John Calvin and Martin Luther, pivotal figures in the Protestant Reformation, each contributing significantly to the movement in distinct ways. Martin Luther (1483-1546), best known for his “95 Theses,” which he famously nailed to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517. This document criticized the Catholic Church’s practices, particularly the sale of indulgences, and called for reform.
His theology emphasized the doctrine of justification by faith alone, arguing that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned through good works or church rituals. Asserting that salvation is a gift from God, this theology day and night different from Torah common law as expressed through T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law and Talmudic halachic judicial common law. This prioritization of faith as the pursuit of judicial justice – fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews, radically different from the theologies spewed forth by the Protestant Reformation.
Luther made an utterly sophomoric translation the Bible into German, which utterly failed and even compounded the Vulgate perversion of the T’NaCH. Luther’s translation became “The Word” for the ignorant Lutheran laity. He promoted the idea that individuals could interpret scripture without knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic and despised the Roman clergy who relied upon Latin and Greek. Luther’s ideas established Lutheranism, and challenged the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations.
John Calvin (1509-1564), Calvin built upon Luther’s ideas but introduced a more systematic theology. His work, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” laid out his beliefs about predestination, the sovereignty of God, and the nature of the church. He established Geneva as a center of Protestantism, implementing a theocratic government that enforced moral discipline and promoted education and social welfare. Calvin’s teachings led to the development of Reformed theology, influencing various Protestant groups, including the Presbyterians and the Huguenots. He stressed the importance of a disciplined Christian community and the role of the church in guiding believers’ lives.
The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572; the Huguenots were French Protestants influenced by John Calvin’s teachings. Tensions between the Catholic majority and the Protestant minority led to a series of civil wars known as the French Wars of Religion. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was a turning point, where thousands of Huguenots were killed in Paris and across France, marking a significant moment of barbaric religious violence. This period was characterized by political intrigue, shifting alliances, and brutal conflicts, ultimately leading to the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which granted limited religious freedoms to the Huguenots. However, this tolerance was revoked in 1685, leading to further persecution and the exodus of many Huguenots from France.
The immediate trigger for the Thirty Years’ War came in 1618 with the Defenestration of Prague, where Protestant nobles in Bohemia revolted against the Catholic Habsburg rule. This event marked the beginning of the war, but the underlying tensions had been building since the formation of the Catholic League and Protestant Union. The events of 1609, particularly the formation of the Catholic League under Maximilian of Bavaria, were crucial in setting the stage for the Thirty Years’ War. The conflict would evolve into a complex struggle involving various European powers, driven by both religious and political motivations, leading to widespread devastation across the continent.
The Protestant Union, established in 1608, was indeed led by Frederick IV, the Elector Palatine, and aimed to protect the rights and interests of Protestant states against Catholic encroachments. This was a response to the increasing tensions and conflicts arising from the Reformation and the subsequent political landscape in Europe.
In reaction to the Protestant Union, the Catholic League was formed in 1609, primarily to counter the influence of Protestant states and to protect Catholic interests. This military alliance included several Catholic states and was a significant factor in the lead-up to the Thirty Years’ War, which began in 1618. These alliances were crucial in shaping the religious and political dynamics of the time, leading to significant conflicts and changes in power within the Holy Roman Empire and beyond.
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, was primarily focused on resolving the conflicts arising from that war rather than directly addressing the earlier events of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The Peace of Westphalia consisted of a series of treaties that concluded the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) and the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It marked a significant turning point in European history, establishing a new order based on state sovereignty.
The Peace of Westphalia and the ensuing treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. This was a crucial step towards religious tolerance, as it aimed to stabilize the region by allowing various Christian denominations to coexist. The treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. France gained territories in Alsace and parts of Lorraine, while Sweden gained influence in northern Germany.
While the Peace of Westphalia did not directly address the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, it did contribute to a broader context of religious tolerance and the recognition of Protestant rights in Europe. The massacre had already highlighted the violent tensions between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to a long period of civil strife. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) deepened the divide between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to further civil wars and conflicts. It exemplified the extreme violence and intolerance that characterized the period.
In the same year as the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ (1648), witnessed the barbaric explosion of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, also known as the Cossack-Polish War. Bohdan Khmelnytsky was the leader (1648-57) of the Zaporozhian Cossacks who organized a rebellion against Polish rule in Ukraine that ultimately led to the transfer of the Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper River from Polish to Russian control. His barbarian Cossack hordes slaughtered perhaps 1 million Jews living in the Ukraine and Poland.
Germany annexed Prussia from Poland during the partitions of Poland, which occurred in three stages. (1772) – Prussia gained the region of West Prussia, which included parts of Polish territory. (1793) – Prussia acquired additional territories, including parts of Greater Poland. (1795) – Prussia annexed the remaining parts of Poland, including areas that would later be known as Prussian Poland.
After World War II, the Allies did not restore Poland to its pre-partition borders; instead, they established new borders based on the outcomes of the war and the decisions made at conferences among the Allied powers. Poland lost significant territory in the east to the Soviet Union, including areas such as Lviv (Lwów) and parts of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus. In compensation, Poland was granted territory in the west, including parts of former German territories such as Silesia, Pomerania, and the southern part of East Prussia. Poland was re-established as a sovereign state after the war, but its borders were significantly different from those before the partitions in the late 18th century.
Goyim superficially read “their” bible abominations of Av tumah avoda zarah. But continuously, from generation to generation, and Age from Age, they fail to learn and apply the rebuke given to them by their own God! JeZeus said: “By their fruits, you shall know them”. Reactionary Xtians read their bible trash translations oblivious to this fundamental rebuke. Its not the Nicene Creed theologies etc or Luther or Calvin theologies that determine their faith, rather its their barbaric Yatzir Ha’Rah to pursue violence and judicial injustice which testifies to the bankrupsy of every Xtian theology starting with that of Paul and JeZeus. Xtian Av tuma avoda zara just as crude and utterly devoid of humanity as the ancient Babylonian, and Greek and Roman empires which this NT theology replace that culture and customs practiced by peoples from earlier times.
Bottom line … no belief in JeZeus in any theology, creed, or dogma can atone for the Shoah and the generational crimes which led up to the Shoah. Belief in JeZeus, regardless of Xtian or Koran theologies decrees those believers an eternal fire in Hell. Xtian parents should cast their bible abominations to the flame of Hell before permitting this Av tuma avoda zarah to infect the souls of their children.
[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? I[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]
The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.
Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.
One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.
Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.
The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach. No such dedication for the mitzva of Moshiach to become a substitute theology which has some mythical theologically based messiah to replace the chosen Cohen People.
The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.
For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote – examples of tumah middot.
Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.
Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.
מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.
Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.
[[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]
Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocaust survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.
The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.
Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.
Dead ends.. Dead ends A Poem by Coyote Poetry Time for all of us to think and do the right things. Before it is too late for us and nature. Please don’t allow Israel/ USA to erase a people ( Palestine.). Murder of cities and people. The greatest sin. Men can do. Dead ends.. Brothers told no-one […]
Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate territory when Israel won its National Independence by the Nakba defeat of 5 Arab Armies by the IDF, all the while that Jewish European Shoah refugees entered settlements within the borders of the newly declared state of Israel. Arrogant Arabs invaded the newly declared Jewish state of Israel, the day after a 2/3rds UNGA majority recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Based upon their false revisionist history foretold a Mohammedan prophesy that they would easily throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Holocaust.
This pie in the sky song of revisionist history ignores that all Arab countries Universally rejected UN 181. Do you even know what that Resolution addressed? Arab rejected the Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up the defunct and defeated Ottoman Greater Syrian empire and awarded mandates to France in Syria and Lebanon and to Britain in present day Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. The latter territories of the League of Nations, known as – “Palestine Mandate”. Palestine not an Arab word, Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in their language!
Arabs reject Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, even before Britain and France won WWI. Just that simple. No Arab individual and how much more so a country – ever would embrace the name Palestinian during the entire period of the League of Nations – British Mandate. Only in 1964 did the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name Palestine with the establishment of his PLO terrorist organization. If for not other reason, other than the simple fact that David Ben Gurion named the new Jewish state Israel rather than Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Charter of Arafat’s PLO did not condemn the Jordanian rule over Samaria which it rebranded as “West Bank”. Nor did it denounce the Egyptian rule over Gaza! It openly condemned ’48 Israel.
You want to make the Palestinian issue into a religious belief system, that’s your choice. But this revisionist history compares to the Xtian and Muslim basic theologies of Monotheism. Which God do they worship? Such classic pie in the sky fairy tales of some Universal God… what a load of shit. On par with the lies which Goyim parents spew out to their young children about Santa Claus.
In similar vein Arab propaganda promotes the travesty of Israeli settlements in Samaria and Gaza today! America formed its original 13 colonies to the vast land from Sea to Shining Sea, built through settlements…American settlements perhaps the greatest success story in the last 250 years!
While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.
The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.
Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.
The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.
Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).
Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.
During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.
Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.
Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.
Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.
Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.
Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.
This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.
Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.
Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.
Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”
Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.
The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.
Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.
Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.
The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.
The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.
The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.
The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).
While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.
The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.
The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.
The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”
The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.
Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with Donald Trump at the White House this week, raising hopes of a truce to end the 21 months of bloodshed in Gaza. Israel will send a
Israel to send delegation to Qatar for Gaza talks. Britain and France, Russia and China not invited. Which highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics surrounding the ongoing conflict. Specifically that Britain and France broke diplomatic relations with Israel after the failed UN Chapter VII dictate to force Israel out of Gaza, vetoed by President Trump 14-1. This veto, along with the subsequent diplomatic fallout, illustrates the divisions among major powers regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The breakdown of relations between Israel and these European nations reflects broader tensions and differing perspectives on how to address the ongoing violence and humanitarian issues in Gaza.
The idea of a tripartite alliance between the United States, India, and Israel reflects a strategic partnership that has been developing over recent years, focusing on shared interests in security, technology, and counterterrorism. Such an alliance could potentially reshape geopolitical dynamics, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
The notion that the U.S. might withdraw from NATO in favor of strengthening ties with India and Israel is a significant shift in traditional U.S. foreign policy, which has historically emphasized collective defense through NATO. A clear statement from the Trump Administration regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as “not a U.S. problem” would further indicate a pivot towards a more isolationist stance, prioritizing bilateral relationships over multilateral commitments.
Regarding Russia, the perception of its threat level has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While Russia remains a significant global player, its military capabilities and geopolitical influence are viewed differently compared to the Cold War era. The current Russian government, under President Putin, is often seen as more focused on regional ambitions rather than the expansive ideology of the Soviet Union.
Russia stuck in the Ukraine much like the Johnson Administration stuck itself in Vietnam and the Bush Administration stuck itself in Afghanistan and Iraq. The European idea of a two-State solution a clear failure Foreign Policy of Great Power interventionism. It has Universally always failed from India and Pakistan, to the division of Korea and Vietnam into two hostile countries to the separation of Kuwait from Iraq to the UN SC Resolution 242 and 338 which “advise” the “international Community of Nations” to impose a two-State solution upon the Middle East.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two-state solution has been proposed as a way to address the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for self-determination. An example of foreign great power propaganda. The UN Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. All Arab countries Universally rejected British proposed UN 181. Arab countries lost their wars to throw the Jews into the Sea in both 1948 and again in 1967. Jordan attacked Israel and lost Samaria in that short June War. Palestine ceased to exist from 1948 to 1964, when Egyptian born Yasser Arafat opportunistically revived Palestine from the dead by naming his terrorist organization the Palestine Liberation Organization. Confusing foreign states propaganda concerning the non-state of Palestine ignores the simple fact that Mandate Palestine ceased to exist when Israel won its National Independence.
Equating the independent State of Israel as equal to the 1964 terrorist declaration of Palestine = complete and total propaganda half-truths that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Stateless Arab refugees the consequence of Nakba defeated wars do not share equality with the Independent State of Israel. Arabs lost their wars and losing wars carries risks and consequences which the nation states which promote the Palestinian cause – completely and totally ignore.
The portrayal of the conflict as a simple struggle for Palestinian self-determination fails to account for the historical context of statehood, territorial disputes, and the outcomes of military engagements. And therefore it exists as most foul and base revisionist history. Proponents, such as Britain and France, of the two-state solution argue that it remains a viable framework for achieving peace and addressing the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Utter nonsense – the 2 state solution has always resulted in more wars. Therefore this “peace” noun serves only a great power propaganda – divide and rule – imperialism.
Peace as a noun does not resemble Shalom as a verb. The latter absolutely requires TRUST. The former has nothing to do with TRUST, and everything to do with propaganda sound bites on par with the anti-war song: “All we are saying is give Peace a chance”.
America thrives in the merit of its penny, which declares, “In God We Trust.” ~ R’ Yaakov Yosef Herman zt”l Click to receive Emuna Dailyhttps://linktr.ee/emunadaily _____________________________________________________________
פסוקי דזמרה built on the concept of סמוכים. It opens with ברוך שאמר which contains שם ומלכות. Hence through סמוכים all that follows thereafter till אל חי העולמים qualifies through סמוכים as a blessing\oath rather than a much lower praise like Tehillem. The kre’a shma too stands upon סמוכים as does the blessings of the Shemone Esrei b/c only the opening blessing contains שם ומלכות. His commentary failed to address this key concept and major k’vanna of the Siddur.
“Talmudic Insights” — his work here utterly failed to distinguish T’NaCH/Talmud as a פרדס common law legal system based upon rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of inductive logic which treats teh Talmud as a Loom divided into its warp & weft threads; halacha vs. aggada. רמז\סוד affixed to the halachic portions and דרוש/פשט married to the Aggadic prophetic mussar portions. This error a fundamental error in learning.
His Mikra’ot Gedolot fundamentally flawed; he prioritized Rabbinic Reshonim commentaries over the most essential כלל\פרט sugyot which differentiate the Hebrew T’NaCH from the Xtian bible abominations which introduced chapters and verses! Dog vs God. By uprooting the masoret of sugyot and assimilating to chapter and verse Xtian organization his Mikra’ot Gedolot perverted the entire T’NaCH.
His “Midrashic Reflections” utterly failed to identify the purpose of Midrash as a common law precedent commentary by which to study Aggada within the Talmud. His gross error on this account represents a total disaster in Torah scholarship.
Francesca Albanese says Gaza has become laboratory for Israeli weapons, calling on states to suspend all trade, investment with Israel Beyza Binnur Donmez, AA.COM
Francesca Albanese’s latest statement represents not only a grotesque distortion of international law but a dangerous escalation of antisemitic propaganda masquerading as human rights discourse. Her accusation that Israel is committing “one of the cruelest genocides in modern history” is both morally obscene and legally baseless. It weaponizes Holocaust language to invert the identity of the victim and attacker, portraying the only Jewish state — recovering from the largest mass slaughter of Jews since 1945 — as a genocidal regime.
Albanese abuses the legal definition of genocide in the Genocide Convention (1948), which requires specific intent to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group as such. There is no credible evidence that Israel seeks the extermination of Palestinians as a people. Rather, Israel is responding to the October 7th massacre — a genocidal pogrom by Hamas, whose charter explicitly calls for the annihilation of Jews. Civilian casualties in Gaza are a tragic consequence of urban warfare against an enemy embedding itself in hospitals, mosques, and UNRWA schools — not a genocidal campaign.
Albanese’s claim that Gaza is a “laboratory for Israeli weapons” echoes classic antisemitic tropes of Jews as cold, inhuman schemers profiting off the suffering of others. This is blood libel dressed in bureaucratic language — she implies Jews test bombs on civilians for profit. This is dehumanization, not human rights analysis.
Economic Warfare Disguised as Humanitarian Concern… The call for mass boycotts and divestment, backed by a blacklist of 48 companies, goes far beyond proportional or constructive criticism. It mirrors the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement, which has deep roots in antisemitic ideology — targeting Israeli academia, business, and even cultural institutions simply for existing. “One people enriched, one people erased” — This line is not legal analysis. It’s Marxist-infused antisemitic agitprop.
Open Advocacy of Lawfare and Collective Punishment… By urging states and companies to abstain from all economic contact with Israel, Albanese pushes for collective punishment of the entire Israeli population — a civilian population that includes Jews, Arabs, Druze, and more — for the defensive actions of its army. She advocates for a total embargo that would harm civilians, including Israeli hospitals, universities, and even joint Arab-Jewish institutions.
Hypocrisy and Double Standards… Albanese’s selective obsession with Israel — ignoring far deadlier conflicts such as Syria, Yemen, Sudan, or Chinese genocide against Uyghurs — is damning. Not once has she used this language against Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, who target civilians by design. Why does she never accuse Hamas of genocide, despite its charter and deliberate attacks on Jews?
Echoes of Classic Antisemitic Structures… Albanese’s narrative construction borrows from historic antisemitic patterns — Blood libel: Jews as killers of innocents; Economic conspiracy: Jews profit from war and suffering; World control narrative: A Jewish state as a global puppet-master; Deicide parallel: The state of Israel as the ultimate villain deserving erasure.
Israeli Mockery Is Justified… Israel’s mocking response isn’t diplomatic theater — it’s moral survival. When the UN Human Rights Council becomes a platform for blood libel, ridicule becomes the only sane response. Albanese deserves to be dismissed from her post. Her rhetoric doesn’t just undermine the UN’s credibility — it legitimizes antisemitic hatred, fuels terror, and threatens Jews worldwide.
Here’s a list of antisemitic tropes, falsehoods, and ideological tactics employed by Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur, particularly in her July 2025 statement accusing Israel of genocide. This exposes both her rhetorical devices and the historical antisemitic patterns she recycles under the guise of human rights advocacy.
1. Blood Libel 2.0 – “Gaza as a Laboratory”… “Israel is weaponizing Gaza as a testing ground… unleashing 85,000 tons of explosives… Gaza is a laboratory for the Israeli military-industrial complex.” The charge that Jews deliberately harm civilians, particularly children, for their own sinister gain — a modern twist on the medieval blood libel. She accuses Jews of inhuman experimentation on others. This mirrors Nazi propaganda about Jewish doctors and moneylenders conducting immoral experiments.
2. “Jews Profit From Genocide” – Economic Conspiracy Myth… “Arms companies have turned near-record profits… One people enriched, one people erased.” Antisemitic Code: The idea that Jews become wealthy through the suffering of others — i.e., war profiteers who orchestrate violence to line their pockets. This echoes both Nazi-era and Soviet propaganda about “Jewish capitalists” controlling war and international finance.
3. “Global Jewish Control” – The Protocols Narrative… She names 48 companies and demands universal disengagement, calling for economic, diplomatic, and academic isolation of Israel and all its affiliates. The mass targeting of unrelated institutions — banks, tech firms, universities — insinuates a global network of control run through Israel. Protocols of Zion 2.0: This plays into the “Elders of Zion” narrative: that Jews manipulate global structures behind the scenes.
4. Moral Inversion – Holocaust Abuse… “One of the cruelest genocides in modern history”. She accuses the Jewish people — survivors of the Holocaust and their descendants — of becoming the new Nazis. IHRA working definition of antisemitism explicitly includes “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
5. Denying Jewish Right to Self-Defense… Calls for total arms embargo, suspension of trade, and collective economic punishment. No similar treatment is recommended for Syria, China, Russia, Iran, or Turkey, despite mass atrocities far worse than anything claimed in Gaza. Applying uniquely harsh treatment only to the Jewish state, and denying it the right to defend itself from literal genocide (Hamas), is discriminatory.
6. Collective Guilt – Targeting All Israelis… “Economy of occupation… One people enriched”. Reducing all Israelis to a single guilty class — war profiteers, colonizers, criminals — erases the humanity and diversity of Israeli society. This mimics how antisemites historically blamed all Jews for financial manipulation, war, or alleged crimes of a few.
7. Silencing Jewish Grief – No Mention of October 7th… Nowhere in her speech or report is there acknowledgement of the rape, slaughter, torture, and kidnapping of 1,200 Jews on October 7, 2023. This is the classic antisemitic strategy of denying Jews empathy, pain, or victimhood. Antisemitism often begins with the refusal to see Jews as legitimate victims, and instead paints them only as oppressors.
8. “They Don’t Understand International Law” – Jews as Lawless… “They think international law is there to make excuses.” The suggestion that Israel (and by extension Jews) exploit or corrupt the law for their own ends. This echoes the stereotype that Jews manipulate legal, financial, or religious systems for personal or communal advantage.
9. BDS as “Resistance” – Economic Warfare Framed as Morality… “All corporate entities must immediately sever ties with Israel… civil society must push for boycotts, divestment, sanctions…”. The goal is not just to oppose policies, but to choke the Jewish state into dissolution — an antisemitic political goal masked as progressive. As per the IHRA definition, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” is antisemitic. BDS campaigns regularly cross this line.
10. Performative Lawfare – UN Abuse as Platform for Demonization… “I conducted a case-by-case legal analysis… in some cases, complicity in genocide.”. Her pseudo-legal crusade against Israel isn’t about rights. It’s about building a narrative for delegitimization. Lawfare becomes antisemitic when it selectively targets Jews or the Jewish state while ignoring greater or equal crimes elsewhere.
In 2014 she wrote that America is “subjugated by the Jewish lobby” — a classic antisemitic claim of Jewish control over foreign policy. She has never condemned Hamas by name, nor has she acknowledged the Jewish right to self-defense. Her framing erases Israel’s Arab citizens, Mizrahi Jews, and refugees from Arab lands, flattening them all into “white colonizers.”
However, I do agree with you that the way John 1:1 was translated into Greek from Hebrew was confusing.
If the Van Rensburg’s are correct, then “Word” was originally “Son” in the original Hebrew version: https://www.hebrewgospels.com/john ________________________________________________________
Frank you continue to presume that the Roman forgery NT, originally written in Hebrew. Bunk. Its target audience ALWAYS Goyim and not Jews. This explains why the NT reflects none of the halachic, oath britot, or Constitutional foundations of the Written Torah first revealed at Sinai.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg and the notion of “Logos” in Xtian theology. This perspective aligns with traditional Xtian beliefs about the nature of the “Crisis” JeZeus – substitution theology. Several early church fathers likewise discussed this substitution theology. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE), in both “First Apology” and “Dialogue with Trypho;” Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), in “Against Heresies,” where he emphasized the role of “logos” in the creation and redemption of humanity. This falsely presumes that the local/tribal God of Israel lives as a Universal God. A key theme of both Xtian and Islamic substitute theology.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg’s claim that Logos in John 1:1 was originally “Son”—this is just another layer of Christian revisionism. The entire “Logos” theology was developed by Church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to blend Greek metaphysics with Roman theology, ultimately inventing a universalist “Christ” divorced from the פרט, tribal brit at Sinai. This classic substitute theology—replacing Israel’s national oath brit-inheritance-as the chosen Cohen people, with a mythical “son of god” and imagining that Goyim inherit spiritual truths which bypasses Torah altogether. Even Paul’s grafting metaphor does not go this far! It falsely fuses Greek metaphysics with Roman theological imperialism.
Let’s be clear: the Torah revelation revealed at Sinai, simply not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The revelation at Horev (Sinai) – concrete, national, legal, and exclusive—bound by brit to the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov. The Oral Torah’s פרדס system—especially as laid out in the opening sugya of Avodah Zarah—explains that the nations of the world rejected HaShem’s authority long before Sinai. Xtianity’s invention of “Logos” does not replace the oath brit sworn to the Avot. The NT false idea: that the tribal, covenantal God of Israel could somehow morph into a universal, metaphysical abstraction. This expresses the core lie of both Christian and Islamic theologies. They both erase the specificity of the brit—the national oath between HaShem and the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov—and replace it with theological fiction. NT Greek “Logos” translations, tits on a boar hog – worthless.
The Talmud, the codification of the Oral Torah פרדס logic system, teaches, as just mentioned, in the opening pages of mesechta Avoda Zarah that the generations of Adam prior to the birth of Noach utterly rejected the בראשית God. Only Israel accepted this בראשית God at Sinai. Your worthless bible Greek translations of “logos”, coupled with their later revised revisionist history/substitute theology, simply never accepted neither the first or second commandments of Sinai. Just that simple. The substitute theology of “logos” does not mean the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. The perversion of “son of god/messiah” – has no basis in the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. The church rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 middot at Horev. Let’s be clear: the God of Israel revealed at Sinai – not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The Divine Name revealed at Sinai is not “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “Logos.”
Origen (c. 185–253 CE), Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 CE), Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 CE) – all these silly Goyim theologians have likewise promoted this avoda zara. The facts, as clear as the Sun on a cloudless Summer Day, “logos” has nothing to do with the First Commandment of Sinai. Nothing in the Heavens, Earth or Seas compares to the revelation of this Divine Presence Spirit Name which breathes within the Yatzir HaTov of the chosen Cohen people.
The substitute theology replacement of JeZeus as a mythical messiah for the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people – absolute narishkeit. Yom Kippur eternally remembers that HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make of the descendants of Moshe the chosen Cohen people instead of the seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. The gospel abomination perverts the anointing of king David dedicated to pursue judicial justice within the borders of the oath sworn lands, as the intent and k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. The specific פרט, of the husband of Bat Sheva, defines the כלל of the anointing of David as king by the prophet Shmuel.
This revisionist substitute theology represents just a simple continuation of the Golden Calf substitute theology wherein the ערב רב, assimilated and intermarried Israelites, substituted the word אלהים for the revelation of the First Commandment Name. Substitution theology defines the avoda zarah of the Golden Calf for all generations.
The early church fathers you mentioned engaged with the concept of “Logos” in ways that sought to bridge Greek philosophical thought and Xtian doctrine. The Mishna in Masechet Chagigah (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1). It states that anyone who contemplates the divine matters or the secrets of the universe—specifically what is above, below, or behind—should not have been born. Man simply incapable of comprehending the Divine; no more than an ant can grasp Human culture and civilizations. The Gospel Roman forgery of “logos” – simply a replacement theology revisionist history nonsense. Just that simple. Greek philosophy does not serve as the foundation upon which the Torah stands.
I have no interest in the Oral Torah, Moshe, except as historical documents of the opinions people had over time about what was in the Tanach (Old Testament). It is at the level of the Christian church fathers.
Now I do take the Old Testament more seriously than you do, because I see it as an historical document. What it says actually happened, but it is going to be difficult to construct a reasonable chronology from the Masoretic text because I believe the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies were shortened by the rabbis in the 2nd century to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. Those genealogies should extend to about 5550 BC based on Septuagint readings of those genealogies.
I also see the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecies as having been fulfilled by the ministry of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
What I find interesting about the Van Rensburg’s translation of the Hebrew Gospel of John is that an argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word “ben” (son) rather than the Greek word “logos” (word).
I agree that the use of “logos” was done to bridge Greek philosophy with Christianity. However, I am more interested in the Hebrew Gospel of John than I am in the Greek translation of it.
I’ve mentioned these things before when you commented on my blog. Since we are on your blog, I am restating them. _____________________________________
Naturally Frank your a follower of classic Xtian substitute theology. Oral Torah as the definition of prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of mitzvot means nothing to Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence both the Pope & you pervert mussar and declare prophetic mussar as dogmatic history.
The T’NaCH has a completely different Order organization than does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH for example does not have Chapters and verses like as does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH organized into sugyot, a concept which the Xtian translators changed into a completely different order of Chapters. Despite the word DOG having the exact same letters as GOD, the two words convey completely different meanings.
Conservative and Reform Jews like you view the T’NaCH as historical documents. In the late 19th Century German Protestant ‘higher criticism’ actively promoted this Foo/narishkeit. A T’NaCH prophet commands mussar not history. Ya want history – then study it from a professor at a University.
You believe no different than Muslims who declare that the Jews changed their Bible! LOL Arabs declare, like you, that Avraham did not dedicate Yitzak but rather Yishmael on the altar. And like you the Koran does not bring the Sinai First Commandment Name just like your golden calf bible abomination. So the only people who perverted the T’NaCH – Xtians and Muslims.
Your pie in the sky slander against the Jewish people, does not fit with the mussar story of the Book Sh’muel which repeatedly states that king David profaned his anointing as Moshiach only in the matter of the death of the husband of Bat Sheva. Ooops Do you also declare that Jewish rabbis changed that Book too? Must have b/c otherwise your pie in the sky 2nd Coming floats like a lead balloon.
Your worn-out theory compares to a blood libel slander. A textbook example of theological projection disguised as historical analysis. It reflects both ignorance of Jewish tradition and a desperate retrojection of Hellenistic Xtianity onto a text and culture it never understood nor has it any connection there unto.
The Masoretic Text Is Not a 2nd-Century Rabbinic Invention. The idea that “rabbis in the 2nd century shortened Genesis 5 and 11” is complete historical fiction. The Masoretic tradition predates Xtianity’s revisionist history. Its textual lineage derives from the Second Temple period—Chag Hanukkah pre-dates JeZeus or the rise of the Church.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE to 1st century CE)—which predate the “2nd-century rabbis”—show a textual tradition aligned more closely with the Masoretic Text than with the Septuagint. The Tannaim of the 2nd century, such as Rabbi Akiva, engaged in preserving and interpreting inherited Torah, not fabricating new texts to “counter Jesus”, as your blood libel slander promotes. The notion that these sages rewrote Torah to discredit Xtianity reflect the mirror of Xtian super-sessionist fantasy—not history.
The Septuagint written as a Greek Translation for Hellenized Jews. A Greek translation of parts of the Tanakh (mainly the Torah) done in Alexandria, Egypt, for Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew. Your claim that later Greek versions of Genesis, especially chapters 5 and 11, inflated lifespans and added generations—these deviations do not exist in any known Hebrew manuscript tradition. The Alexandrian scribes were influenced by Hellenistic numerology and cosmology, which sought to align world chronology with Platonic or Egyptian schemes.
Irony: It is far more likely that the Septuagint’s chronology was lengthened to harmonize with Greek cosmogonies than that the rabbis shortened the Masoretic text to “disprove” Xtianity, which did not yet exist, when the Masoretic tradition the Men of the Great Assembly sealed in the days of Ezra.
Xtianity has always promoted ‘Historical Revisionist’ propaganda. The accusation that Jews edited Genesis to disprove JeZeus represents classic Xtian ‘blood libel’ projectionism. The Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine etc), who reinterpreted or allegorized Tanakh to retroactively “prove” JeZeus as Messiah. The New Testament authors routinely misquote and mistranslate the Tanakh. Example: Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, mistranslating “alma” (young woman) as “parthenos” (virgin) to manufacture a virgin birth prophecy.
The NT genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1, Luke 3), internally contradict one another, and historically utterly implausible. Those corrupt gospels constructed with theological agendas, not historical precision. If anything, Xtianity invented its own substitute genealogies and projected messianic expectations backwards to build a false continuity.
The Tanakh Does Not Predict a “Crhisis”. The entire premise that Jewish texts should confirm JeZeus relies on the illegitimate Xtian hermeneutic of proof-texting and super-sessionism. Tanakh messianism centers on a national king of Israel—from David’s line, who will establish Torah justice, establish the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic, restore Judicial Review ie משנה תורה Common law courtrooms. State vertical courtrooms imposed by both Rome & Herod, which bribed both Justices and prosecutors through paid salaries, a direct Torah abomination of perverted justice. The idea of a crucified universal savior, as perverse as offering a maimed korban upon the altar. This utterly absurd idea carries the din of כרת.
The “genealogies” in Genesis 5 and 11 Jewish tradition treats them within the Oral Torah framework which depict the timeline of the chosen Cohen people, not literalist proof schemes.
Xtianity erased the Oral Torah—Then Accused Jews of Distortion. Based upon the premise that the victors right the history books. Post Shoah with Israeli Independence, and Rome on the dung heaps of ancient history, clearly Jews won our war against the Goyim barbarians of Europe. Xtians rot in exile waiting for the 2nd coming of their God.
Xtianity rejects the Oral Torah, as the crucial interpretive key to understand the k’vanna the Written Torah prophetic mussar. Xtianity, lacking the Oral tradition, they reconstructed their own readings, often Greek allegorical ones, like agape defines love, and now blame the Jewish tradition for not agreeing with their foreign and utterly alien artificial system. The Samaritans, Tzeddukim and Karaites – like Xtians today – rejected the revelation of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic. This too a totally worn out nonsense, forced the church of the Dark Ages to embrace Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotles 3 part syllogism. Classic super-sessionism: erase the original 4 part Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning with Aristotle’s 3 part deductive reasoning, insert your own alien theologies and creed, and then claim the original the Jews corrupted. What you’re doing is projecting the Church’s own revisionist horse-radish onto a Torah tradition that never needed JeZeus—and never recognized him as fulfilling anything. Xtianity defines the sin of the Golden Calf revisionism, not Judaism.”
Daniel, not counted among the Nevi’im (Prophets) in the Jewish canon, but among the Ketuvim (Writings). This irrefutable classification reflects a common law prioritization and hermeneutic divide that permanently separates Judaism from Xtian avoda zarah. Your entire claim collapses the moment you treat the Book of Daniel as “prophetic” in the same vein as Isaiah or Jeremiah. Xtian revisionism avoda zarah, not Jewish tradition.
Torah Canonization Matters: the g’lut written Book of Daniel simply Not a Prophet any more than T’NaCH prophets compare to University History Professors. The T’NaKH—the authentic Jewish canon—codified as Torah (Common Law), Nevi’im (Prophets) serve as the basis for the Mishna, and Ketuvim (Writings) serve as the basis for the Gemara. A direct and clear Masoret of T’NaCH/Talmudic common law, Daniel not classified with the prophets because it serves as a Gemara-like commentary to the Books of the Prophets. Therefore the Men of the Great Assembly placed the Book of Daniel alongside Psalms, Job, and Ruth—and not with the Books written pre-galut – Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Amos.
G’lut Daniel simply not a navi who lived prior to Babylonian king conquering the kingdom of Judah. The visions Daniel, apocalyptic dreams, not prophetic mussar rebukes which defines the very essence of NaCH prophecy. The Talmud (Megillah 3a) even explicitly says: “Many were greater than Daniel, but they did not receive prophecy.” This distinction – not accidental. It represents a rejection of magical, mystical, or Hellenistic eschatology as a basis for the perversion of T’NaCH common law unto Greek statute law.
Xtian Misuse of Daniel 9: A Manufactured Messianism. Daniel 9 doesn’t mention JeZeus. It doesn’t describe an absurd crucified messiah. It doesn’t authorize the end of Torah or the dissolution of the brit of the Chosen Cohen people replaced by a Roman false messiah Universal God\monotheism. The post NT “scholars” timeline of the Book of Daniel utterly obtuse and obscure; Daniel not legal—because it’s written in Aramaic apocalyptic code, like the mystic work “The Zohar” of the Middle Ages. Neither mystical work qualifies as prophetic nevuah. Xtian use of Daniel 9—just another prooftext grab—an effort to force JeZeus into a text that neither names nor validates him, while ignoring the actual legal terms of the Torah oath brit alliance with HaShem and the chosen Cohen people.
You treat the destruction of Herod’s Temple\Cathedral abomination in 70 CE as a divine validation of Xtianity. But in Jewish memory, we remember the Roman crushing of our revolt as a tragedy which began our long 2000+ year exile that culminated in the Nazi Shoah. Xtian endorsement of Roman theology, seeks to return the genie back into its bottle. But the national Independence of the Jewish state forever repudiates the Xtian theology which proclaimed Jews and Cain Christ-Killers. The JeZeus gospel “prediction”, (all the books of the gospels, starting with Mark written in Rome, written AFTER the Romans burned Herod’s Cathedral abomination of assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs), of that destruction, neither unique nor accurate—Jeremiah and the Talmudic sages long before denounced the substitute theology which replaced Sanhedrin common law courtrooms as the basis of Legislative Review with the idol of building a House of Prostitution/Temple. Wood and Stone do not rule the oath sworn lands with judicial courtroom common law justice; any more than wood and stone idols compare to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Judaism a common law Legal Tradition, Not some Pie in the Sky Eschatological Gnosticism. Daniel’s visions—fascinating as they serve as a commentary to NaCH prophetic mussar—never used by the sages to determine messianic timelines or national policy. The mitzva of Moshiach, no different than the mitzva of Shabbat. All generations of Jews have equal opportunities to “fulfill” this Torah commandment. Judaism simply not a religion. Faith defined as צדק צדק תרדוף, not end of days date-setting or speculative metaphysics. Torah a brit-based common law Judicial legal tradition. built on halachah and the oath brit which בראשית continuously creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Xtianity stands upon the foundation of Nazi racial theories. Hence it perverted the Book of Daniel into a mystical crystal ball. Precisely because it rejects Torah revelation of both Sinai and Horev, and therefore needed to fabricate its own absurd versions of prophecy – which the Torah defines as Av tuma witchcraft-mystically predicting the future.
Treating Daniel as a prophet, a perverse taboo distortion on par with declarations of JeZeus as a messiah. Both abominations, products of Rome’s theological imperialism, not Sinai’s revelation. The Jewish classification of Daniel within Ketuvim—not arbitrary—rather it rejects mystical replacement theology, including the false messianism you preach as Av tuma avoda zarah. The abomination which causes Jewish g’lut from ruling our homeland with Torah/Talmud common law judicial justice.
Frank, your represents a classic example of Xtian wish projection, masquerading as scholarship. Attempting to retroactively “Hebraicize” a document that never has anything Jewish – no connection whatsoever; in order to lend it a legitimacy it never had. You’re attempting to give a Hebrew Av tohor soul to a Roman Av tuma corpse. Isaiah referred to calling day – night and night – day as a direct Torah curse.
Greek philosophy exists as the soil in which Xtianity spouted therefrom. The gospel counterfeits themselves call it a “wolf dressed in Sheep clothing”. The NT – not Torah, not Talmud, and certainly not the oath alliance brit of Sinai which continuously creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people. The gospel of John abomination, especially its opening verses, reflects a clear Greek metaphysical construct, directly influenced by perhaps Philo of Alexandria, Hellenistic Jewish allegory, and Neoplatonic emanationism. In no way does Hellenistic Alexandria over-rule the T’NaCH/Talmudic common law legal system. Hellenistic Alexandria assimilated ערב רב Jews had no more understanding of prophetic T’NaCH mussar, and its relationship to how the Aggadah of the Talmud servers to derive the k’vanna of doing halachic ritualisms, than does Xtianity.
Your fantasy projection: “””An argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word ‘ben’ (son).””” What original Hebrew autograph? No such manuscript exists. None. Not a shred. Not a fragment. Not even a whisper from antiquity.
Zero evidence that supports the Gospel of John ever written in Hebrew or even Aramaic. All existing ancient manuscripts are in Greek—because it was written by and for Hellenized gentiles. The idea of a Hebrew “original” is a theological revisionist history mirage, conjured witchcraft spells, centuries later by Xtians desperate to reconnect Hebraic roots to their post Shoah utterly disgraced reputation of church barbarity.
The Greek “Logos” = Greek Theology. John 1:1: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος – “In the beginning was the Logos.” This has nothing to do with the Hebrew בראשית ברא אלהים. The text deliberately rewires Genesis 1 using Hellenistic terms. Logos here is not “word” in the Torah sense (as in “davar” of prophetic command), but a divine intermediary being—a metaphysical emanation that merges Platonic dualism with pseudo-Jewish messianism. That’s Hellenistic Alexandria Philo, not Moshe who commands the Written and Oral Torah revelations of judicial courtroom common law.
The Hebrew ben (son) in contrast, in Torah usage, never a mystical being co-equal with God. To imagine John 1:1 began with “Bereishit haya haBen” is laughable, and would be theologically alien—absolutely blasphemous—by even the most liberal Torah standards.
No Hebrew NT = No Jewish Origins. No Hebrew manuscript of John exists. No early Church Father refers to a Hebrew John. Your Apostle Paul opposed mixing T’NaCH with the new Xtian religion. No Jewish or Goyim community ever recognized, preserved, or even referenced such a text. All historical witnesses (Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius) cite Greek texts. This modern “Hebrew Gospel of John” you’re referencing—by Janie van Rensburg—is a modern back-translation, no different than translating Shakespeare into Aramaic and then claiming it was written by a prophet.
Your fascination with a Hebrew Gospel of John is nothing but an attempt to baptize a Roman forgery with a Hebrew fig leaf. The “logos” theology of the Fourth Gospel—Greek at its core and Roman in its mission. It exists to replace the Torah—not to fulfill it. There never existed a “Hebrew John.” There never lived a Torah-true “JeZeus.” And Moshe never commanded a messiah who came to abolish the oath brit which continuously creates the Chosen Cohen People which only the Jewish people accepted this revelation at both Sinai and Horev.
Conflict Resolution 