Because we respect national sovereignty, yes, but also because of this:
A 5-year-old girl was hospitalized last week after overdosing on a deadly narcotic found in a home in Mission, B.C. Paramedics were called to the home on Nottman Street around 9 p.m. on March 20 following a report a young girl had handled fentanyl and was unconscious, Mission RCMP said in a statement Monday. . .
Anyone who keeps fentanyl in their residence should ensure it is always stored in a secure place, out of reach of anyone who is not intending on using it.
https://www.cp24.com/news/canada/2025/03/25/5-year-old-girl-overdoses-on-fentanyl-in-mission-bc/
We’ve got enough of our own problems to saddle ourselves with whatever this is.
If you don’t understand what the problem is with the quoted article, then happy Canada Day!
Clarissa's Blog 
Rather than taking Canada as a 51st state, the US should gift it several of its states instead…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Canadians don’t realize it but we really dodged the bullet whe ton Trump was elected in 2016. Had President H. Clinton proposed the annexation of Canada, our lapdog globalist media would have praised it to the sky and decided those of us who objected to it as some kind of racist neanderthals.
Why would Clinton do such a thing you ask? To secure a permanent Democratic majority in the expanded USA. It it would have worked, too
Raymond R
LikeLike
President Trump simply going fishing. Throwing out bait to see who bites. LOL
LikeLike
This simple fishing already destroyed all hope that Canada will have a conservative prime minister next. It’s stupid fishing that destroys all fish in the pond for zero gain. LOL.
LikeLike
But Trump is not there to promote a conservative agenda. It was simply an expedient route to power.
LikeLike
Power to do what?
LikeLike
I really don’t know what, if any, goals he has except for personal benefit. Nobody who has seen anything of Trump since the 90s or even earlier could expect him to be a proponent of any traditional conservative values, let alone Christian ones. I doubt he has enough geopolitical comprehension to appreciate the effects of his actions. And the republicans who are supposed to keep him in check have not been successful. In the long run he’s just a liability.
LikeLike
What precisely wrong with a conservative PM in Canada. I remind you that Britexit passed prior to Trump winning the ’16 elections. President Trump clearly a conservative.
LikeLike
Are people trying to be funny today and I’m not getting it? It’s not April 1st.
There’s nothing wrong with a conservative PM. I passionately want a conservative PM in Canada. But now there won’t be one because Trump strengthened the Canadian libs with his stupid twaddle about making Canada part of the US. Is it clear now?
LikeLike
Sorry no its not clear. Simply because, correct if I am wrong, the Canadian elections have yet to occur.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s true. Conservatives had a huge lead to win the election. That lead evaporated as a result of Trump’s dumb comments.
LikeLike
Polls about as accurate as tits on a boar hog. Remember all the poll predictions of a bitch Hillery landslide victory in ’16. I’d sooner piss against hurricane winds that just MSM polls.
LikeLike
How John 13:34 perverts and justifies homosexuality
Intermarriage with the specific of Canaanites – equally applies to all Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. I bring the Book of Ezra as proof. Many early Church Fathers used John 13:34 to claim a supersessionist “new law”, replacing the Torah’s commandments with a simplified ethic of love. Yet ironically, the very idea of loving one’s neighbor—and even one’s enemy. An utter perversion of the oath brit alliance among the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Ezra 9–10, post-exile, shows the seriousness of intermarriage with foreign women—because it represents a breach of kedushah and brit, meaning: spiritual allegiance and oath brit fidelity. The Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) weaponized verses like John 13:34 to argue that a new “spiritual” law of love had replaced the “old legalistic” Torah—especially the halakhic boundaries that safeguarded Jewish identity and fidelity to the brit.
Jesus introduced, according to these vile animals, “Love is enough!” A Greek ideal—abstract, universal, de-politicized—divorced from the concrete legal-communal substitutional theology. Love, defined by Torah, defined through the Torah precedent of marriage requires that a man love his wife by acquiring title to her world to come souls. Meaning the children, the product of this union. Based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces whereby Avram had no children and cut a brit over the first born chosen Cohen people. This concept of the chosen Cohen people understands the intent of the prohibition to marry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Xtian supersessionist theology gutted the concept of brit: Shalom became personal inner peace, not oath alliance to pursue fair justice – compensation of damages inflicted by Party A to Party B among our chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn promised land.
The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted emunah unto belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in God as a triune mystery of Monotheism. The Torah defines emunah as the righteous pursuit of justice among our people. The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted ‘ahavah’ unto generic love, rather than the Torah brit-bound hesed based upon the oath brit foundation precedent of the oath cut between the pieces.
The Xtian pervert theologians know absolutely nothing of Torah common law which stands upon the foundation of Torah precedents – both positive and negative commandments.
In doing so, the Church replaced the Torah’s vision of a holy people bound in legal, ethical, and national allegiance to Hashem, with a mystical, universalized ethic that denied the enduring chosenness of Israel and the centrality of Sinai. John 13:34, obliterated the Torah common law faith to pursue justice among and between the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the face of the Goyim “darkness” who reject this light unto the nations.
The Xtian theologian perverts abhor the oath-bound brit alliance which forever discerns between emotional short term vows from remembering from generation to generation the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the brit which permanently established the oath brit Cohen people. Hence the mitzva precedent of the captured woman through war. Whereby the Torah commands that she cut off all her hair and par her nails etc for no less than one month before the Israeli permitted to marry her! Why? Torah marriage cuts an oath brit alliance between man and wife and not a emotional vow which can be easily annulled based upon the Torah precedent which permits the Father or Husband to annul the vows made by either young daughters or wives!
John 13:34 not just evil theology, it perverts marriage unto the metaphor of permitted homosexuality. The chosen am segulah (treasured nation) refers directly to the Sinai first-born Cohen people. The Goyim reject to this day the revelation of Torah common law!
The Xtian theologian perverts sought power, hence they slept in the same bed as the Governments which ruled Xtian lands. The American and French Revolutions separated Church from State and cast these Xtian whores to the dogs to sleep with. All agricultural based economies require slave labor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bankrupt theology of the church great whore of Babylon.
When categories established by Torah law—male/female, Israel/goy, slave/free—are collapsed by when new testament replacement theology which abhors Torah common law and specific Torah abominations such as homosexuality and men and women confusion of genders and clothes. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t just dissolve the legal structure of the Torah, but opens the door to ideological chaos—Same-sex marriage (“There is no male and female”); Gender fluidity and trans ideology; Erasure of Jewish national identity (e.g. no “Jew or Greek”); Social anarchy in place of legal status (no “slave or free”). In many liberal Christian and post-Christian circles, Galatians 3:28 has become the banner verse for LGBTQ+ inclusion, often cited directly to undermine Torah prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul’s statement is interpreted as saying: All categories are now irrelevant in Christ.
Paul’s doctrine, and the supersessionist theology it spawned, does not merely disagree with Torah—it declares war on Torah categories. Shalom perverted into inner peace, not the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. His replacement theology abhors the post Gold Calf Day of Atonement where HaShem first revealed the revelation of the Oral Torah – which the church rejects. Galatians 3:28 is not just heresy—it is the theological root of modern moral collapse.
It dismantles the sacred distinctions that uphold holiness, family, justice, and national brit identity. It replaces Torah law with a boundaryless mysticism that justifies everything from homosexuality to gender nihilism to the erasure of Jewish nationhood.
This verse is often cited to support a universalist theology—that all human beings are one, created by God, and therefore equal and interchangeable. Viewed in the context of Paul’s theology, especially in Acts and Galatians, this verse becomes part of a larger Pauline strategy to undermine: Israel’s distinct chosen Cohen oath brit status, the chosenness of the Jewish people. The Torah’s territorial inheritance laws, and the culture and customs established by halakhic and the idea that only within the borders of the Promised lands to Jews possess the wisdom to keep and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot לשמה, from generation to generation.
Paul’s replacement theology perverts the oath brit alliance to that of a temporary vow, which his perverted theology attempts to annul through the new testament. The Torah establishes the vision that the nations inherit distinct national cultural and customs inheritances. Distinct languages, lands and destinies (Genesis 10-11). The essential concept of Israel’s national identity as a people relies upon and defined by the promised lands which Arab nationalism absolutely rejects. Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” Deuteronomy 7:6: “You are a people holy to Hashem… a chosen people from all the peoples on the face of the earth.” Paul’s replacement theology, like Arab hatred of Zionism which bases itself upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein first Britain and later 2\3rd of all UN member states recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of a distinct Middle Eastern nation.
His replacement theology abomination of shared human origin which collapses national distinctions cultures and customs, like modern Arab racist nationalism rejects Jewish national sanctity. Paul’s Acts 17:26 (universal origin) with Galatians 3:28 (category collapse) replacement theology destroys the chosen Cohen people of Israel; dissolves the laws of inheritance and land; undermines the Oral Torah halakhic requirements concerning intermarriage with Goyim and promotes modern Wokeism that emphasize awareness of social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly related to race and identity. It is often viewed critically by some as being overly doctrinaire or insincere in its approach to social issues. Acts 17:26 is the philosophical foundation for Christian universalism.
It sounds innocent—but in Pauline context, it’s a soft prelude to the hard abolition of Israel’s unique brit. It paves the way for the erasure of identity, the rejection of Oral Torah Talmudic common law judicial lateral courts.
Paul’s 1 Corinthians 7:39 (KJV): Formula: “Only in the Lord” — Coded Supersessionist Halakhah? Paul doesn’t outright reject the binding nature of marriage—but it’s loaded with subtle replacement theology logic. Torah marriage flatly not just a temporary transitional vow–but rather an oath brit, contractual alliance with family generations and national implications. Governed by halakhic precedent, rooted in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24, and the Oral Torah. Validated by witnesses, contract (ketubah), and understood as part of a nation’s framework of kedushah and inheritance. Paul substitutes this with a subjective spiritual criterion: his “Only in the Lord.”, directly implies – Marry a fellow believer in Christ. It’s not about cutting an oath brit alliance—rather replaced by a shared belief in Xtian faith that declares Jesus as God. This “Only in the Lord” phrase, exist as the key supersessionist pivot of Pauling propaganda. It nullifies the Torah -brit based marital framework model, replaces halakhic structure with doctrinal allegiance to the church abomination. And renders Torah marmital law as obsolete for “believers”. Ewwwwww! It detaches marriage from the promised land, nation, and halackhic authority. Sets the foundation for spiritual intermarriage theology – a direct violation of Torah common law; leading to full Goyim-Xtian identity formation apart from Israel. If one can marry “in the Lord”, then one need not marry “in the nation”. If faith in the belief of Jesus as God replaces Israel as the chosen Cohen nation, then the new covenant has replaced the oath brit cut between the pieces with Avram.
Paul’s “Only in the Lord” is not a neutral phrase. It functions as a Trojan horse for an entire redefinition of marriage: no longer a national covenant rooted in generational Torah obligations, but a private, spiritualized union under Church doctrine.
Xtianity, especially in its Pauline and post-Constantinian forms, intentionally dissolves ethnic, legal, and national distinctions. This is central to its theology. Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek… male and female… all are one in Christ.” This replacement theology erased halakhic distinctions, promotes spiritual unity over ethnic/national differences. Recasts marriage as a personal vow like sacrament, which replaces the oath sworn to remember dedication which any and all brit alliances fundamentally requires.
Liberal Protestant thoughts concerning marriage emphasize: romantic love and personal choice; Xtian values of inclusivity; detachment from ancestry, tribe, nation, or land. The Torah oath NOT vow, brit relationship cut between man and wife binds Jews to Torah Constitutional Law, tohorat ha’beit requirements for the woman to visit a mikveh prior to sexual activity; and the standards of keeping tohor & tuma distinctions like kosher foods etc. A man commits that he will educate his future born children in the oath brit faith – not to worship other Gods through intermarriage and assimilation which embraces Goyim cultures and customs.
Xtianity’s doctrine of spiritual unity and its deconstruction of Torah-based national distinctions directly laid the groundwork for both the theological legitimation and cultural normalization of interracial marriage. It treats distinctions—whether between Israel and the nations, or male and female—as obstacles to spiritual truth, not as sacred boundaries tied to divine law and oath brit consciously remembered dedications passed down from generation to generations just as DNA. From Augustine to modern liberal Protestants, modern issues like Wokeism and identity dissolution directly consequential to the Pauline doctrines of utter abomination.
LikeLike
You could abstain from bashing Christianity during Holy Week, at least. I don’t know, maybe out of politeness and respect for other people’s beliefs. That might be the kind and reasonable thing to do.
LikeLike
Yes Ma’am. Simply looked at the holes in the new testament theology. But I can see that as a Xtian you might view your personal beliefs as being under attack. Please accept my apologies.
LikeLike
Communicating through the internet fails to express subtle cues which a person picks up on in actual conversations. Please if i offended your religious beliefs – am sorry. Simply found it interesting to compare Xtian holy books to a rigorous Jewish legal examination. Found the new testament to hold water like a sieve. Shared it with you b/c I thought this research might interest you. But clear I erred on that assumption. Sorry. Moshe Kerr
LikeLike
Israelis declare war against the church collapsed monopoly how to interpret ancient texts. First and foremost, the New Testament shares no more a portion with the Hebrew T’NaCH than does the koran or book of Mormon.
The rhetorical weight of John 16:33 rests on abstract, Hellenistic terms like: “Peace” (εἰρήνη – eirēnē): Unlike shalom in Torah, which refers to TRUST restored through fair judicial justice which makes a righteous compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B, the word salad “Peace” does not refer to anything specific in particular. To make a general statement “peace” compares to a slander accusation without bringing any supporting evidence other than more slander or hearsay gossip.
Eirēnē is decontextualized. It implies a spiritual or internal tranquility, divorced from land, law, or peoplehood. It’s a peace without mitzvot, without mishpat, without the prophetic demand for national accountability. In effect, it’s a pacifier.
“The world” (κόσμος – kosmos): A vague antagonist. It doesn’t mean Egypt or Rome in any concrete political sense, nor does it refer to any halakhic category like goy or eretz ha’amim. It’s an abstraction, a kind of universal evil “system” that individual souls must transcend through belief in the cross. This aligns with dualistic Greek cosmology, not with the Torah’s conception of sanctifying this world through mitzvot.
This passage turns the reader inward, encouraging spiritualized endurance and submission—not prophetic mussar which personally rebukes. This passage by contrast merely serves as a theological sedative: “The world is hard, but don’t resist. I’ve overcome it for you.” No call to teshuva, no call to rebuild the brit. Just passive faith in a metaphysical savior. It masks pacification as victory, and disempowerment as peace. It preaches serenity while erasing the Torah’s demand for mishpat, tzedek, and the restoration of Israel’s oath brit to conquer or re-conquer our homeland of Judea.
LikeLike
From Yeroboam to Paul: Legal Innovations and Covenant Abandonment.
Most scholars date Luke–Acts to 80–90 CE, though some push it even later (up to 110 CE) during the reign of Domitian. Possibly written in Antioch (Syria) or Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Some scholars even propose Rome itself. This would explain the connection between Luke and Mark.
The key to understanding how Luke reworks Mark and positions his narrative within the post-Temple, Roman imperial world. Luke doesn’t just “echo” Mark—he copies large portions of it (often verbatim in Greek), but modifies the tone, theological emphasis, and political implications. Luke penned a more polished, philosophical, and Roman-friendly gospel.
Mark was written in Rome ~70 CE, in the shadow of Jewish national trauma – the destruction of Herod’s Temple. Luke came later (~80–110 CE), from a more Hellenized community, trying to reframe the Jesus movement for a broader, Greco-Roman audience. If Luke wrote from Rome, he had strong interests to appeal to imperial authorities, defending the Jesus movement as peaceful and legal. This would explain why Luke’s Paul is so law-abiding and repeatedly cleared by Roman officials (Acts 23–26).
The Luke Book of Acts Acts transforms Paul into a Socratic figure—well-educated, cosmopolitan, always respectful of authority. Instead of speaking of a national or earthly restoration, Luke pushes toward a universal, inward, and eschatological “Kingdom of God.” The connection between Luke and Mark isn’t just literary—it’s historical and strategic. Luke takes Mark’s Jewish-rooted messianic message and translates it into the language, worldview, and legal norms of the Greco-Roman world.
The theological alliance between Luke and Paul is deep, deliberate, and ideological—and it’s one of the most important pillars of what later becomes Gentile Christianity. Luke–Acts is a two-part theological biography: Part 1: The Gospel of Luke (Jesus’ life); Part 2: Acts of the Apostles (mostly Paul’s mission). Luke’s gospel sets the theological foundation—Jesus as universal savior, son of the Father – the Universal Roman empire like God, and Jerusalem’s ruin, His rejection of Israel—then Acts hands the baton to Paul, who brings this message to the “universal” Gentile world.
Luke and Paul both emphasize Gentiles as co-heirs of salvation (e.g., Acts 10:34–35, Gal 3:28). Both downplay or spiritualize Torah observance, Shabbat, and circumcision. Both replace the national remembrance Torah obligation to remember the oaths sworn by which the Avot cut a oath alliance with HaShem, to create the ‘Chosen Cohen people’. Replaced by the watered down noun: “covenant” which ignores the 1st Sinai commandment which commands to do mitzvot לשמה, with faith-based Jesus as the son of God inclusion (Acts 15 = Jerusalem Council).
As the early church expanded, many Gentiles began to convert to Christianity. This raised questions about whether they needed to follow Jewish laws, particularly circumcision and dietary restrictions, to be considered true followers of Christ. Luke’s gospel sets the theological foundation—Jesus as universal savior, and Jerusalem’s rejection of him—then Acts hands the baton to Paul, who brings this message to the Gentile world. Acts doesn’t end with Peter or James. It ends with Paul in Rome. That’s not just a storytelling decision. It’s a theological climax—Rome becomes the new center of the movement. While the oath brit God of the Avot transformed unto the God of all Humanity.
The inclusion council convened in Jerusalem, bringing together key leaders of the early church, including the Apostle Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and others. The purpose was to discuss the requirements for Gentile believers. Some Jewish Christians argued that Gentiles must be circumcised and follow the Mosaic Law to be saved. This was a significant point of contention. Peter spoke about his experience with Cornelius, a Gentile, emphasizing that God had accepted Gentiles without requiring them to follow Jewish laws. He argued that salvation comes through the grace of Jesus Christ, not adherence to the law.
The council ultimately decided that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised or follow the entire Mosaic Law. Instead, they were to abstain from certain practices (such as food sacrificed to idols, consuming blood, and sexual immorality) to maintain fellowship with Jewish believers. However the clause of sexual immorality failed to address the key Torah mitzva of tohorat Ha’Biet. A letter was drafted to communicate this decision to the Gentile believers, emphasizing that salvation is through the grace of Jesus and not through the law. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 was a crucial moment in the early church that affirmed the inclusion of Gentiles into the Christian faith, emphasizing salvation through grace rather than law, and fostering unity among believers from different backgrounds.
The shift away from Torah-based Judaism to a universal spiritual movement included Pharisees, & Sadducees, depicted as hard-hearted, blind, or violent. Employed to justify the shift away from Torah-based Judaism to a universal spiritual movement. Acts portrays the Jewish leadership as repeatedly resisting the Spirit, while Gentiles accept it joyfully (e.g., Acts 13:46–47). This lays the foundation for super-sessionism—the idea that the Church replaces Israel.
In Acts, Luke repeatedly stages Paul’s trials to vindicate him as innocent under Roman law. Felix, Festus, and Agrippa all find no fault in him. Roman centurions save Paul multiple times. Paul appeals to Caesar—not as an enemy of Rome, but as a citizen asserting his rights. This paints Paul as a Roman-friendly philosopher, not a Jewish rebel or sectarian agitator. It’s a massive PR move: Luke is saying, “This movement is legal, rational, and beneficial to the Empire.”
Rome becomes the New Zion, and Paul, the new Moses—one who writes epistles, not mitzvot; who carries no tablets, only grace. The word “covenant” in the Xtian imagination an abstract, theological, and symbolic; on par with the noun substitution of peace for the Hebrew verb shalom which stands upon the foundation of trust. The Torah the term brit a verb not a covenant noun; oath-bound, and sealed in korbanot “living-blood”. A butcher removes the liver after the animal has died. The Cohen gathers the blood for the korban pumped from a beating heart. Hence the distinction: “living-blood”.
Sinai brit: blood sprinkled on the people and altar (Exodus 24:8), a continuation of the (Genesis 15) brit cut between the pieces which created the chosen Cohen people from nothing. The children of Avraham lived only in the world to come at the time of the oath brit which created them, cut between the pieces. All korbanot stand upon and require conscious remembrance of the oaths sworn by the Avot. Hence the first blessing of the Shemone Esrei opens with אלהי אברהם אלהי יצחק ואלהי יעקב. All latter blessings thereafter stand as oath sworn “blessings” based upon their סמוך/adjacent relationship with this, the first blessing. When the Cohen placed their hands סמוך upon the head of the korban, this essentially entailed the k’vanna of remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot by which HaShem created the chosen Cohen people from nothing or תמיד מעשה בראשית. Avram and Sarah at the time of the original brit very old and infertile!
The Luke Paul alliance of revisionist history unhooks and replaces the oath brit with covenant, which in its own turn their new covenant disconnects itself from Torah commandments, and repackages this new covenant as a voluntary membership of conscience—a radical redefinition of what it means to be “chosen.”
The Council of Acts 15 negates, abandons and drops: brit milah, tohorat ha’biet, Shabbat sanctity, moedim (festivals), korbanot, yibbum, taharah, shemitah, or tzedakah, specifics of the תרי”ג mitzvot. This far surpasses the innovations introduced by the new king of Israel, Yeroboam, the first king of Israel, who likewise established his own unique religion of avoda zarah condemned by all the prophets of the NaCH. Yet Jesus fulfilled the prophets. A declaration that can have meaning only tongue in cheek.
Paul’s trials expose PR theater. Paul never guilty of insurrection, Roman centurions, not fellow Jews saved him. Roman governors repeatedly exonerate him. This narrative not only expunges the Avot oaths sworn to cut a Torah brit alliance, rather this narrative highlights the legality of the gospels and Rome’s benevolence. Luke uses Paul’s Roman citizenship as a symbol: not of rebellion, but of respectable conversion. Christianity becomes the empire’s reformed conscience, not its opposition.
The replacement theology of the Luke/Acts dance: it imposes a substitute theology which prioritizes Spirit over Temple; Jesus or Kohanim; Grace over the Written Torah, the Oral Torah revelation at Horev totally ignored. Faith over covenant, the latter a watered down noun rhetoric version of the Avot oath sworn verb-brit alliance. Hence the linkage of a verb to a physical action of sacrifices. This oath-verb, creates continually the Chosen Cohen people from nothing. (Three years after the Shoah, the systematic obliteration of 75% of all European Jewry, Israel as a Jewish nation state rose literally from the dead mass-graves of Europe). Rome replaced Zion, akin to Reform declaring Berlin as their ‘New Jerusalem’.
Rome is not just geography—it’s theology. Luke ends his two-volume work not in Jerusalem, but in Rome—signaling that the center of God’s plan has shifted. Paul becomes a Mosaic figure, but not one who writes law—instead, he dismantles it. His tablets are epistles, not mitzvot. His medium is grace, not korban.
Paul’s “new covenant” redefines milah, korban, moed, taharah, yibbum, shemitah, etc. unto a matter of conscience. This substitute theology, Hellenistic virtue ethics wrapped in Hebrew vocabulary … a wolf in the clothing of sheep. The new testament totally ignores the Oral Torah distinctions made between two Arch-type Goyim living in Judea: the stranger/refugee vs the Goy who accepts the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach which permits these non Jews judicial rights to sue an Israel in an Israeli court of law for damages inflicted. Clearly the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach only applied to Goyim temporary residents who currently resided within the borders of Judea.
Once these Bnai Noach people returned to their own countries, they had absolutely no legal obligation to keep the 7 mitzvot Bnai Noach. The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin common law courts stops at the borders of Judea. The idea of the oath Promised land, so to speak restricts HaShem to rule and judge only the chosen Cohen people who rule this land with judicial righteous justice. This Oral Torah mitzva bnai Noach totally alien to the framers of the New Testament.
The Luke Paul Books change the Torah oath brit God unto a “New Universal God” for all mankind. This perversion served as the model for Muhammad’s strict Monotheism theology. Despite the plain fact that the theology of Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment – not to worship other Gods. If but only one God lives then the 2nd Commandment totally in vain.
The daily Jewish religious system—korbanot, birkat Avot, semikha, tohorat haBayit—all anchored in oath remembrance verbs. The smikhah gesture, not just a transfer of sin; rather it’s kavana, a national and generational memory of the oath-brit verb. The first blessing of the Amidah, not simply a ritual decorative—it functions as the anchor of all tefillah verbs separated from prayer nouns, because its active oath remembrance throughout the generations of Israel as the chosen Cohen people.
Acts 15 isn’t just innovation—it’s a schism. Like Yeroboam, it sets up an alternative system with new rules and holidays. What Yeroboam did to the kingdom, Luke-Paul do to Torah. To further clarify the substitution theology introduced: Exodus 24:8: Blood of the brit; Leviticus 17: The blood makes atonement by the life (nefesh) within it; Hebrews 9:22–28: Christ enters not with animal blood, but with his own! A perversion that distorts the oath sworn at the Akadah by Yitzak: “If I am the chosen Cohen seed of my father, save me from this Shoah that my future born Cohen seed might live”. Remember HaShem the oath you swore to my father, and save my future born children from the Shoah. Do this and I shall command my children to do and obey Torah mitzvot.”
LikeLike
LOL, what makes any of you feel that the USA could actually annex Canada? If we wanted to become Americans, we would have joined more than 200 years ago. All that the fools advising Trump’s nonsensical threats has accomplished is to begin to anger a once friendly neighbour.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly. I have no idea why Trump keeps repeating it. It’s stupid, it’s counterproductive, and I just want it to stop.
LikeLike
He repeats it because he’s a bully and enjoys intimidating those he perceives as weak.
LikeLike
Here we go again, with childish, clumsy attempts at psychoanalyzing strangers.
LikeLike
You’d need to close your eyes, ears, and turn off your brain to not come to a conclusion that Trump is a bully.
Do you have a better explanation for why he’s threatening to annex Canada?
LikeLike
Unfortunately, I do. I think it’s done to distract attention from the fact that the voters once again aren’t getting what they were promised. No wall, no deportations, no end to anchor babies, no Epstein files.
LikeLike
It’s all very stupid. But in some way, what annoys me the most is the almost physical impossibility of it. It verges on comical to state that this vast landmass can just become “one state” that is literally larger than the rest of the United States put together? It’s like the plan of a kid.
LikeLike
Responding to “Unfortunately, I do. I think it’s done to distract attention from the fact that the voters once again aren’t getting what they were promised. No wall, no deportations, no end to anchor babies, no Epstein files.”
OK, but you’re not answering why he’s doing specifically this as a distraction. And that’s where my answer comes in: because he’s a bully and this pleases both him and the MAGA bullies that form most of the base.
LikeLike
I don’t think you are ready for discussions on this blog. You have no capacity not only to analyze but to understand that you have no capacity. All you’ve got is childish name-calling that you mistake for insight.
I know that you will once again be tempted to react by saying that I’m cruel and hateful, and that’s precisely the problem. You are unaware of your own low cognitive function and any situation that brings you face to face with this shortcoming hurts your feelings.
LikeLike
Oh, I know you’re a bully. You’ve said you’re an asshole yourself.
So why, oh Enlightened One, do you think he picked specifically threatening to annex Canada as a distraction?
LikeLike
See? It’s exactly as I said. You perceive normal adult interaction la through the childish lens of bullying because they are too complex and confusing for you.
Try to work through it a little bit. Resist the facile emotional response.
LikeLike
“you’re not answering why he’s doing specifically this as a distraction”
You’re missing the point. A politician turning something into a distraction is a non-partisan affair. All effective politicians have that tool in their utility belt.
Why a particular politician wants to do this at a particular time can lead to some useful questions:
-why distract at this time?
-what is people’s attention being distracted from?
-why was this particular topic chosen to be the distraction.
Sometimes answers can be inferred but rarely confirmed (often only much much later).
On the other hand, a question like:
-what personality flaw is driving the distraction?
-what hidden psychological motivation makes this politician tick?
are useless in terms of policy and actually distract (!) away from useful questions.
Don’t think in terms of psychological motivation… you’re not a trained analyst (and even a trained analyst would not diagnose until after a number of one on one personal meetings).
Think in terms of political strategy.
I’m still not giving up my dumb theory that he wants to be make the US into the largest country in the world so he can be in charge of the largest country in the world but that’s based on public political branding not some special insight I might have to his conscious or unconscious psychological motivations.
LikeLike
I would think in terms of political strategy if it wasn’t Trump we were talking about. The man is a collection of pathologies without enough self-control to execute a complex political strategy.
You guys are crediting him with playing 4D chess. Clarissa’s sophisticated analyses of him led her to believe he’d stand up to Russia while he constantly talked of believing Putin and wanting a good relationship to Russia and couldn’t even say that Ukraine should win; and to believe he’d lower the cost of living while he had the richest oligarchs in the front row at his inauguration.
Maybe he’s imitating Putin with his talks of annexing Canada. Remember how he said it was smart of Putin to take over a few regions of Ukraine when the full-scale invasion started? I don’t remember the exact quote and search engines have gone to shit, but he definitely praised Putin’s actions there.
LikeLike
“if it wasn’t Trump”
You seem to have made a _massive_ psychic investment in Trump. Let it go. He’s an entertainer turned politician, not the first, not the worst…
“You guys are crediting him with playing 4D chess.”
When?
How is strong criticism of his policy choices “‘crediting him with playing 4D chess”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Playing 4D chess” is yet another one of those cliches that people pick up unthinkingly and use to mask the utter vacuousness of their minds. It’s on par with “life-saving gender treatments”, “abortion is healthcare” and “walking us into WW3.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
In other news, to my amazement, Mario Rubio is turning out to be the class of the current Trump foreign policy team. It’s a low bar but at least he seems to have grasped that russia doesn’t want peace and doesn’t want a ‘reset’ or whatever it’s being called with the US.
Baby steps…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Totally. And I have to say that an administration where Rubio looks strong is… not a very strong administration. He’s not what anybody would call a tough manly guy. But now he does as compared with the whiny pussies that surround him.
Hegseth’s performance regarding the leak was pathetic. I couldn’t make myself watch to the end. Total cuck behavior.
LikeLike