Noahide News

 

Part 167

April 13,  2005  

Day 147 of 1290 of 2300

 

 The FINISH 

of Iniquity unto desolation for them who Deny the Christ, Jesus the Lord.

mason seal

 

Extra Extra

 

hahahhahahaha the Treasonous Vipers in Washington the district of Isis, appease the shemborg collective

Israeli Envoy to Visit Pollard as Rumors of Release Circulate
15:33 Apr 15, '05 / 6 Nisan 5765

 

A visit to Jonathan Pollard by Israel's U.S. Ambassador has been rumored as part of a deal between Sharon and Bush that would free Pollard after more Israeli withdrawals from Yesha.

the Bushkevik prisoner for peace iniative...when there shall be no peace.

Prime Minister Sharon last Sunday night told American secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that he will order Ambassador Danny Ayalon to visit Pollard, who has been sentenced to life imprisonment for passing to Israel intelligence information.

how they got 200 nukes
 
Sources in the Sharon's office have leaked to the media that U.S. President George W. Bush hinted to the Prime Minister that he might pardon Pollard if Sharon follows up with a withdrawal from most of Judea and Samaria following this summer's planned evacuation of Jews in Gaza and northern Samaria.
 
It was not clear whether the leaks from Sharon's office were a publicity stunt to win sympathy from the Israel public for the evacuation or whether it is true that the planned visit of Ambassador Ayalon is linked to a Bush promise to free Pollard in return for further evacuations.

Since his appointment, Ayalon has never visited Pollard. Recently, Ayalon came under sharp criticism for neglecting to visit Pollard on a recent trip that brought the ambassador within thirty miles of Pollard's cell in North Carolina.

Pollard in the past has said he would refuse to leave prison as part of any political deal.

A spokesman for the committee to free Pollard rejected the report as another attempt to use Pollard as a bargaining device. "We have no faith in these reports…and every time there is some miserable agreement that endangers the security of the people [of Israel] and the security of the prime minister's position, the public is exposed suddenly to promises to free Pollard," said spokesman Adi Greenberg. He added that the result will be as in the past, with Pollard remaining in jail.

Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert vehemently denied the report that the government plans a further withdrawal despite Olmert's own statement earlier this year that there will be "second disengagement

____

E-mail sent to Sanhedrin of satan 4-14-2005

-----Original Message-----
From: Southern American Marketing, Inc. [mailto:robert@samliquidation.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:28 PM
To: hashiv@zahav.net.il
Subject:

14: And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south: also the robbers of thy people shall exalt themselves to establish the vision; but they shall fall.

Response

----- Original Message -----
From: Dov
To: Southern American Marketing, Inc.
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 3:19 AM
Subject: RE:

Idol Worker

Sent 4-15-2005

hahahhahahahahhheeeeeewhooooooey
 poor wittle wib-eye meir

Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin

 

Folio 64a

 

 Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 64
Talmud Online, zipped for download, searchable: Tohoroth, Niddah, Nazir, Horayoth, Sanhedrin, Sotah, Yebamoth, Shabbath, Kethuboth, Gittin, Berakoth, Baba Mezi'a, Baba Kamma, Baba Bathra, Nedarim, Abodah Zara
... OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT ...
... HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE fire. IF ...
... IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE ...
... and giving to Molech. 21 R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in ...
http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_64.html

MISHNAH. HE WHO GIVES OF HIS SEED TO MOLECH INCURS NO PUNISHMENT UNLESS HE DELIVERS IT TO MOLECH AND CAUSES IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE. IF HE GAVE IT TO MOLECH BUT DID NOT CAUSE IT TO PASS THROUGH THE FIRE, OR THE REVERSE, HE INCURS NO PENALTY, UNLESS HE DOES BOTH.

GEMARA. The Mishnah20 teaches idolatry and giving to Molech.21 R. Abin said: Our Mishnah is in accordance with the view that Molech worship is not idolatry. For it has been taught, [if one causes his seed to pass through the fire,] whether to Molech or to any other idol he is liable [to death]. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: If to Molech, he is liable; if to another idol, he is not.

11: And there stood before them seventy men of the ancients of the house of Israel, and in the midst of them stood Jaazaniah the son of Shaphan, with every man his censer in his hand; and a thick cloud of incense went up.
12: Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery?  for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth.
13: He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they do.
14: Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
 
Amos:5:26: But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.
 

How these molech worshipper hate Jesus the Christ is unbelievable

____

 

The escalating Double cross............

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=57cfb91c56bf5e3a&cat=f81a4d9d561822ee

 

Israelis shoot militant in Nablus

Israeli troops have shot dead a Palestinian militant in a raid on a refugee camp in the northern West Bank.

Ibrahim Smeri, 23, was killed by members of a special unit disguised as Arabs, Palestinian sources said.

The circumstances of the shooting are unclear. The army said its troops were returning fire and one soldier's flak jacket was struck by a bullet.

Residents in Balata camp said the Israelis opened fire without warning and then took the body away.

Palestinian sources identified Smeri as a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a violent group linked to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction.

The group's leader in Balata camp said the shooting violated an informal ceasefire between Israel and Palestinians.

"This assassination is a clear violation of the Israeli ceasefire," Ala Sanekri is quoted as saying by AFP news agency.

"We are now discussing in the al-Aqsa Brigades whether to continue with the ceasefire and we will make a decision in the coming hours."

It was the first killing of a militant by Israel for more than a month.

Last week Israeli troops killed three Palestinian youths near the border between Gaza and Egypt, sparking a barrage of mortar fire aimed at Jewish settlements

 

_____

They know, they must create war, Bush knows the plan of ordo ab chao, well

 

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=8c6cd8a351acb8ae&cat=f81a4d9d561822ee

Israel broke cease-fire, Abbas says


Fatal shooting of militant in West Bank is 'serious violation,' Palestinian leader says

Jerusalem -- Israeli troops shot and killed a Palestinian militant Thursday in the West Bank city of Nablus, and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas called it a "serious violation" of a 2-month-old truce.

The truce has been holding for the most part but is a bit frayed, and Israeli and Palestinian leaders have been trading increasingly sharp words in recent days.

Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon, visited President Bush this week in Texas and said the Palestinian failure to break up armed factions had prevented additional progress toward restoring the peace process.

shembolical meeting of deception between the south and the north

Abbas fired back in a statement released by his office, expressing "surprise and astonishment at the campaign launched against the Palestinian Authority during Sharon's visit."

"We call on Israeli leaders to think about peace and security instead of wasting precious time," said the statement, released Wednesday.

Under the truce, Israel pledged not to send troops into Palestinian areas as a general principle but reserved the right to pursue "ticking bombs," or militants who are plotting attacks.

In Nablus, the Israeli soldiers entered the Balata refugee camp to arrest a member of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who was planning attacks, according to the military. Israel identified the wanted man as Ibrahim Hashash, while Palestinians gave his name as Ibrahim Isneiri.

The man fired on soldiers, hitting one in his bulletproof vest, the military said. The troops returned fired, hitting him, the military added. The soldiers evacuated him for medical help, but he died of his wounds, the military said.

However, the Associated Press, citing Palestinian witnesses in Nablus, said the soldiers had emerged from a car and fired first.

After the shooting, dozens of Palestinian militants gathered at the Rafidiah Hospital in Nablus and vowed revenge.

According to Israeli military officials, the man they killed was responsible for several shooting attacks against Israeli civilians and attempted suicide bombing attacks. The military also alleged that his activities were being directed by the Lebanese guerrilla group Hezbollah.

Abbas said that the Israeli action violated the truce that he announced with Sharon at a Feb. 8 summit meeting in Egypt.

In another development Thursday, the Bush administration announced that James Wolfensohn, the outgoing president of the World Bank, would become a special coordinator to help Israel carry out its handover of Gaza to the Palestinians.

hahahaahheeeeeee....yet another wolf into the fold

Israel announced in December 2003 that it would withdraw unilaterally from Gaza and portions of the West Bank. It plans to begin the process by this summer. But Israeli, Palestinian, European and U.S. officials have expressed growing concern in the last few weeks about the lack of coordination with the Palestinians and of planning for the period after Israel withdraws.

The appointment of Wolfensohn, who has mobilized financial aid and worked with Israeli and Palestinian leaders for 10 years at the World Bank, was made with the support of the European Union, the United Nations and Russia, the so- called quartet of partners backing the Mideast peace plan known as the "road map."

to hell.......

Also Thursday, Abbas ordered that the multiple, overlapping branches of the security forces be streamlined into just three organizations.

Palestinian critics have long called for a restructuring of the unwieldy security forces, while Israel and the Bush administration have made similar demands many times.

Since coming to power in January, Abbas has dismissed a number of senior security leaders and has demanded that the forces work to prevent attacks against Israel, and also that they restore law and order in the Palestinian areas.

Ordinary Palestinians have applauded Abbas' intentions but say they have seen little or no evidence of improvements at street level.

Abbas has indicated he plans to dismiss older security officers who have reached the retirement age of 60. In addition, the Palestinian leadership says it wants to incorporate militants into the security forces.

____

Beware, these are the seventy ancients of abomination who surrounded King David with iniquity. All of their tradition, are nothing but filthy fables unto their wannabe g-d...satan

Jewish Monarchy

By Rav Moshe Taragin

 

Part I: Kingship and Dynasty

One of the often overlooked motifs of Chanuka is the concept of malkhut - monarchy. The Rambam (Hilkhot Chanuka 3:1) points out that aside from the military victory, the miracle of the oil, and the re-purification of the Temple, Chanuka marked the miracle of restoration of Jewish monarchy (if only briefly). This article will explore a central question regarding Jewish malkhut.

The Rambam (Sefer Ha-mitzvot 173) and many other list the mitzva (Law) of appointing a king as a positive commandment. (This in itself is subject to dispute - see Afterword.) The Chinukh (mitzva 497) agrees with the Rambam, and adds a startling comment. He believes that minui ha-melekh (appointing a king) is a mitzva which applies in all generations - a position which elicits wonderment from the later commentators. Indeed, the Rambam himself cites the Sifri teaching that monarchy is automatically passed from father to son! Certainly, then, since David was already anointed and his line of succession has been interrupted, there can be no future scenario wherein the fulfillment of this mitzva could arise. Thus, appointing a king cannot be considered an eternal mitzva!

For it was discontinued at CALVARY with the KING of KINGS who inherited all of his Fathers Kingdom since the foundation of the WORLD 

The Chinukh himself recognizes this question and solves the problem by radically broadening the scope of the mitzva of minui melekh. Though his position is fascinating, it is not our focus here. Instead, we will assume a more narrow understanding of minui melekh in our attempt to deal with the aforementioned question: how can we classify the mitzva of appointing a king as eternal if the dynasty automatically passes from father to son?

What is the necessary methodology in order to approach this question? First, we must make a closer inspection of the issue of malkhut. Moreover, we will isolate TWO dimensions to malkhut - one which indeed is hereditary and one which requires a formal act of appointment.

This multi-faceted nature of malkhut can be glimpsed by examining two disparate passages in the Talmud Yerushalmi.

Jerusalem Talmud which is lesser than Talmud Bavli

The Yerushalmi in Rosh Hashana (1:1) asserts that David did not retain the status of king during the six months he was on the run from Avshalom and his mutinous crew. Hence, had he sinned during that period, David would have offered the standard "chatat" sacrifice of an ordinary man rather than the special "chatat" which a king is obligated to bring. This implies that, lacking a national consensus, David temporarily lost his status as king (see Afterword).

Blood sacrifice of men unto their gods

If so, we might expect that the status automatically transferred to his rival - Avshalom. Yet, the Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin (2:1) does not concur. It maintains that since Avshalom captured David's concubines, David was not allowed to return to them after reassuming the throne. The Yerushalmi explains: a utensil which was exploited by a common man (hedyot) is now considered unfit for royal use. Hence, Avshalom was not considered a king during these six months despite the popular support he enjoyed. If Avshalom wasn't king and David wasn't king - who was the king?

The KING of KINGS

The answer to this question lies in differentiating between two aspects of malkhut. There is clearly a concept of royalty as it relates to an individual. In classical "lomdish" language, this would correspond to the "gavra" of a king. He has certain laws which relate to him, and to us: if he sins he brings a special sacrifice; he has a special prohibition against taking too many wives and acquiring too many horses in his entourage; he must write a second Sefer Torah; we must fear him. Basically, all the laws enumerated in parashat Shoftim apply to someone who is considered as an individual to be king.

see Protocols

There is, however, a second dimension. Another concept of malkhut exists: a dynasty which passes through the generations as a political institution which continues independently of any particular monarch who may come from that dynasty. For example, the Tudor dynasty was an independent political entity which happened to be represented by various kings in particular eras. Thus, the king and the dynasty he represents are NOT the same. When Yaakov, in parashat Vayechi, awards dynasty to Yehuda, he is referring to malkhut - the chain of royalty, and not to any particular king.

see the Bushkevik dynasty to Nathan

So with regard to David and Avshalom, during those six months there might not have been any individual occupying the office of king. As such, neither David nor Avshalom would bring a special chatat sacrifice. However, though there was no king, there certainly was an enduring "malkhut Beit David" (Davidic dynasty) which lasted through the mutiny and through the suspension of David's particular status as king. Thus, malkhut can exist independently of the melekh and even when there is no melekh.

Returning to our original question regarding appointment, the same division applies. When the Rishonim discuss the inherited nature of kingship, they are clearly referring to malkhut: royal dynasty passes from father to son. However, a PERSON does not actually become a KING until he is officially appointed. In fact, the source for the hereditary nature of monarchy - the Sifri - reads as follows: "If the father dies, APPOINT his son in his place." The very source for the hereditary nature of malkhut demands a formal appointment process. Even though the child inherits the dynasty and the institution of malkhut, he isn't personally considered a KING until he has an official appointment. Until then, he is merely the king-designate.

see Jesus' appointment, My Son who is dearly beloved

We find two halakhic confirmations of this principle that even an individual who is designated to be king through the laws of inheritance is not officially considered the king until he is formally appointed. First, the gemara in Rosh Hashana (2b) discusses the manner in which contracts are dated based upon the year of the king's reign. The gemara deliberately informs us that if the king is only appointed after Nissan, even though he was already selected during the previous year, we can only date our document as "in the first year of so-and-so's reign." Evidently, though he had already wrapped up the nomination, he cannot be officially considered king, and the era of his reign does not commence until he is formally appointed.

Today, April 15, 2005 is the fifth day of Nissan

Similarly, we notice a parallel situation in Horayot (10a) where the mishna outlines the special chatat sacrifice which a king brings if he sins. The mishna compares this with the special sacrifice a kohen gadol (high priest) brings if he sins. In either case, the mishna determines, if they had sinned before they were appointed and then were appointed - they bring a "commoner's" sacrifice; they bring the special sacrifice only if they sinned after their official appointments. This mishna bears witness, as well, that the official status as a GAVRA of melekh is only conferred by official appointment.

INTERIM SUMMARY: Indeed, malkhut (in the sense of dynasty) passes through inheritance, but that doesn't obviate the need for a formal appointment process to confer the personal status of a particular king and the various halakhot which are dependent upon that status. We were able to detect these dual strata by carefully reading two passages in the Yerushalmi.

If indeed there are two distinct planes to monarchy - the personal status of king and the institutional entity of royal dynasty - we might expect differences in the way each is generated. In other words, their different essences might be reflected in the differing manner in which they are each originated. Indeed, a process of minui (appointment) is necessary both to generate malkhut, as well as to designate a melekh. But as the processes are triggering dissimilar entities, there should be incongruities between them. A careful inspection provides three such discrepancies.

1. Who performs the appointment?

The Rambam (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:3) requires that anointing a king for the first time requires both the High Court as well as a prophet.

So, will John the Baptist RE, Elijah the fake, be appointed first?

 

 However, when the Rambam lists the appointment of subsequent kings (Hilkhot Sanhedrin 5:1), he describes a procedure requiring only the High Court - implying that a prophet is unnecessary. Apparently, the Rambam distinguished between the appointment of a melekh and creation of the concept of malkhut; that latter not only requires the High Court to represent the entire nation, but also a prophet. 

Not necessary, for the beast who comes out of the earth the false Prophet of the false king, likened as a Lamb, comes after the beast Moshiach and cause all to make an image unto the beast and by the power of the Dragon

 

This verifies that true monarchy is only in God's hands (as we say on Rosh Hashana, "He coronates kings, but the Kingship is His") 

Jesus the Christ the Lord of Lord's and King of Kings anointed by his Father

and He, through his prophet, is the one who must confer kingship upon humans. Once malkhut is a reality and we must only designate an individual as the representative of that dynasty, the High Court suffices.

IF you can accept it Elijah has already come, John the Baptist, preaching in the Wilderness, making the Way for the High King

2. Does the process include anointment or merely appointment?

The Yerushalmi in Shekalim (6:1) as well as the Bavli in Horayot (11b) determine that the initial appointment of a king must be performed by anointment with shemen ha-mishcha (anointing oil). The appointment of a "melekh ben melekh," a son succeeding his father, however, does not require oil. The discrepancy in terms of the technique of minui might indicate the difference between generating malkhut (which requires actual anointment) and merely naming a king (which doesn't).

The King of the KING...........The Lord said unto my LORD, come and sit at my Right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.........by the Testimony of your saints, your servants, faithful and true

Interestingly enough, there are two possible sources for this distinction. The Bavli in Horayot first derives it from a verse in Shemuel where God told Shemuel to anoint David "for he is the one." From this, Chazal infer: THIS ONE requires anointment, but not future kings who inherit the throne. Alternatively, the Bavli lists a second source (which the Rambam in Hilkhot Klei Ha-mikdash 1:11 draws from). The verse in parashat Shoftim, "so that the monarchy should endure," is an allusion to the fact that the throne is inherited. From this, Chazal learn that only the first king requires anointment and not those who inherit the throne. Again, the very verse which establishes the inheritance of malkhut excludes "melekh ben melekh" from anointment. This suggests that the lack of anointment isn't merely a formal issue but reflects the fact that the appointment itself is less dynamic; malkhut already exists - we are only selecting a melekh.

and No man would David have sit upon his Throne, for the root and the Offspring Hold's the ONLY KEY

3. When a melekh ben melekh is anointed, what oil is used?

The gemara in Horayot posits that when there is a dispute over the throne, even a melekh ben melekh requires anointment. Here we have a disagreement among the commentators about the meaning of this exception. Rashi (Keritut 5b) maintains that the dispute actually suspends the MALKHUT, requiring a new genesis of malkhut. This further demonstrates that the endurance of MALKHUT is dependent upon national consensus. 

all the people cry out Give us a king to be over us.....give us the "Robber" referendum

According to Rashi, there is little difference between the original anoinment of David and the anointment of a melekh ben melekh during times of dispute. In each case we anoint with the special "anointing oil" of the Temple, for in each case we are generating malkhut afresh.

The Rambam, however, distinguishes between these cases. In both Hilkhot Melakhim (1:12) and Hilkhot Klei Ha-mikdash (1:11) he explains that this exceptional anointment of melekh ben melekh in times of dispute is merely presentational. It is intended to create a public spectacle to generate support for the king and to rebuff his competitors. It isn't a substantive anointment but a political one. If so, we would expect that the anointing oil of the Temple not be used for this "show." Check the Rambam carefully in his statements in Hilkhot Klei Ha-mikdash - his formulation might confirm this distinction.

Part II: Separating the Strands

In Part I, we established the distinction between the categories of "melekh" and of "malkhut" - the former represents an individual occupying an office, and the latter represents the institution or dynasty itself. Whenever one distinguishes between two categories, which generally overlap but theoretically are distinct, one must conduct a test to determine that they can exist independently of each other. 

Sharon and Moshiach ben satan....or, Bush and Moshiach?

If they cannot, then it is possible that they aren't actually different but represent slightly different terms for the same concept. To verify that an authentic distinction exists rather than merely a semantic (Shemantics)  one, ideally some independence between the two categories should be sought. Sometimes they will not both be independent - only one aspect can exist independently. For logical purposes this is sufficient, since they are necessarily distinct.

To a degree we already witnessed the independence of malkhut from melekh. We considered two instances in which malkhut existed though there was no melekh. 

Political and Monarch

One case was the period prior to the actual appointment of a king during which, according to the gemarot in Rosh Ha-shana and Horayot, the king doesn't actually have a halakhic (Law)  status of melekh.(king)  In addition, we noticed that according to the Yerushalmi, during the six-month political upheaval of Avshalom, neither David nor Avshalom was considered king, although the malkhut continued uninterrupted. Can we discover additional examples of malkhut without a melekh?

One such example readily presents itself from another gemara in Horayot (10a). According to this gemara, when a king is afflicted with tzara'at (which according to Chazal is equivalent to death) (Leprosy) he loses his status of a king (reflected by the fact that he brings a commoner's chatat rather than the special offering of the king). The gemara cites the proof from Yotam, whose father Azarya was struck with tzara'at. During this period, since Azarya's status as king was suspended, his son Yotam handled his judicial duties. Here we notice again that a melekh's status is suspended without his successor actually ascending the throne as the next king. The verse relates that Yotam assumed only his father's judicial chores - he did not become the king until his father actually passed away. Here is another instance of malkhut which endures even during a period where there is no person representing that malkhut as melekh.

The Rambam provides another blatant case of malkhut independent of melekh. In Hilkhot Melakhim (1:7) he concludes that if the deserving primary inheritor is still a minor at the moment of the previous monarch's death, we reserve the throne for him until he matures. Until that point in time there is no one sitting on the throne occupying the office of king; despite this absence, the malkhut itself endures - no new anointment is necessary to jump-start the malkhut once the boy matures. The malkhut was abiding even without a melekh representing it and doesn't have to be regenerated.

see the Bushkeviks

The Minchat Chinukh provides a fascinating scenario which might comprise another case of malkhut without melekh. The Sifri determines from the verse, "You shall place upon yourself a king," that a woman cannot become king - (sorry Hillary-ious) "melekh ve-lo malka." What happens, the Minchat Chinukh asks, if there are no male inheritors to the throne and the only remaining relative is a woman? Would she inherit the throne? The Minchat Chinukh raises this question despite the specific verse which prevents a woman from becoming melekh. Evidently, if this case would ensue, she would not be considered a melekh - as the verse underlines. She would, however, inherit the malkhut - and pass it on to her children. We then would arrive at a scenario of an existing malkhut without a specific melekh.

This statement of the Minchat Chinukh opens an interesting Pandora's box. The Sifri lists several criteria for the person who would be king. For example, his mother must be Jewish - i.e. he cannot be a convert, nor the son of a convert. What would happen if a convert would be appointed king in violation of this rule? (According to many commentators, such an event actually occurred: Rechavam the son of Shlomo(Solomon) was the child of Na'ama Ha-amonit.) (Nathan-Bushkevik dynasty, see this site enforcers)  Would we maintain along the lines of the Minchat Chinukh that while he doesn't occupy the official office of melekh because he doesn't meet the full criteria, he nonetheless possesses malkhut - in terms of transferring the dynasty to his children? The Minchat Chinukh, who partially validates femrepresentatives of malkhut, invites us to consider other exclusions and whether they are excluded entirely or merely precluded from acting as official melekh but capable of passing the office to their inheritor.

INTERIM SUMMARY: We have managed to isolate cases where malkhut (jewdicial) continues even though there is no melekh. (kingship) In some instances the melekh is suspended, in others he has yet to be appointed, in still others the person occupying the throne does not acquire the halakhic status of melekh. In all these cases the independent entity of malkhut endures.

Bushkevik of DAN to Nathan

What about the reverse case? Can there be a melekh even though there is no malkhut? At first glance such a case seems not to be feasible. If there is no political institution of malkhut, there is certainly no representative melekh! A closer consideration yields one notable example. Let us turn our attention to the concept of malkhut Yisrael.

Throughout the gemara we pick up hints that monarchs from the greater Jewish nation, though they were not part of the House of David which was guaranteed malkhut, were still considered halakhically legitimate kings. Take, for example, the gemara in Horayot (13a) which declares, "The entire nation of Israel is suitable to be king." In Horayot (11a) the gemara declares that both "Davidic Kings"(Judah of the south Aholibah)  as well as "Kings of Yisrael" (the Northern Empire which split from the Southern, Davidic kingdom in the days of the first Temple)(her sister Aholah, Dan, Samaria)  bring special chatat sacrifices if they sin. This indicates that each of them enjoyed the status of king.

In general, we find all the laws of kings applied to kings of Yisrael as well.

JEWRY and ISRAEL are not the same

 The gemara in Ketubot (17a) discusses the priority a king has to cross an intersection or use a road before a funeral procession or a wedding procession. The gemara seeks to disprove this by citing the example of Agrippas (a non-Davidic king) who allowed a funeral procession to precede him. Tosafot (Sanhedrin 20b) extend royal authorities to Achav who also hailed from non-Davidic roots. The Rambam in particular confers upon the king of Yisrael all the rules of a Davidic sovereign - "all the mitzvot of kingship apply to him." Evidently, non-Davidic rulers have the status of king. Yet there are conflicting signals as well.

Dan shall Judge his people as a tribe of ISRAEL, see Noahide laws unto satan the god with no Savior son, the plural Qabalistic Shekinah male/female non gods of Talmudic Judaism

The Mekhilta (parashat Bo) informs us, "Until David was chosen, all Jews were worthy for royalty; once he was chosen, all the rest of the nation was excluded." Even more startling are the statements of the Rambam himself (Sefer Ha-mitzvot, prohibition 362): "Anyone who comes from a family other than the house of Shlomo ... (Solomon the apostate freemason of freemason Noahidism) in terms of malkhut is considered a foreigner (nokhri) just as anyone who isn't a kohen is considered a stranger (zar) in terms of service in the Temple." With this, the Rambam extends the prohibition of "You may not appoint upon yourself a foreign man (ish nokhri),"

sorry Bushkevik

 which conventionally is taken to mean that you may not appoint a Gentile or a convert as king, to include non-Davidic appointments. He equates non-Davidic kings with non-kohanim - in each case underscoring their utter incompatibility or incongruity with the particular office. Similar sentiments and similar exclusion of non-Davidic kings can be found in the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishna (Sanhedrin 2:3). This apparently contradicts what was stated earlier that "kings of Yisrael" have the status of king and that all the laws of royalty apply to them!

Only in Eretz ISREALHELL Jewrisdiction....USA under Talmudic Noahide Rule....Dan Bush , so Bush you may as well get attempting to take Jerusalem, out of your insane mind

Possibly, the solution to this famous contradiction lies in the distinction between malkhut and melekh. Clearly, the personal status of melekh, which determines a range of halakhot, can apply even to a non-Davidic individual. There is no question that he can serve as a halakhic melekh. Melekh, however, but not malkhut. 

By JEWDICIAL, but NOT ROYAL in Jerusalem that whore city

The concept of malkhut was promised to David, and once he was chosen all other families were excluded from dynastic ownership of the throne (see especially Rambam, Hil. Melakhim 1:7,9).

the Seed of the ONE Seed the Creator.......who has inherited NEW JERUSALEM and not the Corrupted whoredom of that spiritual SODOM and Egypt where the LORD was crucified by these vipers of hell. HE alone is the KING of KINGS and LORD of LORDS in GOD's Holy Mountain in Heaven SION.

 There is no background malkhut outside of the House of David even though the personal status of melekh applies.

When the Rambam describes the status of non-Davidic kings as "nokhri," he clearly stresses their exclusion from the concept of malkhut. The same language can be found in Hilkhot Melakhim (1:8-9) when he says that even though a monarch of the Northern Kingdom has legitimacy, nevertheless "MALKHUT primarily belongs to the House of David." There can be a melekh from other tribes, but no family dynasty which sees the throne pass eternally through the family. Indeed, throughout Tanakh we notice that children of malkhei Yisrael inherited their father's throne. This does not reflect the presence of malkhut - a dynastic political entity which automatically passes through the generations. Instead, it reflects another halakha - any public position is inherited by a son (known as the law of serara). The office of king is no worse than any other position and is hereditary. This does not, however, constitute malkhut, which is a familial reality independent of any particular individual. Malkhei Yisrael seem to present an instance of melekh without malkhut.

Just a mere JEWDICIAL president governed by Judah of Talmud Bavli, thus HJR 104, Public Law 102-14 restoring this nation to their gods of Talmud Bavli

A second example of melekh without malkhut might relate to the Nasi, the Jewish "prince" - the reigning Jewish leader at times when Jewish sovereignty was absent. He was afforded the status of king regarding several laws - among them he is required to offer the special chatat sacrifice of a melekh. 

to sacrifice a man, for their whoredoms

This suggests a partial status of melekh. Yet once the malkhut had been suspended, as it was at the time of destruction of the Temple, it would be very difficult to conceive of an enduring concept of malkhut. The Nasi might reflect an additional instance of melekh without a malkhut.

We have thus proven that malkhut and melekh are mutually independent categories, each capable of existing in the absence of the other.

METHODOLOGICAL POINTS:

I. A common solution to an apparent contradiction is the splitting of a concept into two components. This is a very elegant way of resolving any contradiction. It is commonly known as "two laws" ("tzvei dinim" in yeshiva jargon).

II. Inspect the generative process to detect dissimilarities which mirror the essential differences. If malkhut and melekh are truly different, they should be triggered in different manners.

III. Once you establish your two dinim, test whether they are truly independent of each other. Can one exist without the other and vice versa?

AFTERWORD:

There is understandably much to discuss in terms of the role of a melekh and most importantly whether the very appointment of a monarch is beneficial or undesirable. In terms of an issue raised in the article - the role of public consensus for monarchy to be valid - see Tosafot, Sanhedrin 20b, and Rashi on Bereishit 49:8.

"Give us the "Robber", Moshiach now! they cry

_____

From the "Chosen"

http://www.jewfaq.org/holidaya.htm

Watch out for Christianized versions of the haggadah. The Christian "last supper" is generally believed to have been a Pesach seder, so many Christians recreate the ritual of the seder, and the haggadahs that they use for this purpose tend to reinterpret the significance of the holiday and its symbols to fit into their Christian theology. For example, they say that the three matzahs represent the Trinity,(satanic triune shekinah gods of Judaism)  with the broken one representing Jesus on the cross (in Judaism, the three matzahs represent the three Temples, two of which have been destroyed, and the third of which will be built when the moshiach comes). They speak of the paschal lamb as a prophecy of Jesus, rather than a remembrance of the lamb's blood on the doorposts in Egypt. If you want to learn what Pesach means to Jews, then these "messianic" haggadahs aren't for you.

and they are "chosen" by their evangelical Judeo Churchinsanist....go figure, for they both share the same gods....

_____

http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/days-of-destiny/24.htm

Moshiach ben satan and his false lamb by passover?

Acharon Shel Pesach, the last day of Pesach, has a special connection to the coming of Moshiach and is celebrated accordingly, by partaking of Moshiach's seudah.

The last day of Pesach is celebrated by eating a special, festive banquet called Moshiach's seudah,[1] a custom initiated by the Baal Shem Tov.[2] The connection between the last day of Pesach and Moshiach is explained by the Tzemach Tzedek:[3] "The last day of Pesach is the conclusion of that which began on the first night of Pesach. The first night of Pesach is our festival commemorating our redemption from Egypt by the Holy One, Blessed be He. It was the first redemption, carried out through Moshe Rabbeinu, who was the first redeemer; it was the beginning. The last day of Pesach is our festival commemorating the final redemption, when the Holy One, Blessed be He, will redeem us from the last exile through our righteous Moshiach, who is the final redeemer. The first day of Pesach is Moshe Rabbeinu's festival; the last day of Pesach is Moshiach's festival."

Thus the "Chosen" who crucified their Chooser and accept now the "Robber" and cry give us a king to be over us....give us the "Robber"

 

Pesach is the festival which celebrates freedom. The first day celebrates the redemption from the first exile; the last day celebrates the future redemption from the final exile. The two are intimately connected, the beginning and end of one process,[4] with G-d in the future redemption showing wonders "as in the days of your exodus from Egypt."[5]

and cast into outer darkness where their will be grinding of teeth in torment forever

 

Gatherer Of All The Camps

That Moshiach's festival is celebrated specifically on the last day of Pesach is not merely because Moshiach will redeem us from the last exile.

Jn:8:33: They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

 Being last has a significance beyond mere numerical order, for that which is last performs a unique function. When the Jews journeyed in the desert after leaving Egypt, they marched in a specific order, divided into four camps. The last to march was the camp of Don, (Dan)  which is described by Torah as "ma'asaf l'chol hamachanos" - "gatherer of all the camps."[6] Rashi explains this as meaning that "The tribe of Don...would journey last, and whoever would lose anything, it would restore it to him."

The concept of "gatherer of all the camps" - restoring lost property and making sure that nothing is missing - may be applied to various situations. The Baal Shem Tov, for example, taught[7] that just as the Jews in the desert made forty-two journeys before they reached their final destination, Eretz Yisroel, so there are forty-two journeys in each Jew's individual life. The birth of a person corresponds to the initial journey when the Jews left the land of Egypt,[8] and at each stage of life a Jew is somewhere in the middle of one of the forty-two journeys he must experience before he enters the next world.[9]

and Not Sion God's Holy Mountain in heaven into the beautiful city New Jerusalem into a company of innumerable angels

Not only a person's entire life, but also every individual service to G-d has various stages or "journeys." In particular, the conclusion of a specific service acts as the "gatherer of all the camps" - to make sure that nothing is missing from that service. Pesach, it was noted earlier, is associated with the concept of redemption, and our service on Pesach is correspondingly directed towards hastening the arrival of the final redemption. But even if service on Pesach was deficient, if opportunities were missed, not all is lost: the last day of Pesach acts as "gatherer of all the camps" for the entire festival. Just as the tribe of Don restored lost articles to their owners, so the last day of Pesach provides a Jew with the opportunity to rectify omissions in the service of Pesach, and thereby regain what is rightfully his.

Because Pesach is associated with the redemption through Moshiach and the last day of Pesach is the finish to and completion of Pesach, the last day of Pesach accordingly emphasizes the coming of Moshiach.

a redemption of the useless flesh which profits them nothing

_______

Their perverted pesach, which is not the Lamb of God the Only Redeemer since the beginning begins sundown April 23, 2005 and ends sundown, Beltaine Day May 1, 2005, the celebration day of Talmudic Sofiet Communism unto the Dragon of Marxism....how appropriate

______

Noahide News Part 168

 

 

The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

 Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II

"Questions"

"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

 ADDED Material 3-25-2004 Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

 Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

Chabad Satan Part 11

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5

One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

Nazi Part 2

Nazi Part 3

Nazi Part 4

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws

The Leaven of the Chabad Lubavitch Chassidim Pharisees

Exod-U.S the coming Geula 

anti-semitism?

Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of Judaic Talmudism

Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2

Noahide News Part 3

Noahide News Part 4

Noahide News Part 5

Noahide News Part 6

Noahide News Part 7

Noahide News Part 8

Noahide News Part 9

Noahide News Part 10

Noahide News Part 11

Noahide News Part 12

Noahide News Part 13

Noahide News Part 14

Noahide News Part 15

Noahide News Part 16

Noahide News Part 17

Noahide News Part 18

Noahide News Part 19

Noahide News Part 20

Noahide News Part 21

Noahide News part 22

Noahide News Part 23

Noahide News part 24

Noahide News Part 25

Noahide News Part 26

Noahide News part 27

Noahide News Part 28

Noahide News Part 29

Noahide News Part 30

Noahide News Part 31

Noahide News Part 32

Noahide News Part 33

Noahide News Part 34

Noahide News Part 35

Noahide News Part 36

Noahide News Part 37

Noahide News Part 38

Noahide News Part 39

Noahide News Part 40

Noahide News Part 41

Noahide News Part 42

Noahide News Part 43

Noahide News Part 44

Noahide News Part 45

Noahide News Part 46

Noahide News Part 47

Noahide News Part 48

Noahide News Part 49

Noahide News Part 50

Noahide News Part 51

Noahide News Part 52

Noahide News Part 53

Noahide News Part 54

Noahide News Part 55

Noahide NewsPart 56

Noahide News Part 57

Noahide News Part 58

Noahide News Part 59

Noahide News Part 60

Noahide News Part 61

Noahide News Part 62

Noahide News Part 63

Noahide News Part 64 

Noahide News Part 65

Noahide News Part 66

Noahide News Part 67

Noahide News Part 68

Noahide News Part 69

Letter to Bob Jones and President Bush and all televangelist

Noahide News Part 70

Noahide News Part 71

Noahide News Part 72

Noahide News Part 73

Noahide News Part 74

Noahide News Part 75

Noahide News Part 76

Noahide News Part 77

Noahide News Part 78

Noahide News Part 79

Noahide News Part 80

Noahide News Part 81

Noahide News Part 82

Noahide News Part 83 ALERT ALERT ALERT

Noahide News Part 84

Noahide News Part 85

Noahide News Part 86

Noahide News Part 87

Noahide News Part 88

Noahide News Part 89

Noahide News part 90

Noahide News Part 91

Noahide News Part 92

Noahide News Part 93

Noahide News Part 94

Noahide News Part 95

Noahide News Part 96

Noahide News Part 97

Noahide News Part 98

Noahide News Part 99

Noahide News Part 100

Noahide News Part 101

Noahide News Part 102

Noahide News Part 103

Noahide News Part 104

Noahide News Part 105

Noahide News Part 106

Noahide News Part 107

Noahide News Part 108

Noahide News Part 109

Noahide News Part 110

Noahide News Part 111

Noahide News Part 112

Noahide News Part 113

Noahide News Part 114

Noahide Naws Part 115

Noahide News Part 116

Noahide News Part 117

Noahide News Part 118

Noahide News Part 119

Noahide News Part 120

Noahide News Part 121

Noahide News Part 122

Noahide News Part 123

Noahide News Part 124

Noahide News part 125

Noahide News Part 126

Noahide News Part 127

Noahide News Part 128

Noahide News Part 129

The Revelation of Jesus the Christ the LORD God and His Father

Noahide News Part 130

Noahide news Part 131

Noahide News Part 132

Noahide News Part 133

Noahide News Part 134

Noahide News Part 135

Noahide news Part 136

Noahide News Part 137

Noahide News Part 138

Noahide News Part 139

Noahide News Part 140

Noahide News Part 141

Noahide News Part 142

Noahide News Part 143

Noahide News Part 144  

Noahide news Part 147

Noahide News Part 148

Noahide News Part 149

Noahide News Part 150

Noahide News Part 151

Noahide News Part 152

Noahide News Part 153

Noahide News Part 154

NoahideNews Part 155

Noahide News Part 156

Noahide News Part 157

Noahide News Part 158

Noahide News Part 159

Noahide News Part 160

Noahide News Part 161

Noahide News Part 162

Noahide News Part 163

Noahide News Part 164

Noahide News Part 165

Noahide News part 166

Noahide News Part 167

Noahide News Part 168