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think“, drenched in Greek rhetorical excess—what Aristotle or Cicero would call amplificatio—used to dazzle, not clarify. In short, Ephesians 3:20–21 is not just foreign to Torah—it is a rhetorical weapon used to overwrite it.

The British Throw a Temper-Tantrum

Choosing the Right Path: Lessons from Imran Khan’s Oxford Address

In November 2024, the Oxford Union passed a controversial yet clearly worded motion labeling Israel as an “apartheid state responsible for genocide.” This was not merely a student protest, but a formal debate resolution carried by a significant majority, signaling that within some British academic circles, especially at debating institutions with a history of anti-imperialist rhetoric, criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza is not just tolerated but institutionally endorsed. No faculty were fired. No Union officers were publicly sanctioned.

In contrast, in the U.S., several Ivy League university presidents—particularly from Harvard, UPenn, and MIT—were forced to resign or publicly reprimanded in late 2023 and early 2024. Their perceived failure to clearly denounce antisemitism on campus amid growing pro-Palestinian activism ignited public and political backlash. Congressional hearings, intense media scrutiny, and donor threats played pivotal roles in ousting these presidents. Criticism of Israel, even when framed as political or humanitarian concern, was quickly conflated with antisemitism in public discourse.

While British students passed a motion explicitly accusing Israel of genocide and apartheid with no institutional upheaval, American university presidents were punished for not condemning antisemitism strongly enough in response to pro-Palestinian student protests—even without passing motions or naming Israel directly.

This contrast points to an intensifying British bitterness of becoming a 3rd world power in determining the balance of power in the Middle East. The ’56 attempt to seize the Suez Canal; the Abraham Accords overthrow British written UN 242. Israel’s growing domination of power in Middle East politics utterly alarms London.

Britain, once the imperial architect of the modern Middle East, now watches from the sidelines. The Oxford motion can be read not only as moral outrage, but as a projection of post-imperial frustration. The 1956 Suez Crisis—Britain’s failed attempt to reassert control over the region—was a pivotal moment of imperial decline. The more recent Abraham Accords, which rewrote diplomatic priorities in the region without British input and undermined the framework of UN Resolution 242 (originally shaped by British legal language), further entrenched Britain’s marginalization.

As Israel consolidates regional power through military dominance, tech diplomacy, and U.S. alignment, London’s influence has eroded to rhetorical protest and symbolic gestures. In this light, the Oxford Union vote may signal not just student solidarity with Gaza, but a deeper national unease: a former empire struggling to reconcile its diminished ability to shape the Middle East order it once designed following WWI where the secret Sykes-Picot Treaty and Balfour Declaration radically re-determined international borders across the Middle East.

As Israel consolidates its regional stature through military superiority, technological diplomacy, and a tight U.S. alliance, Britain’s influence has dwindled to rhetorical protest and symbolic gestures. In this light, the Oxford Union’s vote may reflect more than just student solidarity with the Palestinian cause. It exposes a deeper national unease: the psychological dissonance of a former empire grappling with its inability to shape a geopolitical order it once designed.

Why does the new testament state that the P’rushim turned the temple courtyard into marketplace?

The P’rushim guardians of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; this key masoret they passed down to the rabbis who wrote the Mishna, Gemara, Siddur, and Midrashim ((The Yerushalmi wrote that 427 prophets wrote the Shemone Esrei. There exist 427 words of the 18 blessings of the Shemone Esrei!)).

The concept of ירידות הדורות defined as “domino effect” or “ripple effect”. King Shlomo, just as did his son when he travelled to Sh’Cem, did not listen to Natan the prophet! Natan rejected building a copy cat duplication of a Catholic Cathedral on mount Zion! Avoda Zara might worship wood and stone as Gods but the prophets despised this golden calf substitute theology introduced by Yerovam.

Just as Gulliver’s Travels book of satire mocked the kings of England and France, so too did Mark Twain’s nigger Jim mocked king Shlomo as a complete fool and utter ass. The Book of Kings, written with the concealed intent of political satire, an entertaining idea. A twist upon how Orthodox Jews read their T’NaCH through the lenses of טיפש פשט! Utterly oblivious to the sharp cutting humor of Samuel Langhorne Clemens (1835–1910)! The term “twain” in the context of measuring the depth of a river, an old nautical term that means “two.”

P’rushshim logic requires making the דיוק, similar to the bi-polar logic of Hegel dialectics. A logical inference flips the language upon its head, so to speak, and weighs the opposite. Something like the 3 letter root ק ד ש, serves as the basis for Holy and Prostitute. The Talmud employs the metaphor: 70 faces to the Torah, in this identical sense. Rabbeinu Tam’s common law commentary to the Talmud jumps off the dof of Gemara in search of some other בנין אב/precedent. However, the Baali Tosafot common law commentary — the opposite of the Rambam, Tur statute law which organized halacha into the Greek and Roman custom of subject matter/Aristotle statute law of deductive logic — did not, after viewing the sugya of Gemara from an outside source different perspective, re-introduce this different face to re-interpret the language of how to understand the depth of Mishnaic k’vanna. A serious flaw in the common law commentary of the Baali Tosafots criticism of Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud.

Masechet Sanhedrin, Masechet Yoma, Masechet Zevachim, Masechet Shekalim, Masechet Middot all acknowledge that the Lishkat HaGazit resided within the heart of the Temple. דיוק, which served as the primary avodat HaShem vs which served as the secondary avodat HaShem?! Just as Rechav’am rejected the elder’s advice so too king Shlomo rejected the prophet Natan’s advice not to pursue and copy the Goyim abomination, which worshipped their Gods through wood and stone massive cathedral constructions! Shlomo’s avoda zara began with the construction his temple abomination.

The Capital Crime Case of the two prostitutes, the one accidental killing of her new born child – tried in king Shlomo’s court and not before a small Sanhedrin Capital Crimes Court! The Book of kings states that Shlomo’s foreign wives turned his heart to worship avoda zarah. דיוק at the beginning of his reign king Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah. צדק צדק תרדוף defines the faith of establishing judicial common law courtrooms! The Torah mitzva of the cities of refuge, specifically extended the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin to conquered new territories. The Yerushalmi dispute between six sages 3 for and 3 against over whether king David established a small sanhedrin in conquered Damascus.

Hence according to the prophets, HaShem never commanded Israel to copy and much less build a massive cathedral worship of avoda zarah. Assimilation and intermarriage with Goyim defines the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment. ירידות הדורות, not that later generations status inferior to the previous ones. Rather that a respected leader, king Shlomo for example, makes a tremendous error and worships avoda zara, and all the later generations continue down this same path. A domino effect upon all down stream generations! Hence why not use the Herod’s Temple as a common market place?

So Why Did the New Testament Blame the P’rushim?

Because to replace Judaism, Xtianity had to delegitimize: The Oral Torah; The legitimacy of Rabbinic authority; The oath brit legal system (brit mishpat).

By blaming the P’rushim for the Temple’s desecration, the Gospels create an allegorical rupture: Jesus becomes the “true Temple,” and the Jewish court system becomes obsolete. This revisionist history distorts history, based upon the premise that the winners write the history books..

Shlomo and Avodah Zarah: A Pattern of Domino Effect

My emphasis of Shlomo’s error — building a grand Temple and marrying foreign wives — attempts to perhaps make a profound internal critique within Tanakh itself. The Book of Kings becomes, through my interpretation, a kind of biblical satire akin to Mark Twain’s irony — exposing the dangers of political-religious spectacle and assimilation masked as piety.

Yerovam’s calves, Shlomo’s Temple, and later Herod’s expansion, all depicted as golden calf substitutes — architectural avodah zarah.

Hence, the commercialization of the Temple during the fictional Jesus’s day — under Roman-Herodian rule — not a Pharisaic deviation, but a continuation of this assimilationist, imperial spectacle worship which began with Shlomo and culminated in Herod’s architectural vanity project.

Contrast: Pharisaic Sanctity vs. Roman-Temple Corruption

As noted, Masechet Middot, Shekalim, Sanhedrin, and Yoma all detail the sacred architecture, roles, and jurisdiction of the Lishkat HaGazit Great Sanhedrin within the Temple — the Torah-based legal heart which eclipsed the Temple itself. The P’rushim, inheritors of the Sinaitic Masorah, viewed the Beit HaMikdash merely as a building which housed the court of divine justice (mishpat). A spectacle or market, which sold animals used to make barbeques to heaven, simply a Sunday afternoon football game popular with the masses.

The required application of דיוק — legal and logical inferences — exposes how the New Testament’s narrative flips the truth on its head: the very group who preserved the kedushah of Torah, now blamed for profaning it.

New Testament Polemic and Rewriting of the Temple Narrative

The New Testament blames the Temple authorities, frequently conflating Kohanim, P’rushim, and “scribes” (soferim) as a singular corrupt group. However, this represents a rhetorical distortion. Historically: The P’rushim battled with the Temple administrators. The Tzedukim (Sadducees), who rejected the Oral Torah and aligned with Roman power and priestly elitism, controlled the Temple bureaucracy, especially during the Second Temple period. The money changers and sellers operated under the authority of the priesthood, often controlled by Rome-appointed kohanim (e.g., the House of Hanan/Annas).

Thus, blaming the P’rushim for the commercialization of the Temple courtyard, simple revisionist history. Utterly inaccurate but theologically necessary for the New Testament’s super-sessionist agenda. The new testament attempt to redirect moral and prophetic critique away from Roman imperialism and toward internal Jewish traditions, especially Oral Torah, with a hostile objective – aimed to discredit Pharisaic halakha (which would become Rabbinic Judaism); Legitimize the destruction of the Temple as divine punishment; and lastly to position Jesus as the new Temple/High Priest/sacrifice, displacing Jewish institutions.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: