Supremacism is the belief that a certain group of people are superior to, and should have authority over, all others. The presumed superior group can be defined by age,
Michael Scott Ruark (born 1985): This individual was involved in a legal incident in Joplin, Missouri, where he was charged with third-degree domestic assault for allegedly biting off a piece of his girlfriend’s ear during a disturbance. The incident occurred on June 27, 2025, and involved allegations of intoxication and violence. ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Ilan Pappé and Joseph Massad, who are often accused of misrepresenting Jewish history and Zionism under the guise of scholarly critique. Both Pappé and Massad are known not for dispassionate historical method, but for polemical activism masquerading as scholarship. Ilan Pappé has openly admitted that ideological commitment trumps historical accuracy in his work:
“My ideology influences my historical writing. That is true for everyone.”
This undermines his credibility as a historian. When someone admits they will twist facts to suit a political goal, their work ceases to be scholarship and becomes propaganda.
Joseph Massad, from his platform in Columbia’s MESA (Middle East Studies Association) orbit, uses postcolonial rhetoric to erase Jewish history and cast Zionism as a form of racial imperialism. He deliberately conflates chosenness with supremacism — a classic antisemitic trope.
The text strategically conflates real supremacist ideologies — such as Nazi racial theory, Hutu Power, or the KKK — with Jewish religious identity and Zionism, by placing them side by side in a supposed taxonomy of global supremacisms. This is a textbook case of moral equivalence and false analogy.
Chosenness in Judaism is not a claim of racial superiority, just the opposite. Race does not determine “choseness”. Rather the oath brit determines “chosenness”. The biologically hierarchical supremacisms of Nazi Aryanism shares no common ground with the Central theme of the Torah – the chosen Cohen nation. Your as ignorant as a stick in matters what separates tohor from tumah middot. Pretending that your skewed definition for “truth” holds an absolute monopoly over the meaning and intent of this verb — that’s a tumah middah.
The 7 mitzvot bnai Noach refers strictly and only to Goyim legal temporary residents living within the borders of Judea. Your utter ignorance of the basics of Torah common law – utterly pathetic. Once a gere-toshav Goy left the land of Judea, he or she had no obligation whatsoever to observe and obey the 7 commandments of Noach.
No Capital Crimes Sanhedrin Court exists today. Hence even if a Goy, while in Israel, profaned any or all of the 7 mitzvot, no Jewish courtroom has the authority to put that Goy to death. The one notable example wherein a Jewish non-Sanhedrin court imposed the death penalty, the trial of the war criminal Adolf Eichmann a high-ranking Nazi official. One of the key architects of the Holocaust, responsible for organizing the logistics of mass deportations of Jews to concentration camps.
Prohibitions against murder, theft, cruelty, sexual abuse, and injustice… hardly qualifies as “Jewish imperialism” or “supremacism” — echoing antisemitic narratives about “Jewish world control.” Judaism does not refer to Goyim as an inferior race as did Nazim.
The portrayal of Zionism as innately supremacist utterly ignores the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 2/3rds UN member-state General Assembly vote which validated Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Your nonsense follows the repudiated UN 3379 canard.
Interesting that you never even mention the Shoah as a rebuke and rejection of the British colonial 1939 White Paper which invalidated the League of Nations Palestine Mandate! Nor do you even once refer 5 Army Arab state invasion following Ben Gurion’s declaration of national Independence for the Jewish people in the Middle East. Your propaganda ignores the Nakba failure of Arab armies to throw the Jews into the Sea, and complete the Nazi Shoah which slaughtered 75% of all European Jewry in less than 3 years. This erasure itself exposes your kettle calling the pot black “supremacist propaganda”. You, being an utter Nazi pig supporter, deny Jewish suffering, agency, and history in order to demonize Jewish national identity.
This text appears to be a sophisticated repackaging of antisemitism through the moral language of anti-supremacism. By cherry-picking quotes from radical leftist academics like Pappé and Massad, and placing them next to documented cases of genocidal racism, the author promotes the demonization of Jews and Zionism in the name of global justice. This represents a fraudulent, bigoted, and propaganda manipulative.
Supremacism is the belief that a certain group of people are superior to, and should have authority over, all others. The presumed superior group can be defined by age,
Michael Scott Ruark (born 1985): This individual was involved in a legal incident in Joplin, Missouri, where he was charged with third-degree domestic assault for allegedly biting off a piece of his girlfriend’s ear during a disturbance. The incident occurred on June 27, 2025, and involved allegations of intoxication and violence. ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Ilan Pappé and Joseph Massad, who are often accused of misrepresenting Jewish history and Zionism under the guise of scholarly critique. Both Pappé and Massad are known not for dispassionate historical method, but for polemical activism masquerading as scholarship. Ilan Pappé has openly admitted that ideological commitment trumps historical accuracy in his work:
“My ideology influences my historical writing. That is true for everyone.”
This undermines his credibility as a historian. When someone admits they will twist facts to suit a political goal, their work ceases to be scholarship and becomes propaganda.
Joseph Massad, from his platform in Columbia’s MESA (Middle East Studies Association) orbit, uses postcolonial rhetoric to erase Jewish history and cast Zionism as a form of racial imperialism. He deliberately conflates chosenness with supremacism — a classic antisemitic trope.
The text strategically conflates real supremacist ideologies — such as Nazi racial theory, Hutu Power, or the KKK — with Jewish religious identity and Zionism, by placing them side by side in a supposed taxonomy of global supremacisms. This is a textbook case of moral equivalence and false analogy.
Chosenness in Judaism is not a claim of racial superiority, just the opposite. Race does not determine “choseness”. Rather the oath brit determines “chosenness”. The biologically hierarchical supremacisms of Nazi Aryanism shares no common ground with the Central theme of the Torah – the chosen Cohen nation. Your as ignorant as a stick in matters what separates tohor from tumah middot. Pretending that your skewed definition for “truth” holds an absolute monopoly over the meaning and intent of this verb — that’s a tumah middah.
The 7 mitzvot bnai Noach refers strictly and only to Goyim legal temporary residents living within the borders of Judea. Your utter ignorance of the basics of Torah common law – utterly pathetic. Once a gere-toshav Goy left the land of Judea, he or she had no obligation whatsoever to observe and obey the 7 commandments of Noach.
No Capital Crimes Sanhedrin Court exists today. Hence even if a Goy, while in Israel, profaned any or all of the 7 mitzvot, no Jewish courtroom has the authority to put that Goy to death. The one notable example wherein a Jewish non-Sanhedrin court imposed the death penalty, the trial of the war criminal Adolf Eichmann a high-ranking Nazi official. One of the key architects of the Holocaust, responsible for organizing the logistics of mass deportations of Jews to concentration camps.
Prohibitions against murder, theft, cruelty, sexual abuse, and injustice… hardly qualifies as “Jewish imperialism” or “supremacism” — echoing antisemitic narratives about “Jewish world control.” Judaism does not refer to Goyim as an inferior race as did Nazim.
The portrayal of Zionism as innately supremacist utterly ignores the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations Palestine Mandate and the 2/3rds UN member-state General Assembly vote which validated Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Your nonsense follows the repudiated UN 3379 canard.
Interesting that you never even mention the Shoah as a rebuke and rejection of the British colonial 1939 White Paper which invalidated the League of Nations Palestine Mandate! Nor do you even once refer 5 Army Arab state invasion following Ben Gurion’s declaration of national Independence for the Jewish people in the Middle East. Your propaganda ignores the Nakba failure of Arab armies to throw the Jews into the Sea, and complete the Nazi Shoah which slaughtered 75% of all European Jewry in less than 3 years. This erasure itself exposes your kettle calling the pot black “supremacist propaganda”. You, being an utter Nazi pig supporter, deny Jewish suffering, agency, and history in order to demonize Jewish national identity.
This text appears to be a sophisticated repackaging of antisemitism through the moral language of anti-supremacism. By cherry-picking quotes from radical leftist academics like Pappé and Massad, and placing them next to documented cases of genocidal racism, the author promotes the demonization of Jews and Zionism in the name of global justice. This represents a fraudulent, bigoted, and propaganda manipulative.
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.
Turkic peoples are a collection of diverse ethnic groups of West, Central, East, and North Asia as well as parts of Europe
According to historians and linguists, the Proto-Turkic language originated in Central-East Asia, potentially in the Altai-Sayan region, Mongolia or Tuva. Initially, Proto-Turkic speakers were potentially both hunter-gatherers and farmers; they later became nomadic pastoralists. Early and medieval Turkic groups exhibited a wide range of both East Asian and West-Eurasian physical appearances and genetic origins, in part through long-term contact with neighboring peoples such as Iranic, Mongolic, Tocharian, Uralic and Yeniseian peoples.
Many vastly differing ethnic groups have throughout history become part of the Turkic peoples through language shift, acculturation, conquest, intermixing, adoption, and religious conversion. Nevertheless, Turkic peoples share, to varying degrees, non-linguistic characteristics like cultural traits, ancestry from a common gene pool, and historical experiences. Some of the most notable modern Turkic ethnic groups include the Altai people, Azerbaijanis, Chuvash people, Gagauz people, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz people, Turkmens, Turkish people, Tuvans, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and Yakuts.
Etymology
The first known mention of the term Turk (Old Turkic: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük or 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰:𐰜𐰇𐰛 Kök Türük, Chinese: 突厥, Pinyin: Tūjué < Middle Chinese *tɦut-kyat < *dwət-kuɑt, Old Tibetan: drugu) applied to only one Turkic group, namely, the Göktürks, who were also mentioned, as türüg ~ török, in the 6th-century Khüis Tolgoi inscription, most likely not later than 587 AD. A letter by Ishbara Qaghan to Emperor Wen of Sui in 585 described him as “the Great Turk Khan”. The Bugut (584 CE) and Orkhon inscriptions (735 CE) use the terms Türküt, Türk and Türük.
During the first century CE, Pomponius Mela refers to the Turcae in the forests north of the Sea of Azov, and Pliny the Elder lists the Tyrcae among the people of the same area. However, English archaeologist Ellis Minns contended that Tyrcae Τῦρκαι is “a false correction” for Iyrcae Ἱύρκαι, a people who dwelt beyond the Thyssagetae, according to Herodotus (Histories, iv. 22), and were likely Ugric ancestors of Magyars. There are references to certain groups in antiquity whose names might have been foreign transcriptions of Tür(ü)k, such as Togarma, Turukha/Turuška, Turukku and so on; but the information gap is so substantial that any connection of these ancient people to the modern Turks is not possible.
The Chinese Book of Zhou (7th century) presents an etymology of the name Turk as derived from ‘helmet’, explaining that this name comes from the shape of a mountain where they worked in the Altai Mountains. Hungarian scholar András Róna-Tas (1991) pointed to a Khotanese-Saka word, tturakä ‘lid’, semantically stretchable to ‘helmet’, as a possible source for this folk etymology, yet Golden thinks this connection requires more data.
It is generally accepted that the name Türk is ultimately derived from the Old-Turkic migration-term 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük/Törük, which means ‘created, born’ or ‘strong’. Turkologist Peter B. Golden agrees that the term Turk has roots in Old Turkic, yet is not convinced by attempts to link Dili, Dingling, Chile, Tele, and Tiele, which possibly transcribed *tegrek (probably meaning ‘cart’), to Tujue, which transliterated to Türküt.
Scholars, including Toru Haneda, Onogawa Hidemi, and Geng Shimin believed that Di, Dili, Dingling, Chile and Tujue all came from the Turkic word Türk, which means ‘powerful’ and ‘strength’, and its plural form is Türküt. Even though Gerhard Doerfer supports the proposal that türk means ‘strong’ in general, Gerard Clauson points out that “the word türk is never used in the generalized sense of ‘strong’” and that türk was originally a noun and meant “‘the culminating point of maturity’ (of a fruit, human being, etc.), but more often used as an [adjective] meaning (of a fruit) ‘just fully ripe’; (of a human being) ‘in the prime of life, young, and vigorous’”. Hakan Aydemir (2022) also contends that Türk originally did not mean “strong, powerful” but “gathered; united, allied, confederated” and was derived from Pre-Proto-Turkic verb *türü “heap up, collect, gather, assemble”.
The earliest Turkic-speaking peoples identifiable in Chinese sources are the Yenisei Kyrgyz and Xinli, located in South Siberia. Another example of an early Turkic population would be the Dingling.
In Late Antiquity itself, as well as in and the Middle Ages, the name “Scythians” was used in Greco-Roman and Byzantine literature for various groups of nomadic “barbarians” living on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe who were not related to the actual Scythians. Medieval European chroniclers subsumed various Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe as “Scythians”. Between 400 CE and the 16th century, Byzantine sources use the name Σκύθαι (Skuthai) in reference to twelve different Turkic peoples.
In the modern Turkish language as used in the Republic of Turkey, a distinction is made between “Turks” and the “Turkic peoples” in loosely speaking: the term Türk corresponds specifically to the “Turkish-speaking” people (in this context, “Turkish-speaking” is considered the same as “Turkic-speaking”), while the term Türki refers generally to the people of modern “Turkic Republics” (Türki Cumhuriyetler or Türk Cumhuriyetleri). However, the proper usage of the term is based on the linguistic classification in order to avoid any political sense. In short, the term Türki can be used for Türk or vice versa. ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
A seemingly academic-sounding post that subtly weaponizes ethnography and philology in the service of ideological messaging—likely aimed at delegitimizing Jewish historical narratives by contrast or erasure. The lengthy pseudo-scholarly discourse on the origins of Turkic peoples—while factually grounded in part—serves a political function when posted in hostile forums. It creates the illusion of an ancient, rooted, and pan-ethnic legitimacy for modern Turkic (often anti-Zionist or Islamist) identity while implicitly contrasting it with what Ruarks paint as “invented” or “colonial” Jewish nationalism blood-libels.
Anti-Zionism by definition challenges the legitimacy of the Jewish state just as all Arab countries, prior to Camp David, openly abhorred and rejected the 1917 Balfour Declaration which caused the League of Nations to establish their “Palestinian Mandate”.
The subtext is: “Turks and their cousins are indigenous, ancient, diverse, and natural; Jews are not.” Revisionist History bull shit. Ruark treats etymology and philology like political artillery. He obsessively focuses on derivations of the word “Turk” and its permutations, as if proving an ancient, noble pedigree erases crimes committed by modern actors (e.g., Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide, support for Hamas, persecution of Kurds, Uyghurs, etc.).
Ruark baffles with bull shit. He writes fancy footnotes and references to scholars like Peter Golden, Gerard Clauson, or Róna-Tas to give his Amalek racism an academic gloss. However read in context, tone, and timing (likely posted amid anti-Israel discourse) this “context” betrays the cowardly concealed purpose: legitimizing pan-Turkic nationalism and undermining the Jewish people’s claim being the chosen Cohen peoplehood together with our oath sworn brit homelands.
This post traffics in revisionist history. It presents a pseudo-scholarly discourse on the origins of Turkic peoples, which—while partially grounded in historical linguistics—serves a modern political function: to construct a pan-ethnic identity for Turkic and Islamist movements while portraying Jews as a fabricated, colonial anomaly. The subtext is unmistakable: “Turks and their cousins are indigenous, ancient, diverse, and natural; Jews are not.” This is not academic curiosity—it is a form of literary blood libel.
Ruark treats etymology like artillery. He obsessively drills into permutations of the word “Turk,” as if etymological antiquity could cleanse the record of modern atrocities: Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide, support for Hamas, and ongoing persecution of Kurds and Uyghurs. What emerges is not scholarship but political theater, draped in the robes of authority.
Let us be clear: Anti-Zionism is not a neutral critique of policy. It is a rejection of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the entire legal framework established by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. It seeks to undo Jewish history not merely through war or boycott, but through philological fraud, cultural gaslighting, and moral inversion.
We, the eternal covenant people—sworn by brit, rooted in Torah, and charged as the priestly nation (עם סגולה ממלכת כהנים)—do not need fabricated etymologies or manufactured antiquity. Our oath is not based on imperial conquest or linguistic invention but on the Divine brit given at Sinai and reaffirmed across generations in blood, exile, and return. To Ruark and his ilk: your footnotes cannot conceal your fraud. You stand exposed as an Amalekite propagandist masquerading in academic garb. We see through the veil—and we will not be silent.
[[[ 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.
While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.
The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.
Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.
The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.
Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).
Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.
During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.
Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.
Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.
Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.
Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.
Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.
This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.
Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.
Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.
Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”
Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.
The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.
Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.
Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.
The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.
The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.
The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.
The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).
While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.
The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.
The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.
The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”
The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.
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 