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!

Sunday, December 21, 2014

Speaking Of Stereotypes...

I had to deal with, quite frankly, slander against me because I pointed out that the policepersons who saluted their murdered colleagues had Black men among them. As I told her:


To assume that I put Michael Brown and Eric Garner in the same category is wrong. Also, I've even gone out of my way to support certain politicians because they are Black (e.g., Charles Lollar and Pinkston Harris. I'm glad that Larry Hogan has a Black Lieutenant Governor, Boyd Rutherford). I don't like the WASP and WEC mentality that some in the GOP have held for years. I come from Jewish families on both sides even (long story), and I've defended the Lemba Jews and Falasha Mura. As an Ashkenazi Jew from Crypto-Jewish families, I could easily back off and not defend the Lemba (who were slandered in a bogus study by an Indian oceanographer who claims that the CMH type that they have is not a kohen one). You can't assume, then, that I have contempt for Blacks.
I suppose, then, that I was stereotyped as much as she alleges that I stereotype Blacks.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

To Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz At HaKotel b'Yerushalayim

Rabbi Rabinowitz,

Think of the song "Light One Candle". Part of the song goes, "Don't let the light go out; it's lasted for so many years." So have our people, 'Am Yisra'el, Ha'Or L'Goyim. We have lasted for millennia, ever since Yitzchak was conceived and born; and then Yitzchak conceived and had born to him two sons of his own, one of whom became Ya'akov Avinu.

Without Imoteinu, our coming forth and longevity as a people would have been impossible. Without achoteinu, habanot imoteinu, none of acheinu would have been able to conceive and have born to them successive dorot m'Yisra'el. Without further dorot m'Yisra'el, we would've died out as an 'am.

Therefore, your banning of HaNashot HaKotel is a chillul HaShem and a chillul zichronot ha'avot v'imahot. Even Ya'akov Avinu told even Imoteinu, "'Put away the strange gods that are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; 3 and let us arise, and go up to Beth-el; and I will make there an altar unto God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and was with me in the way which I went.'" (From Bereshit 35, JPS 1917) Why do you, then, put away achoteinu as Imoteinu put away their strange g-ds?

Please consider whether to put away achoteinu, habanot Imoteinu, like Imoteinu put away strange g-ds is an avodah tovah. If it is an avodah tovah, then to have put away Imoteinu would have been tov, would it not have been?

Toda v'Chanukkah Tovah.


Sunday, December 14, 2014

One Twitter Trend Which I Particularly Despise

Now I'm really beginning to resent that #followforfollow trend. As I've said, I don't do it (I follow who I want to follow); and I really resent those who unfollow me when I didn't even solicit their follow in the first place. They act like I played that follow-for-follow game and/or they usually unfollow me without even an explanation or a hint as to why.

I've had at least four people do it (I say "four" because four specific ones initially were on or came to the front of my mind.), and two of whom did so record. The one unfollowed me (today) pretty much as soon as he followed me (yesterday), and the other unfollowed me recently (as I found out). The two others unfollowed me a while ago.

Here's a trend for them (and others who treat other Tweeters as my unfollowers treated me): #unfollowforunfollow. 

Sunday, December 7, 2014

Is "The Jerusalem Post" Ignoring History?

They apparently are. Then again, they may just be cutting it short. Still, isn't cutting off a part of history essentially ignoring it (at best)? (At worst, cutting off any part of history is either denial of it or even unspoken support of what happened at a point in it.).
Jeremy Sharon, the Post reporter who wrote the history in question, reported:

One of the most striking aspects of the 33rd Government of Israel was the absence of the two haredi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, from the coalition.
Since 1981, at least one of the haredi parties has been a coalition partner in 11 out of the 15 governments since that time.
Is he kidding?  Even though Shas was absent (or Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had been deceased since October 7th of last year, which Sharon himself reported) and United Torah Judaism was absent, that doesn't make "the absence of the two haredi parties" (or any other Haredi party) a fact! On the contrary, the Haredim have always been in the government since then-PM David ben Gurion gave Agudat Yisra'el power.
All one constituency needs is an umbrella or big-tent party to be in its government, and that constituency is there for as long as the party is there. In this case, Agudat Yisra'el has been in HaMemshalah Yisra'el since before the "Declaration of Establishment" was written.
Therefore, for Jeremy Sharon and The Jerusalem Post to claim that the Haredim were missing from even one of the Israeli regimes, let alone four, is dishonest and (at best) sloppy or even (at worst) yellow journalism.
How would it be yellow journalism? For starters, yellow journalism itself
was a style of newspaper reporting that emphasized sensationalism over facts. During its heyday in the late 19th century it was one of many factors that helped push the United States and Spain into war in Cuba and the Philippines, leading to the acquisition of overseas territory by the United States.
Therefore, to claim a Haredi absence is yellow journalism in its own sense. To state that "the two haredi parties" were absent is sensationalistically acting like the Haredim were entirely absent, after all.
Besides, Jeremy Sharon also noted that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had appointed an heir∗:
Roi Lachmanovitz, a former Shas spokesman, said that the designation of Moshe as inheritor, in particular of the rabbi’s library and publishing rights, gives him increased influence within the Shas party and the Yosef family.
Lachmanovitz noted that it had been Yosef’s other sons who had been chosen for public roles. Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef was nominated by Yosef himself, before he died, to be the new Sephardi chief rabbi, and Rabbi David Yosef was appointed to the Shas Council of Torah Sages after the rabbi passed away.
“Moshe and his wife are returning to the center stage, because whoever has control of the books and library... can direct the [haredi] public, can tell the public what the rabbi meant. They will have increased status because of this,” he said.

In conclusion, Jeremy Sharon cut off 34-67 years of history (34 years counting from 1947-1981; 67 counting from June 1947-2014) and submitted a yellow-journalism article for The Jerusalem Post to print and publish (and apparently fell for his own revisionism).

Update (10:54:45 PM EST on December 8, 2014): Now here comes the "Told ya."

Monday, December 1, 2014

Here's Looking At You, Dad...And Pop-Pop, And Great-Granddad, And Whoever Else

This, again, is where the mixed feelings come in. I am staring at a picture of a notable actor. I am staring at a picture of a relative (I'm not joking. I said that "Danilovich" was a patronymic in his case. Then I saw the pictures, and I knew who Pop-Pop pretty much looked like. Right now, I see maybe who Dad will look like down the road.). I am also staring at a picture of the guy who raped Natalie Wood and murdered Jean Spangler.

What do you do when you know that your family wreaked havoc on the world and yet had some of the most-influential people come out from among them? Even my granddad, one of the three IRS Agents who served tax papers to Richard Nixon, came from the Daniloviches.

A long time ago, my aunt Mary (z"l) told me of the following exchange at a funeral:

*Fist slams on table* "Do you know what that Jack Czarnecki did today?"
"That's my father."
"Oh...I'm so sorry."
"No; it's okay—I agree with you.


And this coming on the day before the anniversary of Great-Granddad's suicide...




What the heck have we done?

My father's current wife with her late in-law father on her and my father's wedding day. She put this picture up after he passed away.



On the Rusnak Family Reunion Page. My dad is behind his wife and her daughter. The Rusnaks are another story, too, by the way; I'll just leave my description at that for right now.


DO NOT PUB? Kirk Douglas Obituary Has Been On People Website For 2 Months image Kirk Douglas



And the mistaken obituary will be published for real soon. I guarantee you that. I guarantee you that since God finally did in Jack Czarnecki (and I have never backtracked from saying that), He will do in Kirk Douglas. Here's hoping, too, that Lana Wood can finally name her sister's rapist.

That shouldn't be said about a relative (ideally at least), although truth outweighs family loyalty—and in the end, might save the family in at least the next few generations. I know that the truth saved my generation (at least me and my sister), and I hope that'll it save the ones to come (for all sides of the Danilovich Family, too, might I add; not just "Katarzyna" Danilówiczowna Czerniecka's side, and certainly not just Kirk Douglas' side).

As an in-law Danilovich (my great-grandmother Mary Trudnak Czarnecki) told my Aunt Mary, "I want to talk about it." That's exactly what I myself intend to do as a Danilovich and as a human being, so that I don't see my family wrecked again or wrecking the world again—and so that many other families won't wreck themselves or the world again.

With 2014 and 5774 Almost Over...

A lot is already over and becoming over for me:


  1. Right now, it's December 1, 2014 and Kislev 7, 5774. So, both the current Gregorian and Biblical years are almost over.
  2. My Reilly just turned eight months old on November 25, 2014. So, her puppyhood is almost over. (I'm crying right now. Where has the time gone?)
  3. The Kittleman campaign is over.
  4. My chances at talking once more to some relatives are over. Granduncle Tony (z"l) died on July 31, 2014; and Grandaunt Bern died on November 20, 2014 (z"l). May I see them both at HaTechiyat HaMetim (Even though Mashiach seems to tarry, I wait for Him and hasten His Second Coming, as well as His return after the Tribulation. May Reilly and I be Raptured together, by the way; whether both of us are living or dead, or one of us is living or dead.).
There's also a lot of other times, matters, chances, etc. that are over for me. By the way, there is Scriptural proof that animals do have souls, although they have different kinds of souls. They either go into soul sleep, since their souls go down, or they wait in Abraham's Bosom (where hakedoshim had to wait until Mashiach died, rose, and conquered death) and certainly do not go up for judgement, since they can't reason like humans can.). Incidentally, someone on the Jews For Jesus forums along time ago pointed out that animals have souls per Bereshit 1; and I think that, that was a part of what got me eventually wondering if animals do actually have souls, and finding that (unlike plants), animals do have souls. Those who take the Jewishness out of Christianity (Nazarene/Messianic Judaism) and/or don't read Tanakh for what it is conclude that animals have no souls at all.

Meanwhile, I'm going to go give Reilly extra scritches.

Monday, November 24, 2014

Your Vote and Comments

<a href="http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/do-you-think-that-the-no-true-bill-was-justified/question-4602526/" title="Do You Think That the No True Bill Was Justified?">Do You Think That the No True Bill Was Justified?</a>


By the way, I've been blogging more at The Times of Israel lately.

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Addendum To the Postcript In My TOI "Wuerker" Post

Addendum and disclosure: 

I'll admit that finding sources that are neutral about (e.g., neither hostile against nor favorable toward) Jewish Christians is hard (I try to use sources that, even if they're not Jewish Christian/Messianic Jewish, accept that there are Jews who actually believe in a Jewish man named Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. I don't want to support sources that are hostile toward Jewish Christians, given that I am a Jewish Christian). Sadly, I kept Googling and ran into well-written articles that came from hostile sources (e.g., The Jewish Daily Forward, despite that they concede that Jews are an ethnos. Their article about Jewish Christians by Rabbi David Wolpe and most comments on the article were incredibly hostile.).

If only there were more sources that were neutral, even sources from those such as Dr. Amy-Jill Levine, Rabbi Carol Harris-Shapiro, Dan Cohn-Sherbok, and Ya'akov Ariel. While I won't agree with all of their conclusions (e.g., Dr. Levine's conclusion that the New Testament does have Anti Semitism), I can be thankful that they at least accept Jewish Christians as Jews.
I will add, too, that for them to accept Jewish Christians despite that they've received backlash that's similar or equal to what we Jewish Christians receive takes a lot of ko'ach; and if only we were that strong in our faith, Emateinu HaMeshichi (and that phrase I had to only confirm with Google translate. The case was the same for "ko'ach" and some other words and phrases. ראה? אני לומדת. :-) )

(By the way, yes, I checked: there are forms of "re'eh" that I need to learn.).


Example From My TOI "Wuerker" Post and Disclaimer

(Disclosure: this is mostly for those who have read my "Wuerker" post, by the way.)

For example, I can talk about what a traitor George Soros is because I know the facts, verified what I've read, and had family members (albe that they were distant ones) affected by the Shoah. Glenn Beck, who had and has no history with the Shoah, again has questionable intent. By the way, I first found out about George Soros in Culture Warrior. When I did, I honestly had no clue that I am Jewish and a bat-Anusim, let alone that George Soros (at least in some sense) has the blood of my family members (Anusi and openly Jewish alike) on his hands

By the way, George Soros also has to answer for the murders of some Nagys, among others, might I add—and If you think that I'm stupid, etc., by the way, I am not. I darned well know that, for example, "Levai" and "Nagy" can be Jewish; I know about kinnuim, etc.. If you think that I get drek from only my family on that, you are sorely mistaken.

I always have to add a disclaimer like this because of the tsores I go through at the hands of people who want to plant doubts in my head, etc. I basically go through something like what my dad's maternal granddad went through—in his case, he was always shot down with "The only reason that you say that we're Russian is because you work for the Russian Orthodox Church." How Dad pretty much passed down the drek to me was very much in similar words—something like, " "The only reason that he say that we're Russian is because he worked for the Russian Church.""

He worked for a Slovakian Byzantine Catholic Church in Swoyersville, Pennsylvania; and his father and mother were Anusim by the names of Gajdosz and Uszinsky—and let me tell you, he knew what he was saying. He never outright said that we're Jews, and that's because he would've been given a harder time. Let me add, too, that his parents never Magyarized their names—"Gajdosz" remained "Gaydosh", as opposed to "Gaydos"; and "Uszinsky" remained "Ushinsky", as opposed to "Usinsky".

Also, a Anusit Sefardit also got similar drek from her mishpachah; so, I'm not the first person to whom historical abuse (e.g., mental and verbal abuse in light of historical facts and findings) has happened. By the way, I can't find that example, though I remember reading it. I Googled and found plenty of other examples (including Susan Jacoby's! Who knew?)

Update (November 16, 2014 at 9:28 PM EST): Also see the following message (which I was writing when Shockwave crashed and I had to make the message a two-part video series):


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.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

147 Years Ago Yesterday, And The Disastrous Effects Which It Affected

On November 2, 1877, a newborn boy named András Rusznák was baptized. András was apparently just another Slovakian boy being baptized in Zlatá Idka, Slovakia (then Aranyida, Ausztria Magyarország) on, of all days, All Souls' Day. So, he allegedly was a newborn boy of Slovakian ethnicity being baptized on a special day. What's the big deal, then?

The big deal is this boy was neither a Slovakian ethnic or a real recipient of the Sacrament of Baptism. Speaking of souls as well, his parents' souls were not even into baptizing him at all. Furthermore, they themselves were נשמות אנוסים—forced souls. They weren't even there in Aranyida to be there.

They were there because they, Jakub and Marysia "Maria" Nováková, were בני אנוסים who just didn't feel comfortable returning to the shtetl of Kassa (now Košice) in nominally-religious-freedom-supporting Ausztria Magyarország (In fact, a Levite like Jakub—a kohen by the name of Fritzwould become an אנוסים in the next century. So, supposedly-tolerant Ausztria Magyarország wasn't so tolerant after all, and apparently became worse by the time that Fritz Kohn "Kerry" was persecuted.). 

András Rusznák himself, however, did leave Aranyida, though he also didn't return to his ancestral shtetl. He, with a Molnár cousin, immigrated to the United States and lived no differently than Jakub (the son of אנוסים György "Kvetkovits" Rusznák HaLevi and Erzsébet Rusznáková née Molnárová) had lived in Ausztria Magyarország—that is, he lived as an אנוסי. After he did that, disaster struck.

András came to the United States in 1902 and never thought that he would receive a letter from his Kassa-residing cousins, let alone one in which a request for help was written. 40-42 years later, however, that kind of letter was received by him and his daughter Mary Rusnak Gaydos. Thus, the boundary that was erected by the Kassa relatives' sitting שבעה was broken—or so the Kassa cousins hoped. 

Besides, they weren't sending a letter of reconciliation. They were sending a letter for העזרה לענין פיקוח נפש—help for the sake of piku'ach nefesh. They weren't looking after just themselves, either—they had families for whom to care and cousins who also had families, and family members in הארץ ישראל (which the Nazis and the Grand Mufti [ימח שמם] were targeting in their Middle Eastern invasion). 

As I alluded to, disaster then struck. András Rusznák (now Andrew Rusnak) and Mary Rusnak Gaydos, in order to cover that they were Jewish and follow the isolationist policy of the United States under Anti-Semitic Franklin Roosevelt (ימח שמם)—ceased all correspondence with their Kassa cousins, most of whom were murdered in השואה (Andrew's and Mary's kind of attitude, by the way, also had affects on the S.S. St. Louis Incident.),

Then Andrew, now the widower of  Julia Fosko Rusnak (née Juliana Foczková, ז'ל) was stricken with cancer and died of it. By the way, Julia (an אישה צדיקה and a לוית צדיקה) was taken before she had to see all that would befall her husband and her oldest child. After that, Andrew and whoever wrote his obituary (presumably Mary) decided to invent a fictional brother for Andrew (Stef) and lie to Andrew's son Carl (an איש צדיק) , who was charged with filling out with his father's death certificate.

As for the disasters that befell Mary—well, I can safely say that, for example, having a granddaughter who attempted suicide and living to attend the funeral of her great-grandson who drowned count as two disasters (She died in 1992, just after the deceased great-grandson's sister was born, by the way. The decedent drowned in 1991. So, she was alive when a descendant died and didn't live to see another descendant grow before her eyes.). 

By the way, all I received were evasive answers when I asked further questions about the supposed uncle of Mary, who allegedly wrote a letter to her in 1947. Also, there is no baptism record for him. So (so to speak), another hole was shot into that "Relatives wrote letters to ask for money, and she stopped writing" סיפור פיות. 

So, what's the point? The point is the point that I made on Twitter, and this account is a case in point:

[F]orcing someone against his or her will always ends in disastrous results somewhere along the line.




     

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

"Imma Rize": A Short Story About a Nun With a Humorous Name (And a Cousin With a Sense of Humor)

Her name was actually Khava Reisz. She was from Obudai, Magyaroszag. However, she took the name "Ima Reis" ("אמא ראיס", "Mother Reis") when she left Obudai after she had become a nun and went to Bremen. From Bremen, she immigrated to Baltimore as "M. Eva Reis"; and she didn't use "Eva"—much less "Khava" ("חוה")—otherwise.

Therefore, nobody knew how to mark her gravestone—much less her makeshift gravestone for the time being—when she lived out her full years and died at the age of 110 years. What they could clearly write on the stone, however, was "1802 to 1912", since they knew that much.

Otherwise, they had to write what they could write about her. Thus, they wrote "Imma Rize". Similarly, they wrote "Earl Lee Rizer" on her cousin's gravestone. Earl, too, by the way, lived a long life. However, he lived to only 91 years of age.

Nonetheless, he could fill them in on the details of his years before he died, and he made an attempt to fill them in on what he could of his cousin's life.

"...And on my matzevah—the thing that you gentiles call a gravestone—simply mark 'Earl Lee Rizer'. I've left the other instructions in my will. As for my matzevah, that isn't the really-fancy part. After all, I can fill you and everybody else in at the Resurrection—if there even is one. Nonetheless, all you and anyone else need to know in this lifetime is that my name was 'Earl Lee Rizer'; I had a sense of humor, and I lived for 91 years.

"As for my cousin—the one that you call 'Mother Reis'—she'll probably die soon, too. I was born in 1806, and this year's 1897. So, she'll probably die in this 95th year of hers—after all, I'm younger than her and dying in my 91st year.

"Anyway, you asked me to fill you in on the details about her—since we all figure that she's going to die, and she is obviously quite secretive. Then—and spare me, for I haven't much breath—here are the details for which you asked—or at least which I can provide, anyway.

"After she became what everybody else considered a meshumadah—a Jesus-following apostate—I was the only one who was willing to take her in when she emigrated from Bremen. She came here in 1850, and I was already here since 1847. Thus, she lagged only three years behind me.

"After she immigrated, she and I went our separate ways once I took her in and she was processed by the immigration authorities. I went to Temple; she went to the Hebrew Christian church and convent up on only-God-knows what street. I lived out my life as a regular man and Temple member; she lived out her life as a Jewish Mother Superior—though such seems a contradiction, when it is actually just quite a paradox—at least she was a Jewish mother! Incidentally, she did remind me of the verse wherein the prophet states that a husbandless woman has more children than a husbanded one; and she believed that, that applied to all nuns, and not just abbotesses.

"I must relate this anecdote as well: she and her community celebrated Yom Kippur—the Jewish Day of Atonement—in the most-fascinating way. We believe in fasting for our atonement; she believes in Jesus as hers. Nonetheless, she—with her community, and like us—fasted on Yom Kippur. However—and this is the fascinating part—she and her community would prepare for Communion after sunset in a fashion similar to how the priests made atonement in the days of the Solomonic and Zadokite Temples. Whereas the priests would enter the Holy of Holies and perform all of the atonement rituals and rites, the Hebrew Catholic priest would wave incense before the cross on the wall behind the altar and then sprinkle all of the vestments, articles, and furniture with some of the wine that was to be used in the Communion ceremony. Then, at sunset, the priest and his deacons would administer Communion to the congregation.

"I cannot say that she did not live an interesting life—perhaps living interesting lives is within our family. After all, I lived an interesting life—part of my life, of course, includes my having changed my name from 'Berl Ari Reisz' to 'Earl Leo Riszer', to just 'Earl Lee Rizer'. I was an early riser, by the way—I took the advice of the American founder Benjamin Franklin seriously. Also, Benjamin Franklin himself knew what I know—that, as King Solomon observed, only the sluggard will not rise at all, for he will even make the excuse that a lion roams the streets!

"Perhaps that's why 'Ima Reis'—'Mother Reis'—may, as I have heard, change her name to 'Imma Rize'—as I alluded to being an early riser, so she will allude to her belief in the Resurrection of the Dead. Also, she—from what I understand—heard a Negro man singing something along the lines of 'I'm-a rise when Jesus calls-a me up from the ground....'—and that had her thinking."

With that said, Earl Lee Rizer breathed his last breath and died at the age of 91 years. Thus, his gravestone read as he stipulated that it should read: "Earl Lee Rizer". However, the stonecarver also engraved Earl's birth and death dates. Therefore, the gravestone read in full, "Earl Lee Rizer, 1806 to 1897".

As for Mother Reis' gravestone, it read:

"אמא ראיס, 1802-1912, עם 62 שנות בעבודה לישוע אדוננו"—
"Mother Reis, 1802 to 1912, with 62 years in the service of Jesus Our Lord."

This was all forgotten, however, when a flood came through the cemetery and left the gravekeepers to put up makeshift gravestones. Thus, Mother Reis' makeshift gravestone read as her cousin Earl suggested that her gravestone should read—with, of course, the death date being different than the date that Earl supposed:

"Imma Rize
"1802 to 1912".





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.