One thought on “Something That Doesn’t Happen Very Often

  1. Mark Shea Stumbling Toward Heaven What Went Wrong with Catholic Apologetics? WordPress.com
    My Response:

    [[[“””The Prophet Isaiah exhorts, “Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow” (1:17).

    As Catholics, our defense of the faith must include the defense of the people who are oppressed. Oppression is the result of sin—namely “structures of sin,” as Pope St. John Paul II described in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (36). Our Catholic witness demands that we work to combat these evils.”””]]].

    Like to open a discussion with you by quoting what you yourself wrote. Now we can talk on the same page. The Xtian biblical translations removed the Order of sugiot which defines the Hebrew T’NaCH. The order of magnitude of this blatant error compares to removing paragraphs from a term paper. A fundamental mistake.

    T’NaCH (Torah Prophets, and Writings) prophets command mussar. Xtianity does not even know what this term “mussar” means. That’s pathetic. Prophets command mussar. Prophets do not predict the future. Predicting the future qualifies as a negative Torah commandment not to do witchcraft! Yet Xtianity preaches that prophets fore told the future!!! Wow you can not correct stupid.

    Xtian theology rejects the revelation of Oral Torah logic. Irregardless of the fact that שמות ל”ד-ו’ ז Exodus 34:6,7 directly refers to this revelation. The problem with Xtian theology, it has many, that it confuses “LAW” with logic. The revelation of the Oral Torah logic system stands upon Order. The Hebrew T’NaCH organized upon sugiot, which every bible translation expunged!!!

    Another basic problem with Xtian theology apologetics, it centers, based upon Creeds and Dogmas, to tell “believers” what they should believe. Heretics, by definition, rejects orthodox apologetics.

    Law has nothing to do with apologetics and logic has nothing to do with personal beliefs. The latter, as employed in the study of literature, employs comparison & contrast to gain an understanding of the original intent of an author. Propaganda rhetoric tends to cherry pick. It takes a verse out of the surrounding contexts of its “sugia”. Or in the case of the Xtian biblical translations, they exchange Chapters for sugiot. With the assumption that their arbitrary determination of the beginning and end of a chapter defines the original intent of the Framers of the T’NaCH literature. A huge leap of faith, right off the edge of a cliff.

    Your p’suk\verse ישעיה א:יז concludes the 2nd sugia of the opening Book of Isaiah. Both the study of the T’NaCH and the classic Oral Torah codification known as the Mishna learn by way of precedents. The style of the Mishna – Case\Rule common law. All common law legal systems rely upon precedents. The T’NaCH literature in like and equal measure, seeing that the T’NaCH preceded the organization of the Mishna by centuries, the Mishna therefore follows the Order established by the T’NaCH authors. Therefore the T’NaCH learns by way of precedents, it compares similar sugiot. And the later Mishna likewise followed this example and learned law through a common law/precedent format.

    The 2nd sugia of Isaiah א:י-טז\10:1- 16. The Hebrew T’NaCH does not have chapters and verses. This foreign addition the Xtian biblical translators imposed in order to make their bibles in their own image. Propaganda cherry picks a statement and removes it from the surrounding context. The propaganda minister of Nazi Germany made famous this vile technique of mass mind control.

    The prophet commands a mussar which condemns making a barbecue unto Heaven by way of sacrifices. The church does just that with its Jesus crucifiction\sacrifice. As if the fulfillment of obedience to a Torah commandment, the mitzva of Moshiach, comes through a corrupt judicial ruling, based upon false witness testimony, violent oppression, torture and murder! The exact description of the sham trial of Jesus, as portrayed in all books of the Gospels. Alas ya cannot get a silk purse made from the ear of a sow.

    Returning to the 2nd sugia of the Book of Isaiah. What precedent(s) compare to that sugia? The first comparative sugiot ישעיה ה:א-ז, ח-י. Must concede to the innovation of chapters and verses that it makes it very easy to designate a sugia, or in this case a combination of sugiot. Learning by way of precedents allows a depth analysis of the prophet, who commands mussar unto all generations. Oppression HaShem condemns just as HaShem judged the cruelty of Par’o and Egypt and took Israel out of Egyptian slavery by the hand of Moshe the prophet.

    The first commandment of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, “I am HaShem, who took you out of Egpyt”, serves as the יסוד\foundation of the mussar taught by Isaiah the prophet. Prophets in the T’NaCH tend to address the leaders of the Cohen nation. Therefore its good to cross reference this prophetic mussar to the Book of Kings.

    By the way, JeZeus mamzer son of Mary, as much a king of the Jewish people as Spartacus bore the crown of Caesar. For a married woman to have a child from another man other than her husband, defines the negative commandment of adultery. Mitzvot do not come by way of sin, just as a silk purse – not made from a sow’s ear.

    The sugiot of מלכים א יא:יד-כה, כו-כח, כט-מג. These three sugiot learned in conjunction, they serve as a comparative precedent of your quoted sugia of Isaiah. King Shlomo worshipped avodah zarah. King David serves as the basis by which all other kings of Yechudah and Israel compare: ‘fear of heaven’. JeZues the mamzer son of Mary – never a king, not of Yechudah nor of Israel, and definitely not comparable to king David.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.