“Seek Ye First The Kingdom of God”

One thought on ““Seek Ye First The Kingdom of God””

1. Another example of Gospel revisionist history which substitute the gospel for the T’NaCH narrative as primary: Luke 19:41-42

   The noun peace does not correctly translate the verb shalom. Shalom stands upon the foundation of trust. Peace reflects ancient Greek philosophical rhetoric; where undefined key terms which require the listeners fuzzy logic to define – these essential undefined terms – like shalom, upon which all later ideas thereafter hang upon.

   Herein defines the classic use of Greek rhetoric by which a person controls and directs the masses. The City of David represents the rule of fair and righteous Judicial common law justice. It has absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the revisionist history of the imaginary physical history of Jesus the imaginary myth Son of God – man.

   “Shalom” carries far more than the modern Western notion of “peace.” In Hebrew, shalom implies completeness, wholeness, harmony, security, and a just, equitable social order rooted in mutual trust; deeply tied to emunah (faith/trust) and mishpat (justice).

   By contrast, the Greek eirēnē—translated into English as “peace”—more passive, & static, whereas shalom utterly dynamic. And when the Gospel of Luke (originally written in Greek) uses eirēnē, translators historically rendered it as “peace” in English, which utterly obscures the Hebrew mindset behind Jesus’ (the Son of God character’s) lament over Jerusalem.

   Greek rhetoric originally employed as a tool for crowd control. Rhetoric sophistry, and later Stoicism or Platonism, deeply shaped and influenced early Christian theology. These systems often pivot on undefined abstractions—”Logos”, “Peace”, “Salvation”, etc.—easily manipulated by rhetoric design, without grounding in lived experience or legal precedent (as Hebrew law absolutely demands).

   Revisionist history and the mythologizing of Son of God Jesus. This aligns with the view that the Gospels understood as a allegorical political theology, where the imaginary mythical character of Son of God “Jesus” represents, not a literal historical figure but a narrative device or archetype for deeper sociopolitical critique—especially of Roman occupation and corrupt legal systems.

   So if we read Luke 19:42 not as a personal lament by a mythological Son of God Jesus, but rather as a legal or prophetic indictment of Jerusalem’s Torah leadership and their collective failure to uphold mishpat (justice) and trust-based shalom, the entire tone and meaning of the text radically shifts, the Torah becomes demoted in priority – cast under the shadow of the Son of God narrative.

   Torah, in point of fact, and not the gospel rhetoric narrative, less about emotion and more about the oath brit alliance, the prophetic mussar which rebukes the leaders of the chosen Cohen nation for their failure, sworn at Sinai, their conscious corruption which pursues opportunistic political power over the righteousness of enforced judicial justice.

   Shalom functions as a legal-communal framework, rather than merely a trick of rhetoric where mood or emotion dominates the direction taken by the blind mob masses. It reflects a system of relationships rooted in fidelity to the oath brit alliance and reciprocal trust (emunah). In that sense, shalom simply not something felt, but something upheld—a real social order built on mishpat (justice) and righteousness (tzedek), as found in the Torah and enforced by judges (shofetim) and prophets (nevi’im).

   When shalom becomes translated into Greek as eirēnē, the foundational juridical content gets lost in abstraction. Eirēnē leans more toward inner tranquility or absence of conflict—passive, internal, de-prioritized obligations to pursue fair compensation to those who suffer damages. Peace reflects a word that fits into a philosophical or imperial religious context, not a oath brit alliance by and through which the Torah defines the term brit; a Sinai commitment לשמה.

   Greek thought, expressed in the new testament purposely neutralizes\whitewashes the legal and relational substance of Hebrew term Shalom, by absorbing Shalom into idealized peace categories. This Greek rhetoric technique then detached the gospels from historical accountability.

   Greek rhetorical systems—especially sophistry and later Platonic-Christian syntheses—weaponized undefined key term peace. Love, for example: later the church authorities turned to Greek agape as its definition. Such critical abstractions create semantic fog, where critical abstract terms, their most essential intent meanings, they float above the replaced Hebrew verbs with meaningless noun names. The Torah defines the verb love as “ownership”. A man does not love that which he does not own. Hence the mitzva of kiddushin requires that the man acquires the Nefesh O’lam Ha’bah soul of his wife – meaning the children produced through this oath alliance brit union.

   Whereas the writers of gospel and new testament narratives, those in power who chose to supplant the TNaCH with their New Testament/Old Testament religious rhetoric, like as did Muhammad’s koran replaced the new testament and the Book of Mormon replacement holy book of Mormon equally deprioritized the T’NaCH and new testament and koran forgeries.

   These replacement holy books seized power, they edit and control the new moral gospel narrative through subtle re-defined definitions. “Salvation,” “grace,” “faith,” Yishmael replaced Yitzak at the Akadah, and even “God” become perverted into malleable terms. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Rather than precise sworn oaths which define intent of Judicial common law. The sworn oaths got totally whitewashed from the original T’NaCH prophetic mussar. Swept away in the new creed theologies which define how Man must believe in these New Gods dolled up as the T’NaCH God of Sinai.

   This Greek rhetorical shift, makes room for imperial theology, where obedience to Rome’s version of peace (Pax Romana) wolf in sheep clothing, rebranded as the kosher spiritual obedience, and where Jerusalem’s failure totally ignores judicial justice in the oath sworn Cohen lands of inheritance replaced by theological belief systems in the messiah or strict monotheism.

   This new testament justification for Jerusalem’s destruction consequent to the Jewish revolt in 66CE totally and completely ignores the prophetic mussar of the NaCH which warned of the destruction and exile of both Israel & Judah by the g’lut exile carried out through the Divine agents of both the Assyrian and Babylonian empires within the mussar of the T’NaCH itself.

   Return the Gospel narrative to its roots of Hebrew common law jurisprudence, strip away the Greco-Roman mythologizing that turned the gospel narrative into its own separate religion, into an abstract religion of personal piety and internal peace. This new testament socio-legal drama, with its son of God figure lamenting the collapse of Jerusalem over its failure to recognize the Son of God true messiah. Greek replacements—eirēnē, pistis, charis, logos—introduce semantic drift. That drift allows imperial theology to abstract away historical responsibility, essentially laundering injustice through feel-good metaphysics.

   The Case Luke 19:42 nstead of a legal rebuke grounded in prophetic precedent (like those of Yirmiyahu or Yeshayahu), it’s reframed as a personal emotional lament by a deified character, whose authority derives from myth rather than brit law. It bypasses the system of shofetim and nevi’im who were accountable to the Torah and for the community.

   The gospel narrative replaces the oath sworn dedication to pursue justice within the borders of the chosen Cohen oath brit lands, replaced by a foreign idea of a passive messiah who brings peace to the Goyim people incorporated as part of the chosen Cohen people. This narrative totally ignores the teshuva made by HaShem where on Yom Kippur HaShem annulled the vow to make of Moshe’s seed the chosen Cohen people. This Divine t’shuva utterly rejects the later replacement theologies and holy books with violate the commandment — do not add or subtract from this Torah.

   According to prophetic mussar, neither Babylon nor Rome destroyed Jerusalem. The failure of the chosen oath alliance brit, directly comparable to the sin of the Golden Calf, where the chosen Cohen people fail to obey the terms of the Sinai oath alliance. Herein defines the basis for the destruction of Jerusalem and the g’lut exile of the Jewish people by the Assyrian, Babylonian and Roman empires. And before these g’lut exiles the Egyptian exile, the cruel oppression of Israelite slaves – caused by the betrayal and sale of Yosef by his jealous brothers.

   LikeLike

   Reply