Do You See Yourself as a Leader?

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.