Evidence of the Oral Torah: The Psalms




Don’t stop at verse1 !!!! Psalm 67:2 (“That Your way may be known on earth, Your salvation among all nations.”) is the heartbeat of the Aaronic Blessing, ensuring that the shining of God’s face is not merely for Israel’s benefit but for the revelation of His way to all people.

This verse is crucial because it shifts the focus from personal blessing to global purpose—Israel was blessed to be a light to the nations. The oral tradition of the Aaronic Blessing (Numbers 6:24–26) was likely the first scripture memorized by the Israelites, passed down before the written Torah was fully compiled.

This affirms an early oral Torah, where the spoken word of blessing shaped Israel’s identity and mission. From the beginning, God’s revelation was not an esoteric or nationalistic privilege but a call to proclaim His way to the ends of the earth. Let it be known: the blessing was never meant to be hoarded but heralded.

Psalm 87 texts follows with nations (Babylon, Cush, Tyre et al ) that were blessed and brought into the revlation at Mt. Sinai and the eventual Temple with its Courts for the Gentiles. It is the standard Christianity narrative that missions was geographical in the “Old Testament” and where nations were to come and believe.

Such a verse throws important light on Deen (religion as a standard) and its aim, it is necessary that we should study it to understand it well. Lexically, the word sharaa in sharaa lakum (ordained for you) means to make the way.

In the Book of Numbers (part of the Pentatuch or Torah) the Aaronic Blessing stands foundational. The translation of Bnei (children) is predicated to Israelites. Iterations as ‘blessing and keeping’ are found throughout scripture, however, in Psalm 67 the closest expression shows how the Oral Torah functioned and this is all that really matters! 




In Psalm 87 another subtle clue emerges as the chiastic or parallelism of the text and within the genre known as wisdom literature keeps its symmetry. So do not let it stand alone: for The Lord Loves the Gates of Zions! Yet in Priority!




Yet something deeper and more pervasive continues as the content of Scripture deals with the ‘what and how’ of the Gospel, not necessarily its ‘announcement’ as ‘good news.’ Thus, the end of ungodliness by discipleship.

Here the Hebrew for ‘Gates’ harkens back to an even more foundational matter; following the ways of the Lord or even the ‘Derekch Haaretz’ (way or law of the land) or perhaps the Noahide foundation for all peoples.

Something The Quran and even Augustine of Hippo identified before the Standard Islamic Narrative began and Christianity’s supersessionism or replacement theology.



Surah 42:13 in the Islamic Quran states: He has ordained for you ‘believers’ (Sabians) the Way (Sharia Gates) which He decreed for Noah, and what We have revealed to you  O Prophet˺ and what We decreed for Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, commanding: “Uphold the faith, and make no divisions in it.” 


As a term it implies appointing a way, a code and a rule. Accordingly, in Arabic the words tashri and shariat and shari are understood as the synonyms of legislation and law and law giver respectively. Therefore, let us understand ‘Gates’ as etymologically linked to the ‘what and how’ of the Gospel as ‘the end of ungodliness.’



Esau I Have Hated: The Reason for the Bible.


‘Hated’ in Romans 9:13  Esau’s bad choices


The Church or Edah as a ‘Spiritual Israel’ elected and Esau rejected as a posit of Reformed Covenant Theology must be radically situated to avoid supersessionism. This is a foundational matter as the Reformed are on to something with the corrective ‘Fulfillment Theology’ yet with little sensitivity to valid Jewish sources. Moreoever, the conflation of today’s political Zion/Israelism with Judaism as adopted by Scofield Darbyism should tell us all we need to know, nationalism and racism is always wrong for a believer over their Heavenly citizenship. 

Granted, such futurism may seem plausible in light of current events. That is why Christendom-Edom should make us reflect about the ‘Cultivated Olive Tree.’ We should not flaunt a new religion but understand and accept our grafting into it and become missional people of peace and justice, not simply doctrinal warriors interpreting Romans 9-11 without declaritive action that Jesus Christ is Lord and displaying Him!

Therefore, the historical Esau/Edom rejection framed as ‘non-election’ and extrapolated to any ethnic or spiritual state is wrong and shows the limits of explanation without understanding Abraham’s whole family over confining covenants as interpretive schemes based upon divisions upon the human race. If we say, ‘spiritual Israel’, and trying to avoid supersessionism, then Christians are the redempton of unspiritual Esau or Edom and even so-called ‘Messianic Jews.’ Nevertheless, we are all Hebrews that make up the Commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2)

Why was Esau hated? (Malachi & Romans) Judaism believes that the Torah (instruction) depicts a reality that cannot change, it is truth and the foundation. Thus Esau made many bad choices and took Caananite wives and then was positionally redeemed through Ishmael, by marrying back into the family with one of Ishmael’s daughters.  (Genesis 28:6-9). He lived by the sword and even at his end his head rolled into the lap of Isaac according to the Talmuds. This midrash is significant. Edom means Red and Jesus Christ represents the fufillment of Isaac’s blessing to Esau. (Isaiah 63) Grapes of wrath, saved by His blood.

Furthermore, if we posit just a ‘spiritual Israel,’ but what about Prophets Obadiah, Job, Eliphaz, even Caleb, all Edomites descended from ‘unspiritual Esau.’ Such prophecy and Jewish Midrashim help disclose gaps in our understanding of Abraham's covenant children and our limitation with Jacob.  This is the context of Paul in Romans 9-11, Jacob or its nationalistic iteration as Israel is as lost as Esau, acting like he does taking up the sword. In Romans 10:19a - “I ask instead, did Israel not understand? “  (No, but following Judaism should make them understand, Acts 15 with Esau-Edom representing the nations, yes ethnically qualified Jews through observance and the maternal line.)

Then in Romans 10:19b as based upon Moses’s prophecy (Deutoronomy 32:21) reflecting upon the mixed multitude (the erav rav, Arab or Israelites not born of a Jewish mother like Ephrahim and Manasseh yet obedient in their observance): “I will make you (acting like Esau-Edom) jealous by those who are not a nation (Ishmael); I will make you angry by a nation without (knowledge) understanding.” Basically forms of nationalistic Christianity and Islam today by those truly practicing their faith in the messiah.

So Jesus Christ and the Christian Bible is Torat Edom or Red Judaism, a.k.a. as the way back for the lost sheep including the Romanized ethnic jew of Paul’s day and the cultural nationalist gene pool of ours (i.e. the Zionists). Acts 15 extrapolates Edom or Rome to the Nations. The revelation at Mount Sinai with the salvation of the mixed multitude through HaGerim (the Sojourner) was the missiology and process of grafting throughout the so-called Old Testament books and into the Maccabean period that set the stage for the New Testament ‘Mishnaic’ books; authoritative and binding for all peoples in the empire and down until today. 


Like then, so NOW there is a reason for Good News; the announcement of the end of ungodliness. Spiritual globalism exaulting Jesus of Nazareth as our Savior, not race or land politics, all providing the purpose of the Bible for humanity’s redemption. 

But Israel wanted a king (1 Samuel 8) and joined the gentiles, thus standing vulnerable, and inturn denegrated into toxic nationalism evident in the usurping represented as political Zionism and its nation state occupying ‘the Holy Land.’ This continues today not only in Israel but in the USA and in other nations.

The covenantal and dispensational frameworks—though often positioned in opposition—cannot deliver us from the double bind we face. So long as we neglect the Abrahamic covenant as it pertains to Esau, we remain trapped. We must not let the bilateral and coercive terms of the Mosaic covenant dictate the larger story. The promise that ‘all nations will be blessed’ transcends Sinai. It began in Abraham’s household—with both Jacob and Esau—and must be reckoned with through the lens of Torat Edom. [1]

The Lord’s promises to Abraham are not bound by geography or political allegiance. They are spiritual, irrevocable, and oriented toward the heavenly Jerusalem. Justice in the Holy Land will not come through national alignments, but through faithful witnesses—believers—supported by the global ecclesia, who understand that Edom’s restoration must also be part of the 

You may ask: isn’t this an overly ‘spiritual’ interpretation? But I ask you—don’t we all desire to be called children of God?

Read 1 John.



👉 Romans Chapter 2 Jew YouTube Playlist
👉 Matt. 16 Word Study What is the Church?

[1] Torat Edom refers to a theological reading of the Abrahamic covenant that includes the destiny of Esau and his descendants—Edom—not as eternally rejected, but as part of the broader redemptive promise. While traditional readings emphasize Edom’s judgment (see Obadiah; Malachi 1:2–4), Torat Edom highlights that Esau was also a son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham, and that God’s promise to bless “all nations” (Genesis 12:3) must eventually reconcile the line of Edom as part of the covenantal plan. Paul’s midrashic treatment of Esau and Jacob in Romans 9 calls attention to God’s sovereign purposes, but also sets up the later mystery of mercy extended to all (Romans 11:32). Rather than allowing the bilateral and conditional Mosaic covenant to dominate the narrative, Torat Edom recovers a deeper view rooted in the patriarchal promises and their eschatological fulfillment in the heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Hebrews 12:22–24; Galatians 4:26). This reading challenges both supersessionism and political Zionism by calling the global Church to participate in a justice that transcends national borders and invites even Edom into the hope of redemption.

Suggested references:
Genesis 25:23; 27:39–40; 33:4–16
Obadiah 1; Malachi 1:2–4
Romans 9:10–13; 11:25–32
Hebrews 12:16–17, 22–24
Galatians 4:21–31

Thou Shalt Not Covet

 
The Nascent Sanhedrin lawyer Rabbi Yeshayahu Hollander with Pope in 2014. 
“You broke the 10th Commandment,”
Yet he represented the Vatican in their case 
to claim the property of the Upper Room. 


Rav Yeshayahu Hollander, as a legal mind and English-language spokesman for the nascent Sanhedrin, brings a sharp, pragmatic edge to the Upper Room dispute and broader Jewish-Christian tensions. With his background in theoretical physics and patent law, plus decades of Talmudic scholarship, he blends rigorous logic with halachic conviction. In his view, the Upper Room—revered by Christians as the Last Supper site and by Jews as King David’s Tomb vicinity—belongs under Jewish sovereignty, no compromise.

Yet, he’s not blind to diplomacy: in 2014, he acknowledged the Church’s spiritual tie to the site while bluntly rejecting Pope Francis’s push for control during his Jerusalem visit, a stance rooted in the Sanhedrin’s mission to reassert Jewish authority over sacred spaces. His angle is less about theology than jurisdiction: the Sanhedrin’s lawyer saying, “This is ours, but we get why you care—still, hands off.”


The Second Vatican Council was initiated by Giovanni XXIII (‘the good pope’) who aided Jews during the Holocaust, he also presented Decretum de Iudaeis before the Council. He passed away before Vat II was finished and Paulo VI presented the council’s defining document called Lumen Gentium (Light to Nations), this quickly followed with Nostra Aetate in dealing with the major religions, especially Judaism.

The apologies toward other religions began, and emphasized from John Paul II to Francis. Still Rome’s motives are unclear while gestures toward the other religions shifted. Its view of itself as ‘the mother church’ continued by it patent absorbing and with a new language and compassion, all with the Virgin Mary at the center which implies its own centrality and here Rome has doubled down on its Marian devotion beyond the Theotokos. Thus, Judaism as the ‘cultivated olive tree’ and the centrality of Jesus Christ points to a revelatory religion system based not on relativism but on Scripture. 

The Vatican ‘Scudo’ and the 10 Sefirot tree (look familiar?)
 Da’at has been shattered; The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil 
absorbed without true knowedge and blatent supersessionism. 

“Those who speak don’t know. 
Those who know don’t speak” 
(the Oracle Keepers)


Oracles of God


Blessed are the Peacemakers (Meshulam, Noahides) 


How should one understand the long history of spoken tradition behind the Oral Torah (Mishnah, Talmuds, et al.)? With so much emphasis on Hebrew texts and related languages—Aramaic, Koine (Judeo-Greek), Proto-Arabic (Judeo-Arabic), and others—should the textual paper trail serve as secondary and confirmatory rather than primary?


I believe so. The most revelatory text in this regard is the Septuagint (LXX), produced by Jewish scribes in the 3rd–2nd century BCE. It not only preserves elements of the Oral Torah but was given alongside the Written Torah. Its influence is evident throughout the New Testament, as seen in Jesus’ reading from Isaiah 61 in Luke 4:16. Despite speculative interpretations, the language of the passage tracks with the LXX.


Bart Ehrman, despite his skepticism, concludes that while New Testament texts contain many variations, they do not fundamentally change the meaning. However, his presupposition that Jesus was founding a new religion is flawed. The real issue arose later, as early Christians—both proselytes and “lost sheep” Jews—integrated into new communities. After Constantine outlawed the Bema seat synagogue in 333 CE, the authority of the Pharisees and Eastern synagogues was rejected in favor of a new, Romanized Christianity.


The dispersion of the late 1st century meant that Jewish communities maintained strong interactions with the East. Yet, those who upheld the ancient traditions were later slandered, marginalized, and persecuted by the victors of this newly formed religion. This fragmentation is well-documented by historical scholars, but what do Jewish sources say?


Jesus himself affirms the authority of the Pharisees in Matthew 23: “Obey them, for they sit in the (Bema) seat of Moses. Do as they say, but not as they do.” Paul echoes this sentiment in Acts 15. However, Jesus also rejected the extremism of groups like the Zealots, affirming Caesar’s authority and urging discernment in choosing one’s allegiance.


Paul’s warning in Titus against “fables and the traditions of men” is often misunderstood. He never directly quotes the Enochian corpus, though some of its ideas were known. Ultimately, these texts should be seen as speculative and fantastical—much like a Frank Peretti novel or modern prophetic fiction, akin to C.S. Lewis and Tolkien.


The real deviation from authentic Jewish tradition came with the rise of sectarian groups like the Shammai Pharisees and Sadducees, whose political alignments overshadowed spiritual truth. The same is true today with forms of Judaism that reject the role of Jesus of Nazareth.


For Hebrews from the nations, the purpose of the Oral Torah is to graft into believing Israel—the cultivated olive tree. This faithful remnant has existed even before Abraham, with the Anshei HaShem (Men of the Name). Engaging with Constantinian Christianity, German higher criticism, or modernity is futile if one does not seek out the ancient faith.


Let us not build on the shifting sands of fragmented Christianities that fail to grasp the singular revelation and mission of our Lord. He has visited His people many times and does not change with dispensations. Nor should we marginalize the Pharisaic tradition of Gamaliel, whom Paul followed.


Evangelical Zionist dispensationalism, while professing love for the State of Israel, often misrepresents the faith, while Reformed covenantalism claims the Church is the true Israel. Yet both, in their extremes, assume the right to define Jewish identity for the very people entrusted with the oracles of God. Instead, we must join together to be the righteous ones in this world by properly understanding our authoritative textual history—passed down through the system of oral teaching, with the written text serving as a secondary yet indispensable witness.


For Messianic Hebrews, however, the text is anything but secondary. Inerrancy is not merely textual perfection—it reveals a mathematical miracle, a divine order preserved through ancient orality. This understanding aligns with the long, legitimate tradition of Kabbalah, which, far from being an ethnic exaltation, carries a trail of blood—a witness to the cost of preserving divine truth.



Symmetry: Judaism and Christian Faith Not Christianity






Elijah Zvi Soloveitchik (also known as Elias Soloweyczyk) was likely born in Slutzk, Russia, in 1805 and died in London in 1881. He was the grandson of Hayyim ben Isaac of Volozhin (1749–1821), the founder of the Volozhin Yeshiva in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. An early member of the Soloveitchik rabbinic dynasty, his lineage extends to the present, with a descendant currently serving as the president of Yale University.

Educated at the Volozhin Yeshiva, the most prestigious Jewish institute of higher learning in the nineteenth century, Soloveitchik was deeply immersed in classical Judaism. Comparisons between him and Jacob Emden (1697–1776) are reasonable, as both acknowledged the morality of Christianity and rejected the notion that Jesus came to abolish the law for Jews. However, the resemblance is superficial. Unlike Soloveitchik, Emden, though well-versed in the Gospels (which he frequently cited), never wrote extensively about them, nor did he go as far as Soloveitchik in arguing that Judaism and Jesus’ faith—better termed the Christian faith—were fundamentally indistinguishable.

Soloveitchik’s writings reveal a passionate, candid, and sincere thinker grappling with what he believed was a millennia-old misunderstanding between Judaism and Christianity. His work provides a rare glimpse into the mind of an Eastern European Jew confronting modernity, challenging long-standing Jewish assumptions about the supposed irreconcilability of the two faiths. He grants Christianity its historical and theological legitimacy, offering a perspective on Jesus of Nazareth untainted by the accretions of folk distortions and the controversies embedded in Talmudic polemics.
However, where Soloveitchik takes a Maimonidean turn, I must diverge. His attempt to reconcile Maimonides (Rambam) with the Litvak Perushim was met with criticism, particularly from within Lithuanian Jewry, though some Hasidic groups—most notably Chabad—embraced aspects of this approach. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, encouraged such studies within the remnants of Yiddish Judaism, seeking to revive a rigorous intellectual engagement with Maimonides’ thought.

Yet, Maimonides’ rationalist framework stands in stark contrast to the deeply mystical tradition of Kabbalah, which he explicitly rejected. His Guide for the Perplexed aligns more closely with classical theism, mirroring the Aristotelian logic later systematized in Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica for the Catholic Church. Just as Aquinas sought to create a symmetrical system based on Aristotle, Maimonides did the same within Judaism—an effort that, while intellectually formidable, ultimately distances itself from the organic, revelatory nature of biblical and rabbinic tradition. His metaphysical approach, akin to the analogia entis developed through Meister Eckhart, finds resonance in Western Scholasticism but remains incompatible with the inner workings of post-Second Temple Judaism.

This is where Soloveitchik, despite his rationalist leanings, inadvertently brings us back to a crucial safe haven: the New Testament text itself. While his commentary may at times feel earthy and unfamiliar, it opens a door to honest engagement with the words and mission of Jesus of Nazareth, free from centuries of polemical baggage.

The history of the twentieth century was not kind to Soloveitchik’s predictions. As a result, he and his work faded into obscurity—until now. His writings deserve renewed examination, not necessarily as a blueprint for merging Judaism and Christianity, but as a bold attempt to bend history toward coexistence and mutual understanding. He sought to dismantle the animosity and lingering hatred that have long divided the two faiths, yet ultimately, true reconciliation can only be found in the one name under which salvation is given: Jesus the Christ.





Noahide Conspiracy?

The Ben-Nuns, the Noahide Laws, and the Problem of Misrepresentation


The Noahide Laws are nothing to fear but to follow, as His disciples (Talmidim). Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of Judaism, providing both the desire and the power to follow the moral principles revealed through general revelation—principles ultimately framed by the absolute authority of the New Testament. This framing places the gospel on Mount Sinai rather than on Mount Zion, grounding it in the continuity of divine law rather than in eschatological or political speculation.


However, futurist sensationalism has clouded this understanding. The Ben-Nuns, Steve and Jana, claim that Noahide Laws are an ecumenical scheme leading to the Antichrist and the mechanism behind the decapitations described in the Apocalypse. Their view, heavily influenced by pre-tribulational dispensationalist presuppositions, misrepresents both Jewish tradition and historical reality. Instead of seeing Noahide principles as a moral foundation for Gentiles within God’s covenantal economy, they descend into a caricature where the Talmud becomes a fundamentalist tool for Jewish domination, portraying Christianity as standing under the impending judgment of what they call “Sharia, Jihadist Judaism.”


This perspective not only mischaracterizes Judaism but also exposes a deeper issue: the enduring hegemony of Zoharist-Maimonidean thought within contemporary Judaism—two elements that have fueled both ignorant rejection and nationalist distortion. Yet even among those who engage with these issues, such as Michael Brown and the Ben-Nuns, we see that a shared adversary often defines their disagreements. While the Ben-Nuns are explicitly anti-Zionist, Brown walks a finer line, maintaining his theological Zionism but distancing himself from extreme nationalist interpretations.


Dr. Michael Brown’s critique of the Ben-Nuns is particularly incisive. He rightfully questions their “authoritative” sources and exposes the disingenuous apologetics of figures like Tovia Singer and Political Zionist Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg—both of whom reinforce negative stereotypes of deception in Judaism. Chabad, as a prominent force within Messianic and Jewish missionary discourse, naturally becomes a focal point for critique, but the reality is that their views remain a minority within broader Jewish tradition. Unfortunately, both Brown and the Ben-Nuns miss the larger point: Jesus explicitly instructed his followers to obey the Pharisees, recognizing their authority in interpreting the Torah (Matthew 23:2-3), an instruction Paul also upheld in his own ministry.


The problem lies in the weaponization of the Talmud through selective proof-texting. Instead of understanding it as a vast repository of debate, commentary, and instruction—where multiple opinions serve as a means of learning—these critics extract negative pronouncements to support preconceived narratives. The Jewish axiom “two Jews, three opinions” reflects this reality, yet the Ben-Nuns are entrenched in a rigid framework that refuses to engage history honestly. Their approach does not seek to reconcile but to divide.


Furthermore, their refusal to acknowledge the qehal and edah structure—a two-tiered system that parallels “Jew & Greek, male & female” (Galatians 3:28)—prevents them from recognizing the unity of revelation. Instead of embracing the cultivated olive tree (Romans 11), they remain fixated on distorted political aspirations, whether driven by anti-Zionism or misdirected Messianic hopes. Christianity’s historical stain of hostility toward Judaism should make us more cautious, not less, in engaging with these issues.


Denying Hashem’s Name: A True Antisemitism

At its core, denying the Name of Hashem is actual antisemitism, for it rejects the divine revelation given to Israel. Loving all people, including Muslims and Arab Christians who also call upon Allah, reflects a proper theological understanding—yet Jana Ben-Nun’s rejection of this name signals an ethnically-driven replacement theology. Such are political Zionist orientations which the Ben-Nuns are fighting against, or anti-Zionist counterparts, obscure vital spiritual realities in favor of identity politics. I really do not understand them in this regard.


The Noahide Laws are not a modern invention but a term for an ancient concept—one recognized not only in rabbinic tradition but also by thinkers like Augustine and in Sura 42 of The Quran. Their purpose is not to impose Jewish domination but to function as a universal moral standard entrusted to those who bear God’s oracles (Romans 3:2). Sadly, the dominance of Zoharist-Maimonidean Judaism continues to cloud this understanding, and researchers like the Ben-Nuns still have much to rediscover.


Final Thoughts

The Ben-Nuns’ polemics are not merely misguided but actively harmful, reinforcing divisive narratives rather than fostering true dialogue. While they position themselves as exposing hidden dangers, their arguments lack historical grounding and fail to appreciate the deeper theological and ethical framework of Judaism. Rather than engaging in reactionary fear-mongering, we must return to the faith’s ancient foundations, recognizing that true discipleship means embracing the wisdom of those entrusted with the oracles of God—without succumbing to either nationalist distortions or apocalyptic paranoia.





👉 Full Presentation
👉 Maybe not Jews but JEWISH
👉 Judaism as Episcopy for Christians?



Missions to Jews

This is a clip from a recent dialog from Moshe Rosen’s “Jews for Jesus”, a group I supported over 40 years ago. Most ‘Jews for Jesus’ consider themselves Messianic ‘Jews’ or better former cultural ethnically lost sheep where Jesus was distorted or unknown.


Those who are sharing their faith in Jesus cast a wide net and are hopefully such good listeners as demonstrated here, but they must really stop calling themselves Jews in a religious sense. Granted, one must understand their lineage as ethnicity with the rejection and the trauma Christianity has caused on a collective cultural level that the individual ethnic cultural Jew rejects. 


Nevertheless, observant Jews also miss Yeshua Sar Haphanim found in their prayer books and would not equate Him with Jesus of Nazareth, but some do and yes “Those who speak don’t know. Those who know don’t speak” There is so much more to learn from each other as these recent dialogs with Orthodox Jews demostrate.  “In the beginning was the Name, HaShem, ὁ Λόγος.


👉 Orthodox Jews react to Messianics





👉  Framing The Gospel 



So how must one understand the current nation state of Israel? First, it is not a Jewish State, at least in a religious sense, yet by gene pool, or the framed cultural ethnic reality. Second, it is clear that Zechariah 9:6 may be the only verse that justifies 1948-1967. “A mamzer shall live in Ashdod (the coast lands).” The current borders are an occupation of a gene pool of people that have every right to the land and have perhaps a closer (as some genetic analysis show) tie to the Land.






Just more ‘theologies’ but Hopefully Aiding Some Old Time Religion Revival!



The Protestant Reformation ruptured a Sacramental Tapestry. Martin Luther raged (its time to resist HaSatan) against the Aristotelian hegemony of theology, but what comes around goes around. 

Rome’s Teologia Gloriae transfered to the Teologia Crucis. 

But Romanism struck back with the counter REFORMATION and the Baroque period, and it made for nice tourism in the Eternal City, where I served for 7 years. Being an eternal student as a pastor, not in exile, just having a great time with all my Roman Catholic friends; Priests and Nuns (who I could witness to all the time) and my congregation (who were baffeld) and some others while I studied at two Pontifical Universites, one of them turned me on to next classic… 

Thank You Don Bosco Social Communication Friends…

Federico Fellini’s Creepy Extravagant Roman Cat Walk


John Calvin contributed and perhaps tried to salvage Luther’s Theology of Glory as He starts off his Institutes after his preface to the King of France — the newer Calvinist ‘theo bros’ in the USA don’t seem to understand that old Calvinism is ultimately political and the reason Scotland, Holland, South Africa et al as Christian Nations do not exist anymore. 

Thus a legitimate concern for the doctrines of grace neglect, as his posit of our own self knowledge ‘being’ equal to our knowledge of God is a valid Epistemology:  big WORD for HOW DO we KNOW? 

Nevertheless, who am I argue with the TULIP where the ‘L’ was put into logic by John Owen.  Does such a formulation help me evangelize? That is the question, and only one that each of us can answer for ourselves.

At least it was a woman, Marilynne Robinson, whom I believe holistically interpreted as she calls him, Jean Cauvin,  the French Lawyer and in a more ample direction.  At least in the theologically divided North American context and other places (in a sense) when one says ‘Calvin’,  its becomes a fighting word for debate. Why is that?


Believing Atheists? - Jordan Peterson, Slavoj Zizek and Donald Trump


As a member of the MV Doulos (OM Ships) Training Department years ago and in training others for evangelism, I would use an illustration of how counterfeit money detectors acquired training to detect false bills. Of course, today, we have the technology for such tasks, but back then, the agent would live in a room with piles of real cash for an extended time where 'knowledge became intimate' because the agent knew the 'real thing.' An illustration that stresses the importance of knowing your bible, sound doctrine, and how to be out in the bye-ways of life and share your faith with others. 

In the rotten West, we have many ‘such voices’ talking about faith in God again after a very secular public square where ‘such voices’ were persona non gratia. First, I need not say anything more about ‘such voices’ as Orange Man Bad as his enemies claim. His stunt below during the riots after George Floyd is just that. However, I do not consider the man ‘a racist’ in definition, who knows what he really thinks? Perhaps this points to something sinister?

Clearly, much of what he says concerning the immigration flood is despicable. Thus, from his collective rhetoric, it is clear Trump communicates ‘cultural and national supremacy,’ a bankrupt stance and absolutely not the future, such hegemony from the corrupt West cannot and must NOT resurrect! Unless it serves the other.

Making a nation great in state involves the template of 1 Chron 7:14 that transfers from the individual to the collective:  “If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” 

(Update from the assassination attempt on 7/13, 2024) If there is any doubt and this is all not all a ‘Q’ show or inside operation, or ‘back to the future’ Operation Looking Glass as the preponderance of the evidence may suggest. Yes, he was allowed a ‘fist pump’ during an active shooting? A real security detail would have wisked him away, then again ‘who knows?’  From ‘anons to prophets,’ the Trump Show is just flat out creepy! Perhaps, Trump is no longer a practical atheist. For by ‘the twist of head,’ he continues on the world stage and the division and solidification of opinion continues. The Lord have mercy on us all and may we live in Peace! 




Second, Stalinist Atheist Slavoj Zizek continues as an enigma, yet he recently followed through with a new book: “Christian Atheism: How to Be a Real Materialist.”  I surmuse this work continues his most significant posit, i.e. ‘a critique of today's liberal atheists who don't understand religion.’ And as an ancillary, the logically progression into the dead end of the ‘Woke Left” which ironically Zizek misses as well. 


I will let him speak for himself, which is always entertaining or with provocations that cannot be taken seriously. Yet I will say such the ‘Woke Left’ would not have survived Stalin and perhaps Zizek would also have been sent to a gulag for reprogramming. Oh! and let me state a positive word for the former seminarian from the Georgian Republic of the former USSR, at least Stalin gave the Jews a homeland (the JAO) in the far east which is quite nice!



Finally, including the previous, my real 'beef' is with Jordan Peterson, yet not with his recent RC convert wife, thus I ask … "How can someone who has not 'officially' professed faith claim to speak on behalf of it?" So,  we have this recent interchange with Alex O'Connor that makes the point, plus in its aftermath he claims Peterson is an atheist, ‘takes one to know one!’ 


Moral conclusions and hidden pressuppostions aside, the Psychologist Peterson’s game of stepping back into the ‘Western Canon and the Bible reminds me of Robert Pirsig’s classic “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence”, a book I read while in Bible College, and for a paper that was supposed to help me use Philosophy in my Christian Faith. That was more than 30 years ago and I am happy to say, outside of logic everything else is straw or self satisfying posits, nevertheless, my process of jettisoning philosophical systems in light of the ‘Old Faith’ was quite simple, i.e. metaphysics or existentialism. The Latin Church father Tertullian said it best, what does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? Perhaps this was Peterson’s public confession? I don’t know. Yet I pray for all these “wise guys.”




The following is how A.B. Simpson founder 
of the Christian and Missionary Alliance

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)