The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.

Google+ Badge

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

My Photo
My blog is "The Nicole Factor" on Blogspot, my Facebook page "Nicole Czarnecki aka Nickidewbear", and YouTube and Twitter accounts "Nickidewbear."

Nickidewbear on YouTube

Loading...

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

There was an error in this gadget

Search This Blog

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label Talmud_Bavli. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Talmud_Bavli. Show all posts

Saturday, January 9, 2016

Re Rabbi Binyomin Jacobs' Intolerance of Tolerance Of Christianity

Does the rabbi know history and his own halakhah? To most talmidim b'halakhah harabanim, "To Do the Will of Our Father in Heaven" is a perfectly-fine statement—after all, Christianity is not considered avodah zarah for goyim, and is in fact considered a legitimate form of Noahidism.

As far as for Jewish Christians like myself, we should be fine if we don't proselytize; and we're still Jews "even if [we, as rabbis like Rabbi Jacobs assume that we,] sin"—and as Ya'akov and Lavan stated regarding their own case, יהוה will judge between us and those like this rabbi. Even Gamali'el—despite the bubbe meise that he became a Christian—was tolerant of Christians and figured that we'd eventually "come to nothing" if יהוה wasn't willed of God in some way.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

Even If Nobody Else Is Saying This...

Quite honestly, I wonder if it didn't have to do in part with the Haredi constituency in New York City that follows Yevamot 62b. Sure, this Vietnamese couple made their argument; nonetheless, was someone also trying to appease the Haredim?

"Our Rabbis taught: Concerning a man who loves his wife as himself, who honours her more than himself, who guides his sons and daughters in the right path and arranges for them to be married near the period of their puberty, Scripture says, And thou shalt know that thy tent is in peace.49  Concerning him who loves his neighbours, who befriends his relatives, marries his sister's50  daughter,"

Incidentally enough, I had no clue that it was that specific. I just knew about the reference. Anyway, don't kid yourself; the Haredim have a very-strong presence in New York City (e.g., Williamsburg, Crown Heights). By the way, the decision reads in part:

There is no comparably strong objection to uncle-niece marriages. Indeed, until 1893 marriages between uncle and niece or aunt and nephew, of the whole or half blood, were lawful in New York. And sixty years after the prohibition was enacted we affirmed, in May, a judgment recognizing as valid a marriage between a half-uncle and half-niece that was entered into in Rhode Island and permitted by Rhode Island law. It seems from the Appellate Division’s reasoning in May that the result would have been the same even if a full uncle and full niece had been involved. Thus Domestic Relations Law § 5(3) has not been viewed as expressing strong condemnation of uncle-niece and aunt-nephew relationships.

I wonder, too, if that's why some Haredim immigrated to New York. They may not have been literate in haleshonot l'goyim, though they still knew what was going on. Remember that back in Krasne nad Krasnopol, Wojciech and Marianna Krusznyska Danilowicz were smart enough to claim negligence in baptizing Katarzyna—by the way, Jews did use and even adopt shemot hagoyim; though I'm not sure if we'll ever know the real names of "Katarzyna" et. al.. "Marianna" is probably the one real name, though, since that's "Miryam Chanah".

As for their cousin Rochla (and I'm definitely not fooled in light of this, since Aleksandria listed Katarzyna as her in-law mother and nearest relative, even though they were not talking to each other after Julian and Aleksandra became Anusim), she came to New York with enough English literacy (or maybe she talked to a customs official who could speak Yiddish) to get into New York (Her aunt had to pick her up; so, who knows?).

By the way, all of Great-Granddad's families stuck together in Northumberland County, PA, too (Look it up. If you're too, quite honestly, lazy to do it, I'll give you the names and links to searches for "Czarnecki", etc.; "Danilowicz", etc.; "Andrulewicz". etc.; and "Margiewicz", etc.. Otherwise, you're on your own from there. I've proved myself enough—and I don't need that "Both sets of parents?" argument again, since Alexandria gave her parents' name as "Antoni" and "Katarzyna" as well. As far as I know, that neither is my fault nor was the fault of Great-Grandaunt Alice. I didn't even know that Great-Granddad's parents were here—let alone Crypto Jews who escaped the pogroms—until I was close to 20 years old, and she was simply writing what her mother told her to write. So, I wouldn't even be counted in an Israeli Census before then, and she was a bat chayil.

Anyway, back to my point (since I just needed to say all that in case I would get the "That's not enough evidence," "That's coincidence," etc. arguments): since Haredim are (as I must mention, in case one didn't know that Haredim are) very much a constituency in New York City (and, thus, New York State) and knew enough to immigrate to the "treif medina", could they somehow have played into "Nguyen v. Holder" (2014), even if quietly? After all, I perhaps would darned well consider that if I were a Second Circuit Court judge—especially if I wanted to get reappointed, and even someday appointed to the Supreme Court (As is known, elective politics plays even into appointive politics.).

Let's not be fooled: if (and since) Katarzyna's parents could (so to speak) pull strings to be under-the-radar Anusim, and Rochla knew enough to get into New York, the Haredim could and do know enough to (at least if they wanted) play into a gentile case that has implications for Haredi Jewish tradition.

Let me conclude one incidental observation as well: "Antoni" and "Katarzyna" seem to be to Poland as "Juan" and "Maria" are to Mexico.

Monday, October 13, 2014

The Talmud Confirms HaB'rit Chadashah, And Not How You Think

Forget the argument about the cord in the Temple not turning white. That argument is as hackneyed as how Yeshayahu 53 talks about Mashiach. If I'm going to argue for the Talmud confirming HaB'rit Chadashah, I could at least look at Yeshayahu 53 from a different angle, and I could use that to talk about how other Talmud passages confirm HaB'rit Chadashah.

As such, this is how I was able to do it recently (Some of these arguments, such as the "On the Eve of Passover" argument, have been used before. If they haven't, then הכבוד של יהוה, לא לי.): 

          • Avatar
            Are you a believing Jew?
            If so I have a respectful question about your religion.
              • Avatar
                Absolutely.
                  • Avatar
                    Ma'am, who will the Messiah be?
                    God incarnate?
                    An angel?
                    Or does God have a Son waiting to be robed in flesh?
                    Or a man approved by God?
                    I'm assuming you believe in one God.
                    Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.
                      • Avatar
                        1, 2, and 4. Keep in mind that "echad" means "united" or "unity", whereas "yachid" is "sole", etc.. This is why Maimonides added "yachid" in "Yigdal"—to get around "echad".
                        "It is one of many poetical renderings of Maimonides’ 13 Principles, popular because of the clarity of its language and its easy rhythm and rhyme." (Rabbi Raymond Apple)
                        Also look at Tehillim 112:1-4. Only Adonai's righteousness endures forever. As well, Adonai is the only Moshiach (Savior, Redeemer) per Yeshayahu 45:22-25.
                          • Avatar
                            So then....God is the Spirit and the body of flesh, the Son? But not two Gods
                              • Avatar
                                Yes, in the Manifestation of the Son. Eloheinu Echad is Ha'Av (The Father), Ha'Ru'ach HaKodesh (the Spirit), and HaBen (the Son. cf. Tehillim 112:1-4 and Yeshayahu 53. e.g. per Yeshayahu, "He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried; whereas we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted". With Yeshayahu 53:4, this hearkens back to Yeshayahu 45:22-25. e.g., "Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. 23 By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. 24 Only in the LORD, shall one say of Me, is victory and strength; even to Him shall men come in confusion, all they that were incensed against Him. 25 In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.")
                                In the Talmud, there is proof that the Son "was despised, and we esteemed him not" and "we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted". In Gittin 57a,
                                "He then went and raised by incantations the sinners of Israel.3 "
                                As if we didn't despise Yeshua enough by calling Him one among "the sinners of Israel", we indeed "esteem Him stricken", etc. in the worst of ways:
                                "AND A HERALD PRECEDES HIM etc. This implies, only immediately before [the execution], but not previous thereto.33 [In contradiction to this] it was taught: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu34 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!35 — Ulla retorted: 'Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith [enticer], concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him?36 With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government [or royalty, i.e., influential].'
                                "Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God?37 Thereupon they retorted; Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish.38 "
                                This confirms that the accusations of driving out demons by Ba'alzevuv were made, that Yeshua's crucifixion did take place on Erev Pesach, and that He had a talmid named Matityahu.
                                The problem isn't that we misunderstood D'varim 13 and applied to Yeshua; the problem is that there were and are those of us who willfully continued to apply D'varim 13 to Yeshua after the fact.
                                "24 Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub,[f] the ruler of the demons.”
                                25 But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
                                The Unpardonable Sin
                                31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."


                One can't just use one argument and then "Bam!".

                On another note, I will (עי'ה) be doing a contrasting video on YouTube—"White Bread Christianity"—in the morning or the afternoon (We'll see with Reilly and all.).

                חול המועד סוכות ולילה טוב.

                PS Powerpoint 2003 is a great little tool for graphics.