C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce” – a narrative that presents a fictional journey from a gray, dreary town (representing Hell through this metaphor) to a vibrant, beautiful heaven, where the characters confront their own choices and the nature of their desires. On par with the Aslan lion metaphor which depicts the Easter resurrection from the dead story.
The “Great Divorce” theme focuses upon pride. Many of the characters in this metaphor cling to their “sins”. A guilt trip that dates back to the apostle Pauls’ “Original Sin” narishkeit. A lot of Goyim reject the NT guilt trip ideology. The entire Xtian theology of Heaven and Hell, pie in the sky religious theological speculations. The Talmud teaches a person who speculates on matters which the Human mind cannot conceive or grasp … better that such persons’ never born.
To make literal declarations like “All in hell want to be there”, simply perverting a children story as depicting actual reality – what complete and utter nonsense! The theological creed Xtian belief systems qualify as examples of the metaphor story of residents of hell who made conscious choices that reflect their fervent beliefs in some pie in the sky Nicene theology of the Trinity.
Torah has no concept of “Free Will” as Calvin solemnly declared. John Calvin’s “dogma” of Free Will emphasizes the sovereignty of some undefined god. His theology promotes the notion that this undefined Universal god has predetermined who will be saved and who will be damned. This perverse dogmatism defines the key component of Reformed Protestant theology.
However, Calvin did acknowledge the concept of human responsibility and moral choice within the framework of his Universal god’s sovereignty. Mighty White of him to grant his Universal god these powers; such as grace – essential for salvation.
Interesting – Moshe’s Torah and the Oral Torah-Talmud defines the middah of grace as the dedication – through swearing a Torah oath – of some unspecified tohor middah, as the k’vanna of the tohor midda of Grace. For example the tohor middah of mercy which learns from the commandment to obliterate every man woman and child of Canaan, or to the commandment to slaughter the youth – stubborn and rebellious son, or the commandment to make eternal war upon the assimilated mix multitude of Jews who lack fear of Elohim, known as Amalek. Commonly known today as antisemitism etc. Clearly Calvin’s Protestant dogmatism, like Catholic dogmatism, upon this foundation stands the theology espoused by C.S. Lewis likewise rejects Oral Torah common law precedents, some of which – listed above, as the means to interpret the k’vanna of both tohor middot of grace and mercy!
Jacques GuillardMAJESTIC PURSUIT This Goy preaches his JeZeus syndrome bull shit. “””Let us recognize His ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY over us.
He is worthy to have Glory, Honour and Power, because He created all things — yes, because of His will they were created and came into being!
YAHWEH is the ONE who made Heaven and Earth, the sea and the springs of water!
Let us bow before His throne and recognize that He is JUST and TRUE in all He has done, and WORSHIP HIM ALONE.
Let us bow our knees to the Father of our Teacher and Friend, the Hebrew and Jewish Messiah Yeshua who came to give his life for our sins (sin is a violation of the Torah) on the Roman execution-stake in PERFECT OBEDIENCE to his Father’s will and to teach us the true meaning of the Torah, to show us how to keep it, how to live it, with the help of the Set-apart Spirit, the Ruach HaKodesh; to bring us into a LOVING, FOREVER RELATIONSHIP with YAHWEH, his Elohim and Father, to be GRAFTED, into the Yisra’ĕl Family, and to be YAHWEH’s people in Covenant with Him.
He OBEYED his Elohim and Father not because he had no choice in the matter, but because he loved Him.
He spoke and did according to all YAHWEH had commanded.
The Hebrew and Jewish Messiah Yeshua lived in TOTAL OBEDIENCE to YAHWEH, his Elohim and Father; in our union with him, let us do the same. ________________________________________________ ________________________________________________
In Jewish thought by stark and absolute total contrast, faith in God not some cult of personality personal or spiritual theological belief system; Torah faith deeply intertwined with ethical prophetic mussar, and social justice. The Torah obligations absolutely require the active pursuit of judicial common law justice through the Sanhedrin courtrooms. Principles of justice and fairness in all dealings, especially in legal matters define the Torah concept of faith.
The Torah mandates stong emphasis on the appointment of just judges, expected to act with integrity and impartiality. In Deuteronomy 16:18-20, the commandment to appoint judges and officers in all cities underscores the importance of justice: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, and you shall not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.” This principle, echoed in the teachings of the sages, who stress that a corrupt judiciary undermines the very foundation of society and the time-oriented brit which forever and eternally creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Hezekiah’s actions seen as a common law precedent for Sanhedrin justices to pursue justice and righteousness, ensuring that their governance aligns with the values of the Torah through משנה תורה legislative review of all laws and decrees imposed by Government statute laws.
The presence of bribed judges and corrupt courtrooms leads to the Torah curse of societal decay and a loss of faith among the people; meaning Jews assimilate and embrace the culture and customs of foreign peoples. These aliens reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. When judicial common law justice collapses, it creates a disconnect between the community and HaShem; failure to do and keep tohor time oriented commandments perverts the chosen cohen nation unto just another Av tuma Goyim people. The “converted” non Cohen-people, abandoned or betrayed by leaders equally abandon their faith – the obligation to pursue judicial justice among and between Jews. The prophetic T’NaCH literature often addresses the consequences of injustice, warning that societal ills can lead to divine judgment – Torah curses – like as happened to Par’o in Egypt in the days of Moshe and Aaron. This serves as a reminder that faith most essentially defined, not as Av tumah avoda zara which demand that a Goy believe in this or that theological creed God, but rather Torah faith lives only through pursuit of judicial common law courtroom judgements that promote justice and equity among and between our conflicting peoples.
This mussar tradition, it emphasizes the cultivation of personal virtues, including integrity, honesty, and a commitment to justice among our people. Prophetic mussar encourages the active pursuit of judicial common law justice to resolve our damages disputes between our people in all generations and all times. These T’NaCH/aggadic and midrashic teachings, they most essentually stress that true loyalty to the Torah brit faith involves far more than personal religious piety, like as promoted by the Shulkan Aruch. But, for more essential, to pursue an active participation in creating a just society, where the rights of all individuals Jews honor and respect and uphold by validating the rulings of the Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms.
The connection between faith in HaShem and the pursuit of justice, the fundamental theme in Torah thought, which most essentially defines the Torah concept of faith. The example of King Hezekiah, as Moshiach revolves around the rebuke of the prophet Natan to the house of David following the death of the baal of Bat Sheva. The Torah curse of Civil War to plague all generations of the House of David, over his profaning the oath dedication of Moshiach in the matter of the killed husband of Bat Sheva. Loyalty to the Torah Constitution most essentially manifests itself in ethical mussar behavior which remembers the rebuke that the prophet Natan cursed the House of David, specifically in the realm of justice over the criminal death of the baal of Bat Sheva. The integrity of the judicial system, which failed to hold king David to stand trial. Later the Talmud would acquit king David of murder. However, this Talmudic opinion does not change the fact that David, and his son Shlomo failed to establish the authority of the Sanhedrin Federal court system as the definition of building the Temple on Zion.
Rabbi Michael Glass There is a recorded discussion between the great rabbis of the mishnaic era in which different opinions were offered as to which verse of the Torah was the most fundamental. The first verse suggested was “Shemah Yisroel…”, a crucial verse which affirms our acceptance of the Almighty’s rule. The next opinion suggested the verse which announces the commandment to love one’s neighbour as one loves oneself, which is also understandably a very fundamental tenet in Jewish thought. However the final suggestion, which was declared the winner, was a verse contained within this week’s portion, the parsha of Pinchas. The victor was the verse which requires the priests in the temple to offer up one “tomid” offering every morning and another “tomid” offering every afternoon. The obvious question is how could this verse even compete with the other verses suggested let alone win the contest. What is so crucial about this mitzvah to the extent that it was decided to be the single most important verse in the whole Torah?
An answer suggested is that the all-important lesson and message hiding behind this verse can be summed up in one word- Consistency. The korbon tomid of morning and afternoon were offered up every single day irrespective of all other considerations. The secret to succeed at anything in life, in this case religious observance and spiritual growth, is consistency. Uncalculated leaps of growth are often met with consequent falls.
We need to be consistent Jews.
R’ Ezer Pine ___________________________________ ___________________________________
Avodah, oath-alliance, and tohor middot form the judicial architecture of Israelite sovereignty. Torah mussar demands tohor middot not as private ethics but as judicial kavanah: the moral preparation to participate in a legal culture where interpersonal damages are adjudicated with precedent, equity, and national memory. To rebuild the Mishkan—does not to revive a sacrificial cult—but rather to restore the Sanhedrin model of lateral common-law courts, rooted in oath, guided by prophecy, and animated by the living flame of justice that defines the brit between Israel and our Tribal God.
A significant tension within contemporary Jewish thought regarding the interpretation and application of halakhah (Jewish law) in relation to ethical principles and communal obligations. The reference to the debate among the tannaim in the Midrash underscores the complexity of defining a “great principle” in Judaism, where different voices emphasize various aspects of the tradition.
The opinions of Ben Zoma, Ben Nannas, and Shimon ben Pazi reflect the multifaceted nature of Jewish law and ethics. Ben Zoma’s focus on the Shema emphasizes the importance of kre’a shma as tefillah דאורייתא, while Ben Nannas highlights interpersonal ethics through the command to love one’s neighbor; neighbor restricted to bnai brit Israel exclusively. Shimon ben Pazi’s reference to the Korban Tamid, points to the centrality of this Torah precedent as the basis of the Order of the Siddur ritual in Jewish communal life.
The emphasis on avodah as a procedural backbone highlights the importance of tohor middot in the dedications made by the Yatzir HaTov within the heart. Where a blessing requires שם ומלכות – meaning blowing a spirit from within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart with a specified tohor Oral Torah Horev middah – מלכות. This oath sworn alliance serves as the continuation of the Divine Brit cut with the Avot which continuously creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people.
The concept of oath alliance Cohen duty refers to the Torah obligations to impose judicial court room lateral common law courts to hear and resolve damages disputes which divides our people continuously. The משל of korbanot teaches the נמשל of Judicial Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms as the k’vanna intent of building the Mishkan.
Every ברכה requires שם ומלכות not merely for halakhic formality, but because it is a miniature reenactment of Horev—a recommitment to the oath-alliance that binds Israel to its judicial destiny. The Yetzir HaTov—the moral will within—is not emotion but juridical intent (kavvanah) expressed through tohor middot, aligned with Horev’s legal categories, as embodied in מלכות. This מלכות is not monarchy in the political sense, but juridical sovereignty—the power to hear, judge, and rectify disputes among Israel through the tefillah dedication of tohor middot which define and shape how Jews behave toward other Jews. The Siddur serves as the ‘table of contents’ Order by which the Framers of both Mishna and Gemara organized the Talmud. The 3 separate opinions, rephrase the same identical idea much like a blue print offers a Front, Top, Side perspectives!
The interplay between halakhah, ethical principles, and communal obligations in Jewish thought represents a multi-dimensional interpretation of the “great principle”. Each opinion—Ben Zoma, Ben Nannas, and Shimon ben Pazi—highlights distinct yet interconnected aspects of Jewish life, emphasizing the importance of both ritual and ethical dimensions. Ben Zoma’s focus on the Shema as a foundational prayer underscores its significance as a mitzvah from the Torah (דאורייתא). This highlights the centrality of prayer in Jewish life and תולדות subservient role of the Shemone Esrei to remember the oath sworn by the Avot to continuously create from nothing the chosen Cohen people. Ben Nannas’ emphasis on loving one’s neighbor, reflects the ethical obligations that bind the Jewish community; Israel came out of Egypt to rule Canaan with righteous judicial courtroom justice which makes fair restorations of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews. Hence Torah mussar requires the dedication of tohor middot to bring about social behavior rooted in communal relationships and responsibilities. Shimon ben Pazi’s reference to Korban Tamid serves as a model for the Order of the Siddur as the fundamental kabbalah how the Framers organized both the Order of the T’NaCH and Talmud.
The concept of avodah as a procedural backbone emphasizes the importance of tohor middot (pure character traits) in the spiritual and ethical life of the community. The Yatzir HaTov, representing the moral will, is integral to this process, as it shapes the intentions behind actions of tefillah kre’a shma and tefillat shemone esrei – both require tefillen because both have the k’vanna to swear a Torah oath. nderstanding positions the judicial system as a vital component of Jewish identity and practice, rooted in blessings which require שם ומלכות. The pursuit of judicial courtroom justice among our people, not merely ritualistic as the statute perversion halachic codes Yad, Tur, and Aruch falsely declare. The Siddur’s role as a ‘table of contents’ for the Mishna and Gemara illustrates how the oath brit sworn by the three Avot functions as the יסוד not only of the organization of the Siddur but of the organization of the T’NaCH, Mishna, Gemara, and Midrashim as well. This organization allows for a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between law, ethics, and communal worship. The perspectives of the prophets & tannaim\amoraim serve as a blueprint for understanding the complexities of Jewish common-law, and its application in contemporary life, reinforcing the importance of both ritual and prophetic mussar dimensions in maintaining a cohesive and vibrant community.
Adapted from: Living Emunah 8 by Rabbi David Ashear R’ Aharon Margalit was invited to speak in a shul on the topic of kibbud av va’eim. Part of his talk was about children judging their parents favorably. After the speech, an older couple was waiting to speak to him. The husband, who introduced himself as […]
צדק צדק תרדוף …The repetition of צדק denotes not moral abstraction but procedural justice—pursuit of justice through due process, i.e., courtroom deliberation rooted in precedent and interpretation. The verb “תרדוף” implies active legal pursuit: the work of judges chasing interpretive coherence through live cases.
The Oral Torah codification of the Sha’s Mishna functions as the key blueprint for judicial lateral common law courtrooms. No common ground exists with assimilated codes of religious ritual laws. Mishnayot rely upon the בניין אב and other 13 middot of Rabbi Yishmael as tools to derive legal architecture from precedent, not Greek & Roman statute legislation. The Middle Ages perversion of the Talmud to a statutory halacha handbook which defines the religion of Orthodox Judaism – simply completely off the דרך.
The 13 Middot of rabbi Yishmael serve as interpretive tools. In essence the grammar of Jewish common law—tools to derive new rulings from precedent; not tools of exegetical cleverness or mysticism. Rashi as a linguistic exegete, building clarity through p’shat and influenced by the Aruch. His genius – semantic precision, but that does not satisfy the courtroom’s need for structural legal comparison. Rabbeinu Tam, representing the Tosafist shift, sees this as an error: Talmudic discourse isn’t a glossary—it’s a judicial method. Tosafot insist on sugya-correlation and cross-case inference, a reassertion of precedent-based interpretation.
פרדס – not mysticism, but a layered interpretive logic of comparison, each level designed to extract new meaning through structural parallels, not imposed deductive frameworks. Greek logic deduces from axioms; פרדס derives from existing rulings. This is why sod is not mystical secret but the “deep structure” of legal alignment.
The Tosafist project—especially Rabbeinu Tam’s critique of Rashi—as a demand to treat the Talmud as an evolving common law tradition, not merely an educational text. Rabbeinu Tam did not merely seek clarity—he sought legal structure. The Tosafists’ hallmark is cross-sugya precedent tracing, reviving the vitality of case-based halacha.
Rashi as leaning toward lexical accessibility (influenced by the Aruch) explains why Rabbeinu Tam considered his approach incomplete for courtroom jurisprudence. Rashi’s clarity is p’shat; Tosafot demanded case linkage and dialectical rigor.
Ibn Ezra’s rationalist method, shaped by Greek syllogistic logic, with the inductive פרדס logic of Rabbi Akiva. Your framing of Ibn Ezra as an “assimilated Hellenist” follows Hazal’s critique of Tzeddukim: intellectuals who replaced oral-interpretive dynamism with foreign models of fixed logic and systematic theology.
The Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, perverted – due to his gross tuma assimilation – the open-ended legalism of the Talmud into a rigid ritualistic code, disconnected from live courtroom precedent. The Rambam’s embrace of universalist monotheism, influenced by Islamic rationalism and Neoplatonic abstraction, led his to construct his 13 rules of faith rather than צדק צדק תרדוף.
The פרדס methodology (P’shat, Remez, Drash, Sod) not as a mystical toolset, but as a four-level interpretive model grounded in judicial logic—each level refining the ruling through comparison and precedent. This contrasts Greek logic which draws conclusions from abstract universals. This epistemic divergence has civilizational consequences. פרדס preserves legal humility and interpretive pluralism. Syllogism leads to dogmatism, codification, and political repression—traits seen both in Christian canon law and Islamic fiqh.
Logically, Zionism opposed by Orthodox Judaism, leads toward a national restoration of Talmudic law as constitutional brit, rather than exile-style halachic pietism. This model restores Sanhedrin-style justice, rooted in precedent based lateral common law court system of justice. Justice, understood as the obligation placed squarely upon the shoulders of these Sanhedrin courts to seek fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews.
These three words located in the Book of D’varim define Judicial common law court room justice. משנה תורה, the other Name for the Book of D’varim serves as the foundation for rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s Mishna. What does this Hebrew verb refer to? Answer Judicial common law courts! Hence the Gemara commentary to the Mishna learns by means of precedents. What term did the Sages of the Mishna refer to “precedents”? Answer: בניני אבות, like as found in the 13 middot of rabbi Yishmael. T’NaCH instructs prophetic mussar “common law(משנה תורה)”. Whereas the Talmud instructs ritual halacha “common law(משנה תורה)”.
The Baali Tosafot commentary to the Talmud, specifically Rabeinu Tam, דוקא goes off the dof in search of precedents. Why? The chief criticism made against the Rashi commentary on the Talmud, The “Aruch” by Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome did influence Rashi’s Talmudic commentary, as Rashi often drew upon earlier sources, including lexicons and dictionaries, to clarify terms and concepts in the Talmud. Rashi’s methodology involved providing clear explanations and definitions of words, which aligns with the approach taken in the “Aruch.” Rashi aimed to make the Talmud accessible to his readers, and the insights from the “Aruch” would have contributed to this goal. Rashi frequently referenced earlier works, including the “Aruch,” to explain Talmudic terms and phrases. This helped him provide a more comprehensive understanding of the text. The “Aruch” provided a foundation for this clarity by offering definitions and explanations of terms.
Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on the Chumash employed a different but somewhat parallel methodology. Ibn Ezra placed a strong emphasis on the linguistic aspects of the text, analyzing Hebrew words and their roots. He often provided etymological insights similar to those found in the “Aruch.” Ibn Ezra’s commentary also included philosophical and scientific perspectives, reflecting his broader intellectual interests. He sought to connect the biblical text with contemporary knowledge and thought.
The 10th-century Islamic discovery and translation of ancient Greek texts, particularly those related to philosophy and logic, indeed had a significant impact on Jewish thinkers of the medieval period, including Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra. However, the influence of these texts on Rashi’s commentary was less pronounced. Ibn Ezra was deeply influenced by the works of Greek philosophers, particularly Aristotle and the Neoplatonists. He integrated their ideas into his commentaries, reflecting a broader intellectual engagement with philosophy and science. His approach often emphasized rationalism and logic, which he applied to biblical interpretation. He sought to reconcile Jewish thought with philosophical concepts, making his work more expansive and reflective of contemporary intellectual currents.
Ibn Ezra’s focus on language and etymology was also informed by the logical structures found in Greek philosophy, allowing him to analyze biblical texts with a critical and systematic approach. By contrast Rashi’s Chumash commentary shaped by Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system. The kabbalah of Rashi’s wisdom presented the public face of p’shat scholarship. But the study of p’shat compares to a man who stands upon his two legs. The other leg of Rashi’s p’shat Chumash commentary “drosh”. This paired “other” of Rashi p’shat makes a common law precedent search which utterly dominates and defines Rashi’s Chumash “p’shat”.
Rashi relied heavily on earlier rabbinic sources and Talmudic discussions, emphasizing the importance of tradition and communal understanding over Ibn Ezra’s assimilation to ancient Greek culture and customs whore-house tumah sh’itta of avoda zarah scholarship.
The Baali Tosafot, specifically the grand-son of Rashi, Rabbeinu Tam’s main criticism against the Rashi commentary to the Talmud, that Rashi most significantly failed to study the Talmud as a common law legal system. In 1232 the rabbis of Paris imposed a נידוי ban upon the Rambam’s halachic code and Guide to the Perplexed – due to Rambam’s assimilation on par with Ibn Ezra – whose son converted to Islam.
Ibn Ezra and the Rambam directly compare to the Tzeddukim who instigated the Chanukkah Civil War wherein they along with the Syrian Greeks attempted to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah logic format as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic sh’itta which explains the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. This logic format, a four-part inductive reasoning which compares Judicial Case/Ruling opinions with other similar Case/Rule judicial rulings. Herein defines how Talmudic common law understands the language of rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi’s Mishna.
The Ba’alei Tosafot, including Rabbeinu Tam, critiqued Rashi for not fully engaging with the Talmud as a common law legal system. This critique highlights a tension between Rashi’s focus on clarity and the more complex legal analyses that later scholars sought to develop. The emphasis on common law and legal precedent became a hallmark of Tosafist scholarship.
This מאי נפקא מינא distinction between פרדס inductive logic vs. foreign Greek syllogism deductive logic, while the latter compares to the satisfaction of a hog eating slop from a trough; the former contrasts Jewish judicial common law from Greek and Roman statute law legalism. Assimilated Jews “converted” the Talmud into codes of religious law divorced from Courtroom judicial rulings. The Rambam called Talmudic common law as too difficult for the Jewish common man to understand. His code perverted judicial law into religious belief system ritualism. Assimilated Rambam openly embraced the Universal God Monotheism theologies promoted by both “daughter religions” which negated that only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. The “daughter religions” openly repudiated the revelation of a tribal local God at Sinai.
A sharp example of the perversity of the Rambam embracement of Monotheism and a Universal God, his absurd ruling that the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach applies to all Goyim across the world. Mesechta Sanhedrin introduces the aggadah of the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach as a reference to the distinction gere toshav have over mesechta Baba Kama’s “Nacree” Goy. The latter had no legal rights to sue an Israel for damages. Whereas the ger toshav enjoyed the legal right to sue an Israel for damages. The Rambam halachic perversion of the 7 mitzvot bnai Noach failed to grasp the legal distinction which the Torah itself makes between the gere toshav and the nacree/Canaani in the matter of giving treif flesh to the ger toshav or selling the treif flesh to the nacree/Canaani.
Listen to Pastor Nick read the Firestarter and Jonah 1. God’s heart is warm and tender to Nineveh—Jonah’s is not. God singles out for salvation, this pagan capital of the … _____________________________________________
טיפש פשט Literally ‘you silly bird brained’ dumb ass literalist Pastor Nick. Torah commands mussar. Mussar instructs through the משל\נמשל method. What’s the interpretation – think Yosef interpreting the dreams of Par’o – of the whale? Answer: G’lut/exile. Hence when Yonah escaped from the belly of the whale, a direct comparison to the liberation of Israel from Egyptian bondage. Mussar aint Rocket Science. The Creation stories found in the first Book of בראשית, serves as the model how to understand the משל\נמשל mussar teaching approach and instruction!
ב’ ראשית, ברית אש, ראש בית Words within Words רמזים/hints to how to interpret and understand Av Torah tohor time-oriented commandments like circumcision, fruitful and multiply, and the negative commandment against eating the Achilles tendon. The common denominator which joins these specific commandments with the mitzva of tefillah … all tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments! משל – this 1st Book of the Torah introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. נמשל – this 1st Book of the Torah instructs the mussar of tohor time-oriented commandments which all Universally require prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of the Yatziir Ha’Tov within the heart!
Av tohor time-oriented commandments absolutely require prophetic mussar as its k’vanna. The Torah defines the key term “prophet” as any person who commands prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of obeying all Torah and Talmudic commandments and halachot! Hence the Talmud serves as the codification of all tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah itself. Tohor time-oriented commandments not limited to time just like the Creation of the Chosen Cohen Nation not limited to racial theories of tumah spirits or DNA. No Av tuma avoda zarah replacement theology can substitute JeZeus for the descendant inheritors of the oath brit alliance which the Avot swore an oath brit with HaShem, the local tribal God of Sinai. Not the Universal God of Xtian and Islamic monotheism theologies and creed belief systems.
The JeZeus/Hercules virgin birth mythology does not replace the children of Israel blessed by both Yaacov and Moshe as the Chosen Cohen people. The JeZeus myth which declared that some Zeus Father God dwells in the Heavens — utterly false when the Talmud prophetic mussar instructs the k’vanna of תפילה את רוחות שנשם בתוך הלבב. A simple טיפש פשט translation: Tefillah … a matter of the heart. The JeZeus mythical Hercules counterfeit taught that Father God dwells in the Heavens.
Another example of tohor Av Torah time-oriented commandments that the false messiah Roman counterfeit did not know, the oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach dedicates the generations of Israel who pursue this mitzva, like shabbat, to pursue justice among our people as defined through the repeated mussar rebuke the prophet Shmuel gave to the House of David. The injustice shown to the slaughtered husband of Bat Sheva! Simply impossible to interpret the k’vanna of this Oral Torah time-oriented mitzva of Moshiach without the necessity of פרט-כלל or כלל-פרט, just like the Torah organizes רחום וחנון whereas the later prophets organize these to tohor middot in the order of חנון ורחום.
Order servers as the יסוד upon which stands כלל the Siddur and פרט the kre’a shma, shemone esrei, kadish, tachanun, the order of the סמוכים Pesukei D’Zimra blessing. The Order of the blessings which surround the kre’a shma tefillah from the Torah. Order separates saying a blessing as opposed and contrasted by saying Tehillem praises. Understanding requires the skill that discerns and distinguishes ‘like’ from ‘like’. Just as keeping the mitzva of shabbat require making the required הבדלה which separates forbidden Melacha-work from forbidden Avodah-‘work’. Something like its permitted to sqeeze a lemon on sugar and then make tea but a negative Torah commandment not to sqeeze lemon juice directly into a glass of tea on Shabbat.
Just as t’rumah separates the Torah commandment to dedicate a sacred portion given to the sons of Aaron from the chol grains from which the t’rumah – taken in the first place. To do tohor time-oriented commandments requires having a matter of the heart Yatzir Ha’Tov spirit of tohor middot prophetic mussar. Impossible to dedicate holy to HaShem ie לשמה tohor middot while lacking the essential understanding which possesses the skills required which discerns between like from like. No ”understanding”, No ”k’vanna”. No ”k’vanna”, No tohor time-oriented Av Torah commandments. Just that simple. An no JeZeus substitute theology Golden Calf, can turn a pigs’ ear into a silk purse, despite the empty fart like mythology that JeZeus turned water into wine.
[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? I[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]
The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.
Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.
One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.
Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.
The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach. No such dedication for the mitzva of Moshiach to become a substitute theology which has some mythical theologically based messiah to replace the chosen Cohen People.
The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.
For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote – examples of tumah middot.
Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.
Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.
מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.
Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.
[[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]
Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocaust survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.
The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.
Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.
However, I do agree with you that the way John 1:1 was translated into Greek from Hebrew was confusing.
If the Van Rensburg’s are correct, then “Word” was originally “Son” in the original Hebrew version: https://www.hebrewgospels.com/john ________________________________________________________
Frank you continue to presume that the Roman forgery NT, originally written in Hebrew. Bunk. Its target audience ALWAYS Goyim and not Jews. This explains why the NT reflects none of the halachic, oath britot, or Constitutional foundations of the Written Torah first revealed at Sinai.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg and the notion of “Logos” in Xtian theology. This perspective aligns with traditional Xtian beliefs about the nature of the “Crisis” JeZeus – substitution theology. Several early church fathers likewise discussed this substitution theology. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE), in both “First Apology” and “Dialogue with Trypho;” Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), in “Against Heresies,” where he emphasized the role of “logos” in the creation and redemption of humanity. This falsely presumes that the local/tribal God of Israel lives as a Universal God. A key theme of both Xtian and Islamic substitute theology.
Dr. Janie van Rensburg’s claim that Logos in John 1:1 was originally “Son”—this is just another layer of Christian revisionism. The entire “Logos” theology was developed by Church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to blend Greek metaphysics with Roman theology, ultimately inventing a universalist “Christ” divorced from the פרט, tribal brit at Sinai. This classic substitute theology—replacing Israel’s national oath brit-inheritance-as the chosen Cohen people, with a mythical “son of god” and imagining that Goyim inherit spiritual truths which bypasses Torah altogether. Even Paul’s grafting metaphor does not go this far! It falsely fuses Greek metaphysics with Roman theological imperialism.
Let’s be clear: the Torah revelation revealed at Sinai, simply not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The revelation at Horev (Sinai) – concrete, national, legal, and exclusive—bound by brit to the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov. The Oral Torah’s פרדס system—especially as laid out in the opening sugya of Avodah Zarah—explains that the nations of the world rejected HaShem’s authority long before Sinai. Xtianity’s invention of “Logos” does not replace the oath brit sworn to the Avot. The NT false idea: that the tribal, covenantal God of Israel could somehow morph into a universal, metaphysical abstraction. This expresses the core lie of both Christian and Islamic theologies. They both erase the specificity of the brit—the national oath between HaShem and the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov—and replace it with theological fiction. NT Greek “Logos” translations, tits on a boar hog – worthless.
The Talmud, the codification of the Oral Torah פרדס logic system, teaches, as just mentioned, in the opening pages of mesechta Avoda Zarah that the generations of Adam prior to the birth of Noach utterly rejected the בראשית God. Only Israel accepted this בראשית God at Sinai. Your worthless bible Greek translations of “logos”, coupled with their later revised revisionist history/substitute theology, simply never accepted neither the first or second commandments of Sinai. Just that simple. The substitute theology of “logos” does not mean the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. The perversion of “son of god/messiah” – has no basis in the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. The church rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 middot at Horev. Let’s be clear: the God of Israel revealed at Sinai – not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The Divine Name revealed at Sinai is not “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “Logos.”
Origen (c. 185–253 CE), Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 CE), Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 CE) – all these silly Goyim theologians have likewise promoted this avoda zara. The facts, as clear as the Sun on a cloudless Summer Day, “logos” has nothing to do with the First Commandment of Sinai. Nothing in the Heavens, Earth or Seas compares to the revelation of this Divine Presence Spirit Name which breathes within the Yatzir HaTov of the chosen Cohen people.
The substitute theology replacement of JeZeus as a mythical messiah for the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people – absolute narishkeit. Yom Kippur eternally remembers that HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make of the descendants of Moshe the chosen Cohen people instead of the seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. The gospel abomination perverts the anointing of king David dedicated to pursue judicial justice within the borders of the oath sworn lands, as the intent and k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. The specific פרט, of the husband of Bat Sheva, defines the כלל of the anointing of David as king by the prophet Shmuel.
This revisionist substitute theology represents just a simple continuation of the Golden Calf substitute theology wherein the ערב רב, assimilated and intermarried Israelites, substituted the word אלהים for the revelation of the First Commandment Name. Substitution theology defines the avoda zarah of the Golden Calf for all generations.
The early church fathers you mentioned engaged with the concept of “Logos” in ways that sought to bridge Greek philosophical thought and Xtian doctrine. The Mishna in Masechet Chagigah (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1). It states that anyone who contemplates the divine matters or the secrets of the universe—specifically what is above, below, or behind—should not have been born. Man simply incapable of comprehending the Divine; no more than an ant can grasp Human culture and civilizations. The Gospel Roman forgery of “logos” – simply a replacement theology revisionist history nonsense. Just that simple. Greek philosophy does not serve as the foundation upon which the Torah stands.
I have no interest in the Oral Torah, Moshe, except as historical documents of the opinions people had over time about what was in the Tanach (Old Testament). It is at the level of the Christian church fathers.
Now I do take the Old Testament more seriously than you do, because I see it as an historical document. What it says actually happened, but it is going to be difficult to construct a reasonable chronology from the Masoretic text because I believe the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies were shortened by the rabbis in the 2nd century to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. Those genealogies should extend to about 5550 BC based on Septuagint readings of those genealogies.
I also see the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecies as having been fulfilled by the ministry of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
What I find interesting about the Van Rensburg’s translation of the Hebrew Gospel of John is that an argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word “ben” (son) rather than the Greek word “logos” (word).
I agree that the use of “logos” was done to bridge Greek philosophy with Christianity. However, I am more interested in the Hebrew Gospel of John than I am in the Greek translation of it.
I’ve mentioned these things before when you commented on my blog. Since we are on your blog, I am restating them. _____________________________________
Naturally Frank your a follower of classic Xtian substitute theology. Oral Torah as the definition of prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of mitzvot means nothing to Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence both the Pope & you pervert mussar and declare prophetic mussar as dogmatic history.
The T’NaCH has a completely different Order organization than does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH for example does not have Chapters and verses like as does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH organized into sugyot, a concept which the Xtian translators changed into a completely different order of Chapters. Despite the word DOG having the exact same letters as GOD, the two words convey completely different meanings.
Conservative and Reform Jews like you view the T’NaCH as historical documents. In the late 19th Century German Protestant ‘higher criticism’ actively promoted this Foo/narishkeit. A T’NaCH prophet commands mussar not history. Ya want history – then study it from a professor at a University.
You believe no different than Muslims who declare that the Jews changed their Bible! LOL Arabs declare, like you, that Avraham did not dedicate Yitzak but rather Yishmael on the altar. And like you the Koran does not bring the Sinai First Commandment Name just like your golden calf bible abomination. So the only people who perverted the T’NaCH – Xtians and Muslims.
Your pie in the sky slander against the Jewish people, does not fit with the mussar story of the Book Sh’muel which repeatedly states that king David profaned his anointing as Moshiach only in the matter of the death of the husband of Bat Sheva. Ooops Do you also declare that Jewish rabbis changed that Book too? Must have b/c otherwise your pie in the sky 2nd Coming floats like a lead balloon.
Your worn-out theory compares to a blood libel slander. A textbook example of theological projection disguised as historical analysis. It reflects both ignorance of Jewish tradition and a desperate retrojection of Hellenistic Xtianity onto a text and culture it never understood nor has it any connection there unto.
The Masoretic Text Is Not a 2nd-Century Rabbinic Invention. The idea that “rabbis in the 2nd century shortened Genesis 5 and 11” is complete historical fiction. The Masoretic tradition predates Xtianity’s revisionist history. Its textual lineage derives from the Second Temple period—Chag Hanukkah pre-dates JeZeus or the rise of the Church.
The Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE to 1st century CE)—which predate the “2nd-century rabbis”—show a textual tradition aligned more closely with the Masoretic Text than with the Septuagint. The Tannaim of the 2nd century, such as Rabbi Akiva, engaged in preserving and interpreting inherited Torah, not fabricating new texts to “counter Jesus”, as your blood libel slander promotes. The notion that these sages rewrote Torah to discredit Xtianity reflect the mirror of Xtian super-sessionist fantasy—not history.
The Septuagint written as a Greek Translation for Hellenized Jews. A Greek translation of parts of the Tanakh (mainly the Torah) done in Alexandria, Egypt, for Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew. Your claim that later Greek versions of Genesis, especially chapters 5 and 11, inflated lifespans and added generations—these deviations do not exist in any known Hebrew manuscript tradition. The Alexandrian scribes were influenced by Hellenistic numerology and cosmology, which sought to align world chronology with Platonic or Egyptian schemes.
Irony: It is far more likely that the Septuagint’s chronology was lengthened to harmonize with Greek cosmogonies than that the rabbis shortened the Masoretic text to “disprove” Xtianity, which did not yet exist, when the Masoretic tradition the Men of the Great Assembly sealed in the days of Ezra.
Xtianity has always promoted ‘Historical Revisionist’ propaganda. The accusation that Jews edited Genesis to disprove JeZeus represents classic Xtian ‘blood libel’ projectionism. The Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine etc), who reinterpreted or allegorized Tanakh to retroactively “prove” JeZeus as Messiah. The New Testament authors routinely misquote and mistranslate the Tanakh. Example: Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, mistranslating “alma” (young woman) as “parthenos” (virgin) to manufacture a virgin birth prophecy.
The NT genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1, Luke 3), internally contradict one another, and historically utterly implausible. Those corrupt gospels constructed with theological agendas, not historical precision. If anything, Xtianity invented its own substitute genealogies and projected messianic expectations backwards to build a false continuity.
The Tanakh Does Not Predict a “Crhisis”. The entire premise that Jewish texts should confirm JeZeus relies on the illegitimate Xtian hermeneutic of proof-texting and super-sessionism. Tanakh messianism centers on a national king of Israel—from David’s line, who will establish Torah justice, establish the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic, restore Judicial Review ie משנה תורה Common law courtrooms. State vertical courtrooms imposed by both Rome & Herod, which bribed both Justices and prosecutors through paid salaries, a direct Torah abomination of perverted justice. The idea of a crucified universal savior, as perverse as offering a maimed korban upon the altar. This utterly absurd idea carries the din of כרת.
The “genealogies” in Genesis 5 and 11 Jewish tradition treats them within the Oral Torah framework which depict the timeline of the chosen Cohen people, not literalist proof schemes.
Xtianity erased the Oral Torah—Then Accused Jews of Distortion. Based upon the premise that the victors right the history books. Post Shoah with Israeli Independence, and Rome on the dung heaps of ancient history, clearly Jews won our war against the Goyim barbarians of Europe. Xtians rot in exile waiting for the 2nd coming of their God.
Xtianity rejects the Oral Torah, as the crucial interpretive key to understand the k’vanna the Written Torah prophetic mussar. Xtianity, lacking the Oral tradition, they reconstructed their own readings, often Greek allegorical ones, like agape defines love, and now blame the Jewish tradition for not agreeing with their foreign and utterly alien artificial system. The Samaritans, Tzeddukim and Karaites – like Xtians today – rejected the revelation of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic. This too a totally worn out nonsense, forced the church of the Dark Ages to embrace Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotles 3 part syllogism. Classic super-sessionism: erase the original 4 part Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning with Aristotle’s 3 part deductive reasoning, insert your own alien theologies and creed, and then claim the original the Jews corrupted. What you’re doing is projecting the Church’s own revisionist horse-radish onto a Torah tradition that never needed JeZeus—and never recognized him as fulfilling anything. Xtianity defines the sin of the Golden Calf revisionism, not Judaism.”
Daniel, not counted among the Nevi’im (Prophets) in the Jewish canon, but among the Ketuvim (Writings). This irrefutable classification reflects a common law prioritization and hermeneutic divide that permanently separates Judaism from Xtian avoda zarah. Your entire claim collapses the moment you treat the Book of Daniel as “prophetic” in the same vein as Isaiah or Jeremiah. Xtian revisionism avoda zarah, not Jewish tradition.
Torah Canonization Matters: the g’lut written Book of Daniel simply Not a Prophet any more than T’NaCH prophets compare to University History Professors. The T’NaKH—the authentic Jewish canon—codified as Torah (Common Law), Nevi’im (Prophets) serve as the basis for the Mishna, and Ketuvim (Writings) serve as the basis for the Gemara. A direct and clear Masoret of T’NaCH/Talmudic common law, Daniel not classified with the prophets because it serves as a Gemara-like commentary to the Books of the Prophets. Therefore the Men of the Great Assembly placed the Book of Daniel alongside Psalms, Job, and Ruth—and not with the Books written pre-galut – Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Amos.
G’lut Daniel simply not a navi who lived prior to Babylonian king conquering the kingdom of Judah. The visions Daniel, apocalyptic dreams, not prophetic mussar rebukes which defines the very essence of NaCH prophecy. The Talmud (Megillah 3a) even explicitly says: “Many were greater than Daniel, but they did not receive prophecy.” This distinction – not accidental. It represents a rejection of magical, mystical, or Hellenistic eschatology as a basis for the perversion of T’NaCH common law unto Greek statute law.
Xtian Misuse of Daniel 9: A Manufactured Messianism. Daniel 9 doesn’t mention JeZeus. It doesn’t describe an absurd crucified messiah. It doesn’t authorize the end of Torah or the dissolution of the brit of the Chosen Cohen people replaced by a Roman false messiah Universal God\monotheism. The post NT “scholars” timeline of the Book of Daniel utterly obtuse and obscure; Daniel not legal—because it’s written in Aramaic apocalyptic code, like the mystic work “The Zohar” of the Middle Ages. Neither mystical work qualifies as prophetic nevuah. Xtian use of Daniel 9—just another prooftext grab—an effort to force JeZeus into a text that neither names nor validates him, while ignoring the actual legal terms of the Torah oath brit alliance with HaShem and the chosen Cohen people.
You treat the destruction of Herod’s Temple\Cathedral abomination in 70 CE as a divine validation of Xtianity. But in Jewish memory, we remember the Roman crushing of our revolt as a tragedy which began our long 2000+ year exile that culminated in the Nazi Shoah. Xtian endorsement of Roman theology, seeks to return the genie back into its bottle. But the national Independence of the Jewish state forever repudiates the Xtian theology which proclaimed Jews and Cain Christ-Killers. The JeZeus gospel “prediction”, (all the books of the gospels, starting with Mark written in Rome, written AFTER the Romans burned Herod’s Cathedral abomination of assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs), of that destruction, neither unique nor accurate—Jeremiah and the Talmudic sages long before denounced the substitute theology which replaced Sanhedrin common law courtrooms as the basis of Legislative Review with the idol of building a House of Prostitution/Temple. Wood and Stone do not rule the oath sworn lands with judicial courtroom common law justice; any more than wood and stone idols compare to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Judaism a common law Legal Tradition, Not some Pie in the Sky Eschatological Gnosticism. Daniel’s visions—fascinating as they serve as a commentary to NaCH prophetic mussar—never used by the sages to determine messianic timelines or national policy. The mitzva of Moshiach, no different than the mitzva of Shabbat. All generations of Jews have equal opportunities to “fulfill” this Torah commandment. Judaism simply not a religion. Faith defined as צדק צדק תרדוף, not end of days date-setting or speculative metaphysics. Torah a brit-based common law Judicial legal tradition. built on halachah and the oath brit which בראשית continuously creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Xtianity stands upon the foundation of Nazi racial theories. Hence it perverted the Book of Daniel into a mystical crystal ball. Precisely because it rejects Torah revelation of both Sinai and Horev, and therefore needed to fabricate its own absurd versions of prophecy – which the Torah defines as Av tuma witchcraft-mystically predicting the future.
Treating Daniel as a prophet, a perverse taboo distortion on par with declarations of JeZeus as a messiah. Both abominations, products of Rome’s theological imperialism, not Sinai’s revelation. The Jewish classification of Daniel within Ketuvim—not arbitrary—rather it rejects mystical replacement theology, including the false messianism you preach as Av tuma avoda zarah. The abomination which causes Jewish g’lut from ruling our homeland with Torah/Talmud common law judicial justice.
Frank, your represents a classic example of Xtian wish projection, masquerading as scholarship. Attempting to retroactively “Hebraicize” a document that never has anything Jewish – no connection whatsoever; in order to lend it a legitimacy it never had. You’re attempting to give a Hebrew Av tohor soul to a Roman Av tuma corpse. Isaiah referred to calling day – night and night – day as a direct Torah curse.
Greek philosophy exists as the soil in which Xtianity spouted therefrom. The gospel counterfeits themselves call it a “wolf dressed in Sheep clothing”. The NT – not Torah, not Talmud, and certainly not the oath alliance brit of Sinai which continuously creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people. The gospel of John abomination, especially its opening verses, reflects a clear Greek metaphysical construct, directly influenced by perhaps Philo of Alexandria, Hellenistic Jewish allegory, and Neoplatonic emanationism. In no way does Hellenistic Alexandria over-rule the T’NaCH/Talmudic common law legal system. Hellenistic Alexandria assimilated ערב רב Jews had no more understanding of prophetic T’NaCH mussar, and its relationship to how the Aggadah of the Talmud servers to derive the k’vanna of doing halachic ritualisms, than does Xtianity.
Your fantasy projection: “””An argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word ‘ben’ (son).””” What original Hebrew autograph? No such manuscript exists. None. Not a shred. Not a fragment. Not even a whisper from antiquity.
Zero evidence that supports the Gospel of John ever written in Hebrew or even Aramaic. All existing ancient manuscripts are in Greek—because it was written by and for Hellenized gentiles. The idea of a Hebrew “original” is a theological revisionist history mirage, conjured witchcraft spells, centuries later by Xtians desperate to reconnect Hebraic roots to their post Shoah utterly disgraced reputation of church barbarity.
The Greek “Logos” = Greek Theology. John 1:1: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος – “In the beginning was the Logos.” This has nothing to do with the Hebrew בראשית ברא אלהים. The text deliberately rewires Genesis 1 using Hellenistic terms. Logos here is not “word” in the Torah sense (as in “davar” of prophetic command), but a divine intermediary being—a metaphysical emanation that merges Platonic dualism with pseudo-Jewish messianism. That’s Hellenistic Alexandria Philo, not Moshe who commands the Written and Oral Torah revelations of judicial courtroom common law.
The Hebrew ben (son) in contrast, in Torah usage, never a mystical being co-equal with God. To imagine John 1:1 began with “Bereishit haya haBen” is laughable, and would be theologically alien—absolutely blasphemous—by even the most liberal Torah standards.
No Hebrew NT = No Jewish Origins. No Hebrew manuscript of John exists. No early Church Father refers to a Hebrew John. Your Apostle Paul opposed mixing T’NaCH with the new Xtian religion. No Jewish or Goyim community ever recognized, preserved, or even referenced such a text. All historical witnesses (Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius) cite Greek texts. This modern “Hebrew Gospel of John” you’re referencing—by Janie van Rensburg—is a modern back-translation, no different than translating Shakespeare into Aramaic and then claiming it was written by a prophet.
Your fascination with a Hebrew Gospel of John is nothing but an attempt to baptize a Roman forgery with a Hebrew fig leaf. The “logos” theology of the Fourth Gospel—Greek at its core and Roman in its mission. It exists to replace the Torah—not to fulfill it. There never existed a “Hebrew John.” There never lived a Torah-true “JeZeus.” And Moshe never commanded a messiah who came to abolish the oath brit which continuously creates the Chosen Cohen People which only the Jewish people accepted this revelation at both Sinai and Horev.
An explanation how Farbrengen defines Jewish common law.
DOREEN DOTAN’S ARCHIVE
Correct. My first year in a Chabad Yeshiva the rabbi sang the praises of a farbrengen! Thought cool. So when he declared that he, the rabbi, would hold an all night farbrengen, I thought – Great. Came to that farbrengen ready to use vodka as my focus to listen the spoken words of ‘the rabbi’ as heard from the unique perspective of alcohol induced “”different perspective””. Seriously drank committed to focus upon the spoken words of ‘the rabbi’ all night till morning.
Then suddenly ‘the rabbi’ called the farbrengen over at 12 O’clock midnight!!!!! Drunk I returned back to my dorm and violently puked my guts out! That was my LAST farbrengen. So what did i gain from that wretched experience? When the Gemara brings precedents from the 6 Orders of Shas to interpret a specific Mishna these בניני אבות precedents permits the student of the Talmud to learn a shared גיזרה שוו idea from a different Mesechta of the Shas Bavli from a completely different “farbrengen-like” perspective. Like “the rabbi” advertised the up coming farbrengen wherein drinking vodka caused a Yid to see the Torah from a completely different and changed perspective!
Oral judicial common law simply does not compare to statute legislative laws. Any more than the 4 parts Pardes logic of inductive reasoning compares to Aristotle’s syllogism 3 part deductive reasoning. Torah scholarship requires that the reader of Oral Torah פרדס texts make the required הבדלה which separates the Front view, from the Side view, from the Top view, from the Bottom view 4 part פרדס perspective of dynamic inductive Oral Torah reasoning. And how much more so which separates inductive logic from foreign deductive Greek logic models.
The Rambam had a clear understanding of the Hebrew and Arabic languages and the shared similarities between the two languages. But he did not know shit about rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס logic format and his Yad Chazaka and Moreh Nevukim both replaced פרדס logic with Greek deductive logic as the basis of the Order of his texts. Order plays a crucial role in logic. Hence the Jewish Prayer-book called siddur. Both GOD and DOG share the same exact three letters. But their order arrangement communicates two completely different ideas. All logic systems, whether פרדס or syllogism stand upon the foundation of Order. However just as DOG and GOD have a different Order of letters so too and how much more so the Order of פרדס logic does not compare to the Order of Greek syllogism logic.
Herein the best, most clear explanation, that expresses the wisdom of the Torah. Torah common law learns through the logic of comparing similar Case/Rule judicial rulings and NOT BY simply reading the words on a page of the T’NaCH or Talmud. Without active participation of פרדס logic skills, utterly impossible for any person to understand Torah common law. Much less discern the fundamental distinctions which separates T’NaCH/Talmudic judicial common law from Greek & Rome Legislative statute law. Making this fundamental distinction compares to observing the mitzva/commandment of shabbat which separates like as does t’rumah from chol, between forbidden מלאכה/work from forbidden עבודה\work. If a person fails to make this essential distinction between the two opposing sets of “work”, that person has never kept the mitzva of shabbat a single day in his entire life.
Tefillah does NOT translate to prayer. Tefillah requires שם ומלכות, prayer – as found in saying Tehillem – does not fundamentally require שם ומלכות. What does this mean? מאי נפקא מינא in Aramaic Talmud. Answer: שם ומלכות meaning the dedication of a tohor middah revealed to Moshe at Horev לשמה by means of swearing a Torah oath through which the Avot cut a brit which continually creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people children of the Avot. Hence: tefillah, as a tohor time-oriented commandment calls upon the God of the Avot in the first blessing. Its interesting the Order of the 13 middot to Moshe at Horev. The Torah does a פרט\כלל – רחום וחנון whereas the later NaCH prophets often order the middot by means of a כלל/פרט – חנון ורחום. Herein explains the order of rabbi Yishmael’s middot.
Praying Tehillem by stark contrast expressed as a positive commandment which does not require k’vanna. Only tohor time-oriented commandments which dedicate specified tohor middot through swearing a Torah oath, (Tefillah called Amidah b/c a person ideally stands before a Sefer Torah in the beit knesset.), qualify as comparable to the oaths wherein the Avot swore the brit oath by means of a dedicated korban, which continually creates from nothing the chosen Cohen people. Hence the first blessing of the קריא שמע שחרית twice states תמיד מעשה בראשית.
Because the Book of בראשית introduces the Av mitzva of tohor time-oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as its k’vanna. Prophetic mussar defines specified tohor middot first revealed to Moshe as the revelation of the Oral Torah at Sinai. Hence when the portion of Israel did their service in the Beit HaMikdash within the Beit Knesset they read the Creation story of the opening Book of בראשית which introduces the Av Torah commandments of tohor time-oriented commandments.
Consequently if a bnai brit does even minor Torah commandments such as shooing the mother bird off her brood of eggs or even rabbinic commandments like Shemone Esrei or lighting the Hanukkah lights or reading the Book of M’gillat Esther, the B’HaG introduced the chiddush that elevating mitzvot to Av tohor time-oriented commandments raises these rabbinic mitzvot to mitzvot from the Torah!
The distinction between Tefillah and the tachanun prayer
the Open Siddur Project ✍ פְּרוֺיֶקְט הַסִּדּוּר הַפָּתוּחַ
Aharon N. Varady (transcription)·opensiddur.org·
Concluding Prayer for Hallel in the Home Service for the Festival of Passover, by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy (1896) This is a concluding prayer in the Hallel service at the Passover seder by Rabbi J. Leonard Levy to his Haggadah or Home Service for the Festival of Passover (1896) pp. 32-34. The prayer does not appear in subsequent editions. The prayer threads the needle between the particularly Jewish communal focus of Passover and the…
Moshe Kerr: What separates תפילה from תחנון? A blessing requires שם ומלכות. Shemone Esrei does not contain שם ומלכות. Yet it functions as the definition of a blessing. As does kadesh, which also lacks שם ומלכות. For that matter so does ברכת כהנים וגם כן קריא שמע. The k’vanna of חנון has nothing to do with the formal prayer written in the Siddur. Why? Because all these “mitzvot” qualify as tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. What’s the k’vanna of תחנון through which it defines תפילה?
Word translations amount to tits on a boar hog when the new born piglets are ravenous and the sow died after giving birth! The 5th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev – חנון, serves as the functioning root שרש of the term תחנון תפילה. The tohor time-oriented commandment of תפילה learns from the additional metaphor of תחנון. Consider the Order of the Shemone Esrei blessings … 3 + 13 + 3 blessings. 6 Yom Tov and 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe, 40 days after the ערב רב Israelites – Jews assimilated and intermarried with Egyptians, no different from the kapo Jewish women who slept with Nazis. This ערב רב, according to the Torah – as expressed in the memory to war against Amalek/antisemitism – they lacked fear of אלהים. This same ערב רב referred to their Golden Calf substitute theology by the name אלהים. This tie-in explains the k’vanna of the term “fear of heaven”.
The ערב רב Jews lacked “fear of Heaven”, and therefore their avoda zarah profaned the 2nd Sinai commandment. Hence when Jews assimilate and intermarry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai (neither the Xtian Bible nor Muslim Koran ever once brings the שם השם first revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment – the greatest commandment of the entire Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev! Do Jews serve to obey the Torah revelation לשמה או לא לשמה? Observance of all the Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot hangs on this simple question.
Therefore תפילת תחנון interprets the k’vanna of תפילה, through the concept that a person stands before a Sefer Torah and dedicated specific and defined tohor middot which breath life into the hearts of the Yatrir HaTov of the chosen Cohen oath brit people. The verb תפילה most essentially entails the k’vanna of swearing a Torah oath. What Torah oath? The dedication, think korban, of some specified tohor middot…. Hence the concept of תפילת תחנון.
Classic Kabbalah spins around interpreting the k’vanna of the Siddur. The Yerushalmi Talmud teaches the mussar that 247 prophets occupied their energy in composing the Shemone Esrei. In the Bavli Talmud Shmuel Ha’Katan added the 19th blessing which cursed the ערב רב Jewish Xtians. The Shemone Esrei in the Yerushalmi obvious came before Shmuel Ha’Katan added this additional blessing. The Shemone Esrei in the Yerushalmi had 427 words. The Order and organization of both the Yerushalmi and Bavli Talmud spins around the Central Axis of the Order of the Shemone Esrei as its central – k’vanna.
The kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4 part logic system hence rejects the 3 part Greek syllogism model of deductive reasoning logic. Inductive reasoning dynamic whereas deductive reasoning static. Newton’s calculus does not compare to early Middle Ages Arabic Algebra.
Hence if a person studies the Talmud this learning serves as the basis to dav-ven the Siddur with k’vanna. The Siddur serves as the basis by which the generations interpret the intent of both the Gemara and the Mishna. The genius of Jewish common law lost on the generations who think that by simply translating common law legal texts and the Siddur into the venacular of foreign languages that they can grasp the k’vanna of Av tohor time-oriented commandments.
Greetings Pastor Hogg. Honestly I do not have a clue of what “mysterious fulfillment” refers to. To “journey” before the God of Sinai actively entails discernment between tohor middot of the Yaztir Ha’Tov as opposed by the tumah middot of the Yaztir Ha’Rah. Perhaps in an exceptionally crude way the contrast between these two types of spirits breathing within the bnai brit Heart might compare to the Xtian model of God vs Satan. Honestly I do not know because Oral Torah literature only employs Satan merely as a metaphor משל\נמשל to the Yatzir Ha’Rah. But this metaphor only works if and only if you contrast tohor middot/attributes with tuma middot\attributes. And no Xtian scholar, and for sure I am not well read on what Xtian scholars have written, this world as alien to me as the philosophy of Zen Buddhism. But to my restricted knowledge and superficial examination no known Xtian scholar ever once delt in this field or subject. Perhaps even that a faulty comparison b/c my daughter studies Chinese philosophy and Shiatsu. The latter has origins from Japan and Zin Buddhism influenced this wisdom of healing touch more than did Chinese Daoism.
To encourage my daughter to succeed I discovered that where Zen Buddhism developed the concept of “Mindfulness/3rd eye” — Chinese philosophy pursued the path of the Dao concept of Chi. Both employ meditation. The Indian Buddhist philosophy employs conscious awareness of a defined conscious awareness of a particular sense of one of the 5 senses: feel/touch, hearing, smell, sight, taste to which Shiatsu calls fear, anger, grief, shame, worry/happiness. (The latter a dispute between Yin Shin Jyatsu is and Shiatsu healing philosophies.)
My point as an Israeli Jew, totally compare to a fish out of water when addressing Xtian concepts of their theology. Mystery, as a term employed in early Xtian theology referred to the Trinity “mystery” as the church grappled with the Muslim concept of strict Monotheism.
Am a fish out of water – totally over my head Islamic theories of theology as well. One has merely to scratch me to expose my ignorance. My scholarship focus only upon studies of Torah common law. The mystic notions of the Middle Ages which assumed the status of “kabbalah”, this too I have never made a study in depth. Mystic kabbalah such as the Zohar or Ari kabbalah employs a cryptic language which requires developing a dictionary which defines its key abstract terms “concealed” from a obvious definition. This Jewish philosophy highly influenced by the ancient Greek philosophy known as Rhetoric.
Personally, the Greek culture and customs my soul loathes and detests. The Hanukkah lights where the Greeks attempted for force Jews to abandon our culture and customs as defined by T’NaCH and Talmud, to forget our Oral Torah. The assimilated, (((in Hebrew this idea known as ערב רב))), Jews – folks who embraced the customs and mannerisms of foreign Goyim cultures. Such Jews, the Torah refers to as lacking “fear of heaven”. Which means they take no awareness how their corrupt behavior “consequently” ruins their good name reputations. Xtianity no different, its blood libels, pogroms, ghetto gulags that culminated in the systematic extermination of European Jewry during the Shoah has permanently destroyed the good name reputation of that disgusting religion.
Your JeZeus/Hercules man-God mystery religion – I do not know. The Torah openly states: HaShem is not a man. So this mystery theology which depicts messiah JeZeus as the son of God monotheism with his Father in Heaven – simply flies over my simple Jew-boy head.
Torah defines faith as: the pursuit of judicial justice among my people addressing their disputes and damages claims. The Xtian mystery religion, its theology defines faith as belief in some mystery Trinity one God. Both Torah and Xtianity employ the concept of “faith”, but this one “kabbalah rhetoric term” has multiple concealed meanings. An apples vs. oranges conversation.
The concept of “Gods”, this subject too goes completely over my head. I do not know. Consider myself an atheist praise HaShem. I simply do not trust myself to believe in any God. Refuse to walk down that alien/foreign path culture\custom of faith. Hence personally the idea of seeking God – I do not know. No more than does a simple ant have a comprehension of Human civilizations. As a Jew I work within the confines of my “ant-bed”. A simple worker who tunnels into the earth to dig Torah common law Sanhedrin courtrooms. How to employ the kabbala of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic of inductive reasoning to compare an earlier Case/Din judicial rulings to present day Cases heard before my Sanhedrin courtroom wherein I study the T’NaCH and Talmud as a common law legal system. The Talmud and Midrashic literature, developed by the later Geonim scholars who preceded the Reshonim Talmudic scholarship, they focused understanding the Aggadah literature within the Talmud warp/weft loom opposing threads which weave the fabric of both the T’NaCH and Talmudic Jewish literature together with ritual halachic observances. Herein defines the confines of my simple “ant-bed” tunnel vision/system network.
Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive reasoning compares to Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism deductive reasoning as Calculus dynamic variables compares to Algebra’s fixed static mathematics. The difference in engineering skills to make a internal combustion engine vs. making a bridge that crosses a deep valley. Both useful, but completely different skills, the one from the other.
The Xtian accept – the idea that they can believe in their JeZeus Man-God. They rejoice in the notion of Monotheism, because ipso-facto this means that Jews and Xtians worship the same God. The Muslim too love their strict monotheism belief system because for them – Allah and Sinai the same thing. Honestly its a cool magic. Alas the Torah refers to the use of such magic as false prophets/witchcraft. Impossible to get around this לא תעשה Torah commandment.
The slight of hand of both Xtian and Islamic avoda zarah, their imported Greek rhetoric which purposely fails to define key/critical terms. How does the Torah define the key term prophet? The gospel rhetoric employs “fulfilled” to conceal its lack of knowledge. Simply impossible to “fulfill” prophetic mussar. Because each and every day, a new day for the Yatzir Ha’Ra tumah middot.
Islam absolutely no different, it posits Muhammad as the final prophet, and worships its holy declarations of faith, as if the act of worship transforms this empty declaration, into a fact. Xtain blood libels made prior to their Easter worship, exactly duplicate this false premise. Neither emotion based feeling/touching religion can evade Oral Torah rational reasoning.
Conflict Resolution 