![]() |
Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
2012.02.13, 1545, updated 2012.02.19 – Christians claiming Jewish ethnicity rely principally upon two pillars of Judaic support for their Trinitarianism:
Three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër
ZoꞋhar: "Three modes form One Unity" (see Zohar-b 43b: Shema)
Since the latter is covered in Zohar-b 43b: Shema, this article will focus on the former.
First of all, it must be noted that there are serious differences between the Christian heresies and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ interpretations of the three matz•otꞋ. Nevertheless, we will first examine the logical credibility of the anti-Christian arguments of the "anti-missionaries" to see which parts up and which do not.
(jewsforjudaism.org; accessed 2012.02.12)
"…no analogy between the afikoman and Jesus" – the "anti-missionary" is not only logically incompetent, he fails entirely to understand the Christian claim, which is to two "comings" of the messiah. The imbecilic notion he superimposes on Christians of two "Jesuses" is his own misinformed distortion of the (correct) rabbinic and Talmudic concept of the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ and the Mâ•shiꞋakh Bën-Dâ•widꞋ. The "anti-missionary" superimposes his own misconception of two messiahs over the Christian claim, misunderstanding Christianity and Judaism.
The Christian claim is that the messiah has two roles, separated by a great time lapse (hence, their "Second Coming"). A fortiori, the "anti-missionary's" assertion that "the whole middle matz•âhꞋ that would have to symbolize the risen Jesus" is false and his argument the logical fallacy of ex falso quodlibet.
That the "anti-missionary" preaches the "Gospel" (quoting "John," etc.) is simply self-defeating and imbecilic! According to the Church's own earliest extant historian, Eusebius, neither the original Jewish followers of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa (the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ) nor the Pᵊrush•imꞋ ever accepted the Christian's Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Such citations are irrelevant and have no place in any Jewish discussion. By citing the Gospel – as authority – he constructively confirms its (non-existent) authority. The Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) should never be cited without a proviso that it is "their Gospel," "their NT," "they (Christians) recognize as authority," or the like.
Three matz•otꞋ versus a claimed only two in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër – it is no more clear in Tal•mudꞋ that there were only two matz•otꞋ than three. Indeed, Tal•mudꞋ far more strongly insinuates that there were always three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër; and that two was a fringe anomaly. Neither has the "anti-missionary" provided any documentation whatsoever of an origin "many hundreds of years after the death" of any change event from two to three matz•otꞋ. Worse, from the rabbinic perspective, such a change after the death of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa confirms a Rabbinic affirmation of the Messianic role of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa!!!
"Connection of the word afikoman with the reintroduced piece of matz•âhꞋ is first used in the medieval period" – Like the three matz•otꞋ versus a claimed only two in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër, this, to the "anti-missionary's" consternation, would demonstrate a rabbinic confirmation, in the medieval period, of the Trinitarian concept – paralleling the confirmation recorded in the Zohar-b 43b: Shema! Somebody should take the keyboard away from these ignorant, self-destructive and hate-mongering "anti-missionaries"!
Now, let's be fair. Subject the Rabbinic interpretation—that the three matz•otꞋ represent the Ko•han•imꞋ,
The traditional rabbinic interpretation is that the top matz•âhꞋ, ëÌÆúÆø, represents the Ko•han•imꞋ (which of the rabbis is willing to argue that the ëÌÆúÆø doesn't represent é--ä?!?).
Following the rabbinic tradition, the middle matz•âhꞋ, çÈëÀîÈä, represents the
The bottom matz•âhꞋ, áÌÄéðÈä, represents
Unlike the middle matz•âhꞋ, the
Furthermore, all of the yu•khas•inꞋ were destroyed by the Romans (EH III.xii.19-20, 32; xxxii.1-6; also Baron) and Tor•âhꞋ declares that, without those public genealogical registries, none of the three castes have legitimate genealogical claims. Worse, from the rabbinic perspective, Tal•mudꞋ dictates that genealogies "once messed up, are forever messed up" (Ma•sëkꞋët Qidush•inꞋ 70b). Therefore, there is no possibility of restoring Ko•han•imꞋ or
Contrary to the anti-missionaries feeble and feckless nonsense, the "traditional" interpretation attempting to parallel the three castes to the three matz•otꞋ is elementary school-level foolishness. The anti-missionaries' premise, which rests on an analogy between the use of the three matz•otꞋ and the three castes of Ko•han•imꞋ,
The requirement for the
All of the matz•âhꞋ eaten during the week of Khag ha-Matz•otꞋ, cumulatively — not exclusively the three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër — comprises the ìÆçÆí òÉðÄé, elucidated in the Tar•gumꞋ: ôÌÇèÌÄéøÈà ìÀçÅéí òÇðÀéÅé. Therefore, the middle matz•âhꞋ, which is broken, cannot be singled out as "the" (or even representing) "LëkhꞋëm Oni."
Contrary to some misinformed "Jewish" sites, the word matz•âhꞋ (îÇöÌÈä – means: drain out, press out, squeeze out; A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language For Readers of English, p. 374) – not "to find" (which is îÈöÈà).
So, apart from Christian heresies, the Zohar / "anti-missionary" heresy and the "traditional" Rabbinic attempts that are self-contradicting and don't work, let's examine the symbolism of the three matz•otꞋ in the PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër logically.
Though there are fatal problems with Christian Trinitarianism (e.g., anthropomorphism of a man-god and Displacement Theology of their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and YeshꞋ"u), three matz•otꞋ representing three facets of é--ä isn't one of them. Rather, the fatal flaw in the Christian interpretation is that the three, supposedly all three Divine (Father, "Son" and "Holy Ghost"), matz•otꞋ are not unified into one matz•âhꞋ: i.e., the three matz•otꞋ never represent the Singularity; they simply represent three principal âÌÇåÌÈåðÄéï (as per ZoꞋhar) of é--ä – with no implication that all three are Divine.
Thus, while é--ä is certainly a Divine Facet, the amalgamation of the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ Facet within the heart of every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋi circumscribes the Divine Spark Facet of é--ä within the human being – which describes both of the two remaining facets symbolized by the three matz•otꞋ:
It should be noted here that an interlocutor (communicator or spokesman) is different than an intermediary (praying on behalf of). Tor•âhꞋ consistently endorses interlocutors between
According to the most pristine extant paradigm, the Tei•mân•iꞋ Ha•jâd•âhꞋ, we recite every PësꞋakh that the reason we eat three matz•âhꞋ, break the middle matz•âhꞋ and hide half of it to bring back later is not because it's "bread of affliction" or "found" but because "our fathers hadn't enough time to ferment their dough before the King of Kings, ha-Qâ•doshꞋ, bâ•rukhꞋ hu, revealed Himself to them, and redeemed them." Aside from possible modern margin notes, the Ha•jâd•âhꞋ proper makes no mention of why we brake the middle matz•âhꞋ and hide half to be returned at the close of the meal.
One should ask: How and why did this universal practice, certainly indicating a dual-role interlocutor for which the Mâ•shiꞋakh is the only viable candidate, become unknown? As with tᵊphil•inꞋ, the A•sërꞋët ha-Di•bᵊr•otꞋ and other similar Mosaic practices that were banned by post-135 C.E. rabbis, the most reasonable answer is that it was originally instituted for this conspicuous symbolism and this symbolism was suppressed by post-135 C.E. rabbis in reaction to Christians who arrogated the meaning, falsely claiming (as they continue to do today) that it pointed to their YeshꞋ"u.
The primary theme of PësꞋakh is é--ä's revelation of Himself to
a Revealor (at the top), é--ä,
a revealee (at the bottom), the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ within the nëphꞋësh of the every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil•iꞋ, plus
an interlocutor (nâ•viꞋ or Mâ•shiꞋakh) in-between able to facilitate the connection between the top and bottom levels.
– three facets.
The reason, then, must imply this revelation of é--ä and redemption of
A secondary theme of PësꞋakh is é--ä's redemption of
a Redeemer (at the top), é--ä,
a redeemee (at the bottom), the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ within the nëphꞋësh of the every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eil•iꞋ, plus
an interlocutor (nâ•viꞋ or Mâ•shiꞋakh) in-between
– again, three facets.
Moreover, Tor•âhꞋ teaches that there will be a nâ•viꞋ even greater than Mosh•ëhꞋ at Har Sin•aiꞋ (Dᵊvâr•imꞋ 18.18-19): the Mâ•shiꞋakh. Thus, we have the third facet – and the third (middle) matz•âhꞋ!
Tor•âhꞋ teaches, i.e., the Bât•eiꞋ-Din of Tal•mudꞋ have interpreted Ta•na"khꞋ, that either there will be two messiahs (Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ and Bën-Dâ•widꞋ) or one Mâ•shiꞋakh accomplishing two roles. In either case, a matz•âhꞋ representing this greater nâ•viꞋ, the Mâ•shiꞋakh, is "broken" into either two entities or two roles – in any case, two aspects, precisely as suggested by the breaking of the middle matz•âhꞋ.
Furthermore, the "greater nâ•viꞋ" spokesman would be between é--ä (the top matz•âhꞋ) and the Shᵊkhin•âhꞋ within the heart of every Yi•sᵊ•râ•eilꞋi (the bottom matz•âhꞋ)!!!
The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ symbolism [a] fits perfectly and [b] all other interpretations are riddled with contradictions—however, note that it has no connection to the Christian YeshꞋ"u! Since this can only refer to a Tor•âhꞋ-teacher (not an idol champion of Displacement Theology), there can be no legitimate halakhic objection.
Take a closer look at the three-caste formula: aside from being racist (based on genealogy and genetics), Ko•han•imꞋ,
Now, references to the correlation between the three matz•otꞋ can be linked directly to the Beit ha-Miq•dâshꞋ – without the indirect linking, piped through the racist, secularist and unworkable three castes. Then we – additionally – have the parallel with the three repetitions of the word "qâ•doshꞋ" in the Qᵊdush•âhꞋ (for background and further details on this topic, see my book, The Mirrored-Sphinxes). Moreover, this track leads right back to, corroborating and reconfirming, the three levels (the theme of three facets again) of kash•rutꞋ / Qᵊdush•âhꞋ in approaching é--ä by the following mnemonic:
which corroborates and reconfirms the original theme of:
The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ symbolism stands, exclusive, and alone, correct.
In addition to reviewing the source text (link in previous paragraph), see also the chart (in Tor•âhꞋ 5765) Pâ•râsh•âhꞋ wa-Ya•qᵊheil′
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |