ON MICHAEL A. HOFFMAN, II, AND THE TROUBLE WITH TALMUDIC JUDAISM

These are notes for a new YouTube play list of mine ("More on the Trouble with Talmudic-Judaism: Michael Hoffman") based upon the last series of Michael A. Hoffman videos I watched.

I don't agree with every last bit in this series or "play list," but I agree with a great deal of it. It is interesting to listen to and consider.

Michael A. Hoffman, from all that I've read and heard, which is far from everything he's done, is a professing Christian. He's been so marginalized that when I went to find answers, I only came across him after deep digging. That was years ago. Now (April 5, 2010), he's a bit better known but not by very much. To put it bluntly, he's been marginalized by a Jewish elite even though he is apparently accepting of ethnic Jews and not completely opposed to Torah Judaism, although he'd take exception to the term "Torah Judaism" as being more of an oxymoron for reasons made clear in the videos. I haven't run into his claimed denomination if he has one. There are many non-denominationalists out there. Of course, "Christianity" is a name or denomination, just not within a single religion but within all of what is most commonly thought of as religion as a whole (sets and subsets).

Michael A. Hoffman has a Jeffersonian, libertarian capitalist thing going somewhat, as if Jesus was not, and is not now still, and always will be, a communist, albeit non-Marxist. Michael is apparently for Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation," what has come to be termed "the separation of Church and state"; whereas, clearly, Jesus is for the kingdom of God being both Church and state at the same time, everywhere, at all times. The only obstacle to that is that given the choice, there are those who rebel and mislead others. Jefferson rebelled and misled. Michael Hoffman, of course, and hundreds of millions of others, are comparing Jefferson's model to the Spanish Inquisition and other such grave errors. In that light, the "wall of separation" is the lesser of evils but only provided things don't go the other way into Stalinism, which was every bit as dark as the Spanish Inquisition if not more so.

Michael's points are valid within his semantic context of Judaism, which he sees as never having been Torah-based but rather starting only during the exile to Babylonia. Michael doesn't appear willing to accept other connotations. What's a Jew other than of Judah who was long before the Babylonian captivity? Yes, that can be viewed as a stretch, just as the so-called modern ideology "Zionism" is a stretch to the actual meaning of the term's root, which means peace, among all other divine synonyms. However, we are to remember that Joseph forgave Judah and Judah repented for having sold his little brother, Joseph, into slavery. Is that not the spirit of real Judaism? I say that it is. I certainly won't say that Michael A. Hoffman would necessarily disagree. I suspect that he'd agree but not want that to preclude his own thesis, which I say, I don't reject in total, or anywhere near that.

That said; let me add that Jacob did tell the future about Judah in that his bloodline would rule as beasts (lions) until Shiloh, which means what? Well, my reading is until everyone has the law of peace written on his or her heart and does as Christ exemplified.

I believe that Michael's emphasis upon "Judaism" is exactly correct 1) in the current usage and 2) as being Talmud and not Pentateuch based. His point that Jesus was at odds with the Talmudic Pharisees over the traditions of the Pharisees that ran contrary to the thrust of the real law pointing directly to Jesus as the Messiah is likewise correct.

Michael also is absolutely correct that Jesus identified the Talmudic, traditions-based "Jews" has coming out from darkness that is the Satanic spirit and that their church or synagogue is that of the proverbial Satan. It is this group that is now for, all intense and purposes, heading the Zionist Project called "Israel."

Now, Michael believes these people are such huge liars that they would perpetrate the biggest modern hoax known as the "Holocaust," with a capital "H." The problem with that is that it is extremely giving where the Nazis were concerned, and the Nazis, even leaving all the concentration camps aside, did horrendous things and had extremely strange and equally anti-Christ ideas.

Hoffman also refers often (in this series and others) to the Khazars in that he believes that the Ashkenazi Jews (the leading group in Zionist-Israel) come from the conversion of the Khazars to Judaism. The Khazars are assumed to be of no close biological relation to any of the "ten lost tribes." The truth is that there is a mixture after all these centuries that reverse engineering DNA will only partially reveal. There are literally dead ends.

I also agree with Hoffman that Christianity is the real religion of the remnant of the Israelites. I've publicly written as much before.

His reference to "Carnal Israel," counterfeit Israel, being the Talmudic "Jews" is a good point to dwell upon for its ramifications for humanity. I would add that Kabbala is, however, spiritual but doesn't know its source the way Jesus knew and knows his. Kabbala is more at magic versus flowing from the Holy Spirit identified as such.

It's no invention or unique discovery by Michael that Talmudic Judaism (by far the most prevalent strain of Judaism) claims to have an unbroken chain of secret knowledge passed down from Moses. Undoubtedly, Moses told people things individually and in groups that he didn't preach verbatim to the whole of the tribes of Israel. Exactly what he said, God and the souls involved know. The question arises though as to whether the first five books of both the Christian and Hebrew Bibles reflect what would be consistent with the esoteric level that the Talmudists assert for themselves. Jesus spoke to the general population in parables and then when asked by his closest followers for the interpretation, gave that to them while explaining why he hadn't shared the interpretation with the crowd. Jesus also said to the Pharisees and members of the Sanhedrin (the governing body of the Jews in Jerusalem allowed by Caesar to remain seated by Caesar's sake –the opposite of the American emperor for a term, George W. Bush, and George's debaathification of Iraq, where the Baath Party was the ruling party under Saddam Hussein) that he preached nothing in secret, which if properly interpreted, is completely truthful.

It's no invention or unique discovery by Michael that Talmudic Judaism claims to have an unbroken chain of secret knowledge passed down from Moses because they've stated it openly and often. Where Michael runs into trouble with them is in Michael's characterizations about it and his analysis in terms of urgency, deceit, and ultimate agenda. The single most important aspect here is deceit. Michael is positive, as am I, that the Talmudists coming out from the Babylonian captivity and who much later committed their brand of religion to writing, firmly believe that it is required that they lie to the Goyim. "Goyim" is the plural for the Hebrew goy, meaning nations other than the Israelites. Many nations down through the ages have come up with pejoratives similar to this one. The terms "pagan" and "heathen" are very similar. Many, if not most, nations have at one time or another desired to see themselves as superior by reason of bloodline. No doubt, DNA factors into all sorts of outcomes, but just because one group is more schooled in the dark art of deception than another does not grant that deceptive group higher value within the vast configuration of things. In fact, Jesus argues that the exact opposite is the case, and I agree with him completely. What the Talmud does is "legally" excuse Jews when they lie to the inferiors who are the Goyim. It's a very racial and ethnically bigoted viewpoint to which many in the Zionist Project still cling. Polls in Israel bear this out.

Where I'm headed with this is that Judaism is compartmentalized and fragmented, as are Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism, etcetera. Islam attempts to pride itself upon the Qur'an not having been altered and that they say it can only be real when in Arabic script. However, Islam has certainly not escape the mundane spectrum of liberal to conservative and myriad interpretations, compendia, and supposedly complimentary other books covering the life of Mohammed from the Muslim perspective, etcetera. The Wikipedia has a list of the most prominent.

So, Judaism, as Michael Hoffman has correctly pointed out, has its Reformed, Conservative, and Orthodox branches. The different strains within each are too numerous to even list here, but the point is that we must guard against two seemingly at-odds turns of mind. First, we must be careful not to lump all religiously practicing Jews together as being equally swayed to deceit. Second, we must be careful to be vigilant about those who are. After all, the deceptive have been twisting humanity by evil means to evil ends since the proverbial beginning. If we are ever to arrive at the highest and best, deception will have to be left behind. The real God is not deceptive. That's the case regardless of whether or not the human mind is capable of being reconciled to God the Creator with the existence of evil in the first place. We are faced by evil but have yet to know what it is that is also to know what to do with it. People are ready to blame God, but people don't consider that they also want choice with inevitable consequences. Make us you now, God, is the desire of many and regardless of any other considerations.

How dangerous are the deceptive at heart? They are as dangerous as can be if they are unleashed. The worst of the worst in an exceedingly wicked time or generation can do heretofore unimagined evil. Is this demonizing or just calling a spade a spade? Jesus said we know each other by our results: "tree by its fruit." Who is the evil one whom comes to destroy the other evil ones? Is he forever the lesser of evils in some respect? Who was Jesus other than one who came and said to put an end to the cycle? What happens though to those who refuse? They must be separated for the sakes of those who don't refuse but rather relish the opportunity to be free of evil tempting and falling.

Regardless of the fact that there are Reformed Jews who don't follow the Orthodox or Conservative, the Orthodox and Conservative Talmudists are gaining sway over the Zionist Project (in international politics, aka the State of Israel). Michael rightly points out that Ben Gurion designed it that way – that the most religious would have say over many aspects of the state. There is no "wall of separation" or separation of synagogue and state in the Zionism that is false Zionism (false for not being focused upon peace that requires truth and not deception). What happens ultimately in a state set up this way and that is allowed to continue on is exactly what we've seen thus far with all the death and destruction, ethnic cleansing, and illegal land grabbing, etcetera.

Michael's point is that the mistaken notions within American Christianity concerning the nature of Talmudic Judaism are the primary cause of all the death and destruction, ethnic cleansing, and illegal land grabbing. He and I agree on that. In fact, I wrote a book on the subject for which I started researching in 2002. The self-styled conservative, Republican Christians who are largely those who call themselves Christian Zionists in the United States have made all the death and destruction, ethnic cleansing, and illegal land grabbing possible. Michael's view is that those neocons have been duped. He's right about that of course.

There are two different strains here that warrant stating. First, there are those within the Christian-Zionist Movement who lean to hyper-antinomianism where, even though they wish to see Israel reflect what they believe shows up in scripture as prophetic truth, they see no requirement for themselves to become Talmudic but rather for the Talmudists to convert. Second, there are those within the Christian-Zionist Movement who lean to what is term "Messianic Judaism." Both of these spell trouble.

What does the trend in Israel suggest if left unchecked by a radical change of heart of those living there now? The state will segregate, and the Orthodox and particularly the Conservatives will continue gaining in power and insistence that they get their way throughout the whole state. The secular humanists will be forced more and more to conform to the spiritual humanists (Conservatives) who are the Conservative Talmudists. Just as most of us would not wish to live under the most extreme forms of Islam's sharia, we would not enjoy living under the most extreme forms of Judaism's halakha, which is practiced by the Talmudic Orthodox.

It is the Conservative group that concerns Michael Hoffman the most. He points out that they hold that the Torah can be overridden. A prime example of how this human tradition has been used not to enhance human understanding of righteousness but to further widen the opening in the gates of Hell concerns the Conservatives' "authorization" of homosexuality that remains forbidden by Jesus Christ, who never condoned sin or licensed it but rather always confined himself to the removal of hypocrisy, which he rightly called the leaven of the Pharisees who are most evident in the world today in the form of Conservative Judaism.

On December 6, 2006, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) appealing to what they called "human dignity" (Kavod HaBriyot) authorized non-anal sexual relations between males. This is something Jesus never sanctions and for right reason. Such behavior is the slippery slope in the wrong direction that is selfishness over what is right for the whole that begins with God and that is God proper. The CJLS stood on a technicality they believe they've squeezed out. The technicality being that Moses's prohibition is conveniently construed by them to preclude mutual masturbation, oral sex, and other methods to obtain male-to-male sexual orgasm. It is of course asinine to conclude from the laundry list of sexual prohibitions in Moses's book that Moses would countenance such behaviors. They argue the minutiae of "mishkav zakhur" as meant in Leviticus. They argue that mishkav zakhur means anal intercourse and none other. They argue this for the sakes of those who cannot overcome the temptation, so they allow them in where Jesus will finally not answer the door and will tell them he never knew them, as they still don't know Jesus's mind and heart. More importantly to the Christian is that Jesus also referred to the laundry list. What we have going on here with the Conservatives is anything but conserving the right law. We have them saying that any list of sin must be exhaustive and anticipate those in the future searching out loopholes if they can convince others. It is what is called the argument from silence: because Moses didn't say that a man lying with a woman also encompasses all sexual activity, even sexual kissing, then it's okay. Yes, but he didn't say don't have sex with the dead. Is it then okay? Of course it is not okay under Moses or Jesus. It is along these lines that we have the ongoing struggle between those who know right from wrong when they see it and hear it and those who do everything in their power to turn humanity to evil ends by their evil means while couching it all in what for most appears to be the subtlest of moves but for me stands in very stark contrast from where humanity ought to be headed.

It is notable that the CJLS is comprised of 25 members and only 13 voted for the change. For more information on this, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Conservative_Judaism

Other sites of interest might be as follows:

There are many others.

I also wonder what all of the imagery in the video is meant to impart or suggest and whether Hoffman is personally responsible for it. Why, for instance, are we treated to Alex Jones in "Joker" makeup and also giving the middle finger? I am aware that Alex Jones and Jeff Rense are at odds with each other and that Michael is welcome on Jeff's program. At the same time, I've heard Alex vehemently denying that he is a Zionist sympathizer. Exactly where everyone involved draws various lines concerning the holocaust question is unclear to me as of the time of this writing. Although, I expect that things will come out.

I am also not clear as to 1) the degree to which Michael Hoffman is an apologist for the Nazis or 2) the degree to which he believes the extermination of Jews did or didn't take place. One should imagine that if anyone were to say that 5,999,999 Jews died and not exactly 6 million, Abe Foxman, who heads the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, would be tempted to lash out with terms such as "Holocaust denier," "anti-Semite," and in the case of Jew, "self-hating Jew."

The most interesting question I've ever seen raised on the issue concerns the estimated population of Jews before and after WWII. It's about 15 million on both sides of that war according to some sources. One should think that it would have been 15 million going in and 9 million coming out adjusted for surviving births and also by deaths by other causes (other than concentration camps if the 6-million figure is aimed exclusively at concentration-camp deaths).

The important questions are who knew, how many died, how did they died, and why. The fact of the matter is that the war on all sides was a contest in secrecy and savagery.

This video series only scratches the surface. Until the general public is allowed openly to discuss all these matters and the mainstream joins in, we will never approach the true facts. The law in parts of Europe for instance where the issues are banned is utterly stupid and in my book, null and void.

Donate


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe


  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.