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

Some Videos to Have in Mind for Passover

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If Jesus Christ Were a Christian Fiction Author Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough of this religious rhetoric jargon of Nazi-Democrat propaganda

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

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

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

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

Enough of this religious rhetoric jargon of Nazi-like propaganda

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Videos to Have in Mind for Passover

From Yeroboam to Paul: Legal Innovations and Covenant Abandonment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From Yeroboam to Paul: Legal Innovations and Covenant Abandonment.

VerseD: Psalm 16:9-10

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Traditional Judaism rejects Historical/Conservative Judaism as valid.

Some Videos to Have in Mind for Passover

Having a deep conversation with Gary: lutherwasnotbornagain.com here on wordpress.

He writes: Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/

Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/

My response:
mosckerr

April 21, 2025 at 10:23 PM

Hi Gary your sentence presents an interesting tension: on one hand, it acknowledges that non-Christian references to Jesus are “almost negligible,” yet on the other hand, it asserts that they are sufficient to refute the claim that Jesus never existed.

Who are these “the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure”? The Talmud interprets the T’NaCH, that it commands prophetic mussar rather than history. Why because mussar applies across the board equally to all generations, whereas history applies to only one generation who lived thousands of years ago.

Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist, textual critic): Did Jesus Exist? (2012)
E. P. Sanders (Christian, New Testament scholar): The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993)
John P. Meier (Catholic priest and historian): A Marginal Jew (multi-volume)
Paula Fredriksen (historian of ancient Christianity and Judaism)
Geza Vermes (Jewish historian and Dead Sea Scrolls scholar)

These scholars draw their conclusions, based upon “historical-critical methods” applied to both canonical and non-canonical sources, and cross-referenced with Roman and Jewish texts.

Rabbi Akiva, for example, famously interpreted every extra letter of the Torah as containing halakhic or moral significance—not merely historical data. The stories of Avraham, Yosef, Moshe, etc., are less about documenting past events and more about conveying archetypes of emunah (faith), din (justice), rachamim (compassion), and the different & distinct oath britot. Tefillen, for example, shares a common denominator with Sefer Torah – with either a person can swear a Torah oath. The Order of the Rashi tefillen different than the Order of the Rabbeinu Tam (Rashi’s grand-son) tefillen. This dispute by Reshonim scholars 1057 – 1185 CE. Rashi started his formal Talmudic education in 1057 and Rabbeinu Tam passed in 1185 — both dates approximate. Once you go way back into history, it becomes a guessing game for later generations.

The Classic viewpoint taken by Tannaim and Amoraim scholars, the people who wrote the Mishna and Gemara; and the Gaonim Era of scholarship. Rav Ashi and Rav Ravinna sealed the Talmud at about 450 CE. Why? So that all generations thereafter would have the same masoret traditions. Such that the earlier generations could not make a valid claim that they were closer to the actual Torah revelation in time. Hence the generation of Ezra sealed the T’NaCH and Rabbi Yechuda sealed his Mishna in about 210 CE.

Jewish history from 550 to 1038 C.E marked by intense scholarship at the Babylonian academies by scholars who studied and interpreted the Talmud. This time period known as the Gaonim period which preceded the Reshonim period 950 – 1400 CE. The gap between the sealing of the Talmud and the Gaonim period, known as the Sovoraim scholars – the final editors of the Talmud.

The Historical-Critical Method stems from German Protestant Origins. The historical-critical method emerged out of 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, especially during the Enlightenment. Its foundations, laid by thinkers like: Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 1835), and Rudolf Bultmann, who sought to “demythologize” the New Testament. This approach aimed to strip the Bible of its divine authority and treat it like any other piece of ancient literature—subject to human error, redaction layers, myth-making, and ideological editing. In short, historical-critical scholars de-sacralized Scripture and tried to reconstruct the “real” history behind the text, often in direct opposition to traditional Talmudic and post Talmudic Jewish or even Christian attempts to monopolize how to read and interpret scripture. Persons like William Tyndale (executed in 1536), serve as but one glaring example of the church efforts to dictate how the Bible understood.

By the mid-20th century, major assumptions of Higher Criticism were heavily critiqued—even from within its own camp. Archaeological finds (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugaritic texts) complicated Wellhausen’s clean chronological categories. Linguistic and literary studies questioned the neat separation of J, E, D, P sources. Form and redaction critics began to focus more on the final form of texts, acknowledging the limitations of speculative source division.

Even Jewish scholars like Umberto Cassuto and later Moshe Greenberg challenged Higher Criticism, defending the unity and structure of the Torah as a coherent work. Umberto Cassuto and Moshe Greenberg stand as important counterpoints to the Protestant-European dominance of historical-critical scholarship. Each, in his own way, pushed back against the Wellhausenian paradigm and sought to restore Torah’s integrity as a unified and deeply meaningful text—rooted not in myth or redaction, but in remembering the oaths sworn when great Torah leaders swore an oath brit alliance.

The deep irony emerges: the same Protestant German method that tried to discredit the historical reliability of Tanakh, now Gary you use, along with some New Testament scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! Bunk. German Protestant Higher Criticism knows nothing of prophetic mussar. This 19th Century scholarship, utterly foreign to the logic of Torah and Oral Torah (e.g., PaRDeS, כלל ופרט); Protestant theology in general and Higher Criticism in particular – both operate from a framework that rejects the Oral Torah brit of Sinai as mythology or nationalism. So when secular or liberal Christian scholars use “historical-critical” methods to say “Jesus surely existed,” it’s not based on any Torah-rooted epistemology, but on Enlightenment rationalism and Euro-Christian assumptions.

This explains why the Talmud doesn’t engage in historical apologetics. Its scholarship makes no attempt or effort to prove Moshe existed or David ruled over Israel in archaeological terms. Its authority comes from the oath brit alliance and deriving the specific oaths sworn in order to cut T’NaCH britot. I brought the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam over the order of tefillen as an example of this classic type of scholarship which strives to remember and distinguish between oath from oath sworn.

Post Talmudic scholarship branched off into two opposing main schools. The Baal HaMaor understood the Talmud as judicial common law which interprets the distinctions which separate earlier Court rulings on cases heard before the Courts from later Court ruling heard before the Courts. The opposing branch of classic post Talmudic scholarship focused upon organizing law into simple religious codes to address the needs of the Jewish people scattered across all of the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

The Baal HaMaor line of scholarship, whose research the ongoing interpretive chain of tradition—not from historical-critical validation—lost the debate. The opposite of the P’rushim vs. Tzeddukim Civil War in Judea remembered through lighting the lights of Hanukkah. The B’HaG ruled that remembering the oath sworn when lighting the lights of Hanukkah elevates this rabbinic mitzva unto a Torah time oriented commandment!

My Rav learned from Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv the sh’itta/methodology of Common Law interpretive school of Talmudic scholarship. The opposing branch that turned the halacha into Codes of Jewish law, based itself primarily upon Greek and Roman statute law assimilated influences. A direct violation of a Torah negative commandment. The Rambam replaced the Pardes logic of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of the Oral Torah with Aristotle’s syllogism. The Pardes logic – inductive reasoning, whereas Aristotle’s logic – deductive reasoning! A day and night difference on the order of static vs dynamic engineering.

As Rabbi Soloveitchik, a 20th Century Modern Orthodox famous scholar, once said: “We do not believe in Torah because it is historically verified; we believe because of the revelation at Sinai, transmitted through our mesorah.”

Euro-Christian historicism merits respect on par with manure used as fertilizer. The historical-critical method emerged in 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, rooted in Enlightenment rationalism. Thinkers such as Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss, and Rudolf Bultmann laid the foundations of this approach. Their goal was to strip the Bible of divine authority and treat it like any other flawed ancient text—subject to myth-making, redaction, ideological bias, and historical error.

The rich irony, the very German Protestant methodology designed to discredit the Torah’s historicity, now widely used by Christian scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! A theological sleight of hand! These scholars—often secular or liberal Christians—employ Enlightenment-era tools, not to validate prophecy, brit, or Divine law, but to construct a quasi-historical Jesus that fits modern ideological preferences. These conclusions simply not rooted in Torah epistemology, (branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, limits, and validity of knowledge), nor in Talmudic interpretive traditions like PaRDeS or klal u’prat, but in Euro-Christian rationalism and post-Reformation theological assumptions. And unlike the prophetic mussar of the T’NaCH—which applies equally to all generations—the historical Jesus belongs to a distant past, devoid of national covenant, divine command, or legal brit.

The epistemological sleight of hand that the historical-critical method performs: it tries to debunk Torah by treating it like a myth, then constructs a sanitized Jesus through the very same tools. It’s like using acid to dissolve Sinai and then bottling what’s left as some kind of universal moral tonic. All this Enlightenment-era critique may ironically serve to reawaken a deeper appreciation of the Torah’s non-historicist logic—rooted in brit, mussar, and legal accountability, not in positivist source analysis.

Historical-critical scholars approach prophecy as if it were Hellenistic historiography—missing entirely the oath britot alliances that go beyond merely the functions of nevu’ah restricted to a caged moral summons, some historical archive. Torah functions as a Constitutional political document. Judea sit at the throat of a major artery of trade that connects North Africa to Europe! Countless military invasions have likewise warred through the Middle East! Hence the concept of oath sworn alliances first and foremost addresses political alliances and not religious theological belief systems.

That Wellhausen’s model—which once deemed Torah as myth—now retroactively used to support Jesus as a real figure – not myth?! A philosophical bait-and-switch. Historical Jesus studies often end up “re-sacralizing” Jesus in liberal moral terms (as proto-socialist, proto-anti-racist, etc.), bypassing any divine brit or halakhic framework. It’s the liberal Protestant version of avodah zarah.

The Talmud never “proves” Moshe existed. It presupposes brit, which his Torah instructs. The authority of the Torah, not empirical but juridical. The brit itself—the foundational claim—not historical reconstructions, not evidence from Ugarit, a large body of ancient texts discovered at the archaeological site of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria) in the late 1920s. Torah logic (PaRDeS, klal u’prat, midrash halakhah), in a word – generative. It strives to remember the oaths, for example, sworn by the Avot, by which they cut an oath brit alliance with the Divine and established the chosen Cohen nation. Greek logic (like Aristotle’s syllogisms) aims at abstraction and metaphysics. They’re not just different tools—they imply different realities.

The very methodology that once dismissed Torah as legend, now enlisted to “prove” that Jesus existed—not as a fulfillment of brit or nevu’ah, but as a proto-liberal symbol molded by modern ideology? This bait-and-switch, not merely methodological—rather it represents theological avodah zarah. Historical Jesus studies, especially in liberal Protestant and secular academic circles, no longer aim at truth through brit judicial common law justice. Instead, they fabricate a figure who satisfies postmodern tastes—Jesus the anti-imperialist, the community organizer, the intersectional savior. All this without mitzvot, without brit, without Sinai and without Horev Oral Torah Pardes logic.

Historical-critical scholars misread prophetic literature, as if it were Greek-style historiography or some political memoir. They miss that nevu’ah in Tanakh, nothing about chronicling the past—but rather sustaining the oath sworn alliances which apply to all the generations who trouble to “remember” those specific sworn oath alliances in the first place. The past or “history” serves only as a tool to study mussar in “historical contexts”. The prophets don’t merely “moralize”—they litigate. Nevu’ah as the key legal mechanism, expressed through Aggadah in a constitutional framework of Torah בראשית & Talmud. And the Torah itself most definitely not “Xtian scripture” in the new testament, koran, book of mormon and scientology substitute scriptures – sense. The Sefer Torah serves as the first oath-brit codification, a national charter built on public oaths and collective responsibility.

Wellhausen, Baur, Strauss, and Bultmann were not merely academic critics—they were Protestant theologians operating within post-Reformation frameworks. They saw religion as belief systems, not political-legal sworn alliances! Situated at the strategic crossroads of competing empires, Judea – always a geopolitical pressure point. That’s why Torah begins with the Avot swearing oaths, and why every brit alliance in Tanakh completely political—land, law, and loyalty—and not abstract belief system theologies or Creeds. The Avot in their day a tiny speck minority population, as likewise the Jewish people relative to the Goyim today.

Hence, Talmudic tradition doesn’t argue for Moshe’s historicity, the way historians argue for Julius Caesar. Moshe Rabbeinu accepted not through archaeological proof but through juridical continuity: mesorah, halakhah, brit, and Sanhedrin common law courts of law. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances sworn by my forefathers. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances, viewed through interpretive Torah logic discipline, not historical or even physical forensic evidence. The modern scientific method which requires empirical physical evidence as much avoda zara as Euclid’s 5 axiom of geometry which limits reality to three physical dimensions. The question isn’t “Did it happen?”—it’s “What oath does this obligate me to today?”

At the root lies an epistemic chasm. Torah logic—PaRDeS, כלל ופרט, midrash halakhah—the kabbalah of inductive, generative, dynamic Oral Torah reasoning. It reads horizontally across generations, preserving and applying the brit through interpretive tradition. It prioritizes & remembers oaths, not merely historical events. Greek logic, by contrast—epitomized in Aristotle’s syllogism—deductive, hierarchical, and abstract. It searches for universal forms and metaphysical truths. Torah logic binds the people to HaShem through brit. Greek logic abstracts truth from history and separates law from life.

Herein why the Rambam’s use of Aristotelian categories, while brilliant, marked a radical “Civil War Hanukkah” shift toward Tzeddukim codification and away from P’rushim fluid common-law methods of Talmudic dialectic. Why the Baal HaMaor’s line of thinking—seeing halakhah as jurisprudence, not religion—holds the key to reawakening and please HaShem, restoring the Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal Court system within a Torah Constitutional Republic as the post 1967 June War victory of Zionism, as much or more so over European imperialism as Arab racist Nazism which rejects the 1917 Balfour and 1947 two/thirds UN General Assembly vote which recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East! Not a state run by some crude and utterly primitive Theocracy, which spins around a worthless central axis of a grand building made of wood and stone but the Torah faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. A republic founded on oath alliances—a Torah Constitutional Republic. A sovereign nation whose law flows from Sinai, not from tin-horned theologians, historians, or Enlightenment skeptics. Not a postmodern Jesus built from Protestant Shoah ruins, but the living memory of Horev, written not in parchment alone but in brit-bound hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

Having a deep conversation with Gary: lutherwasnotbornagain.com here on wordpress.

He writes: Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/

Although the allusions in non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historians Tacitus and Suetonius, and Talmudic texts) are almost negligible, they refute the unsubstantiated notion that Jesus might never have existed.

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity/The-relation-of-the-early-church-to-the-career-and-intentions-of-Jesus
While there is no archaeological or other physical evidence for his existence, most scholars agree that Jesus did exist and that he was born sometime in the decade before the Common Era and crucified sometime between 26-36 CE (the years when the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, ruled Judea).

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/what-do-jews-believe-about-jesus/

________________________________________________________________________________________

My response:
mosckerr

Hi Gary your sentence presents an interesting tension: on one hand, it acknowledges that non-Christian references to Jesus are “almost negligible,” yet on the other hand, it asserts that they are sufficient to refute the claim that Jesus never existed.

Who are these “the majority of scholars agree that Jesus was a historical figure”? The Talmud interprets the T’NaCH, that it commands prophetic mussar rather than history. Why because mussar applies across the board equally to all generations, whereas history applies to only one generation who lived thousands of years ago.

Bart Ehrman (agnostic/atheist, textual critic): Did Jesus Exist? (2012)
E. P. Sanders (Christian, New Testament scholar): The Historical Figure of Jesus (1993)
John P. Meier (Catholic priest and historian): A Marginal Jew (multi-volume)
Paula Fredriksen (historian of ancient Christianity and Judaism)
Geza Vermes (Jewish historian and Dead Sea Scrolls scholar)

These scholars draw their conclusions, based upon “historical-critical methods” applied to both canonical and non-canonical sources, and cross-referenced with Roman and Jewish texts.

Rabbi Akiva, for example, famously interpreted every extra letter of the Torah as containing halakhic or moral significance—not merely historical data. The stories of Avraham, Yosef, Moshe, etc., are less about documenting past events and more about conveying archetypes of emunah (faith), din (justice), rachamim (compassion), and the different & distinct oath britot. Tefillen, for example, shares a common denominator with Sefer Torah – with either a person can swear a Torah oath. The Order of the Rashi tefillen different than the Order of the Rabbeinu Tam (Rashi’s grand-son) tefillen. This dispute by Reshonim scholars 1057 – 1185 CE. Rashi started his formal Talmudic education in 1057 and Rabbeinu Tam passed in 1185 — both dates approximate. Once you go way back into history, it becomes a guessing game for later generations.

The Classic viewpoint taken by Tannaim and Amoraim scholars, the people who wrote the Mishna and Gemara; and the Gaonim Era of scholarship. Rav Ashi and Rav Ravinna sealed the Talmud at about 450 CE. Why? So that all generations thereafter would have the same masoret traditions. Such that the earlier generations could not make a valid claim that they were closer to the actual Torah revelation in time. Hence the generation of Ezra sealed the T’NaCH and Rabbi Yechuda sealed his Mishna in about 210 CE.

Jewish history from 550 to 1038 C.E marked by intense scholarship at the Babylonian academies by scholars who studied and interpreted the Talmud. This time period known as the Gaonim period which preceded the Reshonim period 950 – 1400 CE. The gap between the sealing of the Talmud and the Gaonim period, known as the Sovoraim scholars – the final editors of the Talmud.

The Historical-Critical Method stems from German Protestant Origins. The historical-critical method emerged out of 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, especially during the Enlightenment. Its foundations, laid by thinkers like: Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, 1835), and Rudolf Bultmann, who sought to “demythologize” the New Testament. This approach aimed to strip the Bible of its divine authority and treat it like any other piece of ancient literature—subject to human error, redaction layers, myth-making, and ideological editing. In short, historical-critical scholars de-sacralized Scripture and tried to reconstruct the “real” history behind the text, often in direct opposition to traditional Talmudic and post Talmudic Jewish or even Christian attempts to monopolize how to read and interpret scripture. Persons like William Tyndale (executed in 1536), serve as but one glaring example of the church efforts to dictate how the Bible understood.

By the mid-20th century, major assumptions of Higher Criticism were heavily critiqued—even from within its own camp. Archaeological finds (e.g., Dead Sea Scrolls, Ugaritic texts) complicated Wellhausen’s clean chronological categories. Linguistic and literary studies questioned the neat separation of J, E, D, P sources. Form and redaction critics began to focus more on the final form of texts, acknowledging the limitations of speculative source division.

Even Jewish scholars like Umberto Cassuto and later Moshe Greenberg challenged Higher Criticism, defending the unity and structure of the Torah as a coherent work. Umberto Cassuto and Moshe Greenberg stand as important counterpoints to the Protestant-European dominance of historical-critical scholarship. Each, in his own way, pushed back against the Wellhausenian paradigm and sought to restore Torah’s integrity as a unified and deeply meaningful text—rooted not in myth or redaction, but in remembering the oaths sworn when great Torah leaders swore an oath brit alliance.

The deep irony emerges: the same Protestant German method that tried to discredit the historical reliability of Tanakh, now Gary you use, along with some New Testament scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! Bunk. German Protestant Higher Criticism knows nothing of prophetic mussar. This 19th Century scholarship, utterly foreign to the logic of Torah and Oral Torah (e.g., PaRDeS, כלל ופרט); Protestant theology in general and Higher Criticism in particular – both operate from a framework that rejects the Oral Torah brit of Sinai as mythology or nationalism. So when secular or liberal Christian scholars use “historical-critical” methods to say “Jesus surely existed,” it’s not based on any Torah-rooted epistemology, but on Enlightenment rationalism and Euro-Christian assumptions.

This explains why the Talmud doesn’t engage in historical apologetics. Its scholarship makes no attempt or effort to prove Moshe existed or David ruled over Israel in archaeological terms. Its authority comes from the oath brit alliance and deriving the specific oaths sworn in order to cut T’NaCH britot. I brought the dispute between Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam over the order of tefillen as an example of this classic type of scholarship which strives to remember and distinguish between oath from oath sworn.

Post Talmudic scholarship branched off into two opposing main schools. The Baal HaMaor understood the Talmud as judicial common law which interprets the distinctions which separate earlier Court rulings on cases heard before the Courts from later Court ruling heard before the Courts. The opposing branch of classic post Talmudic scholarship focused upon organizing law into simple religious codes to address the needs of the Jewish people scattered across all of the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

The Baal HaMaor line of scholarship, whose research the ongoing interpretive chain of tradition—not from historical-critical validation—lost the debate. The opposite of the P’rushim vs. Tzeddukim Civil War in Judea remembered through lighting the lights of Hanukkah. The B’HaG ruled that remembering the oath sworn when lighting the lights of Hanukkah elevates this rabbinic mitzva unto a Torah time oriented commandment!

My Rav learned from Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv the sh’itta/methodology of Common Law interpretive school of Talmudic scholarship. The opposing branch that turned the halacha into Codes of Jewish law, based itself primarily upon Greek and Roman statute law assimilated influences. A direct violation of a Torah negative commandment. The Rambam replaced the Pardes logic of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of the Oral Torah with Aristotle’s syllogism. The Pardes logic – inductive reasoning, whereas Aristotle’s logic – deductive reasoning! A day and night difference on the order of static vs dynamic engineering.

As Rabbi Soloveitchik, a 20th Century Modern Orthodox famous scholar, once said: “We do not believe in Torah because it is historically verified; we believe because of the revelation at Sinai, transmitted through our mesorah.”

Euro-Christian historicism merits respect on par with manure used as fertilizer. The historical-critical method emerged in 18th–19th century German Protestant scholarship, rooted in Enlightenment rationalism. Thinkers such as Julius Wellhausen, F.C. Baur, David Friedrich Strauss, and Rudolf Bultmann laid the foundations of this approach. Their goal was to strip the Bible of divine authority and treat it like any other flawed ancient text—subject to myth-making, redaction, ideological bias, and historical error.

The rich irony, the very German Protestant methodology designed to discredit the Torah’s historicity, now widely used by Christian scholars to argue for the historicity of Jesus! A theological sleight of hand! These scholars—often secular or liberal Christians—employ Enlightenment-era tools, not to validate prophecy, brit, or Divine law, but to construct a quasi-historical Jesus that fits modern ideological preferences. These conclusions simply not rooted in Torah epistemology, (branch of philosophy concerned with the nature, sources, limits, and validity of knowledge), nor in Talmudic interpretive traditions like PaRDeS or klal u’prat, but in Euro-Christian rationalism and post-Reformation theological assumptions. And unlike the prophetic mussar of the T’NaCH—which applies equally to all generations—the historical Jesus belongs to a distant past, devoid of national covenant, divine command, or legal brit.

The epistemological sleight of hand that the historical-critical method performs: it tries to debunk Torah by treating it like a myth, then constructs a sanitized Jesus through the very same tools. It’s like using acid to dissolve Sinai and then bottling what’s left as some kind of universal moral tonic. All this Enlightenment-era critique may ironically serve to reawaken a deeper appreciation of the Torah’s non-historicist logic—rooted in brit, mussar, and legal accountability, not in positivist source analysis.

Historical-critical scholars approach prophecy as if it were Hellenistic historiography—missing entirely the oath britot alliances that go beyond merely the functions of nevu’ah restricted to a caged moral summons, some historical archive. Torah functions as a Constitutional political document. Judea sit at the throat of a major artery of trade that connects North Africa to Europe! Countless military invasions have likewise warred through the Middle East! Hence the concept of oath sworn alliances first and foremost addresses political alliances and not religious theological belief systems.

That Wellhausen’s model—which once deemed Torah as myth—now retroactively used to support Jesus as a real figure – not myth?! A philosophical bait-and-switch. Historical Jesus studies often end up “re-sacralizing” Jesus in liberal moral terms (as proto-socialist, proto-anti-racist, etc.), bypassing any divine brit or halakhic framework. It’s the liberal Protestant version of avodah zarah.

The Talmud never “proves” Moshe existed. It presupposes brit, which his Torah instructs. The authority of the Torah, not empirical but juridical. The brit itself—the foundational claim—not historical reconstructions, not evidence from Ugarit, a large body of ancient texts discovered at the archaeological site of Ugarit (modern Ras Shamra, Syria) in the late 1920s. Torah logic (PaRDeS, klal u’prat, midrash halakhah), in a word – generative. It strives to remember the oaths, for example, sworn by the Avot, by which they cut an oath brit alliance with the Divine and established the chosen Cohen nation. Greek logic (like Aristotle’s syllogisms) aims at abstraction and metaphysics. They’re not just different tools—they imply different realities.

The very methodology that once dismissed Torah as legend, now enlisted to “prove” that Jesus existed—not as a fulfillment of brit or nevu’ah, but as a proto-liberal symbol molded by modern ideology? This bait-and-switch, not merely methodological—rather it represents theological avodah zarah. Historical Jesus studies, especially in liberal Protestant and secular academic circles, no longer aim at truth through brit judicial common law justice. Instead, they fabricate a figure who satisfies postmodern tastes—Jesus the anti-imperialist, the community organizer, the intersectional savior. All this without mitzvot, without brit, without Sinai and without Horev Oral Torah Pardes logic.

Historical-critical scholars misread prophetic literature, as if it were Greek-style historiography or some political memoir. They miss that nevu’ah in Tanakh, nothing about chronicling the past—but rather sustaining the oath sworn alliances which apply to all the generations who trouble to “remember” those specific sworn oath alliances in the first place. The past or “history” serves only as a tool to study mussar in “historical contexts”. The prophets don’t merely “moralize”—they litigate. Nevu’ah as the key legal mechanism, expressed through Aggadah in a constitutional framework of Torah בראשית & Talmud. And the Torah itself most definitely not “Xtian scripture” in the new testament, koran, book of mormon and scientology substitute scriptures – sense. The Sefer Torah serves as the first oath-brit codification, a national charter built on public oaths and collective responsibility.

Wellhausen, Baur, Strauss, and Bultmann were not merely academic critics—they were Protestant theologians operating within post-Reformation frameworks. They saw religion as belief systems, not political-legal sworn alliances! Situated at the strategic crossroads of competing empires, Judea – always a geopolitical pressure point. That’s why Torah begins with the Avot swearing oaths, and why every brit alliance in Tanakh completely political—land, law, and loyalty—and not abstract belief system theologies or Creeds. The Avot in their day a tiny speck minority population, as likewise the Jewish people relative to the Goyim today.

Hence, Talmudic tradition doesn’t argue for Moshe’s historicity, the way historians argue for Julius Caesar. Moshe Rabbeinu accepted not through archaeological proof but through juridical continuity: mesorah, halakhah, brit, and Sanhedrin common law courts of law. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances sworn by my forefathers. The Oral Torah remembers the oath alliances, viewed through interpretive Torah logic discipline, not historical or even physical forensic evidence. The modern scientific method which requires empirical physical evidence as much avoda zara as Euclid’s 5 axiom of geometry which limits reality to three physical dimensions. The question isn’t “Did it happen?”—it’s “What oath does this obligate me to today?”

At the root lies an epistemic chasm. Torah logic—PaRDeS, כלל ופרט, midrash halakhah—the kabbalah of inductive, generative, dynamic Oral Torah reasoning. It reads horizontally across generations, preserving and applying the brit through interpretive tradition. It prioritizes & remembers oaths, not merely historical events. Greek logic, by contrast—epitomized in Aristotle’s syllogism—deductive, hierarchical, and abstract. It searches for universal forms and metaphysical truths. Torah logic binds the people to HaShem through brit. Greek logic abstracts truth from history and separates law from life.

Herein why the Rambam’s use of Aristotelian categories, while brilliant, marked a radical “Civil War Hanukkah” shift toward Tzeddukim codification and away from P’rushim fluid common-law methods of Talmudic dialectic. Why the Baal HaMaor’s line of thinking—seeing halakhah as jurisprudence, not religion—holds the key to reawakening and please HaShem, restoring the Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal Court system within a Torah Constitutional Republic as the post 1967 June War victory of Zionism, as much or more so over European imperialism as Arab racist Nazism which rejects the 1917 Balfour and 1947 two/thirds UN General Assembly vote which recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East! Not a state run by some crude and utterly primitive Theocracy, which spins around a worthless central axis of a grand building made of wood and stone but the Torah faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. A republic founded on oath alliances—a Torah Constitutional Republic. A sovereign nation whose law flows from Sinai, not from tin-horned theologians, historians, or Enlightenment skeptics. Not a postmodern Jesus built from Protestant Shoah ruins, but the living memory of Horev, written not in parchment alone but in brit-bound hearts of the chosen Cohen people.

Israelis declare war against the church collapsed monopoly how to interpret ancient texts. First and foremost, the New Testament shares no more a portion with the Hebrew T’NaCH than does the koran or book of Mormon.

The rhetorical weight of John 16:33 rests on abstract, Hellenistic terms like: “Peace” (εἰρήνη – eirēnē): Unlike shalom in Torah, which refers to TRUST restored through fair judicial justice which makes a righteous compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B, the word salad “Peace” does not refer to anything specific in particular. To make a general statement “peace” compares to a slander accusation without bringing any supporting evidence other than more slander or hearsay gossip.

Eirēnē is decontextualized. It implies a spiritual or internal tranquility, divorced from land, law, or peoplehood. It’s a peace without mitzvot, without mishpat, without the prophetic demand for national accountability. In effect, it’s a pacifier.

“The world” (κόσμος – kosmos): A vague antagonist. It doesn’t mean Egypt or Rome in any concrete political sense, nor does it refer to any halakhic category like goy or eretz ha’amim. It’s an abstraction, a kind of universal evil “system” that individual souls must transcend through belief in the cross. This aligns with dualistic Greek cosmology, not with the Torah’s conception of sanctifying this world through mitzvot.

This passage turns the reader inward, encouraging spiritualized endurance and submission—not prophetic mussar which personally rebukes. This passage by contrast merely serves as a theological sedative: “The world is hard, but don’t resist. I’ve overcome it for you.” No call to teshuva, no call to rebuild the brit. Just passive faith in a metaphysical savior. It masks pacification as victory, and disempowerment as peace. It preaches serenity while erasing the Torah’s demand for mishpat, tzedek, and the restoration of Israel’s oath brit to conquer or re-conquer our homeland of Judea.