DISGRACEFUL. The story of a Jewish convert to the Catholic Church during the Xtian Shoah pogroms.

Ehrenberg lived during a time when antisemitism was prevalent in many parts of Europe, including Germany. This period saw the rise of nationalist movements and ideologies that often scapegoated Jews for various societal issues. The rise of the Nazi Party in the 1930s brought about extreme antisemitic policies, culminating in the Shoah.

This environment profoundly affected Jewish intellectuals and communities, including Ehrenberg. As an assimilated Jewish intellectual who converted to Catholicism, Ehrenberg likely encountered antisemitism firsthand, which directly influenced his perspectives and writings. His experiences provide an assimilationist traitors’ counter-narrative to the prevailing antisemitic attitudes of his time. Hans Ehrenberg converted to Xtianity in 1926.

His conversion was significant in the context of the rise of Hitler to power. Especially as it reflected the complex interplay between his former Jewish heritage and his active engagement with Xtian theological dogma. Ehrenberg’s experiences and perspectives as a Jewish convert to Catholic Xtianity contributed to his philosophical and theological explorations, particularly regarding the relationship between Judaism and Xtianity.

Ehrenberg’s views as a Xtian convert regarding the Talmud and Judaism reflect the broader tensions between Judaism and Xtianity during this time of Xtian pogroms. After converting to Xtianity in 1926, Ehrenberg felt a need to reconcile his Jewish heritage with his new faith. This often led earlier Jewish converts to adopt openly hostile & critical views of their former faith which prioritized the righteous pursuit of justice as faith and fear of Heaven. His hostility did not limit itself to only the Talmud. His coward racial hatred included the Hebrew T’NaCH as the foundation of Jewish common law legalism. The Talmud which asserted a central to Jewish law and tradition following its publication in about 450CE. Ehrenberg joined their ranks of the many other assimilated “Reform Jews” who grew to despise the Torah obligation to pursue judicial justice among the Jewish people.

A Jewish Xtian convert caused the Church of Rome in 1242 to burn all the hand written Talmudic manuscripts in Paris. This stark precedent aroused the Nazi book burnings in the 1930s. Ehrenberg’s work often exposed his hostile relationship between Judaism and Xtianity. His reflections on the Shoah and the Church’s evil responses directly influenced his views on interfaith denunciations which sought to invalidate any need for church to acknowledgment its Av tuma past war crimes and guilt against Humanity.

Many Jewish intellectuals and other leaders during and after the Shoah expressed their deep absolute revulsion and anger at the Catholic Church’s immoral indifference to the plight of Jews. Particularly the cowardly and utterly immoral crimes committed under Pope Pius XII, who betrayed “its” sub-human moral authority to speak out against the atrocities committed by both the Nazis and the Allies.

Jewish intellectuals and leaders denounced Pius XII for not speaking out forcefully against the Nazi regime or the Allied White Paper and US closing its borders to Jewish refugees, and refusal to bomb the rail-lines leading to the Death Camps. This “sentiment”, widespread among Jewish communities and intellectuals during and after the war. Ehrenberg did not denounce the guilt of the Xtian church. But he did denounce the Talmud in his writings, reflecting his negative perspective on its impact upon shaping the cultures and customs observed by the chosen Cohen people.

Ehrenberg criticized the Talmud as a source of legalism and as a barrier to understanding the essence of faith. He viewed it as contributing to a rigid interpretation of Judaism that he believed violated the Gospel Good News doctrine. In his works, he often and repeatedly articulated his negative views on the differences between Jewish and Xtian thought, often positioning the Talmud in a despicable light. His ignorance of T’NaCH and Talmud as common law which rejects Roman statute law exposes his racial bias coupled with his total ignorance of what separates and distinguishes Jewish common law ruled by lateral courtrooms from vertical State bribed and employed Judges and prosecuting attorneys whose job served to defend and maintain the statute laws imposed by the State and their bureaucrats, this total failure to discern between the Jewish concept of faith which revolves around judicial fair compensation for damages inflicted with the Xtian notion of faith which employs theology and creeds to define a Top-down dictate how the faithful sheep MUST believe in God.

Distinguishing between Mercy from Pity

johncoyote

johncoyote

johncoyote·john-coyote.com·

Have mercy.

Have mercy  Pretty girl, she told me. Chameleons faces we do have. We have become strangers to our self, forgot who we were. Once we were whiskey drinking people, who ….
___________________________
___________________________

John mercy not the same as pity. Mercy the 4th tohor middah of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev which the church categorically denies. Torah law, something which the NT writers systematically refused to define. Torah law a legal judicial common law jurisprudence and determination of government rule – known as “Legislative Review”. Wherein the Sanhedrin common law courts not only can declare a law passed by the Legislative or Executive Branches as unconstitutional. Legislative Review takes Judicial government one step further. The Great Sanhedrin court re-writes the questioned constitutionality of a law passed by Congress or the Executive and thereafter re-introduces this court re-written law. This process known as “Mishna Torah”.

The 4th middah of the Oral Torah stands separate and distinct from pity. Torah common law stands upon precedents. Torah commandments qualify as legal precedent in this common law legal system. Three precedent by which a person can interpret the middah of Mercy: 1. The commandment to slaughter all inhabitants of Canaan Man, Woman, and child. 2. The commandment to make eternal war against Amalek. 3. The commandment to kill the stubborn and rebellious child.

The Torah oath brit alliance – actively entails blessing and curse polarities. If actions have their consequences like the ripple effect of a stone thrown into a pond, then these 3 negative commandments listed above they prevent a Torah curse to curse the people of Israel. No pity shown not to the people of Canaan, nor to Amalek, nor to the child who qualifies as a rebellious son. Herein distinguishes the tohor middah of Mercy from the notion of taking pity upon someone or something.

Clarity has forced me to make another re-write of my original draft.

The Ripple Effect of Human Error

SA Examiner

Sandra Cruz·saexaminer.org·Mar 9, 2025

Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak

Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.

The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)


Ponak’s Embodied Kabbalah not just a random intro, it’s meant as my opening case study for the very error I attempt to trace: replacing the Horev Oral Torah’s judicial common law with a modern, universalized personal spirituality. Ponak’s book serves as a modern textbook case study of the shift from justice as faith, unto personal mystical belief theology.

His project universalizes Jewish mysticism, detached from the Sanhedrin’s common law legal mandate, and reframes Torah as a “alien voice”, a pluralist “quest for meaning, search for the Holy Grail” — thus replacing the Oral Torah’s function with an individualized internal experience.

This is the same error likewise made famous by the Samaritans, Sadducees, False messiah new testament crazies, Karaites, Rambam’s codification, Reform Judaism, etc.

Each case rejects the Horev Oral Torah revelation — the judicial precedent-based system (Pardes) — in favor of theological belief systems, Greek logic, or statute-law frameworks. Solomon’s Temple decision → Sadducee civil war → Karaite rationalism → Rambam’s statute code → modern personal spiritualities like Ponak’s, virtually the same idea repackaged over and again anew.

In each generation, the same Oral Torah rejection repeats itself, simply re-dressed in new clothing.


Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures

Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.

Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.

Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.

Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts

Pardes vs Greek logic:

Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).

Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.

Common Law vs. Statute Law:

Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.

Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.

The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

Theological Critique: Key Issues

Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.

Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.

(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.



First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204).

These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.

Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.

Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.

The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.

The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.

As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.

The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.

Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.

T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.

Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.

The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.

However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.

The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.

Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.

Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!

The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.

Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.

The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.

King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.

The Ripple Effect of Human Error

Sandra Cruz

SA Examiner

Sandra Cruz·saexaminer.org·

Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak

Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.
The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)
______________________________________________
______________________________________________

How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.

Israel Information Center Ithacainternationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.comOnce the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…



Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures

Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.

Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.

Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.

Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts

Pardes vs Greek logic:

Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).

Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.

Common Law vs. Statute Law:

Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.

Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.

The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

Theological Critique: Key Issues

Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.

Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.

(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.



First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204). These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.

Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.

Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.

The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.

The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.

As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.

The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.

Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.

T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.

Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.

The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.

However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.

The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.

Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.

Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!

The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.

Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.

The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.

King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.

How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.

internationalscholars

Israel Information Center Ithaca

internationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.com

Once the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .

There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures

Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.

Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.

Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.

Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.

Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.

David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts

Pardes vs Greek logic:

Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).

Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.

Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.

Common Law vs. Statute Law:

Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.

Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.

The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.

Theological Critique: Key Issues

Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.

Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.

(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.



First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah; their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev just as much as does the church today; and the Karaites who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither the in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages from about 900 CE, which aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204) – likewise both heretics who in their own way perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah – both men highly assimilated following the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient Tzeddukim, to reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms.

Nonetheless both scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical but similar rejection of the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review. Both rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite supporters into a charem excommunication just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.

Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods. Commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts by the Muslim invasion of Spain reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law. Cults of personality rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo, dominated the determination of halacha rather than Sanhedrin courts room common law jurisprudence which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents.

The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the model of the 3-Part syllogism. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it Organized both the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its Gemara commentary made there after, based upon the working model of a LOOM.

A loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud seeks to employ Pardes inductive precedent based learning as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law as the chosen cultural identity that the Cohen people choose to define their unique cultural identity as the people of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.

The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject the definition of faith: Book of D’varim comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins making fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people.

Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-belief- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into judicial categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.

T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law; all of which base Torah common law upon the Book of D’varim; consequent to its second defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, a common law judicial system. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Prince lead governments of Judges.

Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of law, that later court Judicial ruling stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts judicial rulings – like as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.

The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. Who replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These latter-day saints, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. The restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah restricted only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud. However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah they lacked the wisdom skills required to affix prophetic mussar precedents to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; they lacked the wisdom to do mitzvot L’shma. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments.

The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to view the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic perspective.

Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. Much like and similar to a building contractor reads a blue-print which contains a front/top\side view. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.

Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – they all rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. This conflict even dates back to kings David and Shlomo, before the introduction of the Samaritans! The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud carries this 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute, which debates the issue whether king David after conquering Damascus established that city as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom.

Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.

The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions. Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment.

How Error progresses throughout the course of Human history.

internationalscholars

Israel Information Center Ithaca

internationalscholars·israelinformationcenterithaca.wordpress.com

Once the focus is the connection between The Torah and the real necessity for the endowed title of an existing National Israeli State, Karaites are an unity opportunity .

There is no presumptions of against the family circles of the Cohens which evolved into the various, and even those names of Levy, assuming all efforts to reestablish their…
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

Historical Narrative

📅 Timeline of Key Events and Figures

  • Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
  • Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
  • Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
  • Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
  • Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
  • David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.

Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument

⚖️ Key Concepts

  • Pardes vs. Greek Logic:
    • Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
    • Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence. Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
  • Common Law vs. Statute Law:
    • Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written statutes, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
    • Statute Law: A legal system based on written laws enacted by a legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review authority.
    • Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
    • The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH as binding precedent.

Theological Critique

Key Issues

  • Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding cultures, potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish identity and practice. Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive method—the loom that weaves warp and weft to form Talmudic law.
  • Avoda Zara (Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
    __________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________

    First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites like the Tzeddukim reject the revelation of the Oral Torah which the After meal blessing remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim of the Lights of Hanukkah ignoble disgrace of that pre-New Testament Civil War; and the Karaites who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither the ancient nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages from about 900 CE which aroused the indignation of:
  • Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE) and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204) heretics – both men highly assimilated to the rediscovery of the recently rediscovered ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient Tzeddukim to originally reject the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; nonetheless both scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical movement and placed the Karaite supporters into a charem excommunication just as did the ancient P’rushim to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
  • Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods. Commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”. The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts by the Muslim invasion of Spain re-opened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights.
  • The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the model of the 3-Part syllogism. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic, Ordered both the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its Gemara commentary thereon based upon the working model of a LOOM.
  • A loom as warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud seeks to employ Pardes inductive precedent based learning as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, cultural identity as a people. The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism rejected the definition of faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, think korban, the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins\ making fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people.
  • Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God belief-systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into judicial categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen. T’NaCH & Talmudic common law bases itself upon rabbi Yechuda Sha’s common law upon the Book of D’varim having a second Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, a common law judicial system. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to have Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Prince lead governments.
  • Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of law that later court Judicial ruling stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts judicial rulings – like as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
  • The later Karaim did not go as far as did the ancient Samaritans. The latter rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! None the less, the Karaim rejected the masoret of the NaCH as prophetic mussar precedents which make a Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar. The much later Talmudic common law codification employs a 70 faces to the Torah blue-print diamond facet re-interpretation of employing halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to view the language of the Mishna based upon a different Gemara halachic perspective.
  • Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya views from a wholly different sugya perspective. Much like and similar to a building contractor reads a blue-print which contains a front/top\side views. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclids 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
  • Both the assimilated Tzeddukim, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – they all rejected or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic. The warp/weft loom of the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. This conflict even dates back to kings David and Shlomo! The prophet Natan warned David not to copy the ways of the Goyim and build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud carries this 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute over the issue whether king David after conquering Damascus established that city as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom.
  • Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advise given by king Shlomo’s elder advisors, so too young king Sholomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes dead baby before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
  • The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views down stream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions. Shlomo prioritized duplicating who the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud not into a polis city state but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah which perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheisist god. Monotheism, by definition profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment.

Oral Torah common law spins around the Central Axis of the Constitutional Mandate awarded to the Sanhedrin Federal Courts to conduct “Legislative Review” over all laws passed by the king or any State Legislature.

What qualifies as statutes, in T’NaCH common law?

The study of chukim\statutes in T’NaCH is far more complex than a straightforward reading might suggest. The Talmud emphasizes the importance of understanding the Torah through the lens of precedents and interpretations, which enriches the application of these laws. Chukim, being statutes without explicit rationale, require deeper analysis and interpretation. They cannot be understood in isolation; rather, they must be contextualized within the broader framework of Jewish law and tradition.

The Talmud teaches that one should “stand the Torah upon precedents,” meaning that the application of Torah laws should be informed by historical interpretations, legal precedents, and rabbinic discussions. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the laws. When engaging with chukim, one must look to the T’NaCH, Talmudic, Siddur, and Midrashic Primary Sources.

The dynamic nature of Jewish law, as illustrated by the Talmud, shows that chukim spin around PARDES inductive logic rather than static Greek deductive syllogism logic. Oral Torah/common law evolves through interpretation and application of T’NaCH prophetic mussar and Talmudic halachic precedents. Courtroom judicial law does not resemble flat legislature statute law.

Statute law refers to laws that are enacted by some legislative body, such as a parliament or congress. These laws are written and codified, providing clear guidelines and regulations. Statute laws are passed through a formal legislative process, which includes drafting, debating, and voting. Legislatures can amend or repeal statute laws as needed.

Common law developed through judicial decisions and precedents rather than through legislative statutes. It evolves over time based on the rulings of different courts. Common law – created by judges through their Courtroom interpretations of statutes imposed by Legislatures; this process of common law known as “Legislative Review”. Common law can adapt to changing societal values and circumstances, as judges can interpret laws in light of contemporary issues. Unlike statute law, common law, referred to as “Oral Torah”; which the Sages refused to write down. Hence not till centuries after the sealing of the Sha’s Bavli did the sages agree to codify the Oral Torah into a written Talmud.

Examples of chukim include laws related to dietary restrictions (kashrut), the red heifer (parah adumah), and certain rituals that may seem arbitrary without a clear explanation. Dietary restrictions (kashrut) delve directly into the subject of tohor vs. tumah middot/spirits. Tohor middot jump directly into the subject of the revelalation of the Oral Torah at Horev which the religions of Xtianity and Islam both deny.

Human society not flat, nor a טיפש פשט mythology.

Robert

West Fork Unitarian Universalists

Robert·westforkuu.org·

Sunday 3 August, 2025: Democratic Process

Still, no metrics exist to measure life without institutions, because they’ve been around as long as humankind. The first institution was the first family. The tribe was the first community. The first tribe’s leader was the first politician, and its elders were the first legislature. Its guards, the first police force. Its storyteller, a teacher. Humans are coded to create communities, and communities beget institutions.— Ron Fournier and Sophie Quinton, ”How Americans Lost Trust in Our Greatest Institutions”
Robert Helfer will lead a service on faith and community:
Our services are Sundays at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Time on ZOOM and in person at the Progressive Women’s Association Event Center, 305 Washington Ave. in downtown Clarksburg, behind the Courthouse. A coffee hour, a time for discussion and socializing (including ZOOM participants), follows from the end of the service until 12:00 noon.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

The zionist experiment of democracy faces some criticism by Jews such as myself who favor restoration of a Torah constitutional Republic which mandates a lateral Sanhedrin common law courts to regulate all laws passed by Jerusalem and the state legislatures of the 12 Tribes. Imposing Judicial Legislative Review upon Sanhedrin common law courtrooms with the Mandated Constitutional power to conduct trials which judge Capital Crimes offenses, and impose 4 different types of death penalties, dependent upon the nature of the Capital crimes committed. And equally vital and important דיוק inference to judging Capital Crimes Cases: To judge the leadership responsible for Federal and State governments; based through evidence of laws bureaucratically imposed by government authority officials — viewed through the lenses of prophetic משנה תורה-Legislative Review.

The prioritization of lateral common law Sanhedrin courtrooms over institutional machinery of governance, which directly includes government leadership positions within these institutions of government, this essential clause defines, separates, and make unique Jewish political science. Faith: the Torah defines as justice justice pursue; a direct reference to lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms having the mandate of ‘Legislative Review’ over all governments – Jerusalem or any tribal/state legislature.

Democracy or democratic institutions not part of the Jewish cultural traditions. Democratic mob rule, a Greek idea and not a Jewish cultural concept. Leaders “anointed” under the pre-condition that they will faithfully pursue justice as the rule of law. As in all Human endeavors, the humanity of Man, the ideal and the practical realities – a wide gap separates the two. When a leader sufficiently abuses his leadership mandate a prophet, representative of the Sanhedrin Court, impeaches that leader and replaces him with another. The stories in the Book of Judges and Samuel and Kings, which pits, for example: Shaul against David, serve as precedent models which separate Ordered societies from chaotic societies collapsing into a state of anarchy.

Imposition of some grand Cathedral, Soloman Temple – like institutions comparable the newest Federal Reserve building in the US, the graphic porn of pork graft in government that has no shame – within any given civilization. Institutions compare to people that bow down and worship idols. Buildings of wood and stone do not promise efficient good governance. Public expenditure of taxes to build such grand structures of Egoism, they serve witness to a stratification of aristocratic feudal Lord/peasant economic anarchy; which imposes wealth and justifies ‘might make right’ judicial injustice, oppression, theft, and even taboo incest or murder.

Contrast the IDF with its direct linkage with power projection through Foreign Policy. Ideally Foreign Policy plays second fiddle to domestic Home Rule. But often the nature of the Humanity of Man, Foreign Policies prioritized over Domestic Policies. This Yatzir Ha’Rah, once more its power seduction dominates the dynamic “ideal vs actual”; this gap separates the vision of governance from the cruel reality – that all men sit and crap on toilets, and it stinks. The Human potential NEVER achieves the Human ideal messiah.

NT mythology no different than Homer’s Iliad, and Odyssey. Hesiod’s Theogony and Works and Days. Aeschylus’s The Orestia. Sophocles Oedipus Rus. Euripides Medea etc etc these Greek myth stories, they compare to how Xtians worship their silly sophomoric bible translations which depict a messiah savior that rises from the judicial oppression grave and saves all Humanity — despite the Caesar Son of Gods – the personification of Hercules/JeZeus in flesh, blood & History.

The fly in this ever so sweet ointment, myths do not actually make and determine history. As history does not shape and determine modern life today in any society in all the annuls of Humans living on this Earth. Worshipping history as God the exact same idolatry as worshipping Shlomo’s or Herod’s Temples made of wood and stone. Institutionalized buildings, no matter the cost of their construction does not and never has produced the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice.

Why do people find Astrology interesting, even today?

You don’t attract. You pull fate in.

Swamigalkodi Astrology©NAVAGRA – A FREE VEDIC HOROSCOPE READING PLACE

astrological attractionastrology for lovespiritual magnetismfated relationships karmic connection

You don’t attract. You don’t seek. You wait, and they come. Something in you pulls them. Not your words. Not your eyes. Something beneath that. A soft gravity. A current they can’t see. It moves through your stillness. It hums in your silence. They notice you before you speak. Especially then. You don’t attract. You pull fate in.
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

Magnetism – lonely (intense connections, but not always reciprocated or understood) and complex (the nature of these connections; both nurturing or challenging, reflecting different aspects of ourselves) to define our own identity as a person, and for others to grasp, appreciate, and understand. None-the-less, magnetism compares to how fire entices insects to fly into the flames.

Fate: Personal Destiny in a persons life walk-path. Events, relationships, and experiences astrological influences shaped through personal choices within Life’s Big Picture. Attraction – like basic instincts in animals vs. Pulling, a far more profound connection – like family which speaks to the soul. Less a physical allure, it compliments long standing emotional memories. Presence: your design shaped by your astrological chart and life experiences; and Stillness – a quiet, a grounded confidence: ‘safe space’ for others. It does not require words for it to express this ‘safe space’ sweet smelling perfume. Echoes and Memory, refers to something like your future born children. Energies we share can leave a legacy, shaping not only our lives but also the lives of those who come after us. Energy Exchange, a dynamic interaction between individuals. A healthy sharing relationship with trusted friends.

Astrology and Chinese Taoist thought work in harmony with meditation. Which contrasts the in-haled breath with the exhaled breath. Zen Buddhism refers to the ‘3rd Eye’ as a reference to a focused awareness of the 5 senses “seen” (so to speak) between the eyes during the duration of the inhaled breath. Meditation “feels” the chi expressed within the external reality of living during the duration of the exhaled breath. This meditation seeks to achieve a conscious Mind awareness both internally felt and externally experienced. Hence Taoism has the 5 breath “souls”, in conjuction with the 5 designated feelings – and they all align with the 5 elements of the Universe.

Unlike Astrology, both Chinese and Japanese healing makes its central focus – awareness of precise meridian points and lines rather that Planets and Stars shining in the Heavens above. The shared common denominator which unites the two contrasting disciplines — meditation. Both disciplines which lack meditation compare to positive and negative Torah commandments which have no tohor time-oriented commandment potential to elevate secondary commandments and halachot unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments from the Torah.

For example: The so-called daughter religions of Xtianity and Islam – both remain Av tuma avoda zarah examples of the 2nd Sinai Commandment. These religions employ their own separate but unique ‘replacement theologies’, which supplants T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim and Siddur – along with the power of Astrology of Planets and Stars – with Creed based belief systems. Such as belief in some pie in the sky Universal God monotheism! This theology employed to supplant T’NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur.

For example: The Apostle Paul declared Torah commandments like circumcision archaic and invalid. Reform Judaism pulled a similar rabbit out of its hat of magik. The Pauline rhetoric declared that Goyim “not under the Law”; an utterly absurd statement because all societies and civilization require the Order of law and government. Furthermore, the Pauline propaganda, much like Obamo’s 2008 political “CHANGE” declarations made no distinction between T’NaCH & Talmudic judicial common law Legislative Review, which has over-view of all laws passed by Legislatures or Kings; from legal statute law – decrees, issued from some Roman Senate or a Caesar bureaucratic regulatory dictatorship.

Jewish common law depends upon lateral common law courtrooms rather than Greek political rhetoric which promotes ‘Democracy’. Democracy has no place in T’NaCH and Talmudic lateral common law courtrooms. The people pay for ‘Legal Insurance’ which maintains these common law Courts – when not actively engaged in any legal dispute heard before these common law Courtrooms. The Torah refers to vertical courtrooms as bribery; a Torah abomination for the State to pay the salary of Court Justices and prosecuting attorneys.

Following the corruption made by the British Star-Courts which legalized British navel impressment of American sailors seized from American ships in High Seas ‘international waters’. The Founding Fathers attempted to address the issue of Judicial bribery by and through the State. They established the lateral jury system. But the otherwise vertical courtrooms, where the State pays the salaries of the Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys, American judicial law bi-passed the lateral jury court revolutionary approach, by imposing strict terms which limit the scope of how the jury weighs introduced legal evidence/precedents by the opposing lawyers briefs.

Lawyers do not present their legal briefs to the Jury. Rather, the vertical courts restrict presentation of these opposing legal briefs, which only the State paid judges can review. Hence while the Founding Fathers attempted to establish lateral courtrooms, later generations corrupted the revolutionary lateral jury judicial system. And replaced it with just another vertical court having bribed Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys.

Two Classic Examples of how Xtianity remains a dead religion on par with the Gods of Mt. Olympus.

Jim

Zwinglius Redivivus

Jim·zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com·

Remembering Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker

Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker died on Friday, July 23, 2021. You can read his obituary here. If you aren’t familiar with him, he was a scholar of the Reformation. And a very, very goo…
___________________________________________
___________________________________________

Theological Complicity in State Violence

Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared: Prof. Dr. Willem van ‘t Spijker (1926–2021), a leading Dutch Calvinist theologian, made substantial contributions to church history, ecclesiastical law, and the development of Reformed theology. Yet his work conspicuously failed to grapple with one of the most catastrophic consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).

At the heart of Reformed theology lies the doctrine of predestination—the belief that God has foreordained all events, including salvation and damnation. This framework fostered a militant providentialism: war was interpreted as a divine tool, victory as confirmation of righteousness, and suffering as sanctification; terror Islam sanctifies its martyrs this very day. Such logic fueled the religious zealotry of Protestant-Catholic conflicts in early modern Europe and sacralized political violence. Calvinist theologians, including van ‘t Spijker, largely failed to confront the theological and moral implications of their tradition’s role in igniting and escalating such brutal barbaric bloodshed.

This blind spot extended far beyond the Reformation. A similar theological detachment reemerged during the Nazi era, when much of Protestant Europe—especially the Lutheran Church in Germany—collapsed morally in the face of totalitarianism and genocide. The result was catastrophic: 75% of Western European Jewry and 63% of European and Russian Jews were annihilated. Churches failed to resist—and in many cases collaborated with—Nazism, cloaking their cowardice or complicity in theological rationalizations of “obedience” and “providence.”

Van ‘t Spijker’s silence on these historical-theological intersections utterly emblematic of a much broader failure within Reformed scholarship: the inability to reckon with how doctrinal systems, when left unchallenged, enable state violence. Without such critical introspection, the Reformed tradition risks perpetuating a theology disconnected from its own ethical consequences.

Both Calvinist and Lutheran systems share foundational errors that—when unchecked—open the door to theological barbarism. In Calvinist thought, God’s sovereign will is absolute; every event, from salvation to catastrophe, is predetermined. During the Thirty Years’ War, this led to a dangerous fusion of theology and politics: military victory was seen as a sign of divine favor, while political violence became a “righteous” necessity. Calvinist churches, despite their strong synodal structures, proved unable—or unwilling—to restrain theological alliances with princely power. This alignment justified widespread bloodshed, famine, and forced displacement as sacred duty.

Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” doctrine separated the spiritual and political realms, teaching that secular rulers are divinely appointed and must not be resisted. By the 20th century, this was transformed into an ideological bludgeon by the German Christian movement, which fused Lutheranism with Nazism. Clergy upheld obedience even as the state descended into genocide. Though the Barmen Declaration (1934), led by Karl Barth, attempted to resist this theological capitulation, the Confessing Church remained a marginalized minority. The institutional Lutheran Church stood largely silent—or worse, supportive—as the Nazis murdered millions, including the overwhelming majority of European Jewry.

Calvinism, with its emphasis on God’s glory and man’s depravity, lacked a theology of inherent human dignity. Jews, Catholics, and heretics were viewed as reprobates—predestined for damnation, beyond grace, justice, or mercy. This theological posture helped normalize righteous violence against those outside the “elect.”

Lutheran theology was even more explicit. Luther’s own antisemitic writings—On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)—called for synagogue burnings and expulsion. These ideas laid the groundwork for Christian racial antisemitism. The Nazi vision of the Jew drew directly from centuries of Lutheran contempt and theological supersessionism: the idea that Christianity had replaced Israel as God’s chosen; where Jesus as the son of God replace the oath brit sworn to Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people.

Therefore, in both cases, the churches failed to resist tyranny not only because of fear—but because their theological systems lacked a mechanism to challenge it from within. In the end, the failure of both Reformed traditions was not merely a failure of courage—but a failure of theological architecture. Their systems lacked internal mechanisms—legal, moral, or interpretive—to challenge tyranny from within. When state violence aligned itself with religious rhetoric, these traditions were intellectually disarmed.

Whereas Jewish tradition sustains a culture of legal argumentation, known as משנה תורה/Legislative Review; grounded in the courtroom common law which stands upon prior judical precedent courtroom rulings. European courts lack the power to overrule the State. A critical flaw that NT theology, in all its many forms or formats, has totally failed to address. Neither Christianity nor Islam has the cultural tradition of judicial “prophets”.

Both “daughter religions” define prophesy as – foretelling the future. The Torah views this interpretation as Av tuma witchcraft. According to the Torah prophets command mussar. How does mussar define prophesy? Mussar applies equally across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Only the chosen Cohen people received and accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev.

Both Christian and Muslim theological creed belief systems emphatically embrace a theology of Monotheism. Alas monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the God of the chosen Cohen people a local tribal God and not a Universal God as Christian and Islamic theology dictates to its believers.

In the end, the failure of both Reformed and Lutheran traditions was not merely a lack of courage, but a failure of theological design. These systems lacked the internal instruments—legal, prophetic, interpretive—needed to resist tyranny when it arose cloaked in religious language.