Interesting quote:
“Changing the זִמְנִין and דָת
The time delimited by the 3½ “עִדָנִין” has been in the hands of the “קֶרֶן זְעֵירָה” that “בְּלָא [the kindred who make] sanctifications to the Supreme” and “change[d] the זִמְנִין and דָת” (7.25)—from 70 C.E. (9.26) through Constantine the Great until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the recapture of Yәru•shâ•la′ yim in 1967 and the re-emergence of the Nәtzâr•im′ in 1984 (7.25 & 12.7). This “קֶרֶן זְעֵירָה” was Bishop Narcissus and Christianity. Thus, this period of 3½ “עִדָנִין” = either 1878 years (from 70 C.E. to 1948) or 1914 years (70 C.E. to 1984)!!! This will be the most important key in unlocking Ja•vәr•i•eil‘s Code.
It is not only Christianity that has “change[d] the זִמְנִין and דָת.” When Ha•lâkh•âh′ was given on Har Sin•ai′ , Rosh ha-Shân•âh′ began on the 1st of Firstmonth, just two weeks before Pës′ akh; Yom Tәru•âh′ is in the Biblical Seventhmonth. Today, Firstmonth on the Judaic calendar corresponds to the Babylonian month of Nisan, exactly 6 months (on the Judaic calendar)—diametrically—opposite to the modern Rosh ha-Shân•âh′ . The modern theme of Rosh ha-Shân•âh′ has overshadowed the Biblically-ordained Yom Tәru•âh′ , which, along with Yom ha-Ki•pur′ , is stipulated in Ta•na”kh′ to be celebrated in the Seventhmonth—not the beginning of the year.
Even the modern names of months on the Judaic calendar are of Babylonian origin—adapted from the Babylonian (Iraqi) pagans in direct contravention of Tor•âh′ , which forbids adopting any of the pagan ways (Dәvâr•im′ 12.30-31; 18.9; 20.18). Just as the names of the days of the week in Hebrew are Firstday, Secondday … Sixthday (and Shab•ât′ ), the proper names of the Judaic months are Firstmonth, Secondmonth … Twelfthmonth (and, occasionally, a Leapmonth). This is how they are generally found in the Ta•na”kh′ (except where subsequent redactions reflect the influence of the Babylonian Exile).
Another example of “change[s in] the זִמְנִין and דָת.” manifests itself in the wearing of tzitz•iy•ot′ and tәphil•in′ . In Biblical times, these were worn by adult males of Israel at all times, just as one today wears pants and shirt. Only as a result of rationalizing constraints imposed upon the Jew by goy•im′ , especially Christians persecutions, did Jewish religious leaders “naturalize” the changed practices, ascribing a Jewish meaning to them. Eliminating the pәtil′ tәkheil′ ët from the tzitz•iy•ot′ and the A•sër′ ët ha-Di•bәr•ot′ from the head box of the tәphil•in′ , as well as limiting the wearing of tәphil•in′ to prayer resulted from this process.
In Ta•na”kh′ , the male Tor•âh′ -observer is commanded to include a pәtil′ tәkheil′ ët in their tzitz•iy•ot′ —bә-Mi•dәbar′ 15.38.
Tal•mud′ describes pәtil′ tәkheil′ ët in several contradictory ways and indicates that the dye was made from one of several conflicting types of marine snails or cuttlefish. The rabbis rationalized that, since the exact shade is not definite, the thread should not be dyed at all—contradicting the Biblical admonition to do one’s utmost. Moreover, archaeology has revealed with the certainty of chemical analysis that the Jews of Bar-Kokh′ vâ’s army, under the rabbinic authority of Rabbi A•qi′ vâ (of considerable rabbinic authority!!!), used ordinary indigo—from the indigo plant—to dye their tzitz•iy•ot′ . Apparently, as is often the case today and in other societies, the richer folks can afford one thing while ordinary folks make do with something less expensive, yet still satisfies the Tor•âh′ ‘s requirement to do one’s utmost.
Two schools of archeologists have recently identified, and two schools of rabbis have certified, two different proper sources of the “kosher” dye: the Murex trunculus snail and Mediterranean cuttlefish, respectively. There is no longer any excuse for transgressing this mi•tzәw•âh′ .
This demonstrates that the rabbis aren’t always perfect either. Contrary to the radical extremist idolization among many of their Ultra-Orthodox Jewish followers, rabbis are fallible men. Obeying the rabbis is distinct from, occasionally even contradictory to, obeying Tor•âh′ (see, inter alia, Shәm•ot′ 23.2). Ta•na”kh′ sets forth the authority under which the rabbis interpret Tor•âh′ and deliberate mi•shәpât′ ; but forbids their legislation of new law (inter alia Dәvâr•im′ 13.1). The overriding authority for determining mi•shәpât′ , which constitutes valid Ha•lâkh•âh′ , is the perfect law of the Creator—logic. When the rabbis (or anyone else) conflicts with logic, logic has the overriding authority.
As an additional note for the Christian reader Ribi Yәho•shu′ a specifically confirmed this rabbinic (Pharisee) authority to determine Ha•lâkh•âh′ , and specifically commanded his followers to obey the rabbis (Pharisees) and be like them, while being very careful (i.e. by exercising meticulous logic) not to mimic some of their hypocritical ways (The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 23.1-3).
The observance of a second Yom Tәru•âh′ in Seventhmonth (Babylonian month of Tishrei) is another example of the rabbis straying from the original path. The reader can see that already the described strayings from Tor•âh′ have been extensive enough—even within rabbinic Judaism—that even the terminology used requires explanation. The tradition of observing a second day derives from the early method of signalling the beginning of the new month from Yәru•shâ•la′ yim to the outlying villages and diaspora via the lighting of fires on mountaintops when the new moon was seen by three witnesses in Yәru•shâ•la′ yim. The Samaritans had a different tradition and they would light their own signal fires on different nights, confusing Jews in the outlying areas. Thus, Jews in the diaspora weren’t sure which night was the new moon—so they had to observe both possible days. This custom has persisted in the diaspora even though the cause has disappeared, with reliable calendars, astronomical calculations and clocks. When the need to observe both days disappeared, the observance of both days became an addition to Tor•âh′ , prohibited by Tor•âh′ (Dәvâr•im′ 13.1).
Another tradition regarding Yom Tәru•âh′ appears to be based upon another rabbinic divergence from Biblical teaching. Ta•na”kh′ commands that the sho•phâr′ be blown on Yom Tәru•âh′ . No exceptions are given. The rabbis “reasoned” that a sho•phâr′ should not be carried on Shab•ât′ , a dubious interpretation in itself, and, therefore (non sequitur), as a fence, the sho•phâr′ should not be blown on Shab•ât′ . (Now why the sho•phâr′ couldn’t be placed where it was needed prior to Shab•ât′ , when tal•it′ , si•dur•im′ and other similar needs are, remains a mystery; but that is beside the point.) Within certain limits (within an Ei•ruv′ ), carrying Tor•âh′ is not regarded as a violation of carrying on Shab•ât′ ; neither is carrying a Ta•na”kh′ , nor one’s tal•it′ , nor a si•dur′ . When used to satisfy a commandment of Tor•âh′ the sho•phâr′ is no less a holy instrument and is not a violation of the prohibition against carrying, particularly within the rabbinic fiction of an Ei•ruv′ .
The rabbis have decreed (by consensus—see Shәm•ot′ 23.2) that a custom, when persisting for an undefined time (a generation or two), attains the authority of Ha•lâkh•âh′ and becomes binding as an integral part of Judaism. This, not logic, is how many of the traditions—strayings from Tor•âh′ —came to be recognized by the rabbis as “Ha•lâkh•âh′ .” This notion is responsible for idolatry within Judaism in some ultra-orthodox circles in which the “rebbe” is idolized, despite heated denials, by their followers who cannot dare ot question his decisions. Followers of some of these “rebbes” have idols of those “rebbes” which they hang from their rear-view mirrors for good luck charms, have in their homes, etc. This is no less idolatry than Christian idolatry and the justification is near-verbatim identical to Christian justification. Via this “halakhizing” of persisting customs ordinary superstitions have, and continue to become an integral part of modern Judaism. The Ër′ ëv Shab•ât′ Beit ha-Kәnës′ ët services are so permeated with medieval superstition—xQabalah—that only vestiges of Biblical Judaism remain in this particular service.
Although there is the occasional reference in Tal•mud′ to some Jewish man wearing a head covering it can clearly be seen that, except for the Ko•han•im′ , this was atypical and not the customary practice among Jewish men. All archaeological evidence of drawings of Jews in Biblical times depicts Jewish men as bearded and bare-headed. The yarmulke,” or kip•âh′ ) is another change in the law within modern Judaism which stems from the evolving head covering imposed by Christians upon Jewish men to set Jews apart in the middle ages. Originally, i.e. the origin of the kip•âh′ is, these were dunce caps. They eventually evolved into less conspicuous headgear and finally were “halakhized” by the rabbis who attributed Jewish meaning to them (reverence for י--ה).
Polygyny was practiced by the patriarchs. According to authentic Ha•lâkh•âh′ (but contrary to most Orthodox rabbis), polygyny is still as acceptable as monogyny. Monogyny was imposed on Jews by Christianity—who continue trying to impose it on others. (The worst part is the perverted logic used by their arguments, fabricating straw men by blaming polygyny for such evils as child abuse, spouse abuse, incest and the like. These evils happen in monogynous marriages too. But no reasonable person argues that they are caused by monogynous marriage. Meanwhile, Christianity and apostate Jews approve homosexuality. They are perverted!) Only afterward the rabbis “halakhized” monogyny as the only acceptable Jewish practice. Polygyny was never “the” only acceptable practice in Judaism. Neither was monogyny. According to Tor•âh′ , neither was imposed and both were acceptable. Unlike clerics, י--ה doesn’t change.
The Tor•âh′ of Har Sin•ai′ was Divinely endorsed by the Visible Presence of the Shәkhin•âh′ . The straying from this Tor•âh′ described above was the cause of the Holocaust—Ya•a•qov′ ‘s Trouble, (Yi•rәmәyâh′ u 30.7). Warnings were clearly spelled out in Dәvâr•im′ 26.16—30.20. Why י--ה permitted the Holocaust is not a mystery. This is not an exhaustive treatment of the “change[s in] the זִמְנִין and דָת,” but they suffice to show that neither Christian nor Jew (much less Muslim) is fit to cast the first stone, that even the most pious of religious Jews has been affected by the “change[s in] the זִמְנִין and דָת” and stands in need of tәshuv•âh′ to the authentic Ha•lâkh•âh′ of Har Sin•ai′ endorsed by the Shәkhin•âh′ .
In Dân•i•eil′ 9.26 we read that “After the 62 weeks, the Mâ•shi′ akh יִכָּרֵת and he won’t have [followers], and the kindred of a noble who will come יַשְחִית the city [Yәru•shâ•la′ yim] and the Qo′ dësh.”
Interestingly, Dân•i•eil′ prophesied that the Hellenist Roman occupier would “יַשְחִית” the qâ•dosh′ “—stipulating that the Hellenist Roman occupier would render Yәru•shâ•la′ yim and Har ha-Bay′ it no longer qâ•dosh′ . This cannot be surprising since only the Presence of the Kâ•vod′ (viz., Shәkhin•âh′ ) made these qâ•dosh′ in the first place. With the exit of the kâ•vod′ from the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ hâ-Rish•on′ (Yәkhëz•qeil′ 10.4; 11.23), which never entered the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ ha-Shein•i′ (Ma•sëk′ ët Yom•â′ 21b; Artscroll Yechezkel, p. 691), the Hellenist Roman occupier “שִחֵת the qâ•dosh′ ” of Yәru•shâ•la′ yim and Har ha-Bay′ it! They have never since been qâ•dosh′ !!! Thus, the rabbinic prohibition of the area trampled for two millennia—and still שִחֵת today—by gentiles is a superstition promulgated by ignorant fools who have alienated 90% of the world’s Jews from Tor•âh′ .
No serious reader can deny that the “kindred” described in this passage is the Romans and, below, we positively identify this Roman “king.” However, we must defer identifying this particular “noble” until all of the other information is examined and analyzed. Suffice for now to point out that (..)”
[Quote: 1993 Covenant]