The "Nicole Factor" Is Online

Welcome to the Nicole Factor at blogspot.com.
Powered By Blogger

The Nicole Factor

Search This Blog

Stage 32

My LinkedIn Profile

About Me

TwitThis

TwitThis

Twitter

Messianic Bible (As If the Bible Isn't)

My About.Me Page

Views

Facebook and Google Page

Reach Me On Facebook!

Talk To Me on Fold3!

Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts

Sunday, October 14, 2012

I've Covered This Before, But...

After updating my Facebook statuses and tweeting (and after a nasty, Anti-Semitic comment that was made by a Facebook friend's friend), I have to re-cover why Jews killed but did not murder Jesus. The distinction involves mens rea--that is, I have to show how Jews killed Jesus (no mens rea) & how gentiles murdered Jesus (mens rea).

The distinction is important because we Jews honestly thought that we were righteously administering the death penalty. Gentiles, on the other hand, knew that Jesus was innocent, riled up misguided Jews, murdered Him, and then blamed the Jews for murder.In other words, we had to kill our Passover sacrifice whereas gentiles knowingly participated in the murder of a Just Man.The problem for Jews is when we knowingly & blatantly flout our Passover sacrifice. Most--e.g., Paul--did and do not intentionally do this. In fact, Paul writes down that he did what he did in ignorance (cf. 1 Timothy 1:12-17), whereas Pilate even washed his hands of the Blood.

To begin, I quote the Anti-Semitic comment:

Nicolaas Prinsloo · Friends with [a friend]
I believe the jews our actually jews but I'm also reminded that it is the jews who crucified our Lord and for years these jews have been making up propaganda (beliar)... 
I believe in the tribes of Israel... History repeats itself!


What Nicholas meant by "crucified" is "murdered"--and Nicholas is absolutely wrong. "Kill" is different from "murder". I don't mind saying that Yeshua had to die for my sin because: 1) Not that He actually had to, but He chose to. 2) Who else could die for me sin but me or G-d? 3) The Lamb had to be killed--you just don't have a Passover sacrifice to partake of without a Lamb being killed. What the Romans meant by "kill", though, as you pointed out, was murder--which, as you also pointed out, we didn't do. The Romans murdered Jesus and deliberately perverted "murder" into "kill". 

The Romans were just as sneaky as Pilate--they knew that Jesus was innocent. "When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”" (Matthew 27:24) Pilate deliberately riled up a misguided crowd then blamed them for murder.


Even the Talmud, meanwhile, admits that we killed Jesus, that we saw to Jesus' death--it does not say that we murdered him. Why? Because we thought that we were fulfilling the mitzvot to kill a bad guy--e.g., Deuteronomy 13. Actually, the Talmud states, "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].'" (Sanhedrin 43a) We were blinded by the Veil of Moses (which was supposed to take effect like that) and the Talmud. So, we had no mens rea.

But we do have His blood on our hands, but in a way to cover us--not to hold us guilty for murder. "And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”" (Matthew 27:25) We were misguidedly saying, "Look; we don't mind that we killed a guy for apostasy"--we honestly thought that we were doing righteousness and earning merit with G-d. So, that's why the Scriptures say: " eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:7-11). So, we're in trouble if we flout our Passover sacrifice if and once we know better; the gentiles are in trouble for murder--and how'd you like to have answer for murder if you didn't admit that you're guilty of it? By the same token, what benefit do you get out of flouting your Passover sacrifice?

Paul even writes down that, like many fellow Jews, he didn't know better and honestly thought that he was doing right (cf., as aforementioned, 1 Timothy 1:12-17) It's a paradox--we aren't guilty of murder, but we're guilty of being ignorant if we've heard that Yeshua was our Passover sacrifice and we flout that, anyway (cf., e.g., Romans 10:2:3-4, 14-21).



In conclusion, when gentiles (and even fellow Jews) state that "The Jews killed [viz. "murdered"] Jesus!", we need to say that, "Of course, we killed our Passover sacrifice--how absurd is that the Romans blame us for murder when sacrificing a lamb is not murdering it?" After all, Yeshua stated, "“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”" (Luke 23:24)

By the way, this puts Pilate in a different light, doesn't it? Think about why Pilate really wanted to release Yeshua to the Jews:


13 Then Pilate, when he had called together the chief priests, the rulers, and the people, 14 said to them, “You have brought this Man to me, as one who misleads the people. And indeed, having examined Him in your presence, I have found no fault in this Man concerning those things of which you accuse Him; 15 no, neither did Herod, for I sent you back to him;[c] and indeed nothing deserving of death has been done by Him. 16 I will therefore chastise Him and release Him” 17 (for it was necessary for him to release one to them at the feast).[d]
18 And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”— 19 who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.
20 Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. 21 But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”
22 Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.”
23 But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed.[e] 24 So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. 25 And he released to them[f] the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.



He wanted them to eventually murder Yeshua and be blamed for murder--he wanted to look innocent and not release Yeshua right away. He had even been warned. Also by the way, the envy of the Jews was an inadvertent sin--and what does one do for inadvertent sin? He or she offers a sacrifice and/or flees to a city of refuge.

Flee to the Passover Sacrifice and High Priest who is Yeshua, and into the fold of the New Jerusalem. 


Sunday, July 15, 2012

When You Hang Around Jose Baez...

Your brain cells have to go down a bit--or perhaps take a break. Either way, I don't know how Geraldo Rivera could and did form a friendship with Jose Baez, and I don't know how Jose Baez sleeps at night--I couldn't sleep after sneaking an extra shot of Irish Cream for my coffee on Friday (I was up at 7:00 on Saturday confessing to my mom, and I just got the cold on Friday--I needed the sleep, but I couldn't sleep.). How does Jose Baez sleep knowing that Casey Anthony is a murderer who was not sexually abused by her dad?

If nothing else, doesn't he know how Johnnie Cochran died? How much more will a man who was complicit in infanticide die a terrible and horrible death? I couldn't sleep just knowing that brain cancer would be the least of my problems. Also, how does Jose Baez sleep knowing that a man who was complicit in pedophilia--Joe Paterno--just died of cancer? As I asked, how much more will a man who was complicit in infanticide die a terrible and horrible death--though pedophilia and infanticide are almost equally (if not as equally) horrible? 


The difference with pedophilia and infanticide is this: the pedophilia victim wishes that he or she is dead, or may even end up dead (whether, such as in the cases of JonBenet Ramsey and Jessica Lunsford, the pedophilia is accompanied with infanticide; or the pedophilia affects the suicide of the victim); whereas the infanticide victim (assuming that he or she does not have pedophilia with which to also deal) is dead.


On that note, what is Jose Baez's claim that Casey Anthony is a victim of pedophilia going to do to real pedophilia victims? For instance, the claim will affect real pedophilia victims to not come forward for dread that they will not be believed or at least stood up for--case in point, Joe Paterno did not stand up for Jerry Sandusky's victims; so one can imagine how a false claim of pedophilia made by an acquitted murderer's attorney will affect other pedophilia victims to be disbelieved and left unspoken for.


In conclusion, I--feeling guilty for even taking an extra shot of Irish Cream and being unable to sleep--cannot imagine how Jose Baez--a man who represented and helped acquit a murderer by claiming that she she was molested as a child, and who will affect real victims of pedophilia to not come forward--sleeps at night. I also cannot imagine how he sleeps at night with a more horrible death than the deaths of Johnnie Cochran and Joe Paterno hanging over his head.


I also can't imagine how and why Geraldo Rivera could and did form a friendship with Jose Baez.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Repost: "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues


The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:


Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.
She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."
Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.
Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.


Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?



Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.
"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.
He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."
The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.


Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

"Pennsylvania v. Sandusky" and Credibility Issues

The credibility issues lie with the Sandusky family (e.g., Jerry and Dottie Sandusky), the defense team, and others on the Sandusky side. Firstly, Dottie Sandusky is doing what abusers and deniers of abuse commonly do: try to turn the issue of credibility on the victim and lie about what happened. For example:


Part of the defense strategy is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong, but Dottie Sandusky was unable to say with much precision how often certain boys would stay in the couple's State College home. She said one of the boys, called Victim 10 in court records, she did not know at all.
She described Victim 1 as "clingy," Victim 9 as "a charmer" and Victim 4 as "very conniving, and he wanted his way and he didn't listen a whole lot."
Victim 9 testified last week that he was attacked by Jerry Sandusky in the basement of the ex-coach's home and cried out for help when Dottie Sandusky was upstairs. She, however, said the basement was not soundproof and she would have been able to hear shouting if she was upstairs.
Dottie Sandusky, who isn't charged in the case, also said the visiting boys were free to sleep upstairs if they wanted to. The accusers have said Jerry Sandusky directed them to the basement, where they allege he sometimes molested them.


Secondly, the defense team is trying "is clearly to show that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". The defense first stated that the abuse victims had a financial motive and were outright liars, but now they're acknowledging that something did happen--although they're saying "that the details of accusers' stories are wrong". Thirdly, why would Dottie Sandusky smile about a matter like this? In whichever way the case ends up going, Dottie Sandusky has and should have no reason to smile. Fourthly, would you blame the victims for saying things like the following, if they really did even say what they are alleged to have said?



Witness Joshua Frabel, who lived next door to Victim 1, recalled that the young man's mother said she had just heard Sandusky molested her child and that she would end up owning Sandusky's house.
"She had said about, when all this settles out, she'll have a nice big house in the country with a fence, and the dogs can run free," he said.
He added that Victim 1 told him: "When this is over, I'll have a nice new Jeep."
The mother took the witness stand to deny it, and Victim 1 denied it last week during his testimony.


Jerry and Dottie Sandusky owe their lives to those victims, and the victims were nice enough to not bring a class-action civil suit in addition to bringing criminal complaints against them. Too bad that "Kennedy v. Lousiana" (2008) overturned the death penalty for convicted pedophiles. Fifthly, and in conclusion, the defense went really low to use a brain-damaged Iraq War veteran for sympathy--and using someone who didn't directly know Victim Four and who is cognitively and otherwise cerebrally damaged is not a smart move, anyway; since she may not even be able to understand what is really at stake in "Pennsylvania v. Sandusky". 

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

George Zimmerman Is In Jail Awaiting Trial...

Can we, as Trayvon's parents and others want, just let the justice system play out now? As others have pointed out, this isn't Florida v. Anthony (2011). In Florida v. Anthony, there was a mother-- Casey Marie Anthony-- who clearly murdered her own then-2-year-old daughter, Caylee; tampered with and let the elements otherwise destroy Caylee's body, and otherwise hindered the investigation into Caylee's death; and left Caylee's death reported for 30-31 days while she went out and remorselessly partied to celebrate her self-created childless life.

In Florida v. Zimmerman (which may also become United States v. Zimmerman); there is either a deceitful and racist murderer, a mentally-ill or otherwise mentally-afflicted man who snapped or otherwise acted in an irrational and uncontrolled way, or an assaulted-and-battered neighborhood watchman who was defending himself and/or his community with the "Stand Your Ground" Law. For whatever reason (which may well be the second possibility, and thus may have helped to mitigate the circumstances and charges), Special Prosecutor Angela Corey charged George Zimmerman with second-degree-- not first-degree-- murder; although to be fair (as Judge Alex Ferrer explained on "The O'Reilly Factor"), certain kinds of evil or malicious intent in Florida can get one charged with second-degree murder as opposed to manslaughter, and as opposed to first-degree murder on the other end of the homicide spectrum in Florida v. Zimmerman

Friday, February 10, 2012

So, I'm Focusing On Some Indirect Relatives' Branches, But...

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to see more direct relatives be more found out about (I've had some, but relatively-little, luck or blessing over the past couple of days, and only one instance regarding Dad's side-- as far as I recall.). Meanwhile, speaking of blessings, I have a question for G-d: where's the blessing of karma for Ginny Cha and against Tiki and scheduled-to-be Traci Lynn Johnson Barber? By the way, shouldn't Ginny Cha have justice in her favor? After all:

Ginny Cha is worse off than a widow in many respects. Her husband, who karma (vengeance) has yet to hit, is still with his mistress while Ginny Cha was left with two on-the-way, and is now left with two newborn, girls and two young boys to raise-- and her husband refuses to pay for his affair and divorce.

Meanwhile, karma has yet to hit some of my own relatives-- including my dad who left my worse off than a widow in many respects as well--, but that's another discussion. Meanwhile, I sometimes wonder (like in the case of Tiki Barber) how long until this will be fulfilled in favor of those like Ginny Cha. I mean, sometimes I wonder, is G-d (so to speak) f___ing with us?

And He answered:
“Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant,
The houses are without a man,
The land is utterly desolate,
12 The Lord has removed men far away,
And the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.
13 But yet a tenth will be in it,
And will return and be for consuming,
As a terebinth tree or as an oak,
Whose stump remains when it is cut down.
So the holy seed shall be its stump.”"
How I look forward to the End of Days! 





Monday, February 6, 2012

The Gentiles Had Mens Rea; We Jews Just Have To Accept That We Got Caught Up


"Romans 2:5-10
New King James Version (NKJV)
5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who "will render to each one according to his deeds":[a] 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek."


Jesus is being pretty nice-- he knows that we Jews had no mens rea (cf. Luke 23:34) and that our evil was quite inadvertent (cf. Genesis 50:20)-- we still got caught up in the emotion and hype that Pilate and the gentiles (as well as the Sanhedrin in cahoots with Pilate). Yet, all we have to do is accept that we sacrificed Pischeinu (cf. 1 Cor 5:7).

At First, I'm Mad About How People Lie About Me, Then....


anna monka trudnak
4
nicolefactor antisemitism
4
joseph trudniak
1
nickidewbear crazy jewish convert
1
nicolefactor jews wicked
1



I have to remember how the Bible says that I will be persecuted. I never have ever said that Jews are wicked. Being a Jew, I Scripturally supported how Modern Judaism is indeed wicked. I have also openly condemned Catholics such as E. Michael Jones who have hutzpah to speak on Modern Judaism when they have no authority to do so whatsoever. I also condemn the actions of the Pablo Christianis and Nicolas Donins who, by their actions, miss the opportunity to share their faith-- they instead turn fellow Jews off from the faith. If they want to burn their own copies of Talmud Bavli, they are more than welcome to do so -- Talmud Bavli is full of wickedness such as Kabbalah. But to burn others' copies instead of using them to witness is unacceptable.

After all, Brit Chadashah specifically states:


 And there will be great earthquakes in various places, and famines and pestilences; and there will be fearful sights and great signs from heaven. 12 But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons. You will be brought before kings and rulers for My name’s sake. 13 But it will turn out for you as an occasion for testimony.


I have to take persecution as, so to speak, a badge of honor or even a kind of yellow star. Many Anti Semites and spiritual kapos (Antimissionaries) who want to destroy Messianic Jews and Messianic Judaism are about:



“For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy,
Now I will arise,” says the Lord;
“I will set him in the safety for which he yearns.”
The words of the Lord are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
You shall keep them, O Lord,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever.
The wicked prowl on every side,


33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.


By the way, Matthew 23:33-35 is specifically talking about Antimissionary P'rushim and soferim in Yamim-Yeshua as well as all Antimissionary P'rushim and soferim who will follow them. Yeshua is very kind to Jews who do not know ha'emet:


32 There were also two others, criminals, led with Him to be put to death. 33 And when they had come to the place called Calvary, there they crucified Him, and the criminals, one on the right hand and the other on the left. 34 Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do.”


What the Church won't tell you, by the way, is that the Jews didn't know what we were doing; while Pilate and the gentiles did, did what they did, anyway; and tried to cover their tuchuses. Pilate particularly wanted to make trouble for a crowd who was very confused and emotional:



15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.
19 While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, “Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.”
20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor answered and said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?”
They said, “Barabbas!”
22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”
They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”
23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”
But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”
24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person.You see to it.
25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

Pilate didn't really believe in the innocence of Yeshua or he would've never washed his hands "of the blood" and "delivered Him to be crucified."