This is all theory… who will have the control over your own body? Who will take the decision for you?
The government will have the power over the health of the people?
This is all theory… who will have the control over your own body? Who will take the decision for you?
The government will have the power over the health of the people?
3 thoughts on “Yuval Noah Harari On Replacing Doctors With AI Doctors…”
The Physics of Oral Torah Common Law.
I choose to ignore Spinoza as not relevant. Why? Because his notions of God in nature do not sit with the T’NaCH and Talmud primary sources. How did Spinoza find himself so far removed from Jewish tradition? That’s an excellent question in my mind. A direct negative commandment forbids comparing G-d with anything in the stars earth or seas. What caused Spinoza to abandon the Oral Torah logic format in favor of ancient Greek philosopy?
Einstein’s theories of space and time compared to Niels Bohr’s innovations of a quantum particle atomic uncertainty principle. Now contrast this with the classic dispute between the viewpoints which perceives the Bible as a fixed history book vs. the idea of prophetic mussar, that mussar applies equally to all generations.
Prophesy as mussar defines prophetic physics! Jewish avoda zarah (commonly mistranslated as “idolatry”) during the Middle Ages: The distinction between the Book of Commandments codifications, published by the earliest Reshonim scholars to how modern scholarship understands Torah precedents, which establish Torah Common Law today. The Books of Torah commandments made by Jewish scholars after Rav Ashi and Rav Ravina sealed the Talmud, beginning with a code published by Rabbi Saadia Gaon, and further developed by the B’hag and followed by the Rambam’s code of the commandments impacted and shaped lesser rabbinic authorities something like a ירידות הדורות “domino effect”.
So to speak, all later generations, for example, have glorified the lore of Solomon’s Temple. A different example, Roman statute law following the victory of the Rambam’s halachic code, many know as the Mishna Torah, the ensuing assimilation of European Jewry; the contrived scholarly conversion of world Jewry away from Torah and Talmudic common law. Both examples serve to define the domino effect impact or ירידות הדורות, upon later generations how a seminal event shapes the perceptions held by later generation based upon these powerful decisions. The translation of the Hebrew T’NaCH into the Xtian bible too, qualifies as a ירידות הדורות domino effect.
Rabbi Saadia Gaon organized his theory of commandments, based something similar to the concentric cone made by water going down a tub drain. His theory prioritized the 10 commandments as the Av/parental\ commandments. All other Torah commandments function as toldot/off spring\ commandments to the 10 Sinai commandments. Saadia Gaon clearly influenced by the church notions of 10 Sinai commandments. The Talmud hold no such similar view. It interprets the Torah editing of 10 Sinai commandments as a mussar reference to the 10 plagues of Egypt. Based upon the 1st Sinai commandment upon which depend all other Torah commandments/precedents.
The difficulty with this legal theory, the Talmud teaches that Israel in a state of hysteria and panic, following the revelation of the opening first two revelation Commandments at Sinai, that our forefathers thereafter, in fear of their lives, demanded from Moshe that he make aliya upon Sinai and receive the rest of the Torah. Therefore, Israel never received 10 commandments at the Sinai revelation of the Torah.
Another apparent flaw in this early Gaonic book of commandments Biblical codification, the failure to identify T’NaCH prophesy “Commandments” as mussar. Mussar, by definition does not exist as some ossified or petrified fossil, turned unto some box thinking or pigeon-holed tablets of stone. The Written Torah like the Talmud exists, at least to some Talmudic and Reshonim opinions, who argue that both common law texts later scholars highly edited. A dispute within the Talmud itself, concerning the authorship of the concluding verses of the Book of דברים\משנה תורה.
It appears to me that Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi favours the opinion, that Moshe did not write the Book of דברים, but rather taught this Book baal peh/orally to Israel. That Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi based his common law codification, the Mishneh, upon the Oral Torah משנה תורה Book of דברים. This understanding views rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna as an extension of the משנה תורה Book of דברים — both this and that — common law. Hence the sages refer to rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna as the Oral Torah.
The later “down water” Books of Commandments codifications, published in the early Middle Ages, they all thereafter based their organization of the תרי”ג/613 commandments upon the Rambam’s sefer ha’mitzvot. These assimilated scholars failed to grasp, that all T’NaCH prophets command mussar. That the vision of T’NaCH prophesy applies equally, across the board, to all generations of Israel. Mussar defines all T’NaCH prophesy. The division of the Talmud into two main branches: Halacha & Aggadita supports this prophetic-mussar thesis. That the sages both Tannaim and Amoraim held that the T’NaCH prophets commanded mussar-aggadita. Rather than physical historical predictions of future events, as the New Testament claims. This distinction forever separates Jewish from Xtian understanding of ancient Hebrew and Aramaic texts.
The rabbis of the early Middle Ages, like as do all g’lut generations of exiled Jewish refugee populations, who to the present-day dwell among foreign cultures and customs. That all generations of g’lut Jewry, by definition, struggle with foreign assimilation. Specifically, the assimilation wherein Goyim scholars view the T’NaCH Books as teaching history, rather than aggadic prophetic-mussar. The New Testament promotes the narrative of a physical virgin birth of Jesus, as opposed to an imaginary man, which instructs a mussar about the prophetic interpretation of Moshe anointing Aaron and his house as messiah. The prophetic mussar learned from the Books of Shmuel follows in complete harmony, as a later NaCH precedent which understands the k’vanna of Torah mussar on the mitzva of moshiach.
The church views as utter heresy the idea that the Jesus gospel stories, attain a kosher status if and only if, restricted to tell a glorified tale of a mystic mythical, fictional character. Such a possibility shatters the church ethical containment force, established early on, based upon their classic Creeds, Doctrines, and Dogmatism.
The early assimilated rabbinic authorities, influenced by how the church organized its ethical containment force religion, the power exerted by these foreign influences, assimilation equally had a tumah effect upon the Reshonim rabbis. Their assimilation to these alien and utterly foreign notions which perceived biblical stories as physical historical events, the Reshonim scholars wrote their rigid books of statute law/Torah commandment codifications. This statute law perversion divided the תרי”ג Commandments, the 613 precedents into a rigid and fixed positive/negative statute bi-polar code of Torah commandments. This false Torah scholarship induced g’lut Jewry to worship other Gods, while maintaining the facade of Orthodox religious observances.
All the later Reshonim Books of Commandments, such as the ספר החינוך or how the S’mag, a pro-Rambam Baali Tosafot scholar who attempted to organize Talmudic halachot around the order of the Rambam’s book of commandments, failed to understand the Book of דברים commandments as essential common law precedents. Both latter examples, highly influenced by the Rambam’s sefer ha’mitzvot, they failed to consider how aggadita interprets the T’NaCH as mussar, just as did the Rambam. This tremendous error aroused the late 19th Century mussar movement lead by rabbi Israel Salanter.
Most essentially, rabbi Salanter’s Mussar movement instructs that mussar serves as the common denominator which connects the Torah commandments together with all the Books of the NaCH prophets! That mussar likewise merges together with, the narrative stories of Talmudic aggadah and later Midrashic sources of scholarship, holding cup as a unified whole – mussar instruction. That mussar simply does not compare to any rigid shaped ice-cube tray, as expressed by and through Romanic statute law.
This channeling of the Torah into rigid religious frames of reference, it appears to me, introduced: comparable to the error made by king Shlomo, and his decision to build a catholic like cathedral Temple. This gross error, it ignored the direct mussar by which the prophet Natan instructed king David not to build a house of Cedar. Shlomo, none the less, ignored the council which Natan adviced. He chose to build the Temple, rather than establish Federal Sanhedrin lateral common law courts across the States/Tribes of the Republic; to establish the latter as the basis by which governments rule the Republic through judicial “legislative review” justice. The k’vanna – known as the Temple – which king David commanded his son Shlomo to construct. Shlomo’s contrary decision triggered a ירידות הדורות domino effect, as seen by Ezra’s efforts to build a Temple cathedral, based upon the visions of Ezekiel.
Both this and that, they triggered a tremendous error, a ירידת הדורות upon the following generations, and most especially upon g’lut Jewry. The codification of the Torah into frozen brittle fixed code of commandments, effectively collapsed the vision of Moshe’s משנה תורה common law precedents! The latter makes a fundamental distinction between Torah precedents and Torah Common Law. By stark contrast, all the later commentaries made upon the classic halachic codifications by both Reshonim and Auchronim scholars, they all learn the halacha as statute law rather than the common law which the Gemara learns the Mishna by means of halachic precedents. The Gemarah understands the k’vanna of a given Mishna by way of bringing comparative halachic precedents found throughout the Shas/Babylonian Talmud. The French school, known as the Baali Tosafot, too learns the Talmud through means of comparing precedents from other Talmudic sources.
The writings of the New Testament apostle Paul, its impact compares to the meteor that struck the Earth and caused the dinosaurs total extinction! Paul, as a self declared agent of God, he preached to the Goyim – the freedom of Goyim from under “the Law”. Paul qualifies as an anarchist revolutionary.
His religious rhetoric propaganda conveniently failed to validate the day and night distinction which separates Jewish Common Law from Roman Statute Law! All the later commentaries, as just previously mentioned above, written upon the halachic Reshonim codifications, these assimilated rabbis, they too failed to make this distinct just as did the Apostle Paul. They too failed miserably to emphasize the absolute fundamental gulf of separation between shabbat and chol … common law from statute law.
The early Middle Ages codifications on Torah commandments, those book prioritizes Commandments over the Oral Torah precedent learning … the Book of דברים. Therein they assimilate to the error viewpoint which perverts Torah commandments into Statute Laws. Based upon the assumption that Torah Commandments stand upon their own legs, totally independent from Oral Torah common law. Something like Chabadniks learn Rambam’s halachot independent from the Talmud. This error fails to learn Oral Torah legal precedents, created with a purpose to compare: the Oral Torah Book of דברים middot precedents to Written Torah sugiot, based upon shared פרדס middot. As taught through the kabbalah of Rabbi Akiva, who’s wisdom has the intention to teach prophetic mussar interpretations as the k’vanna of legal Common Law halachot!
Assimilation to Goyim cultures and customs, Jewish rabbinic authorities erred and perverted the Torah into a Plato/Aristotle logic & statute law Av tumah avoda zarah; a direct violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment. The Rambam, for example, failed to discern that monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment. He erroneously thought that praying to Allah did not violate the 1st Sinai commandment, and therefore permitted Jews to pray in Mosques. As such his avoda zarah error duplicated Aaron’s translation of the Name of HaShem unto אלהים – the most essential sin of the Golden Calf. Herein explains the Jewish g’lut for 2000+ years as a theory of history. A new theory of Mankind, based upon the realities of g’lut.
Dan Beliveau agothelordsroom.org writes: It appears that in essence you’re saying the Gentile written Bible is a lie. This is the 2nd time you have posted this. The difference is this time I’m leaving it up. I want people to see your view. Next time comment in plain English or not at all.
Hi Dan wrote in English. (A reference to: Jewish avoda zarah during the Middle Ages). The T’NaCH, an abreviation for Torah, Prophets and Holy Writings, the 3-divisions of the Hebrew Scriptures which the church mislabels as ‘old testament’. Yes in point of fact, do refer to the Xtian bible as totally corrupt. Essentially based upon the practices of evil abomination, conducted by Christendom throughout the Ages.
First: It duplicates the sin of the Golden Calf by translating the 1st Commandment Name, not a word, into other words, such as Lord for example. It has so many errors in all biblical translations. ברית, transliterated as brit, does not mean covenant. The first word of the Torah contains the words ברית אש. Translated to: brit fire. Brit, the Torah defines as alliance NOT covenant. Fire, a metaphor reference to swearing a Torah oath with the 1st Commandment Divine Name revelation. Specifically, the dedication to holiness of sanctifying the commandments לשמה.
To cut a Torah “alliance” requires swearing a Torah oath. The NT and all old testament Xtian translations never bring the Name as found in the revelation of the Torah 1st Sinai commandment. In the Creation story this Spirit Name – breathed into Adam making him a living man. This Spirit Name – simply not a word. Aaron the brother of Moshe, erred at the Golden Calf when he translated this Spirit Name into a word אלהים/Gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the basis by which the Torah defines avoda zarah. Avoda zarah/strange worship\ does not translate into “idolatry”. Why? The 2nd Sinai commandment, the negative commandment not to worship other Gods, obviously rejects the Muslim error known as Monotheism. Idols limit the Gods to 3 physical dimensions. The Spirit of the 1st Sinai commandment Name transcends all dimensions.
The plagues of Egypt judged the Gods of Egypt. The brit sworn at Gilgal in the days of the prophet Jehoshua, prior to the beginning of the wars by which Israel conquered the lands of Canaan. This Gilgal oath brit bases itself on the Spirit Name, and recorded through the mitzva of the Rashi order of tefillen (the 2 black boxes Jews strap upon our bodies), [Rashi a rabbi of the Middle Ages famous for writing commentaries upon the Torah, Talmud, and Midrashim], Jehoshua cut a sworn oath brit with the 1st Sinai commandment Name, that just as this Name warred against the Gods of Egypt, so too this Name would war against the Gods of Canaan. The order of the Rashi tefillin remembers this sworn oath, a mussar applicable to all generations of Israel.
This concept of calling upon the Sinai Name: to precede acts of physical war. A reference proof found in the Song of Moshe which recounts the destruction of Par’o’s Army and chariots in the Sea of Reeds. This reference, found in the Book of Sh’mot, mistranslated as Exodus in Xtian bible, (Sh’mot: plural for Names). The song of Moshe refers to the metaphor: Eish HaMilchamah. Meaning – “Man of War”. The name שמות\Names to the Horev revelation. Following the Golden Calf, a set of pronouns revealed to Moshe which serve like unto the Spirit Name revealed in the opening Sinai commandment. This revelation of pronouns שמות/Names, known as the revelation of the 13 tohor middot. The revelation of the 13 tohor middot Names, herein understands why the 2nd Book of the Written Torah has the Name שמות and not Exodus. The Oral Torah exists based upon making “measured” comparison/middot between a sugia in the משנה תורה with a sugia within the Written Torah. Herein explains the k’vanna of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס Divine Chariot kabbalah.
Avoda Zarah, the 2nd Sinai commandment, the Torah common law legal system learns by means of the Torah precedents located in the 5th Book of the Torah(/Oral Torah\משנה תורה) which means repetition of the Law, and also Court judicial ‘Legislative Review’. The Torah common law legal system employs mitzvot precedents, found in the 5th Book of the Torah, these measured precedents they serve to understand and interpret other sections of the Written Torah located in the other 4 Books of the Written Torah.
If you examine the closing of the Book of דברים, mistranslated as Deuteronomy, this Book refers to Moshe in the 3rd person, Moshe did not write this closing Torah. At least to some opinions, myself included. The Talmud teaches that Moshe delivered over, this closing Book of the Torah “Baal Peh”. The translation of Baal Peh – Orally. Hence the term Torah sh’baal peh or Oral Torah.
The Book of דברים, the Oral Torah in the midst of the Written Torah. The church throughout its history denies the Oral Torah. The confusion of the church authorities stems from the משנה/Mishna written by rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nassi, the last chief justice of the Great Sanhedrin court. His work, the Mishna, Jewish scholars refer to as the codification of the Oral Torah. Clearly rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna did not exist in the days of Moshe the prophet. But the logic system format, which rabbi Akiva called פרדס did exist in both the days of both Moshe and rabbi Yechuda.
This obvious over implication of the 5th Book of Torah common law, rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna reflected through its Case/Rule organization of Great Sanhedrin judicial rulings written and codified prior to the Roman expulsion of the Jewish people from Judea. Rabbi’s Mishna written after three crushed Jewish revolts against Rome. The last of which occurred in Alexandria Egypt in 332. As a point of reference, the famous Xtian Nicene Council occurred in 325! The Apostle Paul famously declares that the Goyim are not under the law. Paul a student of Rabban Gamliel, the previous Nassi of the Great Sanhedrin prior to Rabbi Yechuda. Paul could not have learned Torah judicial law, and remain totally oblivious that this legal system based itself upon common law principles of learning law by means of precedents.
Yet the Xtian writings of Paul obscures this most obvious distinction which separates Jewish common law from Roman statute law. Why did Paul consciously choose to blur the distinction between two completely different legal systems? (Something like the difference between statute law practiced in Germany and France contrasted by British common law.) This causes many Jews, me included, to infer that Paul functioned as a concealed agent provocateur, sent by Rabban Gamliel to promote Civil War in Rome. An earlier precedent, Yechuda Maccabee did a similar action by swearing alliance to a pretender King of the Syrian Greek empire in the war remembered through history by the mitzva of lighting the lights of Hannukah.
When Jews light the Hannukah lights, we dedicate to only interpret the Written Torah by total reliance upon Oral Torah legal precedents. This Oral Torah logic, totally different than the logic system employed by the Syrian Greek empire. The latter stood upon the logic format developed by the ancient Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. The Jewish revolt against the Syrian Greek empire rejected the logic format of the ancient Greeks as a unfit tumah tool to interpret the Torah. Something like offering a pig upon the altar, on Zion Jerusalem.
Another fundamental lie of the Xtian bible, the perversion of tohor and tumah mistranslated as clean and unclean. The term ‘chosen people’/’first born son’ refers to Israel as a ‘nation of priests’. After the Golden Calf avoda zara, (which the Oral Torah defines as assimilation to pursue after and embrace how Goyim worship their Gods; which extends to copying and embracing the cultures and customs practiced by Goyim societies and/or intermarriage), the Tribe of Levi would supplant and replace the first-born sons of Israel as Cohenim, translated as priests. Hence this term chosen first-born son, has much broader implications than the NT’s narrow perspective. The Talmud as a precedent, teaches that tefillah stands in the stead of korbanot. Often roughly translated as “Prayer stands in the place of sacrifices”. Tefillah dedicates tohor middot as revealed to Moshe at Horev following the golden calf. The description of the Name passing before Moshe and declaring a 13 set of attributes which Jews call middot. Hence the tefillah “prayer” has the form of 3 + 13 + 3 תרי”ג Blessings.
Obviously, a person can hardly dedicate a tohor middah, if that person cannot distinctly discern and separate one tohor middah from the other tohor middot! The Torah has 54 weekly portion divisions, call Parshiot. The Sinai Name employs 4 letters. 4 X 13 = 52. The two Crowns of the Torah, the 2 Parshiot which teach the blessing/curse responsibility for accepting the oath brit Torah faith.
Jewish tefillah, also known as the Amidah, translated as standing prayer. To swear a Torah oath requires that a person stands before a Sefer Torah. Ideally Jews dedicate their tefillot tohor middot while standing before a Sefer Torah in a synagogue. Hence the common mistranslation of tefillah into the English word prayer, totally misses the intent of the action verb tefillah – the dedication of tohor “spirits” which influence how a Jew behaves with his fellow bnai brit people in the future. Shalom does not translate into peace. The latter exist as a noun whereas the former stands as a verb. The יסוד/foundation upon which shalom stands – trust. No trust No Shalom.
The false biblical corruption of the key terms tohor and tumah as clean and unclean totally corrupts and perverts the dedication of the soul to sanctify defined tohor middot; as opposed to and contrasted by tumah middot – of future born behavior. Tefillah, the Talmud defines as a matter of the heart. Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi teaches the Oral Torah precedent of “you shall love the Name, with all your heart etc”, located in the 5th Book or Oral Torah. The Hebrew misspells heart as לבב. Heart correctly spelled לב. Rabbi Yechuda introduced a unique interpretation: that service to the Name לשמה, requires the dedication of both tohor and tumah middot which wrestle within the heart, something like as did Esau & Yaacov in Rivka’s womb.
The struggle between tohor and tumah middot defines all prophetic mussar. Mussar understood as a rebuke. The sages of the Talmud teach, that they lacked the wisdom to teach mussar! Why? Any person can criticize another. But it takes special wisdom to plant mussar seeds within the heart of others and have those “seeds” spout as an original idea from within the person so rebuked by prophetic mussar! The church abomination failed to grasp such subtle distinctions; hence it defined the prophesy of T’NaCH prophets as – predictions of the future! JeZeus fulfilled this or that biblical prophecy etc. This corruption totally perverts, on the order of homosexuality, prophetic mussar. So yes, most definitely say that “the Gentile written Bible is a lie”.