This article takes an ostensibly “spiritual” meditation on Psalm 119 and, much like replacing wheat with sawdust, substitutes Torah-based common law with vague emotive mysticism. It dismantles the legal integrity of Torah language—particularly the term ‘עדה’—and repackages it in a Xtianized, universalist, anti-halakhic form.
“The fourth word… is ‘edah, translated as ‘decrees’ or ‘testimonies.’ It is a legal term… meaning ‘witness’… repeat it as a mantra throughout the day…”. This statement contains a grain of accuracy—the root ‘uwd’ and noun ‘edah’ are legal—but what follows is a massive distortion. ‘Edah’ in Psalm 119 (and throughout Torah) refers to oath brit alliance legal witnesses—not subjective “testimonies” or inner emotional impressions.
In Torah, ‘edot’ are part of a triad: chukim, mishpatim, edot—each with precise legal-historical roles. Edot: public testimonies tied to national specific oath alliances cut upon the memory of all generations of the chosen Cohen people. (e.g., Shabbat, Pesach, Tefillin). Chukim: statutes beyond rational explanation (e.g., Parah Adumah); meaning they require עיין to grasp their k’vanna prophetic mussar intent. Mishpatim: civil law and social justice (e.g., tort law, contracts), commonly referred to as halacha in the Talmud. By turning ‘edah’ into a private mystical mantra, this article violates the very legal concept it claims to elevate.
“Consistent, repetitious true witness wins the case for the defendant…” This line rips witness-bearing out of the courtroom, and replaces halakhic case law (based on two kosher witnesses, cross-examination, and procedural law in Sanhedrin) with a poetic feeling of “truth.” Psalm 119 is not sentimental poetry. It’s a legal psalm—a meditation on Torah as brit, the legal covenant between HaShem and His chosen Cohen people. In Devarim 4:26, heaven and earth are called as edim—witnesses—to testify against Israel if the brit is violated.
Halachic witness testimony demands, b’dikat Edim (witness interrogation), hatra’ah (prior warning), and legal consistency—not just “repetition.” This article abolishes courtroom rigor, and replaces it with therapeutic mysticism.
“The Holy Spirit is your beloved friend who strokes the forehead of your soul…” This line introduces foreign theology. The Holy Spirit in this article simply not the Shekhinah, nor Ruach HaKodesh in the Tanakh sense—it reflects a Xtian Trinitarian Av tumah avoda zarah. Which violates the core of Psalm 119 that reaffirms Israel’s legal obligation under Torah, and frames suffering as a function of discipline and law, not sentimental closeness.
“I know, HaShem, that Your judgments are righteous, and that in faithfulness You have afflicted me.” This utterly not divine cuddling—but rather judicial justice which defines the concept of Faith, within the Torah. The article commits theological sawdusting: replacing Torah’s wheat of legal brit with spiritualized fluff.
“Join the suffering of the psalmist with yours and others…” Psalm 119, not about universal suffering. Rather this Tehillem expresses the faith that Jews accept both blessing and curse equally from the Torah. An utterly profound idea. Takes no faith to accept blessings. Faith the Torah defines as acceptance of the oaths sworn by the forefathers of the chosen Cohen nation. At the brit cut between the pieces Avram accepted that his future born (O’lam Ha’ba) children would endure horrific g’lut/exile – the ultimate definition of the Torah curse sworn to at the brit cut between the pieces.
“Rivers of water run down my eyes because they do not keep Your Torah.” (119:136) This verse isn’t about abstract emotion—it’s about national breach of Torah law. To flatten this into an emotional “Easter meditation” de-Judaizes the psalm and empties it of its legal and sworn oath alliances contract content.
Psalm 119 simply an acrostic structure organized around Torah synonyms such as: Torah, edut, mishpat, choq, mitzvah, derech, pekudim … each has a technical legal meaning in the system of Torah. This counterfeit treif presentation flattens them all into “the Word,” wraps them in Christian sentimentalism, and utterly fails to distinguish legal categories from one another. This is a classic move in supersessionist theology: take a robust legal system and reduce it to a single “spiritual principle”—usually “Jesus,” “grace,” or in this case, “the gentle Word.”
mosckerr
An example of completely off the דרך rabbinic traditional Judaism pawned off upon the Jewish people today. It sucks.
This article, its failure to integrate Torah common law, especially as it is preserved in the Talmud Yerushalmi, Talmud Bavli, and across Torah and NaCH precedents – as fundamental and basic required Torah education.
“The Torah is our moral guide book and our instruction manual as to how to achieve perfection…” This statement collapses Torah into mere moralism, erasing its fundamental nature as a brit-based legal system. The Torah is not a vague book of “values” or “morals as the Xtian church new testament avoda zarah preaches. The Torah a structured corpus of binding oath alliance common law, rooted in legal logic and adjudicated through common-law jurisprudence, especially in orah sh’Bikhtav positive and negative toldot precedents which derive Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments. By ignoring the legal frameworks of Yerushalmi and Bavli, the article severs Torah from its juridical continuity and its prosecutor/defense attorney machloket-based legal reasoning by comparing different briefs of precedents by which the court determines the judicial ruling for that specific Case of Sanhedrin court-room law.
“A moral code created by man… can so easily be dropped when ‘necessary’… A human being without a divinely instructed moral code is not that different from an animal…” This lazy binary reduces Torah to moral authoritarianism, and caricatures human intellect outside the Torah as animalistic.
It ignores the moral-legal complexity of halakhic deliberation—a system of legal inductive פרדס reasoning and precedent, and not blind obedience like as found in both Xtian and Islamic substitute theologies and historical revisionism. This rhetoric is not only theologically shallow—it actually undermines Torah authority by misrepresenting it as a fixed moral code rather than a living legal tradition.
“Barley is for animals, wheat is for humans… before Torah we were animals…” The use of this homiletic contrast completely divorces itself from legal precedent. The Korban haOmer (barley) and the Shtei haLechem (wheat) are not merely moral symbols—they are part of a legal-ritual system tied to agricultural halakhot (e.g., chadash vs. yashan), moadim (fixed times), Temple procedure and national calendar jurisdiction (Sanhedrin’s role in declaring months), and the halakhic processes outlined in Masekhet Menachot. In fact, the Yerushalmi in Rosh HaShanah explores how these offerings relate to national judgment and the division of agricultural responsibilities. Ignoring that removes the juridical backbone of the offering. This kind of parshanut, while poetic, has no grounding in the legal scaffolding that gives Torah its enduring force.
A proper common-law approach would have cited Ruth chapter 2–3, where barley and wheat harvests intersect with geulah (redemption) and yibbum-style marriage. Daniel 1, where the dietary distinction between “tohor” and “tumah” food is moral, political, and halakhic. Or Mishnah Menachot 10:1, which details how wheat and barley offerings differ not only in quality, but in halakhic implications and Temple service protocols. Even Midrash Rabba and Sifra offer deeper precedent-based readings. But none are invoked.
This article offers a one-dimensional take, with zero engagement in legal argument or dissent—which is central to Torah. “Eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim chayim” (“These and these are the words of the Living God”) is not just poetry—it’s the backbone of Jewish legal process. Without machloket, there is no halakhah. The statute law assimilated codes made famous by the Rambam Tur and Shulkan Aruch utterly distorted this key essential aspect of Talmudic common law. The Bavli models moral disagreement through law, not through simplistic wheat/barley metaphors. This piece essentially commits a kind of intellectual bitul Torah—nullifying the complexity and genius of the Oral Law tradition.
mosckerr
Xtianity has no t’shuva, it compares to a whore in church who eats her leavened wafer and wine, blessed by the priest/pastor to sell her sex trade for profit.
Another prime example of Xtian super-sessionist theology—deeply cloaked in pious, emotional language, but functionally erasing and replacing the Jewish people as the chosen Cohen nation and our oath alliance which continually and in all generations creates from nothing the Jewish people. Hence the Torah opens with the Creation story to teach tohor time oriented commandments which re-creates the world over and again for all eternity.
“Matthias brings the number of apostles back to twelve, symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel who await the promises of God.” This a textbook replacement theology (aka supersessionism). The 12 Apostles are cast as symbolic stand-ins for the 12 tribes of Israel. This insinuates that the Church has inherited or replaced Israel as the rightful vessel of God’s promises. It reframes the historical Israel—Am Yisrael, bound by Sinai oath alliance, the “fulfillment” of the oath sworn to Avram at the brit cut between the pieces concerning the eternal inheritance of the chosen land, and Torah common law—as obsolete. That single line reveals the core ideology of Christian theology since the Church Fathers: that Israel’s role is completed, and the “New Israel” is now spiritual, universal, and Xtian.
The article is couched in warm, meditative tones: “Like Matthias, we’re called to be witnesses…We must move toward the wounds of our brothers and sisters…” But beneath that hides a theological coup: the theft of Jewish chosen Cohen people identity. It romanticizes betrayal of the Jewish people by presenting it as spiritual growth and divine progress.
This rhetorical move allows Xtians to appropriate the biblical story of Israel, the symbols (like “12 tribes”), the wounds (which in Jewish memory include centuries of pogroms, Inquisitions, ghettoizations, and the Shoah)—without taking responsibility for the Xtian theological roots of that suffering.
Note this section: “Matthias brings the number back to twelve… symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel…” This is no accident. Judas Iscariot—who betrayed Jesus—is often symbolically linked in Christian tradition with the Jewish people. This goes back to the Gospel of John, which repeatedly paints “the Jews” as Christ’s enemies. Church Fathers openly taught that Judas was a stand-in for Israel’s rejection of Jesus. So when Matthias “replaces” Judas, it implies the Church replacing Israel as God’s faithful people. The theological core of super-sessionism replacement theology.
The article closes with “The wounds of Christ and the wounds of our brothers and sisters– we learn from both to see victory over death…” This sounds compassionate, but it’s morally bankrupt when the theology being promoted is the very one responsible for generating those wounds!
Xtian Europe inflicted 2000+ years of persecution on the Jewish people in the name of the crucified Christ. Blood libels, forced baptisms, Crusades, ghettos, inquisitions, expulsions, and eventually the Shoah—all justified by the claim that Jews were “Christ-killers” and had been “replaced” by the Church. The article offers no acknowledgment of this history, no repentance, and certainly no restitution. Instead, it spiritualizes suffering and invites readers to “see victory” in wounds it played a direct role in inflicting.
There’s no recognition that the Jewish people still live, still keep Torah, still affirm our brit sworn oath alliance through remembering the oaths sworn by our forefathers with HaShem. No mention of Mount Sinai, of mitzvot, of the Land of Israel, or of the ongoing national identity of Jews as the chosen Cohen people. The “Israel” in this theology is a ghost, an allegory, a “type” replaced by the “mystical body of Christ.” In this telling, Jews no longer matter—except as theological stepping stones.
This isn’t just an isolated devotional post. It reflects the core structure of Christian theology since the 2nd century; the mechanism by which Europe justified the Shoah, and the ongoing erasure of Jewish dignity, national identity, and oath alliance chosen Cohen people truth. What makes it so insidious is how gently it’s framed—how pastorally it speaks—while carrying out a replacement so total it denies even the memory of its theft.
mosckerr
Another example of Av tuma Xtian avoda zarah expressed through revisionist history propaganda.
The historical and theological distortion in this article, its central premise misrepresents both Zionism and the modern U.S.-Israel alliance. The article’s question—“Who will defeat Biblical Zionism?”—is a conceptual bait-and-switch. Zionism, a modern political movement that arose in the late 19th century—not an ancient or biblical ideology. It was a response to the Dreyfus Affair in France (1894–1906), Russian pogroms in the Pale of Settlement, and centuries of Jewish statelessness and persecution. Thus, to call the Abraham Accords or U.S. military alliances a result of “Biblical Zionism” is a misleading conflation—often used by conspiracy theorists or apocalyptic ideologues.
This article doesn’t offer real geopolitical critique. Instead, it traffics in apocalyptic Xtian language, doomsday prophecy (Daniel, Matthew), and thinly veiled antisemitic tropes of Zionism as world-dominating, Israel as a betrayer of nations, Jerusalem as the prize of a “One World Government – blood libel slanders. This is not serious analysis—it’s eschatological fear-mongering dressed up as commentary.
The claim that the Abraham Accords are a “pavement for the One World Government” is pure speculation with no factual basis. In reality the Abraham Accords were bilateral normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, etc.). They were driven by shared concerns about Iran, economic interests, and U.S. diplomacy—not some hidden theocratic agenda.
The author quotes Daniel 11 and Matthew 24 to paint Trump and Zionism as fulfilling “the age of betrayal” and honoring a “strange god.” This is classic eisegesis—reading one’s political bias into the biblical text. Daniel 11 was historically about the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, not modern U.S. presidents or Gulf arms deals. Matthew 24 refers to general apostasy and persecution, but tying it to Trump dancing in Saudi Arabia is just bad theology.
While there are legitimate concerns about U.S. arms sales to authoritarian regimes (e.g., Saudi Arabia), that is a matter of realpolitik, not eschatology. What this article does is flip the moral script. It treats military alliances and peace accords as signs of the end times, while subtly demonizing Jews, Israel, and any Christians who support Zionism as “lost souls.”
Zionism was a rational Jewish response to persecution, not a Biblically prophesied imperial plan. This article confuses theology, distorts history, and uses emotionally loaded religious texts to push a conspiratorial worldview. It’s not journalism or legitimate critique—it’s a Xtian apocalyptic polemic hiding behind geopolitical language.
mosckerr
Cowardly Arab revisionist history where Arab men hide behind the skirts of their women.
Two glaring omissions and distortions common in contemporary Arab and leftist discourse on regional history and victimhood narratives. The selective memory in Arab and pro-Palestinian discourse that glorifies victimhood while conveniently omitting or minimizing Yasser Arafat’s notorious alliance with Saddam Hussein during the 1990 Gulf War. His backing of Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait had devastating consequences for Palestinian communities living in Kuwait—over 400,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled, many of whom had lived there for decades. These expulsions were a direct backlash to Arafat’s support for Saddam and reveal a dark undercurrent in pan-Arab politics where ideological alignment often trumps the well-being of actual people.
Kuwait’s response, while harsh and arguably collective punishment, is inseparable from the historical reality that the Palestinian leadership—at that time—aligned itself with a brutal aggressor. This is rarely confronted by activists or intellectuals in postcolonial circles who romanticize the Palestinian cause while neglecting intra-Arab injustices, sectarian hypocrisy, and Arab-on-Arab violence.
Arab propaganda tends to amplify the Nakba—the displacement of roughly 700,000 Palestinians in 1948—while completely failing to acknowledge the far greater displacement of over 850,000 Jews from Arab countries following Israel’s establishment. These Jewish refugees—who were often stripped of property, rights, and citizenship—received no recognition, compensation, or international aid. They were absorbed into Israel without the luxury of UNRWA or a decades-long refugee status to preserve their victim identity.
Mona Kareem’s interview raises valid critiques of Western literary imperialism and the marginalization of diasporic Arab voices. But what’s conspicuously absent is the Arab imperialism and intra-Arab chauvinism—the expulsion of Bidun, the demonization of non-Arab minorities, or the internal collapse of solidarity when Arab regimes scapegoat their own stateless or peripheral peoples.
Kareem positions herself against “white innocence” in translation—but there’s a parallel “Arab innocence” that must also be challenged. The cultural industry across the Arab world, including literature, has often functioned as a gatekeeping mechanism for nationalist, patriarchal, and revisionist ideologies. The Bidun, Kurds, Jews, Amazigh, and others have been erased or demonized—not by the West, but by Arab regimes and cultural elites themselves.
This selective historical memory is not just a narrative flaw—it’s a political weapon. By fixating solely on the Nakba, Arab leaders and intellectuals erase their own culpability in fomenting war in 1948 and reject any responsibility for the outcome. Worse, they use it as a rallying cry to avoid self-reflection, democratic reform, or internal justice.
This selective amnesia is cowardice, as you put it—moral cowardice that avoids hard truths in favor of a simplified, Manichean story of oppressed and oppressor. It’s also an example of textual violence, ironically paralleling the very critiques made by Mona Kareem in the interview you posted, but weaponized in reverse.
Arab elites, intellectuals, and propagandists cry foul at Western colonialism while engaging in intra-Arab repression and historical revisionism. The Nakba narrative has become a shield, obscuring not only Arab responsibility for the 1948 war, but also the systemic expulsion of Jews from Arab lands. The silence around Arafat’s complicity in the Gulf War tragedy reveals a dangerous prioritization of political ideology over historical accountability. Until these contradictions are confronted, calls for “justice” or “liberation” from within Arab discourse will continue to ring hollow—selective in memory, cowardly in confession, and ultimately, compromised in integrity.
mosckerr
The Elephant in the Ashes: Job as Indictment of Supersessionist Theology and Exilic Gaslighting
The “Elephant in the China Closet” of the Book of Job — the national oath alliance theme of g’lut (exile, humiliation, disempowerment) — which conspicuously – rather obviously – absent in all Xtian mis-interpretations. The Xtianized white-wash reading typified by commentators like Mike Mason or Elmer Smick – commits a theological reductionism far more egregious than Elihu’s verbosity. It universalizes Job’s suffering into abstract moralism and individualized spiritual growth, severing it entirely from the Torah oath alliance brit faith, national chosen Cohen people who by accepting the Torah at Sinai accept the blessings together with the Torah curses. This fundamental Torah brit foundation, expressed through the legal contexts of T’NaCH and Talmudic common law, it determines how the Book of Job correctly interpreted and understood.
The mainstream Xtian framing — that Job’s suffering, a test of personal faith or a vehicle for mystical insight — deliberately ignores the central T’NaCH & Talmudic theme that g’lut/exile suffering and injustice the direct result from the failure of our leaders to rule the oath sworn lands through judicial Sanhedrin common law courtrooms who preserve and maintain justice. The Book of Job directly addresses its central theme of justice.
Elihu as a Mouthpiece of Pious Systemic Gaslighting. Its not the justice of God which requires defense but rather the justice on Earth. Why do the righteous suffer? Avraham pleaded with HaShem over the decree of destruction – if 10 men cling to judicial righteousness etc. Job only one man, no different than Lot. The similarity between the two men ceases when Lot had incest relationships with both his daughters. Elihu’s verbosity isn’t just annoying — it’s dangerous. He overcompensates with verbosity because he’s spiritually insecure. He’s trying to prop up a crumbling paradigm: a transactional view of suffering that doesn’t fit either Job or Israel.
The Book of Job should be read today as an anti-super-sessionist indictment of Xtian theologies that promised universal peace and moral triumph — while Jews endured blood libel slanders, vicious pogroms, repeated over and again mass population transfers, economically degraded, thrown into ghetto gulags for three Centuries and slaughtered in the Shoah genocide under the Xtian watch. After the Holocaust and the rebirth of Israel, Xtianity, not Judaism, that must explain the suffering and the disgrace of the Xtian good name in the eyes of all humanity.
Xtian readings (like Mason, Smick, Meyer) domesticate Job’s protest, betray the terms of the oath brit Torah alliance. Job’s story mirrors Israel in g’lut, just as Megillat Eicha (Lamentations) does on a national level, Sefer Iyov articulates the outrage of the tzaddik who is cast down without cause. The Book of Iyov calls for t’shuva, on par with Moshe reminding HaShem of the oaths sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, which caused HaShem on Yom Kippur to make t’shuva Himself and annul the vow to make the Chosen Cohen seed of the House of Moshe! Sefer Iyov, when properly read, exposes the moral and theological bankruptcy of replacement theology. When read within the context of Torah and g’lut, Iyov becomes a prophetic rebuke of the very theological systems that sought to bury the Jewish people — and of the gaslighting defenders who spoke piously while Zion burned.
mosckerr
Assimilated Jews who have little or no knowledge a Torah curse.
What’s deeply unsettling about Jonathan Tobin’s article. While on the surface it appears to celebrate Jewish-Catholic rapprochement, it subtly reasserts a dangerous, patronizing frame: that the Church still has a moral oversight role in defining Jewish legitimacy, particularly regarding the State of Israel and its wars of survival. Post-Shoah and post-1948, the Church itself is in galut (exile) — is exactly the kind of theological and historical inversion that must be foregrounded in any serious Jewish response. The traditional roles have been reversed.
Jews now exercise national sovereignty in our ancestral homeland through our own military, judiciary, and government. The Church, once the persecuting power, is now a diasporic entity with no territorial authority and no theological supremacy over Jewish destiny. Arab Palestinians, including Christians, are not dhimmi under Jewish rule — they are in fact part of an irredentist movement rejecting Jewish sovereignty and acting as proxies for imperial and genocidal ideologies (both Islamist and post-Marxist).
Why Tobin’s framing utterly disturbing and unacceptable. The question, “will Pope Leo use his influence to fight antisemitism?” assumes that Jewish survival depends on Christian endorsement — a deeply un-Jewish, post-galut mindset. Instead of acknowledging that it is the Vatican that has been displaced by history, Tobin behaves as if Jewish sovereignty is still on probation and must be evaluated according to Catholic moral standards.
Instead of acknowledging that it is the Vatican that has been displaced by history, Tobin behaves as if Jewish sovereignty is still on probation and must be evaluated according to Catholic moral standards. Israel is not a vulnerable supplicant. The Jewish people, for the first time in two millennia, possess real political, military, and economic agency. The Church, by contrast, is struggling to remain relevant, especially in the Global South where its authority is being undermined both by Islam and secularism.
The claim that the Church is simply “balancing” concern for Gaza and concern for Jews is dishonest. The moral equivalency between a democratic Jewish state defending its citizens and genocidal terror organizations is itself a form of antisemitism. The Catholic Church is not a unified political body. It is splintered between progressive liberationists, conservative traditionalists, and a shrinking Western base. Tobin ignores this collapse and projects an illusion of coherent moral authority that the Church no longer possesses.
Actions have their consequences. Just as Oct 7th 2023 resulted in the destruction of Gaza, and hopefully the forced population transfer of all Gazans to Arab countries comparable to the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries in 1948, the Shoah marked the utter moral failure of Christendom, specifically Pius XII, to prevent or resist antisemitism; this Church alliance with Nazi Hitler, specifically when the Pope failed to denounce the deportation of Rome’s Jews to death camps, the failure of Rome’s Catholics to wear the star of David, it permanently shattered the obliterated “Good Name” of the Xtian church, both Catholic and Protestant.
The establishment of the State of Israel reversed the power dynamic and ended the era of Jewish dependency on gentile protection. In this new world, the Church must ask how it will earn moral relevance—not how Jews can pass its tests of legitimacy. The post-Shoah, post-Independence world marks the exile of the Church—not of the Jewish people.
After 2,000 years of Christian persecution and theological supremacy, Jews have returned to sovereign rule in their ancestral homeland. The Vatican, once a global hegemon, is now struggling to remain coherent amidst internal fracture and geopolitical irrelevance. Any commentary that frames Jewish survival or Israeli sovereignty in terms of papal approval misunderstands the new reality. The Church no longer defines our borders, moral legitimacy, or destiny. It is the Church that must ask what role it plays in a Jewish century—not the other way around.
mosckerr
Xtian revisionist history has absolutely no shame.
Philippians 4:6–7 another example of Christian revisionism. A perfect case study in how early Christianity redefined Jewish covenantal categories like t’fillah (prayer), shalom (peace), and emunah (faithfulness) into ahistorical, internalized, and universalized Greco-Roman virtues.
Philippians 4:6–7 (ESV)
Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.Paul takes deeply national, ritual, and legal Jewish concepts and redefines them in interiorized and individualized terms. Prayer and supplication replaces t’fillah, tachanun. T’fillah remembers the oaths sworn by the Avot, a tohor time oriented positive commandment which creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין continuously and in all generations. This unique Torah premise, by definition reject the Nazi/Church like racism which foists the slander that calls Jews an inferior race.
Tachanun, based upon the two types of t’shuva which the Yom Tov of Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur uniquely define; the former – remembers the Sin of the Golden Calf where the assimilated ערב רב of intermarried Jews sought to replace Moshe with a Calf! This avoda zarah theology likewise expressed through the church bible and Muslim koran abominations which attempt to translate the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment “a living Spirit and NOT a word translation”; this utterly defines the intent of the original sin of the Golden Calf. The latter t’shuva remembers that HaShem annulled the vow whereby the oaths sworn unto the Avot to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין … תמיד מעשה בראשית. HaShem made t’shuva and annulled this vow. Hence both the father and husband can annul vows made by their daughters or wives, in defined conditions which lay outside the scope of this response.
Paul’s prayer and supplications strips t’fillah and tachanun. It replaces them with a private, mystical form of request—alien to Jewish brit-based legalism. The “peace of God which surpasses all understanding” is pure Hellenistic abstraction—it echoes Stoic and Neoplatonic ideals of inner tranquility (ataraxia) and detachment from worldly trouble.
Peace a false translation of shalom. The latter a verb which stands upon the foundation of trust. The former a noun that amounts to brown nosing pie in the sky rhetoric noise which has no real actual meaning. Shalom all about the restoration of fair compensation of damages inflicted by one Jew upon another by a righteous common law courtroom of justices. “Justice, justice shall you pursue… so that you may live and inherit the land” (Deut. 16:20), this verse defines the Torah concept of faith. Paul’s “peace” bypasses land, law, and nation replaces prophetic mishpat and tzedakah with mystical serenity “in Christ Jesus.”
By encouraging submission to “the peace of God” as mediated through “Christ Jesus,” Paul replaces the Sinaitic covenant with a new spiritual mediator, bypassing the subject all together that requires the chosen Cohen people to dedicate ie korbanot their service to the oath brit “faith” pursuit of justice through the dedication and sanctification of tohor middot/attibutes; the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai — which the unrepentant Church denies to this very day.
This new testament revisionist history and substitute theology (the sin of the Golden Calf) severs new testament believers from gere tzeddik converts. It promotes the Av tumah avoda zarah expressed through Greek ethical psychology and messianic mysticism. This response attempts to illustrate how early Xtianity redefined Jewish brit-based categories like t’fillah (prayer), shalom (peace), and emunah (faithfulness) into universalized, internalized, and ultimately de-Judaized Greco-Roman virtues.
mosckerr
The concealed dreams of British imperialism concealed in this blood Yellow Journalism rag.
Workers BushTelegraph has a long history of aligning with far-left, often Marxist or socialist movements, and this orientation has consistently expressed itself in aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric, often indistinguishable from classic Arab nationalist and Islamist propaganda. Their framing of issues like “Who owns the Holy Land?” is telling—it often erases Jewish historical claims to the land, which are well documented in archaeological, historical, and biblical sources.
At every chance it delegitimizes modern Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, often equating Zionism with colonialism, which is historically false and intellectually dishonest. This rag Yellow Journalism romanticizes or sanitizes Arab resistance movements, including groups with overt antisemitic ideologies (e.g., Hamas), while ignoring Jewish suffering or defensive rights.
Their narrative mirrors the most radical versions of Arab state propaganda, which not only denies Jewish indigeneity. But frames Jews as recent European settlers. Furthermore, it presents the conflict only through the lens of “imperialism,” ignoring pan-Arabist aggression and the religious-legal war against Jewish sovereignty.
The event title “Who owns the Holy Land?” is itself a loaded super-sessionist revisionist history and an utter provocation. Which echoes old Christian and Islamic polemics that tried to replace or overwrite Jewish covenantal claims with universalist or triumphalist alternatives. Their platform isn’t about peace or coexistence—it’s a rhetorical weapon in a war of delegitimation. Many of these groups mask antisemitism as anti-Zionism, using terms like “apartheid,” “genocide,” or “settler colonialism” without factual or legal basis.
The Catholic Church Holocaust Denial Revisionist History – expressed by how it rewrites histories about its so-called Saints.
How Catholic figures like Bonaventura Cavalieri are portrayed in some academic and historical writing—especially when it fails to acknowledge or even whitewashes the broader context of Catholic institutional repression, censorship, and complicity in violence during that era. This article reads as part of a genre that seeks to sanitize or “rehabilitate” Catholic clerical scientists, subtly detaching their intellectual accomplishments from the Church’s authoritarian and often anti-scientific power structure, particularly during the Counter-Reformation.
The article emphasizes Cavalieri’s intellectual achievements while obscuring the oppressive role of the Catholic Church, particularly during the Inquisition and the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648). Cavalieri wasn’t just a scientist—he was a monk in a system that used theology to dominate and suppress dissent. Even if he was intellectually gifted, he operated within and benefited from the very hierarchy that persecuted independent thought.
The description of the Jesuati order (not to be confused with the Jesuits) as men who “shouted the name of Jesus” and cared for the sick glosses over the macabre and fanatical nature of such movements, particularly their flagellant rituals, which were often expressions of apocalypticism, magical thinking, and social hysteria. That this is framed as a noble origin story reflects the Catholic penchant for recoding fanaticism as piety.
Galileo’s support for Cavalieri is used to portray a kind of meritocratic scientific brotherhood, but the deeper reality is that Cavalieri’s entire academic advancement was rooted in Church politics and patronage. The fact that Cavalieri relied on cardinals, duchesses, and archbishops to get an academic position shows how corrupt and feudal the intellectual environment was. Science was tightly controlled by Church gatekeepers. The text conveniently omits how the same Galileo was tried and silenced by the Inquisition for promoting Copernicanism.
The article mentions that Jesuit mathematicians like André Tacquet and Paul Guldin opposed Cavalieri’s “indivisibles” because of their Aristotelian orthodoxy, but it frames them as merely conservative or mistaken, rather than as enforcers of doctrinal orthodoxy. In reality, the Jesuits were active suppressors of mathematical innovation, particularly anything that resembled infinitesimals or “actual infinity,” which clashed with their metaphysical dogma. This wasn’t just academic disagreement—it was a matter of religious control over acceptable thought.
The time period discussed (early 1600s to mid-1600s) was marked by Catholic-sponsored wars, inquisitions, and book bans. Figures like Cardinal Federico Borromeo, who helped Cavalieri, were involved in censorship and enforcing Tridentine orthodoxy, which included persecution of Jews, Protestants, and even Catholic humanists. To present them merely as beneficent patrons of science is dishonest and vile revisionist history. These men oversaw a system that burned books, exiled thinkers, and tortured dissenters.
While the article praises Cavalieri’s foresight in optics and infinitesimals, it doesn’t grapple with how far Catholic control held back the formalization of calculus, which would not reach full maturity until Newton and Leibniz—outside the Catholic world and long after Protestant science had gained independence from Rome.
The article attempts to spin Cavalieri as a proto-modern scientist, but the truth is that his work survived despite the ecclesiastical system, not because of it. His career was entangled in the theocratic web of Church politics, and his discoveries were tolerated only insofar as they did not challenge theological authority. Meanwhile, the very system that granted him patronage was busy crushing other, more threatening voices, from Galileo to Giordano Bruno (burned at the stake in 1600). If this article were honest, it would acknowledge the structural violence and intellectual repression of the Catholic world in which Cavalieri lived. Instead, it portrays him as a quaint, monastic genius nurtured by a kindly Church—which is a textbook case of historical revisionism.
mosckerr
Conflict Resolution 