Correct, there are only three large pyramids in Egypt, plus the red and the bent which are practice models for the great ones. Everything else in antiquity is ziggurat size, except for Etemenanki (Babel), which was the same size as the great pyramid of Menkaure and built the same year IMHO, and which was abandoned spectacularly (while Menkaure's was abandoned when almost finished). After that the next pharaoh skipped pyramids entirely and built a mastaba instead, and architecture backed off for thousands of years.

The first one was called the collapsed pyramid, which failed because they didn't have tech, safety, or efficiency yet. The bent pyramid appears to have had its plan changed in the middle. The red pyramid was a proof of concept. Then the three biggies and the tower of Babel. Then poof.

Mostly correct. All kayfabe. Israel absorbs blame and Babylonish business continues.

If the motive were rectified, no more such towers would be built.

Etymologies proposed by this account have been factually wrong before, and are usually speculative. Will report back.

Actually, they knew math so well that they knew 360 would work in most cases and was easier to work with than say 365.2425 or something. The Bible indicates that God sets the irrational numbers precisely so that different similarities would be close enough to work with but still imperfect.

For instance, Book of Enoch points out that 360 is prevailing but 364 is closer and has more advantages and still can be worked with in the same general way.

Absolutely 72 was used as a round number due to these synchronies; which is why 360 or 2.5 gross was also used as a round number. It's probable that after generations the approximation 72*360=25920 would've been guessed (actual currently 25771.57534, which varies based on measurement specs and adjustment over time). The Bible also says Solomon built the temple laver just fine even though he used 3 as an approximation for pi.

You are right that many of these supposed connections are excrement. But often by reverting to your correct perspective about round numbers the actual math of the day can be recovered and the original claim somewhat vindicated even though it's expressed in different terms. This week I learned that Euclid discovered a working version of the law of cosines without ever inventing a cosine.

More on 72.

Yes, Naram-Sin, builder of Etemenanki.

The first tower was an example. Etemenanki was abandoned in 2336 BC and was the same year and height IMHO as the abandoned Pyramid of Menkaure. God made an example of the one for the sake of the other and all the rest to come. So "a wizard should know better."

I didn't say modern Israel. Do you believe the Bible, or if you don't then how do you know the truth about Jesus? What does Paul mean by saying "Israel of God"? You do understand that things were different back then and yet Jesus and Paul are a continuous body with us. Has the Bible's term "Israel of God" changed so that we can't use it anymore?

I didn't ask about the antichrist's order but about Jesus's order. Are there no unbelievers left because Jesus kills them all? So only believers for a thousand years on earth? Why does Zechariah 14:17-19 say there will be nations that don't follow Jesus even after he is revealed as Messiah-Christ? He doesn't kill them but instead withholds rain from them. These are sincere questions because I don't argue about eschatology seeing it hasn't happened yet.

I don't defend the chicken sacrifices; I don't understand them. But all witchcraft "sin transfer" is a counterfeit based on the sin transfer that the real Jesus did. You do believe he died because your sins were transferred to him, and his eternal life was transferred to you, right?

I respect if you don't use the idiom "spiritual Jews" that's often used, I apologize for not recalling your whole system. Yes, Jesus Christ is the almighty Creator in the flesh, and we follow him, and he will defeat all antichrists.

Are followers of Jesus not the "Israel of God" described by Paul? If not from the Old Testament, from where do Jesus's people find the truth of things in earlier history? What did Jesus say about the Old Testament?

Are you just using general Christian teaching that the Antichrist (serpent messiah) will enslave everybody, and applying it to Gentiles only? Have you noticed that the Antichrist's mistreatment of Israel (as in Isaiah 28) is uniquely severe?

When the real Jesus comes, what will be the social status of those who don't accept him? Won't they either be subject to death if they commit capital offenses, or become subject to Jesus's reign but not as citizens because they don't accept his rule? There's not a problem comparatively with the fact that all Abrahamic religions are triumphalist and state a lower status for those who don't believe that flows naturally from their unbelief. Things worth thinking about.

That's false in America, the IRS still goes after you for any income you earn in jail, and still collects what they say you owe from the past; I doubt Canada is different. Plus I don't believe in receiving food and shelter paid for by the deceptive taxes of my fellow Americans.

Please stop posting multihour videos without summaries or transcripts as this is not a clickbait site but an elite research facility. That could be regarded as subversion or low quality. Since your comments usually aren't low quality, it would help if you gave your thoughts (with timestamps) as to what you post so that the original material can be interacted with efficiently.

This is taken from a litany of false quotes. The cite is a poorly spelled author's name and a useless page number, and has nothing to do with androgynes or subhumans. I did locate the book and paragraph, which is a medieval source correctly called Yalkut Shimoni on Nach 499 (by Shimon haDarshan) and actually reads, "Each of Israel will have thousands and thousands of slaves to him." It would be more to the point to quote Talmud, Shabbat 32b, "Anyone who is vigilant in ritual fringes merits two thousand eight hundred servants will serve him." However, this is merely an imaginative reading of Zech. 8:23 (10 men, 70 nations, 4 fringes) and as such the correct reading is promised to every grafted-in covenant believer: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." If the Christian believes the correct interpretation of this passage is some spiritual taking hold of the Christians (spiritual Jews) by the nations, and that this is a valid promise, then it's merely a matter of what the correct interpretation is.

I love Texe.

Ein Sof, Grand Architect, Holy Fire, Shekinah, and the rest are all titles stolen from the real God. Calling someone "God" or any other title doesn't make it so; the real God is demonstrated by the fitness of his being and doing to his names and titles. "To Ov" is similarly ultra-generic in Greek and is just Aristotelian for "The Being", which anyone can fill with any attribute right or wrong.

Leviathan in the Bible is not God, so identifying Leviathan with a title like Shekinah or Messiah that is proper to God is simple idolatry and Texe is right about that. Note that this goddess has a parent, i.e. Chaos (Tohu and Bohu), and/or perhaps Pit (bor). That is not Judaism, it's a couple of feminist Jews who the rabbis tolerate but can't rein in despite their contradicting Torah and Talmud.

Now, Kabbalah in Judaism is like a borderline cult in Christianity, namely, it's not something that sets itself apart from the mainstream, but it allows both the mainstream and those who radically disagree with it to work together despite their core disagreement. So there are a couple priniciples that would be in common with Judaism and Christianity, and then there are people who pretend that Kabbalah ought to be some very cultic stuff, but there's not usually an official distinction of which Kabbalah is correct. Truth pursuers can say simply, the confusion of God and Creation is incorrect, and anything affirming God's actual place, title, and distinction is correct as far as that affirmation goes. But it requires distinctions. It appears you're getting a bit better at making those distinctions.

All were sunk like the Lusitania, or the Maine (ME) for that matter, on 1941-12-07.

No loss, I have a better immortal city in Christ.

Sounds very speculative, I see a different narrative.

First half-hour of Liberty attack indicates intent to sink.

However, evidence is that Liberty's internal comms ability had also been scuttled in advance (i.e. to prevent their warning others, so that the attack could be completed). Sailors then successfully rewired their radio and unexpectedly put out distress calls. After this, Israel called off the attack and it was rewritten as a mistaken flag.

That information, plus the generic handling and situation, indicates US and Israel had agreed on another Lusitania or AZ-CA-OK-WV, with the purpose of entering US into the 6-Day War as if attacked by Egypt. When the surviving sailors foiled that plan, a backup story had to be swerved to. I couldn't find a great wrap but here is Roger Stone blaming LBJ on it.

Different event. Santorini (Thera volcano) exploded on 8 Sep 1540 BC, given as unusual distant thundering on the birthday of Seth in the Rhind Math Papyrus (year also confirmed by Schonfeld). It had a higher volcanic index than Krakatoa, which was heard 1400 miles out, so it's natural to have been heard in Egypt. The next day (Isis's birthday) there was a noticeable unseasonable rainstorm. Seth was regarded as a powerful and majestic Semitic baal, lord of the Hyksos (who rapidly departed in the same season, probably spring 1539). Text: "Birthday of Seth: a sound of thunder was emitted by the Majesty of this god; birthday of Isis: the heavens rained." This also would agree with the date that the Lord's anger thundered against Moses in the desert, sending him to deliver Israel.

The natural upheavals due to Thera correspond easily to the Biblical ten plagues. The Tempest Stele of Ahmose describes a hailstorm and multiday darkness, in which every single clause describing the calamities has a parallel in Exodus 6-12. The probable natural pestilences like red algae, the plagues of the Hearst Medical Papyrus, the seal of Crown Prince Apophis who died before succeeding his father to the throne, and the very dust of Thera in Avaris (Ramses) that was mentioned by Moses as bringing plagues twice, and which we have identified and isolated by its radioactivity, all testify to a gross restructuring, consistent with the simultaneous fall of the 15th and 17th dynasties and the rise of the New Kingdom under Ahmose.

Anyway, the Atlantis legend has an original core that echoes other flood legends of hundreds of cultures worldwide, is dated at least several centuries earlier than Santorini, and probably can be solidly symbologically tied to the other legends with more research. For instance, the ruling family of Atlantis strongly resembles the Ogdoad (one of whom is our friend Kek). I'm still looking into this fascinating angle.

Check 4.2kya event. ICR does have an ice age for many years after that in agreement with the geology.

This is Conspiracies, the comics are often disclosure, the Bible always is.

The Atlantis date was backdated by the priests of Sais, common at the time. Atlantis actually sank in the deluge of 2337 BC. The remains might be currently found in the Gulf of America.

A greater persecution would specifically mean the laws, though pretended to be Noahide (human), are actually inhuman and thus not Noahide at all.

People blur the whole problem of bad law over history as if the worst category of bad law should be called "Talmudic Noahide Law" and as if that's a valid description of it. If it's bad law it doesn't matter if we call it the United States Statutes or anything, it's still bad law. If a giant tyrannical empire promulgates bad law, the whiners who complain that the Jews contributed a Noahide slice to it, as if that's the only salient point, will be steamrolled in their ignorance of the whole of the problem; same as with other such problems.

league of nations

It'd be just like any of several prior empires that criminalized the covenant people, declaring themselves the representatives of humanity (i.e. of Noahides). Nothing new.

Yes, I think the future holds an empire persecuting Christianity both directly and indirectly just as we see presently given the literal persecution in ~60 countries and the indirect persecution we permit in the West via legal and cultural manipulation. Christians are already being beheaded regularly, no need for LaHaye and Jenkins to mistranslate anything. The goal of consolidating power free from Christian influence so that Christians can be further persecuted is always part of the same war.

[Talmud] permits the slaughter of innocent women and children through dehumanization

No, I looked for it and it goes no further than Biblical passages that Christians accept, where slaughter of innocent women and children is either (1) unintended collateral damage during war, or (2) in one or two cases intended because of evidence of idolatrous collusion by the women and/or minors involved. If morality did not permit collateral damage, anyone could sin with impunity and surround himself with human shields and never be targetable. If morality did not permit trying minors as adults, anyone could direct minors to carry out their crimes and have no penalty. Yes, there's a lot of dehumanization going on in war today, but that's not from established morality.

you can find the noahide laws only in the Babylonian Talmud

No, a version of the Noahite laws was promulgated by the first pope, Peter, at the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15:20, 29. It too prohibited idolatry but Peter, James, and Paul obviously didn't count themselves idolators!

the Noahide Laws began when President Jimmy Carter signed Education Day USA into Law in 1978

No, that's just the first US proclamation acknowledging they exist, but all Christians accept the Jerusalem Council as binding.

What's the punishment if a Gentile transgresses the Noahide Laws? DEATH!!!

Correct, and according to the Noahide laws that can only be tried by a court of justice established by Noahides i.e. people of all nations together. So no Jew can cause their definition of idolatry to prevail without agreement by the court of all nations.

The nascent Sanhedrin, a modern attempt to revive the ancient Jewish court, views Jesus Christ as a FALSE PROPHET

I've looked closely into this Sanhedrin and found no such ruling.

This is primarily based on the traditional Jewish understanding of Jesus as someone who did not fulfill the criteria

YET.

Ancient Israelites = /= modern day "jews"

Yes, modern Jews are a subset descended continuously from Yehudah. (English Jew, from French Ju, from Latin Judaeus, from Hebrew Yehudah.)

the Bible doesn't explicitly state that you will have 2800 "subhuman" slaves when your nachash moshiach (antichrist) comes

No, that's an interpretation. It says in Zech. 8:23 that "ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of [me] that is a [spiritual] Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you." Christians are "spiritual Jews". Nachash isn't related at all to moshiach.

Please show me where i misqouted

Gladly. Most obviously, you wrote above, "Jesus is in hell and is being punished by being immersed in boiling semen", when semen is not in the quote you cited (semen is referred to Balaam instead, who is different from the Yeshu mentioned). Further, the "Yeshu" is generic and conflates three or more people named "Yeshu" in the Talmud; it's not about fiery "hell" as we call it but about tzoah rotachat, a compartment of sheol; it's not about present punishment but is regarded as punishment with respite; it doesn't say the Yeshu is being punished but that he speaks of the punishment; and it doesn't speak of immersion. I'll be happy to put you down as getting the quote correct the second time, but the interpretation is still complex context, as I linked.

The Sabbatean's "sympathy" victim card is long expired

Correct.

Thank you for supplying a new source! It still follows the same erratic misquotation methods as others but it's helpful to see them all. I'm adding details to the Talmud Quotes page.

"About the Christians":

1. Probably means Shulchan Arukh, Choshen Mishpat 425:5, which says: "In the case of a Jewish heretic, which is someone who worships idols or sins in spite- ... and those who deny the Torah or Jewish prophecy, there is a mitzvah to remove them." There is no "Cohen Law" text but it's one of the funniest misnames! "Idols" is literally Akum, meaning "star and constellation worshipper". There is no ruling that Christians are Akum, but there are rulings that they are a special case.

2. Zohar, Vayetzei 27 (at 280, also called Zohar 1:160a) does not say "The Jews must always try to deceive the Christians." Google translates it as: "With tricks you will make war for yourself." But this is just an inference from Pr. 24:6 (KJV), "By wise counsel thou shalt make thy war." Zohar is a medieval source, again it is limited to use in wartime.

3. Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b comes close to saying "Even the best of the goyim should all be killed." The medieval Hebrew text quotes Tractate Soferim 15 by name, where the actual text is discussed, without significant elaboration here: במסכת סופרים [פט"ו] כשר שבכנענים הרוג ... דהיינו בשעת מלחמה or "In Tractate Soferim [15], the best of the Canaanites are to be killed ..., that is, in time of war." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, nor from the main Talmud (not found in Avodah Zarah 26b).

4. Bava Kamma 113a does not say "It is allowed to deceive the Christians." Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." Two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted in Sanhedrin 57a. So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Ashi and Yishmael, but not for the majority view or Jewish practice.

5. Part of this same quote comes from Rockwell's White Power attributed to Baba Kamma 113b, which accurately says, "Permitted his lost item, as Rav Hama bar Gurya says Rav says: From where permitted the lost item of a Gentile? As it is stated, With every lost thing of your brother's, to your brother you return, but you do not return to a Gentile. But say this applies where has not yet come into hand, as he is not obligated to pursue it. But where the item had come into his hand, say return it. Ravina said: 'And you have found' indicates that come into one's hand. Is taught Rabbi Pinehas ben Ya'ir says: In a case where there is desecration of name, prohibited even lost item." Thus the minority opinion is stated in order to be rejected. The lost item of a Gentile that is picked up must be returned if possible, and even if not picked up it should be returned for sanctification of the Name.

6. Bamidbar Rabbah 21 [not Talmud] does not say "A Jew who kills a Christian does not commit sin, but rather offers a sacrifice acceptable to God." It actually says, with reference to the death of Zimri (Israelite) and Cozbi (Midianite), Num. 25:13: "When anyone sheds the blood of the wicked, it is as if he had offered a sacrifice." So "wicked" is not a code for a Gentile, and Numbers itself compares such a death to an atonement.

7. Sanhedrin 106a accurately says, "Rav Pappa says this that people say: Was from princes and rulers, was licentious with carpenters." This is merely a proverb, applied to Balaam, which may also indicate contemporary mood about Jesus (already known from the Gospels), and is not directly about Mary or Jesus, nor an actual ruling.

8. Zohar, Bo 16 does not say "Christian extinction is a necessary sacrifice." This is attributed to the entire book "Zohar, Shemot" without paragraph citation, but this is the closest match in hand (aka Zohar 2:230 or 2:43a or 11:43a), given by Pranaitis in exaggerated form. The text (ויקרא כ' ע"א) (שמות י״ג:י״ג) וְכָל פֶּטֶר חֲמוֹר תִּפְדֶּה בְשֶׂה וְגוֹ' .... וְאִם לֹא תִפְדֶּה וַעֲרַפְתּוֹ .... לְאִתְמָחֲאָה מִן סֵפֶר חַיִּים, דְּעָלַיְיהוּ אִתְּמַר, (שמות ל״ב:ל״ג) מִי אֲשֶׁר חָטָא לִי אֶמְחֶנּוּ מִסִּפְרִי can be translated: "[Lev. 20:1, Ex. 13:13] And every donkey's firstborn shall be redeemed with a lamb, etc. .... And if it is not redeemed, you shall kill it .... To be blotted out of the book of life, so he said of them [Ex. 32:33], he who has sinned against me will be removed from my account." However, this is very basic Scriptural exegesis. If this were to be applied to a Gentile as Pranaitis hints, Torah context would be that the human must be redeemed with a lamb and could not be killed. This is not Talmud or command or halakhah; by the time the Zohar surfaced, disdain for Christianity was already present, but there is no genocidal text.

9. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10, 12th century, which can be adventurously spelled as "Hilkkoth Akum" 10:1 (rulings of worshippers of stars and constellations), does not say "Do not save goyim in danger of death .... Show no mercy to the goyim." It says: "Idolaters .... It is forbidden to have mercy upon them, as Deut. 7:2 states: 'Do not be gracious to them.' Accordingly, if we see an idolater being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him." This is not Talmud, is not about goyim but is limited to idolaters (with Jewish idolaters being mentioned separately), and refers only if one's own life would be at risk. Deut. 7:2 is limited to the seven nations in Canaan judged for their idolatry, who were in a state of war with Israel and were not to be shown mercy, so Maimonides extends this to other hypothetical known idolaters.

10. Mishneh Torah, Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 10 is also adventurously called the otherwise inscrutable "Torah c. 10". The standard text correctly reads "To whom do the above apply? To Gentiles. It is a mitzvah, however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minim, and Epicureans, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God." (Not "minimize".) This is the actual view of Maimonides, and refers to diverters, sectarians, and Epicureans, but only from the Jews, as Gentiles were outside this jurisdiction. Now, a variant censored reading exists, but it cannot be held to be the considered opinion of Maimonides or the conclusion of Judaism (as defined by the standard text): "As Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Zadok, Boethus, and their students". Since it's Jews only, this doesn't refer to Christians at large but to marranos, whom other Jews treated singularly. The actual relationship between the unit "Jesus and students" and minim is not stated, but it's clear that whoever wrote it considered marranos at large to include some who diverted Israel. But the formal opinion of Maimonides is that the definition of "min" applied to separation from the community and commands (which marranos did but many Messianics today do not), and that the mitzvah involved is only about self-defense. Specifically, one is not to pity an attacker (Deut. 25:12) or stand idle (Lev. 19:16), but warns the attacker and prevents an attack on another's life, preferably nonlethally. So it's not about killing other than in an immediate attack, and cannot apply to sect without a judgment that the sect strikes at the heart of Jewish community, and even then only applies to eradicating the perceived threat of blood (which in this case should always be doable nonlethally as Deut. 25:12 hints). The part about the pit is not a mitzvah but an inference from Ps. 55:23, assuming the attacker is in fact wicked. All this comes from Maimonides, the book of mitzvoth, explaining the exact mitzvah, so in the quote he is simply drawing an application to marranos as to removing any life threat they pose. Since his views often moderated at different times, he must be taken as a whole, but it's granted that this passage found in nonstandard copies of his book does reflect his times and is challenging for modern Jews to deal with.

11. Zohar, Bereshit 20:228, found in Rohling 1883 (footnote 82) as "Sohar I. 25 b", does not say "Jene, welche sich bestreben, den Akum Gutes zu thun, ihre Seelen werden nicht auferstehen" (Google translate, "Those who strive to do good to the star and constellation worshipper, their souls will not rise"). It says "These were Uzza and Azael; from them the 'mixed multitude' derive their souls, and therefore they also are called nefilim, because they fall into fornication with fair women. For this, God casts them out from the future world, in which they have no portion, and gives them their reward in this world." This is about specific Nephilim, spirit beings, not about Jews. Rohling ignorantly interprets the Gen. 6 conversation of the sons of God and daughters of men as if it refers to any Jew doing any good to any Gentile, which is totally unrelated.

12. Makkot 7b:4 does not say "You will be innocent of murder if you attempt to kill a Christian" and isn't about Christians at all. It's an extended discussion on manslaughter (unintentional). 3-4 says, "The Sages taught: Unintentionally, exclude the intentionally .... Intentionally? Obvious, he is subject to death. Rather, Rava said: Say, exclude the says 'It is permitted'. Abaye said to, If says 'It is permitted', he a victim of circumstances beyond his control." This cites Num. 35:11, and the context that murder (intentional) is capital and manslaughter (unintentional) is to be exiled. The argument is that the word "unawares" in Numbers creates a third category, and this is then defined as the person who is too incompetent to be tried, who can't learn the obvious about the law because he justifies himself contrary to it. (While this category can be and has been abused, the fact that it should exist is not in question.)

13. Shabbat 116a does not say "Jews must destroy the books of the Christians." This is an extended hypothetical about what books are worth breaking Sabbath law for if they are on fire. The general rule is 115a: "All sacred writings, one may rescue them from the fire." Actual text: "The blank folios and the scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire .... And just as they are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from matter that destroys them." Though one rabbi recommends respect for the holy Name in heretical books, meaning saving the text is permitted, the clear majority ruling is that due to heresy God even lets his Name be effaced. Though there is animus against the New Testament, there is no active destruction in mind, merely rescue of heretical books from disaster by natural "matter".

14. Bava Batra 54b (Talmud 4:3:54b) accurately says: "Rav Yehuda says Shmuel says: Property of a Gentile, it is like a desert; anyone who takes possession of it acquired it. What is the reason? Gentile relinquishes from when money reaches his hand, Jew does not acquire until the deed reaches his hand." In immediate context, this is not referring to all property of Gentiles, but to that which is being sold to a Jew. The distinction is that between payment and any delay in the receipt of the deed, it is possible that another Jew might claim squatter or other rights, and that would need adjudication. This has nothing to do with the world being ownerless.

15. Gittin 56b-57a has been misquoted repeatedly and variously. Actual quote: "Onkelos ... went and raised Jesus [the Nazarene?] from the grave through necromancy .... Said to him: What is the punishment of that man? Said to him: with boiling excrement." It appears "Nazarene" has been added; "Yeshu" is apparently a conflation of Jesus, and the student of ben Perahya, and the son of Paphos ben Judah, and others. Other observations about the hesitant theology and the rashly joking context appear in a previous study. The nine interpretative cautions there apply throughout this list.

16. Rosh Hashanah 17a accurately says, "But the heretics; ... and the apostates; who denied the Torah; ... and separated from the ways of community ... descend to Gehenna and are judged there for generations and generations." This appeals to Is. 66:24 and makes it literally "for eons of eons." Heretics, minim, means separatists (e.g. tritheists, not specifically Christians); apostates means Epicureans (hedonists); next are deniers of Torah (not Talmud); then those without community (assembly). Other categories appear also. Flatly, Talmud contains no judgment that followers of Jesus as Messiah are minim, nor is this about rejection of Talmud.