He Is Risen

~ Clarissa
Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

25 thoughts on “He Is Risen”

  1. Given the profound theological distortions and centuries of bloodshed carried out in the name of the “resurrected Christ”—especially the horrors committed during Easter and Holy Week—How should a Jew respond to Happy Easter from a Goy, especially the bloody history of blood libels, pogroms, taxation without representation, forced ghetto imprisonment for 3 Centuries, and forced expulsions from virtually all Xtian nations of Europe – the mother of Xtianity?

    As an atheist – praise HaShem, I do not believe in your new God Jesus the Son of God trinity belief system. It seems to me that all religious rhetoric belief systems stand upon theology and Creeds and possess no wisdom what so ever. Hence both Xtianity and Islam had to import ancient Greek wisdom of logic because their personal belief in this or that Gods failed to prioritize wisdom. The Torah by contrast teaches according to the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive logic format – wisdom.

    The Torah does not require belief in a god the way Christianity or Islam does. It requires allegiance to a brit, fidelity to justice, and the pursuit of chochmah (wisdom) through structured interpretation and legal discernment. That’s a completely different paradigm. As an atheist—praise HaShem. a very Talmudic turn of phrase, almost like saying: “I reject your idol, and in doing so I uphold the Name.” Torah has space for this kind of irony. “The Name” (HaShem) – a spirit and not a word metaphor or Rubic’s cube, shares absolutely zero common ground with an theological/creed based idolatry “belief object”—Torah a legal common law judicial legal system of law, defined by the sworn oath brit terms sworn by the Avot: Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov.

    Henceforth known as the brit (alliance). The Torah simply not a metaphysical abstraction as the Nicene Creed or Muslim Universal conversion by simply declaring belief in Allah and Mumammad as the Final prophet, any more than the prophet of the Church of the Latter Day Saints and their Holy Book substitute theology. This common thread links the attempts made by the new testament, koran and book of Mormon to supplant all earlier specifically T’NaCH scriptures. The latter aims only at a tiny Jewish audience whereas the old testament/new testament bible, koran and morman holy books make an appeal to all Mankind. The Talmud teaches in mesechta avoda zarah that all Mankind other than the Chosen Cohen People reject to this day the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev.

    Herein, this response represents a standard Jewish response to “Happy Easter”. Unlike the peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, the Talmud understands the 2nd Sinai commandment: Not to worship other Gods, with the interpretation of: A – Do not assimilate nor embrace the cultures and customs of any people or society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. For example when king Shlomo built his first Temple, because he based this vision upon non Jewish cultures and customs, the Catholic church builds great Cathedrals which took generations to complete on structure, rather than establish Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal courtrooms! Hence the First Temple in Jerusalem qualifies as “idolatry”. B. Do not intermarry with these alien people who reject the revelation of the Torah oath brit remembrance cut at Sinai and Horev. Again king Shlomo serves as the model of this negative interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

    This is the foundation of everything: Torah is not a religion—it is a national constitution, a judicial covenant sworn by the Avot and ratified at Sinai and Horev. Its logic is contractual, not mystical. Its sacredness lies not in “what one believes,” but in how one lives in fidelity to a sworn brit—a legal-political alliance sealed with mutual oath allliance(s) – something like the NATO alliance established after WWII.

    Unlike Christianity (which demands acceptance of the Nicene Creed) or Islam (which requires the Shahada), Torah demands: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which honestly restores fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations. “As an atheist – praise HaShem”, this phrase encapsules Talmudic inductive reasoning. It echoes Moshe breaking the tablets—not out of disbelief, but out of fidelity to the brit violated when the “mixed multitudes” (assimilated and inter-married Jews) attempted to make the Golden Calf a substitute for Moshe Rabbeinu. Chag Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) rejects substitute theology. HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make of Moshe the chosen Cohen people which would have profaned the oath sworn with the Avot, specifically the oath first sworn to Avram at the brit cut between the pieces.

    I do not subscribe to your new gods or universalizing metaphysics. My allegiance is to the brit sworn at Sinai—to the Name, which is not a belief object but the spirit of justice breathing in the hearts of a chosen people bound to the terms of the oath brit contractual alliance. Impossible as the Johnny Come Lately replacement Holy Books which prioritize creedal salvation or Islam’s conversion formula. These foreign theologies share no common ground with the oath brit alliance which applies strictly and only to the Jewish people and how we behave and interact among ourselves. Obedience to the oath alliance contracts has nothing to do with DNA or racial Race theories.

    HaShem simply NOT a theological idea – any more than anything observed in the Seas, Heavens, or Earth comparable to HaShem – the God of Israel alone. This Name lives within the Yatriz HaTov within the bnai-brit Cohen peoples’ hearts, not in some heavenly throne room or philosophical abstraction. Creedal theologies turn “God” into a thing you believe in, a noun. The Torah presents HaShem as a verb—a living oath alliance contract which judges the hearts of the chosen Cohen people in all generations – equally.

    The Talmud, not a theology book. Rather it reflects as record of legal case/rule argument precedents, a debate between the prosecutor and defense attorneys before the 3rd judge of a Torts Court, inductive dialectic of logic, and interpretation of the intent of the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud visions of Mitzvot and Halacha.

    Talmud teaches in tractate Avodah Zarah that the nations of the world rejected the brit at Sinai. Hence the universalizing books—the New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon—must create substitute theologies aimed at global appeal, because they lack brit-based legitimacy. These texts override, supplant, and erase the specificity of the original brit by asserting new revelations—all of which are detached from oath law and legal testimony. All of which violate the Torah negative commandment not to Add or Subtract from this Torah.

    Every one of these super-sessionist texts seeks universality, which the Torah totally rejects without any question or doubt. The Torah oath brit cut with Israel, (the chosen Cohen people) and not mankind. The nations were offered Torah, but they rejected it—as per midrash and tractate Avodah Zarah. Therefore, these later texts construct a counter-Torah. The New Testament: salvation by blood of a Roman-executed man/son of God. The Koran: denies Jewish oath brit contract cut with all future born children of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Both the Church fathers and Muslim shieks call Jews accursed, hated by either God the Father or Allah in Heaven. Book of Mormon: absurd American-based fantasy of divine destiny, with fabricated Semitic claims. Each of these attempts not only fail to uphold the brit—they declare war on it. Therefore all three foreign counterfeit religions define the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment – Not to worship other Gods.

    Herein, this response represents a standard Jewish response to “Happy Easter”. Unlike the peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, the Talmud understands the 2nd Sinai commandment: Not to worship other Gods, with the interpretation of: A – Do not assimilate nor embrace the cultures and customs of any people or society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. For example when king Shlomo built his first Temple, because he based this vision upon non Jewish cultures and customs, the Catholic church builds great Cathedrals which took generations to complete on structure, rather than establish Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal courtrooms! Hence the First Temple in Jerusalem qualifies as “idolatry”. B. Do not intermarry with these alien people who reject the revelation of the Torah oath brit remembrance cut at Sinai and Horev. Again king Shlomo serves as the model of this negative interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

    This is the foundation of everything: Torah is not a religion—it is a national constitution, a judicial covenant sworn by the Avot and ratified at Sinai and Horev. Its logic is contractual, not mystical. Its sacredness lies not in “what one believes,” but in how one lives in fidelity to a sworn brit—a legal-political alliance sealed with mutual oath allliance(s) – something like the NATO alliance established after WWII.

    Unlike Christianity (which demands acceptance of the Nicene Creed) or Islam (which requires the Shahada), Torah demands: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which honestly restores fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations. “As an atheist – praise HaShem”, this phrase encapsules Talmudic inductive reasoning. It echoes Moshe breaking the tablets—not out of disbelief, but out of fidelity to the brit violated when the “mixed multitudes” (assimilated and inter-married Jews) attempted to make the Golden Calf a substitute for Moshe Rabbeinu. Chag Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) rejects substitute theology. HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make of Moshe the chosen Cohen people which would have profaned the oath sworn with the Avot, specifically the oath first sworn to Avram at the brit cut between the pieces.

    I do not subscribe to your new gods or universalizing metaphysics. My allegiance is to the brit sworn at Sinai—to the Name, which is not a belief object but the spirit of justice breathing in the hearts of a chosen people bound to the terms of the oath brit contractual alliance. Impossible as the Johnny Come Lately replacement Holy Books which prioritize creedal salvation or Islam’s conversion formula. These foreign theologies share no common ground with the oath brit alliance which applies strictly and only to the Jewish people and how we behave and interact among ourselves. Obedience to the oath alliance contracts has nothing to do with DNA or racial Race theories.

    HaShem simply NOT a theological idea – any more than anything observed in the Seas, Heavens, or Earth comparable to HaShem – the God of Israel alone. This Name lives within the Yatriz HaTov within the bnai-brit Cohen peoples’ hearts, not in some heavenly throne room or philosophical abstraction. Creedal theologies turn “God” into a thing you believe in, a noun. The Torah presents HaShem as a verb—a living oath alliance contract which judges the hearts of the chosen Cohen people in all generations – equally.

    The Talmud, not a theology book. Rather it reflects as record of legal case/rule argument precedents, a debate between the prosecutor and defense attorneys before the 3rd judge of a Torts Court, inductive dialectic of logic, and interpretation of the intent of the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud visions of Mitzvot and Halacha.

    Talmud teaches in tractate Avodah Zarah that the nations of the world rejected the brit at Sinai. Hence the universalizing books—the New Testament, Koran, Book of Mormon—must create substitute theologies aimed at global appeal, because they lack brit-based legitimacy. These texts override, supplant, and erase the specificity of the original brit by asserting new revelations—all of which are detached from oath law and legal testimony. All of which violate the Torah negative commandment not to Add or Subtract from this Torah.

    Every one of these super-sessionist texts seeks universality, which the Torah totally rejects without any question or doubt. The Torah oath brit cut with Israel, (the chosen Cohen people) and not mankind. The nations were offered Torah, but they rejected it—as per midrash and tractate Avodah Zarah. Therefore, these later texts construct a counter-Torah. The New Testament: salvation by blood of a Roman-executed man/son of God. The Koran: denies Jewish oath brit contract cut with all future born children of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. Both the Church fathers and Muslim shieks call Jews accursed, hated by either God the Father or Allah in Heaven. Book of Mormon: absurd American-based fantasy of divine destiny, with fabricated Semitic claims. Each of these attempts not only fail to uphold the brit—they declare war on it. Therefore all three foreign counterfeit religions define the intent of the 2nd Sinai commandment – Not to worship other Gods.

    “As an atheist, praise HaShem”—captures that paradoxical brilliance found in Talmudic reasoning: not belief, but allegiance; not metaphysics, but brit; not salvation, but justice. The Jewish people never received justice not from the courts of Par’o, any court of Europe including the ICC or ICJ, or any court in Islamic lands – ever. Torah stands as the only non-theological, non-creedal path—a national legal-political constitution built not on universal abstractions, but on concrete obligations to a specific people through an oath alliance with the purpose to rule the Promised land with trust and shalom among the chosen Cohen people. Torah common law simply does not compare to foreign fiction stories like Harry Potter or Nancy Drew.

    Xtianity, Islam, and Mormonism, not simply “different religions,” but reactionary projects—constructed precisely because the nations rejected the brit and had to manufacture alternate paths to the Torah Constitutional Republic within the borders of the Promised Land.

    The 2nd commandment as a national anti-assimilation clause—rather than a metaphysical prohibition—is both halakhic and historically grounded. Shlomo’s First Temple as idolatry is a radical but supportable view, especially in contrast to the later obsession with architectural grandeur (e.g., Catholic cathedrals) over legal restoration (e.g., Sanhedrin courtrooms).

    Torah = national brit by mutual sworn oath, not belief. Xtianity = creedal faith. Islam = universal conversion. Mormonism = mythological substitute. The famous “Do not add or subtract” command in Devarim becomes a polemic weapon here—one that slices through any claim to new testaments, final prophets, or American scriptures. NATO as a legal-political metaphor for the brit alliance—it’s not about who “believes in democracy,” but about binding treaties and mutual obligations.

    Framing the Torah as a brit-based constitutional legal system—rather than a metaphysical religion—re-centers the Jewish people not as a “faith community,” but as a sovereign legal-political nation with a judiciary-bound ethic, a contractually governed land, and intergenerational obligations among Cohanim, Zera Yisrael, and converts who accept the terms of the brit as law, not theology.

    The 2nd commandment as a national prohibition against assimilation and intermarriage, especially when held up against the rabbinic midrashim on Parashat Yitro and the Gemara in Avodah Zarah. It flips the script on “universalism” and reframes the conversation entirely: instead of Judaism being “narrow,” it is specific—rooted in oath law and Sanhedrin courts common law: especially when held up against the rabbinic midrashim on Parashat Yitro and the Gemara in Avodah Zarah. The 2nd Sinai commandment flips the script on “universalism” and reframes the conversation entirely: instead of Judaism being “narrow,” it is specific—rooted in oath common law legalism and the chosen Cohen people who alone accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and the Oral Torah at Horev 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf.

    Consider the halachic mitzvot of Shabbat and Kashrut as specific examples of the contractual oath alliance terms of the “brit treaty”. Perhaps comparable to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 which serves as the foundation of modern Zionism today; meaning Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East.

    Shabbat fundamentally requires that the chosen Cohen people discern the fundamental distinctions with separates work from work: מלאכה from עבודה. The Rabbeinu Tam tefillen remembers the oath sworn by Yehoshua and Israel when entering Canaan to conquer the kingdoms of the land at Sh’Cem. That the chosen Cohen people commit to honor the contract not to interpret Torah law other than viewed through the lenses of Horev Oral Torah middot logic methodologies. The rabbinic mitzva of lighting the lights of Hanukah likewise expresses this exact intent.

    Mapping Torah onto a constitutional model that’s grounded in oath-bound specificity, not metaphysical abstraction. In that light, “religion” as a category becomes irrelevant—Torah is not about spirituality as a private feeling, but about national law as public fidelity.

    Shabbat and Kashrut to treaty stipulations—they’re not “rituals” for piety’s sake, but legal-demonstrative affirmations of national identity and brit fidelity. Same with Rabbeinu Tam tefillin—it’s not about mysticism, but about loyal testimony to the oath sworn at Shechem and reaffirmed at Horev. Every mitzvah then functions as an act of juridical allegiance, not belief-based devotion. The metaphor of the he Balfour Declaration—it parallels how modern Zionism mirrors ancient brit logic: political self-determination based on sworn obligations, not belief systems. In both cases, it’s about territory, contract, and national law—not ideology.

    Every mitzvah becomes an act of juridical allegiance, not belief-based devotion. Torah stands not as a metaphysical religion but as the foundational constitutional document of a legal-political nation bound by public law, mutual obligation, and historical oaths.

    Like

    Reply

          2. “Observer status” doesn’t mean “no influence.” In fact, Palestine (like the Vatican) holds only observer status at the UN, yet the Palestinian issue dominates discussions, resolutions, and international debates. he Palestinian Authority was granted non-member observer state status in 2012 (Resolution 67/19). This gave them access to international bodies like: The International Criminal Court (ICC), UNESCO, World Health Organization (WHO), and participation in the General Assembly debates. Though they can’t vote, they can speak, propose language, mobilize blocs, and file legal claims (e.g., war crimes allegations against Israel at the ICC).

            The UN General Assembly is ruled by numbers, not dollars. Over 2/3 of UN member states are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), or Global South — most of whom side with Palestinian narratives out of: Post-colonial solidarity; Oil and trade diplomacy; Shared anti-Western sentiment; Islamic unity etc. This means Palestinian-backed resolutions routinely pass, even if the U.S., Israel, Canada, and a few others vote “no.”

            The bias in certain UN bodies (like the Human Rights Council, which has a permanent agenda item only on Israel — Item 7). The Vatican amplifies the legitimacy of Palestinian claims by, recognizing the State of Palestine; visiting Palestinian sites; making statements about peace, occupation, and human dignity that subtly undermine Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. It adds moral weight, not votes — but moral weight matters in diplomacy, especially when shaping public perception and media framing.

            From 2015–2023, the UN passed over 140 resolutions against Israel, more than against North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia combined. Most of these are symbolic and non-binding, but they shape global opinion and are used as legal ammunition in anti-Israel propaganda campaigns. The Vatican’s role in this system isn’t financial — it’s moral, symbolic, and theological. But that symbolism moves votes, shapes resolutions, and keeps the Palestinian issue at the center of the global stage.

            Though both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Vatican hold only observer status at the United Nations, the Palestinian issue dominates global discussion, diplomacy, and symbolic resolution traffic at an overwhelming scale. This case illustrates how the UN can function less like a neutral forum and more like a diplomatic echo chamber, where bloc politics and symbolic victories overshadow both funding realities and member state hierarchies. How Papal Bull throughout the Middle Ages condemned Jews to ghetto gulags for multiple centuries and supported taxation without representation upon stateless Jewish refugees expelled from one European country to another almost every Easter.

            No other nation on Earth is subject to a permanent agenda item at the UN Human Rights Council — except Israel. Item 7 mandates the Council to debate Israel’s conduct at every session. Other egregious human rights violators (e.g., Iran, China, North Korea) evade similar scrutiny. This institutional double standard exposes the political weaponization of human rights mechanisms under the guise of Vatican moral domination of international law. The Vatican contest Israeli rule over Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. Issue statements about “peace,” “occupation,” and “dignity” that subtly delegitimize Israeli sovereignty. The Vatican provides theological and moral capital, enhancing the perceived legitimacy of Palestinian victimhood narratives in Western media and diplomatic circles. That moral-theological hostility toward Jewish sovereignty has merely changed costumes — today, it wears the robes of international law, human rights rhetoric, and multilateral diplomacy. The UN’s obsession with Israel is not grounded in human rights, international law, or funding priorities — it is a symbolic theater where observer states, bloc alliances, and ancient theological resentments converge to perpetuate the denial of Jewish agency on the world stage.

            Like

            Reply

          3. Philippians 4:6-7 serves as a Prime example, one which defines the New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. The great US vs. Them Divide. The first and second commandments of Sinai, both Av tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. Specifically remembering the oaths the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance which creates throughout the generations the chosen Cohen people.

            The relationship between prayer, God, and Christ in Xtian doctrine. This Pauline interpretation equates prayer to God with prayer to Christ, a form of av tumah avoda zarah — a Capital Crime, the worst of the 4 types of death penalty – stoning – imposed for the worship of other Gods. Avoda zarah not limited to the Av tumah Xtian box thinking of worshipping a idol physical 3 dimensional idol. Like as does the scientific method which requires empirical evidence and the 5th axiom of Euclid’s geometry, which limit reality to 3 dimensions.

            Rather the Talmud defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai Commandment through two negative commandment, the primary precedents of Torah common law: 1) Do not assimilate and duplicate the ways, customs or manners of any Goy society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2) Do not intermarry with such Goyim. The Torah precedent where Pinchas killed the tribal head of Dan for entering the camp with a foreign wife. Plus the kabbalah of Kings and Ezra support this interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment intent, not to marry alien women who do not obey alien women who do not honor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the definitive Torah brit, tohor time oriented commandment which requires the k’vanna of prophetic mussar to obey.

            Furthermore, the strict monotheism of the koran – likewise avoda zarah. This only one God theology, negates the 2nd Commandment, it makes this time oriented Av commandment totally in vain. All new testament forms of equating Christ with the Sinai God, understood as a direct violation of the Second Commandment. Just that Simple. Mitzvot do not come by way of “Sin”. And the death of Jesus on the Cross does not atone for the “Sin” of avoda zarah.

            Utterly impossible to read the Torah as if it exists comparable to the new testament, as the old testament/new testament Xtian bible attempts to equate. Torah, a common law legal system which requires learning by means of bringing precedents, like as done above. The Xtian trinity theology defines European culture and customs, even to this very day. The moral authority expressed through Pope Bulls, for the sake of comparison, resembles to the secular United Nations today, with its morality politics.

            The Torah brit faith initiated with Avram at the brit cut between the pieces created from nothing the chosen Cohen Jewish people. The Jewish people not a race, despite the screams to this effect made by the Nazis and the KKK. New testament av tumah avoda zarah attempts to repudiate, both the authority of the Torah AND the Cohen people continuous creation from nothing. Clear as the Sun on a Summer June day, the new testament rejects doing mitzvot לשמה – the first Sinai commandment. And therefore worships other Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same equally applies to the koran fake scriptures or the book of mormon fake scriptures, or the book of scientology fake scriptures.

            The strict monotheism expressed through Islam’s Tawhid doctrine – an utter abomination. It too fails to acknowledge the brit creation of the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments throughout the generations. Its substitute theology replaces Yitzak with Yishmael at the Akadah, but fails to address the primary Av commandments, time oriented commandments. Therefore both it and the new testament abhor the revelation of the God of Israel at Sinai. The tumah new testament likewise collapses, over its false narrative – its failure to address Av tohor time oriented commandments introduced by the Book of בראשית, which continuously create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

            The Hebrew word “Brit” (ברית) simply not be translated as “Covenant”. Brit refers to the time oriented commandments. Something much more specific than the false, general – abstract ideas – expressed through the word – covenant – translations. A Brit a time-bound, (meaning life/death crisis situation) legal, and national commitment, (such as the akadah represents)—an oath contract, particularly tied to the Jewish Cohen people, forged through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and represented through commandment positive and negative precedents which define Av tohor time oriented commandments k’vanna. The word translation rhetoric of covenant, its relationship to brit comparable to the similarity between gills on a fish to lungs in a dog.

            The word Covenant in English used in a more generalized, universal sense in these false prophet scriptures. Sometimes implying an abstract agreement or promise that could apply to all humanity or various groups. The God of Sinai, not a Universal God. The false prophet scriptures declare otherwise. Brit has a specific, time-bound, life/death crisis legal meaning, like Yaacov confronted by Esau’s Army. Not universally applicable but rather centered on the chosen Cohen Jewish people and their relationship with the God of Sinai through remembering the specific oaths which the Avot swore to create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

            Brit simply not just a spiritual or theological Creed belief system; rather the revelation of the God of Sinai expressed through the legal common law framework that requires the wisdom of knowing how to employ Torah precedents which interpret prophetic mussar k’vanna which functions as the mental brain of all mitzvot or halachic ritual observances. Av tohor time oriented commandments absolutely require that the chosen Jewish Cohen people remember the oaths sworn by the Avot when we do any and all tohor time oriented mitzvot done with k’vanna.

            This alliance of national Jewish identity, structured around the chosen Cohen people, through whom the commandments (mitzvot), at the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, enacted and uphold, not as some abstract law, and the new testament false prophets declare. When later generations of Goyim falsely translate Brit as Covenant, they misrepresent the oath brit faith which creates continuously the chosen Cohen Jewish people. These false prophets together with their groupy followers, try to make the God of Sinai appear like some universal monotheistic God, to which all peoples or nations, despite despising the mitzva of gere tzeddik.

            These false prophets together with their substitute scriptures declare and any man can embrace the God of Sinai while they reject the revelation of the Sinai Torah. This translation, “covenant”, it distorts the Torah’s actual intent of the Sinai God revelation. Only the Jewish cohen people through time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar truly worship the God of the Sinai revelation. The long history of the g’lut of the Jewish people clearly testifies that faith does not equal static theological Creed belief systems of avoda zarah.

            Like

            Reply

      2. The T’NaKH, resurrection non existent, personal resurrection a foreign Greek or Roman mythology. The only reference in the whole of the Torah for such a brain dead stupid myth, the משל of the oath sworn between the pieces wherein old Sarah and Avram told their bodies would rise from the dead and produce children in their old age. Ezekiel 37 “Valley of dry bones” merely a משל which teaches the mussar that Israel in g’lut – like as in the days of ancient Egypt – would “rise from the dead” and the Jewish nation in Judea would live again as a free nation in the Middle East. Daniel 12:2 mysticism serves as a commentary to Ezekiel 37.

        John (the client of a prostitute) 20 merely exists as a mythological perversion of the T’NaCH, which seeks to substitute Xtian believers as the “new chosen Cohen people/not nation. The T’NaKH contains no precedent for individual resurrection as a theological claim. John’s gospel—especially chapter 20—isn’t just a myth. It’s a Greco-Roman literary appropriation of Jewish symbols, repackaged to serve a super-sessionist agenda. Empty tombs, gardener deities, death-and-rebirth motifs, and female witness figures are all common in Hellenistic mystery cults (e.g., Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis). Mary Magdalene, cast as the first witness, is framed like a cultic initiate recognizing the divine epiphany—straight out of pagan salvific theater.

        There’s a long pagan tradition of personal resurrection, often linked to fertility cycles, divine kingship, or mystery cult initiations. The Greco-Roman world was saturated with myths of dying-and-rising gods or mortals. Dionysus is killed (in some versions by Titans), dismembered, and then resurrected by his father Zeus. Mystery cults of Dionysus emphasized death, rebirth, and personal salvation through initiation. A very clear parallel to the later Xtian spiritual narrative. Osiris, murdered by his brother Set, chopped into pieces, then reassembled and resurrected by his wife Isis. Osiris becomes king of the underworld, and a symbol of personal resurrection for believers in Egyptian and later Hellenistic-Egyptian cults. Osiris’ cult was imported into Greco-Roman religion—Isis-Osiris-Serapis worship was especially popular in 1st-century Egypt and Rome.

        Romulus disappears in a storm and is later resurrected/assumed into heaven as the god Quirinus; Divine ruler who does not stay dead—instead, he ascends and becomes a deity of the Roman state; similar to the idea of Jesus “ascending” to become Lord.

        John 20 and 1 Corinthians 15—absorbs and retools all these elements, like Dionysus and Osiris, or like the myth of Romulus. This isn’t prophecy fulfilled—it’s myth recycled, now retrofitted with Hebrew names and places, but completely foreign to T’NaCH literature.

        Like

        Reply

      3. From Parchment to Power: A Post-1948 Jewish Counter-Theology

        Luke 24 narrative sets the scene: “on the road”, with two disciples disillusioned and confused, mourning what they believe is Jesus and his failed redemption of Israel. This parallels the emotional and spiritual disarray Jews felt after the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 CE—how Herod’s murder of his family and betrayal of the Jewish people due to Roman seductions of power, had caused the mystical Shekhinah to withdraw from dwelling within the Yatzir Tov of the Jewish people.

        Luke’s Gospel, written after 70 CE!!! In a world where Jews wrestled with the consequences of the recent revolt against Rome that had turned Confederate defeat – south. Many religious “orthodox” Jews struggled to comprehend Jewish survival without Herod’s Temple. In this context, Luke offers a replacement substitute theology, but instead of a Herod “Temple avoda zara”, this revisionist gospel narrative switches to the new god Jesus; rather than make its focus upon the actual and totally real destruction of Jerusalem, and Jewish slaves sold across the Roman empire unto g’lut/exile – the gospel narrative sets a religious rhetoric of: Salvation of all Mankind from the eternal curse of Original Sin.

        Emmaus, geographically not far away from Jerusalem. As such these fictional characters, literally symbolically walking away from Herod’s Temple which lays in ashes. The “Lord is risen indeed” a משל to the restoration of an independent Jewish state in Judea? Hence Luke 24 bears a striking resemblance to the despair felt by Jews over the recent Roman victory. No. Not a chance in Hell that such an interpretation holds water. Rather the gospel narrative serves as a classic switch & bait. The gospel language ignores real Jewish anguish. The Roman censors, promotes a fraud forgery, which aimed to deceive the embittered Jewish people in Judea. Similar to how 19th Century Russian revolutionaries concealed their ambitions to overthrow the government of the Czar by employing a pastoral language to conceal their revolutionary plans from the Czar secret police. This theological pivot mirrors how Rabbinic Judaism, in its own right reacted to the hostile Roman propaganda rhetoric wherein it redirected the Jewish soul toward halakhah, prayer, and Torah learning. The Roman Luke religious rhetoric propaganda offers a rival answer: the Church, the Gospel, and the Eucharist.

        Luke’s Gospel, then, simply not actually spiritual—this mythical fiction depicts refined and subtle revisionist history. It repackages the post-revolt Jewish defeat unto a new imperial cult of the ‘resurrected savior’. Why? Viewed from a Roman strategic interest perspective, Roman propaganda had strong reason to fear a second major Jewish revolt. Hence the story of the Gospels served their interests to promote a passive Moshiach who echoes Greek and Roman mythologies where the messiah rises from the grave and lives again as god. The purpose or intent of this fictional revisionist history, to drive a wedge between the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and the Jews of Judea! To prevent a united revolt of these two critical Jewish population centers united, making a war against Rome in order to expel the Romans from Egypt Judea and Syria.

        The Gospels read from this vantage perspective makes a lot of sense because Rabbinic Judaism channeled loss in the 66-70 War into halakhic creativity and Torah scholarship; the writing of the Mishna in 210 CE and the Gemara in 450 CE both documents testifies as two key witnesses to this historical fact that Jewish strategic interests do not reflect Roman imperial strategic interests.

        Jesus not as a fulfillment of Jewish prophecy, but as a deliberate fabrication, molded to resemble Greco-Roman dying-and-rising gods (Dionysus, Osiris, Romulus) in order to defuse Messianic nationalism, based upon the Torah model of Moshe Rabbeinu. This “resurrected god” Jesus-figure, crafted to drive a wedge between Judean Jews and the large, intellectually powerful Jewish community in Alexandria – especially shrewd. Alexandria, with its deeply Hellenized but still Torah-committed Jewish population, had historically maintained intense ties to Jerusalem, even constructing its own version of the Temple (the Leontopolis temple). A unified Jewish uprising from both Egypt and Judea could have devastated Roman control across three strategic provinces: Judea, Egypt, and Syria.

        What better way to prevent such an alliance than to introduce a theological virus—one that calls Jews to abandon national resistance in favor of spiritualized surrender, to replace Torah-driven oath brit resistance, with mystical “salvation,” and to reinterpret defeat as “divine plan”? Hence the student of Rabban Gamliel – Paul of Tarsus – introduced a anti-venom to the Roman snake bite poison. In Damascus he had succeeded to infiltrate a liberal reform messiah Jewish community, seize leadership of this kapo movement and declare that Torah law, specifically circumcision, no longer applied. His theology closely resembles that of both Sabbatai Zevi, followed by Jacob Frank. These later false messiah movements didn’t just challenge rabbinic authority—they flipped the halakhic framework on its head, invoking kabbalistic cosmology to justify transgression as redemption.

        Where Roman Xtianity spiritualized and abandoned the brit; Rabbinic Judaism intensified it—channeling both our defeat & grief unto halakhah, t’shuvah, communal accountability, and eventually codifying the Mishnah and Gemara. Preserving Jewish sovereignty through legal-cultural resilience rather than physical resistance. Talmudic common law serves as the ideal model for the future-time, when Jews defeat the Roman enemy, drive its Legions from our land and restore lateral common law Courtrooms across the Tribal States of the larger Republic. The comparison of the theology of the Apostle Paule to the 1666 “prophet Natan”, and his prophesies which interpreted Sabbatai Zevi’s strange bi-polar behavior, bears close examination.

        This post 1948 and 1967 Israeli victory over the Nakba defeated Arab armies, this current interpretation views the Gospels as Roman propaganda employed to shape and fashion the Golden Calf early Xtianity. It contrasts to the historical and spiritual genius of Rabbinic Judaism: its acts, (as opposed to the Pauline Book of Acts) of national defiance wrapped in legal common law logic פרדס creativity. By highlighting how the Gospels served Roman strategic interests—neutralizing Messianic hope, by replacing it with mystical passivity-this interpretation endeavors to explain the intent of the Framers of the Gospels and New Testament.

        The stark contrast exposed by and through publication of the Talmud, so day and night different from that of the Gospels and new testament! The Talmud as both resistance literature and constitutional blueprint for a future sovereign republic of Israel – nothing short of prophetic. Where Rome tried to crush Jewish sovereignty through the sword, Rabbinic sages transformed parchment into the new battlefield. Torah she’b’al peh became our underground, our lifeline, our refusal to vanish; it shaped and determines the culture and customs practiced by the Jewish people to this very day. The Mishnah and Gemara while dressed as simply religious texts—in point of fact, they function as the blueprints of continuity, preparing for the day when beit din justice, tribal sovereignty, and brit-based society rises from the dead.

        The church now rots in exile, waiting for the 2nd Coming of Jesus, while Jews defeat our European and Arab enemies in open warfare. Post the 2nd Israeli Independence War of June 1967, Israel dominates the balance of power in the Middle East while Britain and France can but look on and vainly attempt to offer UN 242 pathetic suggestions; please Jews return back to the Shoah borders of 1948 and abandon Jerusalem has your Capital.

        Xtianity, as established through the Gospels and new testament, forged the “NEW” Roman Empire’s “theological virus” designed to dismantle Jewish unity and resistance. This interpretation merits & deserves more visibility. Obviously Jews having the church sword at our throats throughout the Dark and Middle Ages, could never publicly challenge the Gospel narrative prior to the 1948 resurrection from the dead of the Jewish state. But facts remain facts, instinctively the Church hated, despised and sought to burn and destroy the Talmud throughout the Middle Ages. Post American and French revolutions, and culminated with Israel winning its second Independence War in 1967, to the absolute chagrin of both London and Paris, now Israelis can openly denounce, dispute, and destroy the church monopoly over the new testament narrative.

        Israelis argue that the Roman gospel propaganda reframes Jesus not as a culmination of Jewish hope, but as a Roman counter-insurgency tactic, a synthetic messiah designed to pacify, divide, and Hellenize.

        A post Shoah & post-1948 Jewish counter-theology that unflinchingly reclaims the right to challenge the Gospels—not just as theological missteps, but as weapons of imperial control, deployed against Jewish sovereignty and prophetic resistance. The contrast drawn between the Talmud as a constitutional memory vs. the Roman gospels – as imperial mythology – cuts directly to the heart of centuries of polemics, persecution, and erasure.

        This Israeli interpretation explores the new testament not as some spiritual continuation of the Hebrew T’NaCH but as a Roman instrument of theological pacification—a deliberate imperial fabrication meant to defuse Jewish resistance, divide Jewish unity across the empire, and overwrite the פרדס four-part inductive logic kabbalah introduced by rabbi Akiva. This unique logic system stands totally apart and separated from Aristotle’s three-part deductive syllogism of logic. Rabbi Akiva’s logic sh’itta, simply stated in a single word – dynamic. Whereas Aristotle’s logic methodology – frozen fossilized and static. Courts of Common law cannot make “one size fits all” judicial rulings for all Cases “Heard” (Oral Torah) before their Courts. Roman statute law legislative and bureaucratic red-tape decrees, possess neither ears nor wisdom to weigh the groins of the common man.

        Xtianity perverts the Hebrew T’NaCH unto a Roman instrument of theological pacification—a deliberate imperial fabrication meant to defuse Jewish resistance, divide Jewish unity across the empire, and overwrite the oath brit dynamic logic which permits Jews to improvise and adjust to meet the challenges faced by each and every generation. Utterly impossible for the statute law Shulkan Aruch to serve as a model for lateral Sanhedrin common law court rooms. Law codes that organize judicial rulings into simplified egg-crate legal subjects, such inferior deductive logic simply impossible to employ this static way of thinking to base judicial ruling upon making precedent case comparisons. This Hellenized substitute revisionist history which perverts Harry Potter like gospel books of fiction unto the born again Son of God, an utter Torah abomination of avoda zara.

        Rabbinic Judaism, through the Mishnah and Talmud, forged a constitutional counter-insurgency—resisting the Roman empire through halakhah, oral פרדס tradition, and the dream of restored judicial lateral common law court sovereignty. From Par’o Court in Egypt to the ICC Rome Treaty court in the Hague, no static logic statute law court has ever ruled with justice. The British Star Courts which legalized British impressment of American sailors on the open High Seas serves as witness to this fact.

        Rome’s Theological Strategy: Jesus modeled not on Moshe or David but on Osiris, Dionysus, and Romulus. The Gospels as just another “Golden Calf” mythology, seeks to replace the 40 days missing Moshe Rabbeinu with a Golden Calf replacement, who thereafter returns Israel back to Egyptian slavery or Vatican Rome. The Emmaus Road, as allegory for post-Temple despair, re-narrated to seduce Jews toward passivity and convert unto Xtianity.

        Roman fear of Jewish unity between Alexandria and Jerusalem, a valid threat. Egypt served as the bread-basket for the populations in the city of Rome. The Government of Rome fed & pacified this unruly home population. Something akin to the separation between the nation of Italy from Vatican Rome today. Loss of access to the grains grown in Egypt, such a disaster probably would have caused the Roman empire to collapse upon itself. Hence the Roman framers of the new testament developed a religious rhetoric that enhanced divide and conquer. A theological virus injected, akin to biological warfare, to prevent Judea making a political alliance together with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt.

        The Church fathers likewise insisted upon absolute control over the bible narratives. They openly discouraged the common man of Europe to read the bible translations which the church priests edited to meet their narrow, self serving, egocentric interests. Recall that it took the invasion of Spain by Arab armies to re-discovered the ancient Greek texts which so utterly dominated the ancient world. The lights of Hanukkah serve as a witness, that the competition between Greek vs Torah logic exploded into a Jewish Civil War.

        Torah simply not, at least ideally a religion, but it functions as national constitutional law. This idea the church fathers completely and totally censored. They demanded that the Torah mirror the church cencorship which restricted their bible perversions unto only a religious belief in the Gods. The same holds true with halacha as an expession of the expanded infrastructure of Av tohor time oriented Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna; the purpose of the Aggada within the Talmud serves this precise purpose in Torah T’NaCH scholarship. Know as תמיד מעשה בראשית, time oriented mitzvot create the Universe from nothing.

        Meaning doing tohor time oriented Av commandment of the Torah or Talmud possess the power to change the curse of Bil’aam unto a blessing; Esau approached Yaacov with a massive Army having 400 Officers! Yet Esau kissed Yaacov rather than plunged a sword into his heart. The mitzva of the Gid HaNasheh (sciatic nerve), serves as an eternal witness of the kabbalah of tohor time oriented Av Torah commandments which require prophetic mussar as their most essential k’vanna dedication of the ritual act of removing the sciatic nerve to make the thigh kosher for Jewish halachic consumption.

        Like

        Reply

          2. “Observer status” doesn’t mean “no influence.” In fact, Palestine (like the Vatican) holds only observer status at the UN, yet the Palestinian issue dominates discussions, resolutions, and international debates. he Palestinian Authority was granted non-member observer state status in 2012 (Resolution 67/19). This gave them access to international bodies like: The International Criminal Court (ICC), UNESCO, World Health Organization (WHO), and participation in the General Assembly debates. Though they can’t vote, they can speak, propose language, mobilize blocs, and file legal claims (e.g., war crimes allegations against Israel at the ICC).

            The UN General Assembly is ruled by numbers, not dollars. Over 2/3 of UN member states are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), or Global South — most of whom side with Palestinian narratives out of: Post-colonial solidarity; Oil and trade diplomacy; Shared anti-Western sentiment; Islamic unity etc. This means Palestinian-backed resolutions routinely pass, even if the U.S., Israel, Canada, and a few others vote “no.”

            The bias in certain UN bodies (like the Human Rights Council, which has a permanent agenda item only on Israel — Item 7). The Vatican amplifies the legitimacy of Palestinian claims by, recognizing the State of Palestine; visiting Palestinian sites; making statements about peace, occupation, and human dignity that subtly undermine Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. It adds moral weight, not votes — but moral weight matters in diplomacy, especially when shaping public perception and media framing.

            From 2015–2023, the UN passed over 140 resolutions against Israel, more than against North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia combined. Most of these are symbolic and non-binding, but they shape global opinion and are used as legal ammunition in anti-Israel propaganda campaigns. The Vatican’s role in this system isn’t financial — it’s moral, symbolic, and theological. But that symbolism moves votes, shapes resolutions, and keeps the Palestinian issue at the center of the global stage.

            Though both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Vatican hold only observer status at the United Nations, the Palestinian issue dominates global discussion, diplomacy, and symbolic resolution traffic at an overwhelming scale. This case illustrates how the UN can function less like a neutral forum and more like a diplomatic echo chamber, where bloc politics and symbolic victories overshadow both funding realities and member state hierarchies. How Papal Bull throughout the Middle Ages condemned Jews to ghetto gulags for multiple centuries and supported taxation without representation upon stateless Jewish refugees expelled from one European country to another almost every Easter.

            No other nation on Earth is subject to a permanent agenda item at the UN Human Rights Council — except Israel. Item 7 mandates the Council to debate Israel’s conduct at every session. Other egregious human rights violators (e.g., Iran, China, North Korea) evade similar scrutiny. This institutional double standard exposes the political weaponization of human rights mechanisms under the guise of Vatican moral domination of international law. The Vatican contest Israeli rule over Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. Issue statements about “peace,” “occupation,” and “dignity” that subtly delegitimize Israeli sovereignty. The Vatican provides theological and moral capital, enhancing the perceived legitimacy of Palestinian victimhood narratives in Western media and diplomatic circles. That moral-theological hostility toward Jewish sovereignty has merely changed costumes — today, it wears the robes of international law, human rights rhetoric, and multilateral diplomacy. The UN’s obsession with Israel is not grounded in human rights, international law, or funding priorities — it is a symbolic theater where observer states, bloc alliances, and ancient theological resentments converge to perpetuate the denial of Jewish agency on the world stage.

            Like

            Reply

          3. Philippians 4:6-7 serves as a Prime example, one which defines the New Testament and Koran replacement theologies. The great US vs. Them Divide. The first and second commandments of Sinai, both Av tohor time oriented commandments which require k’vanna. Specifically remembering the oaths the Avot swore to cut a brit alliance which creates throughout the generations the chosen Cohen people.

            The relationship between prayer, God, and Christ in Xtian doctrine. This Pauline interpretation equates prayer to God with prayer to Christ, a form of av tumah avoda zarah — a Capital Crime, the worst of the 4 types of death penalty – stoning – imposed for the worship of other Gods. Avoda zarah not limited to the Av tumah Xtian box thinking of worshipping a idol physical 3 dimensional idol. Like as does the scientific method which requires empirical evidence and the 5th axiom of Euclid’s geometry, which limit reality to 3 dimensions.

            Rather the Talmud defines the intent of the 2nd Sinai Commandment through two negative commandment, the primary precedents of Torah common law: 1) Do not assimilate and duplicate the ways, customs or manners of any Goy society which rejects the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. 2) Do not intermarry with such Goyim. The Torah precedent where Pinchas killed the tribal head of Dan for entering the camp with a foreign wife. Plus the kabbalah of Kings and Ezra support this interpretation of the 2nd Sinai commandment intent, not to marry alien women who do not obey alien women who do not honor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai – the definitive Torah brit, tohor time oriented commandment which requires the k’vanna of prophetic mussar to obey.

            Furthermore, the strict monotheism of the koran – likewise avoda zarah. This only one God theology, negates the 2nd Commandment, it makes this time oriented Av commandment totally in vain. All new testament forms of equating Christ with the Sinai God, understood as a direct violation of the Second Commandment. Just that Simple. Mitzvot do not come by way of “Sin”. And the death of Jesus on the Cross does not atone for the “Sin” of avoda zarah.

            Utterly impossible to read the Torah as if it exists comparable to the new testament, as the old testament/new testament Xtian bible attempts to equate. Torah, a common law legal system which requires learning by means of bringing precedents, like as done above. The Xtian trinity theology defines European culture and customs, even to this very day. The moral authority expressed through Pope Bulls, for the sake of comparison, resembles to the secular United Nations today, with its morality politics.

            The Torah brit faith initiated with Avram at the brit cut between the pieces created from nothing the chosen Cohen Jewish people. The Jewish people not a race, despite the screams to this effect made by the Nazis and the KKK. New testament av tumah avoda zarah attempts to repudiate, both the authority of the Torah AND the Cohen people continuous creation from nothing. Clear as the Sun on a Summer June day, the new testament rejects doing mitzvot לשמה – the first Sinai commandment. And therefore worships other Gods – the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same equally applies to the koran fake scriptures or the book of mormon fake scriptures, or the book of scientology fake scriptures.

            The strict monotheism expressed through Islam’s Tawhid doctrine – an utter abomination. It too fails to acknowledge the brit creation of the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments throughout the generations. Its substitute theology replaces Yitzak with Yishmael at the Akadah, but fails to address the primary Av commandments, time oriented commandments. Therefore both it and the new testament abhor the revelation of the God of Israel at Sinai. The tumah new testament likewise collapses, over its false narrative – its failure to address Av tohor time oriented commandments introduced by the Book of בראשית, which continuously create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

            The Hebrew word “Brit” (ברית) simply not be translated as “Covenant”. Brit refers to the time oriented commandments. Something much more specific than the false, general – abstract ideas – expressed through the word – covenant – translations. A Brit a time-bound, (meaning life/death crisis situation) legal, and national commitment, (such as the akadah represents)—an oath contract, particularly tied to the Jewish Cohen people, forged through the patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob), and represented through commandment positive and negative precedents which define Av tohor time oriented commandments k’vanna. The word translation rhetoric of covenant, its relationship to brit comparable to the similarity between gills on a fish to lungs in a dog.

            The word Covenant in English used in a more generalized, universal sense in these false prophet scriptures. Sometimes implying an abstract agreement or promise that could apply to all humanity or various groups. The God of Sinai, not a Universal God. The false prophet scriptures declare otherwise. Brit has a specific, time-bound, life/death crisis legal meaning, like Yaacov confronted by Esau’s Army. Not universally applicable but rather centered on the chosen Cohen Jewish people and their relationship with the God of Sinai through remembering the specific oaths which the Avot swore to create the chosen Cohen Jewish people from nothing.

            Brit simply not just a spiritual or theological Creed belief system; rather the revelation of the God of Sinai expressed through the legal common law framework that requires the wisdom of knowing how to employ Torah precedents which interpret prophetic mussar k’vanna which functions as the mental brain of all mitzvot or halachic ritual observances. Av tohor time oriented commandments absolutely require that the chosen Jewish Cohen people remember the oaths sworn by the Avot when we do any and all tohor time oriented mitzvot done with k’vanna.

            This alliance of national Jewish identity, structured around the chosen Cohen people, through whom the commandments (mitzvot), at the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, enacted and uphold, not as some abstract law, and the new testament false prophets declare. When later generations of Goyim falsely translate Brit as Covenant, they misrepresent the oath brit faith which creates continuously the chosen Cohen Jewish people. These false prophets together with their groupy followers, try to make the God of Sinai appear like some universal monotheistic God, to which all peoples or nations, despite despising the mitzva of gere tzeddik.

            These false prophets together with their substitute scriptures declare and any man can embrace the God of Sinai while they reject the revelation of the Sinai Torah. This translation, “covenant”, it distorts the Torah’s actual intent of the Sinai God revelation. Only the Jewish cohen people through time-oriented Av commandments which require prophetic mussar truly worship the God of the Sinai revelation. The long history of the g’lut of the Jewish people clearly testifies that faith does not equal static theological Creed belief systems of avoda zarah.

            Like

            Reply

      4. 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.

        Like

        Reply

      5. 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.”

        Like

        Reply

  5. Happy Easter. My friend here in Korea invited me to his church for easter service. I’m not religious but being inside places of worship has always made me feel good.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  6. The T’NaKH, resurrection non existent, personal resurrection a foreign Greek or Roman mythology. The only reference in the whole of the Torah for such a brain dead stupid myth, the משל of the oath sworn between the pieces wherein old Sarah and Avram told their bodies would rise from the dead and produce children in their old age. Ezekiel 37 “Valley of dry bones” merely a משל which teaches the mussar that Israel in g’lut – like as in the days of ancient Egypt – would “rise from the dead” and the Jewish nation in Judea would live again as a free nation in the Middle East. Daniel 12:2 mysticism serves as a commentary to Ezekiel 37.

    John (the client of a prostitute) 20 merely exists as a mythological perversion of the T’NaCH, which seeks to substitute Xtian believers as the “new chosen Cohen people/not nation. The T’NaKH contains no precedent for individual resurrection as a theological claim. John’s gospel—especially chapter 20—isn’t just a myth. It’s a Greco-Roman literary appropriation of Jewish symbols, repackaged to serve a super-sessionist agenda. Empty tombs, gardener deities, death-and-rebirth motifs, and female witness figures are all common in Hellenistic mystery cults (e.g., Dionysus, Osiris, Adonis). Mary Magdalene, cast as the first witness, is framed like a cultic initiate recognizing the divine epiphany—straight out of pagan salvific theater.

    There’s a long pagan tradition of personal resurrection, often linked to fertility cycles, divine kingship, or mystery cult initiations. The Greco-Roman world was saturated with myths of dying-and-rising gods or mortals. Dionysus is killed (in some versions by Titans), dismembered, and then resurrected by his father Zeus. Mystery cults of Dionysus emphasized death, rebirth, and personal salvation through initiation. A very clear parallel to the later Xtian spiritual narrative. Osiris, murdered by his brother Set, chopped into pieces, then reassembled and resurrected by his wife Isis. Osiris becomes king of the underworld, and a symbol of personal resurrection for believers in Egyptian and later Hellenistic-Egyptian cults. Osiris’ cult was imported into Greco-Roman religion—Isis-Osiris-Serapis worship was especially popular in 1st-century Egypt and Rome.

    Romulus disappears in a storm and is later resurrected/assumed into heaven as the god Quirinus; Divine ruler who does not stay dead—instead, he ascends and becomes a deity of the Roman state; similar to the idea of Jesus “ascending” to become Lord.

    John 20 and 1 Corinthians 15—absorbs and retools all these elements, like Dionysus and Osiris, or like the myth of Romulus. This isn’t prophecy fulfilled—it’s myth recycled, now retrofitted with Hebrew names and places, but completely foreign to T’NaCH literature.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

      2. 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.”

        Like

        Reply

      3. “Observer status” doesn’t mean “no influence.” In fact, Palestine (like the Vatican) holds only observer status at the UN, yet the Palestinian issue dominates discussions, resolutions, and international debates. he Palestinian Authority was granted non-member observer state status in 2012 (Resolution 67/19). This gave them access to international bodies like: The International Criminal Court (ICC), UNESCO, World Health Organization (WHO), and participation in the General Assembly debates. Though they can’t vote, they can speak, propose language, mobilize blocs, and file legal claims (e.g., war crimes allegations against Israel at the ICC).

        The UN General Assembly is ruled by numbers, not dollars. Over 2/3 of UN member states are part of the Non-Aligned Movement, OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), or Global South — most of whom side with Palestinian narratives out of: Post-colonial solidarity; Oil and trade diplomacy; Shared anti-Western sentiment; Islamic unity etc. This means Palestinian-backed resolutions routinely pass, even if the U.S., Israel, Canada, and a few others vote “no.”

        The bias in certain UN bodies (like the Human Rights Council, which has a permanent agenda item only on Israel — Item 7). The Vatican amplifies the legitimacy of Palestinian claims by, recognizing the State of Palestine; visiting Palestinian sites; making statements about peace, occupation, and human dignity that subtly undermine Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem. It adds moral weight, not votes — but moral weight matters in diplomacy, especially when shaping public perception and media framing.

        From 2015–2023, the UN passed over 140 resolutions against Israel, more than against North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Russia combined. Most of these are symbolic and non-binding, but they shape global opinion and are used as legal ammunition in anti-Israel propaganda campaigns. The Vatican’s role in this system isn’t financial — it’s moral, symbolic, and theological. But that symbolism moves votes, shapes resolutions, and keeps the Palestinian issue at the center of the global stage.

        Though both the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Vatican hold only observer status at the United Nations, the Palestinian issue dominates global discussion, diplomacy, and symbolic resolution traffic at an overwhelming scale. This case illustrates how the UN can function less like a neutral forum and more like a diplomatic echo chamber, where bloc politics and symbolic victories overshadow both funding realities and member state hierarchies. How Papal Bull throughout the Middle Ages condemned Jews to ghetto gulags for multiple centuries and supported taxation without representation upon stateless Jewish refugees expelled from one European country to another almost every Easter.

        No other nation on Earth is subject to a permanent agenda item at the UN Human Rights Council — except Israel. Item 7 mandates the Council to debate Israel’s conduct at every session. Other egregious human rights violators (e.g., Iran, China, North Korea) evade similar scrutiny. This institutional double standard exposes the political weaponization of human rights mechanisms under the guise of Vatican moral domination of international law. The Vatican contest Israeli rule over Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. Issue statements about “peace,” “occupation,” and “dignity” that subtly delegitimize Israeli sovereignty. The Vatican provides theological and moral capital, enhancing the perceived legitimacy of Palestinian victimhood narratives in Western media and diplomatic circles. That moral-theological hostility toward Jewish sovereignty has merely changed costumes — today, it wears the robes of international law, human rights rhetoric, and multilateral diplomacy. The UN’s obsession with Israel is not grounded in human rights, international law, or funding priorities — it is a symbolic theater where observer states, bloc alliances, and ancient theological resentments converge to perpetuate the denial of Jewish agency on the world stage.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment