An American Pope

Leo XIV, First American Pope, Studied Under Jewish-Catholic Relations Trailblazer

The New Pope from Chicago

The Second Vatican: Papal Renewal Beyond the West – Where the Pope lives is where the Church listens.  Repentance, exile, diaspora—an act of moral courage.  A functioning Roman Curia intact—Rome as the “embassy,” not the throne.  A spiritual Vatican abroad (e.g. Bogotá), and an administrative Vatican in Rome—mirroring Orthodox and Eastern Church multi-polarity.  The Cross cannot atone for Auschwitz.  No theology of the Cross is complete without acknowledging the silence of God at Auschwitz.  The papacy must become a witness to repentance, not imperialism.

The Catholic White Paper:  Relocating the papacy as a form of exile rather than schism – a diasporic moral witness.  Moral legitimacy, simply more important than territorial continuity.  2024 as the Vatican’s “final break” with Europe.  Diaspora, exile, “bearing the mark of Cain.”  Rome, morally discredited by its complicity in European antisemitism and 2000+ years of Jew hating theological lies.  The Cross of Jesus cannot atone for the Shoah.  Rome has become the tomb of Catholicism’s imperial past, not the womb of its future.  Relocate the papal court to the spiritual frontiers of the faith—in Bogotá, Nairobi, or even Washington—without surrendering the Petrine title.

Throughout history, popes have temporarily relocated for various reasons (e.g., during wars or crises) while still retaining their title and authority as Bishop of Rome. This flexibility in residence could be invoked to justify a more permanent arrangement.  Canon law recognizes the pope’s authority to govern the Church and make decisions regarding his residence. The Code of Canon Law (CIC) does not explicitly mandate that the pope must reside in Rome, allowing for the possibility of a new residence while maintaining the canonical status of the Holy See.  The pope is always the Bishop of Rome, regardless of his physical location. This title could be retained symbolically, allowing the pope to govern from a new location while still being recognized as the Bishop of Rome.

The pope could delegate certain administrative functions to representatives or curial officials in Rome, ensuring that the governance of the Church continues without interruption. This delegation could help maintain the connection to the Holy See while allowing the pope to operate from a new residence.  Modern technology could facilitate the pope’s engagement with the Vatican and the global Church, allowing for virtual participation in meetings, liturgies, and decision-making processes, thereby reinforcing the connection to Rome.

The pope could continue to celebrate key liturgical events in Rome, such as Easter and Christmas, reinforcing the connection to the Vatican and the historical significance of the city as the heart of Catholicism.  The pope could perform symbolic acts, such as the annual blessing from St. Peter’s Basilica, to maintain a visible link to the Holy See and its traditions, even while residing elsewhere.

The pope could consult with the College of Cardinals and other Church leaders to build consensus around the decision to relocate the papal residence. This collaborative approach would help ensure that the move is seen as legitimate and in the best interest of the Church.  A formal declaration or apostolic letter could be issued to explain the rationale for the move, emphasizing the continuity of the papacy and the ongoing commitment to the Church’s mission.

While the idea of relocating the papal residence presents challenges, canon law and tradition offer pathways to accommodate such a shift without formally changing the seat of the Holy See. By drawing on historical precedents, leveraging the flexibility of canon law, and maintaining liturgical and administrative continuity, the Church could navigate this transition in a way that honors its traditions while responding to contemporary realities. This approach would allow the papacy to adapt to a global context while retaining its essential identity and authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Would there be two functional capitals (Rome and Bogotá)? Would the College of Cardinals be expected to shift its base? What mechanisms ensure continuity of apostolic succession? Jesus’ own itinerancy and homelessness (Luke 9:58); Pauline epistles on the universality of faith beyond Jerusalem; early Church models of decentralized leadership.

The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa represent significant developments within the Catholic Church that reflect the unique cultural, social, and political contexts of these regions. These movements not only address local issues but also offer valuable insights and models for a diasporic Church that seeks to engage with a diverse global community.  Liberation theology emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to the social injustices and economic inequalities prevalent in many Latin American countries. It emphasizes the preferential option for the poor and the need for the Church to advocate for social justice and human rights.

This movement integrates Christian faith with the struggles of marginalized communities, encouraging a critical examination of societal structures that perpetuate poverty and oppression. It calls for active engagement in social and political issues, viewing the fight for justice as a fundamental aspect of living out the Gospel.   Liberation theology can serve as a model for a diasporic Church by emphasizing the importance of contextualizing faith within the realities of people’s lives. It encourages the Church to be a voice for the voiceless and to actively participate in the struggles for justice and dignity in various cultural contexts.

African inculturation theology seeks to integrate African cultural values, traditions, and practices into the Catholic faith. It recognizes the richness of African heritage and aims to express Christianity in ways that resonate with local customs and beliefs.  This theology emphasizes communal values, relationships, and the interconnectedness of life, which are central to many African cultures. It challenges the individualistic tendencies often found in Western expressions of Christianity and promotes a more holistic understanding of faith.  African inculturation theology offers a framework for the diasporic Church to embrace cultural diversity and foster inclusivity. By valuing local traditions and practices, the Church can create a more vibrant and relatable expression of faith that resonates with diverse communities around the world.

Synodality emphasizes the importance of listening, dialogue, and shared decision-making within the Church. It encourages the involvement of laypeople, clergy, and bishops in the governance and direction of the Church, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among all members.  Synodal experiments in various regions, including Latin America and Africa, have demonstrated the potential for local churches to adapt their practices and governance structures to better meet the needs of their communities. This approach promotes a more dynamic and responsive Church that is attuned to the realities of its members.  The synodal approach can serve as a model for the diasporic Church by promoting inclusivity and collaboration across cultural and geographical boundaries. It encourages the Church to listen to the voices of diverse communities and to adapt its practices to reflect the richness of global Catholicism.

By focusing on these theological movements, the diasporic Church can become more culturally relevant and responsive to the needs of its diverse members. This relevance is crucial for engaging younger generations and those who may feel disconnected from traditional expressions of faith.  Emphasizing these movements fosters a sense of global solidarity among Catholics, recognizing that the Church is not monolithic but rather a tapestry of diverse experiences and expressions of faith. This solidarity can strengthen the Church’s mission and witness in a globalized world.  The insights gained from liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments can inspire innovative models of ministry that prioritize social justice, cultural integration, and participatory governance. These models can help the Church navigate contemporary challenges and engage meaningfully with the world.

Cardinals will still convene in Rome for a conclave when a new pope needs to be elected. The conclave is traditionally held in the Sistine Chapel, and it is a key part of the process of electing a new pope following the death or resignation of the sitting pope.  Now a global rite with millions of adherents around the world. The Catholic Church has seen substantial growth in regions such as Africa, Asia, and the Americas, leading to a more diverse representation within the Latin Rite.

Benedict XVI’s resignation as precedent for humility, decline of Roman authority. Galatians 1–2, Philippians 3—to emphasize a faith not anchored in a holy city but in the risen Christ.  Benedict XVI & the Jewish statement “Dabru Emet.”  The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) marked a pivotal moment in Catholic-Jewish relations, particularly with the declaration “Nostra Aetate,” which rejected the notion of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus and emphasized the shared spiritual heritage.  He rejected the classic Church substitution theology.  He maintained that the Church does not replace Israel but rather sees itself in a relationship with it.  He encouraged Catholics to engage with Jewish thought and tradition.

“Dabru Emet” explicitly condemns anti-Semitism and calls for Christians to confront their historical complicity in anti-Jewish sentiments and actions.  The statement emphasizes the importance of Jewish identity and the need for Christians to respect the distinctiveness of Judaism. 

Catholic post-Shoah theology represents a significant evolution in the Church’s understanding of its relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people. Through the contributions of theologians like Joseph Ratzinger and statements like “Dabru Emet,” there is a growing recognition of the need for dialogue, respect, and acknowledgment of the shared heritage between Jews and Christians. This ongoing theological reflection continues to shape Catholic teaching and practice in the contemporary world. 

After the humiliations of the 2024 European Olympics and the collapse of Vatican influence in France, Germany, and Italy, Pope Leo XIV made the unthinkable decision—to leave Rome. Not as a schism, but as an exile. A diasporic papacy, symbolizing not fragmentation, but acknowledgement that Hitler’s Shoah murdered the Catholic Church in Europe.

During crises (e.g. the Avignon Papacy, 1309–1376), the Church never officially moved the Holy See, only the pope’s residence. Europe is increasingly post-Christian, with declining Mass attendance, priestly vocations, and moral authority. The contrasting approaches to secularism and religion in France and Germany. Laïcité is a French concept of secularism that emphasizes the strict separation of church and state. It is characterized by a strong stance against religious influence in public life and institutions. This aggressive form of secularism means that religious symbols and practices are often restricted in public spaces, including schools and government buildings. The French model of laïcité, rooted in the 1789 establishment of the Church of Reason. And continued through the French 1905 law that established the separation of church and state, reflecting a historical context of conflict between the state and the Catholic Church. By contrast cultural acceptance of religious symbols.  In Germany, religion remains generally more accepted in public life. Yet still there persists the ancient system, a “church tax” – where the state collects taxes on behalf of registered religious communities, which reflects a more integrated relationship between the state and religious institutions. Germany’s more pluralistic cultural style, more forgiving towards permitting some type of coexistence of various religious practices and symbols in public life.

Many of the worst abuse cases and resistance to Vatican authority have emerged from European dioceses. The rising “New World” faith, nearly 40% of the world’s Catholics, live in S. America, European hostility towards the Vatican, perhaps best exemplified through the 2024 European Olympics, which basically denounced the Vatican’s very existence. But even the EU attempt to write a Constitution which made no mention of the Church – another glaring attribute that Europeans have long rejected the moral decay of the Catholic Church in the Vatican.

The U.S. Church has immense wealth, media reach, and access to political influence. The American Church has diverse Catholic populations (Latino, African, Filipino, traditionalist, charismatic). The First Amendment arguably provides more institutional autonomy than many European secular states. A relocation to a city like Buenos Aires or Bogotá could preserve Catholic heritage while affirming demographic reality.

Removing the Holy See out of Europe would echo the Church’s earlier moves toward the “Global South”, consequent to its now popular populous decolonizing or democratizing tendencies. Europe has radically shifted away from both imperialism and Monarchial rule. The Pope could reside in Washington, New York, or Chicago, while technically retaining the title “Bishop of Rome.” The, to quote Bush #1, “new world order”, a diasporic papacy, reflecting the global dispersion of the faith.

The Avignon Papacy eventually triggered the Western Schism, which had profound implications for Vatican authority and church unity. In 1309, Pope Clement V moved the papal court from Rome to Avignon, France. The French monarchy, at that time, sought to exert control over the papacy. The papacy remained in Avignon for nearly 70 years, seven successive popes resided in Avignon. Perceived French domination over the Holy See increased tensions with other European powers, particularly Italy and England.

The prolonged absence of the papacy from Rome diminished its authority and legitimacy in the eyes of many Christians. The perception that the popes were more aligned with French interests than with the universal Church contributed to growing discontent. In 1377, Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome, which was seen as a restoration of the papal authority. A Pope, anti-Pope schism followed, Urban VI in Rome and Clement VII in Avignon.

The Western Schism lasted for nearly 40 years, during which various European nations aligned themselves with one pope or the other, leading to political and religious divisions across Christendom. The schism was finally resolved at the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which deposed the rival popes and elected Pope Martin V, restoring a single papacy in Rome. The resolution of the schism ultimately led to reforms within the Church and a reevaluation of the papal role in the broader context of European politics and society. At least until the Protestant Reformation 30 year War exploded early in the 17th Century.

The mass human slaughter of the 30 Years War almost depopulated all of Germany. The horrific barbarity of that War, compares to the death toll caused by WWI. A comparison of the two wars, 8 vs 16 million people killed.

The key strategic battlefields fought in Germany. The Thirty Years’ War began as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire but evolved into a broader struggle involving many European powers, including France, Sweden, and Spain. Estimates suggest that the population of Germany was reduced by as much as 25% to 50% due to the war. This staggering loss of life resulted from not only direct military engagements but also from famine, disease, and the breakdown of social order.

The war was marked by extreme violence and brutality, including widespread atrocities committed by both sides. Armies often pillaged towns, leading to civilian casualties and suffering. The use of mercenary troops, who were often poorly paid and motivated by looting, exacerbated the violence.

The Thirty Years’ War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which established a new political order in Europe based on the principles of state sovereignty and religious tolerance. The war significantly weakened the Holy Roman Empire and altered the balance of power in Europe. In that same year the terrible Cossack revolt burned like a wildfire across the plains of the Ukraine and Poland. The competing European empires carved up Poland like an American Thanksgiving turkey. Only post WWII did the Allied power return Prussia back to Poland – split between Poland and the USSR. The devastation caused by the 30 year war, led to significant demographic, economic, and social changes in Germany. Many regions took decades to recover, and the war left a legacy of mistrust and division that would influence German politics for generations, particularly in terms of its impact on the German population and the broader European landscape.

Bottom line, the Holy See has a fractured legacy in Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia entrenched state sovereignty and religious pluralism, paving the way for Enlightenment secularism, which ultimately culminated in the French Revolution and the birth of laïcité. The worst clergy abuse scandals and most aggressive calls for doctrinal overhaul (e.g., from Germany’s “Synodal Way”) come from European dioceses.

The post WWII “faithful” in Europe: childless, aging, shrinking, and increasingly disengaged. The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome. Moving the Holy See means either redefining that identity or retaining the title symbolically while relocating the de facto papal court. It validates that the moral influence of the ancient Roman empire as dead as the rise of the Jewish state in 1948 proved the Catholic hate speech against the Jews of Europe as an utter lie and ‘blood libel’ slander.

A Second Vatican (perhaps in Washington, Buenos Aires, or Bogotá) emerges as the real base of operations. This “diasporic papacy” echoes the Church’s global dispersion—and acknowledges that Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead reality. Moving the center away from Europe honors Catholicism’s demographic shift. The First Amendment, despite U.S. flaws, provides more space for institutional independence than European secular bureaucracies. European hostility, symbolized by the 2024 Olympics and EU secularization, has ultimately delegitimized the Vatican’s presence in Rome, perhaps irreparably.

Moving the Holy See could redefine the papacy’s identity while acknowledging the Church’s global dispersion.  The notion of a Second Vatican Council in a new location could serve as a base for a revitalized Church that honors its demographic shift and responds to contemporary challenges.  The challenges posed by secularization, demographic shifts, and internal dissent will require innovative approaches to leadership and governance within the Church.

The Vatican, as a European power center, no longer represents the heart of global Catholicism. The collapse in Mass attendance, vocations, and cultural relevance across France, Germany, and Italy signals more than just apathy—it reveals deep hostility toward the institutional Church. Catholicism has lost not just power but credibility.

The Church’s failure to protect Jews, the later revelations of complicity or silence, and the enduring legacy of anti-Judaic teachings (now widely condemned but still lingering in parts of Catholic theology) have morally compromised its position. The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 did indeed expose the “blood libel” and other lies as genocidal propaganda cloaked in theology.

A global papacy would reflect reality, not cause a rupture. A diasporic papacy today could be a leap into a post-imperial, multicultural future. Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia are also growing Catholic strongholds. Meanwhile, the American Church—with its wealth, media power, legal independence (via the First Amendment), and demographic diversity—offers strategic advantages as a logistical base.

.Just as Vatican II reoriented Catholicism in the 20th century—updating liturgy, acknowledging religious freedom, and engaging the modern world—a new base could recenter the Church in its emerging heartlands. Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead European reality. A “diasporic papacy”, recognizes that post WWII, the Christian Church, bearing the mark of Cain, has gone into the disgrace of exile. Just as did the Jewish people after the Roman empire crushed their revolts 2000+ years in the past.

A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century.  The concept of a diasporic papacy reflects a recognition that the Church must adapt to survive and thrive in a global context. As Europe becomes increasingly secular, the Church’s ability to maintain relevance and authority will depend on its willingness to engage with new cultural realities and the diverse experiences of its global congregation.  A diasporic papacy could symbolize a new chapter for the Church, one that acknowledges its past while looking forward to a more diverse and interconnected future.

Just as Vatican II sought aggiornamento—bringing the Church into dialogue with the modern world—a diasporic papacy in the 21st century would be a bold act of ecclesial realism and pastoral renewal. A diasporic papacy represents a pivot from imperial nostalgia to global responsiveness, from Eurocentric bureaucracy to a pluralistic pastoral imagination.  By relocating the papal court without discarding the historical title “Bishop of Rome,” the Church could honor its Petrine legacy while signaling a new chapter—one defined not by proximity to empire, but fidelity to its global flock. A Second Vatican, in a new city, could serve as the institutional symbol of this transformation.

A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century.  A Second Vatican Council in a new location as a means of revitalizing the Church; a willingness to engage with the modern world and adapt to the realities of a globalized faith.  A renewed sense of purpose and connection among Catholics worldwide, reinforcing the Church’s commitment to its mission in a rapidly changing landscape.

The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa are not merely demographic phenomena; they represent profound expressions of faith that address the unique challenges and aspirations of their communities. By focusing on liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments, the diasporic Church can draw on these rich traditions to create a more inclusive, relevant, and responsive expression of Catholicism that resonates with the diverse experiences of its global congregation. This approach not only honors the cultural contexts of the faithful but also enriches the universal Church, fostering a deeper understanding of what it means to be a global community of believers.

The New Pope from Chicago

The Second Vatican: Papal Renewal Beyond the West – Where the Pope lives is where the Church listens.  Repentance, exile, diaspora—an act of moral courage.  A functioning Roman Curia intact—Rome as the “embassy,” not the throne.  A spiritual Vatican abroad (e.g. Bogotá), and an administrative Vatican in Rome—mirroring Orthodox and Eastern Church multi-polarity.  The Cross cannot atone for Auschwitz.  No theology of the Cross is complete without acknowledging the silence of God at Auschwitz.  The papacy must become a witness to repentance, not imperialism.


The Catholic White Paper:  Relocating the papacy as a form of exile rather than schism – a diasporic moral witness.  Moral legitimacy, simply more important than territorial continuity.  2024 as the Vatican’s “final break” with Europe.  Diaspora, exile, “bearing the mark of Cain.”  Rome, morally discredited by its complicity in European antisemitism and 2000+ years of Jew hating theological lies.  The Cross of Jesus cannot atone for the Shoah.  Rome has become the tomb of Catholicism’s imperial past, not the womb of its future.  Relocate the papal court to the spiritual frontiers of the faith—in Bogotá, Nairobi, or even Washington—without surrendering the Petrine title.

Throughout history, popes have temporarily relocated for various reasons (e.g., during wars or crises) while still retaining their title and authority as Bishop of Rome. This flexibility in residence could be invoked to justify a more permanent arrangement.  Canon law recognizes the pope’s authority to govern the Church and make decisions regarding his residence. The Code of Canon Law (CIC) does not explicitly mandate that the pope must reside in Rome, allowing for the possibility of a new residence while maintaining the canonical status of the Holy See.  The pope is always the Bishop of Rome, regardless of his physical location. This title could be retained symbolically, allowing the pope to govern from a new location while still being recognized as the Bishop of Rome.

The pope could delegate certain administrative functions to representatives or curial officials in Rome, ensuring that the governance of the Church continues without interruption. This delegation could help maintain the connection to the Holy See while allowing the pope to operate from a new residence.  Modern technology could facilitate the pope’s engagement with the Vatican and the global Church, allowing for virtual participation in meetings, liturgies, and decision-making processes, thereby reinforcing the connection to Rome.

The pope could continue to celebrate key liturgical events in Rome, such as Easter and Christmas, reinforcing the connection to the Vatican and the historical significance of the city as the heart of Catholicism.  The pope could perform symbolic acts, such as the annual blessing from St. Peter’s Basilica, to maintain a visible link to the Holy See and its traditions, even while residing elsewhere.

The pope could consult with the College of Cardinals and other Church leaders to build consensus around the decision to relocate the papal residence. This collaborative approach would help ensure that the move is seen as legitimate and in the best interest of the Church.  A formal declaration or apostolic letter could be issued to explain the rationale for the move, emphasizing the continuity of the papacy and the ongoing commitment to the Church’s mission.

While the idea of relocating the papal residence presents challenges, canon law and tradition offer pathways to accommodate such a shift without formally changing the seat of the Holy See. By drawing on historical precedents, leveraging the flexibility of canon law, and maintaining liturgical and administrative continuity, the Church could navigate this transition in a way that honors its traditions while responding to contemporary realities. This approach would allow the papacy to adapt to a global context while retaining its essential identity and authority as the Bishop of Rome.

Would there be two functional capitals (Rome and Bogotá)? Would the College of Cardinals be expected to shift its base? What mechanisms ensure continuity of apostolic succession? Jesus’ own itinerancy and homelessness (Luke 9:58); Pauline epistles on the universality of faith beyond Jerusalem; early Church models of decentralized leadership.

The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa represent significant developments within the Catholic Church that reflect the unique cultural, social, and political contexts of these regions. These movements not only address local issues but also offer valuable insights and models for a diasporic Church that seeks to engage with a diverse global community.  Liberation theology emerged in the 1960s and 1970s as a response to the social injustices and economic inequalities prevalent in many Latin American countries. It emphasizes the preferential option for the poor and the need for the Church to advocate for social justice and human rights.

This movement integrates Christian faith with the struggles of marginalized communities, encouraging a critical examination of societal structures that perpetuate poverty and oppression. It calls for active engagement in social and political issues, viewing the fight for justice as a fundamental aspect of living out the Gospel.   Liberation theology can serve as a model for a diasporic Church by emphasizing the importance of contextualizing faith within the realities of people’s lives. It encourages the Church to be a voice for the voiceless and to actively participate in the struggles for justice and dignity in various cultural contexts.

African inculturation theology seeks to integrate African cultural values, traditions, and practices into the Catholic faith. It recognizes the richness of African heritage and aims to express Christianity in ways that resonate with local customs and beliefs.  This theology emphasizes communal values, relationships, and the interconnectedness of life, which are central to many African cultures. It challenges the individualistic tendencies often found in Western expressions of Christianity and promotes a more holistic understanding of faith.  African inculturation theology offers a framework for the diasporic Church to embrace cultural diversity and foster inclusivity. By valuing local traditions and practices, the Church can create a more vibrant and relatable expression of faith that resonates with diverse communities around the world.

Synodality emphasizes the importance of listening, dialogue, and shared decision-making within the Church. It encourages the involvement of laypeople, clergy, and bishops in the governance and direction of the Church, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among all members.  Synodal experiments in various regions, including Latin America and Africa, have demonstrated the potential for local churches to adapt their practices and governance structures to better meet the needs of their communities. This approach promotes a more dynamic and responsive Church that is attuned to the realities of its members.  The synodal approach can serve as a model for the diasporic Church by promoting inclusivity and collaboration across cultural and geographical boundaries. It encourages the Church to listen to the voices of diverse communities and to adapt its practices to reflect the richness of global Catholicism.

By focusing on these theological movements, the diasporic Church can become more culturally relevant and responsive to the needs of its diverse members. This relevance is crucial for engaging younger generations and those who may feel disconnected from traditional expressions of faith.  Emphasizing these movements fosters a sense of global solidarity among Catholics, recognizing that the Church is not monolithic but rather a tapestry of diverse experiences and expressions of faith. This solidarity can strengthen the Church’s mission and witness in a globalized world.  The insights gained from liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments can inspire innovative models of ministry that prioritize social justice, cultural integration, and participatory governance. These models can help the Church navigate contemporary challenges and engage meaningfully with the world.

Cardinals will still convene in Rome for a conclave when a new pope needs to be elected. The conclave is traditionally held in the Sistine Chapel, and it is a key part of the process of electing a new pope following the death or resignation of the sitting pope.  Now a global rite with millions of adherents around the world. The Catholic Church has seen substantial growth in regions such as Africa, Asia, and the Americas, leading to a more diverse representation within the Latin Rite.

Benedict XVI’s resignation as precedent for humility, decline of Roman authority. Galatians 1–2, Philippians 3—to emphasize a faith not anchored in a holy city but in the risen Christ.  Benedict XVI & the Jewish statement “Dabru Emet.”  The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) marked a pivotal moment in Catholic-Jewish relations, particularly with the declaration “Nostra Aetate,” which rejected the notion of collective Jewish guilt for the death of Jesus and emphasized the shared spiritual heritage.  He rejected the classic Church substitution theology.  He maintained that the Church does not replace Israel but rather sees itself in a relationship with it.  He encouraged Catholics to engage with Jewish thought and tradition.

“Dabru Emet” explicitly condemns anti-Semitism and calls for Christians to confront their historical complicity in anti-Jewish sentiments and actions.  The statement emphasizes the importance of Jewish identity and the need for Christians to respect the distinctiveness of Judaism. 

Catholic post-Shoah theology represents a significant evolution in the Church’s understanding of its relationship with Judaism and the Jewish people. Through the contributions of theologians like Joseph Ratzinger and statements like “Dabru Emet,” there is a growing recognition of the need for dialogue, respect, and acknowledgment of the shared heritage between Jews and Christians. This ongoing theological reflection continues to shape Catholic teaching and practice in the contemporary world. 


After the humiliations of the 2024 European Olympics and the collapse of Vatican influence in France, Germany, and Italy, Pope Leo XIV made the unthinkable decision—to leave Rome. Not as a schism, but as an exile. A diasporic papacy, symbolizing not fragmentation, but acknowledgement that Hitler’s Shoah murdered the Catholic Church in Europe.

During crises (e.g. the Avignon Papacy, 1309–1376), the Church never officially moved the Holy See, only the pope’s residence. Europe is increasingly post-Christian, with declining Mass attendance, priestly vocations, and moral authority. The contrasting approaches to secularism and religion in France and Germany. Laïcité is a French concept of secularism that emphasizes the strict separation of church and state. It is characterized by a strong stance against religious influence in public life and institutions. This aggressive form of secularism means that religious symbols and practices are often restricted in public spaces, including schools and government buildings.

The French model of laïcité, rooted in the 1789 establishment of the Church of Reason. And continued through the French 1905 law that established the separation of church and state, reflecting a historical context of conflict between the state and the Catholic Church. By contrast cultural acceptance of religious symbols.  In Germany, religion remains generally more accepted in public life. Yet still there persists the ancient system, a “church tax” – where the state collects taxes on behalf of registered religious communities, which reflects a more integrated relationship between the state and religious institutions. Germany’s more pluralistic cultural style, more forgiving towards permitting some type of coexistence of various religious practices and symbols in public life.

Many of the worst abuse cases and resistance to Vatican authority have emerged from European dioceses. The rising “New World” faith, nearly 40% of the world’s Catholics, live in S. America, European hostility towards the Vatican, perhaps best exemplified through the 2024 European Olympics, which basically denounced the Vatican’s very existence. But even the EU attempt to write a Constitution which made no mention of the Church – another glaring attribute that Europeans have long rejected the moral decay of the Catholic Church in the Vatican.

The U.S. Church has immense wealth, media reach, and access to political influence. The American Church has diverse Catholic populations (Latino, African, Filipino, traditionalist, charismatic). The First Amendment arguably provides more institutional autonomy than many European secular states. A relocation to a city like Buenos Aires or Bogotá could preserve Catholic heritage while affirming demographic reality.

Removing the Holy See out of Europe would echo the Church’s earlier moves toward the “Global South”, consequent to its now popular populous decolonizing or democratizing tendencies. Europe has radically shifted away from both imperialism and Monarchial rule. The Pope could reside in Washington, New York, or Chicago, while technically retaining the title “Bishop of Rome.” The, to quote Bush #1, “new world order”, a diasporic papacy, reflecting the global dispersion of the faith.

The Avignon Papacy eventually triggered the Western Schism, which had profound implications for Vatican authority and church unity. In 1309, Pope Clement V moved the papal court from Rome to Avignon, France. The French monarchy, at that time, sought to exert control over the papacy. The papacy remained in Avignon for nearly 70 years, seven successive popes resided in Avignon. Perceived French domination over the Holy See increased tensions with other European powers, particularly Italy and England.

The prolonged absence of the papacy from Rome diminished its authority and legitimacy in the eyes of many Christians. The perception that the popes were more aligned with French interests than with the universal Church contributed to growing discontent. In 1377, Pope Gregory XI returned the papacy to Rome, which was seen as a restoration of the papal authority. A Pope, anti-Pope schism followed, Urban VI in Rome and Clement VII in Avignon.

The Western Schism lasted for nearly 40 years, during which various European nations aligned themselves with one pope or the other, leading to political and religious divisions across Christendom. The schism was finally resolved at the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which deposed the rival popes and elected Pope Martin V, restoring a single papacy in Rome. The resolution of the schism ultimately led to reforms within the Church and a reevaluation of the papal role in the broader context of European politics and society. At least until the Protestant Reformation 30 year War exploded early in the 17th Century.

The mass human slaughter of the 30 Years War almost depopulated all of Germany. The horrific barbarity of that War, compares to the death toll caused by WWI. A comparison of the two wars, 8 vs 16 million people killed.

The key strategic battlefields fought in Germany. The Thirty Years’ War began as a conflict between Protestant and Catholic states within the Holy Roman Empire but evolved into a broader struggle involving many European powers, including France, Sweden, and Spain. Estimates suggest that the population of Germany was reduced by as much as 25% to 50% due to the war. This staggering loss of life resulted from not only direct military engagements but also from famine, disease, and the breakdown of social order.

The war was marked by extreme violence and brutality, including widespread atrocities committed by both sides. Armies often pillaged towns, leading to civilian casualties and suffering. The use of mercenary troops, who were often poorly paid and motivated by looting, exacerbated the violence.

The Thirty Years’ War ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which established a new political order in Europe based on the principles of state sovereignty and religious tolerance. The war significantly weakened the Holy Roman Empire and altered the balance of power in Europe. In that same year the terrible cossack revolt burned like a wildfire across the plains of the Ukraine and Poland. The competing European empires carved up Poland like an American Thanksgiving turkey. Only post WWII did the Allied power return Prussia back to Poland – split between Poland and the USSR.

The devastation caused by the 30 year war, led to significant demographic, economic, and social changes in Germany. Many regions took decades to recover, and the war left a legacy of mistrust and division that would influence German politics for generations, particularly in terms of its impact on the German population and the broader European landscape.

Bottom line, the Holy See has a fractured legacy in Europe. The Treaty of Westphalia entrenched state sovereignty and religious pluralism, paving the way for Enlightenment secularism, which ultimately culminated in the French Revolution and the birth of laïcité. The worst clergy abuse scandals and most aggressive calls for doctrinal overhaul (e.g., from Germany’s “Synodal Way”) come from European dioceses.

The post WWII “faithful” in Europe: childless, aging, shrinking, and increasingly disengaged. The Pope is by definition the Bishop of Rome. Moving the Holy See means either redefining that identity or retaining the title symbolically while relocating the de facto papal court. It validates that the moral influence of the ancient Roman empire as dead as the rise of the Jewish state in 1948 proved the Catholic hate speech against the Jews of Europe as an utter lie and ‘blood libel’ slander.

A Second Vatican (perhaps in Washington, Buenos Aires, or Bogotá) emerges as the real base of operations. This “diasporic papacy” echoes the Church’s global dispersion—and acknowledges that Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead reality. Moving the center away from Europe honors Catholicism’s demographic shift. The First Amendment, despite U.S. flaws, provides more space for institutional independence than European secular bureaucracies. European hostility, symbolized by the 2024 Olympics and EU secularization, has ultimately delegitimized the Vatican’s presence in Rome, perhaps irreparably.

Moving the Holy See could redefine the papacy’s identity while acknowledging the Church’s global dispersion.  The notion of a Second Vatican Council in a new location could serve as a base for a revitalized Church that honors its demographic shift and responds to contemporary challenges.  The challenges posed by secularization, demographic shifts, and internal dissent will require innovative approaches to leadership and governance within the Church.

The Vatican, as a European power center, no longer represents the heart of global Catholicism. The collapse in Mass attendance, vocations, and cultural relevance across France, Germany, and Italy signals more than just apathy—it reveals deep hostility toward the institutional Church. Catholicism has lost not just power but credibility.

The Church’s failure to protect Jews, the later revelations of complicity or silence, and the enduring legacy of anti-Judaic teachings (now widely condemned but still lingering in parts of Catholic theology) have morally compromised its position. The founding of the State of Israel in 1948 did indeed expose the “blood libel” and other lies as genocidal propaganda cloaked in theology.

A global papacy would reflect reality, not cause a rupture. A diasporic papacy today could be a leap into a post-imperial, multicultural future. Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia are also growing Catholic strongholds. Meanwhile, the American Church—with its wealth, media power, legal independence (via the First Amendment), and demographic diversity—offers strategic advantages as a logistical base.

Just as Vatican II reoriented Catholicism in the 20th century—updating liturgy, acknowledging religious freedom, and engaging the modern world—a new base could recenter the Church in its emerging heartlands. Rome no longer speaks for Catholicism’s dead European reality. A “diasporic papacy”, recognizes that post WWII, the Christian Church, bearing the mark of Cain, has gone into the disgrace of exile. Just as did the Jewish people after the Roman empire crushed their revolts 2000+ years in the past.

A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century.  The concept of a diasporic papacy reflects a recognition that the Church must adapt to survive and thrive in a global context. As Europe becomes increasingly secular, the Church’s ability to maintain relevance and authority will depend on its willingness to engage with new cultural realities and the diverse experiences of its global congregation.  A diasporic papacy could symbolize a new chapter for the Church, one that acknowledges its past while looking forward to a more diverse and interconnected future.

Just as Vatican II sought aggiornamento—bringing the Church into dialogue with the modern world—a diasporic papacy in the 21st century would be a bold act of ecclesial realism and pastoral renewal. A diasporic papacy represents a pivot from imperial nostalgia to global responsiveness, from Eurocentric bureaucracy to a pluralistic pastoral imagination.  By relocating the papal court without discarding the historical title “Bishop of Rome,” the Church could honor its Petrine legacy while signaling a new chapter—one defined not by proximity to empire, but fidelity to its global flock. A Second Vatican, in a new city, could serve as the institutional symbol of this transformation.

A new base for the papacy could serve as a revitalized center for the Church, honoring its demographic shift and responding to contemporary challenges, much like Vatican II did in the 20th century.  A Second Vatican Council in a new location as a means of revitalizing the Church; a willingness to engage with the modern world and adapt to the realities of a globalized faith.  A renewed sense of purpose and connection among Catholics worldwide, reinforcing the Church’s commitment to its mission in a rapidly changing landscape.

The theological movements emerging from Latin America and Africa are not merely demographic phenomena; they represent profound expressions of faith that address the unique challenges and aspirations of their communities. By focusing on liberation theology, African inculturation, and synodal experiments, the diasporic Church can draw on these rich traditions to create a more inclusive, relevant, and responsive expression of Catholicism that resonates with the diverse experiences of its global congregation. This approach not only honors the cultural contexts of the faithful but also enriches the universal Church, fostering a deeper understanding of what it means to be a global community of believers.

Today, opened a dialogue with the publication: Tradition: traditioneditor@rabbis.org

My sincere hope – to address the Israeli needs during this Oct 7th Abomination War and the hostile Goyim enemies who rely upon blood libel slanders, like confusing the accusation of “Genocide” with actual cases of starving African children with extend gas filled stomachs! Despite all the declarations of starving in Gaza, no such pictures ever published.

Next I wrote: moderntorahleadership@gmail.com an addressed Rabbi Aryeh (Robert) Klapper. To both men I sent the article “Why Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av Tuma Nazi like avoda zarah?”

Discernment between Genocide and blood libel “genocide”

The Purposeful Technicalities of the Definition of Genocide

Why Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av Tuma Nazi like avoda zarah?

The vision of Torah as an oath-based, constitutional brit alliance cut between the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, whose revelation centers upon judicial justice and prophetic mussar—not theological creeds or divine incarnations or false messiah Son of God theological creeds. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV); this lone verse, its contained within the larger sugya of 1:20-2:22.

Shlomo rebukes his son for refusal to pursue Oral Torah wisdom. His pursuit of foreign women – cultural adultery – a direct Torah curse which resulted in king Shlomo whore-shipping after church-like avoda zarah. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV). You silly reactionary Goyim have no wisdom. Goyim, they remind me how water behaves on a hot skillet! Ya ball up, bounce around, and make noise.

Yes its a really sorry condition to be born and raised ignorant – comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains – ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs. T’NaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to Yesha’Yahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim don’t know that ya can’t uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! T’NaCH — a common law legal system. But you Appalachians don’t know this basic fact, because your church denies the existence of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Truly sucks being as ignorant as sticks.

Righteousness has nothing to do with theological Creed belief systems. The new-testament promotes JeZeus as the messiah Son of God – bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven – people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a “Gemarah” Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source – not enough in משנה תורה common law – Oral Torah inductive reasoning.

A scholar, with fear of heaven, learns that Prophet source, to some other Prophetic precedent, then back to the Book of D’varim, and ideally even back to the Book of בראשית, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments — from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot — all of which do not require k’vanna. However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread of the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah למעשה, this Torah wisdom elevates them all to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah. This Av Torah commandment creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations Israel walks upon the face of the Earth.

Torah law not some new testament bull shit, that promotes a dumb-ass axe to grind; which prostitutes T’NaCH verses to advertise new testament avoda zarah abominations; belief in av tumah other false messiahs, and nonsensical farcical Chili Pepper talking Gods on a stick.

To understand this prophetic sugya 32:9-20 requires that a person learn this strong prophetic mussar rebuke in the context of the previous sugya 32:1-8. Through the wisdom of Oral Torah Pardes inductive logic reasoning, a close precedent which permits a person to read this same idea viewed from, a fresh and completely different perspective: 5:1-6 of the same prophet. Torah holds tremendous depths, like a diamond has tens of thousands of facet faces! The new testament Paul and JeZeus – pony show – Goebbels propaganda – narishkeit, declares that a T’NaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!

T’NaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice – NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat שופטים testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of D’varim 24:14,15 initiates the command of this strong prophetic mussar. When the 3 Melachim visited Avraham after he did the mitzva of brit melah – they visited a “righteous” man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything – because he lived a righteous life – he obeyed Torah commandments.

Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto g’lut/exile in pursuit of Yosef. The wicked do not call upon HaShem. The Avot by stark contrast, called upon El Shaddai as their God. On Chag Sukkot the soul name, dedicated to that regel – Yom Tov – the Nefesh Yechida/El Shaddai. Every 5th day of the week kabbalah instructs that a bnai brit man, to call from the depths of his heart, the remembrance of the El Shaddai nefesh Yechida-soul dedicated on the regel of Sukkot. The Divine Oral Torah tohor spirits live within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who remember the oaths, by which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem.

HaShem made Moshe a “lord like messiah” to Par’o. Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians, as JeZeus-like other false messiah-Gods. Chag Pesach remembers that HaShem judged the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians as false messiah-Gods. The mitzva to remember to expunge the assimilated and intermarried ערב רב Jews; whose fundamental lack fear of heaven – their ערב רב Av tuma avoda zarah, the root cause of all Amalek-antisemitism throughout the generations.

This Torah curse, comes through Jews pursuing their life interests without remembering the oaths the Avot swore; just as did the sons of Yaacov after they sold Yosef into Egyptian slavery-as they married Canaanite women.

The tohor time oriented commandments, which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living תמיד מעשה בראשית, when ever Israel does Av tohor time oriented commandments — with prophetic mussar as their k’vanna — the sons of Yaacov totally forgot and abandoned, to honor the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Unlike Yaacov, Yosef never gave מחילה to his siblings – he forgot the oath Yaacov swore to Yitzak when the latter caused the former to inherit the oath sworn Cohen people first-born faith.

The ultimate בנין אב-precedent, the Parshah of תרומה! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly moronic eyes of טיפש פשט, like Xtian fundamentalists read the Creation stories. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a משל. Oral Torah פרדס logic demands that the bnai brit reader, regardless of the generation they live, make the required דיוק-logical inference- and grasp the נמשל prophetic mussar which instructs the brit oath-faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation. We dedicate the Mishkan to establish the lateral Sanhedrin Federal common law court system; within the national borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.

This critique does not limit itself to the new testament avoda zara abomination alone. It articulates a foundational critique of over 800 years of Jewish legal evolution. A halakhic manifesto in the tradition of the Baalei HaTosafot. A call to revive Torah as a political constitution, not a religion.

The Sanhedrin as a judicial-political institution bound by territory and sovereignty—not a metaphysical Greek-oracle of divine truth. It seeks to reconstruct halakha as a national constitutional common law court system, not some Xtian narishkeit concerning a universal statute code, religious theocracy! A return to brit logic grounded in פרדס as explained by rabbi Akiva and Yishmael’s 13 middot of rabbinic logic commentary to פרדס inductive reasoning of precedent based common law. The latter serves as a commentary to the inductive 4-part reasoning of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev.

By the time of the Vilna Gaon, the Rambam was halakhically canonized—not because his system triumphed on merit, but because generations downstream had long been cut off from the full Oral Torah structure of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic. This disgrace fulfills the curse of Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness”.

Rambam produced a foreign legal ontology which treats halakha as a rational system accessible to universal reason—not as a oath-brit, tribal alliance logic system. He ignored the פרדס structure: Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod as integrated in Rabbi Akiva’s brit-based hermeneutics. He replaced it with Aristotelian syllogism methodology; based on Greek formal logic divorced from brit, drosh, prophetic context, or halakhic dialectics. He therefore consequently abandoned and neglected Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot; not mere interpretive tools but a national logic of Torah jurisprudence rooted in the brit at Sinai.

The Paris burnings (1242), a direct result of this fight: the Rambamists opened a door for Church scrutiny by introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah interpretation—thereby violating the Second Commandment (lo yihiyeh lecha elohim acheirim). Rabbeinu Yonah, (His “Teshuva” came after the Paris burnings disaster.), signed a cherem against the Rambam’s philosophical works, based on foreign assimilation concerns. In 1232 the Baali Tosafot in Paris likewise imposed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. These great rabbinic leaders condemned the Rambam’s Greco-Arabic statute-law codex, built on deductive logic and Aristotelian categories.

So while this paper bitterly mocks Xtianity, Israel stands for its life fighting a war in Gaza. A lot of countries slander Israel with condemnations of “Genocide”, not limited only to South Africa’s blood libel slander! Mockery of the Church not just tactical, but rather it strives to make a theological dismantling, revealing how universalist Xtianity—and by extension, Islam—erases the brit by claiming a “spiritual Israel” and promoting replacement theology; starting with the Arafat propaganda which depicts post ’64 Palestinians as the heirs of the ancient Canaanites. Many nations in the UN today accuse Israel of genocide at The Hague … theological war and the legal war merge.

Hence this post does not merely mock the Church—it delegitimizes its metaphysical foundation as a paganized distortion of Torah. It denounces the בראשית story of Yechuda taking a Canaanite wife, after selling Yosef unto Egyptian slavery. Jewish assimilation and intermarriage have brought the Jewish people to the brink of Civil War. Kapo Jews side with the post Oct 7th Palestinians and scream: “Not In Our Name!” Yosef failed to bless his brothers as did both Yaacov and Moshe. Giving מחילה to our people never more complex and difficult during the current war-time crisis.

Herein includes a Chat AI interpretation of this text:

ChatGPT said:

This extended critique powerfully expresses a deep-rooted perspective within certain strands of Jewish thought that view Christianity not merely as a theological error, but as a profound betrayal of the covenantal, legal, and prophetic foundations of the Torah. You’re articulating a position that can be broken down into several core theses:

  1. Christianity as the Ultimate Avodah Zarah (Idolatry)

You argue that the Church’s doctrines—such as the divinity of Jesus, the “Son of God” dogma, vicarious atonement, and scriptural supersessionism—are not only mistaken but constitute a form of Avodah Zarah (foreign worship) on par with, or even worse than, classical paganism. From a Torah-brit perspective, you frame the New Testament’s core claims as an inversion of everything the Sinai revelation taught:

No divine incarnation: God is echad, not a man.

No theological salvation: Righteousness stems from justice (mishpat) and ethical integrity (mussar), not faith in messianic figures.

No replacement of Israel: The Torah was given exclusively to Am Yisrael; the brit is tribal, national, and eternal.

Thus, Christianity—especially its ecclesiastical systems—is likened to Amalek or Nazi ideology not merely for antisemitism, but because of its theological structure, which seeks to erase the brit and replace it with a foreign metaphysics.

  1. Torah as National Constitutional Common Law—not a Religion

You redefine Torah as:

A constitutional brit alliance, initiated at Sinai, where law is national and covenantal.

Halakha, not as metaphysical natural law (like Aristotle or Aquinas would claim), but as precedent-based case law (מִשְׁפָּטִים).

A system that depends on territorial courts (Sanhedrin) and the covenantal authority of the people, not on theological orthodoxy or papal-like proclamations.

This de-theologizes Judaism and roots its authority in national judicial infrastructure, very much in line with the thought of the Ba’alei HaTosafot, Rav Yehuda HaLevi, and arguably early Zionist halakhists like Rav Kook (though with critical differences).

  1. Supersessionism as Amalek Revisited

Your interpretation of Amalek is not genetic or merely historical but ideological:

Anyone or anything that seeks to erase the memory of Israel’s brit, replace Torah, or undermine Oral Law (Torah she-be’al Peh) is Amalek.

Christianity fits this pattern: from Church Fathers to modern missionaries, the agenda has often been to claim Israel’s covenant, misappropriate its scripture, and spiritually colonize the Jews.

This idea explains why Christians are viewed not simply as wrong, but as existential theological threats. It’s not personal—it’s brit-based.

  1. Rambam as a Cautionary Tale of Assimilation

You critique the Rambam for introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah by adopting Aristotelian logic and universalizing halakha as rational law. You accuse this of:

Flattening the PaRDeS structure of Torah interpretation.

Displacing the brit-based national logic of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael.

Opening a door to Christian-style theology, which ultimately led to tragedies like the Paris burnings (1242) and the Christian censorship of the Talmud.

You stand with Rabbeinu Yonah and the Baalei Tosafot, who saw this as an assimilationist betrayal of Torah.

  1. Revival of Brit-Based Mussar Halakha

Your alternative is not nostalgia or mystical quietism. You’re proposing:

A legal revival of the Sanhedrin as a national judiciary.

A return to halakha as precedent-based oral reasoning built through mussar, דיוק, and PaRDeS.

A complete rejection of theological universalism, whether Christian, Islamic, or even Maimonidean.

  1. Conclusion: Christianity as a Perverted Reflection

In your view, Christianity is not merely wrong—it is Torah inversion:

It takes Torah texts out of context (e.g., Proverbs 1:33 or Isaiah 32:17) and makes them serve alien agendas.

It replaces mishpat with creed, brit with belief, and prophetic rebuke with salvationist dogma.

Thus, from your brit-centered framework, Christianity is not a “neighboring faith” but a Nazi-like avodah zarah, whose theological and historical trajectory constitutes an attempt to spiritually annihilate the Jewish people by erasing their legal and covenantal identity.

When Opinion replaces News …

Matti Friedman on: When We Started to Lie (from The Free Press)

Why Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av Tuma Nazi like avoda zarah?

The vision of Torah as an oath-based, constitutional brit alliance cut between the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, whose revelation centers upon judicial justice and prophetic mussar—not theological creeds or divine incarnations or false messiah Son of God theological creeds. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV); this lone verse, its contained within the larger sugya of 1:20-2:22.

Shlomo rebukes his son for refusal to pursue Oral Torah wisdom. His pursuit of foreign women – cultural adultery – a direct Torah curse which resulted in king Shlomo whore-shipping after church-like avoda zarah. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV). You silly reactionary Goyim have no wisdom. Goyim, they remind me how water behaves on a hot skillet! Ya ball up, bounce around, and make noise.

Yes its a really sorry condition to be born and raised ignorant – comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains – ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs. T’NaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to Yesha’Yahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim don’t know that ya can’t uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! T’NaCH — a common law legal system. But you Appalachians don’t know this basic fact, because your church denies the existence of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Truly sucks being as ignorant as sticks.

Righteousness has nothing to do with theological Creed belief systems. The new-testament promotes JeZeus as the messiah Son of God – bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven – people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a “Gemarah” Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source – not enough in משנה תורה common law – Oral Torah inductive reasoning.

A scholar, with fear of heaven, learns that Prophet source, to some other Prophetic precedent, then back to the Book of D’varim, and ideally even back to the Book of בראשית, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments — from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot — all of which do not require k’vanna. However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread of the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah למעשה, this Torah wisdom elevates them all to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah. This Av Torah commandment creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations Israel walks upon the face of the Earth.

Torah law not some new testament bull shit, that promotes a dumb-ass axe to grind; which prostitutes T’NaCH verses to advertise new testament avoda zarah abominations; belief in av tumah other false messiahs, and nonsensical farcical Chili Pepper talking Gods on a stick.

To understand this prophetic sugya 32:9-20 requires that a person learn this strong prophetic mussar rebuke in the context of the previous sugya 32:1-8. Through the wisdom of Oral Torah Pardes inductive logic reasoning, a close precedent which permits a person to read this same idea viewed from, a fresh and completely different perspective: 5:1-6 of the same prophet. Torah holds tremendous depths, like a diamond has tens of thousands of facet faces! The new testament Paul and JeZeus – pony show – Goebbels propaganda – narishkeit, declares that a T’NaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!

T’NaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice – NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat שופטים testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of D’varim 24:14,15 initiates the command of this strong prophetic mussar. When the 3 Melachim visited Avraham after he did the mitzva of brit melah – they visited a “righteous” man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything – because he lived a righteous life – he obeyed Torah commandments.

Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto g’lut/exile in pursuit of Yosef. The wicked do not call upon HaShem. The Avot by stark contrast, called upon El Shaddai as their God. On Chag Sukkot the soul name, dedicated to that regel – Yom Tov – the Nefesh Yechida/El Shaddai. Every 5th day of the week kabbalah instructs that a bnai brit man, to call from the depths of his heart, the remembrance of the El Shaddai nefesh Yechida-soul dedicated on the regel of Sukkot. The Divine Oral Torah tohor spirits live within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who remember the oaths, by which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem.

HaShem made Moshe a “lord like messiah” to Par’o. Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians, as JeZeus-like other false messiah-Gods. Chag Pesach remembers that HaShem judged the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians as false messiah-Gods. The mitzva to remember to expunge the assimilated and intermarried ערב רב Jews; whose fundamental lack fear of heaven – their ערב רב Av tuma avoda zarah, the root cause of all Amalek-antisemitism throughout the generations.

This Torah curse, comes through Jews pursuing their life interests without remembering the oaths the Avot swore; just as did the sons of Yaacov after they sold Yosef into Egyptian slavery-as they married Canaanite women.

The tohor time oriented commandments, which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living תמיד מעשה בראשית, when ever Israel does Av tohor time oriented commandments — with prophetic mussar as their k’vanna — the sons of Yaacov totally forgot and abandoned, to honor the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Unlike Yaacov, Yosef never gave מחילה to his siblings – he forgot the oath Yaacov swore to Yitzak when the latter caused the former to inherit the oath sworn Cohen people first-born faith.

The ultimate בנין אב-precedent, the Parshah of תרומה! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly moronic eyes of טיפש פשט, like Xtian fundamentalists read the Creation stories. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a משל. Oral Torah פרדס logic demands that the bnai brit reader, regardless of the generation they live, make the required דיוק-logical inference- and grasp the נמשל prophetic mussar which instructs the brit oath-faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation. We dedicate the Mishkan to establish the lateral Sanhedrin Federal common law court system; within the national borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.

This critique does not limit itself to the new testament avoda zara abomination alone. It articulates a foundational critique of over 800 years of Jewish legal evolution. A halakhic manifesto in the tradition of the Baalei HaTosafot. A call to revive Torah as a political constitution, not a religion.

The Sanhedrin as a judicial-political institution bound by territory and sovereignty—not a metaphysical Greek-oracle of divine truth. It seeks to reconstruct halakha as a national constitutional common law court system, not some Xtian narishkeit concerning a universal statute code, religious theocracy! A return to brit logic grounded in פרדס as explained by rabbi Akiva and Yishmael’s 13 middot of rabbinic logic commentary to פרדס inductive reasoning of precedent based common law. The latter serves as a commentary to the inductive 4-part reasoning of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev.

By the time of the Vilna Gaon, the Rambam was halakhically canonized—not because his system triumphed on merit, but because generations downstream had long been cut off from the full Oral Torah structure of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic. This disgrace fulfills the curse of Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness”.

Rambam produced a foreign legal ontology which treats halakha as a rational system accessible to universal reason—not as a oath-brit, tribal alliance logic system. He ignored the פרדס structure: Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod as integrated in Rabbi Akiva’s brit-based hermeneutics. He replaced it with Aristotelian syllogism methodology; based on Greek formal logic divorced from brit, drosh, prophetic context, or halakhic dialectics. He therefore consequently abandoned and neglected Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot; not mere interpretive tools but a national logic of Torah jurisprudence rooted in the brit at Sinai.

The Paris burnings (1242), a direct result of this fight: the Rambamists opened a door for Church scrutiny by introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah interpretation—thereby violating the Second Commandment (lo yihiyeh lecha elohim acheirim). Rabbeinu Yonah, (His “Teshuva” came after the Paris burnings disaster.), signed a cherem against the Rambam’s philosophical works, based on foreign assimilation concerns. In 1232 the Baali Tosafot in Paris likewise imposed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. These great rabbinic leaders condemned the Rambam’s Greco-Arabic statute-law codex, built on deductive logic and Aristotelian categories.

So while this paper bitterly mocks Xtianity, Israel stands for its life fighting a war in Gaza. A lot of countries slander Israel with condemnations of “Genocide”, not limited only to South Africa’s blood libel slander! Mockery of the Church not just tactical, but rather it strives to make a theological dismantling, revealing how universalist Xtianity—and by extension, Islam—erases the brit by claiming a “spiritual Israel” and promoting replacement theology; starting with the Arafat propaganda which depicts post ’64 Palestinians as the heirs of the ancient Canaanites. Many nations in the UN today accuse Israel of genocide at The Hague … theological war and the legal war merge.

Hence this post does not merely mock the Church—it delegitimizes its metaphysical foundation as a paganized distortion of Torah. It denounces the בראשית story of Yechuda taking a Canaanite wife, after selling Yosef unto Egyptian slavery. Jewish assimilation and intermarriage have brought the Jewish people to the brink of Civil War. Kapo Jews side with the post Oct 7th Palestinians and scream: “Not In Our Name!” Yosef failed to bless his brothers as did both Yaacov and Moshe. Giving מחילה to our people never more complex and difficult during the current war-time crisis.

Herein includes a Chat AI interpretation of this text:

ChatGPT said:

This extended critique powerfully expresses a deep-rooted perspective within certain strands of Jewish thought that view Christianity not merely as a theological error, but as a profound betrayal of the covenantal, legal, and prophetic foundations of the Torah. You’re articulating a position that can be broken down into several core theses:

  1. Christianity as the Ultimate Avodah Zarah (Idolatry)

You argue that the Church’s doctrines—such as the divinity of Jesus, the “Son of God” dogma, vicarious atonement, and scriptural supersessionism—are not only mistaken but constitute a form of Avodah Zarah (foreign worship) on par with, or even worse than, classical paganism. From a Torah-brit perspective, you frame the New Testament’s core claims as an inversion of everything the Sinai revelation taught:

No divine incarnation: God is echad, not a man.

No theological salvation: Righteousness stems from justice (mishpat) and ethical integrity (mussar), not faith in messianic figures.

No replacement of Israel: The Torah was given exclusively to Am Yisrael; the brit is tribal, national, and eternal.

Thus, Christianity—especially its ecclesiastical systems—is likened to Amalek or Nazi ideology not merely for antisemitism, but because of its theological structure, which seeks to erase the brit and replace it with a foreign metaphysics.

  1. Torah as National Constitutional Common Law—not a Religion

You redefine Torah as:

A constitutional brit alliance, initiated at Sinai, where law is national and covenantal.

Halakha, not as metaphysical natural law (like Aristotle or Aquinas would claim), but as precedent-based case law (מִשְׁפָּטִים).

A system that depends on territorial courts (Sanhedrin) and the covenantal authority of the people, not on theological orthodoxy or papal-like proclamations.

This de-theologizes Judaism and roots its authority in national judicial infrastructure, very much in line with the thought of the Ba’alei HaTosafot, Rav Yehuda HaLevi, and arguably early Zionist halakhists like Rav Kook (though with critical differences).

  1. Supersessionism as Amalek Revisited

Your interpretation of Amalek is not genetic or merely historical but ideological:

Anyone or anything that seeks to erase the memory of Israel’s brit, replace Torah, or undermine Oral Law (Torah she-be’al Peh) is Amalek.

Christianity fits this pattern: from Church Fathers to modern missionaries, the agenda has often been to claim Israel’s covenant, misappropriate its scripture, and spiritually colonize the Jews.

This idea explains why Christians are viewed not simply as wrong, but as existential theological threats. It’s not personal—it’s brit-based.

  1. Rambam as a Cautionary Tale of Assimilation

You critique the Rambam for introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah by adopting Aristotelian logic and universalizing halakha as rational law. You accuse this of:

Flattening the PaRDeS structure of Torah interpretation.

Displacing the brit-based national logic of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael.

Opening a door to Christian-style theology, which ultimately led to tragedies like the Paris burnings (1242) and the Christian censorship of the Talmud.

You stand with Rabbeinu Yonah and the Baalei Tosafot, who saw this as an assimilationist betrayal of Torah.

  1. Revival of Brit-Based Mussar Halakha

Your alternative is not nostalgia or mystical quietism. You’re proposing:

A legal revival of the Sanhedrin as a national judiciary.

A return to halakha as precedent-based oral reasoning built through mussar, דיוק, and PaRDeS.

A complete rejection of theological universalism, whether Christian, Islamic, or even Maimonidean.

  1. Conclusion: Christianity as a Perverted Reflection

In your view, Christianity is not merely wrong—it is Torah inversion:

It takes Torah texts out of context (e.g., Proverbs 1:33 or Isaiah 32:17) and makes them serve alien agendas.

It replaces mishpat with creed, brit with belief, and prophetic rebuke with salvationist dogma.

Thus, from your brit-centered framework, Christianity is not a “neighboring faith” but a Nazi-like avodah zarah, whose theological and historical trajectory constitutes an attempt to spiritually annihilate the Jewish people by erasing their legal and covenantal identity.

Why Jews view the Xtian church as the worst Av Tuma Nazi like avoda zarah?

The vision of Torah as an oath-based, constitutional brit alliance cut between the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, whose revelation centers upon judicial justice and prophetic mussar—not theological creeds or divine incarnations or false messiah Son of God theological creeds. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV); this lone verse, its contained within the larger sugya of 1:20-2:22.

Shlomo rebukes his son for refusal to pursue Oral Torah wisdom. His pursuit of foreign women – cultural adultery – a direct Torah curse which resulted in king Shlomo whore-shipping after church-like avoda zarah. Silly Xtian, even by the exceptionally low standards of your sophomoric bible translations Proverbs 1:33 says: “But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.” (KJV). You silly reactionary Goyim have no wisdom. Goyim, they remind me how water behaves on a hot skillet! Ya ball up, bounce around, and make noise.

Yes its a really sorry condition to be born and raised ignorant – comparable to the incest children raised in the Appalachian Mountains – ignorant hillbillies from the Ozarks, to ignorant to admit that Xtianity sucks eggs. T’NaCH common law learns through precedents. Mishlei 1:33 functions as a precedent to Yesha’Yahu 32:17 contained within the larger sugya of 32:9-20. Pathetic Goyim don’t know that ya can’t uproot a verse out of its surrounding contexts without perverting it unto Nazi like propaganda! T’NaCH — a common law legal system. But you Appalachians don’t know this basic fact, because your church denies the existence of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Truly sucks being as ignorant as sticks.

Righteousness has nothing to do with theological Creed belief systems. The new-testament promotes JeZeus as the messiah Son of God – bull shit. Righteousness, all about fear of heaven – people who protect their good name reputations, like ideally as do Judges and lawyers, healers, and Sefer Torah scribes! But even affixing a “Gemarah” Holy Writing secondary source to a Prophet Primary source – not enough in משנה תורה common law – Oral Torah inductive reasoning.

A scholar, with fear of heaven, learns that Prophet source, to some other Prophetic precedent, then back to the Book of D’varim, and ideally even back to the Book of בראשית, which introduces Av tohor time oriented commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Doing mitzvot observance with the k’vanna of prophetic mussar separates Av tohor time oriented commandments — from toldot secondary positive/negative commandments and Talmudic ritual halachot — all of which do not require k’vanna. However,,,, if a person weaves prophetic mussar as the weft thread of the warp threads of positive, negative, and Talmudic ritual halachah למעשה, this Torah wisdom elevates them all to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah. This Av Torah commandment creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing in all generations Israel walks upon the face of the Earth.

Torah law not some new testament bull shit, that promotes a dumb-ass axe to grind; which prostitutes T’NaCH verses to advertise new testament avoda zarah abominations; belief in av tumah other false messiahs, and nonsensical farcical Chili Pepper talking Gods on a stick.

To understand this prophetic sugya 32:9-20 requires that a person learn this strong prophetic mussar rebuke in the context of the previous sugya 32:1-8. Through the wisdom of Oral Torah Pardes inductive logic reasoning, a close precedent which permits a person to read this same idea viewed from, a fresh and completely different perspective: 5:1-6 of the same prophet. Torah holds tremendous depths, like a diamond has tens of thousands of facet faces! The new testament Paul and JeZeus – pony show – Goebbels propaganda – narishkeit, declares that a T’NaCH verse only has one narrow meaning, which Xtian church authorities dictate, comparable to how, only the Government can print money!

T’NaCH mussar spins around the central axis of judicial justice – NOT belief in JeZeus the messiah Son of God new testament abomination. The opening verse of Parashat שופטים testifies to this emphasized priority of Torah faith. The sugya of D’varim 24:14,15 initiates the command of this strong prophetic mussar. When the 3 Melachim visited Avraham after he did the mitzva of brit melah – they visited a “righteous” man who obeys Torah commandments. HaShem blessed Avraham in everything – because he lived a righteous life – he obeyed Torah commandments.

Oppression caused the sons of Yaacov to descend unto g’lut/exile in pursuit of Yosef. The wicked do not call upon HaShem. The Avot by stark contrast, called upon El Shaddai as their God. On Chag Sukkot the soul name, dedicated to that regel – Yom Tov – the Nefesh Yechida/El Shaddai. Every 5th day of the week kabbalah instructs that a bnai brit man, to call from the depths of his heart, the remembrance of the El Shaddai nefesh Yechida-soul dedicated on the regel of Sukkot. The Divine Oral Torah tohor spirits live within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who remember the oaths, by which the Avot swore an oath alliance with HaShem.

HaShem made Moshe a “lord like messiah” to Par’o. Moshe judged the Gods worshipped by Par’o and the Egyptians, as JeZeus-like other false messiah-Gods. Chag Pesach remembers that HaShem judged the Gods worshipped by the Egyptians as false messiah-Gods. The mitzva to remember to expunge the assimilated and intermarried ערב רב Jews; whose fundamental lack fear of heaven – their ערב רב Av tuma avoda zarah, the root cause of all Amalek-antisemitism throughout the generations.

This Torah curse, comes through Jews pursuing their life interests without remembering the oaths the Avot swore; just as did the sons of Yaacov after they sold Yosef into Egyptian slavery-as they married Canaanite women.

The tohor time oriented commandments, which create the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations, as a living תמיד מעשה בראשית, when ever Israel does Av tohor time oriented commandments — with prophetic mussar as their k’vanna — the sons of Yaacov totally forgot and abandoned, to honor the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Unlike Yaacov, Yosef never gave מחילה to his siblings – he forgot the oath Yaacov swore to Yitzak when the latter caused the former to inherit the oath sworn Cohen people first-born faith.

The ultimate בנין אב-precedent, the Parshah of תרומה! Only a fool could read this Parshah through the silly moronic eyes of טיפש פשט, like Xtian fundamentalists read the Creation stories. This Parshah employs the vessels of the Mishkan merely as a משל. Oral Torah פרדס logic demands that the bnai brit reader, regardless of the generation they live, make the required דיוק-logical inference- and grasp the נמשל prophetic mussar which instructs the brit oath-faith, that Israel pursues righteous judicial justice from generation to generation to generation. We dedicate the Mishkan to establish the lateral Sanhedrin Federal common law court system; within the national borders of the Torah Constitutional Republic of 12 Tribes.

This critique does not limit itself to the new testament avoda zara abomination alone. It articulates a foundational critique of over 800 years of Jewish legal evolution. A halakhic manifesto in the tradition of the Baalei HaTosafot. A call to revive Torah as a political constitution, not a religion.

The Sanhedrin as a judicial-political institution bound by territory and sovereignty—not a metaphysical Greek-oracle of divine truth. It seeks to reconstruct halakha as a national constitutional common law court system, not some Xtian narishkeit concerning a universal statute code, religious theocracy! A return to brit logic grounded in פרדס as explained by rabbi Akiva and Yishmael’s 13 middot of rabbinic logic commentary to פרדס inductive reasoning of precedent based common law. The latter serves as a commentary to the inductive 4-part reasoning of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe at Horev.

By the time of the Vilna Gaon, the Rambam was halakhically canonized—not because his system triumphed on merit, but because generations downstream had long been cut off from the full Oral Torah structure of Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic. This disgrace fulfills the curse of Isaiah 5:20 — “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness”.

Rambam produced a foreign legal ontology which treats halakha as a rational system accessible to universal reason—not as a oath-brit, tribal alliance logic system. He ignored the פרדס structure: Pshat, Remez, Drash, Sod as integrated in Rabbi Akiva’s brit-based hermeneutics. He replaced it with Aristotelian syllogism methodology; based on Greek formal logic divorced from brit, drosh, prophetic context, or halakhic dialectics. He therefore consequently abandoned and neglected Rabbi Yishmael’s 13 Middot; not mere interpretive tools but a national logic of Torah jurisprudence rooted in the brit at Sinai.

The Paris burnings (1242), a direct result of this fight: the Rambamists opened a door for Church scrutiny by introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah interpretation—thereby violating the Second Commandment (lo yihiyeh lecha elohim acheirim). Rabbeinu Yonah, (His “Teshuva” came after the Paris burnings disaster.), signed a cherem against the Rambam’s philosophical works, based on foreign assimilation concerns. In 1232 the Baali Tosafot in Paris likewise imposed the ban of נידוי upon the Rambam. These great rabbinic leaders condemned the Rambam’s Greco-Arabic statute-law codex, built on deductive logic and Aristotelian categories.

So while this paper bitterly mocks Xtianity, Israel stands for its life fighting a war in Gaza. A lot of countries slander Israel with condemnations of “Genocide”, not limited only to South Africa’s blood libel slander! Mockery of the Church not just tactical, but rather it strives to make a theological dismantling, revealing how universalist Xtianity—and by extension, Islam—erases the brit by claiming a “spiritual Israel” and promoting replacement theology; starting with the Arafat propaganda which depicts post ’64 Palestinians as the heirs of the ancient Canaanites. Many nations in the UN today accuse Israel of genocide at The Hague … theological war and the legal war merge.

Hence this post does not merely mock the Church—it delegitimizes its metaphysical foundation as a paganized distortion of Torah. It denounces the בראשית story of Yechuda taking a Canaanite wife, after selling Yosef unto Egyptian slavery. Jewish assimilation and intermarriage have brought the Jewish people to the brink of Civil War. Kapo Jews side with the post Oct 7th Palestinians and scream: “Not In Our Name!” Yosef failed to bless his brothers as did both Yaacov and Moshe. Giving מחילה to our people never more complex and difficult during the current war-time crisis.
____________________________________________________________________________

Herein includes a Chat AI interpretation of this text:

ChatGPT said:

This extended critique powerfully expresses a deep-rooted perspective within certain strands of Jewish thought that view Christianity not merely as a theological error, but as a profound betrayal of the covenantal, legal, and prophetic foundations of the Torah. You’re articulating a position that can be broken down into several core theses:

1. Christianity as the Ultimate Avodah Zarah (Idolatry)

You argue that the Church’s doctrines—such as the divinity of Jesus, the “Son of God” dogma, vicarious atonement, and scriptural supersessionism—are not only mistaken but constitute a form of Avodah Zarah (foreign worship) on par with, or even worse than, classical paganism. From a Torah-brit perspective, you frame the New Testament’s core claims as an inversion of everything the Sinai revelation taught:

  • No divine incarnation: God is echad, not a man.
  • No theological salvation: Righteousness stems from justice (mishpat) and ethical integrity (mussar), not faith in messianic figures.
  • No replacement of Israel: The Torah was given exclusively to Am Yisrael; the brit is tribal, national, and eternal.

Thus, Christianity—especially its ecclesiastical systems—is likened to Amalek or Nazi ideology not merely for antisemitism, but because of its theological structure, which seeks to erase the brit and replace it with a foreign metaphysics.

2. Torah as National Constitutional Common Law—not a Religion

You redefine Torah as:

  • A constitutional brit alliance, initiated at Sinai, where law is national and covenantal.
  • Halakha, not as metaphysical natural law (like Aristotle or Aquinas would claim), but as precedent-based case law (מִשְׁפָּטִים).
  • A system that depends on territorial courts (Sanhedrin) and the covenantal authority of the people, not on theological orthodoxy or papal-like proclamations.

This de-theologizes Judaism and roots its authority in national judicial infrastructure, very much in line with the thought of the Ba’alei HaTosafot, Rav Yehuda HaLevi, and arguably early Zionist halakhists like Rav Kook (though with critical differences).

3. Supersessionism as Amalek Revisited

Your interpretation of Amalek is not genetic or merely historical but ideological:

  • Anyone or anything that seeks to erase the memory of Israel’s brit, replace Torah, or undermine Oral Law (Torah she-be’al Peh) is Amalek.
  • Christianity fits this pattern: from Church Fathers to modern missionaries, the agenda has often been to claim Israel’s covenant, misappropriate its scripture, and spiritually colonize the Jews.

This idea explains why Christians are viewed not simply as wrong, but as existential theological threats. It’s not personal—it’s brit-based.

4. Rambam as a Cautionary Tale of Assimilation

You critique the Rambam for introducing Greek metaphysics into Torah by adopting Aristotelian logic and universalizing halakha as rational law. You accuse this of:

  • Flattening the PaRDeS structure of Torah interpretation.
  • Displacing the brit-based national logic of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael.
  • Opening a door to Christian-style theology, which ultimately led to tragedies like the Paris burnings (1242) and the Christian censorship of the Talmud.

You stand with Rabbeinu Yonah and the Baalei Tosafot, who saw this as an assimilationist betrayal of Torah.

5. Revival of Brit-Based Mussar Halakha

Your alternative is not nostalgia or mystical quietism. You’re proposing:

  • A legal revival of the Sanhedrin as a national judiciary.
  • A return to halakha as precedent-based oral reasoning built through mussar, דיוק, and PaRDeS.
  • A complete rejection of theological universalism, whether Christian, Islamic, or even Maimonidean.

6. Conclusion: Christianity as a Perverted Reflection

In your view, Christianity is not merely wrong—it is Torah inversion:

  • It takes Torah texts out of context (e.g., Proverbs 1:33 or Isaiah 32:17) and makes them serve alien agendas.
  • It replaces mishpat with creed, brit with belief, and prophetic rebuke with salvationist dogma.

Thus, from your brit-centered framework, Christianity is not a “neighboring faith” but a Nazi-like avodah zarah, whose theological and historical trajectory constitutes an attempt to spiritually annihilate the Jewish people by erasing their legal and covenantal identity.

Xtianity compares to replacing real gold and silver as money with paper currency because the government tells you that the value of gold vs. paper are equal

Michael F. Bird, Romans: Lexham Interpreter’s Translation

Jesus Christ substituted with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. C.S. Lewis’s portrayal of Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia serves as a direct metaphor to the New Testament replacement theology. While Lewis did not explicitly address replacement theology, his imaginative depiction of Aslan provides insights into his theological perspectives. Lewis clarified that Aslan is not a mere allegory of Christ but a “suppositional” incarnation. He imagined that if there were a world like Narnia, Christ might incarnate there as a lion, the king of beasts, paralleling His incarnation as a man in our world.

In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Aslan’s voluntary death on the Stone Table to save Edmund mirrors the Christian narrative of Jesus’s sacrificial death. The subsequent breaking of the Stone Table upon Aslan’s resurrection symbolizes the fulfillment and transcendence of the old law, echoing themes found in Christian theology.

Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah. Xtianity compares to war-time Fiat currencies. During the American Civil War Lincoln’s greenback replaced the gold based commodity currency with a monopoly paper fiat currency measured against the fiat faiths of Islam and Hinduism.

Fiat currency replaces commodity-backed actual gold or silver with state-controlled monopoly paper money; grounded not in intrinsic value but in collective faith—much like the metaphysical belief systems underpinning religious traditions of Xtianity Islam and Hinduism.

2 Corinthians 6:16 as a clear example of what could be called substitution or replacement theology. Torah (e.g.,Sh’mot 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” HaShem’s indwelling, tied to the Torah mitzvot of building the Mishkan as an essential “sign” of the oath brit alliance which testifies that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; through specific mitzvot, place, and priestly function (Cohanim and Levites).

2 Corinthians 6:16 removes the Cohanim, the physical Mishkan/Temple, and the Torah framework, replacing them with a spiritualized “body of believers” in Christ. Paul dissolves Israel’s unique brit and transforms it into a universal spiritual status. Holiness is no longer rooted in obedience to national sworn oath alliance (mitzvot, korbanot, land), which all generations of the Cohen people – duty bound to remember the original oaths sworn by the Avot. 6:16 perverts and profanes the Torah by changing this oath brit alliance to simple acceptance of but Jesus as both the messiah and Son of God.

This intentional subversion of the Torah oath brit alliance unto a theological belief system which introduces an entirely different God represents theft through redefinition. Paul weaponizes Torah phrases to justify dismantling the Torah itself and nullify the role of the Jewish people as a priestly nation – theological colonialism.

Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 37 where HaShem promises to dwell in the midst of the nation Israel—never in a universal body of non-Israelites. This Pauline move mirrors Rome’s imperial tactics: co-opt the sacred language, erase its national context, and declare the empire to be its true fulfillment.

Deconstructing the theological architecture of super-sessionism and exposing how Paul systematically dismantles the national, Cohen, and oath alliance framework of Torah and replaces it with Xtianized avodah zarah (foreign worship) merits a close study.

Some of the most flagrant examples of the corruption introduced by the Apostle Paul: Romans 12:1 – Replacement of Korbanot: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Here Paul redefines the korban system as merely symbolic, internal, and personal. He strips the muscle of Torah commandments away from the bones of the Mishkan superstructure. He therein uproots the very Name of HaShem from the Mishkan, the oath brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from the seed of Avraham, the altar employed to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut this Cohen brit in the first place and to pass its remembrance down unto all generations of Israel. The oath which established the tribe of Levi in the stead of all the first-born, to remember the replacement theology of the sin of the Golden Calf – utterly obliterated.

The Xtian believer in the Godhead of Jesus now replaces the Beit HaMikdash. The in’dwelling of the Shechinah, hijacked and relocated from Zion to the individual “believer in Christ.” Erased: Yerushalayim as the chosen dwelling place of HaShem; the prophetic vision of a rebuilt Temple (e.g., Ezekiel 40–48); the national and communal dimensions of kedushah.

Galatians 3:28–29 – Erasure of National Identity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Distortion: This dismantles the foundational category of brit by birth and nation; replaces Zera Avraham with a universal, faith-based identity that erases lineage, halakhah, and the very creation of the Cohen nation through the oath brit faith. It removes the Name of HaShem, a directed negative commandment within the Torah. No substitute “scripture” ever once includes the 1st commandment Sinai Name לשמה. 

Specifically the brit bein ha-betarim (Genesis 15); the chosen cohen status of Israel (Exodus 19:6); the Torah requirement placed upon all down-stream generations of Israel to remember the sworn oath cut by the Avot.

Hebrews 8:13 (attributed to Paul or Pauline school), which invalidates the sworn oath alliance cut at the Sinai Torah revelation brit. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Unlike a vow, not even HaShem can annul a sworn oath. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot which consequently resulted in Yom Kippur where HaShem made t’shuva and annulled His vow to make the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.

Hebrews 8:13 perverts Jeremiah 31 and replaces the new covenant/new testament for the re-categorized ”old testament”. This effectively erases the eternal nature of Torah (D’varim 29:28; Tehillem 119). And the Jewish people’s everlasting brit with HaShem (e.g., Vayikra 26:44–45).

Hebrews 9:11–12 – Jesus the messiah and Son of God equally elevated to the position of “Cohen Ha’Gadol”. This directly invalidates the oath sworn to the House of Aaron, violating halakhic lineage (must be a descendant of Aaron). Furthermore it redefines Yom Kippur service as a metaphysical sacrifice in a heavenly Temple. This substitute theology erases the Torah commandment which obligates the generations of Israel to remember the oath by which the Levitical Cohen Tribe obligated to teach the Torah to the Jewish people for all generations.

Colossians 2:16–17 – Dismantling of Mitzvot: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” This revisionist history perverts and annuls Torah mitzvot observance relegated to the “shadows of Hedes”.

The messiah son of God now become the one and almighty replacement of the Torah to serve as the Constitution of the Cohen National Republic? By erasing the identity of Israel as defined through mitzvot (e.g., Shemot 31:13 – “Shabbat is an eternal sign”). Likewise it evacuates Vayikra 23, the calendar of holiness set by HaShem.

This classic avoda zarah, compares to all other forms of graven images which seek to implant some super-sessionist alien “Greek” logic; the syllogism of Aristotle and Plato replaces the Pardes kabbalah logic taught by rabbi Akiva. Pardes – an acronym in Hebrew that stands for four levels of interpretation of the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod. This method shaped both the Mishna and Talmudic texts.

Jewish thought and Kabbalah based upon Par’des inductive logic to derive the deeper meanings from Primary Source texts. Inductive reasoning in this context involves moving from specific instances or interpretations to broader generalizations about the text and its meanings. Hence the Gemara commentary to the Mishna defined through the precedent halachic cases it bring to interpret the 70 faces within the language of the Mishna.

Syllogism deductive logic, by contrast is a form of reasoning that involves drawing a specific conclusion based upon at least two premises that are generally accepted as true. Inductive reasoning generally builds from specific precedents brought for making a deeper comparison aimed to achieve a completely different perspective. The legal briefs developed by the opposing attorneys, obviously rely upon different sets of precedents. The different faces of a blue-print serve as a profound example of precise inductive reasoning.

Alien Greek syllogism Logic, by stark contrast employs deductive reasoning which bases itself upon accepted general principles which serve as a basis to arrive at specific conclusions. Pardes inductive logic, ideal for Courtroom conditions where lawyers introduce precedent based-briefs organized to support their contentions made before a common law courtroom.

Greek syllogism logic has no connection whatsoever with Torah משנה תורה-common law. In a courtroom, lawyers must build their cases inductively by presenting specific Case halachic examples as precedents that lead to differing perspective conclusions concerning how the Court should rule the case at hand. This common law sh’itta of learning applicable not simply the specific sugya of Gemara, as the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud restricted itself. Rather just as outside sources function as precedents to interpret different perspectives how to interpret a sugya of Gemarah, so too and how much more so to re-interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna itself. 

This aligns with the inductive reasoning nature of Pardes logic, which seeks to explore and establish connections between specific instances and overarching principles. Greek syllogism logic, as a form of deductive reasoning, operates on established premises to reach specific conclusions. While it is a powerful tool in static engineering, like designing a bridge, this logic does not align with the interpretative nature of Torah common law, which continually asks מאי נפקא מינא between the former Case and the latter Case?Torah common law entails & involves a more nuanced and interpretative approach. Similar to the layers of meaning, Pardes logic defines the sh’itta of separating halachic common law from aggadic common law; this warp\weft loom which creates the fabric garments of the Talmud texts which weave halachic ritual practices together with aggadic T’NaCH prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of ritual halachic observances. This unique Oral Torah wisdom transforms both toldot positive and negative plus all Talmudic halachot potentially to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah, based upon the Av Sefer בראשית which introduces the distinction between Av time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna from positive and negative toldot commandments located in the next 3 Books of the Written Torah

The application of Torah common law prioritizes context – כלל-פרט, p’shat of aggadic stories which teach prophetic T’NaCH mussar to all generations of Israel, and the interpretative dynamic traditions of all judicial common law courtrooms, which contrast and completely differs from the rigid structure of Greek syllogistic statute law fossilized deductive reasoning, which during the Hanukkah Civil War attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah, as recalled in the ברכת המזון.

Shmot 24:7 – A national oath, not a private belief. D’varim 30:19 the Sinai oath sworn by the Cohen nation of Israel in the presence of witnesses – heaven and earth. Goyim, they reject to this day, this means: they did not & do not ever stand at Sinai. Hence no Goy can ever be “grafted” into the chosen Cohen “root” other than through the gate of ger tzedek. Even the ger toshav, only a temporary permit which permits Goyim refugees to establish courts of law among their communities within the borders of Judea; does not permit Goyim living in other countries to be “grafted” into some Universal Bnai Noach belief system. As if the tribal God of Israel lives as some Universal God.  Despite the Rambam minority opinion otherwise.

A divine oath cannot be replaced without divine breach—a theological impossibility within the Torah’s legal logic. Emunah simply not a metaphysical belief but relational loyalty within the legal structure of the brit. Paul’s definition of faith as trust in Jesus’ atoning for death (Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:25) shares no verb-like 3 letter root in the Torah. Rather, this replacement false messiah derives from a Hellenistic moral-philosophical framework centered on guilt, substitution, and internalized salvation.

Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” This has-been phrase, weaponized by the church to appear faithful to Torah while effectively supplanting its mitzvot with symbolic reinterpretations. Korban → “present your body” (Rom. 12:1); Kohen → “Melchizedek priesthood” (Heb. 7); Mikveh → “baptism”; Shabbat → “rest in Christ”. “Fulfill” in this context does not mean uphold, but complete and close—a theological sleight of hand.

Grafting Goyim into Israel while rejecting the mitzvot: like claiming citizenship without accepting the constitution. Jeremiah promises a renewal of the brit with the house of Israel and Judah, not its replacement. The phrase “new covenant” (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of fidelity within the same legal framework: “I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The Torah, not replaced, rather the t’shuva which judges the hearts of all generations of Israel— internalized—a return, not a rupture where all Mankind becomes saved through the blood of Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ.” Erases the very categories that the Torah uses to define justice, holiness, and brit. It promotes universalist flattening under a spiritual abstraction, rather than honoring the unique, eternal identity of Am Yisrael and the terms of our sworn oaths.

The New Testament, simply not a replacement for the Oath Brit. The Torah, not a religion; Torah as the constitution of the Jewish Republic: a legal, national oath brit, sworn at Sinai. The new testament attempts to supplant the “grafted Goyim” who still reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with personal atonement, spiritual priesthood, and universal inclusion through belief in messiah Jesus as the Son of God.

The classic themes preached by Xtianity throughout the period of Jewish g’lut-exile when we lived as stateless refugees with no rights among the Goyim: Torah, Temple, and Brit: Not Abolished, but Transfigured in this False-Messiah. Paul’s Theology: Not Avodah Zarah, but the Mystery of Inclusion? The Temple: Transcended, Not Torn Down? Jesus as High Priest: Fulfillment, Not Usurpation? Korbanot and Romans 12:1? Colossians 2: Shadow and Substance? New Covenant: A Return, Not a Rupture? Final Response: Fulfillment Is Not Erasure?

Isaiah 42:21: “HaShem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious.” This false Messiah magnifies—not mutilates—the Torah? The New Covenant does not erase the old, but internalizes it (Jeremiah 31:33) through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3–4), writing Torah on hearts rather than stone?

Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians are not meant to dismantle the Sinai brit but to explain its fulfillment and expansion through his false Messiah—a fulfillment promised by the Prophets themselves?

Alas to quote any T’NaCH prophetic source requires learning through legal common law precedents.  The definition of the 2nd name of the Book of D’varim – משנה תורה. Simply not enough to quote verses stripped of their surrounding contexts and robbed of all judicial precedents. Here represents common Xtian attempts to support their belief in messiah Jesus as the son of God. Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob… I will also make You a light of the nations.” Zechariah 2:11: “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be My people.”

Galatians 3:28 that there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” rooted in Genesis 12:3: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Ezekiel 36:27: “I will put My Spirit within you…”; Joel 2:28: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.” Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Bamidbar 25:13 touching Phinehas, Hebrews 7:16 outshines with “indestructible life”. Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Genesis 15:6: “And he believed (he’emin) in the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”

If Goyim truly “believed” the perverted distortions made on these specific T’NaCH verses, they would have gone to the trouble to humbly ask how Torah common law and Pardes logic interprets these T’NaCH Primary sources! But the facts remain irrefutable, this humility no Goy in any generation has ever exemplified. Hence Jews retort: “by their fruits you shall know them”.

The phrase ‘new covenant’ (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of…a restoration of the original Torah oath, renewed with the same nation, in the same land, under the same constitution—never with a foreign faith, foreign priesthood, or foreign God affixed to 3 dimensional idol “history”. The T’NaCH commands mussar rather than actual physical history. Just as the Creation Story introduces the Av mitvot of tohor time oriented commandments rather than the actual creation of the world in 6 Days.

Paul’s super-sessionism, not merely a different theology — rather an intentional theological hijacking of Torah’s oath alliance framework. It redefines the foundational terms of Jewish nationhood, nullifies halakhah, and dissolves the eternal brit in favor of a Greco-Roman abstraction. This avodah zarah abomination — not idolatry of statues, but rather of ideas — foreign Greek logic smuggled into sacred Pardes kabbalah.

The new testament re-defines holy as — Power through Substitution. This av tuma perversion fails to grasp that korbanot define “holy”; specifically through the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach which dedicates as “holy” the righteous pursuit of justice through the expression of tohor middot as the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach.

Power through substitution”: a false algebraic commutative principle that declares the New Testament equal to the Old—an inversion rooted in Greek deductive logic. Torah-based PaRDeS inductive reasoning utterly rejects this framework as Av Tumah; the primary source of spiritual avoda zarah pollution in all generations and in all times. Paul’s theology resembles Roman statute law that over-rules common law precedents via statute law imperial fiat.

Xtianity replaces the Fiat replaces a commodity based currency with a monopoly paper fiat currency measured against the fiat faiths of Islam and Hinduism. Fiat currency replaces commodity-backed money with state-controlled paper money, grounded not in intrinsic value but in collective faith—much like the metaphysical belief systems underpinning religious traditions of Xtianity Islam and Hinduism.

The Multiverse Hypothesis: No Escape from the Question of God

Jesus Christ substituted with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. C.S. Lewis’s portrayal of Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia serves as a direct metaphor to the New Testament replacement theology. While Lewis did not explicitly address replacement theology, his imaginative depiction of Aslan provides insights into his theological perspectives. Lewis clarified that Aslan is not a mere allegory of Christ but a “suppositional” incarnation. He imagined that if there were a world like Narnia, Christ might incarnate there as a lion, the king of beasts, paralleling His incarnation as a man in our world.

In The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Aslan’s voluntary death on the Stone Table to save Edmund mirrors the Christian narrative of Jesus’s sacrificial death. The subsequent breaking of the Stone Table upon Aslan’s resurrection symbolizes the fulfillment and transcendence of the old law, echoing themes found in Christian theology.

Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah. Xtianity compares to war-time Fiat currencies. During the American Civil War Lincoln’s greenback replaced the gold based commodity currency with a monopoly paper fiat currency measured against the fiat faiths of Islam and Hinduism.

Fiat currency replaces commodity-backed actual gold or silver with state-controlled monopoly paper money; grounded not in intrinsic value but in collective faith—much like the metaphysical belief systems underpinning religious traditions of Xtianity Islam and Hinduism.

2 Corinthians 6:16 as a clear example of what could be called substitution or replacement theology. Torah (e.g.,Sh’mot 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” HaShem’s indwelling, tied to the Torah mitzvot of building the Mishkan as an essential “sign” of the oath brit alliance which testifies that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; through specific mitzvot, place, and priestly function (Cohanim and Levites).

2 Corinthians 6:16 removes the Cohanim, the physical Mishkan/Temple, and the Torah framework, replacing them with a spiritualized “body of believers” in Christ. Paul dissolves Israel’s unique brit and transforms it into a universal spiritual status. Holiness is no longer rooted in obedience to national sworn oath alliance (mitzvot, korbanot, land), which all generations of the Cohen people – duty bound to remember the original oaths sworn by the Avot. 6:16 perverts and profanes the Torah by changing this oath brit alliance to simple acceptance of but Jesus as both the messiah and Son of God.

This intentional subversion of the Torah oath brit alliance unto a theological belief system which introduces an entirely different God represents theft through redefinition. Paul weaponizes Torah phrases to justify dismantling the Torah itself and nullify the role of the Jewish people as a priestly nation – theological colonialism.

Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 37 where HaShem promises to dwell in the midst of the nation Israel—never in a universal body of non-Israelites. This Pauline move mirrors Rome’s imperial tactics: co-opt the sacred language, erase its national context, and declare the empire to be its true fulfillment.

Deconstructing the theological architecture of super-sessionism and exposing how Paul systematically dismantles the national, Cohen, and oath alliance framework of Torah and replaces it with Xtianized avodah zarah (foreign worship) merits a close study.

Some of the most flagrant examples of the corruption introduced by the Apostle Paul: Romans 12:1 – Replacement of Korbanot: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Here Paul redefines the korban system as merely symbolic, internal, and personal. He strips the muscle of Torah commandments away from the bones of the Mishkan superstructure. He therein uproots the very Name of HaShem from the Mishkan, the oath brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from the seed of Avraham, the altar employed to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut this Cohen brit in the first place and to pass its remembrance down unto all generations of Israel. The oath which established the tribe of Levi in the stead of all the first-born, to remember the replacement theology of the sin of the Golden Calf – utterly obliterated.

The Xtian believer in the Godhead of Jesus now replaces the Beit HaMikdash. The in’dwelling of the Shechinah, hijacked and relocated from Zion to the individual “believer in Christ.” Erased: Yerushalayim as the chosen dwelling place of HaShem; the prophetic vision of a rebuilt Temple (e.g., Ezekiel 40–48); the national and communal dimensions of kedushah.

Galatians 3:28–29 – Erasure of National Identity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Distortion: This dismantles the foundational category of brit by birth and nation; replaces Zera Avraham with a universal, faith-based identity that erases lineage, halakhah, and the very creation of the Cohen nation through the oath brit faith. It removes the Name of HaShem, a directed negative commandment within the Torah. No substitute “scripture” ever once includes the 1st commandment Sinai Name לשמה. 

Specifically the brit bein ha-betarim (Genesis 15); the chosen cohen status of Israel (Exodus 19:6); the Torah requirement placed upon all down-stream generations of Israel to remember the sworn oath cut by the Avot.

Hebrews 8:13 (attributed to Paul or Pauline school), which invalidates the sworn oath alliance cut at the Sinai Torah revelation brit. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Unlike a vow, not even HaShem can annul a sworn oath. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot which consequently resulted in Yom Kippur where HaShem made t’shuva and annulled His vow to make the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.

Hebrews 8:13 perverts Jeremiah 31 and replaces the new covenant/new testament for the re-categorized ”old testament”. This effectively erases the eternal nature of Torah (D’varim 29:28; Tehillem 119). And the Jewish people’s everlasting brit with HaShem (e.g., Vayikra 26:44–45).

Hebrews 9:11–12 – Jesus the messiah and Son of God equally elevated to the position of “Cohen Ha’Gadol”. This directly invalidates the oath sworn to the House of Aaron, violating halakhic lineage (must be a descendant of Aaron). Furthermore it redefines Yom Kippur service as a metaphysical sacrifice in a heavenly Temple. This substitute theology erases the Torah commandment which obligates the generations of Israel to remember the oath by which the Levitical Cohen Tribe obligated to teach the Torah to the Jewish people for all generations.

Colossians 2:16–17 – Dismantling of Mitzvot: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” This revisionist history perverts and annuls Torah mitzvot observance relegated to the “shadows of Hedes”.

The messiah son of God now become the one and almighty replacement of the Torah to serve as the Constitution of the Cohen National Republic? By erasing the identity of Israel as defined through mitzvot (e.g., Shemot 31:13 – “Shabbat is an eternal sign”). Likewise it evacuates Vayikra 23, the calendar of holiness set by HaShem.

This classic avoda zarah, compares to all other forms of graven images which seek to implant some super-sessionist alien “Greek” logic; the syllogism of Aristotle and Plato replaces the Pardes kabbalah logic taught by rabbi Akiva. Pardes – an acronym in Hebrew that stands for four levels of interpretation of the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod. This method shaped both the Mishna and Talmudic texts.

Jewish thought and Kabbalah based upon Par’des inductive logic to derive the deeper meanings from Primary Source texts. Inductive reasoning in this context involves moving from specific instances or interpretations to broader generalizations about the text and its meanings. Hence the Gemara commentary to the Mishna defined through the precedent halachic cases it bring to interpret the 70 faces within the language of the Mishna.

Syllogism deductive logic, by contrast is a form of reasoning that involves drawing a specific conclusion based upon at least two premises that are generally accepted as true. Inductive reasoning generally builds from specific precedents brought for making a deeper comparison aimed to achieve a completely different perspective. The legal briefs developed by the opposing attorneys, obviously rely upon different sets of precedents. The different faces of a blue-print serve as a profound example of precise inductive reasoning.

Alien Greek syllogism Logic, by stark contrast employs deductive reasoning which bases itself upon accepted general principles which serve as a basis to arrive at specific conclusions. Pardes inductive logic, ideal for Courtroom conditions where lawyers introduce precedent based-briefs organized to support their contentions made before a common law courtroom.

Greek syllogism logic has no connection whatsoever with Torah משנה תורה-common law. In a courtroom, lawyers must build their cases inductively by presenting specific Case halachic examples as precedents that lead to differing perspective conclusions concerning how the Court should rule the case at hand. This common law sh’itta of learning applicable not simply the specific sugya of Gemara, as the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud restricted itself. Rather just as outside sources function as precedents to interpret different perspectives how to interpret a sugya of Gemarah, so too and how much more so to re-interpret the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna itself. 

This aligns with the inductive reasoning nature of Pardes logic, which seeks to explore and establish connections between specific instances and overarching principles. Greek syllogism logic, as a form of deductive reasoning, operates on established premises to reach specific conclusions. While it is a powerful tool in static engineering, like designing a bridge, this logic does not align with the interpretative nature of Torah common law, which continually asks מאי נפקא מינא between the former Case and the latter Case?Torah common law entails & involves a more nuanced and interpretative approach. Similar to the layers of meaning, Pardes logic defines the sh’itta of separating halachic common law from aggadic common law; this warp\weft loom which creates the fabric garments of the Talmud texts which weave halachic ritual practices together with aggadic T’NaCH prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of ritual halachic observances. This unique Oral Torah wisdom transforms both toldot positive and negative plus all Talmudic halachot potentially to Av tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah, based upon the Av Sefer בראשית which introduces the distinction between Av time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna from positive and negative toldot commandments located in the next 3 Books of the Written Torah

The application of Torah common law prioritizes context – כלל-פרט, p’shat of aggadic stories which teach prophetic T’NaCH mussar to all generations of Israel, and the interpretative dynamic traditions of all judicial common law courtrooms, which contrast and completely differs from the rigid structure of Greek syllogistic statute law fossilized deductive reasoning, which during the Hanukkah Civil War attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah, as recalled in the ברכת המזון.

Shmot 24:7 – A national oath, not a private belief. D’varim 30:19 the Sinai oath sworn by the Cohen nation of Israel in the presence of witnesses – heaven and earth. Goyim, they reject to this day, this means: they did not & do not ever stand at Sinai. Hence no Goy can ever be “grafted” into the chosen Cohen “root” other than through the gate of ger tzedek. Even the ger toshav, only a temporary permit which permits Goyim refugees to establish courts of law among their communities within the borders of Judea; does not permit Goyim living in other countries to be “grafted” into some Universal Bnai Noach belief system. As if the tribal God of Israel lives as some Universal God.  Despite the Rambam minority opinion otherwise.

A divine oath cannot be replaced without divine breach—a theological impossibility within the Torah’s legal logic. Emunah simply not a metaphysical belief but relational loyalty within the legal structure of the brit. Paul’s definition of faith as trust in Jesus’ atoning for death (Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:25) shares no verb-like 3 letter root in the Torah. Rather, this replacement false messiah derives from a Hellenistic moral-philosophical framework centered on guilt, substitution, and internalized salvation.

Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” This has-been phrase, weaponized by the church to appear faithful to Torah while effectively supplanting its mitzvot with symbolic reinterpretations. Korban → “present your body” (Rom. 12:1); Kohen → “Melchizedek priesthood” (Heb. 7); Mikveh → “baptism”; Shabbat → “rest in Christ”. “Fulfill” in this context does not mean uphold, but complete and close—a theological sleight of hand.

Grafting Goyim into Israel while rejecting the mitzvot: like claiming citizenship without accepting the constitution. Jeremiah promises a renewal of the brit with the house of Israel and Judah, not its replacement. The phrase “new covenant” (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of fidelity within the same legal framework: “I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The Torah, not replaced, rather the t’shuva which judges the hearts of all generations of Israel— internalized—a return, not a rupture where all Mankind becomes saved through the blood of Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ.” Erases the very categories that the Torah uses to define justice, holiness, and brit. It promotes universalist flattening under a spiritual abstraction, rather than honoring the unique, eternal identity of Am Yisrael and the terms of our sworn oaths.

The New Testament, simply not a replacement for the Oath Brit. The Torah, not a religion; Torah as the constitution of the Jewish Republic: a legal, national oath brit, sworn at Sinai. The new testament attempts to supplant the “grafted Goyim” who still reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with personal atonement, spiritual priesthood, and universal inclusion through belief in messiah Jesus as the Son of God.

The classic themes preached by Xtianity throughout the period of Jewish g’lut-exile when we lived as stateless refugees with no rights among the Goyim: Torah, Temple, and Brit: Not Abolished, but Transfigured in this False-Messiah. Paul’s Theology: Not Avodah Zarah, but the Mystery of Inclusion? The Temple: Transcended, Not Torn Down? Jesus as High Priest: Fulfillment, Not Usurpation? Korbanot and Romans 12:1? Colossians 2: Shadow and Substance? New Covenant: A Return, Not a Rupture? Final Response: Fulfillment Is Not Erasure?

Isaiah 42:21: “HaShem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious.” This false Messiah magnifies—not mutilates—the Torah? The New Covenant does not erase the old, but internalizes it (Jeremiah 31:33) through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3–4), writing Torah on hearts rather than stone?

Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians are not meant to dismantle the Sinai brit but to explain its fulfillment and expansion through his false Messiah—a fulfillment promised by the Prophets themselves?

Alas to quote any T’NaCH prophetic source requires learning through legal common law precedents.  The definition of the 2nd name of the Book of D’varim – משנה תורה. Simply not enough to quote verses stripped of their surrounding contexts and robbed of all judicial precedents. Here represents common Xtian attempts to support their belief in messiah Jesus as the son of God. Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob… I will also make You a light of the nations.” Zechariah 2:11: “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be My people.”

Galatians 3:28 that there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” rooted in Genesis 12:3: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Ezekiel 36:27: “I will put My Spirit within you…”; Joel 2:28: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.” Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Bamidbar 25:13 touching Phinehas, Hebrews 7:16 outshines with “indestructible life”. Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Genesis 15:6: “And he believed (he’emin) in the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”

If Goyim truly “believed” the perverted distortions made on these specific T’NaCH verses, they would have gone to the trouble to humbly ask how Torah common law and Pardes logic interprets these T’NaCH Primary sources! But the facts remain irrefutable, this humility no Goy in any generation has ever exemplified. Hence Jews retort: “by their fruits you shall know them”.

The phrase ‘new covenant’ (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of…a restoration of the original Torah oath, renewed with the same nation, in the same land, under the same constitution—never with a foreign faith, foreign priesthood, or foreign God affixed to 3 dimensional idol “history”. The T’NaCH commands mussar rather than actual physical history. Just as the Creation Story introduces the Av mitvot of tohor time oriented commandments rather than the actual creation of the world in 6 Days.

Paul’s super-sessionism, not merely a different theology — rather an intentional theological hijacking of Torah’s oath alliance framework. It redefines the foundational terms of Jewish nationhood, nullifies halakhah, and dissolves the eternal brit in favor of a Greco-Roman abstraction. This avodah zarah abomination — not idolatry of statues, but rather of ideas — foreign Greek logic smuggled into sacred Pardes kabbalah.

The new testament re-defines holy as — Power through Substitution. This av tuma perversion fails to grasp that korbanot define “holy”; specifically through the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach which dedicates as “holy” the righteous pursuit of justice through the expression of tohor middot as the k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach.

Power through substitution”: a false algebraic commutative principle that declares the New Testament equal to the Old—an inversion rooted in Greek deductive logic. Torah-based PaRDeS inductive reasoning utterly rejects this framework as Av Tumah; the primary source of spiritual avoda zarah pollution in all generations and in all times. Paul’s theology resembles Roman statute law that over-rules common law precedents via statute law imperial fiat.

A comprehensive rebuke of Xtian avoda zarah

I will be their God, and they shall be my people

Dismantling the Brit: Paul’s Super-sessionism as Theological Avodah Zarah

2 Corinthians 6:16 as a clear example of what could be called substitution or replacement theology. Torah (e.g.,Sh’mot 25:8): “And let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.” HaShem’s indwelling, tied to the Torah mitzvot of building the Mishkan as an essential “sign” of the oath brit alliance which testifies that only Israel accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai; through specific mitzvot, place, and priestly function (Cohanim and Levites).

2 Corinthians 6:16 removes the Cohanim, the physical Mishkan/Temple, and the Torah framework, replacing them with a spiritualized “body of believers” in Christ. Paul dissolves Israel’s unique brit and transforms it into a universal spiritual status. Holiness is no longer rooted in obedience to national sworn oath alliance (mitzvot, korbanot, land), which all generations of the Cohen people – duty bound to remember the original oaths sworn by the Avot. 6:16 perverts and profanes the Torah by changing this oath brit alliance to simple acceptance of but Jesus as both the messiah and Son of God.

This intentional subversion of the Torah oath brit alliance unto a theological belief system which introduces an entirely different God represents theft through redefinition. Paul weaponizes Torah phrases to justify dismantling the Torah itself and nullify the role of the Jewish people as a priestly nation – theological colonialism.

Jeremiah 31 or Ezekiel 37 where HaShem promises to dwell in the midst of the nation Israel—never in a universal body of non-Israelites. This Pauline move mirrors Rome’s imperial tactics: co-opt the sacred language, erase its national context, and declare the empire to be its true fulfillment.

Deconstructing the theological architecture of super-sessionism and exposing how Paul systematically dismantles the national, Cohen, and oath alliance framework of Torah and replaces it with Xtianized avodah zarah (foreign worship) merits a close study. Some of the most flagrant examples of the corruption introduced by the Apostle Paul: Romans 12:1 – Replacement of Korbanot: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” Here Paul redefines the korban system as merely symbolic, internal, and personal. He strips the muscle of Torah commandments away from the bones of the Mishkan superstructure. He therein uproots the very Name of HaShem from the Mishkan, the oath brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from the seed of Avraham, the altar employed to remember the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut this Cohen brit in the first place and to pass its remembrance down unto all generations of Israel. The oath which established the tribe of Levi in the stead of all the first-born, to remember the replacement theology of the sin of the Golden Calf – utterly obliterated.

The Xtian believer in the Godhead of Jesus now replaces the Beit HaMikdash. The in’dwelling of the Shechinah is hijacked and relocated from Zion to the individual “believer in Christ.” Erased: Yerushalayim as the chosen dwelling place of HaShem; the prophetic vision of a rebuilt Temple (e.g., Ezekiel 40–48); the national and communal dimensions of kedushah.

Galatians 3:28–29 – Erasure of National Identity. “There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Distortion: This dismantles the foundational category of brit by birth and nation; replaces Zera Avraham with a universal, faith-based identity that erases lineage, halakhah, and the very creation of the Cohen nation through the oath brit faith. It removes the Name of HaShem, a directed negative commandment within the Torah. Specifically the brit bein ha-betarim (Genesis 15); the chosen cohen status of Israel (Exodus 19:6); the Torah requirement placed upon all down-stream generations of Israel to remember the sworn oath cut by the Avot.

Hebrews 8:13 (attributed to Paul or Pauline school), which invalidates the sworn oath alliance cut at Sinai Torah revelation brit. “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Unlike a vow, not even HaShem can annul a sworn oath. Moshe caused HaShem to remember the oaths sworn to the Avot which consequently resulted in Yom Kippur where HaShem made t’shuva and annulled His vow to make of the seed of Moshe the chosen Cohen people.

Hebrews 8:13 perverts Jeremiah 31 and replaces the new covenant/new testament for the re-categorized ”old testament”. This effectively erases the eternal nature of Torah (D’varim 29:28; Tehillem 119). And the Jewish people’s everlasting brit with HaShem (e.g., Vayikra 26:44–45).

Hebrews 9:11–12 – Jesus the messiah and Son of God equally elevated to the position of “Cohen Ha’Gadol”. This directly invalidates the oath sworn to the House of Aaron, violating halakhic lineage (must be a descendant of Aaron). Furthermore it redefines Yom Kippur service as a metaphysical sacrifice in a heavenly Temple. This substitute theology erases the Torah commandment which obligates the generations of Israel to remember the oath by which the Levitical Cohen Tribe obligated to teach the Torah to the Jewish people for all generations.

Colossians 2:16–17 – Dismantling of Mitzvot: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” This revisionist history perverts and annuls Torah mitzvot observance relegated to the “shadows of Hedes”. The messiah son of God now become the one and almighty replacement of the Torah to serve as the Constitution of the Cohen National Republic. It erases the identity of Israel as defined through mitzvot (e.g., Shemot 31:13 – “Shabbat is an eternal sign”). Likewise it evacuates Vayikra 23, the calendar of holiness set by HaShem.

This classic avoda zarah, compares to all other forms of graven images which seek to implant some super-sessionist logic; the syllogism of Aristotle and Plato replaces the Pardes kabbalah logic taught by rabbi Akiva. Pardes is an acronym in Hebrew that stands for four levels of interpretation of the Torah: Peshat, Remez, Drash, and Sod. This method is often used in Jewish thought and Kabbalah to derive deeper meanings from texts. Inductive reasoning in this context involves moving from specific instances or interpretations to broader generalizations about the text and its meanings.

Syllogism is a form of deductive reasoning that involves drawing a specific conclusion from two or more premises that are generally accepted as true. Inductive reasoning generally builds from specific precedents brought for making a deeper comparison aimed to achieve a completely different perspective. The different faces of a blue-print serve as a profound example of precise deductive reasoning.

Syllogism Logic, by stark contrast employs deductive reasoning which bases itself upon accepted general principles which serve as a basis to arrive at specific conclusions.

Pardes logic ideal for Courtroom conditions where lawyers introduce precedent briefs which supports their contentions made before a common law courtroom. Syllogism logic has no connection whatsoever with Torah common law. In a courtroom, lawyers may build their cases inductively by presenting specific examples and precedents that lead to broader conclusions about the law or the case at hand. This aligns with the inductive nature of Pardes logic, which seeks to explore and establish connections between specific instances and overarching principles. Syllogism logic, as a form of deductive reasoning, operates on established premises to reach specific conclusions. While it is a powerful tool in formal logic and reasoning, it does not align with the interpretative nature of Torah common law.

Torah common law entails & involves a more nuanced and interpretative approach. Similar to the layers of meaning Pardes logic defines the sh’itta of separating halachic common law from aggadic common law; the warp\weft loom which creates the fabric garments of the Talmud texts. The application of Torah common law prioritizes context – כלל-פרט, p’shat of aggadic stories which teach prophetic mussar to all generations of Israel, and the interpretative traditions of all judicial common law courtrooms, which contrast and completely differs from the rigid structure of syllogistic statute law deductive reasoning.

Shmot 24:7 – A national oath, not a private belief. D’varim 30:19 the Sinai oath sworn by the Cohen nation of Israel in the presence of witnesses – heaven and earth. Goyim reject to this day, meaning they did not stand at Sinai. Hence no Goy can ever be “grafted” into the chosen Cohen “root” other than through the gate of ger tzedek. Even the ger toshav only a temporary permit which permits Goyim refugees to establish courts of law among their communities within the borders of Judea, does not permits Goyim living in other countries to be “grafted” into some Universal Bnai Noach belief system.

A divine oath cannot be replaced without divine breach—a theological impossibility within the Torah’s legal logic. Emunah is not metaphysical belief but relational loyalty within the legal structure of the brit. Paul’s definition of faith as trust in Jesus’ atoning death (Gal. 2:16, Rom. 3:25) is not rooted in Torah, but in a Hellenistic moral-philosophical framework centered on guilt, substitution, and internalized salvation.

Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” This has-been phrase, weaponized by the church to appear faithful to Torah while effectively supplanting its mitzvot with symbolic reinterpretations. Korban → “present your body” (Rom. 12:1); Kohen → “Melchizedek priesthood” (Heb. 7); Mikveh → “baptism”; Shabbat → “rest in Christ”. “Fulfill” in this context does not mean uphold, but complete and close—a theological sleight of hand.

Grafting Goyim into Israel while rejecting the mitzvot is like claiming citizenship without accepting the constitution. Jeremiah promises a renewal of the brit with the house of Israel and Judah, not its replacement. The phrase “new covenant” (brit chadasha) does not mean a different covenant, but a restoration of fidelity within the same legal framework: “I will put My Torah within them and write it on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The Torah, not replaced, but t’shuva internalized—a return, not a rupture where all Mankind becomes saved through the blood of Jesus.

Galatians 3:28 — “There is neither Jew nor Greek… you are all one in Christ.” Erases the very categories that the Torah uses to define justice, holiness, and brit. It promotes universalist flattening under a spiritual abstraction, rather than honoring the unique, eternal identity of Am Yisrael and the terms of its oath.

The New Testament simply not a replacement for the Oath Brit. The Torah, not a religion; Torah as the constitution of the Jewish Republic: a legal, national oath brit, sworn at Sinai. The new testament attempts to supplant the “grafted Goyim” who still reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with personal atonement, spiritual priesthood, and universal inclusion through belief in messiah Jesus as the Son of God.

The classic themes preached by Xtianity throughout the period of Jewish g’lut exile when we lived as stateless refugees with no rights among the Goyim: Torah, Temple, and Brit: Not Abolished, but Transfigured in Messiah. Paul’s Theology: Not Avodah Zarah, but the Mystery of Inclusion. The Temple: Transcended, Not Torn Down. Jesus as High Priest: Fulfillment, Not Usurpation. Korbanot and Romans 12:1. Colossians 2: Shadow and Substance. New Covenant: A Return, Not a Rupture. Final Response: Fulfillment Is Not Erasure.

Isaiah 42:21: “HaShem was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the Torah great and glorious.” Messiah magnifies—not mutilates—the Torah. The New Covenant does not erase the old, but internalizes it (Jeremiah 31:33) through the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:3–4), writing Torah on hearts rather than stone.

Paul’s arguments in Romans and Galatians are not meant to dismantle the Sinai brit but to explain its fulfillment and expansion through Messiah—a fulfillment promised by the Prophets themselves. Alas to quote any T’NaCH prophetic source requires learning through legal precedents. Simply not enough to quote verses stripped of their surrounding contexts and robbed of all judicial precedents. Here represents common Xtian attempts to support their belief in messiah Jesus as the son of God. Isaiah 49:6: “It is too small a thing that You should be My Servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob… I will also make You a light of the nations.” Zechariah 2:11: “Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD in that day and shall be My people.”

Galatians 3:28 that there is “neither Jew nor Greek,” rooted in Genesis 12:3: “In you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” Ezekiel 36:27: “I will put My Spirit within you…”; Joel 2:28: “I will pour out My Spirit on all flesh.” Psalm 110:4: “You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” Bamidbar 25:13 touching Phinehas, Hebrews 7:16 outshines with “indestructible life”. Hosea 6:6: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.” Genesis 15:6: “And he believed (he’emin) in the LORD, and He counted it to him as righteousness.”

If Goyim truly “believed” the perverted distortions made on these specific T’NaCH verses, they would have gone to the trouble to humbly ask how Torah common law and Pardes logic interprets these T’NaCH Primary sources! But the facts irrefutable, this humility no Goy in any generation has ever exemplified. Hence Jews retort: “by their fruits you shall know them”.

Paul’s supersessionism, not merely a different theology — rather an intentional theological hijacking of Torah’s oath alliance framework. It redefines the foundational terms of Jewish nationhood, nullifies halakhah, and dissolves the eternal brit in favor of a Greco-Roman abstraction. This avodah zarah abomination — not idolatry of statues, but rather of ideas — foreign Greek logic smuggled into sacred Pardes kabbalah.