5 responses to “Retro Television Review: The Love Boat 6.16 “Doc’s Big Case/Senior Sinners/A Booming Romance””

1. Charlie Kirk assassinated merits mourning.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   • I agree.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply

     • T’shuva NOT repentance any more that Day is Night nor Night is Day.

       T’shuva not the same as Xtian repentance. T’shuva based upon the substitution theology espoused by the ערב רב, assimilated Israel, who substituted the name אלהים for the Divine Presence Spirit which breathes within the Yatzir HaTov within the heart for the שם השם לשמה. Measure for Measure — HaShem threatened to make of the seed of Moshe Rabbeinu the chosen Cohen people. Moshe caused HaShem to do “t’shuva” and annul his false vow.

       A Torah oath exceptionally powerful even HaShem cannot break a Torah oath. This crisis event serves as the יסוד of the Yom Tov season of Rosh HaShanna and Yom Kippur. יום הזכרון – do Jews stop and “remember” the oaths sworn by the Avot to cut a Torah oath brit which תמיד מעשה בראשית Creates the chosen Cohen people יש מאין?

       The blowing of the Shofar sums up this Yom Tov – do Jews stop and “discern” the k’vanna distinction between breath brown from our lungs from the tohor middot of the Oral Torah revealed to Moshe on Yom Kippur, which our Yatzir Tov spirit both dedicates and blows from within our hearts?

       The Cohen HaGadol pronounces the שם השם לשמה by making t’shuva and the מאי נפקא מינא הבדלה רוח של רב חסד? Discernment of subtle distinctions of כוונה, herein distinguishes how tohor time oriented commandments which dedicate טהור מידות, כמו רב חסד, separates Av time-oriented commandments from secondary positive & negative commandments which do not require k’vanna. The latter תולדות מצוות do not have the holiness to create from nothing the Chosen Cohen People throughout time and history.

       ערב רב assimilated American Jewish “rabbis” know absolutely nothing about doing t’shuva. They wallow like pigs in mud adoring their assimilated Rambam רשע whose “Mishna Torah” perverted T’NaCH/Talmudic judicial common law unto cult of personality statute law, just another Golden Calf.

       Xtian substitute theology substitutes the JeZeus cult of personality as their Golden Calf. Hence their Av tumah avoda zara perverts t’shuva unto repentance. Wherein a Man expected to feel the emotions of grief. Charlie Kirk’s assassination merits grief and mourning “repentance”. Remembering the Yatzir HaRaw sin of the Golden Calf “substitution of the “WORD” אלהים which the assimilated and intermarried ערב רב Jews who have no יראת אלהים, based upon the mitzva to have “רחום” upon Amalek; the Torah brit blessing or Curse – Life or Death. Amalek merits “רחום” like as equally do the nations of Canaan or the stubborn and rebellious child. Just as t’shuva the opposite of repentance; so too and how much more so רחום the opposite of pity.

       The Yom Tov of both Rosh HaShenna and Yom Kippur requires that Jews “remember” the oaths sworn by the Avot wherein they cut a Torah oath brit with HaShem through Av tohor time oriented commandments to create תמיד מעשה בראשית the chosen Cohen people just as HaShem swore to childless Avram that his עולם הבא future born seed would number, inclusive of all generations that the seed of the Avot walk upon the face of this earth, that the population of this chosen Cohen people would compare to the number of the Stars the Heavens contain.

       Xtian repentance has zero to do with Av tohor time oriented commandments which require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna. Repentance all about a Charlie Kirk assassination guilt trip: “He died for YOU”, Pauline “Original Sin of Adam” addiction to the farcical fraud of gospel “Good News” substitute theology of a messiah Man/God.

       LikeLike

       Reply

     • The stark contrast how Goyim read their sophomoric moronic bible translations vs Torah common law which stands upon precedents.
       __________________________________________________

       Intentional Faith
       Intentional Faith·pastorhogg.net

       Resting in Reverence
       As the day ends, Psalm 2:10–11 reminds us to serve the Lord with reverence, acknowledging His holiness and unshakable rule. This evening is an opportunity to…..
       _______________________________________________
       Interpreting Tehillem ב. Man struggles with tumah middot within his Yatzir Ha’Raw. This struggle – Universal within all Mankind. If National rulers struggle with their tumah Yatzir how much more so the common man on the street. What does “kingship in Zion” refer to? As a physical king gives direction to the nation so too and how much more so the struggling Yatzirot within the heart. Who wears the crown of the king? The tohor Yatzir Ha’Tov or the tumah Yatzir Ha’Raw?

       Israel’s acceptance of the oath brit at Sinai done לשמה או לא לשמה? Clearly the Wilderness generation who accepted the Torah at Sinai did so לא לשמה. Forty days following the Torah revelation the ערב רב שאין לכם יראת שמים imposed a substitute theology of the WORD אלהים which replaced the first Sinai Torah acceptance – שם השם לשמה. Had the Wilderness generation accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai לשמה, they would not have given the assimilated and intermarried Israel/Egyptian ערב רב the time of day. But instead all the sages of the Great Sanhedrin, except for Aaron, MURDERED.

       A blessing requires שם ומלכות. The charge of the King, to direct tohor spirits and crown the Yatzir Ha’Tov king within the heart. Superficial reading of Tehillem ב through the sophomoric moronic translation that “KING” refers to a physical/historical son of David – utterly perverts the k’vanna and mussar instructed by this Tehillem! The admonition to kings and judges which ב rebukes, directly addresses the struggle of opposing tohor vs tumah spirits within the Yatzirot within the heart.

       Divine Law, not some pie in the Sky “Word of God”, but rather the pursuit of righteous judicial justice among our people. Fair compensation of damages inflicted defines Torah faith. Only through justice can an Israel trust another Israel following a fight/Civil War among ourselves. The metaphor “Kissing the son”, hence refers to the נמשל of tohor middot which the Yatzir Ha’tov breathes.

       Tefillah a matter of the heart not the place or location where one prays. How much more so NOT an issue of National leaders but rather the Yatzir Tohor within our hearts! Justice can never prevail over our own interests if we do not dedicate our lives, comparable to a korban dedicated upon the altar in Jerusalem, to the righteous pursuit of justice among our people.

       The concept of judicial awe as an ethical restraint is vital for legitimate jurisprudence. Instructs the mussar, that without a deep respect for remembering the oaths sworn by the Avot wherein they swore and cut an oath brit with HaShem, to create the chosen Cohen people through the performance of time oriented Torah commandments, that no generation of Israel can dominate the tumah Yatzir within all our hearts.

       Tehillem ב stands upon the T’NaCH precedents of צדק צדק תרדוף and 2 Chronicles 19:6–7 (Jehoshaphat’s reforms): “Consider what you do, for you judge not for man but for HaShem… let the fear of HaShem be upon you.” Impossible to learn and interpret Tehillem without learning it back to similar Case/Rule precedents found within the T’NaCH itself. The tuma Yatzir continually seduces Man to make a shallow reactionary reading of T’NaCH verses snatched like Israeli hostages by Hamas on Oct 7th. This tumah Yatzir defines how the Roman NT gospel fraud makes a superficial and
       inconsequential symbolism of p’sukim robbed and raped out of context from the Books of the Prophets and the NT framers declare that their Man/God JeZeus fulfilled the words of the prophets.

       LikeLike

       Reply

     • Have encountered a Xtian believer whose opinion merits discussion.

       Frank Hubeny says:

       The important point to remember, Moshe, is that Jesus did – in fact – fulfill the words of the prophets.

       That is why Akiva and company had to alter the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 and move the Book of Daniel from the Nev’im to the Ketuvim section of the Tanach. They wanted to pretend that He didn’t and hide the fact that they knew He did.

       So, now that your history has been corrupted, where does that leave you? Is Kabballah enough? Is mussar enough? Are “Case/Rule precedents” enough? It sounds like Akiva sentenced you to perpetual exile.

       You can always be grafted back in unless you decide to talk yourself out of it.

       Romans 11:23 NKJV – 23 And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.
       _________________________________________
       _________________________________________

       mosckerr says:

       September 11, 2025 at 10:27 pm

       Bunk. Mussar by definition applicable across the board to all generations of Israel. Hence impossible to “fulfill” prophesy as the false gospel narrative lies. Your speculation – simply slander. You offer no evidence to support your opinion – other than that you do not read Hebrew or Aramaic.

       Daniel a mystic not a prophet. The Book of Daniel compares to the relationship which the Gemara has with the Mishna. The generation of Ezra primarily sealed the T’NaCH NOT rabbi Akiva some 600 years later. Oooops try again.

       By the language of the Book of Daniel itself, the story occurs in Babylonian exile. Prophets the “Police enforcers” of the Sanhedrin Judges. The jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin courts – only within the borders of Judea. By extension this applies equally to prophets. Therefore Daniel a mystic and not a prophet. Oooops try again.

       Your revisionist history, simply false. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n. משנה תורה a Torah 2nd given name for the Book of דברים, if you read the Torah in Hebrew you would immediately know this. Mishna Torah means common law. Common law stands on the foundation of precedents/בניני אבות in Hebrew. Just that simple. No fancy dance’n.

       Never in the 2000+ years Jews existed as refugees in Arab or Muslim lands did any Goy court hold either Church or Mosque accountable for war-crimes committed against Humanity – which includes the Jewish people. The Torah defines faith as: Justice pursue. Only under the terms of a Torah blessing: Jews ruling our Homeland, does the potential for the establishment of Sanhedrin common law courts which have the Torah Constitutional mandate of Legislative Review. This fact has zero to do with the theology vomited by Romans 11:23. Justice has nothing to do with any belief system. Torah common law stands upon Case/Rule court precedents. Its this fact which separates Torah common law from Greek/Roman statute law.

       The confusion concerning the Aramaic Book of Daniel, even Rashi and later the Rambam debated this point. Also the Zohar weighs in on the Book of Daniel. Both the Book of Daniel and the Zohar written in Aramaic – and both this and that instruct mysticism. Mesechta Megillah, a tractate on Chag Purim clearly states that Daniel – not a prophet. Rashi on this dof of Gemara concedes that Daniel – not a prophet. But about 8 pages thereafter refers to Daniel as a prophet. This contradiction of Rashi’s commentary merits address.

       By the time of the Reshonim scholars of the Dark and Middle Ages of European g’lut, Jews lacked a clear understanding of T’NaCH prophets. No Reshon validates that Parshat Shoftim and Shotrim in D’varim, that the latter enforcers existed as “Prophets”. Traditional commentaries such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Ramban do not explicitly state that the Shotrim served as prophets in their interpretations of Deuteronomy 16:18. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, like the classical Rishonim, does not explicitly state that the Shotrim in Deuteronomy 16:18 directly referenced as prophets. The connection between Shotrim and prophetic roles simply not a common interpretation found in traditional commentaries. Most classical sources focus on the Shotrim as law enforcers and assistants to the judges without explicitly linking them to the prophetic function.

       G’lut Jewry, estranged from the realities that the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin courts – limited to within the borders of Judea. Rav Shwartz, who gave me sh’micha, his beit din erroneously attempted to involve the Sanhedrin court in Jerusalem, in a legal dispute in America involving one of the leaders of the Bnai Noach movement. This fundamental ignorance concerning the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrin court directly contributed to the collapse of Rav Shwartz attempt to restore Sanhedrin (common law) courts in the Jewish state.

       The Yerushalmi includes a dispute Tannaim over whether king David established a small Sanhedrin court in Damascus. The small Sanhedrin courts, based upon the three established by Moshe Rabbeinu on the other side of the Jordan river, from this precedent Torah common law learns that these small Sanhedrin courts, they define the borders of newly conquered lands annexed to the Jewish state.

       The Rambam civil war greatly further eroded rabbinic knowledge of the functions of Torah common law. As a minor judge on the attempt to re-establish the Sanhedrin court system within Israel, I watched in horror as the vast majority of my rabbinic peers voted to base the authority of the Sanhedrin court upon the Rambam’s statute halachic code.

       These examples caused me to reach the conclusion that post the Rambam Civil War that rabbinic Judaism had abandoned the דרך faith to pursue judicial justice as the יסוד responsibility for accepting the revelation of the Torah at Sinai לשמה. While I can validate the arguments made by the RambaN in his מלחמת השם against the Baal HaMaor’s rebuke against the Rif code for reducing the primacy of Talmudic common law in favor of making a far easier halachic definition of religious halachic observance among g’lut Jewry.

       The times absolutely demanded halachic simplifications due to the almost impossibility to travel on a collapsed Roman international road system. None the less, the codes effectively changed the priority established by the Framers of both the T’NaCH and Talmud to serve as the vision model to re-establish Sanhedrin common law lateral courtrooms within the borders of the Jewish Republic which have the Torah Constitutional mandate of Legislative Review. And hence none of the Reshonim commentaries on the Torah prioritized the the definition of Shotrim as “prophets”. A critical and fundamental error of Reshonim scholarship. Consequently, Rashi himself confused, and later referred to the mystic Daniel as a “prophet” in his commentary to Mesechta Megillah.

       LikeLike

       Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.