11 thoughts on “The Mark of the Beast”

1. Hmmm.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

2. As an addendum, I’m currently reading “Standing on the Edge of Eternity” by Gary Hamrick – the forward to this book is by Amir Tsarfati. Now I know what I’m reading next!

   According to my pastor (Hamrick), one of the first signs of the end is when Russia and Iran join forces and attack Israel. My thinking is given October 7th, this event cannot be too far in the future.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

   • Yes, we must wait and see on the timeline. However, we should be awake, aware and reaching the lost! Thank you so much for your thoughts!

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply

3. Five years ago, one of my college students did a presentation on her little brother getting a chip inserted at the pediatric office here in NY. It was presented to the mother as a great way to track him if lost and monitor health. The chip was ultimately removed because his body rejected it at the site on his arm. I’m sure these technologies have advanced considerably. This was an excellent and informative post-thank you for sharing.

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. Two corrupt Av tuma avoda zarah teachers of Torah. 9.1.25 Maimonides and Maharishi II

   rabbielimallonRabbi Eli Mallon, M.Ed., LCSW

   Maharishi Mahesh YogimeditationspiritualityconsciousnessMaimonides

   Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides discuss the same thing —the unchanging basis of all that exists.

   Maimonides discusses this as an idea/a subject for contemplation. Maharishi discusses the same as a personal experience in meditation.

   The experience confirms the idea.
   The idea clarifies the experience.
   At the same time,
   the experience clarifies the idea;
   the idea, in its universality,
   confirms the experience.

   I

   “1. The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth [i.e. reality] of His being.

   2. If one would imagine that He [or: It] does not exist, no other being could possibly exist.

   3. If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him [or: It] exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them…

   4. This is implied by the prophet’s statement: ‘And God, your Lord, is true’ 1 – i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah’s statement: ‘There is nothing else aside from Him’ 2 – i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His.” 3

   II

   “This thing that the relative is born of (the Absolute), this is to understand what is behind the relative –changing, changing, changing. [i.e. the ‘Relative’ — always changing — is born of the ‘Absolute’ — never changing]. Now we analyze what this change is and what is the ultimate value of this change. Then we know that the change is very heavy, or very gross, very clear change on the surface.

   Deep within the change is lesser change, lesser change, lesser change. At the deepest value of change there is least change. Only when we try to know what exists underneath the change, what is the reality of change, then we come to know that there is no field of change.

   This is what physics does. All these molecules and then atoms and then electrons and then the subatomic particles and then very fine particles, and high energy, fine particles are high energy and then eventually ground state, least variation. Least variation means maximum order. Order increases. Disorder becomes less and less and less and less. That means activity becomes less and less and then eventually, vacuum state. This vacuum state may be said to be Absolute, non-changing, no change, nothing. And a little, little manifest value we may say, is that ground state where the things are not moving, no activity. But the ground state itself breathes life. There is something there, very fine, relative.

   So, this is analysis of the relative which eventually locates the Absolute in an area where relativity is nonexistent, beyond the finest relative existence, Absolute. So, this is physical analysis or analysis of the activity.

   In Indian philosophy it’s called Karma Mimamsa; Karma – action.

   Mimamsa – of action, analysis of action, analysis of action. What kind of action? Gross action, subtle action, subtler action, subtlest action. Now all this on the basis of a field of life which has no activity in it, vacuum state according to physics, Absolute according to the Science of Creative Intelligence, ultimate reality.

   Now it’s like the top of the mountain, very windy and as you come along the slope the wind is less and less and less and less. You come down the foot of the hill, no wind, it’s all protected. Great activity, less activity, less activity, no activity at the foot. Just like that, top of the mountain, the top. Now what is happening you’re on the top of the mountain? You are able to see vast distances. And as you come along on the slope you see less, you see less. Vision becomes restricted, vision becomes, because the height is less. You come to the foot of the mountain and you can see only this much.

   Now, the reality of vision at the foot of the mountain is completely different from the reality of the vision on the middle of the mountain.

   And this is completely different from the reality vision from the top of the mountain. So, when a man standing on the top of the mountain, he says, “Oh I’m seeing this much”, a man at the foot of the hill says, “I’m seeing this much”, both are correct. No one is false, correct because he sees only this much, he can only see this much and he can describe only this much. So, this is the reality of this stand. A man on the middle of the mountain, he has a different level of stand. From his level whatever he sees he describes. He is capable of describing more than the man on the foot of the mountain. But still that more is much less compared to the man on the top of the mountain.

   So, it depends upon at what level of awareness one experiences the environment. In Unity one experiences the environment. One finds no differences, nothing, he has a different picture of the world. In God Consciousness, completely a different picture of the world; the world is very fascinating, it’s beautiful. In CC, it has a completely different status, it’s always changing, I’m not changing. I have great superiority over all that which…. I’m the lord of all I survey and all that… CC. In transcendence the world doesn’t exist. In waking state everything is so dear and so fine and so nice, localized values, all localized. In dream it has a different fascination. In sleep nothing exists.” 4

   III

   Both Maharishi and Maimonides are telling us that full human perception embraces both the ever-changing creation and its/our unchanging source, too. Short of that, we’re not fully developed human beings.

   Is there a Biblical model for this?

   Yes — the perception of Adam and Havah/Eve in the Garden of Eden. Afterwards, Torah describes those for whom this perception was a normal experience as ones who “walked with God.” Later, the prophets exemplify this. King David — writer and singer of the Psalms — represents this, too.

   The promise of Torah and TaNaCh is that this will someday be the norm for all humanity, forever. As the Hasidic text “Tanya” teaches:

   “This, in fact, is the whole [purpose] of man and the purpose for which he, and all the worlds, both upper and lower, were created: that G‑d should have such a dwelling place here below…” 5

   1 Yirmiyahu/Jeremiah 10:10

   2 D’varim/Deuteronomy 4:35

   3 Maimonides: Mishnah Torah/Book of Knowledge 1:1-4; see also Yesodei ha-Torah 1:1

   4 Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
   La Antilla, Spain
   March 3, 1973 (transcribed from a video tape)
   https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10238341431783073&set=gm.2796773693840717&idorvanity=442978549220255

   5 Tanya; ch. 33
   ___________________________
   ___________________________

   Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and Maimonides on parallel tracks. Both of them failed to distinguish two radically different systems of law – the fundamental day and night distinction between Jewish common law from Roman statute law.

   T’NaCH\Talmudic משנה תורה Legislative review-Constitutional common law – inductive, precedent-based, always applied within the צדק צדק תרדוף “Torah Faith” of courtroom context (עדות, דינים, פרשנות). Knowledge of God (ידע), directly bound to how justice defines Faith as an eternal obligation of Israel’s acceptance of the Torah at Sinai. Based upon the precedent and testimony of Moshe and Aaron standing before the Court of Par’o and the abuse of beating Hebrew slaves.

   “Foundation of foundations” in Rambam’s Yesodei HaTorah a false codified abstraction—but in the Mishna/Gemara world, “foundation” means judicial justice; procedural rules wherein judges and common law Sanhedrin lateral courtrooms build precedent-based “Brief” wherein the prosecutor and defense attorneys – Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel argue their precedent “Briefs” before one another in court. This latter common law “foundation”, it and it alone functions as the legal bedrock יסוד, not assimilated Greek or Roman metaphysical speculation abstractions.

   Roman statute law (and Indian metaphysics) – deductive, top-down, treating truth as an absolute principle or essence outside of human courtroom process. The 8th middah of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev defines truth as “PATH” or “Halacha”. Both Maharishi and Rambam slip into the Greek/Roman assimilation mold; a direct Torah violation of negative commandments. Their philosophical Absolute – a static ontological given. Not a lived בניני אבות Sinai oath alliance to rule the conquered lands of Canaan with Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice; which like a korban dedicates the Chosen Cohen People to pursue tohor time-oriented commandments to pursue justice – fair compensation of damages – among our People. Both these latter day men, they replicate Catholic dogmatism – “unchanging source” – in purely ontological terms (what exists beneath existence), instead of Torah faith which defines acceptance of the Torah at Sinai as צדק צדק תרדוף.

   Maharishi frames faith in terms of direct experience in meditation (phenomenology). Whereas Rambam frames faith in terms of rational proof and contemplation (philosophy). He prioritizes gnostic knowledge above “Fear of Heaven”; meaning the walk to build and protect ones’ ‘Good Name’ reputation.

   But both of these “Latter Day Saints” bypass the Talmudic way of the Cohen worship through tohor middot; specifically applicable through the concrete practice of common law courts, precedent based “Briefs”, and justice—which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B among the chosen Cohen seed of the Avot.

   If we bring the T’NaCH model of mussar-aggadic common law in properly: Adam & Havah “walking with God” does not compare to these assimilated “Latter Day Saints” mystical union. Shalom among our Chosen Cohen People within the borders of the oath sworn lands: “walking in trust” the יסוד bedrock upon which stands שלום and NOT hatred without cause among our people. Later “Enoch walked with God,” “Noach walked with God,” and Avraham – chosen “to keep the way of the Lord … to do justice and righteousness” (la‘asot tzedaka u-mishpat). The real Torah framework: knowledge of God = justice done in community to restore שלום among our divided people who always struggle with our Yatzir Ha’Rah to fight Civil Wars among ourselves.

   Contrast this with the ערב רב שאין להם יראת שמים – the assimilated Roman/Indian metaphysics = Absolute/essence/unchanging source. This נידוי narishkeit stands outside of the oath brit alliance to pursue justice among and between our people. Unlike Maharishi’s “phenomenology,” aggadah does not chase mystical states—it illustrates the human cost of injustice and commands judges to persue precedent-based בניני אבות judicial fairness. Maharishi and Rambam both speak in terms of “Absolute Being” but collapse Torah’s judicial Faith framework based upon the false foundations of Greek/Roman metaphysics. By stark contrast Torah faith = צדק צדק תרדוף. Sanhedrin common law, courtroom-precedent based legalism; fair compensation for damages inflicted, mussar-aggadic framework of walking with God by doing tohor time-oriented commandments with k’vanna.

   LikeLike

   Reply

5. ❤️❤️❤️

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

6. 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

7. Waiting.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply

8. Very well presented. A worthwhile read. Thank you for sharing.

   LikeLiked by 2 people

   Reply

   • Thank you for reading the post. I really appreciate it. We must all pray for wisdom and discernment during these difficult times.

     LikeLiked by 1 person

     Reply

9. A wonder.

   LikeLiked by 1 person

   Reply