Eish HaMilchama

"""While it is true that the Mishna teaches [that a persn who contemplates that which is above him, behind him, or beneath him, such a person its better that he was never born.], you're taking [that Mishna] out of context.""" I made a paraphase of a Mishna. Mishna teaches a common law Case/Rule system. Each case law which the Mishna brings stands on its own. You claim that i took a Mishna out of context, but jump to "The Torah in Moses day etc". The following sentence bears nothing in common or supporting your previous sentence wherein you declare that i have taken a Mishna out of context. You want to view "The Torah in Moses day etc." as if the Torah qualifies as an historical document. No. The Torah teaches spirituality not history. Attempts to make Torah into a historical document, require independent eye witness testimony independent of Moses. No such independent testimony exists. Therefore not only does your follow up question make absolutely no sense, but it totally fails to support your charge that i took a Mishna out of context. """Yu say [the Torah] doesn't [mention the Name of God"". No you have made a fundamental error in basic reading. I said that the Xtian Bible and Arab Koran does not mention the Name of God. Honestly dude, you need to read what i wrote. """Yes, the first commandment doesn't mention His name, so what.""" Dude you do not even read the Torah correctly, at least your consistent! The first commandment of Sinai opens with the Name of HaShem!!!! אלהים אחרים -- other Gods [plural]. Its seems clear to me that your knowledge of Hebrew - rather limited. The brit faith Israel cut with HaShem excludes faith in the worship of other Gods. The commandment point blank acknowledges other Gods...אלהים אחרים, again plural not singular. Its simple grammer 101. Furthermore you fail to address the logical inference learned from that commandment: do not worship other Gods directly indicates that there exists other Gods by which Israel could profane the commandment. You bring a quote from the Mechilta and then immediately talk about Rashi. That's confusion. The Mechilta exist as a pre Mishnaic Tannaic Briita, Rashi post sealing of the Talmud, some 600 years after Rav Ashi sealed the Sha's - a clear secondary source! Let's quote the 1st 2 commandments:אנכי ה' אלהיך [singular]. Second commandment: לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על פני [plural]. No where does the Torah state that other Gods do not live. Clearly the Egyptians worshipped other Gods as did the nations of Canaan. The Torah commands Israel not to assimilate and worship other Gods whom Goyim worship. The intent of the 2nd commandment therefore includes in this prohibition the worship of Jesus son of Zeus or Allah. That you confuse the brit bein habatarim with brit melah proves that you read that brit as if Yishmael or Yitzak had already been born. Avram had no children at the time of the brit bein habatarim! Therefore that brit has nothing what so ever - absolutely no connection in the least - with the mitzva of brit mela! Brit does not mean covenant. You reliance upon translations - not good. Brit means "alliance". The first Book of the Torah - its all about cutting alliances/britot. How do 2 parties cut a brit alliance? This requires both parties to swear an oath. What oath did Avram swear to HaShem when he cut the brit bein habatarim? You do not know. That's pathetic. You did not quote from the מחלתא but rather you quoted a translation of Rashi which bases his p'shat from that source. The exact quote of the Rashi: ת'ל לא יהלך (מחילתא). The quote from the Michilta directly quotes from the language of the Chumash itself. The דפתי חכמים a super commentary made upon the Rashi writes: on the quoted ת'ל -- that HaShem was the first, that HaShem as God His jealousy becomes aroused by His people worshipping other Gods. The Michilta teaches an order of priority, first brit Israel accepts the Kingship of HaShem and then afterwards does HaShem as King issue decrees. If Israel does not accept the Kingship of HaShem then likewise Israel would not accept any decree made by HaShem. Point blank: What does Kingship mean? A blessing requires kingship YET the blessing of the Cohenim, the kre'a sh'ma and the shemone esri all lack kingship based upon the halachic ruling which Rabbi Yochannon made in ברכות. Specifically ברכות צריך שם ומלכות. Clearly seeing that the above mentioned sources excluded מלכות and yet define ברכות the meaning and intent of the term מלכות requires definition, for otherwise the halachic ruling made by Rabbi Yochannon makes no sense. Therefore what does Kingship mean? The Promised Land ... to whom did HaShem promise this land? Avram had no children!!!! Therefore its a fundamental and basic error on your part to confuse the brit bein ha'batarim with brit mela!! The seed of Avram - born into the future - to this segula seed did HaShem swear to give the oath sworn land. Its this brit wherein the Torah teaches the concept of O'lam Ha'ba!!!!!!! You wrote that you required clarification of my beliefs. Just as gravity requires no "belief" so too the Gods. Israel has a brit with HaShem as God. This brit, being a brit, depends upon the oaths sworn by our fathers upon their souls ie the future born (O'lam Ha'ba) children. "I know Avraham, that he shall command his children". HaShem, by the authority of our Torah made that quote. Do you accept the oath which Avram swore to HaShem at the brit bein habatarim? If you do, then tell me that specific oath? Your or my beliefs do not count for squat. The lives of other Gods, and how much more so HaShem, do not depend upon what I personally believe or do not believe. Brit does not mean convenant b/c covenant has no teaching that it requires the parties to the "covenant" to swear an oath. Brit does mean alliance because the Torah of בראשית specifically teaches that any alliance cut between 2 parties requires an oath. Yaacov and L'van cut an oath brit alliance. Yitzak and AviMelech cut an oath brit alliance. Avraham and AviMelech cut an oath brit alliance. Avram did the mitzva of brit mela with the birth of Yishmael some 13 years or more after the brit bein ha'batarim. You like butchering Rashi quotes, Rashi at the Akada of Yitzak referred to Yishmael as a mule. Yishmael did not inherit the oath brit faith only Yitzak and his segula seed inherited the brit faith. Proof that Yishmael, the mule, did not inherit the brit faith - the Koran never once employs the language of "brit". The translation of covenant the Koran employs but not brit. The Koran never once brings the Name of HaShem. Do not again confuse the Torah which stands upon the Name of HaShem with the new testament and koran which never once bring the Name of HaShem into those Books of avoda zara. Your "documentary hypothosis" LOL that's late 19th century Protestant higher critism!!! How utterly and totally pathetic. Gee i have less than 1000 characters remaining. I shall stop here. Have a great day.