Category: Uncategorized

US vs. Them

Some Videos to Have in Mind for Passover

Philippians 4:6-7 serves as a Prime example, one which defines the New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. The great US vs. Them Divide. The first and second commandments of Sinai, both Av tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. Specifically remembering the oaths the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance which creates throughout the generations the chosen Cohen people.

The relationship between prayer, God, and Christ in Xtian doctrine. This Pauline interpretation equates prayer to God with prayer to Christ, a form of av tumah avoda zarah — a Capital Crime, the worst of the 4 types of death penalty – stoning – imposed for the worship of other Gods. Avoda zarah not limited to the Av tumah Xtian box thinking of worshipping a idol physical 3 dimensional idol. Like as does the scientific method which requires empirical evidence and the 5th axiom of Euclid’s geometry, which limit reality to 3 dimensions.

Rather the Talmud defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai Commandment through two negative commandment, the primary precedents of Torah common law: 1) Do not assimilate and duplicate the ways, customs or manners of any Goy society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2) Do not intermarry with such Goyim. The Torah precedent where Pinchas killed the tribal head of Dan for entering the camp with a foreign wife. Plus the kabbalah of Kings and Ezra support this interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment intent, not to marry alien women who do not obey alien women who do not honor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the definitive Torah brit, tohor time oriented commandment which requires the k’vanna of prophetic mussar to obey.

Furthermore, the strict monotheism of the koran – likewise avoda zarah. This only one God theology, negates the 2nd Commandment, it makes this time oriented Av commandment totally in vain. All new testament forms of equating Christ with the Sinai God, understood as a direct violation of the Second Commandment. Just that Simple. Mitzvot do not come by way of “Sin”. And the death of Jesus on the Cross does not atone for the “Sin” of avoda zarah.

Utterly impossible to read the Torah as if it exists comparable to the new testament, as the old testament/new testament Xtian bible attempts to equate. Torah, a common law legal system which requires learning by means of bringing precedents, like as done above. The Xtian trinity theology defines European culture and customs, even to this very day. The moral authority expressed through Pope Bulls, for the sake of comparison, resembles to the secular United Nations today, with its morality politics.

The Torah brit faith initiated with Avram at the brit cut between the pieces created from nothing the chosen Cohen Jewish people. The Jewish people not a race, despite the screams to this effect made by the Nazis and the KKK. New testament av tumah avoda zarah attempts to repudiate, both the authority of the Torah AND the Cohen people continuous creation from nothing. Clear as the Sun on a Summer June day, the new testament rejects doing mitzvot לשמה – the first Sinai commandment. And therefore worships other Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same equally applies to the koran fake scriptures or the book of mormon fake scriptures, or the book of scientology fake scriptures.

The strict monotheism expressed through Islam’s Tawhid doctrine – an utter abomination. It too fails to acknowledge the brit creation of the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments throughout the generations. Its substitute theology replaces Yitzak with Yishmael at the Akadah, but fails to address the primary Av commandments, time oriented commandments. Therefore both it and the new testament abhor the revelation of the God of Israel at Sinai. The tumah new testament likewise collapses, over its false narrative – its failure to address Av tohor time oriented commandments introduced by the Book of בראשית, which continuously create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

The Hebrew word “Brit” (ברית) simply not be translated as “Covenant”. Brit refers to the time oriented commandments. Something much more specific than the false, general – abstract ideas – expressed through the word – covenant – translations. A Brit a time-bound, (meaning life/death crisis situation) legal, and national commitment, (such as the akadah represents)—an oath contract, particularly tied to the Jewish Cohen people, forged through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and represented through commandment positive and negative precedents which define Av tohor time oriented commandments k’vanna. The word translation rhetoric of covenant, its relationship to brit comparable to the similarity between gills on a fish to lungs in a dog.

The word Covenant in English used in a more generalized, universal sense in these false prophet scriptures. Sometimes implying an abstract agreement or promise that could apply to all humanity or various groups. The God of Sinai, not a Universal God. The false prophet scriptures declare otherwise. Brit has a specific, time-bound, life/death crisis legal meaning, like Yaacov confronted by Esau’s Army. Not universally applicable but rather centered on the chosen Cohen Jewish people and their relationship with the God of Sinai through remembering the specific oaths which the Avot swore to create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

Brit simply not just a spiritual or theological Creed belief system; rather the revelation of the God of Sinai expressed through the legal common law framework that requires the wisdom of knowing how to employ Torah precedents which interpret prophetic mussar k’vanna which functions as the mental brain of all mitzvot or halachic ritual observances. Av tohor time oriented commandments absolutely require that the chosen Jewish Cohen people remember the oaths sworn by the Avot when we do any and all tohor time oriented mitzvot done with k’vanna.

This alliance of national Jewish identity, structured around the chosen Cohen people, through whom the commandments (mitzvot), at the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, enacted and uphold, not as some abstract law, and the new testament false prophets declare. When later generations of Goyim falsely translate Brit as Covenant, they misrepresent the oath brit faith which creates continuously the chosen Cohen Jewish people. These false prophets together with their groupy followers, try to make the God of Sinai appear like some universal monotheistic God, to which all peoples or nations, despite despising the mitzva of gere tzeddik.

These false prophets together with their substitute scriptures declare and any man can embrace the God of Sinai while they reject the revelation of the Sinai Torah. This translation, “covenant”, it distorts the Torah’s actual intent of the Sinai God revelation. Only the Jewish cohen people through time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar truly worship the God of the Sinai revelation. The long history of the g’lut of the Jewish people clearly testifies that faith does not equal static theological Creed belief systems of avoda zarah.

Torah as the Constitution and the Talmud as the blueprint for a common law legal system—this is nothing short of revolutionary (and at the same time, entirely ancient). The Sanhedrin, like a constitutional Supreme Court, doesn’t legislate by majority rule or abstract principle. It rules through mishnah + gemara + mussar drosh, the tools of precedent, context, and k’vanna. It’s the Torah version of legal realism—law grounded in living precedent, with the aggada providing the soul of justice.

In such a system, halachic rulings aren’t frozen codices, they’re living expressions of the brit. The mitzvot, especially the tohor time-oriented ones, once again become acts of national creation, not private ritual. Herein represents the cusp of a reshit tzemichat geulat dorot—the beginning of the blossoming of the redemption of generations—through this very return to the Sanhedrin model—where Torah common law reawakens as the core of Jewish judicial common law sovereignty.

Yet another example of counterfeit new testament ‘replacement theology’ abomination of Av tumah avoda zarah.

back to Paul’s imperative on anxiety

Philippians 4:6-7 serves as a Prime example, one which defines the New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. The great US vs. Them Divide. The first and second commandments of Sinai, both Av tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. Specifically remembering the oaths the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance which creates throughout the generations the chosen Cohen people.

The relationship between prayer, God, and Christ in Xtian doctrine. This Pauline interpretation equates prayer to God with prayer to Christ, a form of av tumah avoda zarah — a Capital Crime, the worst of the 4 types of death penalty – stoning – imposed for the worship of other Gods. Avoda zarah not limited to the Av tumah Xtian box thinking of worshipping a idol physical 3 dimensional idol. Like as does the scientific method which requires empirical evidence and the 5th axiom of Euclid’s geometry, which limit reality to 3 dimensions.

Rather the Talmud defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai Commandment through two negative commandment, the primary precedents of Torah common law: 1) Do not assimilate and duplicate the ways, customs or manners of any Goy society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2) Do not intermarry with such Goyim. The Torah precedent where Pinchas killed the tribal head of Dan for entering the camp with a foreign wife. Plus the kabbalah of Kings and Ezra support this interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment intent, not to marry alien women who do not obey alien women who do not honor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the definitive Torah brit, tohor time oriented commandment which requires the k’vanna of prophetic mussar to obey.

Furthermore, the strict monotheism of the koran – likewise avoda zarah. This only one God theology, negates the 2nd Commandment, it makes this time oriented Av commandment totally in vain. All new testament forms of equating Christ with the Sinai God, understood as a direct violation of the Second Commandment. Just that Simple. Mitzvot do not come by way of “Sin”. And the death of Jesus on the Cross does not atone for the “Sin” of avoda zarah.

Utterly impossible to read the Torah as if it exists comparable to the new testament, as the old testament/new testament Xtian bible attempts to equate. Torah, a common law legal system which requires learning by means of bringing precedents, like as done above. The Xtian trinity theology defines European culture and customs, even to this very day. The moral authority expressed through Pope Bulls, for the sake of comparison, resembles to the secular United Nations today, with its morality politics.

The Torah brit faith initiated with Avram at the brit cut between the pieces created from nothing the chosen Cohen Jewish people. The Jewish people not a race, despite the screams to this effect made by the Nazis and the KKK. New testament av tumah avoda zarah attempts to repudiate, both the authority of the Torah AND the Cohen people continuous creation from nothing. Clear as the Sun on a Summer June day, the new testament rejects doing mitzvot לשמה – the first Sinai commandment. And therefore worships other Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same equally applies to the koran fake scriptures or the book of mormon fake scriptures, or the book of scientology fake scriptures.

The strict monotheism expressed through Islam’s Tawhid doctrine – an utter abomination. It too fails to acknowledge the brit creation of the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments throughout the generations. Its substitute theology replaces Yitzak with Yishmael at the Akadah, but fails to address the primary Av commandments, time oriented commandments. Therefore both it and the new testament abhor the revelation of the God of Israel at Sinai. The tumah new testament likewise collapses, over its false narrative – its failure to address Av tohor time oriented commandments introduced by the Book of בראשית, which continuously create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

The Hebrew word “Brit” (ברית) simply not be translated as “Covenant”. Brit refers to the time oriented commandments. Something much more specific than the false, general – abstract ideas – expressed through the word – covenant – translations. A Brit a time-bound, (meaning life/death crisis situation) legal, and national commitment, (such as the akadah represents)—an oath contract, particularly tied to the Jewish Cohen people, forged through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and represented through commandment positive and negative precedents which define Av tohor time oriented commandments k’vanna. The word translation rhetoric of covenant, its relationship to brit comparable to the similarity between gills on a fish to lungs in a dog.

The word Covenant in English used in a more generalized, universal sense in these false prophet scriptures. Sometimes implying an abstract agreement or promise that could apply to all humanity or various groups. The God of Sinai, not a Universal God. The false prophet scriptures declare otherwise. Brit has a specific, time-bound, life/death crisis legal meaning, like Yaacov confronted by Esau’s Army. Not universally applicable but rather centered on the chosen Cohen Jewish people and their relationship with the God of Sinai through remembering the specific oaths which the Avot swore to create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

Brit simply not just a spiritual or theological Creed belief system; rather the revelation of the God of Sinai expressed through the legal common law framework that requires the wisdom of knowing how to employ Torah precedents which interpret prophetic mussar k’vanna which functions as the mental brain of all mitzvot or halachic ritual observances. Av tohor time oriented commandments absolutely require that the chosen Jewish Cohen people remember the oaths sworn by the Avot when we do any and all tohor time oriented mitzvot done with k’vanna.

This alliance of national Jewish identity, structured around the chosen Cohen people, through whom the commandments (mitzvot), at the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, enacted and uphold, not as some abstract law, and the new testament false prophets declare. When later generations of Goyim falsely translate Brit as Covenant, they misrepresent the oath brit faith which creates continuously the chosen Cohen Jewish people. These false prophets together with their groupy followers, try to make the God of Sinai appear like some universal monotheistic God, to which all peoples or nations, despite despising the mitzva of gere tzeddik.

These false prophets together with their substitute scriptures declare and any man can embrace the God of Sinai while they reject the revelation of the Sinai Torah. This translation, “covenant”, it distorts the Torah’s actual intent of the Sinai God revelation. Only the Jewish cohen people through time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar truly worship the God of the Sinai revelation. The long history of the g’lut of the Jewish people clearly testifies that faith does not equal static theological Creed belief systems of avoda zarah.

The consequences of John 5:24 substitute theology

John 5:24 represents a complete and total perversion of life after death. The Tzeddukim rejected the Oral Torah revelation at Horev just as does the new testament church. “Everlasting life” Muhammad likewise embraced with his 71 virgins mythology. The other three gospels, one written by a non Jew Luke, highly influenced and even dominated by non Jewish foreign cultural traditions. O’lam Ha’bah a key Perushim plank of faith learns from the brit sworn between the pieces. Wherein childless Avram and infertile Sarai, technically dead to having children, arose from the dead and gave birth to Yitzak.

 The mitzva of kiddushin learns from this key Torah precedent. A man to do the mitzva of kiddushin must acquire his wife. How? If acquire refers to the physical body of the woman, then the woman becomes no different from a prostitute or a slave. Therefore acquire clearly means something all together different. For a man to acquire his wife to perform the mitzva of kiddushin, he “acquires” title to her Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah soul. Meaning. He acquires title to all her future born children – the result of this union. Hence if a woman marries through kiddushin and has a child from some other man.

This makes the child a mamzer, unfit to join the chosen cohen people for all eternity. If a man refuses to give his ex-wife a “get”, she becomes imprisoned, and cannot marry ever again. Why? Because the ex husband profaned his oath sworn before witnesses and a minyan of 10 Israelis – like the 10 spies whose false oath caused the 40 year death of the Wilderness generation. The catholic church never grasped the mitzva of kiddushin and how the Perushin/pharisees derived the Oral Torah mitzva of kiddushin from the Torah commandment known as the brit cut between the pieces. So too John 5:24 understands a foreign avoda zarah culture of life in the world to come.  

This gospel verse does not merely deviate from Torah — it replaces the oath alliance, national, and judicial foundations of life-after-death with abstract individualistic salvation predicated on belief, not brit. The phrase “believeth on Him that sent me” signals a Greco-Roman shift: from Torah’s oath alliance-based brit with the nation of Israel to a faith-based metaphysical formula.

As such this gospel verse serves as a stark example of new testament substitute theology. Which universalizes access to “eternal life” through logos and belief, not through mitzvah observance, brit, or national identity-the chosen Cohen people created from nothing through the oaths sworn at the brit cut between the pieces.

This is identical in essence to Muhammad’s eschatological promise of paradise via shahada and martyrdom, where “everlasting life” is not a continuation of brit-based justice, but a cosmic reward system divorced from national Torah jurisprudence.

Like the Tzeddukim (Sadducees) — who denied the Oral Torah and therefore any legal mechanism for understanding life after death — Christianity too, rejects Talmudic logic and precedent; replaces brit with grace; reduces Olam HaBa to a spiritual escape hatch for the individual, not a national resurrection rooted in the oath alliance pursuit of judicial justice. Xtianity’s soul-based salvation model is foreign to the Perushim (Pharisaic) understanding of resurrection — a resurrection not merely of bodies, but of national continuity, rooted in brit bein ha-betarim (the covenant between the parts, Genesis 15). When HaShem swore the brit with Avram, he did so in the context of childlessness — Avram and Sarai were biologically “dead” in reproductive terms. And yet, through this brit, they arose from the dead by producing Yitzchak — the beginning of Israel’s generational life. Thus, Olam HaBa is not a vague heaven but a continuation of the brit through children, generations, and national history. The resurrection is literal, centers upon remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot, and genealogical.

Rosh Ha’Shanna called יום הזכרון, day of remembrance. Briing in shabbat also requires remembering the oath sworn by the Avot, zekher l’maaseh bereishit.  Memory (zekher) in Torah is not psychological; it recalls the oaths sworn by both the Avot and all later generations of the chosen Cohen people.  Goyim do not know the kabbalah of these oaths.  Neither the Apostles, Church Fathers nor the Umayyads, nor modern theologians. and therefore severed it from the brit, the oaths of the Avot, the minyan of Israel, and the Torah’s legal structure of generational justice – Goyim who reject to this day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – have no portion in the world to come than do animals, which knows neither brit nor law.  Just as an animal has no remembrance (zekher), no oath, no mitzvah, no name in the generations of Israel —so too are those who reject Sinai.  “He who separates from the congregation… has no portion in the world to come.”— (Sanhedrin 10:1).

How does the UN operate? Has the secular UN replaced the Vatican as the moral authority behind international law?

“Observer status” doesn’t mean “no influence.” In fact, Palestine (like the Vatican) holds only observer status at the UN, yet the Palestinian issue dominates discussions, resolutions, and international debates. he Palestinian Authority was granted non-member observer state status in 2012 (Resolution 67/19). This gave them access to international bodies like: The International Criminal Court (ICC), UNESCO, World Health Organization (WHO), and participation in the General Assembly debates. Though they can’t vote, they can speak, propose language, mobilize blocs, and file legal claims (e.g., war crimes allegations against Israel at the ICC).

The UN General Assembly is ruled by numbers, not dollars. Over 2/3 of UN member states are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), or Global South — most of whom side with Palestinian narratives out of: Post-colonial solidarity; Oil and trade diplomacy; Shared anti-Western sentiment; Islamic unity etc. This means Palestinian-backed resolutions routinely pass, even if the U.S., Israel, Canada, and a few others vote “no.”

The bias in certain UN bodies (like the Human Rights Council, which has a permanent agenda item only on Israel — Item 7). The Vatican amplifies the legitimacy of Palestinian claims by, recognizing the State of Palestine; visiting Palestinian sites; making statements about peace, occupation, and human dignity that subtly undermine Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. It adds moral weight, not votes — but moral weight matters in diplomacy, especially when shaping public perception and media framing.

From 2015–2023, the UN passed over 140 resolutions against Israel, more than against North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia combined. Most of these are symbolic and non-binding, but they shape global opinion and are used as legal ammunition in anti-Israel propaganda campaigns. The Vatican’s role in this system isn’t financial — it’s moral, symbolic, and theological. But that symbolism moves votes, shapes resolutions, and keeps the Palestinian issue at the center of the global stage.

Though both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Vatican hold only observer status at the United Nations, the Palestinian issue dominates global discussion, diplomacy, and symbolic resolution traffic at an overwhelming scale. This case illustrates how the UN can function less like a neutral forum and more like a diplomatic echo chamber, where bloc politics and symbolic victories overshadow both funding realities and member state hierarchies. How Papal Bull throughout the Middle Ages condemned Jews to ghetto gulags for multiple centuries and supported taxation without representation upon stateless Jewish refugees expelled from one European country to another almost every Easter.

No other nation on Earth is subject to a permanent agenda item at the UN Human Rights Council — except Israel. Item 7 mandates the Council to debate Israel’s conduct at every session. Other egregious human rights violators (e.g., Iran, China, North Korea) evade similar scrutiny. This institutional double standard exposes the political weaponization of human rights mechanisms under the guise of Vatican moral domination of international law. The Vatican contest Israeli rule over Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. Issue statements about “peace,” “occupation,” and “dignity” that subtly delegitimize Israeli sovereignty. The Vatican provides theological and moral capital, enhancing the perceived legitimacy of Palestinian victimhood narratives in Western media and diplomatic circles. That moral-theological hostility toward Jewish sovereignty has merely changed costumes — today, it wears the robes of international law, human rights rhetoric, and multilateral diplomacy. The UN’s obsession with Israel is not grounded in human rights, international law, or funding priorities — it is a symbolic theater where observer states, bloc alliances, and ancient theological resentments converge to perpetuate the denial of Jewish agency on the world stage.

Time for Israel to break diplomatic relations with both the UN and its vile ties with the Vatican agenda.

Some Videos to Have in Mind for Passover

From Feudalism to the UN: How International Law Recreates Medieval Structures to Contain Jewish Sovereignty

UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334 reflect an imperial logic that attempts to redefine Jewish sovereignty not on the basis of national independence, but on external moral frameworks crafted by global elites. Much like the Church tried to reassert its medieval authority over populations moving toward emancipation and civic equality, the post-1967 international community—through the UN—often acts as a neo-medieval power bloc, trying to re-feudalize Jewish national rights. Through the propaganda of “International Law” the UN seeks to redefine the Jewish People as Feudal subjects of the UN, mantain the protectorate status, and not acknowledge Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of “nations”. A political Apartheid policy directed against Israeli Jews.

The Church of Europe once said: “You are not a people unless we say so.” The UN says: “Your borders, capital, and legitimacy are not yours to define. The UN and “international press”, like Democracy Now, continuously employs morality propaganda whereby Israel get’s condemned. The current war in Gaza serves as a fresh example. Oct 7th 2023 Hamas invades, inflicts a pogrom, killing some 1400 Israelis and taking some 250 hostages, an attack similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemn Israel. The UN ICJ and ICC accuse the leaders of Israel of the crime of Genocide.

The MSM propaganda press always publicly condemns Israel over the post ’67 “Occupied Territories”, and “stolen Palestinian lands” despite the simple fact that neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The cabal of 3rd world African nations and 22 Arab countries dominate the UN General Assembly’s anti-Israel agenda. England and France together with all other countries other than the US under the leadership of President Trump, refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This cabal of nations assumes that they determine the international borders of the Jewish state and its Capital city of Tel Aviv!

In point of fact, neither the Western Roman empire after it expelled and destroyed Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”. Nor the Arabs who conquered the Middle East. Nor the Muslim Turks. Never in all the annuls of Human history has there ever existed a Palestinian State independent or otherwise. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemns Israelis for stealing and illegally occupying stolen Palestinian lands.

The Balfour Declaration combined with the UN General Assembly vote where 2/3rds of all UN members voted that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East, these two ground breaking events set the foundation of Zionism to this very day.

Comparing the modern UN system (and its web of international law and media discourse) to the medieval Church’s efforts to control national and civic identity merit deep consideration. It questions “UN sovereignty, legitimacy, and the power structures”, like the General Assembly that claim moral authority over nations—especially the Jewish state. Nations that do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel participate in GA condemnations of the Jewish State over and again.

The UN General Assembly often function like medieval hegemonies. Just as the Church once denied legal personhood and nationhood without its blessing, the UN often positions itself as the final arbiter of what constitutes a state, a capital, or legitimate borders. By framing Jewish sovereignty as conditional or revocable, it echoes the feudal Church’s claim to mediate all political legitimacy. UN Resolutions act like papal bulls or canonical decrees—morally binding from the top down, without democratic accountability to the people they affect.

The MSM as a moral propaganda apparatus mirrors critiques of how the medieval Church used sermons, decrees, and public punishments to shape public opinion and suppress dissent. Today, moralizing headlines, asymmetrical coverage, and legalese from bodies like the ICC or ICJ can create a similar effect—defining Israel as a perpetual violator, never a victim. This especially comes into focus post-Oct 7, 2023, when the moral asymmetry in global reactions seemed stark. Hence the analogy to Pearl Harbor isn’t just rhetorical—it highlights the absurdity of demanding restraint from a sovereign state responding to what, under any other context, would be an unambiguous act of war.

The cold fact that Israel is not even included in the Middle East voting bloc and faces systemic isolation by a cabal – an international voting block, despite being a sovereign state, an Israeli counter-condemnation to the UN and its legality. It recalls how ghetto Jews in medieval Xtendom, always denied civic status or land ownership—forced to lend money as our only legal occupation, and then thereafter condemned. Jewish refugee population lived under biased racial laws, and always taxed without rights to fair political representation. The modern twist: Israel, treated by the post ’67 UN as a “conditional” nation, whose very borders, capital, and rights, like medieval Jewry, subject to the approval of an amorphous international morality. That’s not international law; that’s international lordship.

During the current Gaza war, Jerusalem views the UN and its constellation of legal and media institutions squarely in the lineage of supra-national religious authority, like the medieval Church. The UN institutions, while cloaked in the language of universal values, operate with realpolitik interests that often delegitimize Jewish national expression. Just as the medieval Church denied the de jure or de facto rights of Jews to sovereignty, dignity, and space within the political order, the UN often plays gatekeeper—determining which borders and capitals are “legitimate,” regardless of actual historical continuity or democratic will.

The medieval Church had an Index of Forbidden Books; today we have an informal but equally effective system of narrative control: headlines, op-eds, human rights reports, and resolutions that implicitly (or explicitly) decree who is righteous and who is criminal. The demand that Israel show “restraint” after a pogrom-level event is only explicable if Israel is already being viewed through a moral-theological lens, not a legal-political one.

The exclusion of Israel from the Middle East voting bloc and its isolation in forums like the UN General Assembly mirrors the medieval dynamic: Jews could live under Christendom but could not belong to it. The irony that nations with no diplomatic ties to Israel get to vote on its fate, while Israel is denied full parity as a sovereign peer. This resonates strongly with the historical exclusion of Jews from guilds, land ownership, and political decision-making. Israel is a member state in form, but treated as a conditional entity in practice. This isn’t law, it’s lordship.

Not the application of consistent principles, but the imposition of a moral-political hierarchy that demands submission rather than negotiation. Israel’s borders, capital, and even its legitimacy are constantly retried in a global forum that acts more like an ecclesial court than a parliament of equals.

Europe’s religious wars, starting in 1517 with Martin Luther correlate with the opening of the first Ghetto. Established in Venice in 1516-17, Jews -forcibly confined to a walled quarter, locked in at night, and forbidden to own property or interact freely with Xtians. They reflect a shared European crisis of identity, sovereignty, and control. The Protestant Reformation destabilized not just the Church’s authority, but the entire social and political order of Europe. Just as Israeli national Independence in 1948 and repeated again in 1967, utterly uprooted the European influence in the competition of the balance of power in the Middle East.

The ghetto wasn’t just a racist policy. This legal-theological mechanism employed to, segregate Jewish existence into a confined, manageable zones; prevent Jewish legal and commercial autonomy from influencing Christian society; reinforce the idea that Jews could live under Xtendom—but never within it. Hence, just as Jews the church permitted existence, without equality under medieval Xtendom; modern Israel likewise treated by the UN the ICJ and ICC. Modern Israel, treated as a tolerated anomaly in the international system—not as a full sovereign peer.

Just as the Church fought to establish and maintain its monopoly of over the Bible and its interpretations so too the UN strive to impose who gets to define truth, order, and law. Consequently, ghettos, expulsions, sermons, and blood libels all escalate during and after the Reformation.

Jean Bodin (1530–1596), a foundational theorist of political sovereignty, wrote in the wake of Europe’s religious wars. He defined sovereignty as: “The absolute and perpetual power of a Republic.” He defined sovereignty as: indivisible, not shared between competing powers; perpetual, not limited by time or conditional authority; and supreme within the territory, answerable to no higher authority.

This marked a turning point away from medieval political theology, where kings ruled under the higher moral and juridical authority of the Pope or Church. Bodin asserted that political legitimacy does not derive from a moral or theological external authority, but from the will and capacity of the sovereign to govern within a defined territorial and legal framework.

Therefore, based upon Bodin’s model: a sovereign nation like Israel should not have its legitimacy—its borders, capital, or right to self-defense—subject to the veto or approval of external normative frameworks such as: UN General Assembly votes, ICC/ICJ rulings, “International consensus” as defined by unelected bureaucracies or NGOs, or media-moral narratives that supersede national democratic will.

When these external frameworks claim authority over a sovereign Jewish state, they violate Bodin’s principle by subordinating national sovereignty to a new kind of papal court—an amorphous supranational priesthood of moral experts. In this sense, the UN is not a parliament of nations but a global confessional court, echoing the Church’s historical role in mediating political legitimacy based on universal (but biased) values.

The medieval Church’s “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (Index of Forbidden Books) was a tool of moral control. It did not imprison authors directly, but by naming certain texts as heretical or dangerous, it shaped the boundaries of permissible thought, debate, and legitimacy.

In today’s context, soft power operates similarly—through institutions that wield persuasive moral authority without military or electoral legitimacy. These include: Mainstream media outlets (e.g., BBC, CNN, NYT, Democracy Now); International NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch); Supranational legal bodies (e.g., ICC, ICJ); UN Special Rapporteurs and Committees.

These entities don’t have tanks or taxes, but they define who is righteous and who is criminal, who is sovereign and who is a pariah, through – Language framing (“occupier,” “apartheid,” “genocide”); Asymmetrical coverage (e.g., ignoring pogroms against Jews while obsessively condemning Israel’s reactions); Selective lawfare (e.g., charging Israeli leaders at the ICC while ignoring Hamas war crimes); Symbolic acts (e.g., UNHRC resolutions, boycotts, special investigations).

Thus, a modern Index of Forbidden Nations emerges: Israel is functionally treated as a conditional state, always under review, probation, or global supervision. Unlike China, Iran, Turkey, or Russia—who often escape such scrutiny—Israel is singled out as morally deviant, despite being a democracy under constant siege.

In this regime, narrative is law, and perception becomes reality. Like the medieval Church’s control over texts and thought, today’s international “soft power” network constructs a moral cartography that tells the world: which states are legitimate, and which are suspect.

Bodin’s concept of indivisible sovereignty clashes with the modern neo-feudalism of “global norms.” Israel, as a nation, is caught in the crosshairs of a transnational moral-legal establishment that assumes the role of medieval clergy: defining not only what is good or evil, but what is politically permissible.

The UN, ICC, and international media—through “soft empire” mechanisms—function not as forums of mutual recognition, but as gatekeepers of modern sainthood and excommunication. And Israel, like the Jews of medieval Europe, is too often on the outside of that moral sanctum.

From Feudalism to the UN: How International Law Recreates Medieval Structures to Contain Jewish Sovereignty

UN Resolutions like 242, 338, 446, and 2334 reflect an imperial logic that attempts to redefine Jewish sovereignty not on the basis of national independence, but on external moral frameworks crafted by global elites. Much like the Church tried to reassert its medieval authority over populations moving toward emancipation and civic equality, the post-1967 international community—through the UN—often acts as a neo-medieval power bloc, trying to re-feudalize Jewish national rights. Through the propaganda of “International Law” the UN seeks to redefine the Jewish People as Feudal subjects of the UN, mantain the protectorate status, and not acknowledge Israel as part of the Middle East voting block of “nations”. A political Apartheid policy directed against Israeli Jews.

The Church of Europe once said: “You are not a people unless we say so.” The UN says: “Your borders, capital, and legitimacy are not yours to define. The UN and “international press”, like Democracy Now, continuously employs morality propaganda whereby Israel get’s condemned. The current war in Gaza serves as a fresh example. Oct 7th 2023 Hamas invades, inflicts a pogrom, killing some 1400 Israelis and taking some 250 hostages, an attack similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemn Israel. The UN ICJ and ICC accuse the leaders of Israel of the crime of Genocide.

The MSM propaganda press always publicly condemns Israel over the post ’67 “Occupied Territories”, and “stolen Palestinian lands” despite the simple fact that neither Jordan nor Egypt between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian State. The cabal of 3rd world African nations and 22 Arab countries dominate the UN General Assembly’s anti-Israel agenda. England and France together with all other countries other than the US under the leadership of President Trump, refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the Israeli capital. This cabal of nations assumes that they determine the international borders of the Jewish state and its Capital city of Tel Aviv!

In point of fact, neither the Western Roman empire after it expelled and destroyed Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”. Nor the Arabs who conquered the Middle East. Nor the Muslim Turks. Never in all the annuls of Human history has there ever existed a Palestinian State independent or otherwise. Yet the MSM propaganda press condemns Israelis for stealing and illegally occupying stolen Palestinian lands.

The Balfour Declaration combined with the UN General Assembly vote where 2/3rds of all UN members voted that Jews have equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East, these two ground breaking events set the foundation of Zionism to this very day.

Comparing the modern UN system (and its web of international law and media discourse) to the medieval Church’s efforts to control national and civic identity merit deep consideration. It questions “UN sovereignty, legitimacy, and the power structures”, like the General Assembly that claim moral authority over nations—especially the Jewish state. Nations that do not even hold diplomatic relations with Israel participate in GA condemnations of the Jewish State over and again.

The UN General Assembly often function like medieval hegemonies. Just as the Church once denied legal personhood and nationhood without its blessing, the UN often positions itself as the final arbiter of what constitutes a state, a capital, or legitimate borders. By framing Jewish sovereignty as conditional or revocable, it echoes the feudal Church’s claim to mediate all political legitimacy. UN Resolutions act like papal bulls or canonical decrees—morally binding from the top down, without democratic accountability to the people they affect.

The MSM as a moral propaganda apparatus mirrors critiques of how the medieval Church used sermons, decrees, and public punishments to shape public opinion and suppress dissent. Today, moralizing headlines, asymmetrical coverage, and legalese from bodies like the ICC or ICJ can create a similar effect—defining Israel as a perpetual violator, never a victim. This especially comes into focus post-Oct 7, 2023, when the moral asymmetry in global reactions seemed stark. Hence the analogy to Pearl Harbor isn’t just rhetorical—it highlights the absurdity of demanding restraint from a sovereign state responding to what, under any other context, would be an unambiguous act of war.

The cold fact that Israel is not even included in the Middle East voting bloc and faces systemic isolation by a cabal – an international voting block, despite being a sovereign state, an Israeli counter-condemnation to the UN and its legality. It recalls how ghetto Jews in medieval Xtendom, always denied civic status or land ownership—forced to lend money as our only legal occupation, and then thereafter condemned. Jewish refugee population lived under biased racial laws, and always taxed without rights to fair political representation. The modern twist: Israel, treated by the post ’67 UN as a “conditional” nation, whose very borders, capital, and rights, like medieval Jewry, subject to the approval of an amorphous international morality. That’s not international law; that’s international lordship.

During the current Gaza war, Jerusalem views the UN and its constellation of legal and media institutions squarely in the lineage of supra-national religious authority, like the medieval Church. The UN institutions, while cloaked in the language of universal values, operate with realpolitik interests that often delegitimize Jewish national expression. Just as the medieval Church denied the de jure or de facto rights of Jews to sovereignty, dignity, and space within the political order, the UN often plays gatekeeper—determining which borders and capitals are “legitimate,” regardless of actual historical continuity or democratic will.

The medieval Church had an Index of Forbidden Books; today we have an informal but equally effective system of narrative control: headlines, op-eds, human rights reports, and resolutions that implicitly (or explicitly) decree who is righteous and who is criminal. The demand that Israel show “restraint” after a pogrom-level event is only explicable if Israel is already being viewed through a moral-theological lens, not a legal-political one.

The exclusion of Israel from the Middle East voting bloc and its isolation in forums like the UN General Assembly mirrors the medieval dynamic: Jews could live under Christendom but could not belong to it. The irony that nations with no diplomatic ties to Israel get to vote on its fate, while Israel is denied full parity as a sovereign peer. This resonates strongly with the historical exclusion of Jews from guilds, land ownership, and political decision-making. Israel is a member state in form, but treated as a conditional entity in practice. This isn’t law, it’s lordship.

Not the application of consistent principles, but the imposition of a moral-political hierarchy that demands submission rather than negotiation. Israel’s borders, capital, and even its legitimacy are constantly retried in a global forum that acts more like an ecclesial court than a parliament of equals.

Europe’s religious wars, starting in 1517 with Martin Luther correlate with the opening of the first Ghetto. Established in Venice in 1516-17, Jews -forcibly confined to a walled quarter, locked in at night, and forbidden to own property or interact freely with Xtians. They reflect a shared European crisis of identity, sovereignty, and control. The Protestant Reformation destabilized not just the Church’s authority, but the entire social and political order of Europe. Just as Israeli national Independence in 1948 and repeated again in 1967, utterly uprooted the European influence in the competition of the balance of power in the Middle East.

The ghetto wasn’t just a racist policy. This legal-theological mechanism employed to, segregate Jewish existence into a confined, manageable zones; prevent Jewish legal and commercial autonomy from influencing Christian society; reinforce the idea that Jews could live under Xtendom—but never within it. Hence, just as Jews the church permitted existence, without equality under medieval Xtendom; modern Israel likewise treated by the UN the ICJ and ICC. Modern Israel, treated as a tolerated anomaly in the international system—not as a full sovereign peer.

Just as the Church fought to establish and maintain its monopoly of over the Bible and its interpretations so too the UN strive to impose who gets to define truth, order, and law. Consequently, ghettos, expulsions, sermons, and blood libels all escalate during and after the Reformation.

Jean Bodin (1530–1596), a foundational theorist of political sovereignty, wrote in the wake of Europe’s religious wars. He defined sovereignty as: “The absolute and perpetual power of a Republic.” He defined sovereignty as: indivisible, not shared between competing powers; perpetual, not limited by time or conditional authority; and supreme within the territory, answerable to no higher authority.

This marked a turning point away from medieval political theology, where kings ruled under the higher moral and juridical authority of the Pope or Church. Bodin asserted that political legitimacy does not derive from a moral or theological external authority, but from the will and capacity of the sovereign to govern within a defined territorial and legal framework.

Therefore, based upon Bodin’s model: a sovereign nation like Israel should not have its legitimacy—its borders, capital, or right to self-defense—subject to the veto or approval of external normative frameworks such as: UN General Assembly votes, ICC/ICJ rulings, “International consensus” as defined by unelected bureaucracies or NGOs, or media-moral narratives that supersede national democratic will.

When these external frameworks claim authority over a sovereign Jewish state, they violate Bodin’s principle by subordinating national sovereignty to a new kind of papal court—an amorphous supranational priesthood of moral experts. In this sense, the UN is not a parliament of nations but a global confessional court, echoing the Church’s historical role in mediating political legitimacy based on universal (but biased) values.

The medieval Church’s “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (Index of Forbidden Books) was a tool of moral control. It did not imprison authors directly, but by naming certain texts as heretical or dangerous, it shaped the boundaries of permissible thought, debate, and legitimacy.

In today’s context, soft power operates similarly—through institutions that wield persuasive moral authority without military or electoral legitimacy. These include: Mainstream media outlets (e.g., BBC, CNN, NYT, Democracy Now); International NGOs (e.g., Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch); Supranational legal bodies (e.g., ICC, ICJ); UN Special Rapporteurs and Committees.

These entities don’t have tanks or taxes, but they define who is righteous and who is criminal, who is sovereign and who is a pariah, through – Language framing (“occupier,” “apartheid,” “genocide”); Asymmetrical coverage (e.g., ignoring pogroms against Jews while obsessively condemning Israel’s reactions); Selective lawfare (e.g., charging Israeli leaders at the ICC while ignoring Hamas war crimes); Symbolic acts (e.g., UNHRC resolutions, boycotts, special investigations).

Thus, a modern Index of Forbidden Nations emerges: Israel is functionally treated as a conditional state, always under review, probation, or global supervision. Unlike China, Iran, Turkey, or Russia—who often escape such scrutiny—Israel is singled out as morally deviant, despite being a democracy under constant siege.

In this regime, narrative is law, and perception becomes reality. Like the medieval Church’s control over texts and thought, today’s international “soft power” network constructs a moral cartography that tells the world: which states are legitimate, and which are suspect.

Bodin’s concept of indivisible sovereignty clashes with the modern neo-feudalism of “global norms.” Israel, as a nation, is caught in the crosshairs of a transnational moral-legal establishment that assumes the role of medieval clergy: defining not only what is good or evil, but what is politically permissible.

The UN, ICC, and international media—through “soft empire” mechanisms—function not as forums of mutual recognition, but as gatekeepers of modern sainthood and excommunication. And Israel, like the Jews of medieval Europe, is too often on the outside of that moral sanctum.

Post ’48 and ’67 Independence Wars, Jews reject the church monopoly over who and how ancient text understood and interpreted

Why I love My Job; The Magnificent 17th century Synagogue of Tiktin; The Jews of the Russian Empire; The Fruit of Haste is Regret

From Covenant to Catastrophe: Supersession, Betrayal, and the Collapse of Judicial Integrity in the Gospels. A person who testifies about himself … NEVER believed. “I believe”, comes directly under this judicial ruling.

What Xtianity calls “faith” in Jesus as the “Son of God” is not a continuation of emunah—it’s a rupture. A radical super-session of the Torahic pursuit of justice among Israel, a betrayal of the brit sworn at Horev and carried through the generations by the Cohen people, elected not for mystical belief, but for national responsibility, for judicial integrity.

Where Torah defines righteousness as doing justice (צדקה ומשפט), the New Testament replaces that with faith in blood. Contrast the substitution theology of the New Testament where “Faith” becomes belief in a metaphysical person, a shift from legal loyalty to psychological assent. Sin and the Devil replace the righteous pursuit of judicial compensation for damages inflicted, to restore shalom among our people. The generations of the chosen Cohen people stands upon the foundation of remembering the exact oaths which the Avot swore to HaShem; this Av Torah commandment – time oriented mitzva, continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing every time we remember the exact oath which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem – the brit.

John 13:21 — “Jesus was troubled in his spirit… one of you will betray me” — echoes the aesthetics of Greek tragedy more than any literary or prophetic moment in the Tanakh. Jesus was troubled in his spirit. This introspective psychological framing is alien to the Tanakh, where leaders like Moshe, David, or Yirmeyahu express anguish in oath alliances – national, or legal terms – and not in solitary inner turmoil framed by fate.

Exodus 32 (Golden Calf) serves as a בנין אב\precedent. Moshe’s anguish, framed not as personal betrayal, but rather as a breach of the oath sworn by Israel at Sinai! His intercession for HaShem to annul His Vow, & to remember the Divine oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the Chosen Cohen people. Stands in utter contrast to JeZeus sef-referential Greek tragic theatre. While Matthew’s narrative may focus on the broader implications of betrayal within the community and the redefinition of authority, John’s account emphasizes the personal anguish of Jesus, reflecting a different theological and emotional landscape. This distinction, crucial for understanding how each Gospel interprets the themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the nature of divine relationships.

The Gospel’s framing of betrayal follows the tragic motif of unavoidable fate, where even close companions become instruments of divine or tragic destiny — reminiscent of Euripides or Sophocles. In contrast, the Tanakh never uses personal betrayal by a close disciple as a literary device to generate tragedy. When betrayal occurs (e.g., Absalom rebelling against David in 2 Samuel), it is woven into a national-political framework, never mythologized into divine necessity.

In the Tanakh, accusations, betrayals, or judgments require witnesses, & due process. Like Nathan confronting David in 2 Sam 12. John 13:21 lacks this. There’s no legal hearing, no cross-examination. The “betrayal”, emotionally intuited and fatalistically foretold. This lack of juridical structure utterly antithetical to all Torah oath britot alliances.

The figure of “Matthew”, traditionally identified as a tax collector (Greek: τελώνης) named Levi in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, and called Matthew in Matthew 9:9. The gospel of Matthew written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It heavily relies on the gospel of Mark, written in Rome about 70 CE, after the destruction of Herod’s Temple, as a source (about 90% of Mark is embedded in Matthew). It has virtually no familiarity with the Hebrew Masoretic T’NaCH.

Unlike the Gospel of Mark (strongly associated with Rome, possibly written there for some persecuted Xtian community under Nero), Matthew – generally considered to have been written in Syrian Antioch, or possibly another urban center in the Eastern Roman Empire—not Rome. This gospel expresses a strong anti-Pharisaic polemic (e.g., Matthew 23), suggesting an audience competing with Rabbinic authority post-70 CE. By Paul’s language the grafted Goyim now permit the cursed Jew to convert to Xtianity and receive forgiveness for their deicide of Christ.

The new testament replaces the old testament Torah authority, with the authority of Jesus as a new Moses figure (Matthew 5–7, the “Sermon on the Mount”). It repurposes Pharisaic halakhah while simultaneously demonizing the Pharisees (a contradiction that reveals its ideological agenda). This gospel adopts Greco-Roman rhetorical tropes to reshape Jewish categories into Xtian theological slogans.

Matthew as a tax collector under Roman occupation, not some neutral biographical footnote. In first-century Judea, tax collectors, abhorred & widely despised as collaborators with the Roman imperial system, much like kapos during the Shoah who either forced (or chose) to act as enforcers within the Nazi death machinery. The 66-70 revolt resulted in possibly half of the Judean population’s brutal liquidation by the Romans.

The Roman Empire farmed out tax collection to locals—often Jews—who worked for Herodian or Roman authorities. Perceived and viewed as ritually unclean, in contact with Goyim and their money linked to avoda zara. Utterly corrupt they extracted more than required, lining their own pockets through Judean anguish and poverty. Kapo Jews during the Shoah similarly placed in positions of power over death camp Jews by the Nazis. Many attempted to justify their betrayal so to survive; most like the Polish guards abused their power. The key similarity between this and that, both participated and enforced imperial oppression and murder, in exchange for personal survival or profit.

Both undermined national solidarity under foreign coercion. This gospel, authored by a character who represents collaboration with the most hated enemies of the Torah nation. It preaches individual salvation through belief in Jesus. Emphasizes blood atonement and submission to imperial persecution as virtue (Matthew 5:10–12). It delegitimizes Jewish halakhah and sets up Jesus as a replacement lawgiver.

The image of Matthew, the tax collector, the predecessor to Nicholas Donin – rebranded as an apostle, mirrors the Av tuma avoda zara super-sessionist strategy of the new testament itself. A Kapo theology—a betrayal from within rebranded as spiritual truth. In the Gospel of Matthew, the figure of Matthew as a tax collector represents a complex relationship with authority and betrayal. His background as a collaborator with the Roman Empire positions him within a framework of Nicholas Donin like traitor who hated and despised the Jewish people, yet the new testament revisionist history rebranded him as a saintly apostle. This transformation raises questions about loyalty, identity, and the nature of redemption within the context of a community that has experienced oppression.

It calls Day Night and Night Day. In 1242, following the disputation, thousands of volumes of the Talmud—estimates range up to 24 wagonloads—were publicly burned in Paris, likely in the Place de Grève. This massive cultural and spiritual loss for the Jewish people of France and Europe at large, as these texts represented centuries of Torah commentary, halakhah, and Jewish intellectual life compares to the WWII Nazi theft of French art stolen from the Louvre.

Nicholas Donin became infamous in Jewish history as a symbol of betrayal, much like Paul is seen in some Jewish critiques of early Xtianity. The burning of the Talmud marked a turning point in Xtian censorship and persecution of Jewish learning in medieval Europe. Thereafter a paradigmatic shift in how Xtian urope began to institutionalize theological control over Jewish intellectual tradition. It was not just about books; it was about erasing a rival covenantal voice, extinguishing a living legal system, and asserting ideological supremacy. Before 1242, anti-Jewish violence was often localized and episodic, driven by Crusaders or mob violence. After 1242, Christian authorities—especially the Catholic Church—began moving toward systematic censorship and surveillance of Jewish texts, particularly the Talmud. Papal Inquisitors began to treat the Talmud as a heretical document, subjecting it to censorship, confiscation, and burning across Europe.

The Church no longer saw Judaism merely as a tolerated witness religion (Augustinian theology) but as a threatening ideological rival. Dominican and Franciscan inquisitors, especially after the 13th century, began using forced public disputations, coercion, and even torture to compel Jewish conversions and force public rejections of Rabbinic teachings.

In France and parts of Western Europe, Rabbinic study went underground or into self-censorship. Marginal glosses were hidden or coded. Certain passages were removed or altered to avoid Christian suspicion. Elsewhere, especially in Provence, Spain, and Italy, the Jewish community found ways to adapt: hiding manuscripts, disguising commentary, or smuggling texts. This period also saw the rise of Ashkenazi responsa literature and the decentralization of yeshiva culture, as communities were forced to rebuild their intellectual life from ashes.

Nazi-like book burnings became the “passion” of the Cross. Aragon (1263) after the Disputation of Barcelona. Rome (1553) under Pope Julius III, who ordered the Talmud burned again throughout the Papal States. And many local events throughout Germany, Italy, and even Eastern Europe in the centuries that followed.

Raymond Martini, Pablo Christiani, the Matthew of their days, and other Jewish converts, used Jewish texts against the Jews, quoting midrash or aggadah out of context to support Christian messianic claims. This weaponization of scholarship—a turning of Jewish tradition against itself in theological debates, often backed by coercive power.

Works like the Mishneh Torah (Rambam), Arba’ah Turim (Rosh’s son, Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher), and later the Shulchan Arukh were part of the effort to codify and preserve halakhic clarity amid growing external threats. Some turned toward Kabbalah (e.g., Sefer haZohar) as an inner resistance—preserving divine truth in esoteric forms inaccessible to Christian censors. Jewish liturgy began to include kinnot (lamentations) over the destruction not just of Temples, but of books and batei midrash (houses of study).

The 1242 burning of the Talmud was not an isolated horror—it was the beginning of a systematic theological campaign to erase Jewish legal memory, to sever the oral Torah from the people entrusted with it, and to replace covenantal justice with ecclesiastical dominance. But the Jewish response was resilient. Torah didn’t die in Paris. It moved. It adapted. And it remembered.

ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ἐλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου\/For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death\/. Jesus directly compares to the Golden Calf. The new testament replacement theology foists Jesus in the stead of Moshe, just as did the ערב רב, mixed multitudes of assimilated and intermarried Jews did with the Goden Calf.

Classic projectionism and switch-bait nonsense rhetoric propaganda. Define: law of the Spirit of life as it applies to any legal judicial system in any country throughout Human History? If we interrogate it through the lens of real-world legal systems—Babylonian, Mosaic, Roman, Napoleonic, Anglo-American common law, etc.—this “law of the Spirit” is untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Hence this religious rhetoric propaganda exists only as a theological slogan that floats above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero common ground with Hammurabi’s Code, Athenian democracy, Talmudic jurisprudence of Common Law/Oral Torah, US Constitution, Islamic Sharia, Modern international law.

What Paul calls “law” here is not law in any legal sense. It’s a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of structure. The so-called “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2) is entirely untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Paul’s language constitutes a theological slogan that floats untethered above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero jurisprudential common ground with codified systems listed above.

What Paul calls “law” is not law in any legal sense. It is a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of statutory structure, procedural enforcement, or binding communal authority. Thus, the New Testament doesn’t fulfill Torah. It replaces emunah with emotionalism. It displaces the legal with the mystical. It turns a national covenant into private belief. And it betrays the brit at Horev in favor of Hellenistic myth. That is its foundation—and its fraud. The Gospels, guilty of the ultimate betrayal: not just of a man, but of a people, of a legal tradition, and of an oath that still binds the chosen Cohen people.

From Covenant to Catastrophe: Supersession, Betrayal, and the Collapse of Judicial Integrity in the Gospels. A person who testifies about himself … NEVER believed. “I believe”, comes directly under this judicial ruling. In John 5:31, “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.”

If Jesus Christ Were a Christian Fiction Author Today

What Xtianity calls “faith” in Jesus as the “Son of God” is not a continuation of emunah—it’s a rupture. A radical supersession of the Torahic pursuit of justice among Israel, a betrayal of the brit sworn at Horev and carried through the generations by the Cohen people, elected not for mystical belief, but for national responsibility, for judicial integrity. In John 5:31, it says, “If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.” “If I bear witness about myself, my testimony is not true” (John 8:18, ESV). “A person cannot establish testimony about himself” (Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah 3:6 and elsewhere). When someone says “I believe,” they are, in effect, testifying about their own mental state or spiritual conviction. According to the principle mentioned above, such a statement, viewed with complete skepticism, as it’s based on self-reporting, and subject to bias.

Where Torah defines righteousness as doing justice (צדקה ומשפט), the New Testament replaces that with faith in blood. Contrast the substitution theology of the New Testament where “Faith” becomes belief in a metaphysical person, a shift from legal loyalty to psychological assent. Sin and the Devil replace the righteous pursuit of judicial compensation for damages inflicted to restore shalom among our people. The generations of the chosen Cohen people stands upon the foundation of remembering the exact oaths which the Avot swore to HaShem; this Av Torah commandment – time oriented mitzva, continually creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing every time we remember the exact oath which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem – the brit.

John 13:21 — “Jesus was troubled in his spirit… one of you will betray me” — echoes the aesthetics of Greek tragedy more than any literary or prophetic moment in the Tanakh. Jesus was troubled in his spirit. This introspective psychological framing is alien to the Tanakh, where leaders like Moses, David, or Jeremiah express anguish in oath alliances, national, or legal terms, not in solitary inner turmoil framed by fate.

Exodus 32 (Golden Calf) serves as a בנין אב\precedent. Moshe’s anguish, framed not as personal betrayal, but rather as a breach of the oath sworn by Israel at Sinai! His intercession for HaShem to annul His Vow, remembers the Divine oaths sworn to the Avot concerning the Chosen Cohen people, not JeZeus sef-referential Greek tragic theatre. While Matthew’s narrative may focus on the broader implications of betrayal within the community and the redefinition of authority, John’s account emphasizes the personal anguish of Jesus, reflecting a different theological and emotional landscape. This distinction is crucial for understanding how each Gospel interprets the themes of loyalty, betrayal, and the nature of divine relationships.

The Gospel’s framing of betrayal follows the tragic motif of unavoidable fate, where even close companions become instruments of divine or tragic destiny — reminiscent of Euripides or Sophocles. In contrast, the Tanakh never uses personal betrayal by a close disciple as a literary device to generate tragedy. When betrayal occurs (e.g., Absalom rebelling against David in 2 Samuel), it is woven into a national-political framework, never mythologized into divine necessity.

In the Tanakh, accusations, betrayals, or judgments require witnesses, due process. Like Nathan confronting David in 2 Sam 12. John 13:21 lacks this. There’s no legal hearing, no cross-examination. The “betrayal” is emotionally intuited and fatalistically foretold. This lack of juridical structure is antithetical to all Torah oath britot alliances.

The figure of “Matthew” is traditionally identified as a tax collector (Greek: τελώνης) named Levi in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27, and called Matthew in Matthew 9:9. Gospel of Matthew written in Greek, not Hebrew or Aramaic. It heavily relies on the Gospel of Mark, written in Rome about 70 CE, after the destruction of Herod Temple, as a source (about 90% of Mark is embedded in Matthew). It has virtually no familiarity with the Hebrew Masoretic T’NaCH.

Unlike the Gospel of Mark (which is strongly associated with Rome, possibly written there for a persecuted Christian community under Nero), Matthew is generally considered to have been written in Syrian Antioch, or possibly another urban center in the Eastern Roman Empire—not Rome. There’s a strong anti-Pharisaic polemic (e.g., Matthew 23), suggesting an audience competing with Rabbinic authority post-70 CE.

It replaces Torah authority with the authority of Jesus as a new Moses figure (Matthew 5–7, the “Sermon on the Mount”). It repurposes Pharisaic halakhah while simultaneously demonizing the Pharisees (a contradiction that reveals its ideological agenda). This gospel adopts Greco-Roman rhetorical tropes to reshape Jewish categories into Christian theological slogans.

Referring to Matthew as a tax collector under Roman occupation is not some neutral biographical footnote. In first-century Judea, tax collectors were widely despised as collaborators with the Roman imperial system, much like kapos during the Shoah who were forced (or chose) to act as enforcers within the Nazi death machinery.

The Roman Empire farmed out tax collection to locals—often Jews—who worked for Herodian or Roman authorities. They were ritually unclean, in contact with Gentiles and money linked to idolatry. They often extracted more than required, lining their own pockets. Kapos during the Shoah were Jews placed in positions of power over other Jews inside Nazi camps. Many did so to survive; some abused their power. The key similarity is participation in oppressive imperial systems that inflicted suffering on the Jewish people, in exchange for personal survival or gain.

Both undermined national solidarity under foreign coercion. This gospel, authored by a character who represents collaboration with the enemy of the Torah nation. It preaches individual salvation through belief in Jesus. Emphasizes blood atonement and submission to imperial persecution as virtue (Matthew 5:10–12). It delegitimizes Jewish halakhah and sets up Jesus as a replacement lawgiver.

The image of Matthew the tax collector rebranded as an apostle mirrors the super-sessionist strategy itself. A Kapo theology—a betrayal from within rebranded as spiritual truth. In the Gospel of Matthew, the figure of Matthew as a tax collector represents a complex relationship with authority and betrayal. His background as a collaborator with the Roman Empire positions him within a framework of betrayal against the Jewish people, yet he is rebranded as an apostle, which can be seen as a form of supersessionism. This transformation raises questions about loyalty, identity, and the nature of redemption within the context of a community that has experienced oppression.

Enough of this religious rhetoric jargon of Nazi-Democrat propaganda

ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ἐλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου\For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. Jesus directly compares to the Golden Calf. The new testament replacement theology foist Jesus in the stead of Moshe, just as did the ערב רב, mixed multitudes of assimilated and intermarried Jews did with the Goden Calf.

Classic projectionism and switch-bait nonsense rhetoric propaganda. Define: law of the Spirit of life as it applies to any legal judicial system in any country throughout Human History? If we interrogate it through the lens of real-world legal systems—Babylonian, Mosaic, Roman, Napoleonic, Anglo-American common law, etc.—this “law of the Spirit” is untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Hence this religious rhetoric propaganda exists only as a theological slogan that floats above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero common ground with Hammurabi’s Code, Athenian democracy, Talmudic jurisprudence of Common Law/Oral Torah, US Constitution, Islamic Sharia, Modern international law.

What Paul calls “law” here is not law in any legal sense. It’s a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of structure. The so-called “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2) is entirely untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Paul’s language constitutes a theological slogan that floats untethered above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero jurisprudential common ground with codified systems listed above.

What Paul calls “law” is not law in any legal sense. It is a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of statutory structure, procedural enforcement, or binding communal authority. Thus, the New Testament doesn’t fulfill Torah. It replaces emunah with emotionalism. It displaces the legal with the mystical. It turns a national covenant into private belief. And it betrays the brit at Horev in favor of Hellenistic myth. That is its foundation—and its fraud. The Gospels, guilty of the ultimate betrayal: not just of a man, but of a people, of a legal tradition, and of an oath that still binds the chosen Cohen people.

Enough of this religious rhetoric jargon of Nazi-like propaganda

Gerhard Sauter über das Gesetz: “Gesetz in seiner Bedeutung als Regel (z. B. »Gesetz des Gei­stes«, Röm 8,2) verträgt sich mit christ­licher Freiheit, weil und sofern diese für Gottes Verhei­ßung und Weisung aufgeschlossen ist. Gesetz kann also nie abgesehen vom Evangelium aufgefaßt wer­den.”

ὁ γὰρ νόμος τοῦ πνεύματος τῆς ζωῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ἐλευθέρωσέν σε ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας καὶ τοῦ θανάτου\For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.

Classic projectionism and switch-bait nonsense rhetoric propaganda. Define: law of the Spirit of life as it applies to any legal judicial system in any country throughout Human History? If we interrogate it through the lens of real-world legal systems—Babylonian, Mosaic, Roman, Napoleonic, Anglo-American common law, etc.—this “law of the Spirit” is untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Hence this religious rhetoric propaganda exists only as a theological slogan that floats above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero common ground with Hammurabi’s Code, Athenian democracy, Talmudic jurisprudence of Common Law/Oral Torah, US Constitution, Islamic Sharia, Modern international law.

What Paul calls “law” here is not law in any legal sense. It’s a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of structure. The so-called “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:2) is entirely untranslatable into any recognizable legal category. Paul’s language constitutes a theological slogan that floats untethered above any framework of evidentiary justice, public testimony, or communal covenantal accountability. It shares zero jurisprudential common ground with codified systems listed above.

What Paul calls “law” is not law in any legal sense. It is a metaphorical principle rebranded with juridical language to mask its lack of statutory structure, procedural enforcement, or binding communal authority.

The Goyim in general and the church in particular no longer dictate how to interpret and understand ancient texts.

Some Videos to Have in Mind for Passover

From Yeroboam to Paul: Legal Innovations and Covenant Abandonment.

Most scholars date Luke–Acts to 80–90 CE, though some push it even later (up to 110 CE) during the reign of Domitian. Possibly written in Antioch (Syria) or Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Some scholars even propose Rome itself. This would explain the connection between Luke and Mark.

The key to understanding how Luke reworks Mark and positions his narrative within the post-Temple, Roman imperial world. Luke doesn’t just “echo” Mark—he copies large portions of it (often verbatim in Greek), but modifies the tone, theological emphasis, and political implications. Luke penned a more polished, philosophical, and Roman-friendly gospel.

Mark was written in Rome ~70 CE, in the shadow of Jewish national trauma – the destruction of Herod’s Temple. Luke came later (~80–110 CE), from a more Hellenized community, trying to reframe the Jesus movement for a broader, Greco-Roman audience. If Luke wrote from Rome, he had strong interests to appeal to imperial authorities, defending the Jesus movement as peaceful and legal. This would explain why Luke’s Paul is so law-abiding and repeatedly cleared by Roman officials (Acts 23–26).

The Luke Book of Acts Acts transforms Paul into a Socratic figure—well-educated, cosmopolitan, always respectful of authority. Instead of speaking of a national or earthly restoration, Luke pushes toward a universal, inward, and eschatological “Kingdom of God.” The connection between Luke and Mark isn’t just literary—it’s historical and strategic. Luke takes Mark’s Jewish-rooted messianic message and translates it into the language, worldview, and legal norms of the Greco-Roman world.

The theological alliance between Luke and Paul is deep, deliberate, and ideological—and it’s one of the most important pillars of what later becomes Gentile Christianity. Luke–Acts is a two-part theological biography: Part 1: The Gospel of Luke (Jesus’ life); Part 2: Acts of the Apostles (mostly Paul’s mission). Luke’s gospel sets the theological foundation—Jesus as universal savior, son of the Father – the Universal Roman empire like God, and Jerusalem’s ruin, His rejection of Israel—then Acts hands the baton to Paul, who brings this message to the “universal” Gentile world.

Luke and Paul both emphasize Gentiles as co-heirs of salvation (e.g., Acts 10:34–35, Gal 3:28). Both downplay or spiritualize Torah observance, Shabbat, and circumcision. Both replace the national remembrance Torah obligation to remember the oaths sworn by which the Avot cut a oath alliance with HaShem, to create the ‘Chosen Cohen people’. Replaced by the watered down noun: “covenant” which ignores the 1st Sinai commandment which commands to do mitzvot לשמה, with faith-based Jesus as the son of God inclusion (Acts 15 = Jerusalem Council). 

As the early church expanded, many Gentiles began to convert to Christianity. This raised questions about whether they needed to follow Jewish laws, particularly circumcision and dietary restrictions, to be considered true followers of Christ. Luke’s gospel sets the theological foundation—Jesus as universal savior, and Jerusalem’s rejection of him—then Acts hands the baton to Paul, who brings this message to the Gentile world. Acts doesn’t end with Peter or James. It ends with Paul in Rome. That’s not just a storytelling decision. It’s a theological climax—Rome becomes the new center of the movement. While the oath brit God of the Avot transformed unto the God of all Humanity.

The inclusion council convened in Jerusalem, bringing together key leaders of the early church, including the Apostle Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and others. The purpose was to discuss the requirements for Gentile believers. Some Jewish Christians argued that Gentiles must be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law to be saved. This was a significant point of contention. Peter spoke about his experience with Cornelius, a Gentile, emphasizing that God had accepted Gentiles without requiring them to follow Jewish laws. He argued that salvation comes through the grace of Jesus Christ, not adherence to the law.

The council ultimately decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised or follow the entire Mosaic Law. Instead, they were to abstain from certain practices (such as food sacrificed to idols, consuming blood, and sexual immorality) to maintain fellowship with Jewish believers. However the clause of sexual immorality failed to address the key Torah mitzva of tohorat Ha’Biet. A letter was drafted to communicate this decision to the Gentile believers, emphasizing that salvation is through the grace of Jesus and not through the law. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was a crucial moment in the early church that affirmed the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian faith, emphasizing salvation through grace rather than law, and fostering unity among believers from different backgrounds.

The shift away from Torah-based Judaism to a universal spiritual movement included Pharisees, & Sadducees, depicted as hard-hearted, blind, or violent. Employed to justify the shift away from Torah-based Judaism to a universal spiritual movement. Acts portrays the Jewish leadership as repeatedly resisting the Spirit, while Gentiles accept it joyfully (e.g., Acts 13:46–47). This lays the foundation for super-sessionism—the idea that the Church replaces Israel.

In Acts, Luke repeatedly stages Paul’s trials to vindicate him as innocent under Roman law. Felix, Festus, and Agrippa all find no fault in him. Roman centurions save Paul multiple times. Paul appeals to Caesar—not as an enemy of Rome, but as a citizen asserting his rights. This paints Paul as a Roman-friendly philosopher, not a Jewish rebel or sectarian agitator. It’s a massive PR move: Luke is saying, “This movement is legal, rational, and beneficial to the Empire.”

Rome becomes the New Zion, and Paul, the new Moses—one who writes epistles, not mitzvot; who carries no tablets, only grace. The word “covenant” in the Xtian imagination an abstract, theological, and symbolic; on par with the noun substitution of peace for the Hebrew verb shalom which stands upon the foundation of trust. The Torah the term brit a verb not a covenant noun; oath-bound, and sealed in korbanot “living-blood”. A butcher removes the liver after the animal has died. The Cohen gathers the blood for the korban pumped from a beating heart. Hence the distinction: “living-blood”.

Sinai brit: blood sprinkled on the people and altar (Exodus 24:8), a continuation of the (Genesis 15) brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from nothing. The children of Avraham lived only in the world to come at the time of the oath brit which created them, cut between the pieces. All korbanot stand upon and require conscious remembrance of the oaths sworn by the Avot. Hence the first blessing of the Shemone Esrei opens with אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב. All latter blessings thereafter stand as oath sworn “blessings” based upon their סמוך/adjacent relationship with this, the first blessing. When the Cohen placed their hands סמוך upon the head of the korban, this essentially entailed the k’vanna of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot by which HaShem created the chosen Cohen people from nothing or תמיד מעשה בראשית. Avram and Sarah at the time of the original brit very old and infertile!

The Luke Paul alliance of revisionist history unhooks and replaces the oath brit with covenant, which in its own turn their new covenant disconnects itself from Torah commandments, and repackages this new covenant as a voluntary membership of conscience—a radical redefinition of what it means to be “chosen.”

The Council of Acts 15 negates, abandons and drops: brit milah, tohorat ha’biet, Shabbat sanctity, moedim (festivals), korbanot, yibbum, taharah, shemitah, or tzedakah, specifics of the תרי”ג mitzvot. This far surpasses the innovations introduced by the new king of Israel, Yeroboam, the first king of Israel, who likewise established his own unique religion of avoda zarah condemned by all the prophets of the NaCH. Yet Jesus fulfilled the prophets. A declaration that can have meaning only tongue in cheek.

Paul’s trials expose PR theater. Paul never guilty of insurrection, Roman centurions, not fellow Jews saved him. Roman governors repeatedly exonerate him. This narrative not only expunges the Avot oaths sworn to cut a Torah brit alliance, rather this narrative highlights the legality of the gospels and Rome’s benevolence. Luke uses Paul’s Roman citizenship as a symbol: not of rebellion, but of respectable conversion. Christianity becomes the empire’s reformed conscience, not its opposition.

The replacement theology of the Luke/Acts dance: it imposes a substitute theology which prioritizes Spirit over Temple; Jesus or Kohanim; Grace over the Written Torah, the Oral Torah revelation at Horev totally ignored. Faith over covenant, the latter a watered down noun rhetoric version of the Avot oath sworn verb-brit alliance. Hence the linkage of a verb to a physical action of sacrifices. This oath-verb, creates continually the Chosen Cohen people from nothing. (Three years after the Shoah, the systematic obliteration of 75% of all European Jewry, Israel as a Jewish nation state rose literally from the dead mass-graves of Europe). Rome replaced Zion, akin to Reform declaring Berlin as their ‘New Jerusalem’.

Rome is not just geography—it’s theology. Luke ends his two-volume work not in Jerusalem, but in Rome—signaling that the center of God’s plan has shifted. Paul becomes a Mosaic figure, but not one who writes law—instead, he dismantles it. His tablets are epistles, not mitzvot. His medium is grace, not korban.

Paul’s “new covenant” redefines milah, korban, moed, taharah, yibbum, shemitah, etc. unto a matter of conscience. This substitute theology, Hellenistic virtue ethics wrapped in Hebrew vocabulary … a wolf in the clothing of sheep. The new testament totally ignores the Oral Torah distinctions made between two Arch-type Goyim living in Judea: the stranger/refugee vs the Goy who accepts the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach which permits these non Jews judicial rights to sue an Israel in an Israeli court of law for damages inflicted. Clearly the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach only applied to Goyim temporary residents who currently resided within the borders of Judea.

Once these Bnai Noach people returned to their own countries, they had absolutely no legal obligation to keep the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach. The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin common law courts stops at the borders of Judea. The idea of the oath Promised land, so to speak restricts HaShem to rule and judge only the chosen Cohen people who rule this land with judicial righteous justice. This Oral Torah mitzva bnai Noach totally alien to the framers of the New Testament.

The Luke Paul Books change the Torah oath brit God unto a “New Universal God” for all mankind. This perversion served as the model for Muhammad’s strict Monotheism theology. Despite the plain fact that the theology of Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment – not to worship other Gods. If but only one God lives then the 2nd Commandment totally in vain.

The daily Jewish religious system—korbanot, birkat Avot, semikha, tohorat haBayit—all anchored in oath remembrance verbs. The smikhah gesture, not just a transfer of sin; rather it’s kavana, a national and generational memory of the oath-brit verb. The first blessing of the Amidah, not simply a ritual decorative—it functions as the anchor of all tefillah verbs separated from prayer nouns, because its active oath remembrance throughout the generations of Israel as the chosen Cohen people.

Acts 15 isn’t just innovation—it’s a schism. Like Yeroboam, it sets up an alternative system with new rules and holidays. What Yeroboam did to the kingdom, Luke-Paul do to Torah. To further clarify the substitution theology introduced: Exodus 24:8: Blood of the brit; Leviticus 17: The blood makes atonement by the life (nefesh) within it; Hebrews 9:22–28: Christ enters not with animal blood, but with his own! A perversion that distorts the oath sworn at the Akadah by Yitzak: “If I am the chosen Cohen seed of my father, save me from this Shoah that my future born Cohen seed might live”. Remember HaShem the oath you swore to my father, and save my future born children from the Shoah. Do this and I shall command my children to do and obey Torah mitzvot.”