Reflexology serves as a therapeutic practice that focuses on specific points on the feet, hands, or ears, which correspond to different organs and systems in the body. Practitioners apply pressure to these reflex points to improve overall health, promote relaxation, and balance the body’s energy.
Head Zones in Reflexology: In reflexology, practitioners associate the head with specific areas on the feet, hands, or ears. These head zones link to various parts of the body and respond to reflexology techniques. For example, the tips of the toes, particularly the big toe, correspond to the head, brain, and neck. Pressing these areas can help alleviate symptoms related to tension headaches, migraines, or mental stress.
Zones of Hyperalgesia in Reflexology: Hyperalgesia refers to an increased sensitivity to pain, often linked to areas of the body experiencing pain or stress. In reflexology, heightened tenderness or discomfort during pressure application to a specific reflex zone may signal an area of the body needing attention or healing. For example, increased sensitivity in a reflex point on the feet might reflect an underlying issue in the corresponding organ or system, such as the digestive or musculoskeletal systems. Reflexologists interpret these areas of heightened sensitivity as signals to focus more energy on addressing the imbalance or tension in that region.
Sechenov stands among the first to propose that behavior can be understood as a series of reflexes. In his book, he argued that higher mental processes, such as thought and volition, also root in reflexive activity. This concept expanded the idea of reflexes from simple, automatic bodily movements to complex behaviors, challenging the prevailing views of free will by suggesting that even sophisticated mental actions remain reflexive.
Ivan Pavlov (1849-1936) read Sechenov’s work and acknowledged his book “Reflexes of the Brain” as the most important theoretical inspiration for his own research on conditioning. Pavlov took Sechenov’s theoretical outline and subjected it to methodical experimental study. Through this, Pavlov developed the theory of conditioned reflexes, asserting a simple and direct relationship between a stimulus and a response. Pavlov found that almost any stimulus can act as a conditioning stimulus to produce a conditioned response.
Pavlov recognized Sechenov’s work as the theoretical foundation for his research. Sechenov’s emphasis on the brain’s role in reflexes and the idea that behavior could explain through physical processes in the nervous system resonated with Pavlov. While Sechenov’s theories leaned toward philosophy, Pavlov adopted a methodical, experimental approach to testing and developing these ideas. Pavlov refined and expanded Sechenov’s concepts through experimental studies, particularly with dogs. He demonstrated how a neutral stimulus (e.g., the sound of a bell) could pair with an unconditioned stimulus (e.g., food) to elicit an unconditioned response (e.g., salivation). Over time, the neutral stimulus (the bell) alone could trigger the salivation response, becoming a conditioned stimulus that evoked a conditioned response. This became the core of Pavlov’s theory of conditioned reflexes.
Pavlov’s work revealed that almost any stimulus could function as a conditioning stimulus, indicating that stimulus-response relationships extended beyond simple biological reflexes to include complex learned behaviors. This shift from viewing behavior as merely a response to innate, automatic stimuli to seeing it as a dynamic process involving learned associations marked a major development in psychology. Pavlov’s research on conditioned reflexes laid the foundation for behaviorism and influenced later theorists like John Watson and B.F. Skinner. His work also contributed to the advancement of neurophysiology, shaping our understanding of the physiological basis of behavior. Thus, Pavlov’s theory of conditioned reflexes directly evolved from Sechenov’s ideas, with Pavlov pushing the theory into experimental, empirical territory and providing a framework for understanding how learning processes shape and modify behavior.
Reflexology in the hands and ears is a form of alternative therapy that focuses on stimulating specific points or zones believed to correspond to different organs, systems, and parts of the body. These reflex points are thought to be connected via energy pathways, and applying pressure to them is believed to promote healing and balance.
Reflexology in the Hands: The hands are believed to have reflex points that correspond to the entire body. Here’s a breakdown: Key Reflex Points in the Hands: Fingers and Thumb:
Fingers correspond to the head and neck area.
The tips of fingers and thumbs are associated with the brain and sinus areas.
The thumb relates to the head, including the pituitary gland.
Palm: The palm contains points that represent the major organs, such as:
Lungs: The upper area of the palm near the base of the fingers.
Heart: Center of the palm, slightly left in the left hand.
Liver: Lower palm on the right hand.
Digestive system: Across the mid and lower palm.
Sides of the Hand: The outer edge of the hand corresponds to the spine.
The base of the thumb connects to the throat and thyroid.
Benefits of Hand Reflexology: Easily accessible for self-treatment. May relieve stress, headaches, and tension. Improves circulation and energy flow.
Reflexology in the Ears: The ears also contain a detailed map of reflex points, with the idea that the entire body can be represented on the outer ear, known as the auricle. This concept is also used in auriculotherapy. Auriculotherapy, also known as auricular therapy, ear acupuncture, or auriculoacupuncture, is an alternative medicine practice based on the idea that the ear serves as a microsystem representing the entire body.
French neurologist Paul Nogier is credited with inventing auriculotherapy in 1957. Nogier proposed that the ear contains a complete representation of the body, with the head down. He mapped specific points on the ear that corresponded to different body parts. His work led to the development of various auricular charts and treatment protocols.
Key Reflex Points in the Ears: Lobule (Earlobe): Corresponds to the head, including the brain, face, and teeth.
Concha (Inner Ear Bowl): Linked to internal organs, such as the heart, lungs, and digestive organs. What Is the Concha? The concha, also known as the pinna, is the bowl-shaped part of the outer ear. It’s located on the side of our head, just in front of the ear canal. Think of it as the “shell” of our ear—like a tiny, natural satellite dish designed to capture sound waves.
Anatomy of the Concha: Within this shell-shaped structure, several features contribute to its unique design: Tragus: This small projection covers part of the concha’s entrance, like a protective flap. Antitragus: Located behind the tragus, it’s another tiny projection. The tragus has a somewhat triangular shape, resembling a tiny flap or protective cover. Its primary function is to help direct sound waves into the ear canal. When you press your finger against your tragus, you’ll notice how it partially covers the ear canal, acting like a natural shield.
The antitragus is another feature of our ear anatomy, located just above the earlobe. Position and Orientation: It points anteriorly (toward the front of the head). The antitragus is separated from the tragus by a small notch called the intertragic notch. The earlobe, also known as the pinna, is the soft, fleshy flap of skin at the lower part of your outer ear. It’s the part of the ear that hangs down and is visible from the side.
The earlobe contains tough areolar and adipose (fatty) connective tissues. Unlike the rest of the auricle (the external structure of the ear), the earlobe lacks cartilage. This lack of cartilage gives it a softer texture. The earlobe has a rich blood supply, which helps to warm the ears and maintain balance.
While the rest of the auricle has firmness and elasticity due to cartilage, the earlobe is more flexible. Although the earlobe does not have any major biological function, it contains many nerve endings. For some people, the earlobe is an erogenous zone—a sensitive area that can be pleasurable when touched.
Zoologist Desmond Morris proposed in his book “The Naked Ape” that earlobes developed as an additional erogenous zone to facilitate extended sexuality in the evolution of human monogamous pair bonding. Earlobes average about 2 centimeters in length and may elongate slightly with age.
The antitragus muscle, an intrinsic muscle of the ear, the outer part of the antitragus, is the prominent curved ridge of the auricle. While humans typically have a small antitragus, it can be much larger in other species. For example, in bats, the antitragus plays a significant role in their echolocation abilities.
Helix and Antihelix: These are ridges and folds on the outer ear that also play a role in shaping our ears. The antitragus is an intrinsic muscle of the outer ear. It arises from the outer part of the antitragus, which is a small tubercle on the visible part of the ear (the auricle).another ridge within the auricle, located just above the antitragus.
The antitragus muscle inserts into two key areas: Cauda helicis: This is the tail of the helix, which is the prominent curved ridge of the auricle. The cauda helicis is a tail-like process located in the lower part of the helix (the prominent curved ridge of the auricle, or outer ear). It extends downward from the helix and is separated from the antihelix (another ridge within the auricle) by a fissure called the fissura antitragohelicina.
The fissura antitragohelicina is a small fissure or groove that separates two specific structures within the outer ear. It lies between the antitragus (a small tubercle on the visible part of the ear) and the cauda helicis (the tail-like process at the lower part of the helix, which is the prominent curved ridge of the auricle). Essentially, the fissura antitragohelicina marks the boundary between these neighboring features.
Antihelix is another ridge within the auricle, located just above the antitragus. Together, these components create the intricate contours of the concha. The antihelix (also known as the anthelix) is a Y-shaped ridge of cartilage within the external ear (the auricle). It lies parallel and interior to the helix, which is the prominent curved ridge of the auricle.
The antihelix divides above into two legs or crura: Superior crus: This branch points upward. Inferior crus: This branch points toward the center of the ear. Superior Crus: The upper cartilaginous ridge that separates the scapha (the concave depression above the antihelix) from the triangular fossa. Inferior Crus: The lower cartilaginous ridge that separates the concha (the bowl-like depression within the auricle) from the triangular fossa.
The concha isn’t just there for aesthetics—it’s a crucial player in our hearing process. Its primary job is to collect sound waves from the environment and direct them into the ear canal. Imagine it as a funnel, channeling whispers, music, and everyday sounds toward our eardrum.
How Sound Transmission Works: Interestingly, it’s not our brain that directly hears sounds. Instead, our hearing apparatus converts sound waves into electrical signals. The length of the adult ear canal (about 1.5 inches) helps transmit these signals effectively. Sometimes, our ears encounter problems. Conditions like inflammation or even ear cancer can disrupt the concha’s job.
Unique Features and Variations: Across different populations, the appearance of the concha varies. Nature and genetics play a role. Some people have more pronounced conchas, while others have subtle ones. The concha isn’t just about aesthetics; it has an evolutionary backstory. Early humans needed effective sound gathering tools for survival—alerting them to predators, prey, or other dangers. Over time, our conchas evolved to enhance our ability to perceive sound.
Antihelix (Rim Inside the Outer Ear): Represents the spine and musculoskeletal system.
Helix (Outer Ear Rim): Related to extremities, such as the arms, legs, and shoulders.
Tragus—that tiny, pointed eminence of the external ear! Associated with hormonal glands and the nose. The tragus sits in front of the concha (the concave depression of the ear) and projects backward over the ear canal. Its name comes from the Ancient Greek word “tragos,” meaning “goat.” Why goat, you ask? Well, because the tragus often sports a tuft of hair on its under surface, resembling a goat’s beard. Nearby—the antitragus, which projects forward and upward. The tragus faces rearward, it helps collect sounds from behind us. These rearward sounds are delayed more than those arriving from the front—it assists your brain in sensing front vs. rear sound sources.
In a positive fistula test (for the presence of a fistula from cholesteatoma to the labyrinth), pressure on the tragus can cause vertigo or eye deviation. Something like a secret vertigo button. A positive fistula test occurs when the patient experiences specific symptoms during the test: Vertigo: The patient feels a spinning sensation. Nystagmus: Involuntary rhythmic eye movements (usually horizontal or rotary). This positive response indicates that there is an abnormal connection between the membranous labyrinth and the external auditory meatus. A positive fistula test is a sign of a large erosive cholesteatoma (a destructive growth in the middle ear) in the context of: Otalgia: Ear pain. Otorrhoea: Discharge from the ear.
Other Points: The ear contains specific points for pain relief, stress reduction, and appetite control. Benefits of Ear Reflexology: May help with pain management, particularly for headaches, migraines, and joint pain. Useful for stress and anxiety relief. Sometimes used for addiction therapy, such as in smoking cessation or weight management.
Pressure Techniques: Gentle but firm pressure is applied to the reflex points using the fingers, thumbs, or a reflexology tool. Reflexology tools can enhance the effectiveness of reflexology treatments by targeting specific points on the feet, hands, or other parts of the body. Reflexology Foot Rollers: These handheld devices have textured surfaces designed to stimulate reflex points on the soles of the feet. By rolling the foot over the roller, you can apply pressure to specific areas, promoting relaxation and well-being.
Acupressure Pens: These pens have rounded tips that can be used to apply pressure to reflex points on the hands, feet, or other body parts. Some acupressure pens also come with interchangeable heads for different levels of pressure.
Originally used in traditional Chinese medicine, gua sha tools are flat, smooth instruments made of materials like jade or stainless steel. They can be used to gently scrape or press specific reflex points, promoting circulation and relaxation. Reflexology Socks with Massage Tools: These socks have built-in acupressure points that correspond to reflex zones on the feet. They often come with small massage tools (such as wooden or plastic knobs) that you can use to apply pressure to the points.
Thumb Saver Massagers: These handheld tools are designed to relieve muscle tension and trigger points. They can be used on various body parts, including the hands and feet.
Dual Head Facial Reflexology Tools: These stainless steel tools have dual ends—one pointed and one rounded. They are suitable for stimulating reflex points on the face, ears, and other areas.
Session Duration: A typical session lasts 30–60 minutes. Combination: Reflexology in the hands and ears is often used alongside foot reflexology for a holistic approach. ____________________________________________________________________ Quick summation:
Lobule (Earlobe): Corresponds to the head, including the brain, face, and teeth.
Concha (Inner Ear Bowl): Linked to internal organs such as the heart, lungs, and digestive system.
Antihelix (Inner Ridge): Represents the spine and musculoskeletal system.
Helix (Outer Rim): Associated with extremities, such as the arms, legs, and shoulders.
Tragus: Linked to hormonal glands and the nose.
Other Points:
Specific areas in the ear are believed to assist with pain relief, stress reduction, and appetite control. Benefits of Ear Reflexology: May help manage pain, such as headaches, migraines, and joint discomfort. Useful for stress and anxiety relief. Sometimes employed for addiction therapy, including smoking cessation and weight management.
Always suspected that the problem with diabetes centered not around the pancreas eg insulin resistance, but rather a fatty liver which produces insufficient bile. Fatty liver directly impacts the gallbladder, which also produces bile.
Asian medicine argues that most Human diseases start in the intestines. My main gripe against Western medicine, it treats symptoms rather than substance. Hence I refer to Western medicine as “reactionary, news-paper reading experts”. Outside of diagnosis of diseases, simply do not trust Western medicine. Last night, Karen and me, returned from her annual Company dinner. We ate the standard restaurant Carbs, meats and sugar drinks. Poured myself a grapefruit drink and almost choked on its sweetness. My addiction to sugar reminds me of BadPa’s struggles with alcoholism. Ya remember his huge gut, no doubt he suffered from fatty liver. Remember he swallowed these little red pills whenever he ate a meal. Suspect they served their purpose: to increase his digestion bile production.
This morning Karen and me, checked our blood sugar. Hers 305 vs. mine 111. She shoots up with Western medicine, an utterly taboo possibility for me. The idea of shooting up insulin, would rather become addicted to heroin. Clearly that’s an exaggeration but my mantra stands: Western Medicine sucks.
Our situations have completely reversed themselves. A year ago, before I admitted myself to be an sugar-holic, my tested morning blood sugar – a raging hard-on of 307. The prospect of my Type II diabetes morphing into Type III diabetes/Alzheimer’s forced me to get religion and change my sinful ways. :))).
Immediately introduced cayenne pepper and ginger root into my diet. Then I introduced squeezed lemon juice together with apple cider with its prized “mother”. The mother contained within organic apple cider vinegar, one of the best foods which feed the probiotic bacteria in the large intestines. Add ground fiber to my meals together with hard shelled seeds, like lintel seeds.
But this only made a peripheral attack on my high blood sugar. Then pulled out the Big Guns: bitter herbs of cuban cigar tobacco and dandelion leaves. Eating cuban cigars reminds me of my childhood when I requested chewing tobacco and the parents refused. So I ate one of BadPa’s prized Cuban cigars and promptly got the green light from the parents permitting me to chaw on tobacco.
At TSTI my mechanical engineering instructors would not permit students to spit their tobacco into empty coke-cans while sitting in the classrooms. This taught me how to swallow tobacco permitting me to chaw my tobacco in class.
Tobacco has a bad reputation, something like Jews and the ‘Blood Libels’ of church Dark Ages. Nicotine, while perhaps mildly addictive, the trash the tobacco companies mix with tobacco and their corrupt curing of tobacco leaves – reminds me how Western medicine treats people as cash-cows – far more addictive than nicotine! Cuban tobacco has the reputation of air-cured tobacco leaves. It, like cotton, absorbs the mineral content from the soil like a sponge.
But in my experience with Indians hunting tribes, the Indians view tobacco as powerful medicine. Therefore HaDassah and me, traveled to Jerusalem to a fine cigar store and acquired two cigars. Have started treating her antibiotic resistant pseudomonas bacteria in her lungs with the bitter herb of tobacco and colloidal silver. My objective: that the nicotine in the tobacco strips the resistant shell off her pseudomonas, which will then permit the colloidal silver to kill that SOB bacteria.
The overuse/abuse of antibiotics caused resistant bacterial growth in the first place. Western medicine sucks. Excuse my digression from diabetes Type II treatment.
Consuming the bitter herb, a chaw of tobacco from a Cuban cigar, a skill. People who have yet to acquire a taste for tobacco will find it utterly bitter and repugnant. But bitter for the mouth, good for the liver! Simply place a plug of the cigar tobacco in your cheek till it disintegrates. Both cheeks will be filled with spit, because tobacco exists as a powerful expectorant. The mouth releases spit as the first stage of digestion.
On a side note, when oil-pulling to brush my teeth, I swallow that spit rather than eject it down the bowels of the sink. Spittal the body makes to aid in food digestion. The trapped bacteria contained in the spit from the mouth goes directly to the large intestines, whose good probiotic cells feed off these swarms of otherwise harmful bacteria, harvested from within our mouths. Eating these harmful bacteria by swallowing our spittal, functions something like a vaccine; like how a cow rechews its cud. The probiotic bacteria in our large intestines function akin to an extra stomach.
The bitter herbs of tobacco and dandelion leaves cause the liver to produce bile and cleanse the liver of excess stored fats eg fatty liver. Important, when a person actually swallows the spittal digested tobacco, to do so in conjunction and together with a large glass of room temperature water. Personally it’s my habit to drink water before I start to actually swallow the tobacco juices in my mouth. This prevents the bitter taste of the tobacco from lingering in my throat. Then by drinking the rest of the cup of water, this softens the shock of the tobacco in the stomach.
Lies preached worldwide across all pulpits throughout history. Religion Hoax known as Xtianity
Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!
This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.
Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus. It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.
The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa. This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status.
Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman. Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.
Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus. Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?! Utterly absurd. Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace. Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!
It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union. Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!
“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent: the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.
The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach! Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach. Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach!
The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.
The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh? The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!
The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships. The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing. The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.
The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross! Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice. Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.
The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.
Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20). The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions. Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse. The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life. The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.
Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife. T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar. The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity. On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people.
The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.
Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts. Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!
Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David. This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned. The Pauline influence – an important primary source.
The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.
The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.
If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother. Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions. The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain. The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם. Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits.
The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar. Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart. These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs. Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna.
When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”. Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts.
JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences. His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.
Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin. His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought. Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system. Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.
Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross. No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.
Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.
This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages. When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace. Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.
Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought. The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage. Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.
The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love! The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human.
T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history. Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god. It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.
Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).
Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.
Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.
This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.
The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.
Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.
The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.” The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.
The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.
The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].” In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.
Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.
Lies preached worldwide across all pulpits throughout history. Religion Hoax known as Xtianity
Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!
This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.
Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus. It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.
The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa. This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status.
Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman. Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.
Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus. Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?! Utterly absurd. Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace. Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!
It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union. Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!
“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent: the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.
The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach! Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach. Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach!
The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.
The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh? The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!
The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships. The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing. The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.
The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross! Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice. Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.
The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.
Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20). The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions. Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse. The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life. The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.
Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife. T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar. The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity. On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people.
The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.
Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts. Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!
Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David. This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned. The Pauline influence – an important primary source.
The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.
The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.
If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother. Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions. The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain. The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם. Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits.
The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar. Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart. These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs. Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna.
When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”. Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts.
JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences. His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.
Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin. His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought. Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system. Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.
Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross. No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.
Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.
This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages. When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace. Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.
Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought. The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage. Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.
The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love! The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human.
T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history. Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god. It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.
Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).
Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.
Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.
This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.
The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.
Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.
The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.” The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.
The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.
The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].” In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.
Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.
Lies preached worldwide across all pulpits throughout history. Religion Hoax known as Xtianity
Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!
This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.
Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus. It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.
The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa. This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status.
Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman. Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.
Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus. Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?! Utterly absurd. Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace. Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!
It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union. Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!
“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent: the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.
The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach! Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach. Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach!
The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.
The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh? The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!
The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships. The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing. The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.
The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross! Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice. Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.
The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.
Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20). The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions. Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse. The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life. The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.
Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife. T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar. The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity. On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people.
The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.
Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts. Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!
Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David. This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned. The Pauline influence – an important primary source.
The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.
The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.
If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother. Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions. The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain. The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם. Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits.
The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar. Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart. These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs. Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna.
When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”. Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts.
JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences. His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.
Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin. His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought. Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system. Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.
Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross. No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.
Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.
This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages. When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace. Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.
Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought. The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage. Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.
The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love! The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human.
T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history. Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god. It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.
Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).
Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.
Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.
This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.
The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.
Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.
The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.” The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.
The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.
The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].” In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.
Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.
Lies preached worldwide across all pulpits throughout history. Religion Hoax known as Xtianity
Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!
This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.
Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus. It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.
The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa. This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status.
Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman. Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.
Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus. Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?! Utterly absurd. Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace. Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!
It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union. Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!
“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent: the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.
The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach! Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach. Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach!
The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.
The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh? The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!
The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships. The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing. The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.
The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross! Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice. Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.
The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.
Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20). The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions. Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse. The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life. The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.
Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife. T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar. The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity. On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people.
The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.
Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts. Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!
Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David. This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned. The Pauline influence – an important primary source.
The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.
The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.
If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods. Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother. Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions. The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain. The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם. Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits.
The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar. Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart. These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs. Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna.
When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”. Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts.
JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences. His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.
Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin. His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought. Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system. Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.
Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross. No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans. How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.
Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.
This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages. When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace. Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.
Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought. The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage. Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.
The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love! The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human.
T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history. Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god. It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.
Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).
Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.
Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.
This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.
The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.
Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.
The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.” The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.
The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.
The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].” In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.
Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.
Conflict Resolution 