(Based on excerpts. ABC & the Jennings Show were not broadcast in Israel.)

This is the second of two similar shows, the first broadcast 2000.01.13 on the miso-Judaic nature of the Southern Baptist "Outreach to the Jews".

On 2000.07.07, Larry King Show guest host, Hugh Downs (HD), interviewed the following guests, two of whom were repeats from the first show, (listed alphabetically by last name); this time on the question: "Who is Jesus?"

• SB — Orthodox Rav Schmuley Boteach, Exec. Dir. of Oxford lᵊ-KhaiꞋim Society in New York, NY

• HK — Rabbi Harold Kushner

• AG — Anne Graham-Lotz, daughter of Billy Graham

• MM — Rev. Michael Manning (priest)

• AM — Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Pres., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

My Qualifications To Critique These Discussants

I’m intimately familiar with, and intimidatingly experienced in, both sides of this issue. I’m a life-long devotee of the Creator, student of the Bible in its original languages and of His Laws (logic, physics, math, archeology and other sciences) as well as Biblical history. Perhaps I should mention that I’m also a fellow-alumnus of Billy Graham’s daughter (though I don’t know her personally, nor even if this is the same, or only, daughter) from an elite Christian boarding school: Hampden DuBose Academy. In addition to being a Mensan and computer scientist in artificial intelligence, I was formerly a Southern Baptist and Christian preacher. My research culminated in the realization that becoming more like historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa meant converting to Orthodox Judaism.

Accordingly, in 1984, my wife, Karen, and I converted under the auspices of Orthodox rabbis ordained by the President of the Beit Din of America.

I’m an Orthodox Jew in good standing in Ra'anana, Israel. My wife and I made a•liy•âhꞋ to Israel under the Law of Return for Jews and, for over a decade, our family prayed regularly in, and I served on the board of, an Orthodox Yemenite synagogue here (Beit ha-KᵊnësꞋët Mo•rëshꞋët Âv•otꞋ – Yad Nâ•âm•iꞋ).

Explaining the Christian doctrine of the Trinity:

MM — "… so we found three persons in one god, a development that was not finalized until Nicea, which is around the year 325, when bishops got together and really clarified that, so we see a progression, a growth, of the fullness of the understanding of the revelation Jesus gave."

Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu (PY) If you have lemons try to make lemonade. Faced with the indisputable historical proof that the teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa are very different from that of the Christian Council of Nicea in 325, Rev. Manning acknowledges the change, but prefers to describe the about-face from pro-תּוֹרָה to miso-Judaic as "a progression, a growth, of the fullness of the understanding of the revelation Jesus gave." Of course, it’s more than a tad difficult to defend the change as a "fullness of the understanding" by the bishops of Nicea when even Rev. Manning as much as admits elsewhere in this interview that they were diametrically opposite to the teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa!

AM — "It is scripture that is the evidence for Jesus, that is the authority whereby we know who Jesus was, and what he did, and what he said."

PY — Scripture (תנ''ך)? Or Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)?

The earliest Church historian documented that before the apostasy of 135 C.E. —

1. The original followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, never saw or heard of a Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), as it didn’t exist until decades, perhaps more than a century, after the death of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa; and it is well documented that even this wasn’t its final form as it was extensively redacted and Christianized up into the 4^th century and subsequently. The Displacement Theology Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) is, emphatically, no more "scripture" than the Displacement Theology Koran!!!

2. To RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa — and to his original followers, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, throughout their short history lasting until 333 C.E. — "Scripture" referred exclusively to תנ''ך – which does not include the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).

3. The earliest Church historian (Eusebius) documented that when the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) finally did come into being in the 4^th century C.E., gentile Roman, Hellenist (i.e., idolatrous) Church, the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ never accepted it as legitimate, much less authoritative. Eusebius documented that the original followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa accepted only תנ''ך as "Scripture" and only the account in Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM)) as even a legitimate account of the life and teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa — and even that wasn’t "Scripture." Christians, no less than Muslims, must prove their claims exclusively from Scripture – the תנ''ך.

Consequently, Rev. Mohler’s premise, being based on a false premise (that his argument is based in Scripture), is ex falso quodlibet – false. His so-called "authority" is documented even by Church historians as rife with thousands of post-135 C.E. Christianizing redactions (q.v. Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN); where see also note 80), and arguments he bases on this false premise are, by the logical fallacy of ex falso quodlibet, therefore, logically false.

AM (cont.) "It’s interesting, the question you asked tonight was specifically asked by the Lord himself. He took His disciples off to the region of Caesarea-Philippi [BanꞋyas, in the Go•lanꞋ; PY] and in the [Christian book of "St. Matthew"], chap. 16, he asked them first "Who do others say that I am?" Then he turned to his own disciples and he said, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living god." And Jesus Christ Himself said, "That’s right. And on that confession of faith I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." That is the confession of the Church throughout all the ages, that Jesus Christ is very god, and very man, and the incarnation very god, a very god, fully god and fully man; and He is the Savior of the world. He is the one the lord sent in order to be the Redeemer of mankind."

PY — It’s true that in NHM 16.16 Shim•onꞋ "KeiphꞋâ" Bar-YonꞋâh said to RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa "You are the Mâ•shiꞋakh, בֶּן הָאֱלֹהִים [explained below], that has come in this world-age."

Without going into the enormous number of Rev. Mohler's Hellenist-based, gentile Roman misconceptions concerning the only authentic account of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa recognized by his original followers, NHM, Mohler’s reasoning is non sequitur. In תנ''ך, the Hebrew phrase בֶּן הָאֱלֹהִים refers not to a divine man-god but to our ancestral family line leading to Av•râ•hâmꞋ, Yi•tzᵊkhâqꞋ, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ, Mosh•ëhꞋ and תּוֹרָה of י‑‑ה at Har Sin•aiꞋ! The phrase is first found in the plural at bᵊ-Reish•itꞋ 6.2, 4; also in I•yovꞋ 1.6, 2.1, 38.7.

This is further corroborated by all related similar Hebrew phrases found in תנ''ך. The phrase בְּנֵי אֵל חָי found in Ho•sheiꞋa 2.1 explicitly refers to בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, i.e. תּוֹרָה Jews, not man-gods!

Tᵊhil•imꞋ 29.1 urges בְּנֵי אֵלִים (sons of gods) — clearly referring to יִשְׂרָאֵל (Jews) and not man-gods — to ascribe honor and strength to י‑‑ה.

The only remaining instance, in Tᵊhil•imꞋ 89.7, again refers either to ma•lâkh•imꞋ (Hellenized to "angels," which would demonstrate that the (Hellenist) Christian Jesus was an idolatrous Hellenist "angel", not a man) – or, simply, a תּוֹרָה-observant יִשְׂרָאֵל (Jew).

In no case does בֶּן הָאֱלֹהִים mean a divine man-god!

This necessarily means that the same Hebrew phrase in NHM has the identical meaning: either an "angel" (which would, in such case, demonstrate that Jesus was "angel" and not man) or simply a תּוֹרָה-observant יִשְׂרָאֵל (Jew).

Thus, there is no suggestion, nor even allusion, in the phrase בֶּן הָאֱלֹהִים in NHM implying anything more than that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa was one, among many other, תּוֹרָה-observant Jews in Israel. Mohler’s illogical leap of faith (in the Hellenist-Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)) has no basis in, and is elsewhere contradicted by, the source that even the earliest Church historian documented was the only account recognized as legitimate by the original followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa—Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM).

The reader should examine Mohler’s speeches below noting that they contradict legitimate historical documentation (see, inter alia, Oxford historian, James Parkes' doctoral thesis: The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism). Rev. Mohler is unable to address and respond to the glaring contradictions, and his answers reduce to regurgitating preachings of blind faith in Egyptian-Greco-Roman Hellenist mythology of the 2^nd-4^th centuries Roman gentiles, recorded in the Hellenist-Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), which lack any credible basis in early Judaic or Biblical sources and rational logic.

There is an inescapable pattern essential to Displacement Theology of believing the supersession of one's own writings as Scripture – from, inter alia, Jeh-v-h's Witnesses and their Watchtower, Mormons and their Book of Mormon, Islam and their Quran (Koran) and Christianity and their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT). Each of them are totally unable to reason outside of their own "scripture" or communicate with anyone not accepting their "scripture" as Authority. All contradict תּוֹרָה (inter alia, Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1-6).

The search For "Historical Jesus"

AM — "Well, these so-called searches for the historical Jesus are a matter of interest but also, very tragically, they simply do not lead anywhere because the evidence for Jesus, historically speaking, is found in the Bible…"

PY — "So-called searches"??? Without a whiff of evidence or substantiation a seminary preacher dismisses the search of numerous legitimate scholar-historians as "so-called"??? That’s called petitio principii, Rev. Mohler, demonstrating the lack of a logical basis. Begging this question demonstrates his lack of a valid basis. And found in the "Bible"??? No, it is not!!! As I’ve already demonstrated, the Jesus in which Mohler believes is found neither in the Bible – indeed, it is a bald contradiction of the Bible and prohibited in the Bible (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.1-6) – nor in NHM.

AM (cont.) — "… is found in the Bible; and there’s so much material there and there’s so little anywhere else; as is true of anyone in the 1^st century."

PY — There’s so much material in the post-135 C.E., thousands-of-times-redacted-and-Christianized miso-Judaic Διαθηκη Καινη (NT). This material, however, has all been shown to be overwhelmingly contaminated and prejudiced with Romanized and Hellenized idolatrous influences (q.v. earlier citation in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)).

As for "so little anywhere else," Rev. Mohler is simply ignorant of the wealth of material in the Dead Sea Scrolls (for example, (4Q) MMT (Mi•qᵊtz•atꞋ Ma•as•ëh′ ha-Tor•âh′)), which Christians suppressed as long as they could in hopes they would decompose and go away. There is also The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the Ta•lᵊmudꞋ, etc. What Rev. Mohler attempts, and hopes, to cover over is that all Judaic historical documentation contradicts him, his Christianity and his Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) while confirming NHM, which, in the main, concurs entirely with what Rav Bo•teiꞋakh says later in the show.

AM (cont.) — "… as is true of anyone in the 1^st century. They basically are looking for what they call evidence…"

PY — They "call evidence"??? Without a whiff of evidence or substantiation Mohler dismisses the findings of many more legitimate scholars as non-evidence, which they merely "call" evidence. That’s called ad hominem, Rev. Mohler, demonstrating the lack of a logical basis. Rev. Mohler’s reliance upon petitio principii and ad hominem betrays random linkage (illogical and irrational).

AM (cont.) — "… what they call evidence. They start with naturalistic assumptions and they come to naturalistic conclusions…"

PY — Really??? All scholars??? Without a shred of logical basis a seminary preacher dismisses all scholars. Could so many scholars, just possibly, be right and Rev. Mohler be wrong???

AM — "What we know is he was a 1^st-century Palestinian. And so we would expect that he would look like a 1^st-century Palestinian, that might look very much like a Palestinian today, a Palestinian Jew…"

PY — Palestinian??? No Israeli there?!? Rev. Mohler reconfirms that he is a raving miso-Judaic! The name Palestine wasn’t applied to Yᵊhud•âhꞋ until 135 CE when the miso-Judaic Hellenist Roman conquerors, the first Christians, renamed Yᵊhud•âhꞋ as part of their de-Judaization (q.v. 'Palestinians' — For Dummies)!!! In labeling RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa a Palestinian Rev. Mohler has surpassed his previous miso-Judaism, raised the suggestion that Southern Baptists are led by miso-Judaics who learned their religion from Prof. Ashrawi and is perhaps in political collusion with Arafat. Rev. Mohler is a number of bits short of a byte.

Rav Bo•teiꞋakh also appeared in the last Larry King Show I analyzed. There, I was critical of him, writing "To be effective, he must also learn empathy, courtesy, emotional self-discipline and, above all, a disciplined working knowledge of logic." I see from this show that Rav Bo•teiꞋakh either read my critique or figured that out for himself. This wasn’t the Rav Bo•teiꞋakh of the previous interview. In this show, he kept his cool, his discipline, his politeness, his focus, showed a laser ability to cut to the core of the matter, and — as becomes apparent below — demonstrated a respectable working grasp of the issues, exposing Christian obfuscations through 'fuzzy history.’ Maybe Rav Bo•teiꞋakh has never even heard of me, or my web site, but he answered as if he’d memorized my web site and my books. If he didn’t, he’s on the same wave length regarding the historical facts. And, as a result, from the moment he opened his mouth, and almost every time he opened his mouth, he floored all of his opponents — nonplussing the entire panel — for the count. The fat lady has left the stadium. Kol ha-kâ•vodꞋ ("attaboy") Rav Bo•teiꞋakh! After many years of research and dedication, it’s rewarding to see many of my findings, which didn’t exist until I published them beginning in the early 1970s, finally receiving their deserved place in the Judaic Christian discussion.

SB — "In addressing this whole question of how Jews view Jesus, let’s look at the ambivalence.

"On the one hand, we have this deep reverence for Christianity [well, I don’t; PY] as a great world faith about the knowledge of god and converted billions of idolaters to monotheism [Christianity isn’t genuinely monotheistic; PY] .

"On the other hand, Jesus is the ultimate Jewish taboo subject. Why is that? And the main reason is, and it’s something we’ve been skirting in this discussion so far, is that, "a," what Mohler is saying about the Scriptures is only half the story. The Scriptures [the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) aren’t Scriptures; PY] portray Jesus in 3 ways:

1. He is a Pharisee. He is a rabbi. He looks like a rabbi. He thinks like a rabbi. He behaves and acts like a rabbi.

2. He doesn’t say he’s the Son of god [not in the Christian sense of a deity anyway; PY]. On the contrary, in Jn. chap. 5 verse 30 he says clearly, "I can do nothing by my own authority. It’s god’s authority. He distinguishes between himself and god. And finally,

3. In Mt. chap. 5, verse 17, that he is here to uphold תּוֹרָה, that not one iota of תּוֹרָה will ever be lost.

"Suddenly, in the "Pauline transformation of the historical Jesus into the Christ of Christianity, Jesus is:

1. now a deity, which is the ultimate Jewish heresy,

2. he’s here to abrogate the תּוֹרָה, seeing it as a straight-jacket; and, most alarmingly,

3. Not only is he no longer a Pharisee or rabbi, he now makes statements that border on [border on???; PY] the anti-Semitic, and here’s the tension between Judaism and Christianity and how it uses Jesus as a weapon.

"The tension was that Christianity is a great world faith. But instead of saying "We are another religion, separate from Judaism," the early Church fathers tried to say "We supplanted Judaism." Now there was a need to get Jesus to criticize the rabbis. So we go from beautiful, incredible, teachings of Jesus, from Mt. chap. 5 where you’re supposed to pray for those who persecute you, you are meant to turn the other cheek, to horrific teachings like Luke chap. 19 where, suddenly, anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus, Jesus says, "Bring them before me and I’ll slaughter them." Or you go to John, chap. 15 where Jesus says that anyone who doesn’t believe in him is like a withered branch that will be cast into the fire and burned.

"Now, in my opinion, this is character assassination! Jesus was a great teacher, a very ethical, moral human being; perhaps arguably not a prophet, but certainly a phenomenal teacher and Christianity a great religion. To suddenly take that man and make him into, instead of the Prince of Peace, the Purveyor of Prejudice, or the Hounder of Heretics, I mean, not only we’re seeing today that great Christians like Pope John Paul II, a great man, are making apologies to the Jews for anti-Semitism in the name of Jesus through the ages, but no one has apologized to Jesus himself! This is character assassination! He came along to bring peace into the world, and while I agree he is a great light, once we say he is the only Great Light, this is what leads to all kinds of spiritual racism, and a division between Jews and Christians."

PY — I couldn’t agree more with Rav Bo•teiꞋakh. I don’t think I could have stated the case better myself, particularly under the pressures of live TV. But I must interject here that Christians aren’t the only ones owing RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa an apology for character assassination. There are some Jewish ultra-Orthodox "anti-missionaries" who can only be described as hate-mongerers, who exceed the Christians in their venomous diatribes against me and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa whom I represent. When Christians do this they are guilty of character assassination. But when Jews do it, they are guilty not only of character assassination, but also lᵊshonꞋ hâ-râꞋ, sin•atꞋ khi•nâmꞋ and, gravest of all, khi•lulꞋ י‑‑ה. In my opinion, even Rav Bo•teiꞋakh’s well-meaning confusing of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa with his diametric antithesis, the Christian Jesus, is an inadvertent character assassination. (Because Rav Bo•teiꞋakh’s error is unintended and inadvertent, however, it doesn’t constitute lᵊshonꞋ hâ-râꞋ, sin•atꞋ khi•nâmꞋ or khi•lulꞋ י‑‑ה.)

MM — "It’s very difficult when you get into the Gospel of John, where you find statements against Jews that are calling them dogs, and just a very, very derogatory statement which, I agree with [Rav Bo•teiꞋakh], how can you find that in the mouth of Christ? I think that we’ve got to face the fact that there was a real political situation that was going on in which Jews were in tension against Christians ['fuzzy history’ obfuscation cranking up; PY] and we find Paul [the Apostate] being persecuted by people who were followers of the law [emphasis added, תּוֹרָה is "Instruction, not "the law of sin and death"; PY] and being stoned and being persecuted in great ways; and so there was an antagonism that built, that started to be reflected in the Scripture."

PY — The unbridgeable Ha•vᵊdâl•âhꞋ between תּוֹרָה and lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, the Hellenist idolatry of Christianity is, thus, already manifest, indisputable, undeniable – and acknowledged by Rev. Mohler!

SB — "I have to disagree. Paul was not persecuted by followers of the law. This is a great historical misnomer. The New Testament itself says they were persecuted by the High Priest. He was a Sadducee, not a Pharisee. The Sadducees were allies of Rome. They were the allies of Herod-Antipas. They were the ones who tried, first of all, to put Jesus to death, and then Peter to death. On the contrary, the book of Acts, chap. 6, says clearly that Gamli·eil, the head of the Pharisees, those who uphold the law, rabbis like myself, defended Peter from execution. And also Luke, chap. 13, verse 31, says clearly that the Pharisees warned Jesus to run away from Herod because he sought their death. This is nothing but anti-Semitic libel that the Pharisaic rabbis were out to murder Jesus. On the contrary, he was a Pharisee himself. There was nothing blasphemous to declare yourself the messiah. Bar Kokhva did it a hundred years after Jesus. The great rabbis like Aqiva said that Bar Kokhva could indeed be the messiah. I mean let’s just put this into perspective. The leaders of the law did not oppose Jesus the way the New Testament portrays."

PY — Don’t bother to even count. The fat lady has left the solar system.

The only thing I will add is that, as I’ve previously documented from the earliest Christian historian, the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was never accepted by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa or his original followers as legitimate, much less "Scripture." It isn’t acceptable to accede that it’s on a par with תּוֹרָה by implicitly acquiescing through our silence when, in discussions with Jews, Christians call it "Scripture." Jews must speak up and take issue against this false Christian presumption of supersessory Displacement Theology.

MM — "There was persecution. There was struggle. But I’m really gonna concede to you rabbi. I think that we really have to admit the fact that there have been things which have been very un-Christian done with regard to Jews, and we’ve got to ask forgiveness. And we’ve got to be able to start from this moment. [Turning to guest host Hugh Downs sitting across the table from him] As you were saying in the break, we’ve come to a clarity of the understanding, and a freedom to be able to see the Scripture and to understand Christ in a new way. [Turning back to the camera] And so we come to you, rabbi, and say, 'Forgive us, please. Let’s start now. Let’s start to move with the real power of Christ of love, and listen to you, and understand you, and need the beauty of what you have for us, to understand what we’re doing as Christians, and our desire to come to the Father."

PY — I commend Rev. Manning’s integrity and courage. Unlike many "anti-missionary" ultra-Orthodox Jews, I also accept the sincerity of Rev. Manning’s plea. However, even with his good intentions, Rev. Manning has expressed contradictory, antithetical and intractably incompatible intents. Which does Rev. Manning mean? Does he really mean to "listen to [תּוֹרָה-observant Jews] and understand [תּוֹרָה-observant Jews]… to understand what [Christians are] doing… and [Christians’] desire to come to the Father?

Or that Jews accept "the real power of Christ"???

Which is he saying? I welcome the former and would try my best to help, but the latter isn’t going to happen. To really start now, Christians must abandon the doctrines of the post-135 CE Jesus, which are diametrically and intractably incompatible with the original תּוֹרָה-teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, and turn instead to learn and implement the original תּוֹרָה-teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in their daily life. Rev. Manning seems to be in the process of recognizing and doing this.

When Rev. Manning asks forgiveness, he must realize that the very concept of forgiveness in the authentic תּוֹרָה-teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa is incompatibly different from the forgiveness proclaimed in Christianity.

In Christianity, forgiveness is mere words, and always required. According to Christian criteria, a Nazi war criminal of the Holocaust, who kills one’s entire family and millions of others, is, if he professes to be 'born again,’ forgiven.

In תּוֹרָה and the authentic teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, by contrast, there are much higher moral and ethical standards for forgiveness and against hypocrisy. Forgiveness can only obtained when several conditions are satisfied:

• Restitution must be made to the victims. (If the victims are dead, restitution must be made to the family and/or to the representatives of תּוֹרָה. In the time of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, this was the ko•han•imꞋ.)

• Admission of guilt, apology and request for forgiveness must be made to the victim (or, if the victim is dead, to a representative as above).

• Only the victim (or, if the victim is dead, a representative as above) may grant forgiveness. No one else may do so. While granting forgiveness for properly repented and atoned transgressions against Himself, י‑‑ה even refuses to forgive where the victim’s forgiveness hasn’t been duly and earnestly sought.

• Finally, there can be no forgiveness of transgression of תּוֹרָה (which comprises all transgressions) where commitment to non-selective תּוֹרָה-observance is lacking. Consequently, the תּוֹרָה-teaching of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa that "by their fruits you shall know them" comes back to haunt those who seek forgiveness without satisfying the תּוֹרָה criteria – doing one's utmost to learn and keep תּוֹרָה in its indivisible Wholeness.

HD — "Now, obviously after the time when Constantine embraced Christianity, that began to give it a kind of larger venue. But that doesn’t account for how large…"

MM — "That’s 300 years later."

HD — "300 years later. How do you account for the fact that it spread to the size that it is now? What was it about Christianity that appealed to that many people on so many different levels?"

MM — "I think it was the good news. Again, it was the reality of god, a human being. god in the same reality, coming and saying 'Your sins are forgiven. You may be freed, and you have the promise of living forever.’ I mean, whoa, you know, the idea of being reconciled with god, and being reconciled with the people with whom I live, even though they’re very diverse, is a powerful draw to Christianity, powerful. And that’s the joy of what Jesus is about. He gives us hope and life and victory. It’s a great sell. It’s a great sell. Your life has changed."

PY — "Your sins," not Jews’ sins. "You may be freed," not Jews. "And you," no longer the Jews, "have the promise of living forever." This is not-very-subtly packaged blatant post-135 CE Displacement Theology.

Rev. Manning fails to take into account that

• the original, תּוֹרָה, message before "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate, and

• the idolatrous Hellenist mythology of the message after 135 CE

were polar opposites, intractably contradictory and incompatible. The growth among gentiles – Greco-Romans – began only after 135 CE. The popular attraction of the "new" Christian spin on Hellenism, among these idolatrous Hellenist Greco-Romans, was

1. still within their familiar and comfortable native Egyptian-Hellenist mythology and idolatry,

2. plus liberating, in that, unlike the "old Hellenism" that required unconstrained obeisance to the semi-divine son of Ζεύς – Caesar, the "new Hellenism" required nothing of them – everyone was liberated to do whatever they wanted because Christ forgave everything for all. Christianity pruned itself back from "divine rule" of semi-divine Caesars to "divine rule" of a single semi-divine man-god Son of Ζεύς. Caesar had been disinherited from deity status and would have to fend for himself. This was a definitive separation of religion from state. Of course later, when the Church saw the opportunity to rule the state…

Of course it was popular and grew like wildfire!

Ignoring this dichotomy and attributing the popularity to the "good news" is a subtle and insidious reversion to Displacement Theology, in which supersessory "good news" displaced תּוֹרָה and became the cause of "popular appeal" to Greco-Roman gentiles on a wide scale — in distinction from, and contrast to, תּוֹרָה.

In fact, תּוֹרָה already enjoyed the 'great sell’ of 'good news’ well before the "Gospel of Christ" began to be popular. The Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) acknowledges that the rabbis were making many thousands of converts throughout the civil world (Roman Empire).

The truth is that the "great sell" of the Christian 'good news’ Gospel was the same then as it is today: "Continue doing what you’re already doing, in your present culture and syncretizing your present mythological religious framework, and go to heaven instead of the Jews." Selectivity. Syncretism of one’s native popular culture — the idolatry of the gods of Hellenist mythology — with selected elements of תּוֹרָה. The 'great sell’ in the post-Jewish-wars gentile Roman Empire was the Jews’ salvation – but without "the accursed, blind and lost Jews who have been rejected by god." That’s post-135 CE Christian Displacement Theology and miso-Judaism — pure, simple, and insidious.

"It was the reality of god" that made Christianity so popular??? Rev. Manning's purported contrast miso-Judaically implies that Jews didn’t have or know the "reality" of י‑‑ה; elsewise, תּוֹרָה would have preempted the "Gospel's" 'great sell.’

This Displacement Theology is integral to post-135 CE Christianity, and intractably contradictory to the authentic תּוֹרָה-teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.

The transformation into a man-god — "god, a human being" — on the other hand, was absolutely essential to its popularity among the Hellenist Roman gentiles who had a long tradition, dating from the Egyptians, believing in the myths of Greco-Roman gods – sons of Ζεύς, manifesting themselves as mortals – Hellenist idolatry. This perversion of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa into, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, Jesus allowed the syncretized counterfeit to fit right in to the Greco-Roman myth tradition. Hence, it’s popularity among Roman gentiles followed by wild growth enabling it to become an attractive political tool to Constantine.

And that, indeed, is "the joy of what Jesus is about."

HD — [to AM] "What is the main aim of [the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary]? [Now here’s a profound question; PY]

AM — "… but the major issue is for [our ministerial students] to understand the Scripture…"

PY — The first step would be to recognize the Scripture – תּוֹרָה! (I.e., distinct from their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).) Then perhaps learning to read it (it's Hebrew and Aramaic, not English and not Greek or Latin). Notice in the following Rev. Mohler lacks any documentation, logical basis or scholarly argument and has no recourse but to simply preach a canned line everyone has heard ad nauseum.

Notice also that Rev. Mohler overlooks, and dares not address, the tens of thousands of redactions to his "inerrant Scripture" documented by both the earliest and present-day most eminent Christian and Church scholars (q.v. earlier citation).

AM — "… to understand the Scripture. We believe that the Scripture is, from beginning to conclusion, the very Word of god, inerrant [???; PY], and inspired by the Holy Spirit…, and it is the Bible that is our authority."

PY — Nothing that contradicts the immutable Words of י‑‑ה in תנ''ך, originally defining the immutable Holy Spirit, can be "inspired by the Holy Spirit"; and, Scripture attests, attributing contradictions of תנ''ך to "the Holy Spirit" constitutes blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

AM — "…inspired by the Holy Spirit, and it is the Bible that is our authority…"

PY — This is also a fraudulent and deceptive statement. In fact, Rev. Mohler relies for his authority upon a blatantly miso-Judaic account written, and subsequently redacted to "Christianize" it to "clarify… a progression, a growth, of the fulness of the understanding of Jesus" (as Rev. Manning earlier described it), by post-135 C.E. gentile, Hellenist, Roman Christians, which neither RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, nor his original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ followers, nor any other תּוֹרָה-observant Jews have ever accepted.

AM — "…Bible that is our authority. And, Hugh, what we have here, even in this discussion, is a clear distinction between two different world views. One that looks at the issues of the world through the lens of Scripture, and the other that puts Scripture under the lens of the world…"

PY — The Christian's complete dependence upon their Displacement Theology book becomes conspicuous. Bible is תּוֹרָה, not Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)! Rev. Mohler poses a false dilemma (he doesn't even recognize Scripture), fabricated by means of petitio principii. Beyond that, Rev. Mohler, looking through the lens of "a blatantly miso-Judaic account written, and subsequently redacted to 'Christianize’ it to 'clarify… a progression, a growth, of the fullness of the understanding of Jesus’ (as Rev. Manning earlier described it), by post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Christians, which neither RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, nor his original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ followers, nor any other תּוֹרָה-observant Jews have ever accepted." Nevertheless, having displaced Scripture – תּוֹרָה – with the idolatrous and miso-Judaic Hellenist-Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), he then wrongly considers himself to be looking through the lens of Scripture.

The other, different world view, of course, is that represented by Rav Bo•teiꞋakh. Since Rav Bo•teiꞋakh looks through the lens of תּוֹרָה, it is תּוֹרָה itself and Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ that miso-Judaic Rev. Mohler impugns as "put[ting] Scripture under the lens of the world." I wonder if Rev. Mohler knows the Hebrew word defining one who impugns Israel?

AM — "…puts Scripture under the lens of the world. Those who believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord can make no distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith…"

PY — And that is because Rev. Mohler foists a false gap – a straw gap – to bridge. For the real history of the critical period, read Oxford historian James Parkes (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism).

The reality is that the chasm is not between Jesus (an image-idol that contradicts history) and the "Christ of faith" (the same image-idol that contradicts history) at all. They are not two, but one and the same; a post-135 C.E., Hellenist idol-image. Rev. Mohler seeks to misdirect his audience from the true chasm.

The contradiction is between history, on the one side, and both of Rev. Mohler's Hellenist gods.

Jesus-the-"Christ-of-faith," by intractably contradicting history, disproves Christianity as an invalid Displacement Theology. (Logic dictates that deviating from accepted knowledge always bears the burden of proof – not merely showing some remote possibility. Everyone agrees that the status quo ante, from which both Displacement Theologies hatched, was תּוֹרָה. Ergo, Christianity or Islam must prove that they have displaced תּוֹרָה. This was the thrust of their vilification and attempted eradication of Jews to prove that they had displaced תּוֹרָה and the Jews. They have failed to do so because they are invalid. And it is this that continues to drive miso-Judaism among Christians, and especially Muslims, today.)

Both of Rev. Mohler's entities are the same, and intractably mutually exclusive and antithetical opposites of history, unlike the "Pharisee RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (to the point that "historical Jesus" is an oxymoronic impossibility – that's why it can never be found in history). Thus, he can only avoid the conspicuous impossibility either by feigning blissful ignorance and the Ostrich Syndrome or deliberate misdirection (the straw gap).

AM — "…and the Christ of faith. Unlike many of the comments made here tonight, we can make no distinctions between the religion of Jesus and the religion of the Church. They must be the same. It was Jesus himself who said 'I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by Me.’ The Church didn’t invent that…"

PY — Well, in fact that’s exactly the problem. The Church did invent that! It cannot be found in the NHM of the original followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and it is intractably contradictory to the תּוֹרָה which is the very basis for any claim to messiahship.

But Rev. Mohler is right about one thing: there can be "no distinctions between the religion of Jesus and the religion of the Church. They must be the same." There is no logically defensible disputation of this point. It is an ironclad truism. Diametrically unlike RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, Jesus has always been exactly as Rev. Mohler describes, from the day "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate or his Hellenist Roman gentile successors in 135 C.E. re-formed him, through syncretization with their native Hellenist idolatry, to hatch Jesus-the-"Christ-of-faith," Christianity and the Church. It was directly and intractably contradictory to the teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and had nothing to do with him or his original followers (who rejected Christianity and were finally extirpated by the Church in 333 C.E. as a result (The Church from the Circumcision, p. 14) – except as victim of the character assassination Rav Bo•teiꞋakh pointed out (see Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ chap. 3).

AM — "It’s interesting that in the modern world we just accept certain things as absolutely fundamental [Rev. Mohler has the khu•tzᵊp•âhꞋ and unmitigated hypocrisy to say this???; PY]. And a large number of Americans believe in a naturalistic world view, and completely rule out the supernatural. And yet, these same people also will go out and buy a crystal and sit down and mediate upon it, so that there’s a great schizophrenia in the modern mind. But the believing Church…"

PY — What Orthodox rabbis or תּוֹרָה-observant lay Jews does Rev. Mohler know who meditate before a crystal ball? What scientists is Rev. Mohler willing to name who meditate before a crystal ball? Rev. Mohler’s ad hominem that "you’re schizophrenic so our beliefs are right and true" is pathetic, and his lack of alternative recourse betrays the intellectual bankruptcy of his beliefs. Notice also that Rev. Mohler is once again backed into no alternative but to resort to unfounded, empty random-linkage (irrational) "preaching" — ranting, regurgitating the same anti-historical and ignorant line we’ve heard ad nauseum — lacking any documentation or logical reasoning.

On salvation (to Ann Graham-Lotz – Billy Graham's Daughter)

HD — "What would you say to someone who says 'I don’t feel that I’m lost. I don’t need to be saved."

AG — "Well, of course Jesus said that he didn’t come to take care of those who are well but those who are sick…"

PY — If Mrs. Graham-Lotz studied at H.D.A., she was well taught to exercise care regarding the context of a passage. In this case, the context of the passage in NHM 9.11-13 shows this was RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa’s response to (probably Herodian, i.e., Hellenist – Reformed of their day) rabbis who had asked him why he ate with Jews who were transgressors of תּוֹרָה. It is absolutely clear from RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa’s response that those who do their utmost to keep תּוֹרָה were the "healthy" to whom he referred, while those who transgress תּוֹרָה were "those who are afflicted with evil [who] need the doctor." He makes this crystal clear in quoting Ho•sheiꞋa 6.6: "’For I desire khësꞋëd, and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the Tza•diqꞋ to return tᵊshuv•âhꞋ, but rather to call missteppers to return tᵊshuv•âhꞋ."

For Mrs. Graham-Lotz to distort RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa’s message that he came to retrieve Jews who aren’t keeping תּוֹרָה into a message that he came to save gentiles who reject תּוֹרָה is a perversion, the same order of character assassination of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa which Rav Bo•teiꞋakh cited.

AG — "…but those who are sick, and I do think that there has to be a recognition of our need to be saved, or our need to find god. But, you know, it’s not a question of whether we need it, it’s just the fact that we’re sinners. The Bible says that we have all sinned…"

PY — True, תנ''ך declares that we have all transgressed תּוֹרָה. Unlike the amorphous Christian definition of "sin" (which is only whatever one deems personally objectionable), the Bible – תנ''ך – defines "sin" as a violation of תּוֹרָה.

Unlike Christian misrepresentations of Jews, the rabbis have never disputed that we have all sinned. This, however, in no way implies logically any need to be "saved." תּוֹרָה sets forth the promise (!) of י‑‑ה to grant ki•purꞋ to those who return tᵊshuv•âhꞋ. The sacrifices of animals were never more than a symbol.

First of all, the Hebrew word for "salvation" refers to military and national victory, not to any personal application; much less an idolatrous dependence upon a Hellenism-inspired man-god for personal passage to eternal spiritual life – as Christians perceive "salvation."

The mechanism for the Biblically correct concept, ki•purꞋ – exclusively for those who do their utmost to keep תּוֹרָה non-selectively, is well documented in the תנ''ך, and well understood as applying during periods when there was no Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ and no animal sacrifices — centuries before RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.

Thus, the fact that we have all sinned does not logically imply any need to be "saved"; particularly not by a Hellenist idol – Jesus. Mrs. Graham-Lotz’ reasoning is non sequitur. What’s needed of transgressors of תּוֹרָה, as RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa indicated, is tᵊshuv•âhꞋ from transgressing תּוֹרָה — which means discontinuing the transgressing of תּוֹרָה — and a return to keeping תּוֹרָה. Ki•purꞋ is then provided through a variety of means sanctioned in תּוֹרָה, even a handful of wheat with no bloodshed all.

Neither Mrs. Graham-Lotz, nor Revs. Manning or Mohler, however, even qualify as backslidden from תּוֹרָה-observance. Consequently, these idolatrous gentiles who worship a Hellenist idol while willfully rejecting the תּוֹרָה that RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa loved and taught don’t qualify to claim any תּוֹרָה-teaching of his – or ki•purꞋ.

To qualify for ki•purꞋ according to תּוֹרָה, which is what RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught, gentiles must abandon their miso-Judaic Displacement Theology and Hellenist idol worship, entirely, in order to follow, instead, the very תּוֹרָה they now willfully reject, and the authentic תּוֹרָה-teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.

Mrs. Graham-Lotz' perversion of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa’s תּוֹרָה teaching into an appeal for his anti-תּוֹרָה counterfeit and arch-antithesis is one of the most insidious of character assassinations against RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.

AG — "…The Bible says that we have all sinned, and if I can go back to the beginning, in the beginning god created everything, and that includes you and me. He created you and me, the human race, Adam and Eve, in the beginning; that we might know Him in a permanent personal relationship…"

PY — This personal relationship with י‑‑ה, however, is Biblically promised for all time to the Jews — not to gentiles like Mrs. Graham-Lotz, Rev. Mohler or Rev. Manning who willfully reject תּוֹרָה. Gentiles need to learn the example of Rut, and read up on the many תּוֹרָה-observant geir•imꞋ, called יְרֵא י‑‑ה (not "god-fearers"), in the first century — the rare "semi-gentile convert in training" found in the synagogues in which RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught! The notion that this promise was somehow transferred from תּוֹרָה-observant Jews to תּוֹרָה-rejecting gentiles dangles, yet again, from the lone thread of post-135 C.E. miso-Judaic Christian doctrine of Displacement Theology.

AG — "…in a permanent personal relationship. And when man chose to rebel against god then sin entered the human race and it’s been passed down every generation since, so that we’re all born in sin…"

PY — Even when I was a Baptist preacher I found it logically, well, nuts for a gentile who couldn’t read the first word of תּוֹרָה to arrogantly presume to teach תּוֹרָה to Jews who have been studying it for millennia. Mrs. Graham-Lotz should learn that lesson.

First, she ignores the plain message of תנ''ך which states unequivocally that one day folks will learn not to say that children are punished for their fathers’ transgressions of תּוֹרָה because it isn’t true (Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu 31.28-29). One is accountable solely for one’s own transgression of תּוֹרָה. The "so that," therefore, is non sequitur, rendering the remainder of her "reasoning" ex falso quodlibet (false, due to being based on a false premise).

Those who cite Shᵊm•otꞋ 20.5 as a contradiction

1. short-circuit themselves with an oxymoronic "contradiction in inerrant Scripture" and

2. don’t grasp, and typically blissfully oblivious to, the Hebrew (including more than a few Jews)

Shᵊm•otꞋ 20.5b reads:

פֹּקֵד עֲוֹן אָבֹת עַל-בָּנִים, עַל-שִׁלֵּשִׁים וְעַל-רִבֵּעִים לְשֹׂנְאָי

(monitoring the deliberate-misdemeanor of the fathers on the children, on the third and on the fourth [generation] to those who eschew Us).

Any exhaustive word study of פֹּקֵד will confirm that the term in תנ''ך is translated so many different ways that it makes one wonder if the translators have any idea at all what it means. פֹּקֵד doesn’t imply holding guilty. It’s frequently used to "muster" the troops for "counting" (taking a census), "inspection" and auditing — i.e., monitoring. The theme of monitoring or auditing can always be found in its use, while no other theme can be found threading through its many diverse, and otherwise widely conjectured, meanings in תנ''ך.

Interestingly, the title of the leader of the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, Ya•a•qovꞋ Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ, was the related cognate pâ•qidꞋ, a foreman or chief-executive officer who musters, counts, inspects and executive-commands — monitors — the troops; which is what Mosh•ëhꞋ did. While the rabbis try to claim Mosh•ëhꞋ as a Pharisee rabbi by – baselessly – retrojecting their honorific title of "Rabeinu" to him, Pharisees, and their rabbis, weren't even conceived until (BCE 135) nearly 13 centuries after Mosh•ëhꞋ's death (ca. BCE 1427).

Today, in Modern Hebrew, the meaning of pâ•qidꞋ has devolved to simply "clerk." This echoes the meaning it had in Biblical times, except that in Biblical times, י‑‑ה was acknowledged as the national Commander of Israel and Mosh•ëhꞋ was His "Foreman-chief-executive Officer-Auditor-Clerk" – פָּקִיד, who פָּקַד, implemented and oversaw all national matters as His foreman or chief-executive officer: law and order, the military forces and the people. The Bible doesn't record any Hebrew title when addressing Mosh•ëhꞋ, who had been a Pharaonic Prince, and likely consort of Queen Pharaoh Khât-shepꞋset, acting as her foreman and chief executive officer, in Egypt. However, if the predominant verb in the Bible describing his activities is any indicator, then his subordinates addressed him as Pâ•qidꞋ Mosh•ëhꞋ.

Billy Graham's daughter asserts here that "in the beginning" what came into the world was "original sin" – i.e., "since Adam's rebellion against god, man is born in sin and, therefore, born doomed to burn in hell unless he or she gets 'saved'."

However, it was not "original sin" that came into the world in the beginning, but free will. One may voluntarily choose to love and serve his or her Creator according to His Instruction Manual (תּוֹרָה) and thereby be blessed and "chosen," or voluntarily choose, instead, to serve his or her own desires – and suffer the consequences.

Whether one applies his or her own free will to pleasing י‑‑ה through voluntary obedience to תּוֹרָה or rejects י‑‑ה’s תּוֹרָה is an operation of one’s free will, a matter of personal responsibility for which one will be held personally accountable. Neither sin, nor condemnation – (lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ) nor "Jew" – is something one is irreversibly "born into." These are all products of choice and free will. It would be both self-contradicting and unjust for an innocent person to be a "sinner by birth." The Christian doctrine of being "born in sin" isn’t compatible with תּוֹרָה or the authentic teachings of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa.

There’s also a moral bankruptcy here, which is inherent in Christianity and upon which, in fact, Christianity is dependent. (Cut the thread of Displacement Theology and it all falls apart.) "It’s not my fault I’m in sin. I was born in sin." Increasingly, people come to me concerned about issues in today’s world of personal responsibility, personal integrity, morality, and ethics. The notion that "sin isn’t my fault" is already seen by many for the deception it is. "Sin" is transgression of תּוֹרָה. For observant Jews that’s a missing of the mark, a shortcoming for which the observant Jew is abjectly and profoundly sorry and desires to return to show his love for י‑‑ה, and honor י‑‑ה, by keeping His תּוֹרָה. For the gentile, by the starkest of contrasts, it is a deliberate, wilfull rejection of תּוֹרָה, a wilfull rebellion insisting on one’s own way rather than י‑‑ה’s Way (תּוֹרָה). For refusal to do one's utmost to practice תּוֹרָה, until one wills to excise such rebellion from his or her soul, תּוֹרָה — and RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa who taught תּוֹרָה — explicitly excludes ki•purꞋ.

AG — "…so that we’re all born in sin, and sin separates us from god, so, you go to the Old Testament… []

PY — So, Mrs. Graham-Lotz, you supersede and contradict your "Old Testament" [] and then "so, you go to the "Old Testament" []…" Seriously? You don't see your internal cognitive dissonance in your conspicuous self-contradiction? Transgression of תּוֹרָה separates the transgressor of תּוֹרָה from י‑‑ה, Mrs. Graham-Lotz. That means you. Moreover, referring to the "Old Testament" [] is a miso-Judaic – extremely offensive – relic of the post-135 C.E. Christian doctrine of Displacement Theology. As Rav Bo•teiꞋakh has alrealdy quoted, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa taught that תּוֹרָה is neither obsolete nor superseded as your description of the "Old Testament" [] most insultingly and offensively implies.

AG — "…so, you go to the "Old Testament" [], and I’m sure these rabbis could explain much better than I could…

PY — More to the point: they can explain it, but you can’t even read it. You should leave explanations of תּוֹרָה to those who understand it. This is rather like a non-swimmer who jumped into deep water reconsidering as things start to go black.

AG — "…these rabbis could explain much better than I could, but the "Old Testament" [] sacrificial system was set up so that we could come back to god’s presence. And when I say "we" I’m really speaking of the Jews because the gentiles, of course, would have to come through the Jewish system…"

PY — And תנ''ך states unequivocally both that the promise is to Israel forever and that י‑‑ה is immutable. So that still holds.

In the words of Tonto to the Lone Ranger when they were surrounded by hostile indians, however, I’d like to ask Mrs. Graham-Lotz "What do you mean "we" paleface??? Does she "assume" the post-135 C.E. miso-Judaic doctrine of Displacement Theology which displaces Jews with gentiles as the "spiritual Israel" and "spiritual Jews"??? If not, there is no other basis for her saying "we."

Moreover, how does Ms. Graham-Lotz justify saying "come back to god’s presence" if she was "born in original sin"??? That’s like a non-Jew claiming to be "born again." This phrase is based on a "born Jew," Na•khᵊdi•monꞋ, who was incredulous at being required to be "born a Jew" a second time, introducing the concept of being a Jew in the spiritual realm as well as in the physical realm. For one who was not born a Jew a first time to claim to be born a Jew a second time – i.e., again – is pitifully and tragically ignorant of the facts and theology. One who was not born a Jew in the first place cannot be born a Jew again, a second time! A non-selectively תּוֹרָה-observant geir converting to תּוֹרָה is "born" into תּוֹרָה – a first time, not again – in the culmination of conversion to תּוֹרָה (not baptism in Hellenist idolatry) in the mi•qᵊwëhꞋ . Only a non-selectively תּוֹרָה-observant born Jew can be "born again," a second time, as a "spiritual Jew."

Goy•imꞋ Hellenist Christians, by contrast, after being "born in original sin" as goy•imꞋ Hellenist Christians the first time, are then "born again," yet a second time, as goy•imꞋ Hellenist Christians when they are baptized in Hellenist Christian idolatry.

As for gentiles being a pretend "spiritual Israel," that assertion dangles entirely from the thread of post-135 C.E. miso-Judaic Christian doctrine of Displacement Theology. Moreover, if Mrs. Graham-Lotz is really speaking of Jews, then it is deliberately a deception to inject gentiles into the picture through the ruse of displacing "Jew" with "person" ("and if a person sinned…") or "sinner" ("and then the sinner killed the lamb").

AG — "…But the book of Hebrews in the New Testament tells us…"

PY — We’ve already shown that the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was never legitimate in the eyes of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa or his original followers, throughout their history when they were extirpated by the Church in 333 C.E. because they refused to turn away from תּוֹרָה.

It is also apparent that without that post-135 C.E. miso-Judaic, Christian-redacted work Christians have no basis for their beliefs. Their "joy of salvation" is emotionally real and heartfelt, but false; and is intractably contradictory to, having nothing to do with, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa or י‑‑ה and the Bible.

Question from caller in New York to Rav Bo•teiꞋakh:

"I would like to ask him what in the "Old Testament" [] causes him to believe that Jesus is not the messiah, and if the others on the panel could clear that up for him in the New Testament."

PY — Newsflash, New York caller: Your Christian Displacement Theology Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) is no more authority to a follower of תּוֹרָה than the Islamic Displacement Theology Koran, Latter Day Saints' Book of Mormon or Jeh-v-h's Witnesses' Watchtower is authority to a Catholic Christian!

Those who saw the show can vouch that Rav Bo•teiꞋakh answered his part of the question, once again flummoxing the entire panel. We’re still waiting for anyone else on the panel to "straighten him out." Besides investigating the points I’ve raised and reading my books, I recommend the caller from New York read Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 13.2-6 and Mi•shᵊl•eiꞋ ShᵊlomꞋoh 28.9).

The fat lady has left the galaxy.

It defies reason to follow the Roman counterfeit and deception prophesied in Dân•iy•eilꞋ (7.25) as the "Beast" who would change the times and seasons (from תּוֹרָה to Hellenist), which is obviously, and widely recognized as, Rome.

While this is true for gentiles, it is even more true for Jews who have the background to reject Hellenist idolatry and mixing the qoꞋdësh with (lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ) the khol.

The question you must answer is why you would continue to follow an idolatrous Hellenist Roman religion, Christianity, and its 'Jesus', which (not 'who’) is diametrically and intractably antithetical to the historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa??? Whether you are a Christian Jew or Christian gentile, learn how you can become like RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa — a legitimate part of legitimate Israel and the legitimate Jewish community.

Beware of counterfeits who call themselves "Messianic Jews," "Nazarene Jews" and even "Netzarim." Unless we verify their status as Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, they are not Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. Such poseurs are purely Christians wearing a guise. It’s simple to find out. Just ask us, the legitimate Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in the legitimate Jewish Community, and we’ll be happy to verify whether or not they are legitimate Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ.

An earlier Larry King Show (2000.01.13) also included Rev. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., Pres., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary among the interviewees to discuss the Southern Baptist "Outreach to the Jews" on 2000.01.13.

© 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Google+ registered author & publisher