SOD, can you please include the USUALLY COMMON Forum Feature that INCLUDES THE LINK TO QUOTED POSTS?

[true lilly]

"tintin" WORSE than "Yellow"...
a LOVER of LIES, PLAGIARIST
(NOT a CREATIVE bone in him),
ANTI CREATOR, ANTI CREATION,
ANTI LIFE, ANTI TRUTH, and,
ANTI ANYONE DOING or RECEIVING
JUSTICE...
because NONE of HIS SELF GLORYING
is Justly earned or maintained...

ALL HE DOES is HUNT SACRIFICIAL Lambs
TO THROW to HIS WOLVES, and their
BLOODY REMAINS AT OTHER
WEAK, POWERLESS, INNOCENTS...

and, CAN'T SHUT UP about
WHAT A GREAT JOKE IT IS TO HIM
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=11956&page=3207
EVIL!

nope...not it yet...but compare how MANY 'names'
VIOLENTLY STORM against me, for daring to SHOW
that GOD'S WORD DOES DESCRIBE AUSTRALIA
to BE ZION, FOR ALL ISRAEL and FRIENDS...
...and NOTE 'THOSE NAMES' CALL FOR THE
DESTRUCTION of ISRAEL and FRIENDS...AND,
WANT THIS GLORIOUS LAND FOR THEMSELVES!

So that's how you get a bloke to the shops...
The much-anticipated third instalment in
the Call of Duty franchise was
released at midnight, to the delight of
fans waiting at EB Games.
Picture: Fiona Hamilton
Read More
SEVERE STORM
WARNING FOR VICTORIA
Severe storm warning for Victoria

6:27AM
Nathan Mawby
UPDATE 7am:
STORMS and lightning sweep through Melbourne,
with the weather bureau
warning the worst is yet to come.

Biggest war of them all
VIDEO: Gamers turned out at midnight for
the launch of the highly anticipated
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3

P.S. these are ALL on Today's MURDOCH Herald Sun
FRONT PAGE.

I 'googled' true lilly images and got this:
by barnacle bill



Thank you...and when YET MORE folk Google me, YET MORE WILL FIND,
that VIOLENCE and LIES are all "YOU" have to attack me with, but still
MUST KEEP ATTACKING me, because "YOU" have NO COUNTER ARGUMENTS
to what I FREELY SHARE - REAL WORLD EVIDENCE of
THE VERY BEST NEWS EVER!

P.S. and for an "anti" DAVID ICKE Forum, "YOU" spend an AWFUL LOT
of time and effort, ATTACKING THE ONE POSTER HERE, WITH THE
INSIDE DIRT on THE "STAR POSTER"=PUPPET MASTER of David Icke:
"tintin" a.k.a. "Aarnout van der Plooge".

"YOU" KNOW, THE GUY who with INSANE PUBLIC PASSION, DEMANDS
THE DESTRUCTION of JEWS AND ISRAEL, WHILE ALSO PUBLICLY,
LOUDLY and OFTEN, having STATED THAT:
"AUSTRALIA IS THE REAL ISRAEL"=AUSTRALIA IS THE REAL TARGET.

P.P.S.
Oh and WHY MUST "YOU" CONTINUE to SPAM such bald faced lies:

LIES that "this is a true lilly quote":
I hate joooz, the Torah and Israel.........

I
vill take the joooooz holy scripture and deform it to fit my
antisemitic/anti Israel agenda.........sieg hiel!!!!!!

BECAUSE "YOU" have NO COUNTER ARGUMENT...and IN FACT,
ADD TO the case I've made...

YEP, there is an AWFUL LOT of ALTERING,
CHANGING and INTERFERING with the
Threads, Posts and
COMPUTERS and PHONES of INDIVIDUALS
going
on lately I tend to refrain from explaining too much these days, as
newbies know they can ask for clarifications, and the rest, well if they
haven't twigged by now, likely never will, but those who know, know, if
I post it, it's worth looking into.

See, "THEY" DEMAND
THE WORLD BELIEVE
(AGAINST ALL REAL WORLD EVIDENCE),
that,
WHEN GOD SAID:
FROM THE BEGINNING,
ALL THE WORLD,
ALL THE EARTH,
ALL PEOPLES,
GOD DID "not" MEAN IT,
so that the world will
DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT of TRUTH
and JOIN "THEM" in PERMANENT DEATH.

Oh and while I think of it:
why, "The 99% Campaign"...
because GOD SAID He'd Preserve Alive,
90-95%, to re-plant, re-build and help
HEAL ALL THE WORLD,
BUT "THEY" DON'T WANT ANY HEALING
and, as "cori/tintin" PROUDLY BOAST,
"THEY" WANT 99.9% of ALL HUMANS DEAD.

SEE "THEY" WORSHIP "THEIR" NUMBers Game.
The Majority NUMBers "win".
"winning" TO "THEM" IS DYING TO KILL.

And yes, "THEY" ARE THOSE WHO ATTACK ME,
FOR SHOWING that GOD KEEPS ALL HIS PROMISES,
that includes, not only preserving enough humans
to heal the world, but also RESURRECTING Those
who died the first death, but repented of having
denied The Holy Spirit of Truth.

P.S. SOD, can you please include
the USUALLY COMMON Forum Feature
that INCLUDES THE LINK TO QUOTED POSTS?

Yeah I know, it would defeat the purpose of
outnumbering this one real individuals posts
with "tintin's" Multiple I.D. OFF TOPIC,
SPAM-BOT CRAP that FLOODS OUT what "THEY"
ARE TERRIFIED OTHERS MAY READ and CONSIDER,
...that's why I ask, and DON'T expect.

[MoMo]

Yo!!!! Suzy Woo Woo, clue me up how lying about Gods Book is 'getting right' with Him, or for that matter, gossiping and judging and cursing others is 'getting right' with Him?

You, propose, without any credentials or prerequisite education in Hebrew, that you are able to interpret the Jews Sacred Hebrew scriptures better, more accurately; then ALL the Rabbis/Teachers and credentialed Biblical Scholars on Planet Earth and make the preposterous, unsupported claim that the Hebrew word Mizraim does not mean Egypt, or that the Hebrews did not sojourn from Egypt, through the Sinai into Canaan/Israel.

You're Hubris is so gargantuan you use a Language you do not know: Hebrew, and attempt to write the Jews and Israel out of their own Book.......your Hubris is of monumental size. You claim the Torah is 'done away' with and then proceed to reinterpret it.

Explain that.


I proved you were wrong about your False Doctrine of Church replacement of the Jews and Israel Theology.

http://www.shema.com/Combating%20Replacement%20Theology/crt-004.php

I proved you wrong about your False Theology that Yahshua/Jesus and the Apostles 'did away' with YHWHs Torah/Instruction.

http://www.yrm.org/yah_p_law.htm

Romans 10:4—
For Yahshua is the ultimate result of keeping the Law unto righteousness for everyone who believes.

"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence..."
This commandment is to be aware that the God of Israel exists absolutely and influences all events in the world[23][dead link] and that the goal of the redemption from Egypt was to become His servants (Rashi). It requires the acknowledgment of the single God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the denial of the existence of false gods (Rashi)


Yahshua said (Matthew 23:37-40) “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang (hinge) all the law and the prophets.”

The whole point of Human existence is to learn and practice the SEcond Commandment that Yahshua declares...........Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. ........so far you are failing miserably............. ...........gossiping, judging, fearmongering, bearing false witness...........time to shape up and fly right Suzy Woo Woo...............

Time to stand Toe to Toe like you falsely claim you do......support your False Teachings.................you extract Scripture from it context to twist it to fit your bias, Noah was 10 Generations AFTER Adam, long after the continents divided, Peleg was 5 Generations after Noah, the verse you twist to claim it is about the Continents Dividing means no such thing...it is in relation to the Tower of Babylon incident when YHWH confused the tongues of Humankind and dispersed them to the far corners of the Earth.........the whole icident is about the Hubris of humans, something you should, but don't recognize....read/study the following Documents.

Studies in the Book of Genesis Part 1:
The Curse of Canaan
Allen P. Ross

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Ross_CurseOfCanaan_BSac.pdf

Genesis, the book of beginnings, is primarily concerned with
tracing the development of God's program of blessing. The bless-
ing is pronounced on God's creation, but sin (with its subsequent
curse) brought deterioration and decay. After the Flood there is a
new beginning with a renewal of the decrees of blessing, but once
again corruption and rebellion leave the human race alienated
and scattered across the face of the earth. Against this backdrop
God began His program of blessing again, promising blessing to
those obedient in faith and cursing to those who rebel. The rest of
the book explains how this blessing developed: God's chosen
people would become a great nation and inherit the land of Ca-
aan. So throughout Genesis the motifs of blessing and cursing
occur again and again in connection with those who are chosen
and those who are not......................The purpose of this section in Genesis, then, is to portray the
characteristics of the three branches of the human race in rela-
tion to blessing and cursing. In pronouncing the oracle, Noah
discerned the traits of his sons and, in a moment of insight,
determined that the attributes of their descendants were em-
bodied in their personalities.2 Because these sons were pri-
mogenitors of the families of the earth, the narrator is more
interested in the greater meaning of the oracle with respect to
tribes and nations in his day than with the children of Shem,
Ham, and Japheth.3
Shem, the ancestor of the Shemites to whom the Hebrews
belonged, acted in good taste and was blessed with the possession
of the knowledge of the true God, Yahweh. Japheth, the ancestor
of the far-flung northern tribes which include the Hellenic
peoples,4 also acted properly and thus shared in the blessing of
Shem and was promised geographical expansion. In contrast,
Ham, represented most clearly to Israel by the Egyptians and
Canaanites, acted wrongly in violating sexual customs regarded
as sacred and as a result had one line of his descendants cursed
with subjugation.5
So the oracle of Noah, far from being concerned simply with
the fortunes of the immediate family, actually pertains to vast
movements of ancient peoples...................Canaan, then, is the prototype of the population that suc-
cumbed to enervating influences and was doomed by its vices to
enslavement at the hands of hardier and more virtuous races.52
Because Ham, the "father" of Canaan, had desecrated the honor
of his father by seeing his uncovered nakedness, this divine and
prophetic oracle is pronounced on the people who would be
known for their immorality in a shameful way, a trait discernible
in this little story in the history of beginnings.
The blessing aspect is given to Shem, but the wording is
unexpected: "Blessed be the LORD [Yahweh], the God of Shem."
The emphasis on the possession of God by his name is
strengthened in this line in a subtle way. Delitzsch says, "Yahweh
makes himself a name in becoming the God of Shem, and thus
entwines His name with that of Shem, which means ‘name.’53
By blessing one's God, the man himself is blessed. The idea is
that Shem will ascribe his good fortune to Yahweh his God, for his
advantage is not personal merit; his portion is Yahweh.54 The
great line of blessing will be continued through Shem from Noah
to Abram, the man of promise.
Here again, however, the point of the oracle looks to the
descendants. It would then be clear to Israel, who found them-
selves in such a personal, covenantal relationship with Yahweh,
that they were the heirs of this blessing..........

4Unfortunately Part 2 I have not found on the 'Net, for free ($50).....here are Parts 3 & 4


Who is this 'god' you serve? It can't be YHWH. You know nothing of Him or His Plan for humankind.

Studies in the Book of Genesis Part 3:

The Table of Nations in

Genesis 10--Its Content

Allen P. Ross


http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Ross-TableNations-BSac.htm

THE SONS OF HAM (10:6-20)

More attention is given to the line of Ham than to that of

Japheth or Shem. Ham's line has four branches: Cush, Mizraim,

Put, and Canaan. All four are probably place names for Nubia-

Egypt, Upper and Lower Egypt, Libya, and Phoenicia-Palestine

respectively. In addition, the descendants of these four are both

places and tribes.

Ham is the ancestor of all these people from Phoenicia to

Africa. The etymology of the word Ham is disputed,18 but it is

used to depict countries in close proximity to Egypt.

Cush is the "eldest son" according to the plan of the Table. In

antiquity this was an independent kingdom on the southern

flank of Egypt; and especially during the reign of Kamose it

served as the backbone of the Egyptian army, helping to expel the

Asiatics (Hyksos).19 So the list begins in the far south with the

African tribes known to the Greeks as Ethiopians.

Mizraim lies to the north of Cush. The word occurs almost

ninety times in the Old Testament for Egypt...................Mizraim developed

into tribes. From the Egyptians sprang the Ludim, a group of

African tribes west of the Delta;36 the Anamim, in the vicinity of

Cyrene;37 the Lehabim, the Libyans on the north African shore

(Nah. 3:9 and Dan. 11:43); the Naphtuhim, the people of the

Delta (Lower Egypt); the Pathrusim, the people of Upper Egypt;38

the Casluhim, the people who dwelt east of the Delta between

Egypt and Canaan;39 and the Caphtorim, the Cretans.40

The clause "from whence come the Philistines" is problem-

atic because of its position in the text. Scripture connects the

origin of the Philistines with Caphtor (Amos 9:7; Deut. 2:23;

Jer. 47:4), but the Caphtorim, the Cretans, come after this

clause. While some have suggested rearranging the clauses, it

may not be necessary. The clause in the Table suggests migration

and not lineage. Amos has the Philistines from Caphtor in the

same sense that Israel was from Egypt--migration and not

origination.41 The difficulty may be solved by looking at their

origin and their migration from the Aegean bases through Caph-

tor into the Delta and finally into Palestine.

.................................That the promised land is central to the Table can be seen

from the arrangement of the descendants. The Japhethites are

spread from east to west across the northern frontier; the Ham-

ites surround the land from south to west; and the Shemites are

traced from the eastern to the southern borders of the land.

Moreover, the preoccupation with the Canaanites in the land of

promise shows the concern of the writer to fit the Table to the

message of the book: the fulfillment of God's promise to bless

Israel as a nation in that land, and to bless those nations that

bless her, and curse those who are antagonistic to her.

The Table then deliberately selected these tribes and traced

their development.
...............................The passage then refers to the developing line from Arpach-shad, using the form through Shelah to Eber. One of Eber's

sons is Peleg, in whose days the earth was divided (probably

referring to the division of nations at Babel 52). Once the Table

mentions Peleg, it traces his line no further. .................According to Genesis, the new nation of Israel was to be

blessed as God's people in the land of Canaan. God's plan to bless

Israel involved the movement, displacement, and subjugation of

other peoples. The oracle of Noah in Genesis 9 anticipated the

blessing for Shem, along with Japheth, and the cursing of Ca-

naan, a son of Ham. This Table in Genesis 10 gives direction to

that oracle. It presents the lines of Shem and Japheth as pure

tribal groups around the promised land; it also presents the old

block of Hamites, especially the mixed races in the land of Ca-

naan, as the predominant powers on the earth

........................


Studies in the Book of Genesis
Part 4:
The Dispersion of the
Nations in Genesis 11:1-9
Allen P. Ross
Introduction to the Passage

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Ross-DispersionGn11-BSac.pdf

THE NATURE OF THE ACCOUNT
The narrative in Genesis 11:1-9 describes the divine inter-
vention among the human family to scatter them across the face
of the earth by means of striking at the :heart of their unity- their
language. A quick reading of the passage shows that the pre-
dominant idea is not the tower of Babel but this scattering.
If the point is not simply the tower, then this passage does not
present, as some have suggested, a Hebrew adaptation of the
Greek Titans storming heaven to dislodge God. Rather, the char-
acteristics of the people in this story are anxiety and pride
through their own gregariousness.1 The tower, on the one hand,
is born from the people's fear of being scattered across the earth;
and on the other hand it is an attempt to frustrate God's plan to
fill the earth (Gen. 9:1).
The sin. Since the story has the trappings of a judgment
narrative in which Yahweh interrupts mankind's misguided
activities and scatters them abroad, it may be assumed that the
antithesis of this scattering must be the sin. The major error was
not the building of a city, but the attempt of the race to live in one
City.2 Therefore it appears that the human family was striving for
unity, security, and social immortality (making a name) in de-
fiance of God's desire for them to fill the earth.
Divine punishment. It is important to keep in mind that the
"judgment" was not the destruction of the city but of the language that united the people. It was shattered into a multiplicity
of languages so that the common bond was destroyed.3 Thus the
text is demonstrating that the present number of languages that
form national barriers is a monument to sin.....................So it is with this story that the common history of all man-
kind comes to an abrupt end, which leaves the human race
hopelessly scattered across the face of the entire earth. It is this
that makes the present narrative so different from those preced-
ing it: In each judgment there was a gracious provision for hope
but in this judgment there is none. It does not offer a token of
grace, a promise of any blessing, a hope of salvation, or a way of
escape. There is no clothing for the naked sinner, no protective
mark for the fugitive, no rainbow in the dark sky. There is no ray
of hope. The primeval age ends with judgmental scattering and
complete confusion. The blessing is not here; the world must
await the new history.
In view of this, the story of the scattering of the nations is
actually the turning point of the book from primeval history to
the history of the blessing. From this very confused and dis-
persed situation nations would develop in utter futility until God
would make a great nation through one man who himself would
be "scattered" from this alluvial plain to the land of Canaan. The
blessings of final redemption and unification would come
through his seed.........................Irony is seen in the beginning and the ending of this pas-
sage. The group at Babel began as the whole earth (11:1), but
now they were spread over the whole earth (11:9). By this the
lesson is clarified: God's purpose will be accomplished in spite of
the arrogance and defiance of man's own purposes. He brings
down the proud, but exalts the faithful.
The significance of this little story is great. It explains to
God's people how the nations were scattered abroad. Yet the
import goes much deeper. The fact that it was Babylon, the
beginning of kingdoms under Nimrod from Cush, adds a rather
ominous warning: Great nations cannot defy God and long sur-
vive. The new nation of Israel need only survey the many nations
around her to perceive that God disperses and curses the rebel-
lious, bringing utter confusion and antagonism among them. If
Israel would obey and submit to God's will, then she would be the
source of blessing to the world.
Unfortunately, Israel also raised her head in pride and re-
fused to obey the Lord God. Thus she too was scattered across the
face of the earth.

[/quote]

Bullshit lilly, I've countered every one of your false arguments, you have never replied. Define Zion....Mizraim.....Torah.........Israel..........you attack the jews, the Torah and Israel, you quote scripture like satan to distort and deform it to fit YOUR agenda.......


......................For those who falsely claim that Yahshua Messiah/Jesus 'Did away with' the Torah/Laws of YHWH, I challenge you to explain these verses of Scripture.

http://www.eliyah.com/thescriptures/

Matthew 4
1 Then Yahshua was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tried by the devil.

2 And after having fasted forty days and forty nights, He was hungry.

3 And the trier came and said to Him, “If You are the Son of Elohim, command that these stones become bread.”

4 But He answering, said, “It has been written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of YHWH.’ ”

5 Then the devil took Him up into the set- apart city, set Him on the edge of the Set- apart Place,

6 and said to Him, “If You are the Son of Elohim, throw Yourself down. For it has been written, ‘He shall command His messengers concerning you,’ and, ‘In their hands they shall bear you up, so that you do not dash your foot against a stone.’ ”

7 Yahshua said to him, “It has also been written, ‘You shall not try YHWH your Elohim.’ ”

8 Again, the devil took Him up on a very high mountain, and showed Him all the reigns of the world, and their esteem,

9 and said to Him, “All these I shall give You if You fall down and worship me.”

10 Then Yahshua said to him, “Go, Satan! For it has been written, ‘You shall worship YHWH your Elohim, and Him alone you shall serve.’


Yahshua cites Torah 3 Times with Authority....beaware of the False Teachers.

Is the New Testament Yahweh's Word?

Don't Accept The New Testament As Yahweh's Word On The Basis Of Human Tradition
http://www.serveyahweh.org/Religion/newtestament.htm

In the context of the New Testament canon Yahweh's people should not accept that the New Testament is Yahweh's word simply on the basis of human tradition. For Yah'shuah has shown that human tradition is NOT the basis for determining true worship. The New Testament, or any portion of it, should only be accepted as Yahweh's word only where it is fully in harmony with Yahweh's commandment. But if it, or any portion of it, is not fully in harmony with Yahweh's commandment it cannot and should not be accepted as Yahweh's word or commandment!



Live By Every Word That Proceeds Out Of Yahweh's Mouth
Matthew 4:4 reads,

4:4But he answered, "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’"

In these comments Yah'shuah quoted from Moses' words to the children of Israel in Deuteronomy 8:3,

8:3He humbled you, and allowed you to hunger, and fed you with manna, which you didn’t know, neither did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread only, but by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of Yahweh does man live.



Truth Is Yahweh's Word

John 17:17 reads,

17:17Sanctify them in your truth. Your word is truth.

It is therefore clear from Yah'shuah's words that human beings are to live by every word proceeding out of the mouth of Yahweh. He also defines truth as Yahweh's word. Therefore living by the truth is living by Yahweh's word, living by Yahweh's commandment. This is what human beings are to live by, and not by human tradition, especially human tradition contrary to Yahweh's word.



To Believe Yah'shuah/Jesus You Must Believe Moses' Writings
John 5:46-47 reads,

5:46For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me. 5:47But if you don’t believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

Yah'shuah's words show that it is necessary for one to believe Moses' writings in order to believe him. In other words, those who believe Moses' writings are the ones who believe Yah'shuah, and those who do not believe Moses' writings are the one who do not believe Yah'shuah. Yah'shuah therefore implicitly affirmed that Moses' writings are indeed Yahweh's word.



Yah'shuah Didn't Destroy The Law Or The Prophets

Matthew 5:17-18 reads,

5:17"Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 5:18For most assuredly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.

Yah'shuah therefore affirmed that the law and the prophets, the writings he affirmed as Yahweh's word, would continue in applicability even up to the time of the passing away of heaven and earth. Seeing that heaven and earth are still with us it is indeed the conclusion that nothing has passed away from the law, and it remains in full application.



Yah'shuah Commanded His Disciples To Abide By Moses' Authority

Matthew 23:1-4 reads,

23:1Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, 23:2saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat. 23:3All things therefore whatever they tell you to observe, observe and do, but don’t do their works; for they say, and don’t do. 23:4For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them.

Yah'shuah commanded human beings, including his disciples, to abide by the authority vested in Moses. In other words, he simply affirmed his word in Matthew 5:17-18, on the continuing applicability of the law or Yahweh's word as delivered by Moses to the children of Israel.



Believe What The Prophets Have Spoken

Luke 24:25-27 reads,

24:25He said to them, "Foolish men, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 24:26Didn’t the Christ have to suffer these things, and to enter into his glory?" 24:27Beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, he explained to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

Yah'shuah's usage of the writings of Moses and those of the prophets shows that he acknowledged these as Yahweh's word. For in Matthew 4 and 15 he clearly taught that human beings are to live only by Yahweh's word, and here he was indeed teaching his disciples by the writings of Moses and the prophets. Yah'shuah therefore acknowledged that the writings of Moses and the prophets are indeed Yahweh's word.


Live By The Writings In The Law Of Moses, The Prophets And The Psalms

Luke 24:42-49 reads,

24:42They gave him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 24:43He took it, and ate in front of them. 24:44He said to them, "This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me must be fulfilled."

24:45Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. 24:46He said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 24:47and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 24:48You are witnesses of these things. 24:49Behold, I send forth the promise of my Father on you. But wait in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high."

According to Yah'shuah the collection of writings that made up Yahweh's word, what all human beings are to live by, is that called the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms - what is today called the Old Testament. This is synonymous with the Scriptures, according to the author of the above words - Luke.



Yah'shuah's Disciples Of All Nations Are To Observe The Things He Personally Commanded His Disciples
Matthew 28:18-20 reads,

28:18Jesus came to them and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. 28:19Go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 28:20teaching them to observe all things which I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

Yah'shuah clearly commanded his disciples to teach new disciples of all nations to observe all things that he had commanded his disciples. He commanded them to live by every word that proceeds out of Yahweh's mouth. He also showed them that Yahweh's word is contained in the writings called the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms (writings), now commonly known as the Old Testament. Therefore, the things that Yah'shuah's disciples are to observe are those that are contained in the writings commonly called the Old Testament. For observing the things in these writings is indeed living by words proceeding out of the mouth of Yahweh, seeing that words that proceeded out of Yahweh's mouth are contained in these writings.



Yahweh's Word To His Disciples Concerning Verification Of Words

Isaiah 8:16-20 reads,

8:16Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. 8:17I will wait for Yahweh, who hides his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him. 8:18Behold, I and the children whom Yahweh has given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel from Yahweh of Hosts, who dwells in Mount Zion. 8:19When they shall tell you, "Consult with those who have familiar spirits and with the wizards, who chirp and who mutter:" shouldn’t a people consult with their God? On behalf of the living should they consult with the dead? 8:20To the law and to the testimony! If they don’t speak according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.

8:16 clearly shows that the testimony (prophets and writings) and the law (of Moses) should be bound and sealed among Yahweh's disciples. And in matters of light Yahweh's disciples are not to consult with forces of darkness. They are to consult only the law and the testimony. In other words, the very writings that Yah'shuah later used in affirming that he was indeed the Messiah, the law of Moses, the prophets and the writings, are the very same ones that Yahweh commands his disciples to consult. For light is contained in his word, which is recorded in these writings. And anyone speaking contrary to his word in these writings is devoid of light. In other words, any writing that is contrary to the law of Moses, the prophets and the writings is not Yahweh's word, but a word and work of darkness!



Another Test Yahweh Gives His People Concerning Verification Of Words

Deuteronomy 18:9-22 reads,

18:9When you are come into the land which Yahweh your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 18:10There shall not be found with you anyone who makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices sorcery, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, 18:11or a charmer, or a consulter with a familiar spirit, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 18:12For whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh: and because of these abominations Yahweh your God does drive them out from before you. 18:13You shall be perfect with Yahweh your God. 18:14For these nations, that you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice sorcery, and to diviners; but as for you, Yahweh your God has not allowed you so to do. 18:15Yahweh your God will raise up to you a prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, like me; to him you shall listen; 18:16according to all that you desired of Yahweh your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of Yahweh my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I not die. 18:17Yahweh said to me, They have well said that which they have spoken. 18:18I will raise them up a prophet from among their brothers, like you; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command him. 18:19It shall happen, that whoever will not listen to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. 18:20But the prophet, who shall speak a word presumptuously in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die. 18:21If you say in your heart, How shall we know the word which Yahweh has not spoken? 18:22When a prophet speaks in the name of Yahweh, if the thing doesn’t follow, nor happen, that is the thing which Yahweh has not spoken: the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him.



Don't Listen To Those Who Practice Abominations

Yahweh clearly warned the children of Israel not to listen to those who practice abominations - the practices of darkness as seen in Isaiah 8:16-20. It is on account of both practising these abominations and listening to the practitioners of these abominations that Yahweh cast out of the land of Canaan those who inhabited it prior to the children of Israel.

................The Hebrew Bible, Old and New Testaments inform us that: Life is precious and History is meaningful, unlike David Ickes assertion that life is an Illusion, the Biblical view is more scientifically astute: The World is not AS we perceive it but it is very real. The Bible entrains our 6th Sense so that we may perceive realities beyond the 5 sense world.

The 5 Senses do not detect infrared, ultraviolet, radio waves, x-rays etc..yet they exist. The unaided human eye cannot perceive Atoms, protons, quarks etc.yet they exist......We see the Unity of existence, the ground that sustains being, the interconnexion of ALL Life.

The Creator is 'unseen' yet we learn to see through the surface of reality. We are never alone.

The Torah overcomes the Reptilian/Mammalian Brain Centers. Teaches us to become impeccably honest, to be non-exploitive, loving, altruistic. to be a Shepherd not a Predator.

In Hebraic Thought the whole Function of the Torah is to turn the Soul away from the things of the Flesh. FROM egoistic TO Altruistic. During our life our Soul either attaches itself to the things of Flesh, the Path of Darkness; or it attaches itself to the things of the Spirit-The Path of Light, becoming a Child of the Light.

When the False prophets and teachers tell us that Jesus 'did away with the Torah/Instruction/Laws of YHWH'...........they lie, they deceive........they mislead innocents onto the Path of Darkness........rodin; suzi woo woo: you must learn, before you die, to Play the Game Clean. You must learn why deceiving, cheating, exploiting are losing propositions and they harm you more then the people you harm by doing those sordid things.


Great harm is done to our societies as these once recognized undesirable charateristics are now exalted and presented as paradigms for behaviour.....................................The Good Newz is that there IS a Paradigm Shift-We are in a Transit between two Ages......The Age of Production and Accumulation TO the Age of Integrity and Restoration.

"Ahavta yirecha Kamocha"= Love your neighbor as yourself.

In humans the personalities that could have been are always there, always uncomfortable in their imprisonment. And periodically they scream from the dungeons of their minds demanding their Freedom.

The Biblical Commandments were given not for the sake of imposing rules and limitations and restrictions on people limiting their Freedom, but rather as a Divine communication that can be seen as generous-teaching/instructing humanbeings how life works and what to do and not to do to make the best of it.

Within the Torah/mitzvot/commandments are all the neccessary instructions for human conduct, in order to help people avoid negative consequences and repercussions, and also to reap benefit from living in alignment with the Laws of the Universe.


Who is wise? They who can foresee the consequences of their actions.


One of the first things we should learn in our search for the true Savior is His Name. The importance of knowing this Man's Name cannot be overstated. Names were and are very important to the Hebrew people, and their meanings are of great significance, not only to individuals, but also to entire families.

The name Jesus is an invention of man which in no way carries the meaning of the true Name of this Man mentioned in the New Testament. The simple fact (which is easily proven from authoritative sources) is that this man was born a Hebrew and He had a Hebrew name. There is no such name as Jesus in the Hebrew language.

Reading from The Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 10, page 10, we find that the supposed name Jesus is actually the common Greek form of the Hebrew name Joshua.

JESUS (d. 30 c.e.), whom Christianity sees as its founder and object of faith, was a Jew who lived toward the end of the Second Commonwealth period......The Encyclopedia Judaica, Volume 12, page 805, gives us additional information, concerning the Hebrew spelling of Joshua, which is yod-heh-waw-shin-ayin.


This source also points out to us that this Name, correctly pronounced Yahshua, is a compound name constructed with the Tetragrammaton,which is the Name: YAHWEH, . The Name Yahshua follows the common practice among the true worshippers of Yahweh, in forming and using compound names which brought glory to Yahweh's Name....................The Name Yahshua is just such a compound Name. It is a combination of Yahweh's Name in a personal name (YAH: yod-heh) and SHUA (shin-ayin), which means salvation. The Hebrew-English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Brown, Driver, and Briggs, page 221, tells us that the Name Yahshua means Yahweh is salvation. ............The Law of Yahweh, which Yahshua and the apostles preached, plainly tells us that Yahweh is one.

Deuteronomy 6:4-5—
4 Hear, O Israyl, Yahweh is our Father. Yahweh is one.
5 And you must love Yahweh your Father with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. ....................................The prophets further testified that Yahweh is the only source of power and there is no pagan God with Him at all.

Isayah 43:10-12—
10 You are My witnesses, says Yahweh, and My servants whom I have chosen; so you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He! before me there was no God (el) formed, nor will there be after Me.
11 I, even I, am Yahweh; and beside Me there is no savior.
12 I have declared, and I have saved, and I have showed; and no strange god (el) is among you! Therefore, you are My witnesses, says Yahweh: that I AM YAHWEH!

Isayah 44:8—
Do not fear, nor be afraid. Have I not told you from that time, and have declared; You are My witnesses! Is there a source of power except Me? Truly, there is no other rock; I know not one.

Isayah 45:6,18—
6 So that they may know from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting that There is none besides me. I am Yahweh, and there is no other!
18 For this is what Yahweh, Who created the heavens, Who is the Father, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited, says: I am Yahweh, and there is no other source of power!


It should now be obvious to anyone that the apostles, as well as the prophets, did not believe in or teach a pre-existent God-savior. The apostles clearly taught against pagan Godworship, the same worship all Christianity teaches today.

Romans 1:20-25—
20 For since the creation of the world, the invisible things of Him are clearly seen—His eternal power and holiness—being understood by the things that are written; so that they are without excuse.
21 Because that, when they knew Yahweh, they did not glorify Him as Father, nor were thankful, but became idolatrous; Godworshipers (worshipers of elohim), in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; simpletons,
23 And exchanged the glory of the uncorruptible Father for images, made to resemble corruptible man, and birds, four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
24 Therefore, Yahweh also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own minds, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who exchanged the truth of Yahweh for the Lie; Lords (Baalim), Gods, and Goddesses (Elohim), and worshiped and served the creation, rather than the creator, Who is blessed forever. Praise Yahweh! HalleluYahweh!


I Corinthians 10:20-22—
20 But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to Yahweh; and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons.
21 You cannot drink the cup of Yahweh and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of Yahweh's table and of the table of demons.
22 Do we provoke Yahweh to jealousy? are we stronger than He ?


II Corinthians 6:14-18—
14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with unright-eousness? and what fellowship does light have with darkness?
15 And what harmony can there be between Messiah and Belial; Worthlessness: Satan? Or what share does a believer have with an infidel; untrustworthy, not faithful, not true nor loyal?
16 And what agreement does The House of Yahweh have with Gods (elohim)? for we are The House of the living Father. As Yahweh has said: I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their Father, and they will be my people.
17 Therefore: come out from among them and be separate, says Yahweh. Do not touch the unclean thing, and I will receive you.
18 I will be a Father to you, and you will be My sons and daughters, says Yahweh Almighty.


II Corinthians 4:4—
For the god (el) of this world (Satan) has blinded the minds of those who do not believe, so that the light of the message of the glory of the Messiah, Who is the image of Yahweh, should not shine unto them.


Romans 6:15-16—
15 What? May we sin as though we are not under the Law, yet under Yahweh's undeserved pardon? by no means!
16 Do you not know that to whom you yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey—whether of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness?

I Yahchanan 3:7-9—
7 Little children, let no man deceive you; he who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous.
8 He who commits sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of Yahweh was manifested; that He might destroy the works of the devil.
9 Whoever is begotten of Yahweh does not commit sin; for His seed remains in Him; and it is possible for him not to sin, because he has been begotten of Yahweh.


I Yahchanan 5:18-21—
18 We know that whoever is born of Yahweh does not sin; but he who has been begotten of Yahweh keeps himself, and the evil one does not touch him.
19 We know that we belong to Yahweh, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.
20 And we know that the Son of Yahweh has come, and has given us an understanding, in order that we may know Him Who is true; and we are in Him Who is true, for we are in His Son, Yahshua. Yahweh is the true Father, and eternal life.
21 Little children, keep yourselves from the defilement of Gods (elohim).


Revelation 18:2-5—
2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of demons, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
3 Gor all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth have grown rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Come out of her, My people, so that you do not partake in her sins, and so that you do not receive of her plagues,
5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and Yahweh has remembered her iniquities!

However, the apostles knew Yahweh's Plan which called for a man to be born who would be sacrificed for the past sins of many. They also knew that this man would be raised again by Yahweh.........................Yahweh has always revealed Himself as our Father. Yahshua Messiah taught His twelve apostles to pray to Yahweh, and to begin their prayers to Him as "Our Father."

As you read for yourself, you will find that Yahshua taught His disciples, those who obeyed Yahweh, to pray in the following manner.

Luke 11:2—
So He said to them: When you pray, using this example, say: Our Father Who is in heaven, hallowed be; to show reverence and respect to, Your Name. Your Kingdom come. Your will be done; as it is in heaven, so may it be in earth.

In their ministry, the disciples spoke of Yahweh as the Father of Yahshua, saying this specifically in the following Scriptures:

Ephesians 1:17—
Asking that the Father of our King, Yahshua Messiah, the Father of glory, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation; unveiling and uncovering truths, for the full knowledge of Him.


I Kepha 1:3—
Blessed be Yahweh, the Father of our King Yahshua Messiah, Who, according to His abundant mercy, has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Yahshua Messiah from the dead;


I Corinthians 8:5-6—
5 For even though there are many called gods (elohim), whether in heaven or on earth (As there are many gods; elohim, and many lords; baalim.),
6 Yet to us there is only One Authority, the Father, from Whom all things came and for Whom we live. And there is but one King, Yahshua Messiah, on Whose account are all things, and on whose account we live .


However, to the disobedient, Yahshua said:

Yahchanan 8:44—
You are of your teacher who is Satan the Devil, and whatever she who is your teacher desires, you will do. She was a murderer from the beginning, and remained not in the truth, because there is no truth in her. Therefore, when you speak your falsehoods, you speak her words, because she is a liar, and the teacher of all lies!

The Holy Scriptures show that we accept one of two beings as our head. We can either accept Yahweh as our Father (head) or we can accept Satan as our head.

Through this world's lust to break the Laws of Yahweh, they have rejected Yahweh as their Father, while accepting Satan the adversary as their head. By doing this, they have become the people of the devil, as the Apostle Shaul describes in the following Scriptures, because they did not like to retain Yahweh in their knowledge..............................................Yahshua Messiah said the following.

Yahchanan 6:44—
No man can come to Me, unless the Father, Who has sent Me, draws him; and I will establish him as a priest at the last day.

When we are called out of this world by Yahweh's Holy Spirit and begin to understand the importance of Yahweh's Holy Scriptures in our lives, we, even then, are only half of the creation Yahweh requires us to be, in order for us to enter His Kingdom. To understand this, we must understand the Plan of Yahweh.

When Yahshua was resurrected from the dead, He became the firstborn of many brothers.

Romans 8:29—
For whom He did foreknow, He also did foreordain to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

When we are conformed to Yahshua we will also be conformed to the Father Yahweh, because Yahshua conformed to be exactly like the Father.

Hebrews 1:3—
Who, being the reflection of the perfection of Yahweh, and the representation of Yahweh's plan, by upholding all things concerning that which was spoken by Yahweh through the Law and the prophets, when He had purged sin, sat down on the right hand of Yahweh on high;


http://www.yahweh.com/pdf/Booklet_Shaul-Do-Away.pdf



Much like the Christian NAZIs that preceeded you, you are ignorant an ddon't know what you speak of. I see through you like I see through the water that flows down my drain.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8820.html

Was Jesus a Nazi? During the Third Reich, German Protestant theologians, motivated by racism and tapping into traditional Christian anti-Semitism, redefined Jesus as an Aryan and Christianity as a religion at war with Judaism. In 1939, these theologians established the Institute for the Study and Eradication of Jewish Influence on German Religious Life. In The Aryan Jesus, Susannah Heschel shows that during the Third Reich, the Institute became the most important propaganda organ of German Protestantism, exerting a widespread influence and producing a nazified Christianity that placed anti-Semitism at its theological center.

Based on years of archival research, The Aryan Jesus examines the membership and activities of this controversial theological organization. With headquarters in Eisenach, the Institute sponsored propaganda conferences throughout the Nazi Reich and published books defaming Judaism, including a dejudaized version of the New Testament and a catechism proclaiming Jesus as the savior of the Aryans. Institute members--professors of theology, bishops, and pastors--viewed their efforts as a vital support for Hitler's war against the Jews. Heschel looks in particular at Walter Grundmann, the Institute's director and a professor of the New Testament at the University of Jena. Grundmann and his colleagues formed a community of like-minded Nazi Christians who remained active and continued to support each other in Germany's postwar years.

The Aryan Jesus raises vital questions about Christianity's recent past and the ambivalent place of Judaism in Christian thought.

ANTISEMITISM AND CHRISTIANITY

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i8820.html

Hitler did not achieve most of his political and military goals, but on the Jewish question he succeeded remarkably. If his antisemitic propaganda found resonance, its success can be credited in large measure to the unrelenting anti-Jewish Christian theological discourse that linked Nazi propaganda with the traditions and moral authority of the churches. That link was proclaimed with enthusiasm by Nazi Christians: “In the Nazi treatment of the Jews and its ideological stance, Luther’s intentions, after centuries, are being fulfilled.”13 Antisemitism was the lingua franca of the Nazi era and was employed by church leaders to gain credibility with their own adherents—but also out of sincere antisemitic conviction. Antisemitism was also a tactic in the rhetorical battles among the different Christian factions, with each accusing its opponents of being “Jewish” while positioning itself as the true Nazi believer.14

Already in 1971 the historian Uriel Tal challenged the entrenched view that racist antisemitism is a new phenomenon that repudiates Christianity by arguing that it was actually utterly dependent on Christian anti-Judaism for its success: “it was not the economic crises that brought about this new political, racial and antireligious antisemitism, but completely the reverse, it was precisely the anti-Christian and antireligious ideology of racial antisemitism which hampered the first antisemitic parties in their efforts to utilize the economic crisis for their political development . . . [because] what still attracted the masses was the classical, traditional Christian anti-Judaism, however adapted it may have become to the new economic conditions.”15 Tal demonstrated that Germany’s antisemitic, völkisch movements that arose in the nineteenth century had to abandon their initial anti-Christian stances in order to win supporters for whom Christian anti-Jewish arguments held profound political appeal.16 Even within the so-called “church struggle” between German Christians and the Confessing Church for control of the Protestant church, antisemitism became the glue that united the otherwise warring factions. Similarly, however much Hitler made use of images of messianism, redemption, and other Christian motifs, the most useful and consistent aspect of Christianity for the Nazi movement was its anti-Judaism, just as the single most consistent and persistent feature of Nazism was its antisemitism.

Hitler was well aware of arguments that were central to the Institute: that Jesus was an Aryan, and that Paul, as a Jew, had falsified Jesus’s message, themes he repeatedly mentioned in private conversations, together with rants against the church as a Jewish subversion of the Aryan spirit (though the reliability of his reported private conversations is uncertain). In a diatribe alleged to have occurred in October of 1941, the month Hitler made the decision to murder the Jews,17 Hitler proclaimed that Jesus was not a Jew, but a fighter against Jewry whose message was falsified and exploited by Paul: “St. Paul transformed a local movement of Aryan opposition to Jewry into a super-temporal religion, which postulates the equality of all men . . . [causing] the death of the Roman Empire.”18 His views demonstrate that the German Christian diagnosis of Christianity as tainted by Jewish influence resonated at the highest levels of the Reich, but that its prescribed solution of dejudaization was met with skepticism if not sheer mockery. Was Christianity thoroughly impregnated with Judaism, or could it be dejudaized, as the Institute claimed?

Like the antisemitic parties of the nineteenth century, the Nazi Party could not reject Christianity—not only because it would offend the moral and social sensibilities of Germans, but because the antisemitism of Christianity formed the basis on which the party could appeal to Germans with its racial and nationalist ideology. Nazism’s relationship to Christianity was not one of rejection, nor was it an effort to displace Christianity and become a form of “political religion.” Nazism did not present racial antisemitism as antithetical to Christian theological anti-Judaism; rather, Nazi ideology was a form of supersessionism, a usurpation and colonization of Christian theology, especially its antisemitism, for its own purposes. The theology of the Institute was a similar effort at supersessionism in reverse, taking over elements of Nazi racial ideology to bolster and redefine the Christian message. The result was an uneasy competition between two sides seeking popular support and institutional control, though access to power was, of course, highly asymmetrical.

Thus, while seeking to undermine the political power and moral authority of the churches, Nazism simultaneously appropriated key elements of Christian theology into its own ideology both for purposes of winning adherents used to Christian arguments and also to give its own message a coherence and resonance with the age-old Christian teachings that had shaped European culture. Conversely, German Christians appropriated Nazi rhetoric and symbols into the church to give its Christianity a contemporary resonance. Both the Nazis and the German Christians identified Hitler as Christ’s second coming. That gave Hitler the status of a supernatural being and gave Christ renewed glory as a contemporary figure of enormous political significance. Both were suspicious of the institutional church. Factions within the Nazi Reich and the party saw the church as competition and a potential threat to be ultimately eliminated after the war.19 The German Christians sought control and radical reform of the Protestant church, which they never fully achieved, leading them to bitter complaints and, in some cases, demands for its demolition. Meanwhile, Christianity was not to be banned nor the churches outlawed; rather, as the historian Ernst Piper writes, Nazi strategy was to control the churches and lead to “a steadily advancing process of delegitimization and disassociation, of undermining and repression” that would undercut the church’s moral authority and position of respect.20 In its own supersessionist theology, an amalgam of Nazism and Christianity, with a rejection of church authority and doctrine, an assertion of German supremacy and Jewish degeneracy, and absurd revisions of the Bible, the German Protestant church contributed substantially to the Nazi project of undermining Christianity.

The establishment of the Institute in 1939 and the proliferation of its projects during the war years demonstrates that the antisemitism of the German Christians was not simply rhetorical, but was intended to lend active support to Nazi policies against the Jews—or, at times, to push those policies in more radical directions. Indeed, certain Protestant theologians stood at the forefront in discussions of the so-called Jewish problem; Gerhard Kittel’s notorious speech of May 1933, later published as a pamphlet, has been called the most antisemitic utterance of that year.21 In considering ways to rid Germany of Jews, Kittel proposed not only expulsion and guest status, but extermination (“Ausrottung”), a method he rejected only because it was too difficult to implement. On February 24–25, 1936, a few months after the proclamation of the Nuremberg Laws, but long before Jews were being deported and murdered, a group of theologians, some of whom subsequently became leaders of the Institute, met in Dresden to discuss a merger of the German Christian factions of the state churches of Thuringia and Saxony. During the course of the meeting, Siegfried Leffler, a German Christian leader, official in the Thuringian Ministry of Education, and, by 1939, figurehead of the Institute, stated:

In a Christian life, the heart always has to be disposed toward the Jew, and that’s how it has to be. As a Christian, I can, I must, and I ought always to have or to find a bridge to the Jew in my heart. But as a Christian, I also have to follow the laws of my nation [Volk], which are often presented in a very cruel way, so that again I am brought into the harshest of confl icts with the Jew. Even if I know “thou shalt not kill” is a commandment of God or “thou shalt love the Jew” because he too is a child of the eternal Father, I am able to know as well that I have to kill him, I have to shoot him, and I can only do that if I am permitted to say: Christ.22
What is striking is not only that Leffler spoke of killing Jews as early as February 1936, long before mass murder of the Jews became Nazi policy, but that there was no response to his comments from those attending, neither immediately nor later in the session; the discussion simply continued as if murder of Jews in the name of Christ was a customary topic.23 The aryanization of Jesus into a manly, heroic, fighting spirit reflected among the theologians the “heroic realism” that prevailed in the 1930s within right-wing political thought. That “heroism” meant killing one’s opponent without emotion but in accord with principles of natural law, in defense of one’s own race and at the cost of personal sacrifice.24 Paul Althaus, professor of theology at the University of Erlangen and a noted ethicist, was present at the meeting, but expressed nothing to indicate that he was appalled or disturbed by Leffler’s remarks. The lack of outrage is evidence that ridding Germany of Jews had become an acceptable point of discussion among theologians, even when murder was proposed as a technique of achieving it. The Nuremberg Laws, while perceived by many German Jews as protection from far worse legislation, were viewed as an encouragement by the German Christian movement to take even more radical positions. Legal cases in German courts, brought in the wake of the Nuremberg Laws’ criminalization of sexual relations and marriage between Jews and Aryans, and widely reported in the German press, implicated Jews as sexual predators of Aryans, further encouraging Christian theologians to insist on protecting Christian purity by eradicating Jewishness with even more radical measures.25 The penetration of Christian bodies by Jewish sex reiterated a typical motif of racist rhetoric, the dangers of miscegenation, and reinforced fears that Aryanism was not immutable, but subject to destruction by Jews.26 Antisemites had long insisted that German Aryan women were vulnerable to Jewish predation, and Jesus, whose gentleness and suffering was viewed as effeminate by German Christians, was depicted in one caricature as an Aryan woman on a cross with a lecherous Jewish man in the foreground: the crucifixion as the Jewish rape of Germany. ............................

[true lilly]

So that would be a "NO!!!"?

Cool, probably best that "tintin" and "them" keep spamming bull dust.

[sharky]

start being truthful and honest and your problems will lessen.....just sayin'.........as long as you lie you will be beset by the 'Dark Bats of the Night'.

[true lilly]

The God ²³¹⁶ and ²⁵³² Father ³⁹⁶² of
our ²²⁵⁷ Lord ²⁹⁶² Jesus ²⁴²⁴ Christ ⁵⁵⁴⁷,
which ³⁵⁸⁸ is ⁵⁶⁰⁷ blessed ²¹²⁸
for ¹⁵¹⁹ evermore ¹⁶⁵,
knoweth ¹⁴⁹² that I ³⁷⁵⁴ lie ⁵⁵⁷⁴ not ³⁷⁵⁶.

Ye ⁵²¹⁰ are ²⁰⁷⁵ of ¹⁵³⁷
[your] father ³⁹⁶² the devil ¹²²⁸,
and ²⁵³² the lusts ¹⁹³⁹ of your ⁵²¹⁶ father ³⁹⁶²
ye will ²³⁰⁹ do ⁴¹⁶⁰.
He ¹⁵⁶⁵ was ²²⁵⁸ a murderer ⁴⁴³
from ⁵⁷⁵ the beginning ⁷⁴⁶, and ²⁵³²
abode ²⁴⁷⁶ not ³⁷⁵⁶ in ¹⁷²² the truth ²²⁵,
because ³⁷⁵⁴ there is ²⁰⁷⁶
no ³⁷⁵⁶ truth ²²⁵ in ¹⁷²² him ⁸⁴⁶.
When ³⁷⁵² he speaketh ²⁹⁸⁰ a lie ⁵⁵⁷⁹,
he speaketh ²⁹⁸⁰ of ¹⁵³⁷ his own ²³⁹⁸:
for ³⁷⁵⁴ he is ²⁰⁷⁶ a liar ⁵⁵⁸³,
and ²⁵³² the father ³⁹⁶² of it ⁸⁴⁶.
_________________________________

If ¹⁴⁸⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹ hate ³⁴⁰⁴ you ⁵²⁰⁹,
ye know ¹⁰⁹⁷ that ³⁷⁵⁴ it hated ³⁴⁰⁴ me ¹⁶⁹¹
before ⁴⁴¹² [it hated] you ⁵²¹⁶.

If ¹⁴⁸⁷ ye were ²²⁵⁸ of ¹⁵³⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹,
the world ²⁸⁸⁹ would ³⁰² love ⁵³⁶⁸ his own ²³⁹⁸:
but ¹¹⁶¹ because ³⁷⁵⁴ ye are ²⁰⁷⁵ not ³⁷⁵⁶
of ¹⁵³⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹, but ²³⁵ I ¹⁴⁷³ have chosen ¹⁵⁸⁶
you ⁵²⁰⁹ out of ¹⁵³⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹, therefore ^{5124 1223}
the world ²⁸⁸⁹ hateth ³⁴⁰⁴ you ⁵²⁰⁹.

Remember ³⁴²¹ the word ³⁰⁵⁶
that ³⁷³⁹ I ¹⁴⁷³ said ²⁰³⁶ unto you ⁵²¹³,
The servant ¹⁴⁰¹ is ²⁰⁷⁶ not ³⁷⁵⁶ greater
than ³¹⁸⁷ his ⁸⁴⁶ lord ²⁹⁶².
If ¹⁴⁸⁷ they have persecuted ¹³⁷⁷ me ¹⁶⁹¹,
they will ^{1377 0} also ²⁵³² persecute ¹³⁷⁷ you ⁵²⁰⁹;
if ¹⁴⁸⁷ they have kept ⁵⁰⁸³ my ³⁴⁵⁰ saying ³⁰⁵⁶,
they will keep ⁵⁰⁸³ yours ⁵²¹² also ²⁵³².

Yes, it is a catastrophe, for "you mobs",
because it was never 'me', that "you" took on,
but in "your" selfish desire to "be your own gods",
"you" all forgot how happy I am, to be no more
than a servant of God.

Interesting, that
The GLOBAL CONSPIRACY Industry,
is always telling people to "WAKE UP"...

#32101
There is a guy by the name of Ben who drinks
at the Village Shop and Spies reminds me of
Espionage...
...
By the way, I am only making links to people
the same as Tintin makes links using people.

Sleeper agent:
A sleeper agent is a person who is
recruited to an intelligence service
to wake up
and perform a specific set of tasks or functions
while living under cover in an area of interest.
This type of agent
is not the same as a deep cover operative
who is continually in contact with
their case officer in order to file intelligence reports.
A sleeper agent
will not be in contact with anyone
until activated.

Interesting because
the more 'they' scream at the world to wake up,
the more those, starting to SEE,
God's Saving Revelations,
are beaten, cowed and BOUGHT into SELLING
DENIAL of The Light of Truth,
so feared and hated by The Willingly Evil.

Interesting to, that GOD WARNED US to
NOT to try to save ourselves by running
to Follow Popular Mass Movements...
but, that MOST STILL WOULD, and,
DIE REGRETTING IT!

...and where did I open at, on praying
about whether to send this...oh, and do
read the full meanings of each word
at the link provided.

Psalms 127:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=127&v=1&t=KJV&sstr=1
A Song of the Ascents. Of Solomon.
1
Unless Jehovah himself builds the house,
It is to no avail that its builders have worked hard on it.
Unless Jehovah himself guards the city,
It is to no avail that the guard has kept awake.
2
To no avail it is for YOU men that YOU are rising up early,
That YOU are sitting down late,
That YOU are eating food with pains.
Just like this he gives sleep even to his beloved one.
3
Look! Sons are an inheritance from Jehovah;
The fruitage of the belly is a reward.
4
Like arrows in the hand of a mighty man,
So are the sons of youth.
5
Happy is the able-bodied man that has filled his quiver with them.
They will not be ashamed,
For they will speak with enemies in the gate.

Psalms 126:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Psa&c=126&v=1&t=KJV

"Long and Uncomfortable"=BRAINWASHING as used by CULT LEADERS.
http://hpanwoforum.freeforums.org/post24742.html#p24742
So where were all ROEBUCK'S Associates
when he needed "their" help?
Couldn't even get a Lawyer to show up.
His Last Associate Left him ALONE.
KNOWING a 6 story window was his
ONLY WAY "OUT"!
Ickeism=
Culture jamming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming
Guerrilla marketing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_marketing
Spaßguerilla
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spa%C3%9Fguerilla
...and when ISN'T 'satire' satirical?
When it's all the above HIDING behind the filthy lie,
that those who DO GET WHAT 'THEY' ARE DOING,
"don't get satire".
Front Deutscher Äpfel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Deutscher_%C3%84pfel

Apple Front activists in typical uniform with satirized right extremist symbols and bearing
(The FRONT is 'satire' WHILE THEY FISH FOR THOSE WHO
DO SUPPORT WHAT THEY 'satirize')

Yep, anyone believing that 'alternative media' isn't
what's pushing The Beastly Agenda,
is either a deluded fool, or Knowingly, Willingly, Beastly.

Oh, and how many of The Most Vulnerable and Powerless,
is that, DEAD AROUND THE WORLD, now, DUE TO BEING
SUCKED INTO BLOODY, NATION DESTROYING "revolutions",
VIA The Twittering TWITS of WORLD WIDE (Global) WEB of
LIES?

DESPERATELY LYING:

Hee hee,
is that the sanest of my younger, old (and current), ungrateful,
backstabbing 'associates', today?
And is this the most 'youthful'?
Because you almost laugh as hard as those with an eye and brain did,

when she "got" a Licence to "Judge" ...IMHEO, justified laughter...
Funny to, because she was embarrassed of her wog hubby's surname...
and advertised Only As "Sue & Steve" because of all the people who
rang the club asking for a puppy bred by "Sioux & Steve" ...
but then her hubby's,

"REBEL"
bro, got himself an O.A.M., and suddenly,
she was no longer embarrassed by her wog surname...

...but kept the Cameron and hyphen
...interesting though, that when reading other's opinions:
http://www.motorcyclekb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/au-motorcycle/6756/MRAA-ie-MRAV-bashing
of Bro-in-law, "Uncle DamienO.A.M.":
http://www.bikenut.com.au/uncledamien.php
http://damiencodognottooam.blogspot.com/
Thailand Motorbike Tours and Motorcycle Adventure Tours. - experience 16 unforgettable days on a fully guided motorcycling adventure through fascinating Northern Thailand.

it's like reading the experiences folk have with
DICTATORIAL David Icke and his NET HACKING,
PRIVATE Message Reading, INDEPENDENT OPINION BANNING,
FALSE 'consensus' Pushing, Forum Moderators ...and,
what a stupidly suicidal Global Religion it is,
that "they" keep shoving down the world's throat,
by trying to silence all warning voices:

Oh, and lets NOT forget the CONnections here:
http://www.dogzonline.com.au/breeds/profile.asp?dog=10733
MRS. Trish STEBBINGS
Secretary AND PUBLICITY OFFICER RRCV


Jeremiah - Chapter 50

Declare ⁵⁰⁴⁶ ye among the nations ¹⁴⁷¹,
and publish ⁸⁰⁸⁵ , and set up ⁵³⁷⁵ a standard ⁵²⁵¹;
publish ⁸⁰⁸⁵ , [and] conceal ³⁵⁸² not: say ⁵⁵⁹ ...
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Jer&c=50&v=1&t=KJV#1

2 Samuel - Chapter 7, 8 & 9
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Sa&c=7&v=1&t=KJV#1
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Sa&c=8&v=1&t=KJV
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Sa&c=9&v=1&t=KJV#

And David ¹⁷³² said ⁵⁵⁹ ,
Is there yet ³⁴²⁶ any that is left ³⁴⁹⁸ of the house ¹⁰⁰⁴ of Saul ⁷⁵⁸⁶,
that I may shew ⁶²¹³ him kindness ²⁶¹⁷ for Jonathan's ³⁰⁸³ sake?

Jonathan ³⁰⁸³ hath yet a son ¹¹²¹,
[which is] lame ⁵²²³ on [his] feet ⁷²⁷².

So Mephibosheth ⁴⁶⁴⁸ dwelt ³⁴²⁷ in Jerusalem ³³⁸⁹:
for he did eat ³⁹⁸ continually ⁸⁵⁴⁸ at the king's ⁴⁴²⁸ table ⁷⁹⁷⁹;
and was lame ⁶⁴⁵⁵ on both ⁸¹⁴⁷ his feet ⁷²⁷².

NOTE:
lame ⁵²²³
lame ⁶⁴⁵⁵ on both ^{8147
DIFFERENT/ADDITIONAL numbers=ROOT (DESCRIPTIVE) MEANINGS.}

[sharky]

You should take your own advice and: READ ALL THE WORDS. And then keep these sacred words in their honest and proper context.

Interesting because
the more 'they' scream at the world to wake up,
the more those, starting to SEE,
God's Saving Revelations,
are beaten, cowed and BOUGHT into SELLING
DENIAL of The Light of Truth,
so feared and hated by The Willingly Evil.

Try reading the Rabbinic Midrash of the Book you ceaselessly quote out of context...........


Shiur #10: Psalm 127: The Difference Between “In Vain” (shav) and “Tranquility” (shena)
By Rav Elchanan Samet

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/tehillim69/10tehillim.htm

(1) A Song of Degrees, for Shlomo:

1. Unless God builds the house,

Its builders toil in vain (shav).

2. Unless God watches over the city,

The watchman stays awake in vain (shav).

3. (2) It is vain (shav) for you to awaken early,

To sit up late,

To eat the bread of toil

- For to His beloved He gives tranquility (shena).

4. (3) Behold, children are the heritage of God,

And fruit of the womb – reward.

5. (4) Like arrows in the hand of a mighty one,

So are the children of one’s youth.

6. (5) Happy is the man

Who has filled his quiver with them;

7. They shall not be put to shame,

When they speak with their enemies at the gate.”

A. Two obvious difficulties

Chapter 127 of Sefer Tehillim (like the following one – 128) belongs to a relatively small group of psalms that may be referred to as “wisdom psalms." Their aim is to educate towards a proper world-view, to inculcate biblical life-experience in the reader – like Sefer Mishlei and other books of wisdom. While the great majority of the psalms address the relationship between man and God, these “psalms of wisdom” deal with guidance for life (the assumption being, needless to say, that one’s life is always centered around God). While most of the psalms reflect a “vertical” relationship, between man and God, the “psalms of wisdom” (and the biblical literature of wisdom in general) is “horizontal” – i.e., inter-personal.[1]

The psalm is presented above as a poem should be written in brief lines and divided into stanzas.[2] From the point of view of literal exegesis, it seems straightforward and presents little difficulty.[3] However, even upon the most superficial initial reading, two questions immediately present themselves concerning the structure of the psalm and its thematic integrity:

The first question pertains to the psalm as a whole. We see that it is comprised of two halves, each addressing a different subject and each with a different atmosphere. Stanzas 1-3 express one idea: that man’s efforts alone will not bear fruit if God is not a partner to his efforts. The atmosphere here is a negative one, as expressed in the thrice-repeated negation – “shav” (in vain) concerning the three examples cited to illustrate the main idea: the building of a house, the guarding of a city, and hard work in order to make a living. The same idea could be expressed in a positive way: “When God desires a man’s ways, his endeavors will succeed”, or “It is God Who gives person strength to build a house and to guard a city." However, our psalm chooses the negative formulation: in the absence of God’s partnership in man’s actions, all of his endeavors will amount to nothing.

The second half of the psalm (stanzas 4-7), in contrast, has a different subject: the blessing that comes to a man who has “children of his youth."

The stanzas of each of the two halves are united around the same subject, and we note an inner development in each of them. However, we are left with the question: What is the connection between the two halves of the psalm? Is there one single idea which the psalm as a whole is trying to express? In other words, is our psalm an integral whole? Is it built in a manner that serves to mold a single idea, or is it a composite of two independent parts under the same heading (“A Song of Degrees for Shlomo”), brought together for reasons which remain to be discovered?

The second obvious difficulty in our psalm concerns the words at the end of verse 2: “For to those who love Him He will give tranquility." Even on the level of literal meaning, the intention here is not clear: what is the meaning of the first word, “ken”? Does it mean “so”, or “such”, such hat this verse stands in comparison to something that appeared previously? If so – what, and what is the significance of the comparison? Or, perhaps “ken” means “indeed”? The word “shena” (tranquility) likewise presents some difficulty. Does this mean “rest” (‘shena’ spelled with a ‘heh’ at the end), as some of the earlier commentators suggest? If so, we must ask why the word here ends with an “alef." And what does the phrase mean, as a whole? Perhaps this word has some other meaning. If so – what is it?

The greatest difficulty here concerns the place of these words: Do they belong to the third stanza and the first part of the psalm?[4] This seems unlikely since, as we have pointed out, the atmosphere of the first half is negative, while these words – no matter how we interpret them – are unquestionably formulated in a positive manner. There is some sort of positive gift that God is bestowing on those who love Him. This being the case, perhaps these words are meant to serve as an introduction to the second half? The problem is that the subject of this half is the blessing of children that comes to man from God. The phrase in question seems to have nothing to do with this theme.

Since we are initially unable to decide where these words belong, we leave them for the meantime in a section of their own, in between the third and fourth stanzas – or, between the two halves of the psalm.

In the next shiurim we will attempt to analyze the psalm in an orderly manner, with the hope of finding answers to our questions above.

Translated by Kaeren Fish

[1] Aside from psalms 127 and 128, we may note the following examples: 1, (34), 37, 45, 49, (78), 112, 133. The chapters in parentheses are those which cannot be unequivocally categorized. In his book, “Sheki’ei Chokhma be-Sefer Tehillim” (Magnes, Jerusalem 5751), Prof. Avi Horwitz discusses the identification of “wisdom psalms” in Sefer Tehillim from a linguistic perspective. In the first chapter of his book he presents a critical review of the approaches proposed by scholars who preceded him in this field of inquiry, and of their scope. On p. 128 of his book he presents a synoptic table comparing ten different views, dating from the 1930’s until the present. The table shows that there is consensus among eight or more scholars concerning only five psalms: 1, 34, 37, 49, and 112. Some of the scholars identify as many as fourteen “psalms of wisdom”; others count a total that is much smaller (five or six).

The list of psalms at the beginning of this note does not follow any particular approach, nor have we involved ourselves deeply in the methodological question of identifying the “wisdom psalms”. Our criteria were, firstly, the “audience” to whom the psalm is addressed – God or man – and secondly, the content and style of the psalm.

The topic is itself worthy of thorough discussion, and I do not pretend to do it justice here. Therefore, the list here should be regarded as no more than an initial impression arising from these psalms.

It should further be noted that Psalm 91, which we analyzed in previous shiurim, also possesses some of the distinctive characteristics of a “wisdom psalm," and indeed one of the ten scholars included in Horwitz’s survey does include it in his list.

[2] In our analysis of Psalm 130 (mi-ma’amakim) we discussed the importance of presenting the psalms in Sefer Tehillim in a manner that highlights their lyrical character.

[3] “The bread of toil” (lechem ha-atzabim) means bread eaten in sorrow. The idea here is that the worker is so exhausted by his intensive and prolonged labor that he eats not in a relaxed frame of mind, but rather in sorrow. This hints to God’s words to Adam (Bereishit 3:17), “Cursed is the land because of you; you shall eat of it in sorrow (be-itzavon)," and further on (verse 19), “you shall eat bread by the sweat of your brow”. However, the meaning in our psalm is slightly different: here the verse is talking about the bread that accompanies man’s hard labor. We deduce this from the parallel between the words “mashkimei”/ ”me’acharei”/ ”ochlei," all of which describe human action and effort, not its results.

The words “For to His beloved He gives tranquility” will be discussed below.

“The children of one’s youth” means that children who are born to a person while he is still young. Similarly, “eshet ne’urim” means a woman whom a man marries in his youth.

[4] As we must conclude if the word ‘ken’ is understood to mean “thus” or “so”.

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/tehillim69/11tehillim.htm

Shiur #11: Psalm 127 - Continued

By Rav Elchanan Samet


(1) A Song of Degrees, for Shlomo/Solomon:
1. Unless God builds the house,

Its builders toil in vain (shav).

2. Unless God watches over the city,

The watchman stays awake in vain (shav).

3. (2) It is vain (shav) for you to awaken early,

To sit up late,

To eat the bread of toil

- For to His beloved He gives tranquility (shena).

4. (3) Behold, children are the heritage of God,

And fruit of the womb – reward.

5. (4) Like arrows in the hand of a mighty one,

So are the children of one’s youth.

6. (5) Happy is the man

Who has filled his quiver with them;

7. They shall not be put to shame,

When they speak with their enemies at the gate.”



B. The parallel between stanzas a and b, and their hidden meaning


The first two stanzas of our psalm maintain a synonymous[1], direct[2], complete[3] parallel, as follows:

If God does not build a house its builders labor in vain.



If God does not guard a city the guard stays awake in vain.



There is a thematic development between the two hemistiches: the “city” is a collection of houses which have already been built and which now require security: they need a watchman.

In contrast to this broadening of the perspective in the second limb in relation to the first, we also find the opposite phenomenon: the building of the house, in the first limb, is carried out by a number of “builders," while the guarding of the city (with its many houses) is carried out by a single “guard." The reason for this linguistic difference would seem to be that the construction of a house does usually involve a number of workers (whether for the sake of finishing the work sooner or because a variety of artisans are needed for different tasks), whereas the city can be guarded by a single watchman looking out for approaching enemies from an observation post where he can see them while they are still far off and raise the alarm by sounding the shofar or by directly notifying the king.[4]

Is it the intention of these two stanzas to nullify the value of man’s efforts to build his house and to protect the security of his city? This cannot be possible; it would be an offense both to common sense and to the prevailing biblical view that a person must exert effort for the sake of securing his own existence.[5] Indeed, those among the early commentators who interpret our psalm in its general human context (and not in relation to the building of the Temple)[6] explain that it does not contradict common sense or the accepted biblical conventions concerning human effort. According to their interpretations, man’s own efforts are a necessary but insufficient condition, and in the absence of God’s hidden involvement, man’s efforts will not attain their objective.

Ibn Ezra explains:

Since (the verse) starts by mentioning building (of a house), which is a great need for people… and the meaning of (the words), “toil in vain” is – if God does not help them, or brings a strong wind that can destroy everything. Thus, (the verse) mentions the artisans – who are the builders, thereafter the watchmen of the building – who are the watchmen of the city… and then (in the third stanza), the merchants of the city.


The Meiri expresses the same idea somewhat more clearly:

(The psalm) says, as advice and guidance for people, that when they invest effort in their property, even though effort is good, one should not place one’s faith in his own efforts and not think, when he obtains his desire, that it was his effort that achieved this for him. Rather, everything is from the blessed God, and it is He Who inspired him to make the effort, and it is He Who brought him to achieve his desire. The Torah warns, in this regard (Devarim 8:17-18), “And you say in your heart, ‘My strength and the might of my hand have achieved all this wealth for me,’" up until “you shall remember the Lord your God, for is it He Who gives you strength to make wealth”.[7]

After completing his commentary on the first three stanzas of our psalm, he comes back to his original message:

And all of this (is meant) not to discourage one from investing effort – for you will find no wise person who denounces effort and praises sloth. Rather, (the message is that) one should not place all of his trust in it (i.e., human effort), and not believe, when he achieves (his aim), that he has achieved what he has by his own effort; rather, God has graciously given it to him.

Given the Meiri’s view that our psalm provides general moral and religious guidance for all people, it seems strange that the psalmist choose the negative formulation to teach this lesson (“Unless God builds a house…”), rather than a positive formulation (“Only if God…”). Hence, it would appear that our psalm is meant to serve as rebuke to people who act improperly and who believe that only through their own strength and might can they build themselves houses and cities[8], and ensure their own security and livelihood. It is to these people that the psalmist declares that their efforts will be in vain, for God will not look with favor upon their actions, and they will not last if they are contrary to God’s will.



(to be continued)

Translated by Kaeren Fish



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] A synonymous parallel is one where the two limbs express identical or similar content. The opposite of a synonymous parallel is a contrasting parallel, for example: “A wise son makes his father joyful, but a foolish son is the grief of his mother” (Mishlei 10:1).

The terminology used here represents a translation of that set down in an article by Batsheva Brosh, “Hora’at ha-Tikbolet be-Shira ha-Mikrait”, published in Al ha-Perek 1, 1984, pp. 51-61.

[2] A direct parallel is one where structurally the two limbs are set out in the same order. The opposite of a direct parallel is a chiastic parallel. These two terms have nothing to do with the content of the limbs in question: both a direct parallel and a chiastic parallel may be either synonymous or contrasting, in terms of content (see previous note).

[3] A complete parallel is where the same syntactical elements appear in both limbs. The opposite of a complete parallel is an incomplete parallel, where one of the limbs is missing some syntactical element which exists in the other limb, and this element must be added from one limb to the other (sometimes from the first limb to the second, at other times the other way around).

[4] An exact description of the role of the watchman is to be found in Yechezkel 33:1-6 (and further on, the role of the prophet is compared to that of the watchman). A description of the specific action performed by the watchman is to be found in Shmuel II 13:34, and in more detail in Shmuel II 18:24-27 and Melakhim II 9:17-20. In the three latter sources, the watchman fulfills his task by notifying the king of the approach of some (still distant) unidentified party. However, in each of these cases it turns out that the party in question is not an enemy coming to conquer the city.

Since the action of the watchman is not connected to physical activity, like that of the builders of the house, the word “bo” is absent from the second limb of the parallel.

[5] The sources cited in the previous note suffice to show that guarding the city is regarded as an absolute obligation, and that anyone who is negligent in this regard is fully responsible for the consequences (see the description of the watchman in Yechezkel 33).

Similarly, a person’s obligation to work for his livelihood is likewise clear in Tanakh. For example, Tehillim 104:23: “Man goes out to his work and to his labor until evening.”

In Sefer Mishlei we find many recommendations for significant human effort and conscientiousness in work for the sake of making a living (as we will discuss further on), but concerning a person’s home we read in Kohelet 10:18 – “From sloth the beams collapse, and through idleness of the hands the house leaks”.

This subject is addressed at length (including a discussion of our psalm) in a book by Dr. Amos Frisch, “Yegi’a Kapecha – Yachas ha-Mikra el ha-Avoda”, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uchad, 5759.

[6] Most of the commentators explain this psalm, taking a cue from its introductory words, as referring to the building of the Temple, whether by David – who exerted considerable effort but was unsuccessful, or by Shlomo – who finally did built it. Some of these commentators go on to explain it as referring to “people of the world” – i.e., they regard it as a “psalm of wisdom” that imparts a lesson to all of mankind. We will adopt this view in our study of the psalm.

[7] It would seem that the Meiri cites the verses here from his memory. He misquotes verse 18 slightly; I have cited the correct version of the verse.

[8] I am reminded of the builders of the Tower of Bavel, who said (Bereishit 11:4), “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower…”. They disregarded the message of our psalm, concerned only with their own strength and their name. However, God “did not build” the city and the tower, but sought to halt their construction, and therefore (verse “God dispersed them from there over all of the face of the earth, and they ceased to build the city.”

Shiur #12: Psalm 127 - Continued

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/tehillim69/12tehillim.htm

By Rav Elchanan Samet

(1) A Song of Degrees, for Shlomo:
1. Unless God builds the house,

Its builders toil in vain (shav).

2. Unless God watches over the city,

The watchman stays awake in vain (shav).

3. (2) It is vain (shav) for you to awaken early,

To sit up late,

To eat the bread of toil

- For to His beloved He gives tranquility (shena).

4. (3) Behold, children are the heritage of God,

And fruit of the womb – reward.

5. (4) Like arrows in the hand of a mighty one,

So are the children of one’s youth.

6. (5) Happy is the man

Who has filled his quiver with them;

7. They shall not be put to shame,

When they speak with their enemies at the gate.”



C. Stanza 3 in comparison with its predecessors



The third stanza differs from its predecessors in several respects. Firstly, it lacks the negative conditional clause – “If God does not…." This could convey the impression that awakening early and settling late are negative in and of themselves, independently of the question of God’s partnership in the efforts of those who conduct themselves in this way.



Secondly, while both of the previous stanzas speak in the third person of people who exert effort in vain, here we find that the psalmist addresses them directly, in the second person: “It is vain for you…."



Thirdly, while the “vain” action in each of the previous stanzas was a single activity (building, guarding), described in a single line of poetry, the third stanza offers three different vain activities (arising early, settling late, eating), all carried out for a single purpose – apparently, to make a living – but this purpose is not mentioned in the text.[1] This stanza therefore consists entirely of the three actions whose heading is, “in vain."



We must now ask, does the third stanza represent a smooth thematic continuation of its predecessors, or do the differences between them indicate that some new point is being made here?



Notwithstanding the differences set forth above, there are several decisive factors that place the third stanza as an unbroken continuation.



Firstly, the appearance of the word “shav” (“in vain”) at the outset represents the third repetition of this word, after it has appeared in each of the two previous stanzas. Apparently, the intention here is as it was in the previous stanzas: “There is no value to your actions unless God is party to them.”



Secondly, the types of human activity addressed previously – the building of a house and the guarding of a city – illustrate two typical areas of human existential endeavor: finding shelter and ensuring security. The third stanza seems to complement these by presenting another – even more prominent – typical existential area of effort: economic viability.



The three stanzas would therefore appear to represent a single idea that is broken down into three examples. It is therefore not reasonable to posit that the third stanza comes to present a new idea, different from the one expressed in the first two, without explaining its meaning.



What, then, is the meaning of the differences between the third stanza and its predecessors?



Let us first address the matter of the missing condition: “Unless God…." For this purpose we must go back to the parallel nature of the stanzas.



The third stanza itself is built as a parallel with three limbs.[2] Is there also a parallel between the third stanza and the previous two? (We have already seen that the first two stanzas maintain a clear parallel.)



The answer would seem to be clearly in the affirmative. The third stanza is a parallel in synonymous, chiastic, incomplete[3] form, as follows:



Stanzas a,b: If God does not…. … in vain





Stanza c: It is vain for you --



Considering that the third stanza parallels the previous stanzas in terms of content (hence our definition of this as a “synonymous parallel”), we must ask why its structure is different (bringing the consequence to the beginning of the sentence, and thereby producing a chiastic parallel), and why this stanza is lacking a part, requiring the intuition of its complement on the basis of the two previous stanzas (hence the definition as an “incomplete parallel”).



The answer to these questions is that all of the changes characterizing stanza c. in relation to its predecessors arise from the fact that this stanza concludes the first section of the psalm. I shall presently explain what this means.



When a chiastic parallel follows a direct one, it is often meant to “wrap up” the statement that is being made. As in many other instances in Tanakh, the chiasm here expresses conclusion and confirmation.[4] The third stanza concludes the first section of the psalm, and is therefore presented as a chiastic parallel to the two preceding stanzas.



The fact that the parallel is incomplete arises from the length of the description, in this stanza, of actions that are “vain”: there is an enumeration of three actions instead of a single one as in the previous stanzas. Thus, the number of words in this stanza (9) is equal to the number in the previous stanzas. Had the conditional clause (“Unless God…”) been added here, the quantitative balance would have been lost, with the consequent implications for the rhythm which would have been similarly affected – along with aesthetic considerations.[5]



However, we may ask: why does the third stanza need to enumerate three different activities that are undertaken “in vain”, rather than sufficing with just one? The answer is, once again, that since this stanza “sums up” the message of the first part of the psalm, the idea of “vanity” is expressed here with greater intensity and with greater variation – and hence, necessarily, at greater length. I will explain this further.



We have already hinted above that the example of human effort in the quest for existential needs that is discussed in this third stanza – the toil to ensure economic viability, to obtain sustenance – is a more obvious example than either of the two preceding ones. Why is this so?



The building of a house lasts for a limited time. When the action is complete, the house stands firm, and its inhabitant has satisfied his existential need for shelter.

The guarding of a city, in contrast, is an action that continues – every day and every night. However, this action is not one that every person engages in. The city guards are a small, defined group of people for whom guarding is a permanent, professional occupation. Furthermore, while guarding the city is unquestionably a position of great responsibility, it does not involve much physical effort – unlike many other human endeavors (such as building a house).



In a league of its own is the Sisyphean effort to make a living. This ongoing effort is the lot of every person, for all of his life. It requires that a person devote his days, from early in the morning until the evening, to hard work involving physical and mental exertion.



Thus, the message here is that it is not only the relatively brief endeavors (such as building a house) or professional specializations (like guarding) whose success depends on Divine involvement and help, but also – and especially – the endeavor that is most characteristic of the human condition, and the most demanding: making a living.



In light of this, the third stanza represents the most intensive expression of the idea set forth in the first part of the psalm. This also explains the extra enumeration of actions that are carried out “in vain” in this stanza – with ramifications for its structure and its parallel relationship with its predecessors.



The third stanza involves one further development: the psalmist addresses the people toiling to earn their bread in the second person: “It is vain for you…." This technique serves to intensify the tone of reproof that was already hinted at in the previous stanzas.



Previously, we noted that the formulation of the moral, religious message of our psalm in the negative (“Unless God builds… in vain”) alludes to the Divine retribution awaiting builders of the house and guards of the city who are not worthy of Divine partnership in their actions, and who will therefore see no success in their endeavors.



This note of rebuke becomes more tangible when the psalmist addresses people directly. The actions of these people, toiling endlessly to obtain sustenance, will not achieve anything if they are not blessed by God.



Thus, despite the differences between the third stanza and the two preceding ones – and by means of those differences – the third stanza turns out to represent a continuation and development of the same idea that they introduced.



(to be continued)



Translated by Kaeren Fish



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The reason for its absence would seem to arise from the first difference that we noted above between the third stanza and the first two: previously, the purpose of the human activity – the building of the house or the guarding of the city – was noted in the conditional clause. However, since no conditional clause exists in the third stanza, there is no mention of the purpose of the activity that is carried out “in vain”, and we must conclude this from the nature of the activity that is described. Had some conditional clause existed here, the verse would read, “If God does not provide food”, or the suchlike.

[2] The parallel here is synonymous, direct, and incomplete (see the footnotes of the previous shiur for an explanation of these terms), as follows:

“It is vain for you to rise up early

to settle late

to eat the bread of toil.”

While the third stanza is not a complete parallel with the previous ones, it nevertheless expresses the same idea and with a similar word order.

[3] See the footnotes of the previous shiur for an explanation of these terms.

[4] As discussed at length and in detail by A. Mirsky z”l in his work, “Ha-Pissuk shel ha-Signon ha-Ivri” (First Edition, Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem 5738; Second Edition published as “Signon Ivri,” Jerusalem 5759). Just two of the many examples that he cites are Tehillim 115:5-7 and 22:24.

[5] The first three stanzas, comprising the first part of the psalm, are all of about the same length – 8-9 words. The length of the four stanzas comprising the second part are likewise of similar length – 6-7 words. To illustrate the literary reason for the difference in the parallel that appears in the third stanza, let us imagine how the text would read had the direct and complete parallel continued into this stanza:

“Unless God builds a house its builders toil in vain.

Unless God guards a city the guard watches in vain.

Unless God grows bread those who awaken early and settle late do so in vain; those who work the ground eat the bread of toil.”

While the idea is expressed here more clearly than it is in the psalm as we have it, there can be no question that the literary and musical appeal is gone, and thus the whole moral and thematic power is lost

D. “For to His beloved He gives tranquility” – the conventional interpretation and its difficulties



We now come to the most problematic verse in our psalm: “For to His beloved He gives tranquility." The English translation here is just one of several possibilities; the literal meaning of the verse is not clear, and its connection with the preceding and following verses likewise demands some explanation.



The classical commentators, along with most modern scholars, understand the word “shena” (which we have translated thus far as “tranquility”) as though it ended with a ‘heh’ instead of an ‘alef’ – in other words, “sleep." This interpretation serves to link this phrase with the preceding stanza, which spoke about people who arise early in the morning and settle to sleep late, all because of their work. Our verse depicts a contrasting picture of God granting to “His beloved” the “sleep” that they need. What is the significance of this contrast?



1. Rabbi Menachem ha-Meiri



The Meiri provides the following explanation of the contrast between the third stanza and the phrase that follows it:[1]



“It is vain for you to awaken early” – for work; “to settle late” – meaning, you people who engage in work from early in the morning and who continue to engage in it until it is already nearly night, to the point where you eat your bread in sadness and toil.



“Thus” – meaning, all that you earn with all of your efforts and toil

“He gives to His beloved” – meaning, whomever He desires

“at rest” – meaning, while they are in a state of rest rather than in toil.”



Let us analyze this interpretation more closely. The Meiri understands the first word of the phrase, “khen," as an association – “thus." The association is to the profit which the workers referred to in the previous stanza obtain through their strenuous efforts.



This interpretation presents difficulties in terms of both style and content. Stylistically, we note that there is actually no mention of any profit in the third stanza.[2] How can our verse allude to something that was not previously stated?



In terms of content, the labor of the workers in the third stanza is described as being “in vain” – i.e., there is no point to it. Thus, the third stanza negates the value of any profit earned by these workers. How, then, can the psalm go on to promise this same doubtful, “vain” profit, to God’s “beloved," whom He desires?



Let us analyze further the words of the Meiri. He explains “shena” (in the sense of “sleep” or “rest”) not as the object that God gives as a gift to His beloved, but rather as a description of the way in which God gives His gift to His beloved. However, to achieve this meaning the Meiri is forced to add the letter ‘bet’ at the beginning of the word “shena” – “be-shena." In other words, God’s beloved will receive His gift while in a state of sleep or rest.



Aside from the linguistic problem of adding a prefix to the word, the interpretation of the Meiri is quite audacious in terms of its message. According to his explanation, our psalm nullifies the value of human action and the need for human effort, declaring that there is no need for them: whoever is beloved by God can lie upon his bed, while other people – of lesser spiritual nobility – are out working from early morning until night, and God will take care of his sustenance and ensure his livelihood even while he himself sleeps!



If this is the intention of the third stanza, we must revisit the first and second stanzas and view them in the same light: there is no need for the builders of a house to invest all their efforts, nor for the watchman to remain alert. All of these people can simply sleep in their beds, while God will take care of building the house and guarding the city – if they are worthy of His gift. If they are not worthy, then their efforts will in any case be “in vain."[3]



We have already discussed this possible interpretation, concluding that it goes against common sense and intuition, as well as against the ubiquitous biblical acknowledgment of the need for human effort. (In fact, as cited in the first shiur on this psalm, the Meiri himself is a most vociferous opponent of such an outlook!)



Indeed, the Meiri senses the problematic nature of his explanation and tries to offset it, in two ways. First – exegetically: he interprets the word “shena” not in the literal sense, but rather as “in a state of rest, rather than in toil." In other words, even God’s beloved is required to exert effort and to work, but in moderation. He will not arise early nor toil until late, but God will ensure him profit equal to that achieved through hard labor on the part of one who is not God’s beloved.



However, we must question this interpretation of the word “shena," which unquestionably denotes a state of passivity; it is not a word that is suited to describe moderate work.[4]

The second method that the Meiri adopts to dispel the “mistaken interpretation” is his insertion of a brief note at the end of his commentary on verse 2 (cited in full in a previous shiur): “All of this is meant not to discourage effort, for you will not find a single wise person who denounces effort and praises sloth...”

However, the Meiri’s apologetic efforts serve only to highlight the ideological difficulty of the verse as it stands, according to his interpretation. In any event, as discussed above, his interpretation seems forced in several respects.

2. Amos Chakham, “Da’at Mikra” commentary

Amos Chakham offers a slightly different interpretation of the phrase in question:

“Khen” (indeed) – for reinforcement. The matter is true.

“He gives rest to His beloved” – God gives sleep to his beloved, and does not require him to remain awake for long hours, for He blesses the work of his hands, and he has time to sleep as much as he needs and to work enough to ensure his sustenance.”

From the point of view of linguistics, this interpretation avoids the pitfalls discussed above in relation to the Meiri,[5] while in terms of content the two explanations are rather similar.

However, this explanation presents a new difficulty, which Chakham addresses (ibid., n. 4):

“In the Proverbs of Shlomo there are many warnings against excessive sleep, which causes man to neglect his work. For example (Mishlei 6:9), “For how long will you sleep, O sluggard; when will you arise from your sleep?”;[6] (Mishlei 20:13), “Do not love sleep, lest you become impoverished; open your eyes and you will be satisfied with bread." This verse seems to be saying the very opposite of our psalm: “Those who eat the bread of toil – thus shall He give to His beloved (in) tranquility."”[7]

He answers as follows:

“However, in truth the messages are compatible. What they mean is that one should sleep in the measure needed for a person’s health. Concerning one who adds (sleep) to this, it is written, “Do not love sleep...," while concerning one who subtracts from it, it says, “It is vain for you to awaken early… for He shall give to His beloved tranquility." This wise man means to say… that a person should not exceed the proper measure: sloth is an evil trait; in contrast, industriousness is a trait that is praiseworthy, but a person who is excessively conscientious in his work and consumes all his bodily strength with his hard labor, is not counted as one who is diligent and praiseworthy, but rather among the scorned who “eat the bread of toil."”

The contradiction between our psalm and Sefer Mishlei concerning the relationship between diligence and sleep is resolved by proposing that Mishlei refers to a person who sleeps too much and works too little, while Tehillim describes the opposite phenomenon – those who sleep too little and work too much. Both earn disapproval.

However, according to Chakham’s explanation, the subject of the third stanza has imperceptibly been altered, and is no longer the same message that was addressed in the first two stanzas. There, the psalmist was not talking about the proper ratio of hard work to sleep and rest. While this is an important subject in its own right, and certainly worthy of being addressed in the “wisdom literature," it is not the subject of our psalm. Our psalm is discussing the relationship between human effort and God’s involvement and partnership in those efforts. It comes to teach us that if God is not party to man’s initiatives, none of his labor will amount to anything.

In the previous shiur we took pains to show that this is also the subject of the third stanza, which we showed to be a continuation of its predecessors: “It is vain for you, who arise early...” is not a rebuke of people who invest too much time and effort in their hard labor, but rather a rebuke directed towards those who believe that their sustenance is dependence solely on their work, with no understanding that without God’s will to provide them with bread, their efforts will be in vain.[8] This understanding arises both from the word “shav," which reappears (for the third time) at the beginning of the third stanza and – apparently – with the same meaning as in the two previous stanzas, and from the literary parallel between the third stanza and the previous two.

What is it that causes Amos Chakham to “slip” into a different interpretation for the third stanza? The answer is, of course, the contrast between the praise of rest (in the verse, “So/thus shall He give rest to His beloved...”) and the denunciation of hard work (“It is vain for you, who arise early...”).

If his interpretation of the words, “Indeed, He shall give rest to His beloved," is correct, then his explanation of the previous stanza (c) makes sense. But the rest of this is a change of subject in the third stanza: instead of the religious message with which the psalm begins, the third stanza presents practical guidance as to the proper balance between work and rest!

All of this leads us to seek a new and different interpretation of the phrase in question.
[1] Rabbi Yishayahu Detrani preceded the Meiri with a similar explanation, but the Meiri is easier to understand.

[2] Unless we posit that the “bread of toil” is itself the profit in question, instead of our assumption that the eating of the bread in such oppressive conditions is part of the description of the efforts expended by those who toil in vain.

[3] While there are certainly some religious approaches that support such a view – including among Jews – it would certainly be quite astonishing to find such extreme expression of such a view in one of the psalms of Sefer Tehillim!

[4] We might explain, based on the Meiri (and perhaps this is his intention) that the “shena” that is referred to is at the appropriate times – i.e., from the beginning of the night to the end of the night, times which the workers referred to previously would spend in their labors (arising early, before the dawn, and returning late, after nightfall). The beloved of God, according to this view, need toil only during the hours reasonably suited for work, and sleep at night, and God will nevertheless provide full profit. (This is closer to the interpretation proposed by R. Yishayahu Detrani.) The problem with this explanation arises when we compare the “praise of sleep” with the lessons conveyed in Sefer Mishlei – see below.

[5] The word “khen” is not understood as an allusion or association with something else. We note that there is some question as to his interpretation of the word in the sense of “indeed," since if this were the intention, the word order should rather have been, “Indeed, He gives sleep…” (khen, yiten li-yedido shena).

[6] The verse continues: “A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of hands to retire” – meaning, if a lazy person tells himself that he wants just “a little sleep," etc., then “so your poverty will come like a marauder and your want (will proceed before you) like an armed man”. The same message is repeated again in Mishlei 24:33-34.

[7] What Chakham is saying is that in Mishlei, sleep is a contrast to being satisfied with bread, while in our psalm it is the getting up early that turns the bread into “bread of toil," while one who sleeps long will eat bread in tranquility.

[8] Thus, there is no contradiction of the messages in praise of diligence and conscientiousness in Sefer Mishlei. Even from our psalm one might conclude that if God gives a person sustenance, then it is proper that he arise early and labor until late, just as it is proper for builders to toil over building a house, and for the watchman to remain alert at his watch.

capiche?

[sharky]

The God ²³¹⁶ and ²⁵³² Father ³⁹⁶² of
our ²²⁵⁷ Lord ²⁹⁶² Jesus ²⁴²⁴ Christ ⁵⁵⁴⁷,
which ³⁵⁸⁸ is ⁵⁶⁰⁷ blessed ²¹²⁸
for ¹⁵¹⁹ evermore ¹⁶⁵,
knoweth ¹⁴⁹² that I ³⁷⁵⁴ lie ⁵⁵⁷⁴ not ³⁷⁵⁶.

Ye ⁵²¹⁰ are ²⁰⁷⁵ of ¹⁵³⁷
[your] father ³⁹⁶² the devil ¹²²⁸,
and ²⁵³² the lusts ¹⁹³⁹ of your ⁵²¹⁶ father ³⁹⁶²
ye will ²³⁰⁹ do ⁴¹⁶⁰.
He ¹⁵⁶⁵ was ²²⁵⁸ a murderer ⁴⁴³
from ⁵⁷⁵ the beginning ⁷⁴⁶, and ²⁵³²
abode ²⁴⁷⁶ not ³⁷⁵⁶ in ¹⁷²² the truth ²²⁵,
because ³⁷⁵⁴ there is ²⁰⁷⁶
no ³⁷⁵⁶ truth ²²⁵ in ¹⁷²² him ⁸⁴⁶.
When ³⁷⁵² he speaketh ²⁹⁸⁰ a lie ⁵⁵⁷⁹,
he speaketh ²⁹⁸⁰ of ¹⁵³⁷ his own ²³⁹⁸:
for ³⁷⁵⁴ he is ²⁰⁷⁶ a liar ⁵⁵⁸³,
and ²⁵³² the father ³⁹⁶² of it ⁸⁴⁶.
_________________________________

[color=blue]If ¹⁴⁸⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹ hate ³⁴⁰⁴ you ⁵²⁰⁹,
ye know ¹⁰⁹⁷ that ³⁷⁵⁴ it hated ³⁴⁰⁴ me ¹⁶⁹¹
before ⁴⁴¹² [it hated] you ⁵²¹⁶.

If ¹⁴⁸⁷ ye were ²²⁵⁸ of ¹⁵³⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹,
the world ²⁸⁸⁹ would ³⁰² love ⁵³⁶⁸ his own ²³⁹⁸:
but ¹¹⁶¹ because ³⁷⁵⁴ ye are ²⁰⁷⁵ not ³⁷⁵⁶
of ¹⁵³⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹, but ²³⁵ I ¹⁴⁷³ have chosen ¹⁵⁸⁶
you ⁵²⁰⁹ out of ¹⁵³⁷ the world ²⁸⁸⁹, therefore ^{5124 1223}
the world ²⁸⁸⁹ hateth ³⁴⁰⁴ you ⁵²⁰⁹.

[size=24]Notice False lilly using a Jewish Document, the New Testament and a Jewish, Torah Observant man, Yahshua Messiah/Jesus, to support her antisemitism.

http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/antiholo/newtest.html

Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic?

by Clifford Goldstein, Liberty, March/April 1992

What book depicts Jews as hypocrites, apostates, liars, and sinners? What book denounces Jewish leaders and the Jewish nation? What book scolds its priests, claims its Temple services are corrupt, and spews forth warnings that God's judgments will fall upon the Jews? What book - accusing the Jews of murder, corruption, greed, and robbery - declares that they have forsaken God?

Sounds like the New Testament, long indicted as the Perian Spring of Western anti-Semitism. Some believe the hands that signed the "final solution" simply finished the script begun by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Hitler, others claim, was the logical, inevitable result of Paul. Christian historian James Parkes writes that "more than 6 million deliberate murders are the consequences of the teaching about the Jews for which the Christian church is ultimately responsible, and our attitude to Judaism which is not only maintained by all Christian churches but has its ultimate resting place in the teaching of the New Testament itself."

"The New Testament," writes Harry Kimball, "is the primary source of anti-Semitism. "The authors of the Gospels," wrote Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz, "by putting these words of violent hatred against the preservers of Judaism into the mouth of Jesus Himself, stamped Him thereby as a relentless foe of the members of His own race who did not believe in Him by clung to their original faith."

Yet the book described in the opening paragraph is not the New Testament - it is the Old! Indeed, if the criteria for determining anti-Judaism in the New Testament were applied to the Old, it would be declared the more anti-Jewish of the two.

Incorrigible Villains:

Scholars have long debated about anti-Judaism in the New Testament, but rarely, if at all, anti-Judaism in the Old. It, after all, is a book written about Jews, by Jews who considered themselves loyal Jews. Yet except for Luke (not considered the most anti-Jewish of the Gospel writers), the New Testament was written about Jews, by Jews who considered themselves loyal Jews too.

The New Testament, tough, has pages of anti-Jewish calumny. "The New Testament contains 102 references to the Jews of [the] most degrading and malevolent kind," wrote Dagobert Runes, "thereby creating in the minds and hearts of the Christian children and adults ineradicable hatred toward the Jewish people."

In the Gospels, Jewish leaders, priests, scribes, and Pharisees play the role of incorrigible villains. Depicted as cold and heartless formalists, they appear pious outside but seethe with treachery inside. Jesus labels them hypocrites, deceivers, even murderers - words later used to help formulate a theology of anti-Semitism. "Nowhere is this theological anti-Judaism more apparent," writes Princeton religious historian John G. Gager, "than in the dialogue between Jesus and the Pharisees in {John} 8." Here, after telling Jewish leaders that they are not the true children of Abraham, and accusing them of plotting His murder, Jesus says, "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning" (verse 44).

Matthew 23 is nothing but a denunciation: "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... Ye blind guides ... Ye fools and blind .... Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (verses 13-33).

The Gospel writers depict Jewish leaders as planning Jesus' death: "And the scribes and chief priests ... sought how they might destroy him" (Mark 11:18). Indeed, all the Gospels implicate the leaders in His death.

Jesus' denunciations not only of the leaders but also of the nation have fueled the anti-Semite's fire. In Luke 20, Jesus, symbolizing Israel as a vineyard, tells of a master who planted a vineyard and "let it forth to husbandmen" (verse 9). Later when the servants came to collect the fruit from the master's vineyard, the husbandmen beat them. He sent more servants, and they beat them too. Finally the master says, "I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him" (verse 13). Instead, the husbandmen killed him! Said Jesus: "What therefore shall the lord of the vineyard do unto them? He shall come and destroy these husbandmen, and shall give the vineyard to others" (verses 15, 16). Luke recorded the leaders' response: "And the chief priests and the scribes the same hour sought to lay hands on him; and they feared the people; for they perceived that he had spoken this parable against them" (verse 19).

Matthew has Jesus blaming the Jews for the murder of the prophets - "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee" (Matthew 23:37) - and leveling a judgment upon them: "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate" (verse 38).

The Gospels depict Jesus as critical also of national religious rites and of the nation, including the worship at the Temple - criticisms gleefully seen as anti-Jewish polemics. At the start of His ministry Jesus cleansed the Temple from merchants who had turned it into an unsanctified flea market. "And [He] said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves" (Matthew 21:13). He warns that even the Temple itself, the center of the Jewish religion, will be destroyed: "And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them. See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down" (Matthew 24:1, 2).

The New Testament, obviously, portrays many Jews in ancient Israel as corrupt, iniquitous, and separated from God. Does this description, therefore, mean that the book is anti-Jewish? For many scholars, both Jew and Gentile, it does.

A Sinful Nation:

A problem exists, though, with that conclusion: line for line, verse for verse, chapter for chapter, the Old Testament has more denunciations than does the New. If criticizing the spiritual ills of ancient Israel is anti-Jewish, then the most anti-Jewish section of the Bible is in not Greek, but Hebrew!

"Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity," says Isaiah about Judah. "A seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord" (Isaiah 1:4).

The prophet compares Judah to Sodom and Gomorrah: "Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our Lord, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. ... How is the faithful city become an harlot. It was full of judgment; righteousness lodged in it; but now murderers (verses 10-21). The New Testament does speak harshly against corrupt leaders, but so does the Old: "O heads of Jacob," warns Micah, "and ye princes of the house of Israel; Is it not for you to know judgment? Who hate the good, and love the evil; who pluck off their skin from off them, and their flesh from off their bones; who also eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off the" (Micah 3:1-3).

Jesus' denunciations of the priests were no worse than Malachi's" "O priests, that despise my name. Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar." "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you. If ye will not hear, ... I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings; yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay it to heart. Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces" (Malachi 1:6, 7; 2:1-3).

The Old Testament has more stories of corrupt leaders than does the New Testament. Ahab, Jehoram, Ahaz, and Manasseh are just a few of the corrupt kings of Israel denounced in the Old Testament. As in the New, rulers and priests are depicted as plotting, scheming, and killing off enemies, including prophets who spoke against them.

Because Luke and Matthew recorded Jesus' warnings of doom upon Israel, they are labeled anti-Jewish. But what about Jeremiah, who recorded the Lord's warning to Israel: "I will bring evil from the north, and a great destruction. The lion is come up from his thicket ... he is gone forth from his place to make thy land desolate; and thy cities shall be laid waste, without an inhabitant" (Jeremiah 4:6, 7).

What about Isaiah who proclaimed: "O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger ... I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets" (Isaiah 10:5).

Is Luke's parable of Israel as a vineyard worse than Isaiah's? "I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down" (Isaiah 5:5).

The Gospels record Jesus speaking against corrupt practices in the Temple, but Ezekiel decries the sin of the people who had brought idols into the Temple area, where they prayed to other gods and even worshiped the sun. "Hast thou seen this...? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence" (Ezekiel 8:17), Jesus prophesied against the Temple; so did Amos: "And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day, saith the Lord God: there shall be many dead bodies in every place" (Amos 8:3).

Bigots and Enemies:

If these Hebrew texts had been written in the New Testament, they would be added to the long list of other "anti-Jewish" vituperation. But they are from the Old Testament, and yet no one claims that the Old Testament is anti-Jewish.

Why? Because a writer who depicts the spiritual ills of his people can't automatically be branded anti-Jewish. If so, then Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, even Moses - almost every Hebrew prophet - would be labeled as anti-Jewish, an absurd claim. Why, however, do Jews such as Matthew and Mark become bigots and enemies when they chronicle the ills of Israel?

In the "Hebrew Bible," writes Jewish scholar Samuel Sandmel, "the prophets of the age before the Babylonian exile provide variations of a similar theme, that the Hebrew people had in their actions proved false to the religious-ethical standards expressed in a covenant with God and expected of a holy people. Accordingly, an Amos, and Isaiah, and a Jeremiah each speak with wondrous poetic eloquence about the shortcomings of the people, whether monarchs or priests or ordinary folk. Clearly these words by the prophets are denunciations from within; surely no one would ascribe to Amos, Isaiah, or Jeremiah that form of hostility which we call anti-Semitism .... It was out of loyalty to them and identification with the people and their religion that the Hebrew prophets spoke their sharp criticisms. When in the Gospels the Jew Jesus speaks in criticism of Jews, is it not reasonable that He too speaks out of loyalty and identification?"

The claim that the new Testament is anti-Jewish because it points out Israel's spiritual ills is as absurd as claiming that the Old Testament is anti-Jewish because it does the same thing. Both Testaments portray human nature as inherently bad. The greatest biblical characters have their spiritual and moral faults on display before the world. Whether Abraham taking Hagar to produce a son, Moses losing his temper, David fornicating with Bathsheba, Peter denying Jesus, or the apostles Paul and Barnabas bickering over John Mark - the sins of humanity are openly displayed. The motif of the sinfulness of man permeates the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. And because the Jews comprise the main biblical characters, because their lives occupy most of the pages, because Jewish history is the primary focus of the Bible - their dirty laundry has become the most prominent. Even if not as filthy as others, it is Jewish linen that hangs on the line for the world to see.

Blindness of Heart:

And yet the Bible doesn't speak harshly of just Jews. Jesus told His followers not to pray "as the heathen do," and not to pray for the things "the Gentiles seek." Paul writes: "Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols" (I Corinthians 12:2). In Ephesians Paul warns followers that "ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness" (Ephesians 4:17-19). In Thessalonians he warns followers to act "not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which known not God" (I Thessalonians 4:5). Is the New Testament, therefore, anti-Gentile too?

The Old Testament also denounces heathens. Israel's problem is that it followed the practices of the Gentile nations. The whole purpose of Israel was to be separate from the Gentiles so that the Jews would "learn not the way of the heathen" (Jeremiah 10:2). Their greatest sins occurred when they followed the sinful practices of the Gentiles. Obviously, sin was a bigger problem for the heathen than it was for the Jews.

Yet the New Testament shows the Jews as not only rejecting Jesus but killing Him, too - a teaching not found in the Old Testament.

No question, The New Testament implicates some Jews in Jesus' death. But whom does Jesus Himself implicate? Talking about the chief priests and scribes, Jesus says that they "shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him" (Matthew 20:19). Jesus says that the Gentiles - not Jews - will mock, scourge, and crucify Him. Though some scribes and chief priests were involved, the people who directly killed Jesus - according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - were Gentile Romans. If the New Testament is anti-Jewish because it implicates Jews, then it must be anti-Roman or anti-Gentile as well, because Gentile Romans were also involved.

Heroes and Villains:

While the New Testament shows that many Jews rejected Jesus, it shows also that many Jews accepted Him. Indeed, the heroes of the New Testament are Jews who accepted Jesus, while often the villains are Gentiles who rejected Him. Paul wrote epistles from prison, where he was jailed - by Gentiles. In Philippi, Paul and Silas were beaten by Gentiles. In Ephesus, because Paul's preaching hurt the religion of the goddess Diana, he and two companions were dragged into an amphitheater where for two hours the Gentiles - rejecting Paul's message - chanted, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (Acts 19:34). At Mars Hill in Athens, after Paul preached, he was mocked and rejected by Athenians - Gentiles. The early persecution of the church, mentioned in Revelation, was conducted by Gentiles. Paul was killed by Gentiles. John was exiled to Patmos by Gentiles. In Luke 21:17 Jesus told His followers that they "shall be hated of all men for my name's sake." "All men" includes Gentiles.

Is the New Testament, therefore, anti-Gentile because it depicts Gentiles as rejecting the gospel? Here, too, the claim of New Testament anti-Judaism is built on straw.

A Fertile Fount:

Even if the New Testament is not a bubbling source of hatred against the Jews, few deny that it has served as a fertile fount of anti-Semitism. Yet throughout history the Bible has been used to justify everything from slavery to Star Wars. Cutting, pasting, and patching verses together, the faithful have made to Bible sanction war, apartheid, celibacy, aid to the contras, genocide, not eating meat on Friday, castration, pacifism, Marxism, cuts in food stamps, the MX missile, sexual promiscuity, burning people alive - and yes, even anti-Semitism.

Indeed, the problem is not with the New Testament or even the Old - but with those who, though reading them, have never leaned the lesson of brotherly love taught within their pages.

First, as is obvious to any unbiased person from scholar to schoolchild, the New Testament is anything but anti–Semitic. Jesus, the twelve apostles, and the apostle Paul were all Jewish! In fact, Christians proudly refer to their heritage as the Judeo–Christian tradition. In the book of Hebrews, Christians are reminded of Jews, from David to Daniel, who are members of “the faith hall of fame.” Indeed, Christian children grow up with Jews as their heroes!

Furthermore, the New Testament writers clearly proclaimed that salvation through the Jewish Messiah was given first to the Jewish people and then to the rest of the world (Matthew 15:24; Romans 1:16). Additionally, Peter’s vision followed by Cornelius’s receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 10) and the subsequent Jerusalem council (Acts 15) clearly demonstrate both the inclusive nature of the church as well as the initial Jewish Christian resistance to Gentile inclusion (see also Galatians 2:11–14). While the early Christians were certainly not anti–Semitic, at least some Jewish believers initially manifested the opposite prejudice. Far from being anti–Semitic, the New Testament simply records the outworking of redemptive history as foretold by the Jewish prophets who prophesied that one of Christ’s companions would betray him (Psalm 41:9; John 13:18). There is nothing subtle about the crucifixion narrative. The Jewish gospel writers explicitly state that it was their leaders who condemned Christ of blasphemy. There would be no motive to fabricate a fictional Judas to represent the quintessential Jew. Far from being anti–Semitic, the New Testament simply records the outworking of redemptive history as foretold by the Jewish prophets who prophesied that one of Christ’s companions would betray him.

Finally, the whole of Scripture goes to great lengths to underscore the fact that when it comes to faith in Christ there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Galatians 3:28) and that Jewish people throughout the generations are no more responsible for Christ’s death than anyone else. As Ezekiel put it, “The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son” (Ezekiel 18:20). Truly, liberal scholars owe the world an apology for inventing an idiosyncratic brand of fundamentalism that foments bigotry and hatred by entertaining the absurd notion that the New Testament is anti–Semitic.

[Sponsored content]