The Age of Reason

PM Netanyahu previously declared: “Together with my friends in the Likud and my partners on the right, we have turned Israel into a world power and in many respects, a superpower. We’ve done this not by surrendering to international pressure, not out of weakness. We did this by standing firm, out of power.”

Hence this current Oct7th Abomination War centers NOT on Ham-ass terrorists. But rather Israel increasing its Sphere of Influence in the Middle East at the expense of the Great European Colonial Powers, specifically Britain, France, Russia, the UN-Nations, and even the US.

This conflict defines Israel’s strategic policy of flexing its regional and global ambitions, even at the cost of increased tensions and isolation from its traditional Western allies. Following the June 1967 Israeli military victory over Egypt, Jordan, Syria and even Iraq, Britain and France wrote UN 242 in an attempt to return the escaped Genie back to its bottle! Post the 1967 War the UN has repeatedly condemned Israel for its failure to agree to divide itself like the post WWII Allies divided Germany and Berlin and forced a 15 million German mass population transfer from “Polish” Prussia and the Czech Republic.

The current Gaza conflict can be seen as part of this longstanding tension and international pressure on Israel to comply with UN resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories. Israel’s refusal to do so, and its assertions of regional/global power, have put it at odds with the “Great Colonial Powers”. This current War, a much deeper geopolitical dynamics at play. Far beyond, as the lame stream media Pravda propaganda press continuously vomits! The current Gaza war Israel asserts its post-1967 position against international calls for a negotiated settlement Two-State Solution.

The current Gaza conflict cannot be adequately understood simply through the lens of the immediate Israeli-Palestinian dynamics, as the Lamestream Pravda-Press media often portrays it. There are indeed much deeper geopolitical forces and historical tensions at play. Israel’s assertiveness in this conflict rooted in its Netanyahu position of Israeli military and territorial dominance since the 1967 war. Hence Israel’s steadfast refusal to comply with international calls for a negotiated “Two-State Solution” and withdrawal from “occupied territories”, a clear statement of Israel flexing its regional power and influence; that Israel does not “occupy” any territories within the borders of its own country. That war outcomes and treaties, made with both Egypt and Jordan determine the borders of the Jewish state. That “international law” which unilaterally declares “Occupied territories” only hype propaganda on par with the Allies of WWI referring to the Germans as “the Huns”.

Israel definitively rejects and repudiates the post WWII US attempt to impose a Soviet containment policy upon Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Israel absolutely, without any question or doubt, holds the “international” (contempt implied) efforts to force Israel to accept a negotiated settlement that establishes a Balestinian State. No Arab Balestine state has ever existed before in human history, and Israel rejects the “international” attempt to “Create” (as if the UN-Nations exists as a God) the State of Balestine. Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in Balestine!

The Israeli perspective, this land has been the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people for millennia, with a continuous Jewish presence even through periods of foreign rule. The establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 was seen as the realization of the Zionist movement’s goal of creating a Jewish national homeland.

A significant number of Jews were expelled from Arab countries following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. This is an important historical fact that is often overlooked. Estimates suggest that around 850,000 Jews were forced to flee their homes in countries like Iraq, Syria, Egypt, and others due to persecution and violence directed at their communities. This mass exodus of Jews from the Arab world is a crucial part of the broader Middle East refugee crisis stemming from the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Arab countries unanimously rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, which proposed the creation of independent Jewish and Arab states in historical Palestine. Instead, they chose to go to war in an attempt to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. This decision shaped the trajectory of the conflict, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and the displacement of 650 thousand Dhimmi Arab refugees.

The utter total & complete hypocrisy of the Arab countries in refusing to repatriate the relatively smaller number of Arab refugees following their defeat in the 1948 war. While the dhimmi Arabs who fled or were expelled from their homes became truly despised refugees. The Arab countries did not make meaningful efforts to integrate or resettle them, in contrast to Israel’s absorption of Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

The openly declared intention of “throwing the Jews into the Sea” by the Arab armies is a crucial historical detail that frames the existential threat perceived by the nascent state of Israel at the time. This rhetoric of total destruction and denial of Jewish self-determination was a significant factor in shaping Israel’s security concerns and decision-making.

The concept of “dhimmitude” generally refers to the status of non-Muslim religious minorities living under Muslim rule, who were granted limited rights and protections but also faced various forms of discrimination and oppression. Applying this term to the Palestinian Arab refugees displaced by the 1948 war extends this critical view equally upon the displaced Arab refugees of both 1948 & 1967. A subjugated population within the broader Arab world, as well as Israel. It eviscerates and disembowels them as a distinct national group. This perspective provides important context around the perceived lack of concern and support they received from other Arab states. Contrasted by the immense “international support” given by the old colonial great powers.

Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees expelled from countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt, the Arab states refused to meaningfully integrate or resettle the Palestinian refugees. This hypocrisy and double standard is a crucial aspect of the broader refugee dynamics stemming from the conflict. Dhimmi Arab refugees: as “truly despised”, highlights the apparent lack of compassion and support they received from the wider Arab world. Rather than welcoming them and working to alleviate their plight, the Arab states seem to have viewed the Palestinian refugees with contempt and indifference. This dynamic further exacerbated the suffering of the displaced population and shaped the trajectory of the conflict.

The application of the term “Dhimmi” suggests they were perceived not as equals, but as a subjugated minority within both the Arab/Muslim sphere of influence & the Israeli sphere of influence. This context of institutionalized discrimination and marginalization likely contributed to the Arab states’ unwillingness to fully support and integrate them.

The stark contrast between the “immense ‘international support'” provided to the Palestinian refugees by the colonial powers, versus the “lack of concern and support” from the broader Arab world. This disparity speaks volumes about the regional geopolitics at play and the perceived value (or lack thereof) placed on the Palestinian plight by their Arab brethren. Analyzing the motivations, calculations, and power dynamics underlying these divergent responses would shed further light on this dynamic.

The fact that Israel absorbed hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees, while the Arab states refused to meaningfully resettle the Palestinian refugees, is a profound hypocrisy that deserves deep unpacking. What were the political, ideological, and practical factors that drove this double standard? How did it exacerbate the suffering of the Palestinian displaced population and fuel the broader conflict? Specifically among the Great Power imperialist bureaucracies like for example the State Department in Washington?

The Israeli government framed the Jewish refugee influx as the ingathering of the exiles and a vindication of Zionism. Conversely, the Arab states cowardly portrayed Dhimmi Arab displacement as a national tragedy and injustice that must be rectified through their repatriation. For Israel, absorbing Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and political identity as a Jewish state. The Arab states, conversely, sought to maintain the Palestinian refugees’ distinct ethno-national identity as a means of delegitimizing Israel’s creation.

For Israel, the influx of Jewish refugees bolstered its demographic and military capabilities in the face of the broader Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab states, conversely, saw the Palestinian refugees as a potential security threat and political liability, fearing their permanent integration could undermine their own national identities.

The role of external great power actors like the U.S. State Department, they often viewed the refugee crisis through the lens of Cold War geopolitics. The U.S. and other Western powers were generally more sympathetic to Israel’s position, providing significant financial and diplomatic support for the absorption of Jewish refugees. Conversely, they exerted less pressure on the Arab states to meaningfully integrate the Palestinian refugees, seeing it as a way to maintain Arab-Israeli tensions and advance their own strategic interests in the region.

This great power imperialism reinforced the sense of injustice and abandonment felt by the Balestinians, while solidifying the demographic and political advantages enjoyed by Israel. This dynamic has had enduring and far-reaching consequences that continue to shape the Middle East conflict to this day.

The interplay of regional power dynamics and global great power interests converged to exacerbate the Palestinian predicament, fueling their deep-seated feelings of marginalization and injustice. This complex web of political, ideological, and geopolitical factors laid the groundwork for the entrenched conflict that persists in the region. Addressing the legacy of this profound hypocrisy and unequal treatment remains central to any prospects for a just and durable resolution.

The complex dynamics surrounding the divergent treatment of Jewish and Palestinian refugees during the Arab-Israeli conflict are crucial to understanding the roots and persistence of the broader conflict. The role of international law and institutions in shaping the refugee crises. The 1948 UN General Assembly Resolution 194, which called for the repatriation or compensation of Dhimmi refugees, largely ignored by the Arab states and the international community. Meanwhile, the 1951 Refugee Convention provided a legal framework that enabled Israel to more effectively integrate Jewish refugees.

The failure to resettle Dhimmi Arab refugees, coupled with their marginalization in host countries, radicalized many and contributed to the rise of armed resistance groups like the PLO & Hamas. This, in turn, hardened Israeli security concerns and perceptions of these Dhimmi Arab populations as an existential threat. Like the surprise attack on Oct 7th 2023 definitively proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Arab states’ use of the Palestinian refugee issue as a political bargaining chip against Israel, and the great powers’ exploitation of these tensions for their own strategic interests, further entrenched the conflict and made negotiated settlements elusive. The legacies of this profound hypocrisy by the imperialist European, US, and UN-Nations,in refugee treatment remain a central obstacle to peace that must be squarely addressed.

Israel and Palestinians in 1948 and prior to the June 1967 War the imperialist powers of Britain France Russia the US, the EU and the UN-Nations viewed these “players” only as political pawns. No discussion of the current Middle East War can ignore the criminal imperialism of Great Power Politics and their struggle to dominate and increase the percentage of their respective Spheres of Influence. The actions and interests of the major global powers have exerted a dominant and central, often pernicious, factor in the dynamics of this longstanding regional conflict.

Any comprehensive analysis needs to grapple with the history of colonial rule, great power rivalries, and the exploitation of local populations as political pawns in the pursuit of global strategic objectives. The legacies of British, French, Russian, American, and broader Western imperialist machinations have undoubtedly cast a long shadow over the conflict. The ways in which these external powers have manipulated, supported, or abandoned various factions to serve their own geopolitical agendas is a crucial piece of the puzzle. This has undermined the agency and sovereignty of both the Israeli national movements and the Dhimmi Arabs terrorism. Contributing to an asymmetric power dynamic which has turned all great powers into police states which closely monitor all movements at Airports, trains, and even buses.

The legacies of colonial rule, proxy wars, and geopolitical machinations have indeed created profound power imbalances and constraints that have shaped the trajectory of the conflict in complex ways, both within the Middle East — but more importantly across the domestic territories of the Great Powers themselves.Terrorism, like the Munich Olympic massacre or the DFLP capture of Ma’alot where they held 21 schoolchildren hostage, or the Coastal Highway attacks of 1978 which killed 35 people and wounded 85, or the Achille Lauro Cruise ship hijacking etc culminated in the Oct 7th terrorist abomination. This terrorism has caused all great power governments to view their citizens more as subjects and less as citizens! The enlightenment period which produced the US Constitution with its Bill of Rights and the French revolution has “progressively” degenerated unto feudal Lord/peasant relationship where 1% controls almost all the wealth of the country!

The knee-jerk reactions of cracking down on civil liberties and viewing the populace more as subjects than citizens is indeed a troubling trend that has emerged in many countries. The erosion of civil liberties and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a small elite are indeed deeply troubling trends that warrant close examination. These dynamics are often intertwined with the legacies of imperialism and the prioritization of state security over individual freedoms.

This dynamic of external powers exploiting local populations as “political pawns” has created profound power imbalances and undermined the ability of these communities to freely determine their own futures. The legacies of this imperial interference continue to reverberate, fuelling resentment and contributing to the intractability of the conflict.

The ways in which Britain, France, the US, and other powers have manipulated local populations, supported various factions, and pursued their own geopolitical agendas have significantly constrained the agency and sovereignty of both Israelis and Dhimmi Arab refugee populations across the Middle East and Israel.

The understandable desire of governments to enhance security measures in the face of such threats has all too often led to the erosion of civil liberties and the expansion of state power over individual freedoms. Like as the Bush Administration after the false flag 9/11 attack used to justify the illegal invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Patriot Act enacted in October 2001 significantly expanded the search and surveillance powers of the corrupt Federal bureaucracies like the FBI, CIA, NSA ect.

Its provisions allowed for increased monitoring of communications, access to business records, and the sharing of information among various non elected corrupt bureaucratic agencies which President Trump referred to as “The Swamp”. The Bush Administration’s “global war on terror” extended chaos and anarchy across the Middle East. The arrest without trial of Guantanamo Bay, together with its torture turned America into a medieval ‘Spanish Inquisition’!

The interventionist policies and imperialist tendencies of powers like the US, UK, and others in the Middle East have had profoundly destabilizing effects not only limited to the Middle East, but these criminal policies have brought the United States to the brink of Civil War. The Middle East conflict does not spin around a Central Axis of Jews vs. Palestinians as the propaganda MSM Pravda Press continuously screams and repeats like the Democrap Press refers to the Trump VP as “weird”!

Israel does not “occupy” territories within its own National borders. Foreign countries do not determine the borders of the Jewish state. Therefore the “occupied territories” directly compares to the Allied propaganda which referred to the Germans during WWI as “the Huns”. Labelling Samaria as “occupied” is itself a charged propaganda term that ignores Israel’s perspective on its own territorial integrity and security.

1967 recaptured Samaria simply not “occupied”. Samaria exists as an integral part of the Jewish homeland with deep historical, cultural, and security significance. The Israeli government views the control and settlement of these areas as essential to safeguarding its national sovereignty and the security of its citizens. The recapture of Samaria in 1967 was not an occupation, but rather the reintegration of ancestral Jewish lands that are integral to the Israeli state and its citizens. The Israeli government’s position is that maintaining control and settlement of these areas is essential for preserving national sovereignty and providing for the security of its people.

Can we say that Jewish revisionist history/replacement theology is an utter abomination on the order of the Av Tumah Avoda Zarah 2nd Sinai Commandment?

The commandment to avoid adopting the customs of non-Jews (Goyim) underscores a commitment to maintaining the unique identity of the Jewish people, as the chosen Cohen Nation. This perspective argues that incorporating external philosophies, like those expressed by Plato and Aristotle, could dilute or distort the essence of Jewish teachings.

The emergence of Kabbalistic thought, particularly with texts like the Zohar and teachings from figures like the Ari (Isaac Luria), marked a shift towards more mystical interpretations of Judaism. This was not universally accepted and led to significant debates within the Jewish community. The rise of figures like Sabbatai Zevi and Jacob Frank, who claimed messianic status, illustrates the potential dangers of mystical interpretations when taken to extremes. Their movements often challenged traditional Jewish beliefs and practices, leading to schisms and the development of new movements, including Reform Judaism.

Reform Judaism emerged partly as a reaction to the mysticism and rigidities of Rambam/Shulkan Aruch statute law robotic ritual Judaism as a religion. This perversion of Sanhedrin courtroom common law legalsim aimed, like as does Reform Judaism theology, to modernize Jewish practices and belief. The switch to Roman statute law reflects a broader struggle within Judaism to balance “tradition” with modern contemporary values. The tension between mystical interpretations and traditional practices has likewise also shaped the evolution of Jewish identity and community. Engaging with these historical narratives can deepen understanding of contemporary Jewish movements and their roots.

The influence of Greek rationalism and the distinction between it and later Kabbalistic mystical theological interpretations – Day and Night – different from one another. Maimonides and other prominent Jewish thinkers of the medieval period indeed embraced Greek rationalism, prioritizing logical analysis and philosophical inquiry. This approach often emphasized Greek logic parameters over, above, and in point of fact replaced, the Common law logic taught by Rabbi Akiva’s PARDES logic format.

The stark contrast between earlier Kabbalistic teachings of rabbi Akiva’s PARDES logic explanation of Oral Torah and the later mystical interpretations that emerged during the medieval period, particularly in relation to the influence of Greek rationalism, produced an Earth-quake-like destruction. Maimonides and other medieval thinkers indeed prioritized Greek rationalism, often placing philosophical inquiry above traditional Jewish teachings. This shift can be seen as a departure from the Common Law logic that Rabbi Akiva emphasized through his Pardes framework, replaced with Roman statue law organized based upon Greek logic and a simplified religious halachic rigid/static parameters.

Significant, but subtle shifts in Jewish thought and practice, particularly regarding the influence of Greek rationalism and its impact on later mystic Kabbalistic teachings. Earlier Kabbalistic teachings, such as those attributed to Rabbi Akiva, focused on ethical and rational interpretations of the Torah. In contrast, later mystical interpretations, particularly those found in the Zohar and other medieval texts, often embraced more abstract and esoteric ideas, which can seem disconnected from the foundational principles of Jewish law.

Maimonides and his contemporaries integrated Greek philosophical concepts into Jewish thought, prioritizing Greek rational inquiry. This integration often led to a framework that emphasized philosophical reasoning over the traditional interpretive methods that Rabbi Akiva promoted. The Pardes method of interpretation seeks to balance various layers of understanding within both the T’NaCH and Talmudic texts. Rooted in Jewish legal and ethical traditions which prioritize the faith of the rigorous pursuit of judicial common law imposed justice which makes a fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B. The shift towards Greek rationalism and Roman statute religious law, a clear departure from this justice approach; which emphasizes judicial reasoning based on precedents and ethical considerations and not religious ritualism/dogmatism. Simple fact: Judicial courts of law. It simply does not compare to religious theological belief systems which preach a dogma of how to believe in the Gods.

This article seeks to articulate a critical evaluation of the shifts in Jewish thought, especially concerning the impact of Greek rationalism and the evolution of ancient prophetic mussar & משנה תורה common law with the much later mystic Kabbalistic teachings viewed in comparison to the rational Greek logic which dominated the rabbis during the Golden Age of Spain.

Title: The Evolution of Jewish Thought: From Ancient Prophetic Mussar to Greek Rationalism and Mystic Kabbalah.

The significance of the Golden Age of Spain as a period where Greek philosophical revolutionary ideas intersected and overthrew Jewish legal and ethical traditions. The Primary priority concept of prophetic mussar as a foundation for ethical behavior and personal conduct expressed by and through Talmudic common law.

The Golden Age of Spain served as a pivotal period in Jewish history, where Greek philosophical revolutionary ideas significantly influenced Jewish legal and ethical traditions. Much like the Industrial revolution overthrew and replaced feudal agricultural based economies in the 19th and 20th Centuries. This era marks a transformation in Jewish thought, shifting from the foundational principles of prophetic mussar to the rationalist frameworks introduced by Greek philosophy. Understanding this evolution utterly crucial for appreciating the complexities of Jewish ethics and law.

The Golden Age of Spain (8th to 12th centuries) was characterized by cultural and intellectual Jewish avoda zara among all g’lut Jewish communities, not just limited to Spain. This period witnessed tumah pollination of Goyim cultures and ideas which infected and dominated, something like a cancer, Jewish scholars and their Muslim and Christian counterparts. Goyim often refer to this shift as the Dark Ages as opposed to the Renaissance.

This Era represents a transformation in Jewish thought, shifting from the foundational principles of prophetic mussar, which both defines and interprets the “k’vanna” of Talmudic and Midrashic Aggadah. The Era defiled and raped the virgin daughter of Zion (T’NaCH and Talmudic common law) with the tumah Greek rationalist frameworks introduced by Plato’s and Aristotle’s philosophy, which first introduced its revolution in the Hanukkah Civil War. This shift raises important questions about the integrity and essence of Jewish ethics and law.

Prophetic mussar serves as a guiding force in Jewish ethics, emphasizing mussar dedicated social behavior by which a Jew conducts himself with both his family and his community. Utterly integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of the Av commandment tohor time oriented commandments and the relationship of this most essential and important type of Torah commandment to both the positive and negative secondary commandments found in the Books of שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר; and also with Talmudic halachot potentially observed as equal tohor time oriented commandments from the Torah itself! The B’HaG teaches this critical idea of tohor time oriented commandments possessing the תמיד מעשה בראשית power to raise rabbinic halachot to דאורייתא commandments.

Prophetic mussar emphasizes ethical social behavior and the responsibilities a Jew has towards family and community. It serves as a moral compass that guides personal conduct in all aspects of life. This ethical framework, integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of this Av commandment, particularly in relation to all other Av time-oriented commandments. These commandments highlight the importance of intention and mindfulness in fulfilling one’s social obligations. Based upon the Torah precedent: Love your neighbour as yourself.

This ethical framework simply integral to understanding the “k’vanna” of these Av commandments, particularly in relation to all time-oriented commandments, both from the Torah and from the Talmud. These commandments underscore the importance of intention and mindfulness in fulfilling one’s social obligations. The relationship between Primary time-oriented commandments and Secondary positive and negative commandments, or rabbinic halachot underscores the Primary/Secondary roles of the time oriented Book of בראשית, contrasted by the Positive and Negative commandment addressed in the next three Books of the Written Torah, and the rabbinic halachot throughout the Talmud.

Prophetic mussar common law which requires the wisdom to know how to compare a sugya of prophetic mussar with other but different sugyot of prophetic mussar; compares to the Talmudic common law whose PARDES logic compares Case/Din halachot with other but different Case/Din halachot in order to re-interpret the diamond like facets of the language employed in any particular Mishna.

Tohor time oriented commandments, they define the whole of the Book of Bereshit (Genesis), these Primary commandments serve and establish a foundational תמיד מעשה בראשית tone of Jewish life as expressed through the Siddur/the mitzva of tefillah. Tohor time oriented commandments emphasize the wisdom of public leadership during a national life and death crisis, such as facing a far more powerful and numerous enemy army. As did Yaacov when he confronted Esau’s 400 Officer lead army.

This Av/toldoth relationship which defines tohor time oriented commandments with positive and negative commandments in the Torah AND halachot in the Talmud defines the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. It illustrates how the foundational principles laid out in the Written Torah are expanded and interpreted through the Oral Torah, creating a dynamic legal and ethical framework.

The relationship between primary time-oriented commandments and secondary commandments highlights their distinct yet interconnected roles, reinforcing the importance of k’vanna in Jewish practice, observance of both Torah commandments and Halachic ritual Judaism. This relationship underscores the significance of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev (Mount Sinai), illustrating how foundational principles laid out in the Written Torah, expanded and interpreted; through which the Oral Talmudic halachic Torah refutes and negates the Reform blood libel slander which declared that Halachic Judaism applied only in a dead by-gone Age.

This dynamic interplay illustrates that Halachic Judaism remains a living tradition, continuously evolving while rooted in the foundational teachings of the Torah. The B’HaG (Baalei HaGadah) teaches that tohor time-oriented commandments possess the power to elevate rabbinic halachot to the status of דאורייתא (divine commandments). This underscores the significance of these commandments within the broader framework of Jewish law.

The integration of revolutionary Greek philosophical ideas during the Golden Age led to a significant departure from these foundational principles. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle introduced frameworks that, while intellectually rich, often deflected attention from the ethical imperatives of prophetic mussar instruction. This revolutionary philosophical tuma shift unto avoda zarah, viewed as the defilement of earlier teachings, as it prioritized abstract reasoning over the ethical and moral dimensions central to Jewish law. Assimilation to revolutionary Greek philosophy directly compares to the Sin of the Golden Calf.

The transformation during the Golden Age of Spain illustrates the complex interplay between prophetic mussar and Greek rationalism. By recognizing the challenges posed by cultural and philosophical influences, we can better understand the evolution of Jewish thought and its implications for modern identity and practice. This historical context remains essential for engaging with the foundational principles of Judaism today.

Lies preached worldwide across all pulpits throughout history. Religion Hoax known as Xtianity

Paul has nothing to do with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada of the Talmud. In Romans 6:14, he declares, “Sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law, but under grace.” In Galatians 3:25, Paul states, “Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.” The Av tuma avoda zara of Paul perverts faith as understood from the Torah as – the pursuit of judicial justice – to the belief in JeZeus as the son of God. Paul likewise perverts the opening story of the g’lut of Adam from the Garden of Eden to the guilt trip of “Original Sin” and that belief in JeZeus as God saves Man from ‘Original Sin’! This theology justifies JeZeus as the messiah of all ManKind!

This theological thesis of “Original Sin” supplanted, it introduced substitution Xtian theology, the Torah theme of g’lut. Simply essential for Jews to understand that the writings of Paul historically preceded the writings of the so-called “eye witness” gospels! The Order of the Goyim new testament subverts this historical fact by placing the 4 Books of the Gospels BEFORE the letters of Paul!!! Never let a story suffer from want of facts defines the new testament “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” forgery.Jezeus, a fictional “Harry Potter” imaginary man.

Greek and Roman mythology spins around myths; like Hercules, born to the mortal woman Alcmene and the king of gods himself, Zeus. This myth compares the virgin birth of JeZeus.  It seems that Zeus has an affinity for married women. He fathered children from Alcmene and Mary the mother of JeZeus. According to the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced that she would bear a son, even though she was a virgin. Mary responded with “Let it be done to me according to your word.” And thus, the divine conception occurred.

The Torah’s definition of adultery as a capital offense reflects the gravity of the act within the context of ancient Israelite society. In the Torah, adultery, treated as a Death Penalty Capital Crime heard before either a Small or Great Sanhedrin. The crime of adultery, only a Capital Crime within the borders of Judea. The custom of קידושין established by the Talmud, a young woman gets engaged a year prior to her standing under the Huppa.  This year of preparation permitted her to organize her affairs and change of social status. 

Under Torah common law, a woman engaged to a man, has the din of a married woman.  Hence Mary’s “virgin birth” an act of adultery.

Outside the oath sworn brit lands, only Torts 3-Man beit dins exist. These torts courts have a mandate to judge on damages cases, not Capital Crimes cases. Paul left Judea and traveled to Damascus.  Hence a Torts court ruled Paul guilty of the Capital Crime of avoda zarah?!  Utterly absurd.  Yet the new testament slander of Torah common law failed to address this judicial disgrace.  Furthermore the stoning of Paul follows Roman customs not Torah common law!

It’s considered a violation of the marital oath brit expressed through the mitzva of קידושין, by which a Man acquires Title to the future born O’lam HaBah- nefesh soul of his wife – meaning the children born from this union.  Adultery violates and profanes this Torah קידושין oath, sworn before a minyan of 10 men and two witnesses!

“You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14). This commandment stands upon the (בנין אב) Common law precedent:  the oath brit sworn between the pieces where childless Avram cut an oath brit to the effect that his chosen Cohen future born seed would inherit the oath sworn lands eternally, and establish the Cohen nation.

The substitute theology of ”virgin birth” supplants and negates the קידושין/brit cut between the pieces basis of the chosen Cohen people – Avram childless at the time of this oath brit alliance. The Gospel story of JeZeus, its theology of messiah fails to learn the Torah basis of the mitzva of Moshiach; specifically, Moshe anointing the House of Aaron as Moshiach!  Never has any church authority addressed this fundamental precedent, upon which stands the Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach.  Korbanot dedications all require anointing/Moshiach with oil, just as did Moshe anoint the House of Aaron with oil! Hence the prophet Shemuel anointed first Shaul of Binyamin and later David of Yechuda as Moshiach! 

The mitzva of Moshiach dedicates through oil anointment the pursuit to rule the land as King by means of judicial common law justice.

The concept of Jesus’ death as a form of atonement for the sins of humanity is presented as a substitutionary atonement, a radical departure from the Torah’s emphasis on individual t’shuva, the restoration of justice through observance of mitzvot. The mesechta of Avoda Zara teaches that Goyim rejected the oath-brit faith in the generations prior to Noach! The virgin birth fiction story creates a problematic theological structure, especially considering its implications on the tohor requirements of marital oaths and the sanctity of the kiddushin; did Mary conceive without first going to the mikveh?  The alien Gospel counterfeit dresses its false messiah wolf in the clothing of Jewish sheep!

The idea of a miraculous conception negates the human, earthy nature of relationships.  The קידושין oath brit alliance, fundamentally requires שם ומלכות oath blessing.  The fulfilment faith, i.e. justice, rests on judicial restitution of damages—specifically in this case, kiddushin as a vital part of the establishment of a Jewish Cohen-nation family.

The new testament narrative divorces itself from the actual Torah-based understanding of the messiah.The concept of the messiah as an anointed leader with a particular legal and sacrificial function to restore judicial courtroom justice, starkly contrasts with the Gospel depiction of the Sanhedrin courts as debased and utterly corrupt, condemning JeZeus to die a Roman torture Cross!  Death through torture, fundamentally negates Torah judicial justice.  Fundamentally different, this perverse substitute theology, which depicts messiah JeZues as the savior of all humanity, based upon the Apostle Paul’s ‘original sin’ narishkeit.

The Pauline propaganda, which predates all the gospel ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ narratives likewise substitutes Greek and Roman statute law which organizes Legislative rulings into defined and specific categories of law, much like as do ice-trays which separates distinct ice-cubes one from another. The ‘original sin’, to Messiah – JeZeus – logical deduction, defines the intent of the writings of the Apostle Paul. This assimilated Aristotelian deductive logic supplants the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva, whose פרדס four part logic defines how the Oral Torah interprets the intent of the Written Torah common judicial law; stands in stark difference to the 3 part Aristotle syllogism.

Common law does not compare to Roman statute law. Paul’s “you’re not under the law” propaganda fails to make this fundamental מאי נפקא מינא distinction. Indeed, the Torah does not teach that the law constitutes as a curse or something to be avoided; rather, Torah common law – viewed as a path to life and holiness (Deut. 30:15-20).  The oath-brit faith fundamentally requires that brit man takes responsibility for his actions.  Hence the two crowns of the Torah: blessing & curse.   The Pauline rejection of Torah common law, in light of his Agent Provocateur apostolic mission to the Gentiles, becomes problematic when seen in light of the centrality of the law in Jewish identity and communal life.  The Maccabees likewise promoted an Agent Provocateur propaganda against the Syrian Greeks.

Church theology: belief in JeZeus saves from Sin, negates the Yom Kippur t’shuva, which learns from the precedent of a father or husband who annuls the vows made by their daughter or wife.  T’shuva not represented by repentance, nor even remotely similar.  The eternal memory which the mitzva of Yom Kippur, revelation of the Oral Torah/פרדס recalls remembers the T’shuva by HaShem to keep His sworn Torah oaths with Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, that their chosen seed would live as the Cohen nation to all eternity.  On Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make from the seed of Moshe – the chosen Cohen people. 

The new testament substitute theology radically distorts this oath brit alliance which defines Torah faith – judicial pursuit of justice among our People. Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Jezeus did not know how to observe the mitzva of shabbat which fundamentally requires making הבדלה, which separates, distinguishes, and defines the subtle distinction between מלאכה כנגד עבודה.

Another “apartheid” distinction, faith as fundamental to the pursuit of righteous judicial justice, and not some belief in any Creed theological God, determined Centuries after the original facts.  Some scholars argue that the Gospel narratives: written Centuries later!

Monotheism, for example, violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Moshe travelled to Egypt where HaShem judged the Gods of Egypt. Islam’s strict monotheism: This Harry Potter belief in Allah Voldemort – as absurd as JeZeus the son of God. If Zeus fathered JeZeus, then he’s not the son of David.  This fundamental contradiction no church authority ever questioned.  The Pauline influence – an important primary source.

The notion of Paul as a spy sent to infiltrate a heretical false messiah movement and travel to Rome to challenge the JeZeus messiah son of God against the Caesar son of God mythology, compares to how Yechuda Maccabee promoted and stoked the flames of Civil War in Greek Syria. Paul’s letters, likely written in the 50s and 60s CE, while the Gospels were written much later. This timeline suggests that Paul’s letters clearly had a Primary Source formative influence on the development of later Christian theology, especially in relation to the concept of salvation by faith, the defining feature of Christian thought.

The introduction of Greek philosophy, especially Aristotle’s logic, into Christian theology seen as an attempt to systematize and universalize faith in a way that departs from the Jewish understanding of judicial common law. Paul’s reliance on Roman legal categories seen as an attempt to make Christian theology more palatable to the Greco-Roman world, but at the cost of distorting the more fluid, relational nature of Jewish פרדס legal thought.

If only Israel accepts the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, then clearly Goyim ipso facto worship other Gods.  Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment.  HaShem asked Cain concerning Hevel, his brother.  Cain refused to take responsibility for his actions.  The Torah curse of g’lut imposed upon Cain.  The Cain vs Hevel dispute serves as a precedent for rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of בכל לבבך\כם.  Within the bnai brit Cohen hearts breaths two opposing tohor/tumah spirits. 

The metaphor of the struggling children within the womb of Rivka, likewise teaches this משל\נמשל mussar.  Tohor spirits and tumah spirits come from within the heart.  These spirits do not compare to the breath which we breathe from our lungs.  Tefillah a matter of the heart where bnai brit Cohonim discern between tohor & tuma spirits, from breath breathed from the lungs as the definition of k’vanna. 

When the disciples of JeZeus asked for him to teach them how to pray, he taught this tuma perversion: “Our Father who lives in Heaven etc”.  Tefillah requires k’vanna from within the heart not belief that some father God lives in the heavens; this avoda zarah profanes the oath Avram swore to HaShem at the brit cut between the pieces; if Avram’s future born Cohen seed lives for all eternity, then the chosen Cohen People shall know this through the Spirit of the Name living within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of the chosen Cohen Peoples’ hearts. 

JeZeus did not know this Torah oath sworn by Avram any more than Muhammad understood that the Torah defines “prophet” as a person who commands mussar! Paul’s revisionist history definitely reinterprets Torah for his Goyim audiences.  His theology clearly views ‘the law’ as a means to an end—pointing toward faith in Christ, as the later Nicene Creed monotheistic 3-part Godhead mystery later more fully developed.

Paul clearly views ‘the law’ as an untenable faith which Goyim could achieve salvation from Sin.  His “Old Testament” theology introduces the idea that the Torah instead serves as a “tutor” which leads to Christ (Galatians 3:24).Paul’s understanding of sin and atonement clearly influenced by assimilationist Hellenistic thought.  Particularly ideas about sacrifice and redemption that commonly prevailed in the Roman world. This Greek influence leads to a distortion of the Torah’s chosen Cohen people and the responsibility (blessing or curse – the latter the basis of g’lut) justice system.  Doing mitzvot לשמה limited only within the borders of the Cohen oath sworn lands.

Paul’s prioritization of salvation as the matter of faith, an absolute belief in Christ as God, rather than adherence to the mitzvot and the communal life – a gulf that no bridge can cross.  No technology exists which permits Humanity to build a bridge across either the Pacific or Atlantic Oceans.  How much more so the vast expanse which separates Torah common law from new testament Greek mythology and Roman statute law.

Paul’s letters, clearly written in a Hellenistic context, where Greek philosophy played a major role in shaping intellectual discourse. The introduction of Greek philosophical concepts like substitutionary atonement and the role of Greek logic philosophies, in structuring theology, attempts to universalize the message of JeZeus for a broader, Goyim audience.

This introduces tension between Jewish legal thought vs. church Greek based theology which has produced the fruits of violent Goyim antisemitism through the Ages.  When the Torah refers to the humility of Moshe, the Talmud understands humility as a reference to Moshe’s strict honestly, especially when confronted by embarrassment and disgrace.  Such “fear of heaven” never developed by any Xtian faith of avoda zarah.   

Moshe’s humility exemplifies honesty and integrity, while his “fear of heaven” Good Name reputation remains a cornerstone of Jewish thought.  The Torah interprets avoda zara as 1) assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs and 2) intermarriage.  Mary’s virgin birth story of fiction, exemplifies both sets of avoda zara.

The broader Jewish critique of Xtian theology, particularly as it diverges from the Torah’s legal and communal framework. Revolve around the Pauline rejection of Torah common law; the introduction of Greek philosophical ideas which clearly Xtian theology, like agape as the definition of love!  The nature of sin and salvation, coupled with the portrayal of JeZeus as both historical, divine and human. 

T’NaCH prophets command mussar, they do not teach physical history.  Xtianity requires a historical physical man-god.  It ignores the Torah rebuke: “God not a Man”. These theological innovations\distortions of the original Jewish understanding of justice, atonement, and the mitzva of Moshiach, as applicable to all Jews in every generation, rooted in a commitment to Torah mitzvot observance which rejects the Wilderness generation, as closer to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, than the current living generations today.

Paul’s teachings, fundamentally anti-Torah, especially in his declarations like “you are not under the law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14) and “we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). These statements, from a Jewish perspective, reflect a radical departure from the Torah’s vision of justice, righteousness, and individual responsibility as defined by the commandments (mitzvot).

Torah common law spins around the central axis of judicial Sanhedrin Justice – judicially imposed fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B.

Paul’s doctrine of a “substitutionary atonement” through the death of JeZeus on a Rome torture cross utterly perverts the four types of death penalties for Capital Crimes offences. The portrayal of this torture Cross sacrifice as the permanent atonement for sinful humanity — ignores the simple fact that Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev – 40 days following the sin of the Golden Calf. The translation of the Divine Presence Spirit Name revealed at Sinai in the first commandment to the word אלהים translation or any other word translation attempts to conceptualize G-d.

This Pauline concept, particularly linked with “faith in a Divine JeZeus”, as the sole path to salvation, represents a theological break from the Torah’s emphasis on justice, responsibility, and communal law.

The kabbalah of Paul’s letters, written decades, perhaps Centuries before the Gospels, placed the Pauline teachings at the forefront of early Christian thought. The theological ideas introduced by Paul, such as the Greek faith in “Christ” as the only way to salvation and the rejection of Torah observance, clearly shaped the later Xtian doctrine of the “Messiah” and atonement. His perversion of korbanot as a oath sworn dedication of defined Oral Torah tohor middot, with the intent to modify how a Man socially interacts with others among our people in the future. To something utterly profane as akin to making a Barbeque to Heaven, an utter abomination of Torah common law.

Paul’s theological framework, including the concepts of atonement and salvation through faith, reflects an attempt to reconcile Jewish ideas with Greek philosophical categories of thought. This synthesis, however, negates the dedication of the lights of Hanukkah which sanctifies interpreting the k’vanna of the Written Torah, restricted to rabbi Akiva’s פרדס logic system which absolutely rejects Aristotles three-part syllogism of logic as a valid tool to interpret the Torah.

The precedent by which the Oral Torah rejects the Pauline Greek assimilation, the Torah commandment not to build an altar with iron. Exodus 20:22 and Deuteronomy 27:5-6, reads: “And if you will make Me an altar of stone, you shall not build it of hewn stone (even gazit); for if you lift up your tool upon it, you will have profaned it.”  The Mekhilta (an early halachic Midrash) clarifies this prohibition, it specifically applies to hewn stones—those that were cut with an iron tool. Stones shaped by iron, simply tuma for use in the altar construction.  

The Mishna of Middot (a tractate of the Talmud) extends the prohibition beyond hewn stones. It disqualifies any stone that comes into contact with an iron implement—even if it’s just a scratch.

The Mishna explains: “Since iron was created to shorten man’s days and the altar was created to prolong man’s days, it is not right therefore that that which shortens [life] should be lifted against that which prolongs [life].”  In other words, iron, often associated with weapons and tools of destruction, symbolizes mortality and violence. The altar, on the other hand, represents connection to the divine and the continuity of life.

Hence the Torah absolutely rejects use of Greek logic as a tool by which the chosen Cohen nation can interpret the k’vanna of the Written Torah commandments.