Judaism Made By Rome?

Debunking Piso Conspiracy as to Numerological Signatures by the Pisos · Judaism Made By Rome? · Tovia Singer Once More 1) Disproves Protestantism, 2) Thinks He's Disproven Christianity

Christianity Made in Rome? -Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 20 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhTrHrz_5LY

1:40 Come on.

IN the Gospel, the Temple, which is collaborating closely with Rome, that's why the Court of the Gentiles was a bazaar both in the time when Jesus did the first cleansing, and again when he did the second cleansing, is the main culprit. Once you realise how much the temple was then collaborating with the Romans, its main guilt doesn't become a complete exoneration of the Romans, it's just that Pilate left it to his Jews to decide. Hence the Temple makes the first move. By the way, those arresting Jesus must have been a not very well trained Temple guard. Had they been Roman soldiers, St. Peter would have been dead meat before his sword could touch the ear of Malchus, so, yes, the Temple did the first move.

Imagine a Mafia boss, and imagine he has a harlot. The real husband of the harlot turns up, tries to forgive his wife, tries to get her back. She ends up giving him up to be killed.

If the Mafia boss took no initiative, but totally left it to "his darling" to decide the matter, while being just a little bit discouraging about her getting back to hubby, does that exonerate him? No.

Let's be clear that from the year when Jesus starts to preach to the year of when the Apocalypse was written, Rome was ruled by a set of Mafia bosses, worse than Caesar and Augustus and worse than Nerva and follows up, dealing very roughly with critics. In the year I mentioned, Tiberius had as protégé Sejanus, Sejanus also had a protégé, namely Pilate. So, Pilate was intimidating, provocative when he dared to, demur when it would cost him too much, but while Christians have often over the last century argued at this point "he couldn't afford an uprising" (that's crediting Tiberius with lots of peace love, lots of hatred of corruption), I think there is something else at work. He had personally "laboured" or "motivated" or whatever those in charge of the Temple. It was a matter of personal pride for him to see the priests could be mature enough to take the right decision, instead of for instance declaring:

"Yeshua seems to mean what he said, he said it twice -- sacrifice market is anywhere in Jerusalem, the animal is clean even if you buy it with Roman coins -- Court of the Gentiles is where Godfearing Gentiles can pray, since they cannot go into the Temple itself."

Declaring that after He had both been hailed like King Manasseh (this could have been compatible with Him replacing Herod, on popular demand, and ruling as a vassal of Rome, like Manasseh ruled as a vassal of Babylon, but Pilate did not necessarily know this), would certainly have displeased Pilate. But he didn't want to take the move. The temple did.

How about you get out of the harlot?

By the way, if you become Catholic, you might end up not identifying nationally as a "Jew" but as an "Ashkenaz Marrano" or "Israelite" or whatever. In the years just before the smoke mixed fog was clearing out in Rome, St. John, declared of those then maligning Christians, Jesus had told Him "they are not Jews" ... about a decade later when he wrote the Gospel, he however did refer to the enemies of Jesus as "the Jews" in the narrator voice. But he narrated a Jesus who used "the Jews" in a very different way.

Synoptics : Priests and Scribes
St. John : the Jews

Synoptics : Pharisees and Sadducees
St. John : the Jews

Synoptics : the crowd
St. John : the Jews

Synoptics, Jesus in St. John : the Jews
St. John, narrator : makes no mention except allowing Jesus to do so.

2:30 St. John, the last gospeller, was arguably a Cohen (and probably not son of Zebedee, the identification of the Gospeller and the martyred brother of the martyr James of Zebedee comes from St. Irenaeus, the most accessible for the West about Asia Minor, but he had left it after being ordained at just age 16).

He was writing to an audience which had full access to Matthew, Mark, Luke already. He was denying nothing pertinent to Pilate's responsibility. He was however also accepting how the Sanhedrin of Jamnia had reserved the vocable "Jews" for rejecters of Jesus. So, He applied the word "Jews" for all the groups, including that crowd before Pilate, who came to become constitutive of what is now usually referred to as Jews (while Vera Baboun, Haniye, generally called Palestinians instead, the guys in ONE FOR ISRAEL being called "Messianic Jews" rather than just Jews ... wait, they include Palestinians too).

3:06 In Matthew, these guys are not called "the Jews" they are called "the crowd" ... in St. John, they are retrospectively called Jews, because he applies the word to enemies of Christ by then.

St. Matthew does not state how big the crowd was in relation to all Jerusalem, if we go further it might seem those visited by resurrected deceased relatives or OT saints (the categories overlap) would be a larger portion of the Yerushalmis ... but over the decades, they are pushed out of what is very soon a purely non-Christian Jewish community, and they become part of the first Christian, later Christian and Muslim population we now refer to as Palestinians. You know, the guys that fulfilled the prophecies in Isaiah 11 and so on.

3:25 Pontius Pilate wants no part of it.

Think of the Mafia boss telling his harlot, that the decision to kill her husband was hers, not his ...

4:28 w a i t ... would the real husband tell the Mafia boss their common interest had greater guilt against him than he had?

N O T E ... by this time, the Christ-Rejectors are still a minority. If we skip the allegory and go back to the real case, there were plenty of Jews in Jerusalem to whom God in the flesh could easily still relate as to His Bride. It was a minority that by this time had become a harlot.

Decades later, they were a majority and St. John could refer to them as Jews, as they referred to themselves as.

After having noted Jesus refused to call them that.

However, the case is not unique. In Henry VIII time English are still majority faithful Catholics. The compromises they make seem to them usually as minor changes (yes, even supremacy), and therefore acceptable. By the time of Elisabeth, they are a majority Protestants + other Anti-Catholics. Belloc estimates the remaining Catholics to a quarter.

Hrvatski Noahid

@hrvatskinoahid1048

God does not have a body or any form.

Hans Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@hrvatskinoahid1048 You are nearly* 2025 years behind the times.

* Note

20.II this leap year lacks 34 days to 25.III.

5:31 Christian traditions about Pontius Pilate are divided.

Ethiopians consider him a saint. Others, among them some Catholis and Protestants of the Alpine region, consider him a suicide. The two are not compatible.

But even considering him as a saint has no bearing on his degree of guilt while doing this. He could have been the third most evil man in Jerusalem or even the universe that day (after Caiaphas and perhaps if Judas was alive, Judas ...) ... and he could have repented later and become a saint.

It's pretty clear his wife is a saint.

5:49 Did Daniel consider the Babylonian and Persian Empires were there, while the one was and then the other became, because God wanted it that way?

[Daniel 3:95]
91 Then Nabuchodonosor the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and said to his nobles: Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered the king, and said: True, O king. 92 He answered, and said: Behold I see four men loose, and walking in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt in them, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God. 93 Then Nabuchodonosor came to the door of the burning fiery furnace, and said: Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, ye servants of the most high God, go ye forth, and come. And immediately Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago went out from the midst of the fire. 94 And the nobles, and the magistrates, and the judges, and the great men of the king being gathered together, considered these men, that the fire had no power on their bodies, and that not a hair of their head had been singed, nor their garments altered, nor the smell of the fire had passed on them. 95 Then Nabuchodonosor breaking forth, said: Blessed be the God of them, to wit, of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that believed in him: and they changed the king's word, and delivered up their bodies that they might not serve, nor adore any god, except their own God

96 By me therefore this decree is made, that every people, tribe, and tongue, which shall speak blasphemy against the God of Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, shall be destroyed, and their houses laid waste: for there is no other God that can save in this manner. 97 Then the king promoted Sidrach, Misach, and Abdenago, in the province of Babylon. 98 Nabuchodonosor the king, to all peoples, nations, and tongues, that dwell in all the earth, peace be multiplied unto you. 99 The most high God hath wrought signs and wonders toward me. It hath seemed good to me therefore to publish 100 His signs, because they are great: and his wonders, because they are mighty: and his kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and his power to all generations.

For that matter, did Jeremias consider Jews ought to live like peaceful citizens in Babylon in anything that was not against their faith? That's what St. Paul is telling the first Catholics.

7:07 Isn't Jeremias also both pro-Babylon and anti-Babylon?

Jeremias took the yoke ... "no, if you rebel against Babylon, you rebel against God" (St. Paul)
Jeremias spoke out about the fall of Babylon = St. John speaks out about the fall of the end times Babylon.

Speaking of which, did you know that recently Greek Orthodox Palestinians had trouble getting the Patriarch they wanted, some government in Jerusalem was claiming to have inherited FROM ROME the power to name those ...

7:52 We get it, like a Pagan Roman you don't like that Jewish business about Jesus Christ!

Two Romans speaking of Jewishness:

Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done?
[John 18:35]

But Paul said to him: I am a Jew of Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city. And I beseech thee, suffer me to speak to the people.
[Acts of Apostles 21:39]

Two Romans speaking of Christianity, Acts 26:

24 As he spoke these things, and made his answer, Festus said with a loud voice: Paul, thou art beside thyself: much learning doth make thee mad. 25 And Paul said: I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but I speak words of truth and soberness.

8:11 "the amount of abuse of the Hebrew Bible"

Unless those abusing it are you guys ... even to the text. On a certain point in time, having read Hebrews, you even made a wrong and for many new decision about the text of Genesis 11.

St. Paul made a point that Abraham, and therefore Levi, had tithed to Melchisedec.
The Jews were suddenly very interested in the shorter chronology of the chapter, so they could pretend Melchisedec was Shem.

Josephus accepted the new total of years from Flood to birth of Abraham, 292, and then proceeded to enumerate a total adding up to over 800 years of the individual items.

Was HE in Antiquities providing the mathematically savvy a warning that Judaism was faking its texts?

10:04 Yeah, I've heard about the Pisonian conspiracy.

I've already debunked the arguments I have seen so far.

For instance, such and such a chapter and verse for such and such a reason symbolic is supposed to give Kappa Pi as Kalpournios Peison.

The problem with that is, chapters were divided in the 1200's AD (including for the Tanakh!) by a Catholic bishop on a hunting trip (he knew the Bible by heart, he was a Christian Yanuka). The verse divisions were added even later, by Renaissance printers, and sometimes diverge between KJ and Catholic Bibles. Would God have made a forger into a prophet?