Ta’anug

Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!

This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.

Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus.  It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.

The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa.  This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status. 

Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman.  Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.

Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus.  Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?!  Utterly absurd.  Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace.  Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!

It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union.  Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!

“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent:  the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.

The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach!  Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.  Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach! 

The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.

The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh?  The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!

The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships.  The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing.  The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.

The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross!  Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice.  Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.

The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.

Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20).  The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions.  Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse.   The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life.  The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.

Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife.  T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar.  The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity.  On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people. 

The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.

Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts.  Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!

Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David.  This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned.  The Pauline influence – an important primary source.

The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.

The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.

If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods.  Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment.  HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother.  Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions.  The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain.  The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם.  Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits. 

The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar.  Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart.  These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs.  Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna. 

When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”.  Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts. 

JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences.  His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.

Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin.  His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought.  Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system.  Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.

Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross.  No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.  How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.

Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.

This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages.  When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace.  Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.   

Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought.  The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage.  Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.

The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love!  The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human. 

T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history.  Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god.  It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.

Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).

Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.

This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.

The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.

Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.

The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.”  The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.  

The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.

The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].”  In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.

Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.

Unlocking Romans Lesson Two Study Guide is Posted!

Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!

This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.

Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus.  It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.

The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa.  This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status. 

Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman.  Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.

Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus.  Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?!  Utterly absurd.  Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace.  Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!

It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union.  Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!

“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent:  the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.

The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach!  Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.  Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach! 

The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.

The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh?  The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!

The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships.  The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing.  The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.

The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross!  Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice.  Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.

The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.

Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20).  The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions.  Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse.   The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life.  The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.

Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife.  T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar.  The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity.  On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people. 

The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.

Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts.  Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!

Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David.  This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned.  The Pauline influence – an important primary source.

The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.

The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.

If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods.  Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment.  HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother.  Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions.  The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain.  The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם.  Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits. 

The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar.  Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart.  These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs.  Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna. 

When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”.  Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts. 

JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences.  His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.

Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin.  His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought.  Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system.  Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.

Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross.  No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.  How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.

Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.

This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages.  When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace.  Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.   

Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought.  The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage.  Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.

The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love!  The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human. 

T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history.  Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god.  It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.

Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).

Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.

This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.

The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.

Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.

The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.”  The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.  

The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.

The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].”  In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.

Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.

Have you died to sin?

Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!

This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.

Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus.  It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.

The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa.  This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status. 

Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman.  Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.

Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus.  Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?!  Utterly absurd.  Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace.  Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!

It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union.  Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!

“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent:  the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.

The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach!  Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.  Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach! 

The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.

The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh?  The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!

The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships.  The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing.  The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.

The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross!  Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice.  Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.

The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.

Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20).  The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions.  Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse.   The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life.  The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.

Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife.  T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar.  The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity.  On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people. 

The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.

Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts.  Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!

Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David.  This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned.  The Pauline influence – an important primary source.

The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.

The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.

If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods.  Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment.  HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother.  Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions.  The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain.  The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם.  Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits. 

The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar.  Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart.  These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs.  Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna. 

When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”.  Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts. 

JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences.  His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.

Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin.  His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought.  Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system.  Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.

Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross.  No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.  How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.

Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.

This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages.  When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace.  Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.   

Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought.  The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage.  Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.

The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love!  The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human. 

T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history.  Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god.  It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.

Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).

Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.

This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.

The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.

Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.

The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.”  The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.  

The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.

The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].”  In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.

Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.