Falling, Feeling, Short on Strength and Sufficiency; “The LORD is my strength, He is my defense; he has become my salvation.” Exodus 15

One thought on “Falling, Feeling, Short on Strength and Sufficiency; “The LORD is my strength, He is my defense; he has become my salvation.” Exodus 15”

1. Following the splitting of the Sea of Reeds Moshe introduced the song of victory wherein he describes HaShem as a “Man of War”. What does that mean? God is not a Man! Rehashing an old Xtian propaganda with a fundamentalist Xtian.

   Frank Hubeny says:

   July 2, 2025 at 4:52 pm

   I don’t know what that essential question is.

   However, I do agree with you that the way John 1:1 was translated into Greek from Hebrew was confusing.

   If the Van Rensburg’s are correct, then “Word” was originally “Son” in the original Hebrew version: https://www.hebrewgospels.com/john
   ________________________________________________________

   mosckerr says:

   July 2, 2025 at 10:43 pm

   Frank you continue to presume that the Roman forgery NT, originally written in Hebrew. Bunk. Its target audience ALWAYS Goyim and not Jews. This explains why the NT reflects none of the halachic, oath britot, or Constitutional foundations of the Written Torah first revealed at Sinai.

   Dr. Janie van Rensburg and the notion of “Logos” in Xtian theology. This perspective aligns with traditional Xtian beliefs about the nature of the “Crisis” JeZeus – substitution theology. Several early church fathers likewise discussed this substitution theology. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 CE), in both “First Apology” and “Dialogue with Trypho;” Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 CE), in “Against Heresies,” where he emphasized the role of “logos” in the creation and redemption of humanity. This falsely presumes that the local/tribal God of Israel lives as a Universal God. A key theme of both Xtian and Islamic substitute theology.

   Dr. Janie van Rensburg’s claim that Logos in John 1:1 was originally “Son”—this is just another layer of Christian revisionism. The entire “Logos” theology was developed by Church fathers like Justin Martyr and Irenaeus to blend Greek metaphysics with Roman theology, ultimately inventing a universalist “Christ” divorced from the פרט, tribal brit at Sinai. This classic substitute theology—replacing Israel’s national oath brit-inheritance-as the chosen Cohen people, with a mythical “son of god” and imagining that Goyim inherit spiritual truths which bypasses Torah altogether. Even Paul’s grafting metaphor does not go this far! It falsely fuses Greek metaphysics with Roman theological imperialism.

   Let’s be clear: the Torah revelation revealed at Sinai, simply not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The revelation at Horev (Sinai) – concrete, national, legal, and exclusive—bound by brit to the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov. The Oral Torah’s פרדס system—especially as laid out in the opening sugya of Avodah Zarah—explains that the nations of the world rejected HaShem’s authority long before Sinai. Xtianity’s invention of “Logos” does not replace the oath brit sworn to the Avot. The NT false idea: that the tribal, covenantal God of Israel could somehow morph into a universal, metaphysical abstraction. This expresses the core lie of both Christian and Islamic theologies. They both erase the specificity of the brit—the national oath between HaShem and the seed of Avraham, Yitzḥak, and Ya‘aqov—and replace it with theological fiction. NT Greek “Logos” translations, tits on a boar hog – worthless.

   The Talmud, the codification of the Oral Torah פרדס logic system, teaches, as just mentioned, in the opening pages of mesechta Avoda Zarah that the generations of Adam prior to the birth of Noach utterly rejected the בראשית God. Only Israel accepted this בראשית God at Sinai. Your worthless bible Greek translations of “logos”, coupled with their later revised revisionist history/substitute theology, simply never accepted neither the first or second commandments of Sinai. Just that simple. The substitute theology of “logos” does not mean the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment. The perversion of “son of god/messiah” – has no basis in the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. The church rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah 13 middot at Horev. Let’s be clear: the God of Israel revealed at Sinai – not a Hellenistic abstraction or a Neoplatonic emanation. The Divine Name revealed at Sinai is not “Jesus,” “Yeshua,” or “Logos.”

   Origen (c. 185–253 CE), Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373 CE), Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376–444 CE) – all these silly Goyim theologians have likewise promoted this avoda zara. The facts, as clear as the Sun on a cloudless Summer Day, “logos” has nothing to do with the First Commandment of Sinai. Nothing in the Heavens, Earth or Seas compares to the revelation of this Divine Presence Spirit Name which breathes within the Yatzir HaTov of the chosen Cohen people.

   The substitute theology replacement of JeZeus as a mythical messiah for the oath brit sworn to Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people – absolute narishkeit. Yom Kippur eternally remembers that HaShem made t’shuva and annulled the vow to make of the descendants of Moshe the chosen Cohen people instead of the seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov. The gospel abomination perverts the anointing of king David dedicated to pursue judicial justice within the borders of the oath sworn lands, as the intent and k’vanna of the mitzva of Moshiach. The specific פרט, of the husband of Bat Sheva, defines the כלל of the anointing of David as king by the prophet Shmuel.

   This revisionist substitute theology represents just a simple continuation of the Golden Calf substitute theology wherein the ערב רב, assimilated and intermarried Israelites, substituted the word אלהים for the revelation of the First Commandment Name. Substitution theology defines the avoda zarah of the Golden Calf for all generations.

   The early church fathers you mentioned engaged with the concept of “Logos” in ways that sought to bridge Greek philosophical thought and Xtian doctrine. The Mishna in Masechet Chagigah (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1). It states that anyone who contemplates the divine matters or the secrets of the universe—specifically what is above, below, or behind—should not have been born. Man simply incapable of comprehending the Divine; no more than an ant can grasp Human culture and civilizations. The Gospel Roman forgery of “logos” – simply a replacement theology revisionist history nonsense. Just that simple. Greek philosophy does not serve as the foundation upon which the Torah stands.

   Frank Hubeny

   Poetry, Short Prose and Walking

   I have no interest in the Oral Torah, Moshe, except as historical documents of the opinions people had over time about what was in the Tanach (Old Testament). It is at the level of the Christian church fathers.

   Now I do take the Old Testament more seriously than you do, because I see it as an historical document. What it says actually happened, but it is going to be difficult to construct a reasonable chronology from the Masoretic text because I believe the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies were shortened by the rabbis in the 2nd century to discredit Jesus as the Messiah. Those genealogies should extend to about 5550 BC based on Septuagint readings of those genealogies.

   I also see the Daniel 9:24-27 prophecies as having been fulfilled by the ministry of Jesus and the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.

   What I find interesting about the Van Rensburg’s translation of the Hebrew Gospel of John is that an argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word “ben” (son) rather than the Greek word “logos” (word).

   I agree that the use of “logos” was done to bridge Greek philosophy with Christianity. However, I am more interested in the Hebrew Gospel of John than I am in the Greek translation of it.

   I’ve mentioned these things before when you commented on my blog. Since we are on your blog, I am restating them.
   _____________________________________

   mosckerr

   July 3, 2025 at 8:56 am 

   Naturally Frank your a follower of classic Xtian substitute theology. Oral Torah as the definition of prophetic mussar as the k’vanna of mitzvot means nothing to Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Hence both the Pope & you pervert mussar and declare prophetic mussar as dogmatic history.

   The T’NaCH has a completely different Order organization than does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH for example does not have Chapters and verses like as does the Old Testament perversion. The T’NaCH organized into sugyot, a concept which the Xtian translators changed into a completely different order of Chapters. Despite the word DOG having the exact same letters as GOD, the two words convey completely different meanings.

   Conservative and Reform Jews like you view the T’NaCH as historical documents. In the late 19th Century German Protestant ‘higher criticism’ actively promoted this Foo/narishkeit. A T’NaCH prophet commands mussar not history. Ya want history – then study it from a professor at a University.

   You believe no different than Muslims who declare that the Jews changed their Bible! LOL Arabs declare, like you, that Avraham did not dedicate Yitzak but rather Yishmael on the altar. And like you the Koran does not bring the Sinai First Commandment Name just like your golden calf bible abomination. So the only people who perverted the T’NaCH – Xtians and Muslims.

   Your pie in the sky slander against the Jewish people, does not fit with the mussar story of the Book Sh’muel which repeatedly states that king David profaned his anointing as Moshiach only in the matter of the death of the husband of Bat Sheva. Ooops Do you also declare that Jewish rabbis changed that Book too? Must have b/c otherwise your pie in the sky 2nd Coming floats like a lead balloon.

   Your worn-out theory compares to a blood libel slander. A textbook example of theological projection disguised as historical analysis. It reflects both ignorance of Jewish tradition and a desperate retrojection of Hellenistic Xtianity onto a text and culture it never understood nor has it any connection there unto.

   The Masoretic Text Is Not a 2nd-Century Rabbinic Invention. The idea that “rabbis in the 2nd century shortened Genesis 5 and 11” is complete historical fiction. The Masoretic tradition predates Xtianity’s revisionist history. Its textual lineage derives from the Second Temple period—Chag Hanukkah pre-dates JeZeus or the rise of the Church.

   The Dead Sea Scrolls (3rd century BCE to 1st century CE)—which predate the “2nd-century rabbis”—show a textual tradition aligned more closely with the Masoretic Text than with the Septuagint. The Tannaim of the 2nd century, such as Rabbi Akiva, engaged in preserving and interpreting inherited Torah, not fabricating new texts to “counter Jesus”, as your blood libel slander promotes. The notion that these sages rewrote Torah to discredit Xtianity reflect the mirror of Xtian super-sessionist fantasy—not history.

   The Septuagint written as a Greek Translation for Hellenized Jews. A Greek translation of parts of the Tanakh (mainly the Torah) done in Alexandria, Egypt, for Jews who no longer spoke Hebrew. Your claim that later Greek versions of Genesis, especially chapters 5 and 11, inflated lifespans and added generations—these deviations do not exist in any known Hebrew manuscript tradition. The Alexandrian scribes were influenced by Hellenistic numerology and cosmology, which sought to align world chronology with Platonic or Egyptian schemes.

   Irony: It is far more likely that the Septuagint’s chronology was lengthened to harmonize with Greek cosmogonies than that the rabbis shortened the Masoretic text to “disprove” Xtianity, which did not yet exist, when the Masoretic tradition the Men of the Great Assembly sealed in the days of Ezra.

   Xtianity has always promoted ‘Historical Revisionist’ propaganda. The accusation that Jews edited Genesis to disprove JeZeus represents classic Xtian ‘blood libel’ projectionism. The Church Fathers (Justin Martyr, Origen, Augustine etc), who reinterpreted or allegorized Tanakh to retroactively “prove” JeZeus as Messiah. The New Testament authors routinely misquote and mistranslate the Tanakh. Example: Matthew 1:23 quotes Isaiah 7:14, mistranslating “alma” (young woman) as “parthenos” (virgin) to manufacture a virgin birth prophecy.

   The NT genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1, Luke 3), internally contradict one another, and historically utterly implausible. Those corrupt gospels constructed with theological agendas, not historical precision. If anything, Xtianity invented its own substitute genealogies and projected messianic expectations backwards to build a false continuity.

   The Tanakh Does Not Predict a “Crhisis”. The entire premise that Jewish texts should confirm JeZeus relies on the illegitimate Xtian hermeneutic of proof-texting and super-sessionism. Tanakh messianism centers on a national king of Israel—from David’s line, who will establish Torah justice, establish the Torah as the Constitution of the Republic, restore Judicial Review ie משנה תורה Common law courtrooms. State vertical courtrooms imposed by both Rome & Herod, which bribed both Justices and prosecutors through paid salaries, a direct Torah abomination of perverted justice. The idea of a crucified universal savior, as perverse as offering a maimed korban upon the altar. This utterly absurd idea carries the din of כרת.

   The “genealogies” in Genesis 5 and 11 Jewish tradition treats them within the Oral Torah framework which depict the timeline of the chosen Cohen people, not literalist proof schemes.

   Xtianity erased the Oral Torah—Then Accused Jews of Distortion. Based upon the premise that the victors right the history books. Post Shoah with Israeli Independence, and Rome on the dung heaps of ancient history, clearly Jews won our war against the Goyim barbarians of Europe. Xtians rot in exile waiting for the 2nd coming of their God.

   Xtianity rejects the Oral Torah, as the crucial interpretive key to understand the k’vanna the Written Torah prophetic mussar. Xtianity, lacking the Oral tradition, they reconstructed their own readings, often Greek allegorical ones, like agape defines love, and now blame the Jewish tradition for not agreeing with their foreign and utterly alien artificial system. The Samaritans, Tzeddukim and Karaites – like Xtians today – rejected the revelation of rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of פרדס logic. This too a totally worn out nonsense, forced the church of the Dark Ages to embrace Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotles 3 part syllogism. Classic super-sessionism: erase the original 4 part Oral Torah פרדס inductive reasoning with Aristotle’s 3 part deductive reasoning, insert your own alien theologies and creed, and then claim the original the Jews corrupted. What you’re doing is projecting the Church’s own revisionist horse-radish onto a Torah tradition that never needed JeZeus—and never recognized him as fulfilling anything. Xtianity defines the sin of the Golden Calf revisionism, not Judaism.”

   Daniel, not counted among the Nevi’im (Prophets) in the Jewish canon, but among the Ketuvim (Writings). This irrefutable classification reflects a common law prioritization and hermeneutic divide that permanently separates Judaism from Xtian avoda zarah. Your entire claim collapses the moment you treat the Book of Daniel as “prophetic” in the same vein as Isaiah or Jeremiah. Xtian revisionism avoda zarah, not Jewish tradition.

   Torah Canonization Matters: the g’lut written Book of Daniel simply Not a Prophet any more than T’NaCH prophets compare to University History Professors. The T’NaKH—the authentic Jewish canon—codified as Torah (Common Law), Nevi’im (Prophets) serve as the basis for the Mishna, and Ketuvim (Writings) serve as the basis for the Gemara. A direct and clear Masoret of T’NaCH/Talmudic common law, Daniel not classified with the prophets because it serves as a Gemara-like commentary to the Books of the Prophets. Therefore the Men of the Great Assembly placed the Book of Daniel alongside Psalms, Job, and Ruth—and not with the Books written pre-galut – Isaiah, Ezekiel, or Amos.

   G’lut Daniel simply not a navi who lived prior to Babylonian king conquering the kingdom of Judah. The visions Daniel, apocalyptic dreams, not prophetic mussar rebukes which defines the very essence of NaCH prophecy. The Talmud (Megillah 3a) even explicitly says: “Many were greater than Daniel, but they did not receive prophecy.” This distinction – not accidental. It represents a rejection of magical, mystical, or Hellenistic eschatology as a basis for the perversion of T’NaCH common law unto Greek statute law.

   Xtian Misuse of Daniel 9: A Manufactured Messianism. Daniel 9 doesn’t mention JeZeus. It doesn’t describe an absurd crucified messiah. It doesn’t authorize the end of Torah or the dissolution of the brit of the Chosen Cohen people replaced by a Roman false messiah Universal God\monotheism. The post NT “scholars” timeline of the Book of Daniel utterly obtuse and obscure; Daniel not legal—because it’s written in Aramaic apocalyptic code, like the mystic work “The Zohar” of the Middle Ages. Neither mystical work qualifies as prophetic nevuah. Xtian use of Daniel 9—just another prooftext grab—an effort to force JeZeus into a text that neither names nor validates him, while ignoring the actual legal terms of the Torah oath brit alliance with HaShem and the chosen Cohen people.

   You treat the destruction of Herod’s Temple\Cathedral abomination in 70 CE as a divine validation of Xtianity. But in Jewish memory, we remember the Roman crushing of our revolt as a tragedy which began our long 2000+ year exile that culminated in the Nazi Shoah. Xtian endorsement of Roman theology, seeks to return the genie back into its bottle. But the national Independence of the Jewish state forever repudiates the Xtian theology which proclaimed Jews and Cain Christ-Killers. The JeZeus gospel “prediction”, (all the books of the gospels, starting with Mark written in Rome, written AFTER the Romans burned Herod’s Cathedral abomination of assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs), of that destruction, neither unique nor accurate—Jeremiah and the Talmudic sages long before denounced the substitute theology which replaced Sanhedrin common law courtrooms as the basis of Legislative Review with the idol of building a House of Prostitution/Temple. Wood and Stone do not rule the oath sworn lands with judicial courtroom common law justice; any more than wood and stone idols compare to the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.

   Judaism a common law Legal Tradition, Not some Pie in the Sky Eschatological Gnosticism. Daniel’s visions—fascinating as they serve as a commentary to NaCH prophetic mussar—never used by the sages to determine messianic timelines or national policy. The mitzva of Moshiach, no different than the mitzva of Shabbat. All generations of Jews have equal opportunities to “fulfill” this Torah commandment. Judaism simply not a religion. Faith defined as צדק צדק תרדוף, not end of days date-setting or speculative metaphysics. Torah a brit-based common law Judicial legal tradition. built on halachah and the oath brit which בראשית continuously creates the chosen Cohen people from nothing. Xtianity stands upon the foundation of Nazi racial theories. Hence it perverted the Book of Daniel into a mystical crystal ball. Precisely because it rejects Torah revelation of both Sinai and Horev, and therefore needed to fabricate its own absurd versions of prophecy – which the Torah defines as Av tuma witchcraft-mystically predicting the future.

   Treating Daniel as a prophet, a perverse taboo distortion on par with declarations of JeZeus as a messiah. Both abominations, products of Rome’s theological imperialism, not Sinai’s revelation. The Jewish classification of Daniel within Ketuvim—not arbitrary—rather it rejects mystical replacement theology, including the false messianism you preach as Av tuma avoda zarah. The abomination which causes Jewish g’lut from ruling our homeland with Torah/Talmud common law judicial justice.

   Frank, your represents a classic example of Xtian wish projection, masquerading as scholarship. Attempting to retroactively “Hebraicize” a document that never has anything Jewish – no connection whatsoever; in order to lend it a legitimacy it never had. You’re attempting to give a Hebrew Av tohor soul to a Roman Av tuma corpse. Isaiah referred to calling day – night and night – day as a direct Torah curse.

   Greek philosophy exists as the soil in which Xtianity spouted therefrom. The gospel counterfeits themselves call it a “wolf dressed in Sheep clothing”. The NT – not Torah, not Talmud, and certainly not the oath alliance brit of Sinai which continuously creates from nothing the Chosen Cohen people. The gospel of John abomination, especially its opening verses, reflects a clear Greek metaphysical construct, directly influenced by perhaps Philo of Alexandria, Hellenistic Jewish allegory, and Neoplatonic emanationism. In no way does Hellenistic Alexandria over-rule the T’NaCH/Talmudic common law legal system. Hellenistic Alexandria assimilated ערב רב Jews had no more understanding of prophetic T’NaCH mussar, and its relationship to how the Aggadah of the Talmud servers to derive the k’vanna of doing halachic ritualisms, than does Xtianity.

   Your fantasy projection: “””An argument can be made that the original autograph of John 1:1 could well have used the Hebrew word ‘ben’ (son).””” What original Hebrew autograph? No such manuscript exists. None. Not a shred. Not a fragment. Not even a whisper from antiquity.

   Zero evidence that supports the Gospel of John ever written in Hebrew or even Aramaic. All existing ancient manuscripts are in Greek—because it was written by and for Hellenized gentiles. The idea of a Hebrew “original” is a theological revisionist history mirage, conjured witchcraft spells, centuries later by Xtians desperate to reconnect Hebraic roots to their post Shoah utterly disgraced reputation of church barbarity.

   The Greek “Logos” = Greek Theology. John 1:1: ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος – “In the beginning was the Logos.” This has nothing to do with the Hebrew בראשית ברא אלהים. The text deliberately rewires Genesis 1 using Hellenistic terms. Logos here is not “word” in the Torah sense (as in “davar” of prophetic command), but a divine intermediary being—a metaphysical emanation that merges Platonic dualism with pseudo-Jewish messianism. That’s Hellenistic Alexandria Philo, not Moshe who commands the Written and Oral Torah revelations of judicial courtroom common law.

   The Hebrew ben (son) in contrast, in Torah usage, never a mystical being co-equal with God. To imagine John 1:1 began with “Bereishit haya haBen” is laughable, and would be theologically alien—absolutely blasphemous—by even the most liberal Torah standards.

   No Hebrew NT = No Jewish Origins. No Hebrew manuscript of John exists. No early Church Father refers to a Hebrew John. Your Apostle Paul opposed mixing T’NaCH with the new Xtian religion. No Jewish or Goyim community ever recognized, preserved, or even referenced such a text. All historical witnesses (Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius) cite Greek texts. This modern “Hebrew Gospel of John” you’re referencing—by Janie van Rensburg—is a modern back-translation, no different than translating Shakespeare into Aramaic and then claiming it was written by a prophet.

   Your fascination with a Hebrew Gospel of John is nothing but an attempt to baptize a Roman forgery with a Hebrew fig leaf. The “logos” theology of the Fourth Gospel—Greek at its core and Roman in its mission. It exists to replace the Torah—not to fulfill it. There never existed a “Hebrew John.” There never lived a Torah-true “JeZeus.” And Moshe never commanded a messiah who came to abolish the oath brit which continuously creates the Chosen Cohen People which only the Jewish people accepted this revelation at both Sinai and Horev.

   LikeLike

   Reply