I don’t go to church, but I consider myself religious.
And I don’t often write about religion, but today I will.
It’s important to me—really, it is. I’ve always said, tongue-in-cheek, why wouldn’t I want a relationship with the Creator?
Why wouldn’t I want to know God?
And then I’d lean back, readjust my seat, and wonder:
Why wouldn’t anyone want to know God?
To me, it’s only human to wonder who’s behind all of this. It’s our right. It’s our uniquely human gift.
Growing up, you go to school and hear about the Big Bang theory, but call me skeptical—I believe the world and universe are too complex for everything to have happened by accident. I mean, really, how could this be an accident? If it is, it’s one heck of a lucky one. And even more so, how did all the matter form?
This is not to say science and religion cannot coexist, it should. But it is to say that there is something more.
So lately, with a curious mind, I’ve made a habit of reading the Bible to understand more and form my own thoughts on the stories I’ve been hearing for decades.
I tend to think religion, much like politics, is a giant game of telephone—someone says something, and it gets misinterpreted in ways only humans can misinterpret.
So, I started reading the source material—the Bible—to get my own thoughts. After much reading and reflecting, here’s my stance in a nutshell:
Real Christianity is much harder than you think.
Here’s what I mean.
What Being a Christian Means
Being a Christian isn’t about throwing on your nicest shoes and going to church on Sunday. Being a Christian is all in the name itself—it’s about being Christ-like. And Christ… well, he wasn’t a normal dude. Far from it.
Christ was above human desires.
You know when someone cuts you off in traffic, and maybe—just maybe—you hope they drive off a bridge?
Yeah… that’s not very Christian.
Or how you might enjoy going to the fair just to people-watch judge others for laughs.
Not exactly Christian.
Or maybe you have a super eager, super annoying boss that makes you roll your eyes at the thought alone—not very Christ-like.
Or maybe you see a pretty girl, and your eyes linger a few seconds too long.
Not exactly Christ-like.
Christ was above all that and set an example for us to follow… and then was tortured for it. At the core of his example, I see someone living life through a lens of love and fighting—and winning—the battle over our innate human desires. To me, that’s what being a Christian means. It means denying the impulses we all have and living in love. And it’s hard… really hard. After all, we were designed to do pretty much everything but that.
I tend to think we humans are deeply flawed, deeply emotional creatures of comfort. We want to protect ourselves, and the way we do that is by relying on our ego. Left unchecked, our egos will go out of their way to put us first, to protect us at any cost, and to justify every bad behavior we have. It’s our wingman that’s wingin’ 24/7, 365.
And this is something I struggle to overcome.
You’ve read my writing and sensed my snark. The scary part is that’s me holding back.
But if I’m reading the Bible and trying to live the lessons, that’s something I’ll inevitably have to overcome.
It’s also something I will probably struggle with for the rest of my life.
But it’s ok – that’s kind of the deal we get. Really, that’s the point of religion. Denying yourself, living for God, and doing the best you can.
So, to come full circle, what does being a Christian mean?
It means opening your hand instead of balling your fist.
It means holding back judgment when it’s easier to judge.
It means forgiving your enemies and turning the other cheek when all you want is justice.
It means helping people who can’t help themselves, even when you don’t get thanked for it.
It means denying yourself and living for God.
It means having faith, like a mustard seed, knowing it will grow into a tree.
It means acting in love when life suggests you want to do anything but.
It means building a relationship with God and putting God first when we want to put ourselves first.
And it means surrendering your human desires and responding with love when it’s so easy to hate.
All of this is something I struggle with.
But despite the challenges, I actually find being a Christian rewarding. It encourages me to live more in the ways the Bible suggests, which, to me, promotes empathy. And wouldn’t a more empathetic world be nice?
I’m not done reading the Bible, and I’m sure the more I read it, the more thoughts I’ll have. Some will likely contradict what I’ve written here.
But this is my start, and writing this helps me understand more than anything else.
I think religion is something you should explore for yourself. But if this helps, I hope it does.
Have a great day, and God bless.
Please like, comment, share and tell me what you think. What am I missing? What does it mean to you?
Amen, brother. Nicely put. We are all messy works in progress and having good role models to emulate (and Jesus is a pretty good one) is a great help.
Thank you so much for reading
Thank you for sharing!
Amen, i so glad you took the time to share this content with us.. I think the bible is the greatest tool for us to be in peace with the world and ourselves
So happy you enjoyed! Thank you so much!
Also, Anthony Robert, the Bible is something that can never be “finished.”
You may read the book over and over, and, if you are alert and asking for help from God, Who desires to reveal Himself to those who believe that He is, He will reveal Himself to you!
Shaun St. Clair
{ a. D. 2024 – x – 14 @ ~8:10 p. m. PDT }
When I received a notification of your like, this blog was the first among your few posts that were suggested to me. For the past few years I’ve been struggling to live ‘Christ like’. This is the easiest thing to do yet practically it’s very hard. I do have my low and high moments but when I find myself tripping, I always pat myself on my back and tell myself that I’ll start over and over again until I get it right. I completely relate to this article
So happy you enjoyed!!
Thank you for reading we’ve all been there, all apart of the journey
Bible study and prayer are two of the primaries of acquainting yourself with your Maker: gathering together with others who profess to desire to know what God would have them to do is another.
I am christian and my understanding about christian is different from all.
Listen…
Christian is came from from christiano.
Christiano is the follower of Jesus that has no sin.
The soul of christiano is the true christian we are all christian by soul.
Welcome to the christian world.
If you don’t know yet we are all christian.
We are born again.
Only the soul without temple is not christian.
For 9 years, I worked in a very large church. All I can add to the conversation is that I emphatically agree with you.
Thank you so so much
I agree and enjoy what you’ve written. To me being a Christian means letting Christ flow through you. Remember those WWJD? It is so much deeper than that. It is what am I doing that is Christ expressing as me. WWID (what would I do, if He had discipled me.) We can’t do all of what He did but we can emulate His temperament and line of thinking but as ourselves. (Let Christ be in me). Thank you for this article. It opened my eyes.
Totally agree thank you for reading
To know God is to walk with him, live with him through life’s nitty gritties. Consciously expose my thoughts, emotions, motivations and intentions- the secret me- to God. Then, eventually, talking to myself is talking to him.
Love it!
Good article. Thanks
Well written. Who wouldn’t want a relationship with God? I think most people do, they get tangled up in how to find it. Jesus is the way, but some think other ways seem more appealing, easier, harder, I don’t know. I’m glad you found Him. ❤️
I think you’ve hit some of the high-points of being a Christian. But I have to say, I hate RELIGION and all that it stands for. I think Jesus didn’t care much about “religion” either. After all, it was the RELIGIOUS PEOPLE that put Him to death. Right? So, being a Christian to me means being the best example of Jesus as possible and staying in the BEST RELATIONSHIP with Him. The Bible is full of examples of who Jesus was/is and I try daily to be more like him. My relationship with Him is the most important. Being a Christian isn’t that hard. It’s living in such a messed up world that is hardest. I thank God everyday that I have Him. I can’t imagine life without Him and often wonder how I ever did.
Love everything you said and I agree
Thank you for this honest analysis, Tony. You may be surprised: you would get EXACTLY the same wisdom from studying any of the great religions and philosophies. To me, that says they express the truth, but each is distorted by its cultural background, and the fact that it is recorded, interpreted and advanced by us faulty humans.
Thank you so much!! Great to know!
Thank you for sharing. I agree. Being a Christian is a lifestyle.
💯 thank you for reading
Tony,
I so enjoyed your post. Your thoughts on Christianity are provoking and inspiring. It is a journey into a relationship, and I am glad you are on it. The message of love, that was not just conveyed, but portrayed by Jesus, was meant to pierce the soul, and I see it has hit its mark. He continues to change lives after 2000 years, and it is as Emerson said, “His name is not so much written but plowed into the history of the world.” (You will love the full quote.)
Jesus’ message in a nutshell is as you observed, “love God, love each other.” The problem is we have skewed it and twisted it to mean something other than what Christ intended. The results of this paradigm shift have become a distortion of paramount importance. Instead of, “God is love” we now believe, “Love is God.” Denis De Rougemont addressed this fallacy when he wrote, “Love ceases to be a demon when he ceases to be a god.” The majority of the woes we now experience in our relationships stem from the afore mentioned perspective and we must expend every energy to reverse it. I think we each are at the very least a bit hedonistic, maybe even narcissistic, and it is only though the love of God and others that those spells are broken. We must at all costs lay hold of the message of the Cross and love, love is after all a verb.
Outside of Christ’s words, no other works of man have touched me more deeply and changed my heart than those of C.S. Lewis in his essay, “The Weight of Glory.” Even today, many years later, I still feel a prick in my heart every time I read those words. I pray they inspire you too Tony. Thank you for sharing your journey.
“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest most uninteresting person you can talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all of our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations – these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors.”
Well written post. Religion is not about following it blindly without understanding it. It is about application of the teachings of God in our real lives.
This is well written. I’ve been a Christian for 20 years and it’s not easy at times. It’s a battle between walking in the Spirit and walking in the flesh, for sure. But in those moments I fall short, as we all do, I know I can ask forgiveness, turn from my sin and have a fresh start. The turning point for me was seeing it as not religion but a relationship. The more time I spent with God and reading His Word, the deeper that relationship is. God bless you!
God bless you thank you so much!
Tony,
I so enjoyed your post. Your thoughts on Christianity are provoking and inspiring. It is a journey into a relationship, and I am glad you are on it. The message of love, that was not just conveyed, but portrayed by Jesus, was meant to pierce the soul, and I see it has hit its mark. He continues to change lives after 2000 years, and it is as Emerson said, “His name is not so much written but plowed into the history of the world.” (You will love the full quote.)
I’m not religious, but I wish more Christians actually emulated Jesus’s example and lived by his teachings, in particular Do unto others … and Let him who is without sin …
I plan to share the Christian part of me in my page one day, my approach wouldn’t be complete without it. But I have always wondered how I’d approach it. It was great reading your viewpoint, thank you for sharing Tony
It is nice to read your observations as I go out this morning. I may look at the world Tony style and have a internal chuckle. Thanks for liking my post- “We filled a dumpster”. Press on with your honest self…
“I tend to think religion, much like politics, is a giant game of telephone—someone says something, and it gets misinterpreted in ways only humans can misinterpret.”
Great read👌
Amen!
Amen
And all the people said ‘Amen!!!’
I appreciate that you write from the heart. Having written that, I encourage reading the New Testament as though you knew nothing about it. Read the book of Mark, since that is the first of the gospels. Jesus was an angry man, and Mark makes that clear. Jesus’ objective was to get the people to adhere to the Torah. He had no ideas of what we, today, call Christianity. All of that came from Paul, not Jesus. Regardless, I am pleased that you find comfort in the book.
Amen
Believe in Christ!
Even Christ Himself could no live it without the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. And He told His Disciples to wait on it too. After that they were Living Christians or being Christians.
Ahh interesting! Thank you for sharing
The Blessing of Saint Maurus over the Sick with a Relic of the True Cross or the Medal of Saint Benedict. theraccolta: On the Importance and Benefits of… – The Light of Faith
The Blessing of Saint Maurus over the Sick with a Relic of the True Cross or the Medal of Saint Benedict. theraccolta: On the Importance and Benefits of… – The Light of Faith
The Blessing of Saint Maurus is a traditional Catholic blessing that involves invoking the intercession of Saint Maurus, a disciple of Saint Benedict, for the healing of the sick. This blessing is often performed using a relic of the True Cross or the Medal of Saint Benedict, both of which are considered powerful sacramentals in the Catholic faith.
The relic of the True Cross is believed to be a piece of the cross on which Jesus was crucified, and it holds great significance for Christians. The Medal of Saint Benedict, on the other hand, is a sacramental that bears the image of Saint Benedict and various inscriptions that are believed to offer protection against evil and illness.
The Blessing of Saint Maurus is part of a larger tradition of blessings and prayers in the Catholic Church that seek divine intervention for healing and protection. It reflects the deep faith and trust in the power of prayer and the intercession of saints.
If you’re interested in learning more about this blessing and its significance, you might want to explore resources on Catholic sacramentals and the lives of Saint Maurus and Saint Benedict. 2 söndagen ”under året” C
Publicerat på 19 januari, 2025 av F. Gustav Ahlman
Familjemässa och mässa på latin i Kristus Konungens kyrka, Göteborg. Läsningar: Jes 62:1–5; Ps 96:1–3, 7–8a, 9, 10ac; 1 Kor 12:4–11; Joh 2:1–11.
Kära bröder och systrar
Evangeliet som vi nyss hörde om hur Jesus förvandlade vatten till vin vid bröllopet i Kana är den tredje händelsen i Jesu liv som ursprungligen firades liturgiskt i samband med epifania, Herrens uppenbarelses högtid, tillsammans med de vise männens tillbedjan och Jesu dop. Bröllopet i Kana var det första tillfället då Jesus uppenbarade sin härlighet genom att utföra ett mirakel. Tidigare lästes detta evangelium varje år på denna den andra söndagen efter epifania. I och med att liturgireformen har berikat lektionariet med många andra evangelietexter också så får vi numer bara höra detta evangelium vart tredje år, så vi får lyssna och meditera över det extra noga denna söndag. Å andra sidan inkluderade den helige påven Johannes Paulus II år 2002 både Herrens dop och bröllopet i Kana bland ljusets mysterier i rosenkransen, som vi sedan dess inbjuds att meditera över varje torsdag.
Miraklet vid bröllopet i Kana visar oss att Jesus till att börja med faktiskt har makt att utföra mirakler, att han kan hjälpa oss med precis allt som vi behöver hjälp med, men att vi ibland måste be enträget om det vi behöver för att bli bönhörda. Mirakler är händelser som går utöver det sätt som vi är vana att naturen vanligtvis fungerar på, och som vi därför inte kan förklara med vanliga vetenskapliga metoder. Gud har skapat världen med en viss ordning, och tack vare detta har vi kunnat formulera olika naturlagar. Men eftersom Gud är allsmäktig så kan han även ingripa direkt i skapelsen och handla på ett sätt som han aldrig tidigare gjort, och som vi således inte kan förutsäga med hjälp av naturlagarna. Detta innebär att det alltid står i Guds makt att hjälpa oss i alla våra svårigheter, även när vi med vår begränsade erfarenhet inte kan föreställa oss någon lösning på problemet.
De flesta mirakler som Jesus utför i evangelierna har att göra med olika former av helanden, t.ex. blinda som får synen tillbaka, spetälska som blir friska, lama som kan gå igen och t.o.m. döda som återuppväcks till livet. Vi är inte skapade för att bli sjuka och dö i förtid, utan sjukdomar och döden kom in i världen tillsammans med synden. Därför är det ganska lätt att förstå att Jesus ägnade mycket av sin offentliga verksamhet åt att bota sjuka, för att visa att han har makt att ta bort både synden och dess onda konsekvenser. Ett annat av Jesu största mirakler var att mätta över 5000 människor med bröd och fisk, för att de inte skulle gå hungriga. Men Jesu första mirakel bestod varken av att bota de sjuka eller ge mat åt de hungrande. Han förvandlade vatten till vin vid ett bröllop, för att bröllopsfesten inte skulle bli misslyckad och brudparet utskämt. Detta visar att Gud inte bara bryr sig om att uppfylla våra mest basala behov så att vi kan överleva och vara friska. Gud är även mån om att vi verkligen ska vara lyckliga och glada i alla livets skeenden. Gud är till sitt väsen självutgivande och livgivande kärlek. Genom sin närvaro vid bröllopet i Kana har Jesus välsignat äktenskapet mellan man och kvinna och upphöjt det till ett sakrament, i och med att det återspeglar kärleken mellan honom själv och Kyrkan, hans brud. Äktenskapet utgör därmed en försmak och föraning om Guds oändliga kärlek till oss, samtidigt som det gör det möjlighet att på ett konkret sätt dela med sig och föra denna livgivande kärlek vidare till andra.
Att Jesu första mirakel bestod av att förvandla vatten till vin visar även en annan mycket konkret sak, nämligen att det, till skillnad mot vad vissa kristna verkar tro, inte är någon synd att dricka vin och andra alkoholhaltiga drycker, givetvis förutsatt att man har åldern inne och det sker i måttliga mängder. Att frivilligt avstå från att dricka alkohol kan visserligen vara ett mycket bra frivilligt offer, men det får inte leda till att man ser ner på andra som inte avstår. Om avståndstagande från alkohol eller andra legitima njutningar bara leder till att man blir en bitter tråkmåns och hemligt avundsjuk på andra som inte gjort samma offer, då har denna uppoffring slagit helt fel. Å ena sidan måste vi vara beredda att leva enkelt för att lämna större plats för Gud i våra liv. Å andra sidan måste vi också vara beredda att ta emot de gåvor som Gud vill ge oss som tecken på hans kärlek och omtanke om oss. Som den fransk-brittiske katolske författaren Hilaire Belloc diktade: ”Wherever the Catholic sun doth shine, There’s always laughter and good red wine. At least I’ve always found it so. Benedicamus Domino!” Eller tolkat till svenska: ”Varhelst den katolska solen skiner finns det alltid skratt och goda, röda viner. Åtminstone har jag alltid funnit det vara på så vis. Herren vare lov och pris!”
För att vi ska få del av alla de goda gåvor som Gud vill ge oss så måste vi dock ofta först be om dem. Och det är inte alltid lätt att veta vare sig vad vi borde be om eller hur vi borde be om det. Men här kan det sätt som Jesus utförde sitt första mirakel på lära oss en annan mycket viktig sak, nämligen det faktum att det skedde genom hans heliga moder Marias förmedling. I den första meningen av dagens evangelium står det att ”Jesu mor var där” (Joh 2:1). Först i den efterföljande meningen nämns att ”Jesus och hans lärjungar var också bjudna till bröllopet.” (Joh 2:2) Förmodligen var brudparet goda vänner i första hand till Jungfru Maria, snarare än till hennes son som ännu inte hade uppenbarat sin härlighet och förmåga att göra mirakler. Jungfru Maria hade fått höra av ängeln Gabriel att hennes son även skulle kallas ”den Högstes Son” (Luk 1:32), och förstod hon att han hade makt att göra mirakler. Så när vinet tog slut och bröllopsfesten höll på att förstöras så gör Maria sin son uppmärksam på detta, utan att diktera vad han borde göra. ”De har inget vin” (Joh 2:3), säger hon kort och gott. Jesus tycks svara henne lite bryskt med det till synes opersonliga tilltalet ”kvinna”, och menar att hans ”stund har inte kommit än” (Joh 2:4). Att Jesus tilltalar sin mor som ”kvinna” kan dock ses som att hon är ”kvinnan” framför alla andra, den nya Eva som löser upp den knut som den första kvinnan orsakade. Jesu ”stund” syftar i första hand på hans lidande och död, det som han först och främst kom till världen för att göra. Att göra sig känd genom att börja utföra mirakler utgjorde skulle utgöra inledningen av hans offentliga verksamhet, som i sin tur skulle leda fram till denna hans ”stund” på korset. Men om stunden ännu inte hade kommit för Jesus att utföra mirakler, så påskyndades den av Jungfru Marias förbön. I detta ser vi även ett exempel på hur Jesus är ett föredöme i att lyda ens föräldrar. Och de sista ord av Jungfru Maria som finns nedtecknade i evangeliet sammanfattar hela hennes väsen: ”Gör det han säger åt er.” (Joh 2:5). I allt som Jungfru Maria gör pekar hon vidare på sin son och lär oss och hjälper oss att följa honom. Så när vi inte vet hur vi borde be eller ens vad vi borde be om, då kan vi med fördel be om Jungfru Marias moderliga förbön. Vi kan vara säkra på att hon alltid bär fram våra böner till sin son på ett sätt som behagar honom.
Låt oss tacka Gud för hans oändliga kärlek och omsorg om oss i alla livets skeenden, och låt oss hålla ut tålmodigt i bön om att få allt som vi behöver för att må bra och vara lyckliga, samt ta hjälp av Guds heliga moder Marias förmedling för detta. Och låt oss be om nåden att vi som Jesu lärjungar alltid stärks i vår tro varje gång han uppenbarar sin härlighet för oss genom att svara på våra böner. Amen.
Well written! You are correct on all that. We are to be Christ like and it is a struggle because we are born with sin nature. spiritual warfare is a daily battle. We are to put on the full armor of God daily to resist the devil and his schemes. See “For this reason take up the full armor of God, so that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having prepared everything, to take your stand. (Ephesians 6 :13 csb)
God (Jesus) came as Son of God and Son of man and he was tempted by the devil just as we are but in every possible way, but did not sin. He died for our sins as the ultimate sacrifice. To give us eternal life with Him. Matthew offers a lot on this topic.
You have made so many great points here. I just wanted to share some other good ones.
Keep sharing the good news! Well done.
Also we are encouraged to study science and history but not to trust all that’s said. But to trust Gods word above all. If you look up politics in the topical encyclopedia in your bible you will find a lot. 🙂
Love the advice, thank you so much for reading and commenting
Of course! That’s what we are all here for. To share and teach the word of God! Witnessing is a part of being Gods children. Brothers and sisters of Christ stick together and help others come to know Him! I love God and want to help and encourage others to know Him more.
That’s a great thing!
All glory to God!
Amen
Why the Jews Reject the Christian and Muslim Worship of Avoda Zarah Gods.
Translating abstract Hebrew concepts, such as שם ומלכות, into literal translations is highly problematic. Neither the Koran nor the New Testament ever once brings the שם השם revealed in the First Sinai commandment. This commandment instructs to perform the Torah commandments לשמה (for their own sake).
The New Testament heavily relies upon the metaphor of “father” throughout the Gospel narratives. One reference in Deuteronomy 32:6: “Is this the way you repay the Lord, you foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?”
This strong mussar rebuke merits a common law search for a precedent within the language of the first four Books of the Written Torah. Paul’s critique: “You’re not under the Law” fails to discern between Torah common law/משנה תורה\ from Greek and Roman statute law legal formats.
The Torah never refers to the First commandment revelation of the Spirit Name with any reference to the foreign name Allah. Hence Jews reject this foreign substitution to replace the revelation of the Torah at Sinai with Muhammad’s revelation of Allah in a cave.
The Jewish people utterly amazed that Goyim have no concept of the distinction between tohor vs tumah spirits. This fundamental distinction required for the chosen Cohen people to do “avodat HaShem”; roughly interpreted as the service or worship of HaShem.
The term מלכות refers to the spiritual direction of dedicating defined tohor spirits first revealed to Moshe after the Sin of the Gold Calf at Horev: ה’ ה’ אל רחום וחנון etc. The revelation of this “Oral Torah” the church fathers absolutely deny the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah.
The only other verse in the whole of the T’NaCH which employs 3 Divine Names in succession, kre’a Shma. Contrast the mitzva of saying kre’a shma with tefillen; with how Goyim scholars interpret Hear Israel the Lord God the Lord is One. The Talmud understands the 3 Divine Names, to the 3 oaths each separately sworn by the Avot.
The term ONE, the last word of the kre’a shma, the person who accepts the yoke of the kingdom of heaven, he accepts the oaths separately sworn by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov as ONE upon his heart.
The purpose of tefillen: to swear a Torah oath. Goyim theologies never ask: what oaths did the Avot swear to cut a brit with HaShem concerning the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. Islam in particular give a blow-job to the honor of the circumcised Avot. Christians see the Shema as a declaration of the oneness of God, which aligns with their belief in the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as one God in three persons. Muslim commentaries on the Shema recognize its importance in affirming the oneness of God, which is a central tenet of Islam.
The Quran makes intertextual connections with the Shema, emphasizing that prayer and devotion to God are not about physical direction but about loving God with all one’s heart. This latter idea fails to address Rabbi Yechuda’s interpretation of לבבך as Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. Yatzir Ha’Rah.
The concept of ‘resurrection from the dead’ shares nothing with life after death as both religions of avoda zarah preach. Rather the Yazir Ha’Tov breaths the spirits which did breath the spirits of the Avot! ONE, this concluding word of the Shma raises the Avot from the dead within the Yatzir Ha’Tov of each and every Jew in all generations, based upon the power to Create from nothing, by swearing a Torah oath!
Hence when a Cohen didicated a korban upon the altar in Jerusalem, the portion of Israel in the korbonot avodat HaShem service, they read the Creation story in the beit knesset.
Rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah known as פרדס defines how to logically understand how to employ the 13 tohor middot, as the critical means to make a precedent search comparison; the substance of Oral Torah common law scholarship upon the Written Torah. A quick examination of Deuteronomy 32:6 learns through the wisdom of Torah common law precedents.
This mussar rebuke begins at 32:1 – 32:43. Mussar defines all prophecies, as codified by Moshe Rabbeinu and all other NaCH prophets. Goyim do not know this basic fundamental of Torah faith/pursuit of courtroom justice.
Their Gospel forgery attempts to pervert tohor prophets to Av tumah witchcraft and sorcerers – who predict the future. This one Torah reference to “Father” merits a look at the previous verse for context. Both Trinity or strict monotheism qualifies as strange worship of foreign Gods.
These alien Gods have no connection with the plagues in Egypt, the splitting of the Sea of Reeds, nor the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. They directly compare to the Av tumah Golden Calf.
This revelation, that all Goyim to this day reject the Torah Sinai revelation. This prophetic mussar directly refers to the tuma worship of foreign alien Gods imported to Judaism by Av tuma Xtianity and Islam.
This tremendous mussar rebuke, Deut. 32:1 – 32:43, compares to the vow which HaShem made to Moshe following the sin of the Golden Calf! Hence the rebuke of Moshe at the end of his life serves to amplify the prophetic mussar taught through the Aggadic story of Noach and the floods. Genesis 6:5 to 8:20: the exile of Noach in his Ark, story of Aggadic mussar – a depth analysis of prophetic mussar of Deut. 32:1 – 32:43.
How could post Shoah Jewry defeat 5 Arab Armies and win our National Independence as a Nation after 2000+ years of oppressive exile? No Goyim courts of law ever once forced any church priest or pastor or any Sheik, to stand before the Bar and receive judgment for their evil war crimes committed repeatedly against the Jewish people and all Humanity in General.
A simple precedent by which to grasp this prophetic mussar of g’lut. A fundamental Torah theme which the Apostle Paul’s “original sin” substitute theology totally uprooted in Goyim minds.
The 1st Sinai commandment functions as the greatest commandment of the entire Torah. And it has no hint or reference to the Xtian Trinity Creed nor the Muslim Monotheism substitute theology Tawhid Creeds.
The abstract term מלכות refers to the korban-like dedication of living blood thrown upon the altar; to the dedication of one or more of the 13 tohor middot Spirits revealed to Moshe at Horev, 40 days after the Sin of the Golden Calf, where a portion of Israel attempted to translate the Spirit Name of the 1st Sinai revelation into the word אלהים.
Tefillah qualifies as the oath dedication of specific defined tohor middot as מלכות. The Order of the Shemone Esrei 3 + 13 + 3 Blessings. Contained within this Order the רמז of 613. Furthermore the order of this standing prayer holds a רמז to the 6 Yom Tov + Shabbat menorah!
Herein understands the Torah concept of מלכות required to swear a Torah oath. The dedication of tohor middot directly compare to the Cohen throwing living blood upon the altar. Hence tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot!
Why? Because both korbanot & tefillah both swear a Torah oath which dedicates tohor middot לשמה.
The Torah openly states that nothing in the Heavens, Seas, or Earth compares to the revelation of the Spirit Name of HaShem. How much more so for imbecile word translations that attempt to convert the Divine Presence Spirit revelation of the Name into words that the lips of man can easily pronounce!
The substitute religions of Av tuma avoda zarah attempt to foist belief in JeZeus or Allah as some “new covenant” Torah faith. These abominations fail to grasp that Torah defines faith as the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice rather than belief in theological Gods which the mind of Man cannot possibly grasp nor understand.
T’shuva does not correctly translate as repentance. T’shuva learns from HaShem annulling His vow to make the chosen Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe rather than the seed of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov. Chag Yom Kippur commemorates this t’shuva made by HaShem. The Torah specifically employs the term t’shuva wherein HaShem annulled His vow to make the chosen Cohen nation from the seed of Moshe rabbeinu rather than from the oaths sworn to the Avot to this effect.
When the Romans renamed Judea unto the “Palestine”, herein represents a historical example of t’shuva. The Romans sought to physically wipe out the existence and memory of the Jewish people, just as did Hitler’s Nazis!
That the new testament and koran have no awareness of the oath brit faith, how tefillah differs from prayer because tefillah absolutely requires swearing a Torah oath as its time oriented commandment “k’vanna”; whereas prayer has nothing to do with swearing a Torah oath, nor with tohor time oriented commandments! These religious forgeries know nothing about the Torah faith which prioritized the obligation placed upon Torah Sanhedrin courts to pursue righteous compensation of damages inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent.
This concept of annulling a vow derived from Torah common law precedent commandments concerning a father and his daughter or a husband and his wife, where both could annul the vow made by either a girl or a woman. The Roman attempt to expunge the memory of the Jewish state of Judea likewise serves as an example of the intent of annulling a vow. As does UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/19, adopted on December 21, 2017. This resolution declared the status of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital as “null and void” and called on all states to refrain from establishing diplomatic missions in Jerusalem.
The Xtian and Muslim concepts – concerning worship of their Gods – fundamentally contradict the 2nd Sinai commandment. T’NaCH and Talmudic traditions define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment through the Torah precedents which forbid pursuing the ways of the Goyim which reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev; and the specific commandment not to intermarry foreign wives. King Shlomo worshipped avoda zarah; when he copied the Goyim practices of building grand Temples and married foreign wives.
The mitzva of building the Beit HaMikdash centers upon establishment of Sanhedrin Common law courts across the land, rather than bankrupting the country build some grand palatial cathedral. Hence the Sages placed the Great Sanhedrin within the Temple itself; they made a tiqqun on king Shlomo’s assimilated avoda zara! Jews do not worship wood and stone idols, how much more so ornate extravagant buildings! The oppressive slavery where Par’o withheld straw, yet beat Israeli slaves, upon this basic Torah precedent – stands Torah faith to pursue judicial justice.
Neither Xtianity nor Islam ever attempted to return the Jewish people to our homeland as, by stark contrast, did the great king of Persia. The Persian king Cyrus, referred to as a “messiah” or “anointed one.” This reference found in Isaiah 45:1, which states: “Thus says the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have grasped, to subdue nations before him and strip kings of their robes, to open doors before him— and the gates shall not be closed.” In this context, the term “anointed” (מָשִׁיחַ, mashiach), used to describe Cyrus, indicating that he was chosen by God to achieve a specific purpose, namely, to facilitate the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem. The Torah mitzva of Moshiach: anoints a Jewish king to police the land, working in close conjunction with judicial common law Sanhedrin lateral courts of justice.
The Persian king learned from the successful conquest of the Assyrian empire by the Babylonians. The Assyrian barbarians uprooted entire populations of conquered nations and replaced those refugee populations with foreign aliens who had no connection to that land. This reality permitted the Babylonian Armies to conquer the Assyrian empire much like water goes through a sieve.
Roman new testament propaganda stands in stark contrast with the great king of Persia. The Romans sought to ignite social anarchy and Civil War among the Jewish people. In this effort they succeeded as well as they did destroying Herod assimilated Temple abomination. The British government duplicated the policies of the hated Romans. During its Palestine mandate period, London foisted a divide and rule policy between Arabs and Jews.
Both the Syrian Greeks and the Romans based their society social order upon the ideas of ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle and others. Aristotle served as a key advisor to Alexander the Great. Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism does not compare to rabbi Akiva’s 4 part פרדס logic system. All logic requires order: the letter order which distinguishes “God vs Dog”, radically changes how a person perceives the idea communicated! In equal manner Order defines the Jewish Prayer Book known as the Siddur. The Siddur contains the root word סדר – Order.
Why do Jews view Xtianity and Islam as Av Tuma avoda zarah? Goyim never accepted the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. JeZeus did not observe the mitzva of shabbat. This mitzva requires that Jews make the הבדלה/distinction that discerns like from like; מלאכה from עבודה. Failure to understand the subtle distinction which separates these two verbs, both of which translate as “work”; an Am Ha’aretz never keeps the mitzva of shabbat observance – ever in his or her life.
Mesechta Shabbat learns מלאכה whereas mesechta Baba Kama learns עבודה. The question do the toldot follow the Avot asked by both mesechtot; this question based upon the Av time oriented commandments in בראשית, compared to the toldot positive and negative commandments in the Books שמות, ויקרא, ובמדבר. Torah scholarship always strives to make the essential understanding which makes the מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה between like from like “understandings”. The Talmud defines this attribute as the interpretation of the tohor midda of רב חסד. Baba Kama distinguishes between tam and muad damagers. The latter applies to Man because it requires intent, as do all time oriented Av commandments. Four Avot Muad damagers: Oppression, theft, ערוה, and judicial bribery, learned by means of a דיוק logical inference made upon the four tam damagers explicitly stated in the Av Mishna of Baba Kama.
Shabbat observance dedicates not doing forbidden מלאכה on the day of shabbat; דיוק, likewise to not do forbidden עבודה during the 6 days of the ‘week of shabbat’. The Goyim religions of Av tuma avoda zarah never grasped this fundamental distinction of shabbat observance as a mitzva inclusive of every day of the week. Proof that the polecat “daughter religions” never learned the Torah לשמה.
Both Xtianity and Islam superficially claim to respect shabbat, but their religious rhetoric, as empty as Arabs eating camel flesh but abhorring pork! These religions of avoda zarah have no awareness of the chosen Cohen people and the Divine oath inheritance to the oath sworn brit lands, or the spiritual awareness which discerns between tohor vs. tumah spirits which breath within the Yatzir Ha’Tov vs. the Yatzir Ha’Rah within the bnai brit hearts.
Repentance, a totally empty Xtian idea of personal regret; it shares no common ground with t’shuva, that bases itself upon annulling vows. Neither the father nor the husband “regrets” annulling a vow made by his daughter or wife. Therefore, t’shuva shares no common ground with the Xtian void concept of repentance.
Similarly, the translation of “covenant” shares no common ground with the Hebrew concept ברית. The latter – an oath alliance sworn לשמה. To swear an oath alliance requires שם ומלכות. The new testament and koran forgeries never bring the שם השם as revealed in the first Sinai commandment. Therefore, both books of Av tuma foreign religions – worship other gods; both Av tuma religions profane the 2nd Sinai commandment. Both know nothing that a Torah brit requires swearing a Torah oath לשמה, with the intent to cut an eternal alliance touching the chosen Cohen people.
All T’NaCH prophets command mussar strictly to the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the intent or k’vanna of all T’NaCH prophecy. The new testament Roman forgery does not comprehend these subtle distinctions. It together with Islam believes in some type of Universal God. The Xtian forgery seeks to promote civil war within Jewish society, by perverting prophecy into an Av tuma witchcraft, which makes predictions concerning the future. Throughout the gospel narrative this type of silly narishkeit spews from the new testament like farts.
Chaos and anarchy defined the Jewish revolt attempt(s) against the Romans. Multiple and many Jewish sects dominated the 66 rebellion. Bar Kokhba’s revolt failed to unite Jews of Judea with a well-timed & coordinated Jewish revolt together and united with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt. Furthermore, that general failed to drive the Roman legions out of Damascus, Syria, a critical error.
Bar Kokhba’s critical errors of judgment doomed this second Jewish revolt at Betar. Jewish social anarchy and civil war greatly contributed to the Roman victory over the Jewish revolts in both 66 and 135. The key concept of Torah faith revolves around the righteous pursuit of judicial justice within the borders of the oath-sworn brit lands – the eternal inheritance of the chosen Cohen nation, Bar Kokhba as a military messiah failed to achieve.
The Av tuma avoda zara religions, worship other gods; they pervert the Torah vision of faith – forcibly converted into some theological creed-based personal belief system. These substitute theologies attempts to subvert the Torah faith that spins around the central axis: the righteous pursuit of judicial justice obligations; which makes a fair compensation of damages inflicted by party A upon party B. Av tuma avoda zara religions seek to substitute the pursuit of righteous justice with a personal belief in JeZeus or Allah.
Av tuma Avoda zara substitute theologies attempt to supplant their creed based personal belief in theologically defined belief systems, that define their gods as either a 3-part One God mystery or a simple One God monotheism. Despite the simple fact that monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Because if only one God then no need to command not to worship other Gods. Moshe travelled to Egypt, and the 10 plagues judged the gods of Egypt. Just as did HaShem judge the Gods worshipped by the Canaanite kings. Avoda zara plagues all generations of Israel; all generations struggle with assimilation and intermarriage.
The sworn oath brit cut at GilGal, as expressed through the Rashi tefillen recalls the fact that Goyim worship other Gods. No such reality as a Universal God. The lights of Hanukkah, for example, reject Greek philosophy. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four basis logic system radically differs from Aristotle’s 3 part syllogisms. Attempts made by assimilated rabbis to interpret the T’NaCH and Talmud based upon Greek logic formats – an utter abomination on the order of Xtianity and Islam.
Greek philosophy qualifies as a foreign substitute theology; an Av tuma on par with the Christian and Muslim avoda zara repeated attempts to convert Jews with their replacement theologies. Hence Jews who study ancient Greek philosophy, they err in Av tuma avoda zara as much as do Jews who convert to Xtianity and Islam; as much as did Moshiach Bar Kachba failure to coordinate the revolt together with the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and to carry the war into Syria with the objective of conquering both Damascus together with all its major naval ports.
The Jewish concept of Moshiach a פרט to the כלל function of the Torah and the Oral Torah in interpreting key aspects of Jewish common law and prophecy; Moshiach: an Oral Torah commandment. Indeed, the Jewish approach to the concept of the Messiah, as found in both the T’NaCH and the Oral Torah Talmud codification, quite different & distinct from how the gospel counterfeit portrays Jesus within Christian theology. The following discussion reflects the different views on this matter, particularly in relation to how Jewish scholars might interpret the failure of the Gospel narrative to align with both the Torah’s precedence based common law legalism, and the traditional understanding of the Moshiach as understood through T’NaCH prophetic mussar.
The Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach, deeply rooted in how the Oral Torah interprets the k’vanna of the Written Torah; just as the time oriented commandment of tefillah requires שם ומלכות as its oath k’vanna. Particularly through the common law precedents set by Moshe’s anointing of the House of Aaron, as well as the later anointing of King Shaul by the prophet Shmuel.
The notion that the Moshiach must come from the lineage of David, himself a descendant of Judah, a latter tiqqun added to the mitzva of Moshiach. This latter tiqqun sought to ensure that the line of the House of David, completely rejects the Xtian theological “Father God” of JeZeus mythology. This latter revisionist history attempt directly compares to the mythology of how Zeus fathered Hercules! Adultery an Av tumah Capital Crime. JeZeus the offspring of Zeus as the father of the Gods, represents a Torah abomination.
The Talmud’s emphasis on the Torah sage being held in greater regard than a king of Israel, a critical piece Talmudic understanding concerning the priority of spiritual leadership. The Torah Talmid Chacham, perceived by the sages of the Talmud as the one who understands and interprets the Torah common law; possessing the wisdom to guide the nation in matters of our destiny path of truth-faith, which commits the chosen Cohen people to pursue righteous judicial justice. The role of the Moshiach in Oral Torah logic, not just a political or religious leader. Nor some military figure comparable to Bar Kachba; rather, Moshiach represents the Oral Torah interpretation of someone who restores the Torah as the Written Constitution of the Republic; the Oral Torah as the basic model of lateral common law courtrooms. As such, the Moshiach’s anointing, deeply tied to the oath brit relationship established by Avram at the brit cut between the pieces and the tradition Oral Torah learning.
Just as “swearing” an oath blessing requires שם ומלכות, so too the Order established by the Framers of the Talmud affixed a warp/weft loom like relationship between the Aggada narratives opposed by the Halachic portions of the Gemara common law precedent based commentary to the Mishna. Stripping a garment of either its warp or weft threads destroys the fabric of that garment. The statute law halachic codifications of the Middle Ages made this precise abomination. To correct the Rambam halachic perversion requires affixing any and all Rambam posok halacha in his statute law perversion to the identical halacha within the B’HaG, Rif, or Rosh common law halachic codifications. These kosher halachic common law codes always affix their Halachic Gemara rulings to a Primary Source Mishna.
Torah scholarship requires a sharp critical eye which can discern Like from Like. The Talmud refers to this skill as the definition of understanding. Just as swearing a oath blessing requires the warp/weft of שם ומלכות, so too and how much more so ritual halachic observance requires its Aggadic דרוש\פשט learning to T’NaCH Primary sources which makes a common law precedent comparison search that explores the depths or facets of prophetic mussar which defines the פשט of the Talmudic aggada warp. Oral Torah: just as the Gemara makes a multiply faceted משנה תורה\legislative review (re-interpretation) of the diamond like faces of Mishnaic language, so too and how much more so precedent based research gleans prophetic mussar tohor middot comparisons from sugyot of NaCH compared to the identical sets of tohor middot located in other sugyot of NaCH. This depth analysis of prophetic mussar determines the k’vanna of Torah mitzvot and Talmudic halachot observances.
The concept of anointing with oil in the context of sacrifices (korbanot) in the Temple, also fundamental to understanding the Jewish approach to Moshiach. This oil, used in the service of the Temple, symbolized the sanctification of Israel’s offerings and the anointing of its leaders. The Messiah, in Jewish thought, will be anointed in a similar manner to those figures who came before him—especially the kings and priests of Israel, in accordance with the Torah’s stipulations. A concrete act of divine selection and empowerment.
The Xstian claim that JeZeus fulfills the role of Moshiach simply at odds with the traditional Jewish understanding of the term. From the Jewish perspective, Jesus’ life and actions do not align with the Oral Torah’s requirements for Moshiach. The Gospels narrative fail to engage with the Oral Torah’s teachings about the Moshiach, and they do not acknowledge the precedent established in common law, the anointing of the House of Aaron or the priests and kings of Israel. In Jewish tradition, the Moshiach must be a descendant of King David (through his father, not his mother), a precondition which the so called ‘virgin birth’ failed to achieve. Furthermore, the bogus Xtian narrative specifically failed to “fulfill” the specific roles, re-establishment of the Federal Sanhedrin common law system of Torts and Capital Sanhedrin courtrooms which achieved judicial justice in the oath sworn lands of the chosen Cohen nation. None of these pre-conditions did JeZeus accomplish in any the historical context.
The failure of the Gospel narrative to align with the Torah’s precedent for the anointing of the Moshiach another of the many points of contention. In Jewish tradition, anointing with oil – an essential part of the mitzva of Moshiach. As exemplified in the Torah’s precedents of Moshe & Aaron, and of course kings Shaul & David. JeZeus never depicted as being anointed, except by a prostitute. Such a narrative compares to the judicial injustice and brutal torture which the gospel narrative portrays the JeZeus “sacrifice” upon the Roman altar of death. For Jewish scholars, this vile depiction makes only a fictional story. The gospel narrative does satisfy the Torah’s vision of Moshiach, which requires restoration of the Torah Constitutional Republic and the Sanhedrin lateral common law Federal court system. A prostitute anointing the feet of a man hardly qualifies as holy korban.
The Talmudic teachings on the Moshiach, make clear that the Messiah not only restores the Torah as the constitution of the Republic, but just as significant, the Moshiach re-establish Torah Sanhedrin lateral common law courts. The gospel narrative of a spiritual Moshiach, while not entirely foreign to Judaism, based upon the false messiah movements lead by Sabbatai Zevi and Yaacov Frank; based upon these latter false messiah examples the gospel fictional narrative hardly stands as authentic. Talmudic common law rejects such ‘spiritual messiahs as utterly false.
The Oral Torah\Talmud give a specific definition of a prophet as someone who guides the people of Israel toward t’shuva and adherence to the mitzvot (commandments) expressed through Av tohor time oriented commandments. Prophets, employ the 13 tohor middot as the basis of T’NaCH mussar common law sugya comparisons to other T’NaCH sugyot. Prophetic mussar, functions as the warp/weft loom like opposing threads of Talmudic halacha. T’NaCH prophetic mussar, based on a comparison of similar middot configurations within NaCH sugyot, defines the wisdom of learn the NaCH kabbalah לשמה. Time oriented commandments require prophetic mussar as the basis of k’vanna within the heart.
The concept of prophecy in Judaism, not about foretelling the future, a trait known to tuma false prophets, who according to the gospel narrative “fulfil” the words of the prophets. Utterly absurd. Time oriented Av Torah commandments, which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna of tohor Oral Torah middot, apply equally to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. The gospel narative did not grasp the essence of Torah observance of Av tohor time oriented commandments. Time oriented commandments require prophetic mussar for the generations to observe this unique type of Av commandments לשמה. The idea that JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets as absurd as a prostitute pouring oil onto his feet transforms this work of fiction into both Moshiach and the son of God.
The Xtian tradition, judged upon the scales of Oral Torah Av time oriented commandments, clear as the Sun on a cloudless day a false messiah depiction on the order of Harry Potter fiction. Allah Voldemort – dead. JeZeus particularly not only specifically ignorant of the mitzva of Shabbat & the כלל of Av time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar which define the k’vanna of Oral Torah middot. JeZeus, as a specific example taught “prayer” as “Our father who lives in Heaven” rather that tefillah a matter of the heart. Prophetic mussar k’vanna – a matter of the heart. Tefillah entails swearing a Torah oath לשמה to dedicate a specific defined tohor midda in order to make a tiqqun how a man interacts in the future with his wife, children, family, neighbours and people. The k’vanna of tefillah dedicates tohor defined prophetic mussar middot לשמה.
Xtian theology places JeZeus in a perverse position where the gospel narrative declares that he “fulfilled the Law”, oblivious that the gospels have not the least bit of a clue what Torah common law means nor how it functions. JeZeus’s departure from Torah common law, particularly in matters like Shabbat observance, cited as but one obvious example of how this imaginary man cannot and does not ‘fulfil’ the prophets.
The Jewish rejection of Jesus as Moshiach, or even as the koran narrative as a Torah prophet rests squarely upon the failure of the gospels to address Av tohor time oriented commandments. Besides the failure to align with the Torah’s specific precondition which learns the mitzva of Moshiach from korbanot anointed with oil together with the restoration of the Sanhedrin lateral common law court Federal court system. The Roman fraud gospel framers did not understand Constitutional Torah law.
This fundamental blatant error concerning the nature of prophetic mussar as the definition through precedent comparison which define the k’vanna of tohor middot, as the definition and purpose the Oral Torah Horev revelation. Implications of strange Xtian doctrines, such as salvation through grace, or Jesus’ fulfilment of the Law, judged as Av tuma avoda zarah; the forerunner of Sabbatai Zevi’s antinomian doctrine. The absolute ignorance of the gospel narrative to Av tohor time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna within the heart definitively proves that JeZeus failed the “one in 10,000” may attain the level of Torah scholarship and prophetic merit.
The Gospel narratives simply understood as a perversion of T’NaCH and Talmudic Moshiach mussar prophecies. Xtian theology and creeds ignores the foundational principles of achieving Av time oriented commandments, wherein the bnai brit Cohen people breath the tohor spirits of the Creator of the Universe from within the Yatzir Tov of our hearts; the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.
Muslim theologians approach the issue of JeZeus and Muhammad being referred to as Old Testament prophets, based upon the false assumption that the gospel narrative merit respect. Latter day Islam which declares the Torah as corrupt compares to the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith. Many Xtian theologians draw a line of comparison between Muhammad and Smith. Both “prophets” introduced their own new order of scriptures.
Both Islam and Mormonism highly revers the treif gospel narratives. Goyim have a deep infatuation with T’NaCH prophets, despite their total ignorance of tohor middot and Av time oriented commandments. Muhammad’s message of monotheism, likewise declares that JeZeus predicted the coming of Muhammad. JeZeus in the Quran has absolutely no concept of the mitzva of Moshiach as interpreted by the Oral Torah פרדס logic system and tohor middot.
The koran regards Muhammad as the Seal of the Prophets (Khatam an-Nabiyyin), despite not having the least bit of a clue how the T’NaCH understands the function and role of prophets. Clearly Islamic thought resembles the prophet Adam Smith far more than any T’NaCH prophet. The koran does not position Muhammad as a continuation of the Jewish prophetic line in a direct, historical sense. Muhammad according to the koran narrative lived as the final prophet who brought the ultimate revelation from God. Both the koran and Mormon holy books supersede all the scriptures which preceded them.
Neither the gospels, koran nor book of Mormon brings the שם השם revealed in the first Sinai commandment. These latter day Goyim “prophets” confuse the Hebrew “oath alliance”/ברית as one in the same with the sophomoric translated term covenant. Lacking the שם השם no man can cut a Torah ברית. Hence, covenant cannot mean brit. A difference of apples and oranges. Which these Goyim prophets remained completely oblivious in their bliss & ignorance. In many ways these spiritual reformers compare to Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, William Tyndale, John Knox, John Wesley, and Mary Baker Eddy. While not all these individuals directly hated or despised one another, certainly significant theological disagreements and conflicts erupted among them.
Luther believed in the doctrine of consubstantiation. Zwingli, on the other hand, viewed the Eucharist as purely symbolic. John Calvin’s theology was influenced by both Luther and Zwingli, but he developed his own distinct doctrines, particularly on predestination and the sovereignty of God.
William Tyndale focused on translating the Bible into English, and his fugitive status continually forced him to hide from English authorities. John Wesley, came much later and had different theological focuses. He disagreed with Calvin’s predestination doctrine, emphasizing free will and personal holiness. Wesley’s Arminian views such as: Free Will, Prevenient Grace that precedes and prepares the soul for salvation; Conditional Election upon faith, Universal Atonement: that salvation is available to everyone, but only those who accept it will be saved. These “prophesies” put him at odds with Calvinist traditions.
Mary Baker Eddy, her teachings were often seen as unorthodox or heretical by mainstream Xtian denominations. The debates and tensions among them highlight the diversity and complexity of the Reformation and subsequent religious movements. Comparatively speaking, Muhammad fits right into the crowd of these religious reformers and prophets.
Bottom line: Justice: fair judicial compensation for damages inflicted. Not forgiveness for sin. The Pauline substitute theology of original sin perverted the key Torah theme of g’lut\exile. Starting with the exile of Adam from the garden, Noach’s exile in the Ark, and the exile of Israel in Egypt. And concluding with the 40 year exile in the Wilderness. The Holy Writings Book of Job likewise teaches the mussar of g’lut/exile.
Love this! Heartfelt and real.
Thank you so so much ! Happy you enjoyed
Was Mark’s Gospel an intentional tool of Roman psychological warfare, or was it a Jewish counter-narrative meant to influence how different Jewish communities engaged with Rome?
Pie in the sky speculations attempt to foist as actual history propaganda stories of an imaginary Man-God & a zealous convert to Xtianity. Despite the clear language of the Torah that nothing in the Heavens, Earth, or Seas compares to the image of God or the prophet Bil’am’s explicit vision – God is not a Man.
Coptic revisionist history does not change speculative books of propaganda into actual history. The earliest surviving manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark written in Greek. Papias’s claim that Mark, originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic simply never substantiated by any physical evidence. This discrepancy highlights the challenges in relying solely on early testimonies. Simply due to the fact that no known agenda defines the purpose of those early works!
News travelled slowly in ancient times. Writing a detailed account like the Gospel of Mark would require more time than the immediate aftermath of the Temple’s destruction. The process of dating ancient texts often involves interpretations based on incomplete evidence. The News of the destruction of Herod’s Temple would by far have out shined the News of the Roman torture of a common criminal!
The floated speculation made by Xtian scholars that the Mark gospel written between AD 65 – 75 has no physical evidence – anymore. This revisionist history of the life and death of a Harry Potter – imaginary Jesus. Furthermore, the Roman war to put down the Jewish revolt, like the destruction of Herod’s Temple in AD 66 would have swamped the News Headlines!
Historians and scholars often work with incomplete evidence, leading to various theories and interpretations. The dating of ancient texts involves analyzing historical, literary, and contextual clues, which can result in differing scholarly opinions. Revisionist history perverts speculation and biased beliefs in God as the basis for truth! But this religious speculative interpretation, not the only kid on the playground.
What evidence we have does suggest that Mark’s Gospel – written in Greek, and the claim that it was originally in Hebrew or Aramaic is one of those early testimonies (like Papias’s) that has not been substantiated by physical evidence. The lack of an original manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic definitely complicates the matter. To point out the flimsy argument to its face.
From a historical perspective, the fall of the Temple, a monumental event, and indeed. It would have garnered more attention from contemporary sources than the death of a single man—especially if that man was seen as a marginal figure at the time. A fine line between interpretation and assertion.
History and religious narratives can sometimes become entangled with belief systems, and how that can distort our understanding of past events. History, at its core, should strive toward objective and evidence-based possibilities. The reliability of early Christian sources like Irenaeus (c. AD 180) and Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 200) depends on how one evaluates historical testimony. While some of the earliest known religious Goyim voices commenting on the origins of the Gospels, reliability – debated due to their biased views toward Xtianity. Traditional church dating of the gospels serves Xtian narratives. Irenaeus wrote around AD 180, more than a century after mythical Jesus’ time. Clement of Alexandria is even later, writing closer to AD 200.
Both writers were engaged in theological battles, especially against Gnosticism. Some argue that their emphasis on apostolic authorship simply driven by the need to defend orthodoxy rather than strict historical accuracy. We do not have direct writings from Mark himself or from first-century figures confirming his authorship, only second-hand traditions which no courtroom would accept such hearsay evidence!
Courts reject hearsay because the person who originally made the claim, unavailable for cross-examination. Ancient history, much of what we know comes from later accounts. If we dismissed all second-hand testimony, we’d lose most of ancient history, including figures like Socrates, whose teachings come from Plato and Xenophon. Mythology defines the ancient Greek writings.
Challenging the idea that Mark’s Gospel was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic—and even questioning its authenticity altogether—comes from different camps within biblical scholarship. The Greek syntax and grammar do not suggest a translation from Semitic languages. Mark’s Gospel includes Latinisms (Roman loanwords), such as centurion (kenturion in Greek) and denarius, indicating it was written for a Greek-speaking Roman audience. The use of Aramaic phrases (e.g., Talitha koum in Mark 5:41) suggests that the author was translating occasional words rather than the entire text being a translation.
Eusebius (4th century) quotes Papias, affirming that Mark wrote his Gospel based on Peter’s preaching, but he makes no reference to a Hebrew or Aramaic version which Papias (AD 110-140) claims. Some reasonable skeptics argue that Mark’s Gospel simply not based on historical events but rather a theological narrative invented by early Christians. They suggest Mark created a fictionalized Jesus, using Jewish scriptures (like Isaiah and the Psalms) as a template rather than actual historical events.
Figures like Richard Carrier argue that Jesus, originally understood as a celestial being and that Mark later invented a biography for him, shaping the Gospel as an allegory rather than historical record. Many accept that Mark contains some historical elements but argue that miraculous accounts, predictive prophecy, and resurrection narratives, simple later embellishments made by Xtians who loved fairy tail stories.
Paul as an Agent Provocateur: Instigating Civil War in Rome? Having lived in Rome he understood Roman weaknesses and political undercurrents. Like for example: Caesar worshipped himself as the son of God. Paul’s writings qualify also as political satire. Like Nigger Jim in Mark Finn who mocks King Solomon as the wisest of all men! The idea that the kingdom of God is not of this world fits precisely within Greek and Roman mythologies! Jewish religious authorities, specifically over the specific debate of an oven, where rabbi Eleazer got place into harem. Rabbi Eleazer called on a bat-kol, and the rabbis declared: the Torah does not come from heaven!
Mark’s Roman written Gospel aimed to promote disharmony between the Jews of Alexandria Egypt and the Jews of Judea. During the Bar Kakhba revolt the Jews of Axelandria did not join that revolt. This permitted the Roman legions to destroy both revolts piecemeal.
Chaos and anarchy defined the state of Judea during the first revolt against Rome. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls conclusively proves these historical facts. If Mark were inciting Jewish-on-Jewish conflict, it would align with historical accounts that factions within Jerusalem were already fighting among themselves before Rome even breached the city walls.
Why does Mark’s gopels have Jesus say, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17)? This supports the premise that the gospel writings of Mark supported Jewish Civil War. The messiah narrative did emphatically split into strongly opposed Jewish factions! Jewish appeasers compare to post WWI British supporters of Chamberlain! Clearly the writings of Mark’s gospels opposed the war prone Zealots!
Divide and Conquer an old idea. Roman interests as well as Jewish interested preferred fighting one another while their enemies fought a Civil War. The Maccabees conducted this strategy successfully against the Syrian Greeks 150 years previous.
Roman emperors (especially Augustus) were deified as Divi Filius (Son of God). Paul’s reinterpretation of “Son of God” into a Jewish-messianic sense, could have been perceived by Rome as an indirect attack on Roman religious authority. If Paul mocked Caesar’s claim to divinity, it would qualify as political subversion—though disguised as religious teaching.
The comparison of Paul to Mark Twain’s Jim in Huckleberry Finn, that his theology contained coded humor and irony meant to subvert authority. Some scholars note parallels between Greek/Roman mythology and Paul’s spiritual kingdom concept, suggesting he tailored his message to resonate with Roman audiences.
Paul’s conflicts with Jewish religious leaders (especially over Torah authority) certainly widened the divide between Hellenistic Jews and traditional Pharisees. His message of a Torah-free Gospel was highly inflammatory—not only did it anger Judean Pharisees, but it also alienated Jewish nationalists who wanted a political Messiah. This played into Roman interests, whether Paul intended it or not.
Mark’s Gospel exacerbated Jewish factionalism, particularly between Alexandrian Jews and Judean Jews. Did Alexandrian Jews Refuse to Join the Bar Kokhba Revolt Because of Mark’s Influence? There is no direct evidence linking Mark’s Gospel to Alexandrian Jewish neutrality, but the timing remains intriguing. Alexandrian Jews far more assimilated & Hellenized, and less likely to support a militant Jewish messianic movement. If Mark’s Gospel circulated among them, emphasizing a suffering, non-political Messiah, it could have dissuaded them from joining the rebellion.
Josephus records that Jews in Jerusalem already experienced in killing each other before the Romans even arrived (Zealots vs. Priests vs. Sicarii). Mark’s Gospel portrays Jewish leaders as divided and corrupt, reinforcing Roman narratives that Jews were ungovernable. If Mark’s intention was to drive a wedge between Jewish factions, it would align with the Roman “divide and conquer” strategy.
Mark 12:17 (“Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) suggests support for Roman rule and opposition to Zealot resistance. Jesus’ statement could be read as a message of appeasement. Encouraging Jews to cooperate with Rome, undermining Zealot ideology, and reinforcing the idea that the Messiah was not meant to be a political revolutionary.
The Maccabees used this Divide-and-Conquer Strategy against the Greeks—turning different Hellenistic factions against each other. Rome, a master of this strategy, pitting Jewish factions against each other: Sadducees vs. Pharisees, Zealots vs. Hellenized Jews, Priests who denied the Oral Torah vs. rabbis who taught the Oral Torah. If Mark’s Gospel helped weaken Jewish unity, it ultimately benefited Rome.
Paul’s personal motives remain unclear—was he a true believer, or a savvy political manipulator? Mark’s Gospel certainly reinforced factional divisions, whether by design or accident. The idea that Paul may have been an agent provocateur, knowingly exacerbating divisions within the Roman world to the benefit of Jerusalem, a compelling angle that aligns with historical Greek & Roman strategies of divide and conquer. Equally well known and embraced by Jewish Sanhedrin leadership which sent Paul to Rome to promote Roman Civil War prior to the outbreak of the great Jewish revolt.
The connection between Mark’s Gospel and Jewish factionalism—especially its potential impact on Alexandrian Jews’ neutrality during the Bar Kokhba revolt—also quite interesting. If the Mark gospel, indeed written to undermine Jewish resistance by promoting a passive, non-political Messiah, it would fit neatly within the broader Roman strategy of controlling subject populations by weakening internal unity. The historical backdrop of intra-Jewish conflict before the fall of the Temple, as recorded by Josephus, provides further support for the idea that Mark’s Gospel likely designed (or at least functioned) as a tool of division rather than unity.
If the Sanhedrin saw Rome’s internal divisions as a potential advantage—especially in the lead-up to the Jewish revolt—Paul’s role as an instigator could have been strategic. Given his Roman citizenship, education in Greek rhetoric, and ability to move between Jewish and Roman circles, he served as a well-positioned Sanhedrin asset, who introduced subversive ideas that could destabilize Roman unity.
This would parallel other historical examples where Jewish leadership attempted to manipulate larger imperial powers to their advantage—much like the Hasmoneans did with Seleucid factions during their own revolt. If the Sanhedrin sent Paul to Rome as a spy, with the purpose: to promote theological and ideological rifts, it would explain why his teachings so totally disruptive—not just among Jews but within the Roman elite as well.
Mark’s Gospel, then, could be seen as part of this broader game of influence, to pacify Jewish resistance (if pacifist pro-Roman) or to create ideological splits that kept Jews distracted among themselves (if existed a deeper Roman war-time strategy). The fact that Alexandrian Jews stayed out of the Bar Kokhba revolt, while Judean Jews fought Rome head-on, could suggest that differing religious narratives—possibly shaped by Mark—helped fragment Jewish unity.
This interpretation pits the writings of Mark against those of Paul. Neither not as a merely religious thinkers, but as active political partisans, in the geopolitical struggle between Rome and Judea. If the Sanhedrin had the foresight to recognize Rome’s internal tensions and employed Paul as the tip of their spear, it would entirely redefine his original mission. A political kabbalah concealed from shallow Goyim who simply read his letters at face value. Rather than being a rogue preacher or a sincere evangelist, Paul served the Sanhedrin Court in Jerusalem as an early example of ideological subversion—using theology to create divisions within Roman society.
This would mean his emphasis concerning a “kingdom not of this world”, a concealed way to undercut Roman religious authority, while his rejection of strict Torah observance like circumcision, could have been a means to fracture Jewish support for messianic Jesus nonsense. It also fits with his constant conflicts—both with Jewish traditionalists and with factions within early Christianity. His letters reveal a figure constantly navigating and exacerbating divisions, whether intentionally or as a by-product of his ideological agenda.
Mark’s Gospel, also exposed as a second layer of Roman counter-disruption. If written in Rome, it could have express Roman strategic interests (to pacify Jewish resistance by promoting a passive Messiah) or to define Jewish messianism in a way that created discord between Hellenized Jews and their Judean counterparts. The simple fact stands: The church behaves as if it has a lock and key monopoly over the mitzva of Moshiach; despite the Pauline declaration that Goyim not under Jewish common law.
The fact that Alexandrian Jews sat out the Bar Kokhba revolt while Judean Jews were crushed strongly suggests that competing messianic narratives—such as influenced by texts like Mark—which totally ignores the Torah Moshiach precedent of Moshe anointing Aaron with oil, which served as the basis of Shmuel who anointed both Shaul and David as Moshiach with oil. The gospel narratives all ignore the precedent of anointing all korbanot placed upon the altar with oil. It does not weigh the dedication through oil wherein the Moshiach sanctified to rule the oath brit chosen Cohen lands with righteous judicial justice as the faith of the Torah. Hence the gospel writers, not just Mark, instrumental in keeping Jewish factions divided. If true, this would mean early Christianity simply never just a mere religious movement, but part of a larger strategic game—a subversive ideological front in the struggle between Rome vs. Judea.
Now if the letters of Paul and the gospel of Mark bogus? Then so too and how much more so the gospels of Matthew and Luke and the much later John likewise get flushed down the toilet.