Category: Uncategorized

Matthew 26:28 – The definition of Av tumah Avoda Zarah – an utter abomination.

This verse exposes a core pillar of Christian substitution theology, where Jesus presents his death as a sacrificial act that brings about a “new covenant”—replacing, or as Xtianity asserts, “fulfilling” the Sinai brit by which HaShem swore an oath to Avram that his seed would forever live as the chosen Cohen people. The Gospel rhetoric utterly fails to address the substance of the oaths exchanged between HaShem and Avram. On the side of the oath sworn by HaShem to Avram, the chosen Cohen people would eternally inherit the Promise Land. On the side of the oath sworn by Avram to HaShem, the Divine Presence Spirit Name would forever live and breath within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen peoples’ hearts.

The Gospel religious rhetoric fails to “fulfill” either oath sworn to cut the Brit between the pieces. Therefore this verse stands as a textbook example of Av tuma avoda zarah—the spiritual corruption behind replacement theology. This statement claims a substitution for the korbanot system of the Torah, which serves as the primary precedent by which the Oral Torah interprets the mitzva of Moshiach.

The Torah makes sacred living blood which flows from the veins and arteries which do to the brain. All korbanot require this ”living blood”. The torture of Jesus preceeded his murder on the Roman cross. To compare the blood from hands and feet to a Torah korban – utterly profane. The slaughter of a man through torture in no wise shares a Torah precedent. Hence the Gospel words “new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins”, utterly perverts all Torah korbanot which entail swearing an oath with שם ומלכות. The Christian reinterpretation detaches blood from Torah living blood. This Roman perversion of a Torah sacrifice lacks the wisdom to discern that all korbanot dedicate tohor Oral Torah middot as time oriented Av commandment which require k’vanna.

This perversion which ignores the fact that all Torah oaths require שם ומלכות compares to Jesus teaching that the Divine Presence Spirit Name lives in Heaven rather than within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of all bnai brit hearts! Hence this total ignorance definitively proves that the authors of the Gospels clearly non Jewish aliens with a hostile agenda. Simply impossible to make these gross inaccuracies up by declaring that the son of God did not understand the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev. This echoes the sin of the Golden Calf—replacing the brit Moshe received at Sinai with a new intermediary, and inventing a metaphysical blood ritual outside the framework of the Mishkan or Beit HaMikdash. This phrase deliberately rebrands the Torah brit as obsolete, replaced by a “new” spiritualized covenant through Jesus. It misappropriates Jeremiah 31:31, which actually speaks of renewal of the Torah oath brit, a kabbalah reference to the mitzva of kre’a shma, with Israel and Judah.

The mussar of Jeremiah makes no reference to some imaginary universal oath alliance with all Mankind which thereafter, supersedes the oath sworn to Avram at the brit cut between the pieces. This Av tuma avoda zarah echoes Greek culture’s tragedy theatre stories. Which depict the heart warming story that salvation flows by means of the tragic death of some righteous hero. Like the portrayal of Achilles who symbolized both mankind’s excellence and its extreme vulnerability. It reinterprets Torah justice not through t’shuva, korban, and courtroom restitution, but through metaphysical absolution based on belief in the death of this great Herculean hero – another son of Zeus – the father of the Gods.

Matthew 26:28 functions as the doctrinal codification of the sin of the Golden Calf. It rebrands the brit, detaches korban from Torah context, and replaces covenantal loyalty and legal justice with a universalized abstraction rooted in Roman execution and Greek logic. It enshrines the very Av tuma which the Torah condemns as avoda zarah an utter abomination. The framers of the Gospels simply have no shame.

Matthew 26:28 represents not a “new covenant” but a doctrinal codification of idolatrous theology. It detaches holiness from halakhah, sacrifices from justice, and the Name from the hearts of Israel. It is not merely incorrect—it is an abomination, a spiritual counter-Torah rooted in Roman violence and Greek abstraction.

Just as the Torah warns against the sin of the Golden Calf, so too it condemns the invention of a replacement theology that erects a foreign god between HaShem and His people. The Gospels, in proclaiming a universalized blood covenant, declare war on the brit HaShem swore to Avram, and by doing so, commit the gravest form of theological treason.

The Xtian preachers who preach their ‘Good News: I am saved through the blood of Jesus’, they compare to prostitutes selling their wares while standing on street corners.

Jeremiah 42:5–6, a prime example of contextual abuse by Xtian fraud theologist. The very next verses show that the people were lying to Jeremiah. They never intended to obey remember and keep the oaths sworn by the Avot—they simply wanted Jeremiah to bless their plan to flee to Egypt. Jer. 42:20 exposes the duplicity of this assimilated and intermarried ערב רב. This passage condemns their hypocrisy, both then and Xtians attempting to sell their wares today. It does not affirm blind obedience, as Xtain prostitute propaganda rhetoric proclaims ethical guidance in Jewish tradition. The mussar of Jeremiah 42 instructs this unique mussar instruction, and not ‘Good News’ Xtian propaganda rhetoric. Prophetic mussar applies equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people, not just limited to a single historic people a long long time past – as Greek static deductive logic declares. Therefore the T’NaCH specifically instructs prophetic mussar, NOT history of events converted into a fossilized dead religion.

Religious manipulation, as expressed through the Xtian super-sessionist use of Torah, fundamentally denies the Divine T’shuva made by HaShem on Yom Kippur, wherein HaShem rejects replacement theologies of avoda zarah. The Golden Calf simply not limited to a mere golden physical idol; nor to translating the Divine Presence Spirit Name first revealed during the first commandment Sinai revelation! No. The sin of the Golden Calf exposes the Av tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah spirit to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with some other God – in short this Av tuma “sin” defines replacement theology, which the t’shuva every Yom Kippur Jews remember. HaShem annulled his vow to establish the seed of Moshe as the chosen Cohen oath brit people! Both the framers of the new testament and koran worship the sin of the Golden Calf through their Av tuma avoda zarah replacement theologies, despite not actually bowing down to a physical Golden Calf as did the טיפש ערב רב.

Just like the Judeans pretended to seek God’s will, while concealing their evil intend to go back to Egypt, so too and how much more so Xtian evangelicals who call all others to obey their distorted message of submission to the Greek idea of divine Logos or “crucified salvation.” Their ‘good news’ propaganda aims to convert Jews to worship their Golden Calf, Son of God theology.

Jeremiah 42:5–6 as a case study of Xtian theological fraud, puts the spotlight right where it belongs: on hypocritical performative piety masquerading as covenantal obedience. Jeremiah 42:5–6 serves as a textbook example of contextual abuse by Xtian theologians; comparable to drunk drivers killing innocent folk on the highways. They extract these verses—“Whether it be good or evil, we will obey the voice of the Lord our God…”—to promote blind obedience to their rebranded deity, Jesus son of God. Evangelists wield this verse as rhetorical ammunition from the pulpits, demanding unthinking submission to a metaphysical abstraction they call “the Lord,” now fused with Hellenistic Logos theology.

Thus, far from demonstrating their proclaimed “from the roof tops” covenantal obedience, such preaching unmasks religious manipulation. The very same kind employed by Xtian super-sessionists and Shoah revisionist historians, who claim to speak for “the God of Israel” or physical science, while violently uprooting the Torah oath-brit, together with its demands for national t’shuva and righteous judicial courtroom governance of damages inflicted by Jews upon one another. Shalom stands upon trust. Hence judicial justice which dedicates to restore fair compensation of damages inflicted strives to build shalom among the chosen Cohen people who live within the borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.

The very next verse of prophetic mussar expose the true context: a false vow. Hence rabbi Yishmael advices to learn T’NaCH through a כלל פרט sh’itta of disciplined learning. The ערב רב, had already decided to flee to Egypt and simply wanted Jeremiah’s rubber stamp. Jeremiah 42:20 explicitly reveals their duplicity.

The mussar of Jeremiah 42, not about blind faith or passive submission—it instructs a mussar of k’vanna integrity within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the heart before HaShem. The Navi calls Jews to remember the oaths which the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance concerning the chosen Cohen people and their eternal inheritance to the Promised land.

If we the living generations commit to maintain from generation to generation (Meaning we commit to educate our children as the key condition of marriage.), and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot, that we in our own turn swear these same oaths from generation to generation. Hence the k’vanna of tefillah דאורייתא/from the Torah – kre’a shma. Both the Avot and the ensuing generations had to put their pants on one leg at a time and sit to take a crap on the toilet. Prophetic mussar does not differentiate the merits of one generation over other generations. All generations of the chosen Cohen people must struggle with the tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah within our hearts.

Xtian gospel rhetoric, by contrast, perverts this prophetic mussar for introspective teshuva, unto the theatrics of Greek and Roman performative faith. Their theologies misappropriates Torah passages to serve the Av tuma static Greek deductive logic which they employ to promote their ‘good news’ myth of “universal salvation through crucifixion.”

The cheit ha’egel—the sin of the Golden Calf—not just idolatry in the physical sense. Rather this prophetic mussar warns against spiritual substitution, a betrayal of the Divine Name revealed at Sinai. The ערב רב didn’t say, we do not reject outright the revelation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name; but rather, “this is your אלהים, O Israel, who brought you up from Egypt.” The ערב רב tried to repackage the Divine Presence Spirit Name by inserting some word translation as an intermediary in Moshe’s absence.

Herein defines the exact model of replacement theology: rebranding the brit with some new god, whether a crucified Christ, or a final prophet Muhammad who preaches strict Monotheism in the name of Allah. The Yatzir Ha’Rah behind the Golden Calf, breathes the same spiritual Av tuma avoda zarah spirit within the hearts of the ערב רב\assimilated and inter-married Jews (who lack fear of heaven). This tuma Yatzir seeks to incite, manipulate or seduce others to worship these new Gods. This central motivation inspires the New Testament and the Koran—both of which claim to replace Moshe, the Oral Torah, and the oath brit — with metaphysical substitutes and narrative fabrications.

Just as the Judeans in Jeremiah’s time pretended to seek HaShem’s will while plotting to return to Egypt—the symbolic archetype of slavery, judicial injustice, and spiritual corruption—so too the Xtian & Muslim evangelicals, who call others to obey their distorted message of the Greek Logos, the crucified “savior,” and metaphysical obedience over national justice.

They do not call Israel to make t’shuva, much less so remember prophetic mussar instructions. They call Israel to abandon Sinai. They do not call for brit renewal. They call for the replacement of the brit by a universalized guilt doctrine rooted in Greek fatalism. They do not call for judicial righteousness in the Land—they promote through their ‘good news’ preaching that Jews abandon living in the Promised land and return and become once again slaves in Egypt.

The Torah concept of “sin” does not institutionalize the Fall and expulsion of Adam from the Garden of Eden.  Rather the Torah concept of “sin” exposes the Av tuma Yatzir Ha’Rah spirit, which seeks – throughout the generations – to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with some replacement new god.  In short, the prototype of both New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. Both the framers of the New Testament and the Koran worship the sin of the Golden Calf through their Av tuma avoda zarah replacement theologies. 

Replacement theologies always attempt to repackage the Divine Presence Spirit Name by inserting a word translation as an intermediary in Moshe’s absence. Herein defines the precise and exact Av tuma methodology of replacement theologies: rebranding the brit with a new god—whether crucified Christ or final prophet Muhammad. The Yatzir Ha’Rah behind the Golden Calf, the exact same Av tuma spirit within the hearts of the ערב רב—assimilated and inter-married Jews who have no fear of heaven—that inspires the framers of both the New Testament and the Koran counterfeit scriptures. Both texts claim to replace Moshe, the Oral Torah, and the oath brit, with metaphysical substitutes and narrative fabrications.

Just as the Judeans in Jeremiah’s time pretended to seek HaShem’s will while plotting a return to Egypt—the archetype of slavery, judicial injustice, and spiritual corruption—so too the Xtian and Muslim evangelicals, who urge obedience to their distorted and perverted messages which stand on the foundations of assimilated the Greek Logos … their crucified “savior,” glorified in both New Testament and Koran – their metaphysical obedience which rejects national judicial justice which sanctifies the Will of the Courts to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Jews on other Jews with the k’vanna to build shalom among the Jewish people within the borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic.

It’s very important to define Xtian and Muslim rhetoric which declares their love and devotion for the Promised ‘Holy Lands’, that never during any time after the Romans expelled Jews from Judea and renamed the land “Palestine”, not any Xtian nor Arab or Muslim Power ever established a Country in the Middle East called “Palestine”. Neither Jordan nor Egypt – who ruled Samaria and Gaza between 1948 to 1967 made any attempt to establish a Palestinian state. The British and French UNSC 242 which promotes European interests which seek to divide and conquer the Jewish state and calls for Palestinian national independence, clearly 242 shares no common ground with the 1917 Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up Ottoman Greater Syria and divide that empire as the spoils of war to the British and French empires.

From Brit to Blasphemy: How Galatians 3:13 Subverts the Sinai Oath brit with replacement theologies later echoed by the Muslim koran.

Both this and that ignore the responsibility to impose Government rule that establishes ‘National Justice’. Both av tuma religions of avoda zarah prioritize alien Greek and Roman Imperial Metaphysics as the primary vision, which their followers emphatically embrace as truth.

A profound rupture between Torah oath brit Blessing vs. Curse. Where the chosen Cohen people either live and rule the Promised land with righteous judicial common law justice … or … due to returning back to Egypt, wherein Israeli leaders duplicate the injustice of Par’o, who withheld straw – and his courts justified the beating of Israelite slaves. When the Promised land becomes full of oppression, theft, incest, and judicial perversion of justice: an exact duplication of the Israelite slavery in Egypt, then the Torah curse of g’lut exiles Israel unto foreign lands that likewise do oppression, theft, incest, and judicial perversion of justice.

Paul’s Substitution Theology (Galatians 3:13), reinterprets the Torah “curse” of g’lut/exile: as sin and guilt transferred from humanity to Jesus. He redefines the t’shuva solution, not as national return (t’shuvah, brit renewal, prophetic mussar — but as a one-time cosmic transaction—a metaphysical sin-substitution achieved through the crucifixion of Christ. The Torah context – no longer Israel’s oath brit cohen history, but rather a universalized anthropology: “all have sinned,” and all must be redeemed through faith in the crucified Christ (see Gal. 3:28).

This Hellenistic-legal concept of guilt and atonement bypasses the oath brit sworn at Sinai. The משל\נמשל Mishkan-korbanot\Sanhedrin common law court-rooms pursuit of righteous judicial justice. Wherein the leaders of the chosen Cohen people strive to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. Paul’s universal “one size fits all” Original Sin uproots the chosen oath brit Cohen people, the children of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. His replacement theology condemns the Caine-Jews, these eternal Christ-Killers; condemned to wander as cursed stateless refugees with no country of our own, enforced by church oppression, theft, sexual perversion, such as baptizing Jewish children against the will of their parents, and judicial and economic injustice.

Paul universalizes “sin” as the human incurable condition doomed to eternal damnation, without the “salvation” belief in the Christ-crucifixion ‘Good News’. Roman torture … the Gospel flips and makes it into a reformed righteous event! Paul and later Augustine — not the prophets, not Sinai, not the brit — these ‘latter day saints’ introduced the perverted ‘salvation from Original Sin guilt’. The Torah concept of national exile as a Torah curse, a intrinsic Torah theme expressed through the oath brit faith, seeks to inspire t’shuva and ultimately g’eulah redemption – based upon the model of Moshiach Moshe, who brought Israel out of Egyptian slavery.

The legal פרדס inductive logic of Torah (mishpat), replaced by faith in both Christ & Greek deductive logic alone (Galatians 2:16); the Torah dynamic of interpreting subtle distinctions between cases, מאי נפקא מינא, heard before the Courts to determine fair compensation of damages in each and every different case, replaced by and with a static one size fits all – believers go to heaven and sit with Jesus and unbelievers burn and rot in the depths of Hell tortured by Satan for eternity.

The New Testament framers substitute righteous justice, this most basic requirement: the living chosen cohen peoples’ generations continuum either choose to accept or reject. Replacement theologies superimpose belief in life in the world to come, eternal life in Paradise Heaven. Muhammad redefined this perversion that abandons judicial justice in this world with 71 virgins in the world to come, utter Pie in the Sky ‘chicken little’ fairy tale nonsense. Galatian 2:16 rejects the obligation to rule the Promised land with righteous justice, replaced by faith in Jesus as the Son of God. Muhammad later replace this new unheard of new testament “scripture” with his koran: latter day saints “scripture”, which makes him the star of the show. These Latter-Day Saints new scripture revelations, make it crucial for Man to believe in these theologically constructed God or last prophet, Heaven or Hell bi-polar insanity theologies.

The framers of the New Testament declare that the crucified Christ became the redemption for Adam’s Original Sin. This curse, the exile from the Garden of Eden, unto belief in the World to Come of Jesus or sexual paradise. The church fathers transposed their ‘Original Sin’ guilt upon the hated and despised Jewish refugees in Europe, despised for their crime of being the chosen Cohen nation. But even if Jews converted to Xtianity, the Inquisition proved that the burning of Xtian hatred for Jews reaches no limits. Cursed Jews – a race rejected by God, guilty of killing Christ, fit for torture, exile and humiliation. Church theology favored forced baptism, medieval pogroms, ghettos, blood libels, which culminated in the Shoah slaughter of 75% of European Jewry in less than three years.

This shift of the New Testament framers replacement theologies–it emerges organically from Paul’s decoupling of the oath brit sworn by the Avot and remembered – as the inheritance of all generations of Jews – who likewise swear these Avot oaths sworn within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within our hearts, when we da’aven tefillah (a mitzva from the Torah) – kre’a shma. Both Xtianity and Islam today despise detest and abhor the re-establishment of the Jewish state of Israel within the borders of Judea. UN Resolution 3379: Zionism is Racism detests the Balfour Declaration of 1917 or that 2/3rds of the UN member states in 1947 voted their approval of Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination as a nation state in the Middle East. The UN to this day maintains its racist Apartheid policy of rejecting Israel as a member of the Middle East voting block of nations!

The New Testament framers, specifically Paul, collapses all complexity of justice where Torah common law weighs each case heard before Sanhedrin courts into a perverted faith in Jesus or eternal burning in Hell type of Jesus Frankenstein monster; human suffering, no longer rectified in courts with justice, but spiritually bypassed via faith in a crucified savior, and life in a world to come paradise.

The New Testament framer replace Hellenistic metaphysics, prioritized over the Torah requirement that faith needs as an absolute minimum the righteous pursuit of judicial justice, within the borders of Judea. Muhammad serves as an echo rather than a tikkun correction of the basic fundamental flaws exposed by the tuma theology espoused by the new testament framers av tuma avoda zarah.

Both the new testament and koran reject Israel as a nation, with its unique concepts of oath brit, rooted in land, language, common law, and Jewish lineage, and T’NaCH and Talmudic established culture and customs traditions. Both sets of replacement theologies vainly re-imagines revelation as a final top-down declaration, displacing the generational oral-dialogical tradition established by both Sinai and Horev revelations.

These ‘Latter-Day Saints’ bi-polar insane theologies, they simplify belief unto their newly established and declared Gods as: Believe or burn. Follow the last prophet or be lost. Oppress the Jew scapegoat or be condemned. Such Av tuma avoda zarah theologies obliterates the Torah vision of justice in this world.

Yet another example of New Testament anti- Yom Kippur replacement theology rhetoric propaganda: John 13:4,5

The comparison some Christian commentators make between Jesus washing his disciples’ feet and the kohanim washing in the kiyor (laver) before performing avodah in the Beit HaMikdash is not only strained, it fundamentally misunderstands the legal and ritual logic of Torah. In Shemot 30:17–21, the kohanim, commanded by a chok/fixed statute\ to wash their hands and feet from the copper laver (kiyor) before entering the Ohel Moed or approaching the altar.

John 13:4–5, occurs in a domestic setting, not a mikdash. Uses no kohanic or ritual language. Has no korban, no incense, no altar—no avodah. The entire structure is Greco-Romanized—it’s a dramatic paideia gesture, [[[Paideia referred to the rearing and education of the ideal member’s behavior in the ancient Greek polis or state. These educational ideals later spread to the Greco-Roman world at large, and were called humanitas in Latin. Paideia was meant to instill aristocratic virtues in the young citizen men who were trained in this way. An ideal man within the polis would be well-rounded, refined in intellect, morals, and physicality, so training of the body, mind, and soul was important.]]], meant to instruct a kind of virtue ethics, not a legal ritual grounded in the brit.

The kohanim’s washing, a direct Torah commanded mitzvah, part of a broader system of kedushah, tied to death-penalty כרת liability if violated (Shemot 30:21). The Gospel foot-washing story presented through in John, functions more like a Platonic allegory about inner transformation or ethical exemplarity. To equate the two effectively to collapses Torah-based kedushah into symbolic moralism—a hallmark of super-sessionist reinterpretation.

The idea of a “great man” humbling himself for his followers. That’s a deeply Greek rhetorical trope, not a Torah mitzva. The later church fathers like Origen or Augustine used this passage to justify a new priesthood, a new spiritualized replacement Temple service.

Super-sessionist theology not only distorts Torah categories, but hijacks their imagery to repackage them as Greco-Roman moral theater. John 13 simply not Torah—it’s theater, closer to Platonic allegory than to a Cohen mitzvah. Its moral is the self-emptying “humility” of a “great man” lowering himself to serve his followers—a Hellenistic virtue trope, echoed later in Stoic, Cynic, and imperial Roman ideals. It is meant to inspire, not to obligate. It functions pedagogically, it has no foundation in Torah mitzvot observances.

Origen, in his Commentary on John (Book 32), interprets the footwashing as a spiritual mystery. “Unless Jesus wash not only your feet but also your hidden sins, you will have no part with Him.” Origen makes the act about spiritual purification, internal cleansing, and mystical participation in Christ—not bodily or halakhic preparation for Temple service. He claims that Jewish washings are external, carnal, and ineffectual, while Christian washing (via Christ) is spiritual, universal, and redemptive. He spiritualizes the washing in John 13 into a replacement for Temple purity laws.

Augustine, in Tractates on the Gospel of John (Tractate 56), interprets the footwashing not only as a gesture of humility but as a model for Church leadership. “The Lord did what a servant does, that the servant might not blush to do what the Lord had done… He who is truly the head of the Church washed the feet of His betrayer.” For Augustine, Jesus instituted a new model of priestly authority, replacing Levitical bloodlines with Christic virtue. “In this act, lays the mystery of the Church’s humility, and from it flows the power of the sacraments.” Augustine uses John 13 to argue that Christian rituals and hierarchy now mediate divine grace, replacing the korban system and kohanic roles of the Beit HaMikdash.

By allegorizing John 13, Origen and Augustine, stripped Torah ritual of its legal force, they spiritualized its imagery into Christian symbols, and used those symbols to justify the transfer of sacred authority from Israel to the Church. This is how a single symbolic gesture—originally detached from Temple service—was weaponized into a theological tool to dismantle and replace the Torah oath brit faith, the House of Aaron as the Moshiach anointed, and the Temple service. Such replacement theology, cloaked in reverence, a subtle but strategic dismantling of the Torah by means of rhetorical redirection propaganda.

In Torah, humility (anavah) refers to strict honesty, even in the face of humiliation and disgrace. Greco-Roman paideia’s concept of humility something else all together different; it exemplifies a kind of performative virtue, especially for philosopher-kings and wise men who “lower themselves” to teach and serve. The Gospel account reflects the culture and customs of the Greco-Romans, and not the humility of Moshe Rabbeinu – who when confronted by his brother and sister for not having sex with his wife due to his need to keep tohor for avodat HaShem services! John 13 represents the essence of replacement theology.

The Gospel rhetoric narratives clearly written to enhance Greco-Roman propaganda structures and moral categories which the Gospel writers layered over Torah culture and customs to create the “theater” of a new religion. By allegorizing ritual halakhah into spiritual paideia, the Gospel of John stages a literary drama in which the kohanic paradigm is absorbed and then overwritten. The lack of altar, korban, incense, or kohanic terminology simply not accidental—it’s a redirection. It displaces kedushah and substitutes a narrative of “humble greatness” modeled on Greco-Roman virtue ethics.

Torah humility, as with Moshe, all about proximity to truth, to mitzvot, to kedushah—not about self-dramatized servanthood in the court of public moralism. It’s about submission to Divine chok, not performative virtue. The symbolic use of Temple imagery to build a parallel sacramental authority plainly not a neutral reading—it’s a theological coup. The foot-washing becomes a symbolic act to overwrite the House of Aaron, the korbanot, and the oath-based brit with a Church-centered system of grace and hierarchy.

John 13:4–5 isn’t just a misappropriation, but a total repurposing of Torah categories into Greco-Roman rhetorical theater. The ideological core of the super-sessionist move: not just to spiritualize, but to substitute—replacing law-bound House of Aaron with a virtue-signaling christian-centric order.

The kiyor washing, part of a system designed to separate tohor from tuma spirits within the opposing Yatzirot within the bnai brit Cohonim hearts. The din of כרת decreed upon all who approached avodat HaShem while breathing tumah spirits from within their Yatzir Ha’Rah. John 13, completely oblivious to this Oral Torah nuance. The Gospel theatre, neither commanded nor life-preserving in halakhic terms. Rather it serves only as rhetorical moral theater.

The Jesus ritual washing account stands in stark contrast to the services taking place on the eve of Pesach when the Beit HaMikdash, stood filled with thousands of kohanim doing Pesach korbanot avodaat HaShem. Hence John 13 represents a rhetorical “theological coup”, a hostile takeover of sacred imagery to forge a new religious “New World Order”.

Another example of praying to the God of Mars in heaven, James 1:5 in the new testament fraud.

Clearly the new testament forgery has a completely different take on the meaning of wisdom. Torah “wisdom”, based upon the four part inductive logic of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system, bears absolutely no resemblance what so ever to Aristotles’ 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The two systems of logic as different than a cat from a mouse.

According to the logic developed by rabbi Yishmael, to communicate something more that tuma religious rhetoric propaganda requires both כלל ופרט. The introduction of the idea of “wisdom”, clearly a general idea, based upon the night and day distinctions which separate פרדס inductive logic from syllogism deductive logic.

James religious rhetoric propaganda only introduces the general idea of “wisdom” but brings absolutely no qualifying particulars to define the k’vanna of its meaning. Lacking qualifying particulars the general term “wisdom” exists merely as eye-candy, like throwing in a baited hook into a pond hoping to catch a fish. James God, based upon the error of monotheism which violates the 2nd Sinai commandment, his rhetoric propaganda forces the fuzzy logic of the audience to assume that his God one in the same with the God of Sinai.

A cracked foundation from the get-go. New Testament propagandists and later church “authorities” failed to discern the Torah mitzvot precedents wherein the חכמה of Oral Torah defines the mitzva of Moshiach.

The church fathers deny this חכמה of Oral Torah yet claim that wisdom non brit Goyim can learn Oral Torah wisdom simply by asking for it?! If James’s epistle, read through a post-brit, Christianized lens—especially in light of his association with early Messianic sectarianism—then even this invitation to wisdom becomes subtly redirected; it prioritizes a pacifist Moshiach rather than a warrior Moshiach – like Moshe Rabbeinu in Egypt. Furthermore, Oral Torah wisdom not only abandoned and replaced by ancient Greek wisdom which sports a completely different sets of logic formats, the Gospels loses all bonds to the oath brit cut upon the soul of Israel at Sinai, the Sanhedrin, the beit midrash, or the korbanot dedications which serve as the foundational precedents for the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.

Instead, the new testament forgery becomes a personal, internal, mystical endowment—part of a broader movement to dissolve the national Torah-halachic framework into some totally alien universal spiritualism. The wisdom of Torah logic (כלל – פרט) as defined by two great Torah scholars: rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael, a non bnai brit Goy, who rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, such a person could hope to acquire Oral Torah Horev revelation of wisdom? About as likely as a fish can sing an Opera! James 1:25 which attempts to frame “law of liberty”, a rhetoric non defined unknown term, hence forth also qualifies as yet another glaring example of new testament replacement theology.

Clearly the Epistle of James shares no grafted roots, a totally alien weed attempting to grow in the Garden of the Oral Torah Horev revelation of the 13 tohor middot. James religious Greek rhetoric promises only hazy and vague spiritual eye-candy promises, totally incapable of accomplishing. Hence the Epistle of James stands upon the foundations of a flat out lie.
The revelation of the Oral Torah logic system compares to the professional athlete acquires the wisdom of his skills as he hones trains for competition. During all the forced Xtian debates against Jews during the Middle Ages, the church fathers, cowards and frauds, limited any and all debates – basically demanding if Jews had sex with their mothers recently! A fat lazy over-weight couch-potato Monk could no more compete with an Olympic athlete than a fish could sing opera.

James 1:25’s so-called “law of liberty” (νόμον τῆς ἐλευθερίας), undefined and suspiciously rhetorical. It reads like Obama’s promise of “Change”! Liberty, as a Torah mitzva directly associated with the Yoval freeing of slaves. James foisted Pie in the Sky notion of liberty, far more akin to Hellenistic concepts of logos or Stoic ethics than to Torah mitzvot, halacha or Midrashic interpretation upon Talmudic aggadic stories which attempt to interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar, with an eye to weave this prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of observing halachic mitzvot, as well as positive and negative commandments elevated and raised to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah.

Hence James reflects a tits on a boar hog replacement theology! James has more nuance that the crude Pauline epistles. But both seek to drain the Torah of its oath brit-rooted Oral Torah time oriented revelation of Av tohor commandments … despite referring to HaShem as “father in heaven”. The oath sworn at this brit cut between the pieces by Avram, that the Spirit Name of HaShem breaths within the 7 menorah souls contained within the Yatzir Ha’Tov inside the heart of all chosen Cohen people. The foreign alien religious tripe of treif rhetoric from James compares to Jesus teaching his disciples to pray to some alien Mars God in Heaven!

How Hebrews 9:6-12 duplicates the Av Tuma sin of the Golden Calf

4th Day of the Omer, the dedication to remove the חמץ of Av tuma avoda zarah from within the tuma Yatzir Ha’Ra within our hearts. How new testament Paul’s – Hebrews 9: 6-12 duplicates the Sin of the Golden Calf

HaShem is not a man that He should lie (Numbers 23:19). The brit is not a metaphor. It is an oath-bound alliance, sealed with the Nefesh soul contained within living blood, upheld by divine t’shuva, and renewed in every korban offered by the sons of Aaron. To cancel that brit amounts to the denial of the character of HaShem Himself; to replace Moshe Rabbeinu with a foreign mediator, ultimately defines the Sin of the Golden Calf and Hebrews 9: 6-10 which repeats the sin of the Calf—not just in deed, but in theology.

Hebrews 9:6–10, traditionally read in Xtian theology as a critique of the korbanot system—framing it as ineffective, obsolete, and merely symbolic. In this interpretation, the daily offerings and Yom Kippur rituals, reduced to shadows, paving the way for a universalized, spiritual priesthood centered on Christ. This reading not only distorts the purpose of korbanot—it severs them from the oath brit framework that defines Israel’s unique Chosen Cohen identity. The Pauline religious rhetoric restricts korbanot relegated to making a barbeque unto Heaven.

The Pauline frameworks of guilt and substitution (e.g., Hebrews 9:12: “not by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood…”). This substitute theology expressed in Hebrews ignores HaShem’s own t’shuva which defines the k’vanna of every Yom Kippur. Paul’s Av tuma religious rhetoric replaced his Original Sin guilt and repentance thesis of the fall of Adam, which requires the Jesus resurrection from the dead to atone for the guilt of the Original Sin made by Adam. Yom Kippur testifies to the oath brit faithfulness of HaShem together with His chosen Cohen People. HaShem not a Man that he should lie. The Pauline Hebrews 9:10 seeks to superimpose a Church Christ-centered priesthood – effectively canceling Israel’s oath brit Cohen status established at the brit cut between the pieces; where Christ replaces Israel as the holy Moshiach.

The Golden Calf originally reflects this av tuma theme of substitute theology, wherein the ערב רב of Israel demanded to make the Golden Calf a visible mediator to replace Moshe. Both the sin of the Golden Calf and Hebrews 9:6-10 seek to install an abstract, foreign model of nearness. Thus Hebrews 9 attempts to repackage the Divine Cohen services which eternally dedicate the Cohen House of Moshiach into the image of this new replacement foreign God Jesus mediator.

Torah brit faith, simply not metaphor as the book of Hebrews pretends. Rather this oath-bound alliance, sealed with the nefesh—the soul contained within the living blood collected from the cut throat of a korban animal whose beating heart pumps this living blood, thrown upon the altar. Israel swears an oath which requires שם ומלכות\blowing the Divine Spirit Name from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart together with a dedicated Oral Torah Horev revelation middah/attribute, designated and sanctified to adjust how a Jew socially interacts with his people in the future—upheld not by guilt or appeasement, but by the Divine t’shuva of loyalty itself, as expressed every Yom Kippur; every Shabbat Jews remember the tohor time oriented commandment which forever distinguishes the difference between מלאכה from עבודה.

This Shabbat rededication of the righteous pursuit of justice, as expressed through every korban dedicated, herein serves as the foundation of the mitzva of Moshiach, by the sons of Aaron whom Moshe originally anointed with oil. Just as the sons of Aaron anoint all korbanot dedicated upon the altar with oil. This anointing dedication through oil, it affirms the consecrated role of Am Yisrael as HaShem’s chosen Cohen nation, the Moshiach in all generations. To annul this oath brit utterly profanes the halachot of Shevuot. Such av tuma behavior simply denies the very character of the Chosen Cohen nation and its avodat HaShem through all generations as the anointed Moshiach. To replace Moshe Rabbeinu—the appointed lawgiver and oath brit mediator—with a foreign figure – not a kosher innovation. Rather it exposes the tuma of repeating the sin of the Golden Calf, not just in deed but in theology.

How John 13:34 perverts and justifies homosexuality

Intermarriage with the specific of Canaanites – equally applies to all Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. I bring the Book of Ezra as proof. Many early Church Fathers used John 13:34 to claim a supersessionist “new law”, replacing the Torah’s commandments with a simplified ethic of love. Yet ironically, the very idea of loving one’s neighbor—and even one’s enemy. An utter perversion of the oath brit alliance among the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Ezra 9–10, post-exile, shows the seriousness of intermarriage with foreign women—because it represents a breach of kedushah and brit, meaning: spiritual allegiance and oath brit fidelity. The Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) weaponized verses like John 13:34 to argue that a new “spiritual” law of love had replaced the “old legalistic” Torah—especially the halakhic boundaries that safeguarded Jewish identity and fidelity to the brit.

Jesus introduced, according to these vile animals, “Love is enough!” A Greek ideal—abstract, universal, de-politicized—divorced from the concrete legal-communal substitutional theology. Love, defined by Torah, defined through the Torah precedent of marriage requires that a man love his wife by acquiring title to her world to come souls. Meaning the children, the product of this union. Based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces whereby Avram had no children and cut a brit over the first born chosen Cohen people. This concept of the chosen Cohen people understands the intent of the prohibition to marry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

Xtian supersessionist theology gutted the concept of brit: Shalom became personal inner peace, not oath alliance to pursue fair justice – compensation of damages inflicted by Party A to Party B among our chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn promised land.
The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted emunah unto belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in God as a triune mystery of Monotheism. The Torah defines emunah as the righteous pursuit of justice among our people. The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted ‘ahavah’ unto generic love, rather than the Torah brit-bound hesed based upon the oath brit foundation precedent of the oath cut between the pieces.

The Xtian pervert theologians know absolutely nothing of Torah common law which stands upon the foundation of Torah precedents – both positive and negative commandments.
In doing so, the Church replaced the Torah’s vision of a holy people bound in legal, ethical, and national allegiance to Hashem, with a mystical, universalized ethic that denied the enduring chosenness of Israel and the centrality of Sinai. John 13:34, obliterated the Torah common law faith to pursue justice among and between the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the face of the Goyim “darkness” who reject this light unto the nations.

The Xtian theologian perverts abhor the oath-bound brit alliance which forever discerns between emotional short term vows from remembering from generation to generation the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the brit which permanently established the oath brit Cohen people. Hence the mitzva precedent of the captured woman through war. Whereby the Torah commands that she cut off all her hair and par her nails etc for no less than one month before the Israeli permitted to marry her! Why? Torah marriage cuts an oath brit alliance between man and wife and not a emotional vow which can be easily annulled based upon the Torah precedent which permits the Father or Husband to annul the vows made by either young daughters or wives!

John 13:34 not just evil theology, it perverts marriage unto the metaphor of permitted homosexuality. The chosen Am-segulah (treasured nation) refers directly to the Sinai first-born Cohen people. The Goyim reject to this day the revelation of Torah common law!

The Xtian theologian perverts sought power, hence they slept in the same bed as the Governments which ruled Xtian lands. The American and French Revolutions separated Church from State and cast these Xtian whores to the dogs to sleep with. All agricultural based economies require slave labor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bankrupt theology of the church great whore of Babylon.

When categories established by Torah law—male/female, Israel/goy, slave/free—are collapsed by when new testament replacement theology which abhors Torah common law and specific Torah abominations such as homosexuality and men and women confusion of genders and clothes. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t just dissolve the legal structure of the Torah, but opens the door to ideological chaos—Same-sex marriage (“There is no male and female”); Gender fluidity and trans ideology; Erasure of Jewish national identity (e.g. no “Jew or Greek”); Social anarchy in place of legal status (no “slave or free”). In many liberal Christian and post-Christian circles, Galatians 3:28 has become the banner verse for LGBTQ+ inclusion, often cited directly to undermine Torah prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul’s statement is interpreted as saying: All categories are now irrelevant in Christ.

Paul’s doctrine, and the super-sessionist theology it spawned, does not merely disagree with Torah—it declares war on Torah categories. Shalom perverted into inner peace, not the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. His replacement theology abhors the post Gold Calf Day of Atonement where HaShem first revealed the revelation of the Oral Torah – which the church rejects. Galatians 3:28 is not just heresy—it is the theological root of modern moral collapse.

It dismantles the sacred distinctions that uphold holiness, family, justice, and national brit identity. It replaces Torah law with a boundaryless mysticism that justifies everything from homosexuality to gender nihilism to the erasure of Jewish nationhood.

This verse is often cited to support a universalist theology—that all human beings are one, created by God, and therefore equal and interchangeable. Viewed in the context of Paul’s theology, especially in Acts and Galatians, this verse becomes part of a larger Pauline strategy to undermine: Israel’s distinct chosen Cohen oath brit status, the chosenness of the Jewish people. The Torah’s territorial inheritance laws, and the culture and customs established by halakhic and the idea that only within the borders of the Promised lands to Jews possess the wisdom to keep and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot לשמה, from generation to generation.

Paul’s replacement theology perverts the oath brit alliance to that of a temporary vow, which his perverted theology attempts to annul through the new testament. The Torah establishes the vision that the nations inherit distinct national cultural and customs inheritances. Distinct languages, lands and destinies (Genesis 10-11). The essential concept of Israel’s national identity as a people relies upon and defined by the promised lands which Arab nationalism absolutely rejects. Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” Deuteronomy 7:6: “You are a people holy to Hashem… a chosen people from all the peoples on the face of the earth.” Paul’s replacement theology, like Arab hatred of Zionism which bases itself upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein first Britain and later 2\3rd of all UN member states recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of a distinct Middle Eastern nation.

His replacement theology abomination of shared human origin which collapses national distinctions cultures and customs, like modern Arab racist nationalism rejects Jewish national sanctity. Paul’s Acts 17:26 (universal origin) with Galatians 3:28 (category collapse) replacement theology destroys the chosen Cohen people of Israel; dissolves the laws of inheritance and land; undermines the Oral Torah halakhic requirements concerning intermarriage with Goyim and promotes modern Wokeism that emphasize awareness of social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly related to race and identity. It is often viewed critically by some as being overly doctrinaire or insincere in its approach to social issues. Acts 17:26 is the philosophical foundation for Christian universalism.

It sounds innocent—but in Pauline context, it’s a soft prelude to the hard abolition of Israel’s unique brit. It paves the way for the erasure of identity, the rejection of Oral Torah Talmudic common law judicial lateral courts.

Paul’s 1 Corinthians 7:39 (KJV): Formula: “Only in the Lord” — Coded Supersessionist Halakhah? Paul doesn’t outright reject the binding nature of marriage—but it’s loaded with subtle replacement theology logic. Torah marriage flatly not just a temporary transitional vow–but rather an oath brit, contractual alliance with family generations and national implications. Governed by halakhic precedent, rooted in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24, and the Oral Torah. Validated by witnesses, contract (ketubah), and understood as part of a nation’s framework of kedushah and inheritance. Paul substitutes this with a subjective spiritual criterion: his “Only in the Lord.”, directly implies – Marry a fellow believer in Christ. It’s not about cutting an oath brit alliance—rather replaced by a shared belief in Xtian faith that declares Jesus as God.

This “Only in the Lord” phrase, exist as the key supersessionist pivot of Pauling propaganda. It nullifies the Torah -brit based marital framework model, replaces halakhic structure with doctrinal allegiance to the church abomination. And renders Torah marmital law as obsolete for “believers”. Ewwwwww! It detaches marriage from the promised land, nation, and halackhic authority. Sets the foundation for spiritual intermarriage theology – a direct violation of Torah common law; leading to full Goyim-Xtian identity formation apart from Israel. If one can marry “in the Lord”, then one need not marry “in the nation”. If faith in the belief of Jesus as God replaces Israel as the chosen Cohen nation, then the new covenant has replaced the oath brit cut between the pieces with Avram.

Paul’s “Only in the Lord” is not a neutral phrase. It functions as a Trojan horse for an entire redefinition of marriage: no longer a national covenant rooted in generational Torah obligations, but a private, spiritualized union under Church doctrine.

Xtianity, especially in its Pauline and post-Constantinian forms, intentionally dissolves ethnic, legal, and national distinctions. This is central to its theology. Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek… male and female… all are one in Christ.” This replacement theology erased halakhic distinctions, promotes spiritual unity over ethnic/national differences. Recasts marriage as a personal vow like sacrament, which replaces the oath sworn to remember dedication which any and all brit alliances fundamentally requires.

Liberal Protestant thoughts concerning marriage emphasize: romantic love and personal choice; Xtian values of inclusivity; detachment from ancestry, tribe, nation, or land. The Torah oath NOT vow, brit relationship cut between man and wife binds Jews to Torah Constitutional Law, tohorat ha’beit requirements for the woman to visit a mikveh prior to sexual activity; and the standards of keeping tohor & tuma distinctions like kosher foods etc. A man commits that he will educate his future born children in the oath brit faith – not to worship other Gods through intermarriage and assimilation which embraces Goyim cultures and customs.

Xtianity’s doctrine of spiritual unity and its deconstruction of Torah-based national distinctions directly laid the groundwork for both the theological legitimation and cultural normalization of interracial marriage. It treats distinctions—whether between Israel and the nations, or male and female—as obstacles to spiritual truth, not as sacred boundaries tied to divine law and oath brit consciously remembered dedications passed down from generation to generations just as DNA. From Augustine to modern liberal Protestants, modern issues like Wokeism and identity dissolution directly consequential to the Pauline doctrines of utter abomination.

“Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. “Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. It’s a theological phrase that doesn’t exist in Torah, halakhah, or any Jewish learning on the Torah. 1 Corinthians 7:39 a total Xtian new testament new religion of avoda zarah Av tuma. This phrase is nowhere in Tanakh. Paul creates a new criterion: shared belief in “the Lord” (i.e., Jesus).

The Xtian church does not define faith compliance any more than the Nicene Creed defines Monotheism. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. This new testament perversion marks a supersessionist turn: marriage is no longer a national-legal act, but a spiritual-sacramental one. “Only in the Lord” = Trojan Horse. It reflects a super-sessionist marriage ethics; it perverts the negative commandment of “cross-dressing” between Males and Females; it lies totally outside of the customs and cultures of the Jewish people.

Furthermore, it establishes a faith-based “intermarriage” theology. A spiritual identity, which replaces ethnic-national boundaries as the Torah fundamentally and absolutely commands. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish Republic of the 12 Tribes the Torah commanded the negative commandment not to marry between Jewish Tribes! This horrid abomination serves as justification for assimilation unto universalist Xtian structures. From “Only in the Lord” to Modern Abominations … Xtian approval of interfaith/interracial marriages; same-sex marriage under the banner of “shared love in the Lord”; trans marriages and gender deconstruction as “inclusive theology”.

From ghetto walls to gas chambers, “By their fruits you shall know them”— Jesus’ own words condemns the tree that claimed to grow from the root of the chosen Cohen nation which Paul declared Xtians as a graft to this Tree. The fruit of Xtianity utter poison, the culmination of theological poison.

Germany was a Lutheran nation. The Vatican signed a Concordat with Hitler. The Catholic Church blessed Nazi flags, and baptized perpetrators. The Protestant churches in Germany developed a theology of “Dejudaizing” Xtianity. Xtian anti-Judaism became racial antisemitism—but it started in pulpits, not politics.

The British White Paper (1939): Effectively sealed Europe’s Jews into a death zone, blocking aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. Not one major church authority condemned it. FDR’s administration turned away ships carrying Jewish refugees. Where were the bishops? The pastors? The popes? Silent. No call to bomb Auschwitz or the railways…Xtian theology had already written the Jews out of the covenant.

Today’s South African legal attack on Israel at the Hague is a blood libel with a UN suit and tie. Yet again, the churches are silent, or worse—supportive of the lie. World Council of Churches? Silent. Mainline Protestantism? Often openly anti-Israel. Catholic voices? Muted or muddled, more concerned with interfaith optics than justice. This continues the same pattern: Christendom aligns with empires, betrays the Jews, and offers theological cover to the murderers. Revelation’s image of the Great Whore riding the beast—but this time it’s Rome on the back of political empire, intoxicated with the blood of the saints and martyrs of the Torah. Xtianity slept with kings—and their offspring were inquisitions, expulsions, and Auschwitz.

This Ephesians 5:25–28 passage—on the surface poetic, lofty, and seemingly elevating marriage—is in fact deeply super-sessionist, and functionally replaces the Torah mitzva of kiddushin. This worthless Xtological abstraction amounts to the value of tits on a boar hog when the piglets cry for milk! Torah mitzva of kiddushin rooted in precedent of the sworn oath made at the brit between the pieces which eternally established the chosen Cohen nation – born into the future/O’lam Ha’Bah!

Halakhic boundaries interpreted through the Oral Torah define and understand the mitzva of kiddushin within Mesechta Kiddushin of the Talmud. The Torah requires mikveh, which is about ritual purity in relation to the woman’s cycle and the marital household—a national law rooted in Genesis–Deuteronomy. Paul’s version? No mikveh, no Torah. The cleansing comes by “the word”—meaning his gospel, his doctrine—a mystical metaphor that supplants halakhah with belief. “…that he might present it to himself a glorious church… holy and without blemish.” … Temple language, stolen and re-applied to “the Church”, as if she were now the bride, the Temple, the chosen.

It uproots Jeremiah 31:31. Torah marriage simply not about emotion or romantic identification—this mitzva cuts a brit, a legal alliance with concrete halakhic duties, inheritance laws, and national continuation. Paul dilutes this into a private spiritual metaphor: love your wife because she is you—a move away from oath sworn alliance obligations that live on throughout the generations, perverted and change unto worthless abstract emotionalism. The Church now pictured as the bride, not Israel. Faith in Christ, not halakhic brit, serves as the glue. Love and purity merely symbolic, not legal categories tied to Torah. Just as Galatians 3:28 dissolves categories, and Acts 17:26 universalizes origin, so too does Ephesians 5:25–28 spiritualize and replace Torah marriage—making it subordinate to Christ, not the Torah Constitution of Israel.

Another example of European and ICC legal corruption and efforts to curse the Jewish people.

Jesus cursing the Fig Tree …

The Fig Tree as a Metaphor for Israel  Jeremiah 8:13 – “I will surely consume them, saith the Lord: there shall be no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree, and the leaf shall fade; and the things that I have given them shall pass away from them.”  Hosea 9:10 – “I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the firstripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame…”  Micah 7:1 –  “Woe is me! for I am as when they have gathered the summer fruits, as the grape gleanings of the vintage: there is no cluster to eat: my soul desired the first-ripe fruit.”
  
Second Temple Judaism, the rise of Pharisaic authority, and the Jewish origins of the Oral Torah tradition.  The Hasmonean Revolt (c. 167–160 BCE), celebrated during Hanukkah, began as a revolt against Seleucid Greek oppression and the forced Hellenization of Judea.  After driving out the Greeks, the Hasmoneans (Maccabees) established a priestly monarchy—but soon aligned with the Tzaddukim (Sadducees), the Temple priestly elite who rejected the Oral Torah and adhered strictly to written Torah (Torah shebikhtav). 

The P’rushim (Pharisees) taught the Oral Torah (Torah she-be’al peh)—a living tradition of interpretation, application, and legal debate, rooted in Moshe at Sinai but unfolding through generations of sages.  The Pharisees championed halakhic debate, legal flexibility, and ethics, and stood against the rigid, elitist, and Temple-centric Sadducees. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, the Pharisaic tradition survived and became the foundation of Rabbinic Judaism—codified in the Mishnah, Talmud, and the entire halakhic tradition.  Therefore the Jesus curse of the fig tree as fruitless – a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism.

To interpret this passage as a direct condemnation of rabbinic Judaism clearly reflects later church polemics and slanders made against the Talmud, like the infamous burning of the Talmud in 1242 Paris France and the 1306 destruction of the Rashi/Tosafot common law school on the Talmud.  The gospels serve as the basis of later church war crimes and racism.  Christian polemics have added to Gospel interpretations—especially in how they’ve been weaponized against rabbinic Judaism and the Talmudic tradition.  Under the banner of a supersessionist Church, all manner of slander perversions and illegal ghetto imprisonments arbitrarily imposed upon the cursed wandering Jews.
                           
The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19); the “brood of vipers” language, and John’s “the Jews” rhetoric (esp. in passion narratives), the church fathers continuously employed them as their weapons to vilify Pharisaic Judaism, later generalized to all Jews.  The church fathers sought to erase Jewish continuity through forced conversions and continuous acts of violent oppression.  The church utterly detested the existence of the Talmud.  Its revisionist history replacement theology continually declared the church as the ‘true Israel”.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Supersessionist theology\replacement theology—represents the ideological backbone of the Church’s effort to erase Jewish identity and delegitimize the halakhic tradition.  Church revisionist history proclaimed from the roof tops that – “The Church has replaced Israel as God’s chosen people.”   The fig tree curse (Matt. 21:19) the church fathers interpreted  as the symbolic destruction of the Jewish people.  Which the church fathers promoted by referring to Israel as Christ killer Caine.  “Brood of vipers”, used to paint all Pharisees (and later all Jews) as inherently deceitful or evil.   John’s Gospel, “the Jews”, made Jewish exiled refugees as the collective villain—laying the groundwork for the deicide charge, a central justification for anti-Jewish violence. 

John Chrysostom, in his Adversus Judaeos homilies, spewed hatred with phrases like:   “The synagogue is worse than a brothel… it is the den of scoundrels and the repair of wild beasts… the temple of demons devoted to idolatrous cults…”  The church fathers abhorred the Talmud,  because it embodied Jewish autonomy—an ongoing, vibrant dialogue with God outside of Church control. It was the living heartbeat of rabbinic resistance.   

Church biblical translations not only co-opted Jewish sacred texts while condemning their original interpreters, perverted BRIT unto covenant; and reduced the Jewish people to either tragic relics or enemies of God. This theft of narrative and identity allowed the Church to: cast Jews as “wandering witnesses” to Christian truth (see Augustine).  And also blame all generations of Jews as Christ killers, which justified almost annual pogroms and forced expulsions of Jewish refugee populations scattered across both West and Eastern Europe.

The deep hypocrisies and historical amnesia baked into so many institutions of power, including European courts and the modern international legal framework, remain staggering. European courts and institutions have long been shaped by Christian hegemony, and that hegemony protected the Church from accountability, even as it presided over centuries of religious violence, forced conversions, inquisitions, pogroms, book burnings, ghettoization, and expulsions—all directed at Jewish communities. The idea of charging the Church itself as a war criminal would have been unthinkable in a Europe where the Church was the ideological and legal center of power.

For most of European history, Church and State were not separate. In many cases, the Church was the state—wielding direct power or deeply entwined with monarchies. The legal apparatus wasn’t neutral—it was Catholic or later Protestant. So, when Jews were expelled from Spain (1492), forced into ghettos in Venice (1516), or burned in the Crusades, these were actions sanctified, not judged, by the powers of the time.