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. 

Bible Literalism

To begin, not everything in the Bible is literal--some things (such as creationism, the Flood, the burning bush, and the Exodus) are literal. Some are figurative. Being a Jew (as I am and if you are a Jew--given that the person for whom I originally wrote this is Jewish), you might be familiar with the figurative, "You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates." (See http://karaite-korner.org/tefillin.shtml). In context, the verses are "And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Now could you write all of Torah (even all of Tanakh) on your doorposts and gates? Sure; but that would take time, effort, and resources. Even tefillin and mezuzot don't contain all the words of Torah (See http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/272660/jewish/Making-Tefillin.htm and http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/278460/jewish/Guide.htm.). Others are obviously similies, metaphors, and symbolisms--which could fall into the figurative category. Now, did every word of Tanakh literally come from G-d's mouth and finger? Yes (cf., e.g., Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10). But as I said, not everything in the Bible is literal--for example (and I ran out of characters in the original answer), "I am the rose of Sharon, And the lily of the valleys." Is Song 2:1 literally saying that he's a bunch of flowers? No. 

I Saw This Earlier Today, But...

Now I have time to share this:

   

Madison, Wisconsin arrived from google.com on "The Nicole Factor: So Great-Grandma Czarnecki Was Jewish After All.." by searching for is czarnecki a jewish name?.

10:36:55 -- 13 hours 28 mins ago

    

Longmont, Colorado arrived from google.com on "The Nicole Factor: Part Six of My Stage32 Submission" by searching for francis a. “red” czarnecki.

10:03:30 -- 14 hours 1 min ago

What an impact that my blog is making! Furthermore (unless just some relative, family friend, or whoever else changed his or her location online, is on vacation, moved, etc.), what an impact Granduncle Red made! Granduncle Red's is the kind of life that I want to live--I grant that he got Grandaunt Judy (then Judith Ann Thomas) pregnant outside of marriage, was an alcoholic, etc.; but he literally gave up his baseball scholarship to do the right thing by marrying his then-pregnant girlfriend, and he was known and remembered by all who knew him as a nice and righteous man.

Granduncle Red aspired to be famous baseball player, too--and he could have been one--, but he knew that doing righteousness and making an impact was far better than being famous. Francis "Red" Anthony Czarnecki, June 21, 1940 - July 9, 1985--zichrona l'bracha. 

Part 18 of My Stage32 Submission

Firstly, I have been busy and have not prioritized--e.g., made time for--writing out the family story. Secondly, I have found out a lot more to write down since the last time that I wrote--for example, incidentally (or not incidentally, depending on how you define "incidentally"), Dad did confirm the story regarding Vilmosz. Of course, he made excuses--e.g., how Great-Grandma had one kid (i.e., Grandaunt Helen), then two (Grandaunt Mary Ann), then three (Grandma) and so forth. Nonetheless--and even though the writing occured well after even Grandma was born, since the Nazis didn't invade then-Czechoslovakian and -Hungarian Slovakia until Grandma was three years old--, Dad confirmed that:

1. Women--or at least Great-Grandma Gaydos, even in the 30s and 40s--did have some control over the money after all.
2. Great-Granddad Gaydos was willing to let her help relatives, given--among other factors to consider--that he was a Jew himself, and but for the grace of G-d did Mihal Gajdosz and Katarina "Maria Uscianski" Uszinsky--not to mention his in-law parents--go.
3. Great-Grandma damned well knew what was happening in Europe and refused to help the family, anyway.
4. Among other factors to consider, there are good reasons why Tibor immigrated to Ohio--where other Rusznyaks had immigrated--instead of Pennsylvania--to where he may have immigrated had we not betrayed him and his side (and other sides) of the family--, and never talked to us.

I could go on, but you get the point. Meanwhile, I considered another factor, too:

"' 'Twas the night before Christmas, and...'"

Mass--if we went, anyway, though they did--and traditions about a Polish Catholic Christmas were--so to speak--thrown in there. There was not much--if anything--about the Bible. What we would do with "' 'Twas the night...'", though:

"' 'Twas the night before Christmas, and...'"

Pass the gift around.

"'The stockings were hung 'round the fireplace with care, and..."

Pass the gift around...

"And to all a good night."

Whoever had the gift after all of the "and"s, and the story concluded, got to keep the gift.

So much for Polish-Lithuanian and Czechoslovakian Catholics, huh? I mean, how much more secular for real--or actual--Polish-Lithuanian and Czechoslovakian Catholics can you get--especially, as Aunt Mary related to me one time, it was (as she learned the hard way during a phone call) about tradition and not Jesus?

Maybe I'm Trying To Justify Myself Here, But...

So what? For:

1. , Michelle has a boyfriend; I don't have one. So why not buy myself a few items--some of which are free (excepting the worth-it shipping costs) and promoting charity; others of which are both life investments and going 5% toward charity; and two of which are life investments (one for university spirit , and one for religious reasons)?
2. , it's my SSI Money. Besides, given Reason #1, I'm making life investments with them. Also, why can't I have First Amendment Rights (e.g., the kippah and tallit) if people on welfare can be TVs, cars, blingy jewelry, and X-Box sets--among other things?
3. , I just gave Michelle a bit of it to use for her campus card.
4. , I bought a kippah (which I've needed, anyway; since I don't know what Jason would do if he caught me wearing one of the JSU-provided ones, and wearing kippot is a Biblical option for women) and an American-Israeli flag pin (to replace the one that I lost)--and both of which are the 5%-charity items (since JewishSource partnered with the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, and the haredim considered the IFCJ trief ). I also bought a Messianic tallit--again, a life investment.
5. , I plan on--G-d willing--wearing the kippah and tallit at least at Shabbat at UMBC and wherever else, and New Heritage Church and wherever else--if not daily--for the rest of my life. I also plan on wearing the American-Israeli flag pin daily for the rest of my life.
6. , Look at the picture and its caption below. Right now, I am wearing five of the free charity items that I've worn daily since I got them--and you can't see the American flag pin that I'm wearing (with will become Dubru's when--G-d willing--I get the other pin), but I'm wearing it. One item I sadly lost (the glass keychain--it fell off and broke), and the bracelet that I first got is now a keychain--since I can no longer wear it, since it was falling apart.
7. , speaking of Dubru the University Spirit Teddy Bear, I actually held him during the debate to keep my anxiety--e.g., over my IBS and peeing myself during the long debate--down; and he's currently sitting on my pillow. I--G-d willing--may also pass him down to any children and grandchildren who I have.
8. I considered and searched a long time for a worthy tallit--G-d led me to a Messianic one.

I could go on, but you get the point.

Guatemalan bracelet, "Home Is Where Your Pet Is" bracelet, grass-woven bracelet, "Live, Laugh, Love" ring--which could fit only on middle finger--, American flag pin--all of which come from the GreaterGood Network. On my person, but not shown: the American flag pin and the keychain, which is on my purse on my said person.

I guess that part of the reason that I'm feeling guilt, too, is that I know that Mom could flip--Jewish guilt, although Mom (as far as we know) is a gentile (or mostly gentile, anyway)! Also, Dad did never give me but $40 for the past four or so birthdays--so, consider the kippah, pin, and tallit (since he claims to be a Messianic Jew, and I'm Jewish through him), and Dubru his birthday presents to me (and treats to myself, since--among the other reasons that I gave--I don't have a boyfriend and I'm making life investments, anyway).   

I Couldn't Resist...

I got him at the UMBC Bookstore for the sake of University Spirit, since it is Homecoming Season (I used Campus Cash.) and so that I could have something by which to remember UMBC--and after all the trouble that I put the cashiers through to make sure that I wouldn't get one made in Indonesia as the others are (since he was made in China--the lesser of two evils). His Spanish nickname is "Oside" (for "Osito de la Espiritu Universitario"), his Hebrew nickname "Dubru" ("Dubi-Ru'ach-Ha'Universita"). 

My Law of Return For Medinat Yisra'el

"17 And it came to pass, when the sun went down and it was dark, that behold, there appeared a smoking oven and a burning torch that passed between those pieces. 18 On the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying:

"“To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates— 19 the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.”" (From Genesis 15:17-22)

Also--for example--. if Ethnic Syrians can have Syria (per the 1947 refounding of Syria), why can't all Ethnic Jews have Israel first?

Therefore, if only Medinat Yisra'el elected someone who could affect the Law of Return to allow Patrilineal Jews (including Messianic Jews, who are allowed but not under the Law of Return) and Matrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews--and all other Ethnic Jews. In other words, the Law of Return should give all Ethnic Jews priority, then gerim tzdukim (since gerim tzdukim are equal to Ethnic Jews, but Israel is first supposed to be for the Jew), then the gentiles.

By the way, the 2009 [Correction: 2008] case came down to this: The Levy Supreme Court allowed Patrilineally-Jewish Messianic Jews to make aliyah, but not under the Law of Return. In other words, they sneakily got around it. They said, "You can return, but you can't become citizens under the Law of Return"--which the Talmudists at Wikipedia reveled in, and they hate Messianics there.

My Family Last Names, Or...

Those which I'm sure of and listed, anyway ("Laczinsky" is tricky and in the air at this point--though why else would Great-Great-Granddad have used "Laczinsky" were that not his mom's name?):

1. "Chernetski" referred to us settling in near the Czarnia River and being dark skinned. 
2. "Trudniak", "difficult"--maybe they didn't like Jews or we wouldn't fit with the goyischer status quo? 
3. "Foczko", form of "Focko"?--"foresail", imposed--as we are Levites. 
4. "Ushinsky"--no idea. 
5. "Gajdosz", "awkward legs" or "fat" or "drunk"--perhaps a schicker?
6.  "Novak", "new"--maybe for "New Christian"? 
7. "Rusznak"--imposed, maybe because we lived near Ruthenia at a point. 
8. "Monka", "Miller"--Ashkenazic Jewish from "maka". "
9. Andrulewicz", "ben-Andrea". 
10. "Danilowicz"--either because we're of Dan or had a patriarch by that name. 
11. "Morgiewicz", corrupted to "Margiewicz"--may be from "Margolis" or "Perl". 
12. "Homa", "Thomas" or maybe from "homiyah" or just "homa"--e.g., "Har Homa".

I Might Have Cited This Before, But...

I told you that I didn't make up the "Toby Keith cheats" allegation. Someone searched:

toby keith cheats on his wife globe

1

So, I went to look it up myself. And "ha[ving someone other than Tricia's or his daughter's--or daughters'--] hand [--or hands--] on his tummy" and not moving it--or them--off of the "tummy" is cheating. By the way, credit to Geraldo Rivera: he once stated that he wouldn't feel Denise Austin's tummy, so as to not cheat on Erica. 

I've Made My Decision In Terms Of Naming A Pet...

If I ever get a pet, I may name the said pet after a deceased love one. After all, based on the answers that I've received (one of them quite inappropriate, as I made clear), I see no contradiction against or contradistinction from Judaism or Jewishness in naming a pet after--for example--my beloved and late Great-Granduncle Bernie. The answers (not in chronological order) that I received are as follows, and I break down the answers as to why they affected me to decide that naming a pet after Great-Granduncle Bernie would be okay:

Firstly (and I made quite clear that I didn't appreciate being yelled at or having to ask a follow-up question):

Reform Judaism/Answered Question

Expert:	Rabbi Sue Levy
Subject:	Naming Pets In Judaism
Question:	QUESTION: Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one appropriate or encouraged for a Jewish person to do? ANSWER: Dear Nicole, No, it is absolutely NOT appropriate to name a pet after someone who died. Chag Sameach, Rabbi Sue ---------- FOLLOW-UP ---------- QUESTION: Why is it inappropriate to do so?
Answer:	A pet is not a person who will carry on the honored legacy of the individual being remembered. You cannot teach a put about the person for whom it is named. A pet cannot emulate that person or behave in its honor. A pet cannot feel a sense of connection with that individual. It is degrading to the memory of the deceased to consider an animal worthy of such an honor.

Secondly (and I give David kavod for not yelling at me, and I asked him partly because he didn't list himself as a "rabbi" or an Anti-Messianic ["Anti-Missionary"] type):

Orthodox Judaism/Answered Question

Expert:	David Rosenblum
Subject:	Naming Pets In Judaism
Question:	Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one appropriate or encouraged for a Jewish person to do?
Answer:	Hi Nicole, Please know that I am not a Rabbi. I never heard of a provision for naming a pet after a person.  It is most certainly not encouraged.  I would avoid it for the following reason (this is my own judgement and subject to critical debate): The purpose of naming someone after they passed away is so that their memory should continue.  Since we remember the dead fondly, we remember their good deeds and will strive to emulate their ways which benefits ourselves for obvious reasons but also benefits the deceased since we improved ourselves in their merit.  This is stimulated by attaching the name to another person and continually calling that person who has equal standing in the hierarchy of creatures, by that same name.  If the name is attached to a lesser creature I can see the possibility of the memory being degraded and the effect being nullified and perhaps even reversed.  In other words, since we degraded the memory, we will not end up emulating the good ways and perhaps incur a negative trait due to the degradation. About the naming in general: many families attach great importance to this and sometimes quarrel about which name to give to newborns.  I always hear Rabbis say that the loss of peace is a much greater issue than can be gained by naming after their loved one.  Intelligent and learned Jews always are very easy with giving up the right to such honors in favor of keeping peaceful relations.  To me it always seemed that the naming after a deceased is a nice to have but not very important. I hope this helps. David

Thirdly:

Nicole Maratovah CzarneckiNehemia Gordon

8 hours ago near Baltimore · 

• Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one appropriate or encouraged for a Jewish person to do?

  Like · 

  • 

    Nehemia Gordon No, not according to Jewish tradition.

    about an hour ago · Like
  • 

    Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki What about according to Karaite Judaism, or would the same principle apply?

    about an hour ago · Like

Fourthly (and this connects to this):

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki

3 hours ago near Baltimore

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomClose FriendsPeople That I Follow On TwitterSee all lists...FamilyFamily FriendsNotre Dame Classmates andCreative Kids Camp and Greater GreenbeltRelatives? and RelativesFriends and AcquaintancesChurch and CCACollege FriendsFriends of Friends and AcChapelgate Christian AcademyHomeCollege of Notre Dame of MarylandUMBCHoward Community CollegeHoward CCBaltimore AreaUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyAcquaintancesGo Back

: Wait a minute: if you give a pet a Jewish name, isn't that possibly naming that pet after a deceased loved one--e.g., "Rivkah", 'imenu?

Like ·  · Share

• 

  David Marshall Would that be bad, if a pet were named after a deceased loved one?

  3 hours ago · Like
• 

  Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki From what I've gathered, a name is connected to the deceased one's soul. So, if it causes one to stumble, then yeah.

  about an hour ago · Like
• 

  Tareq Ayoub i think it is abad

  about an hour ago · Like

Fifthly:

Nicole Maratovah Czarnecki

Friday near Baltimore

PublicFriendsFriends except AcquaintancesOnly MeCustomClose FriendsPeople That I Follow On TwitterSee all lists...FamilyFamily FriendsNotre Dame Classmates andCreative Kids Camp and Greater GreenbeltRelatives? and RelativesFriends and AcquaintancesChurch and CCACollege FriendsFriends of Friends and AcChapelgate Christian AcademyHomeCollege of Notre Dame of MarylandUMBCHoward Community CollegeHoward CCBaltimore AreaUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyAcquaintancesGo Back

: Is naming a pet after a deceased loved one Jewish or Jewishly appropriate?

Like ·  · Share

• 

  Michelle Ravens Czarnecki I don't think so!

  Friday at 3:19pm · Like
• 

  Amy Chai I'm just thinking...no. I think you could use a Jewish or yiddish term though, such as the equivalent of "sweetie" or "cute" but not a proper name of someone passed.

By way of these answers, I'm getting  impression that one's naming of a pet after a deceased loved one would be okay provided that doing so would not cause someone else to stumble--after all, if one can't die for another person, why should he or she have to live for the same--especially if living is or was incumbent on the other person (After all, that Yeshua died for someone else is often an objection to Yeshua per a perversion of. for example, Deuteronomy 24:16, and Ezekiel 18:4 and 18:20.)? . Also, as a ChaCha expert stated, what the deceased one would have wanted or not wanted is what matters.

So, maybe I shouldn't have stopped for a minute and worried when a Golden Retriever named "Bernie" affected me to, G-d willing, someday name a pet after Great-Granduncle Bernie--after all, especially if I don't have children, can't one of my "fur children" have a family name? By the way, the above-cited verses meant only that a sinful human couldn't die for another sinful human--if anyone died for someone else, G-d would have to (See, for example, Psalm 112 and Isaiah 43:10-13--where G-d even states, "And My servant whom I have chosen,[t]hat you may know and believe Me, [a]nd understand that I am He."--and 53.). 

Also by the way, the answers from Amy, David Marshall, and Tareq (as far as I know) came from gentiles; Michelle is my twin and (as much as I love my twin) not--as far as I know--a mevinah (though she was our community college's JSU President until an Anti-Messianic type came in and took it over); and I'm a little surprised that Nehemia, for a Karaite, cited Jewish tradition as opposed to giving an answer from a purely-Karaite (even if a Non-Messianic Karaite) perspective. 

Furthermore by the way, since--in the case of a grieving cat owner--"[i]t might be wise to purchase another cat, similar in breed to the previous one, and even name it the same name as the previous one.  [since t]his will somewhat alleviate the pain.", why can't a grieving person name his or her fur child after a deceased loved one?