Any advertisements appearing above this line are inserted by "tripod", please IGNORE them

The christianity cult and its deceptions
by Prof. Mordochai ben-Tziyyon, Universitah Ha'ivrit, Y'rushalayim

My name is Mordochai ben-Tziyyon and I am Professor Emeritus of T'nach at Hebrew University in Y'rushalayim, where I taught T'nach (the Scriptures) for more than 50 years until my retirement at Rosh Hashanah ("New Year") 5764 (September 2003). In this article I challenge some of the biggest LIES that christianity is responsible for spreading, and I am happy to discuss these issues with anyone who is capable of doing so in my chat-room on PalTalk. I change the name of the room periodically, so send me an email to find out what it is currently called. I make only two stipulations to anyone who is brave enough to come along and talk to me like a man—(1) if you want to quote from Scripture, you must quote the actual words that the Scripture-writers used (and they did not speak or write in English), and (2) if you want to rely on quotations from any texts other than the Scriptures (such as the pagan, Greek "new testament" writings), you must first convince me that the texts you want to rely on are reliable (because I have ample evidence to convince me that they are not).

PLEASE NOTE: I am aware that christianity is not one homogeneous cult and that there are many varied shades of thought about what the "real" christianity is—this is one of the things that makes it so difficult to discuss anything with christians about their "beliefs", because if you challenge any one specific assertion to an individual christian he is likely to say something like "Oh, I don't believe that". However, all christians hold at least some of the views treated here, and make at least some of the claims, and every one of these views and claims is held/made by at least some christians.


Was Yéshu a "messiah"?
Is a "messiah" God's "son", or even "God Himself in the flesh"?
Isn't a "messiah" supposed to be descended from the blood-line of King David?
Does a "messiah" have to be born in Beit Leḥem?
Does the death of a "messiah" atone for sins?
Was Yéshu a prophet?
Postscript: The significance of the "heart" in the Scriptural context
Addendum: "Mister Sayten"
Reply to Robert Turkel (“J. P. Holding”)

It has been said that the christianity cult is "a lie built on a mountain of deceptions". There are so many interwoven lies in the fabric of the cult's teachings that it's hard to know where to begin, but ultimately they can all be traced back the book that christians call the "holy bible" (even though there is little about it that can be called "holy" without some risk of terminological inexactitude).

Make no mistake, I am not talking about Yisraél's ancient Scriptures. The writings of the Hebrew Prophets bear little resemblance to the texts found in christian "versions" (or, more accurately, per-versions). No christian will ever accept this, of course: but very few christians ever bother to learn to speak Hebrew in order to be able to read and understand the original text (the excuses made are many and varied, but mostly along the lines of "It's too hard..." or "I'd like to, but I don't have the time..."), and instead they rely on "translations" published for them by other christians; and the few who do pretend to read the Hebrew text place their trust in "lexicons" and "concordances" such as those by Dr Strong and Dr Vine, not realising that those books were published for the sole purpose of misleading, rather than enlightening. Even worse, christians have a tendency to forget to think about what they are reading: for example, so many christians are firmly convinced that the reference to "the Son of God" in the "King James's Per-Version" rendering of Daniyyél 3:25 (which is even printed with the word "son" capitalised) is a reference to their man-god! But the person speaking in that verse is the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II, who reigned ca.604-561BCE. He was a heathen who didn't even believe in God—so is it rational or logical to have him talking about God's "son", and to insist that he was referring to a man who wasn't even born until more than five centuries after he died? Or are they claiming that Nebuchadnezzar was a prophet?

So let's take a look at some of the claims that christians make about their man-god, "Yéshu from Notzrat". They claim that he was a (or even the) "messiah", that he was God's own "son", and most christians also assert that he was actually "God Himself in the flesh". It is claimed that his barbaric execution by the Romans in some way achieved "atonement" or "forgiveness" or "remission" of all sins, both those committed before him and also those committed after his time for "everyone who believed on him" (their words, not mine!), and they also claim that he was a "prophet". How much of this is supported by the Scriptures? Well—actually—none of it.


Was Yéshu a "messiah"?

First, the claim that Yéshu was a "messiah". This issue hinges on what a "messiah" is; it's absurd to even try to talk about who "is" (or "was") a "messiah" unless you know what the word means! I have frequently heard christians say things like "The Jews didn't recognise 'their messiah' because they were waiting for a human king"—well, of course they were, because that's what a messiah is!

As a quick aside—how ridiculous it is to talk about "our" messiah (or "Yisraél's" messiah)—can there possibly be any other messiah? "Messiah" (or mashiyaḥ) is a Hebrew word that has a very specific meaning in Hebrew culture and in Hebrew writings... it has no meaning to anyone else or in any other culture, except that christians have hijacked the word and claimed it as their own "property", have made up their own alternative "definition" for it, which they now pretend was what the Hebrew Scripture-writers meant when they used the word, even though the christian definition did not yet even exist then. How offensive—and how downright dishonest!

So who is actually called a "messiah" in the Scriptures? Well, in the book of Sh'muél, both King Sha'ul and King David are called m'shiyah adonai—"Adonai's Messiah": Sha'ul is called by this title eleven times (in Sh'muél Alef 12:3, 12:5, 24:6, 24:10, 26:9, 26:11, 26:16 & 26:23, and Sh'muél Beit 1:14 & 1:16—there are only ten references because two instances occur in the same verse, in Sh'muél Alef 24:6). Even King David himself only gets called by the title "God's messiah" three times in Sh'muél (in Beit 19:21, 22:51 & 23:1), and also once in T'hillim (18:50)! Also, the prophet Yirm'yahu refers to King Tzidkiyyahu as “Adonai’s Messiah” in the 4th of his five poems lamenting the capture of Y'rushalayim (Eichah 4:20).

A "messiah" is someone who has been "anointed" (and this word does NOT have a double-n). "Anointment", or smearing with the "Oil of Sacred Anointment" (see Sh'mot 30:22-33), was the ceremony that took place at the coronation (or enthronement) of a Hebrew king; this compound of spices and olive oil cannot be separated from "anointing" because even its name—שֶֽׁמֶן מִשְׁחַת־קֹֽדֶשׁ shemen mish'ḥat kodesh (by which the oil is called twice in Sh'mot 30:25 and again in 30:31, and also with slight variations in Vayikra 10:7 and 21:12) uses the word מִשְׁחָה mish'ḥah, which is effectively the same Hebrew word as מָשִֽׁיחַ mashiyaḥ, a "Messiah". The new testament writers are strangely silent on this point, not even trying to pretend that it was ever done to their Yéshu character. So christianity's "anointed person" never was actually "anointed"... in other words he was not, in fact, an "anointed person" at all—christians get around this inconvenience by simply inventing different "definitions" of what the words "messiah" and "anoint" mean—but they are hard-pressed to supply Scriptural texts to support their phony, artificial "definitions".

There is also not a single prophecy that uses the word "messiah". There are numerous prophecies of the restoration of the Hebrew kingdom, and of the king who will reign at that time—who will be a blood-descendant in the male line of the ancient Royal Family—but none of these actually call him a "messiah". It is to be assumed that when God revives the Hebrew kingdom, the ancient practise of "anointing" the king will also be revived, so that the king who reigns at that time will be a "messiah" (in the true sense), but none of the Prophets calls him explicitly by that title.

The Scriptures also don't say anywhere that a "messiah" has to be a divine being or a half-divine half-human hybrid, miraculously "born of a virgin" without the involvement of a human father. After all, as we have just seen, King Sha'ul and King David were both "messiahs", and they were both the results of normal, natural births: we know the identities of both fathers, and both of these two kings had several older brothers (so their mothers were obviously not "virgins" when they were born)!

Upon reading this, all christians will immediately yell in unison that Mattai 1:22-23 says—

22  Τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου, διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος,
23  Ἰδοὺ ἡ παρθένος ἐν γαστρὶ ἕξει, καὶ τέξεται υἱὸν, καὶ καλέσουσιν τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Ἐμμανουὴλ, ὅ ἐστιν μεθερμηνευόμενον, μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ Θεός.....

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us......

Well, yes... Mattai does say that... but it's a three-fold deception:

[1] the words "quoted" are actually only the first part of a much longer series of linked statements (Y'shayahu 7:14-16), of which the deceitful Mattai-writer cunningly gives only the first few words;

[2] he doesn't quote it accurately, but makes several dishonest changes to what Y'shayahu in fact said; and

[3] he quotes the words completely out of their proper context,

giving a totally false impression of what the prophet was talking about.

Click here for a detailed analysis of this appalling deception.

Finally, can a hypocrite be a "messiah"? Yéshu was a hypocrite, and a particularly nasty, vicious-tongued one too. It is obvious to anyone reading the "gospels" that he did not get along at all with the "Rabbis" of his period, who were known as P'rushim at that time. The authority of the "Rabbis" came from God Himself, who ordained that anyone deviating from their judgements and enactments in even the slightest detail should suffer the Death Penalty (D'varim 17:10-12), and the first Synhedrion (Supreme Court of 70 Rabbinic judges) was convened by Mosheh himself, again on God's instructions (B'midbar 11:16). Yéshu acknowledges the Divine authority of the "Rabbis" in Mattai 23:2-3...

"The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Mosheh's seat; therefore you must do and observe all that they tell you."

...but this is followed immediately by a vicious attack on them, and just a few verses later (23:23-33) we read this:

"Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You blind guides... they are full of robbery and self-indulgence... You blind Pharisee... For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanliness. Even so you too outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness... You serpents, you brood of vipers."

What a vicious, totally unjustified attack! And how dishonest, because he makes no specific charge against any named individual, just a vague, generalised attack on an entire class of people. This is prejudiced stereotyping of the worst kind and, after he has himself acknowledged that the "Rabbis" (or "Pharisees") "sit in Mosheh's seat", exposes him for the hypocrite he was. And that was a "messiah"?


Is a "messiah" God's "son", or even "God Himself in the flesh"?

Does God even have a "son"? Well, this is a question of semantics ("semantics" is the branch of linguistics that deals with the meanings of words). Be very clear: when christians refer to God's "son", they mean a "begotten son"... this phrase is taken from one of their favourite verses in the new testament, which talks about God "giving" His "only begotten son" (John 3:16). The phrase "begotten son" means a biological son, because "begetting" refers to the physical process of impregnation that leads to biological reproduction. But God is not a biological entity, and He does not reproduce Himself biologically.

Some christian apologetics protest that the actual Greek word used in John 3:16, monogenh, "really" means a unique or only [son], rather than a "begotten" son—but this is a transparent excuse, because isn't it the whole point of the stories that Yéshu is supposed to have been born without the involvement of a human father because God was his father?

There is nothing anywhere in the Scriptures that says, implies, suggests or even hints that God has a "biological son", or was ever intending to have one. On the contrary, D'varim 4:35 & 4:39, and M'lachim Alef 8:60, all say that

יְיָ הוּא הָאֱלֹהִים... אֵין עוֹד׃
adonai hu ha'elohim... ein od.
"Adonai is the ONE AND ONLY GOD.... there is NO-ONE else".

What part of "there is NO-ONE else" don't they get? D'varim 4:35 actually has one extra word in Hebrew (three extra words in English): אֵין עוֹד מִלְּבַדּוֹ ein od mil'vado, "there is no-one else apart from Him". Notice that it doesn't say "no other saviour apart from Him" or "no other god apart from Him"—it says "there is no-one else apart from Him". Could God have truthfully said that if, in fact, He had a "son"? They don't even translate these verses honestly in their "Per-Versions": the Hebrew in all three verses I have cited says "Adonai is the God"—i.e., the One and Only God—but christians always omit the all-important definite article the in their "translations".

Furthermore, in case any christian might be thinking of saying okay, there was no-one else apart from Him at the time this was written, but there could have been later—Scripture contradicts this too:

כִּי אֲנִי יְיָ לֹא שָׁנִיתִי...
...ki ani adonai lo shaniti
"For I am Adonai and I do not change...." (Mal'achi 3:6)

The "explanation" christians use to try to wriggle out of this one is laughable. "Ah," they say, "but Yéshu was not "someone else apart from God"—he was God. In fact all the three idols—papa, junior, and casper "the friendly ghost"—are "actually" all one and the same "person". What utter blasphemy! But is this really what their own books say? Take a look at Mattai 26:39—

καὶ προελθὼν μικρὸν ἔπεσεν ἐπὶ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ προσευχόμενος καὶ λέγων.....
And he walked on a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying.....

So Yéshu, who actually "was God", fell on his face and prayed..... to WHOM? to HIMSELF??? Yisraél's God does not bow to anyone, and He certainly doesn't "pray to Himself"! The whole idea is ridiculous.

The usual christian response to this is that God "didn't reveal the 'full truth' about Himself at first" and "only later gradually revealed His true, 'triune' nature" (why oh why can't they use normal, simple words? 'triune' means 'three-in-one', a hard enough concept to grasp, without dressing it up and making it even more obscure and confusing by using such an absurd word). Oh, really? So He did not disclose to Mosheh (whom D'varim 34:10 calls the greatest Prophet that ever lived in Yisraél) the important "fact" that He is really three "beings" in one, but kept this a secret for another 1,500 years until it could be "revealed" to a bunch of heathens? Scripture says that God spoke to Mosheh plainly, "face to face, and not in riddles" (B'midbar 12:8)—"like a man speaks to his friend" (Sh'mot 33:11). So when He told Mosheh that He is "the One and Only God" and that "there is no-one else apart from Him" (D'varim 4:35), we can take those words absolutely on face-value—they do not need to be "interpreted" to make them mean something different ("interpreting" is a christian euphemism for twisting what the text says into whatever they want it to be saying).

Whenever christians are challenged to show where the Scriptures speak of God having a "son", there are several verses that they routinely throw up in response. One of these, Daniyyél 3:25, I have already mentioned and debunked. Two others that are often dishonestly cited as "proofs" of God having a "son" are T'hillim 2:7 and Mishlei 30:4. The first of these is almost as transparent a deception as the verse from Daniyyél. The words in the verse are reported speech, i.e. the writer of the hymn (King David) is quoting what God has "said" to him:

אֲסַפְּרָה אֶל חֹק: יְיָ אָמַר אֵלַי "בְּנִי אַתָּה, אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ"׃
"!asapp'rah el ḥok: adonai amar élai "b'ni attah, ani hayom y'lid'ticha
By law I must declare that Adonai has told me: "You are My 'son', I 'gave birth' to you today!".

This hymn was composed by King David in celebration of his coronation as king of all Yisraél. His statement that God said He had "given birth" to him that day is obviously a metaphor; we know that David was not crowned king on the day of his birth (according to Sh'muél Beit 5:4, he was actually 30 years old at the time of his coronation), and God was not his biological father either—his father was a man named Yishai, whose ancestry is well-known and is recorded in Divrei Hayamim Alef 2:4-5, 9-12 and also in Rut 4:18-22.

As for Mishlei 30:4, only a christian could possibly see here an indication of God having a "son"; the verse doesn't even mention God! It begins by asking four questions:—

מִי עָלָה שָׁמַֽיִם וַיֵּרַד?
מִי אָסַף רֽוּחַ בְּחָפְנָיו?
מִי צָרַר מַֽיִם בַּשִּׂמְלָה?
מִי הֵקִים כָּל אַפְסֵי אָֽרֶץ?

?mi alah shamayim vayérad
?mi asaf ruaḥ b'ḥofnav
?mi tzarar mayim basimlah
?mi hékim kol afsei aretz
Who went up to Heaven and then came back down again?
Who controlled the wind with his hands?
Who bundled up the waters with his coat?
Who was it that laid the foundations of civilisation?

The answer to these four questions (Mosheh) is so blindingly obvious to the author's intended readership (Yisraél) that he adds with biting sarcasm, almost tauntingly—

מַה שְּׁמוֹ? וּמַה שֶּׁם בְּנוֹ?
כִּי תֵדָע!

?mah shmo? umah shem b'no
!ki téda
Tell me his name! Tell me his son's name!
Don't you know who it was?

Of course, christians have a completely different "interpretation" of this verse. It doesn't matter a jot to them that it was written by King Sh'lomoh, who died in 961BCE; it refers to a "son", and so it must be talking about Yéshu, God's "son"! They don't care that Sh'lomoh is asking "Who went up to Heaven and then came back down again?"—small things like the difference between past tense and future tense do not matter to christians—and in any case, when did God "go up to Heaven and then come back"? Oh, they say, that was Yéshu himself who "went up to Heaven and then came back down again". But in that case, the end of the verse isn't asking who is God's "son", it's asking who is Yéshu's "son". Duh!!!

Another verse that christians dishonestly misquote and misrepresent in this context is Hoshé'a 11:1—

כִּי נַֽעַר יִשְׂרָאֵל וָאֹהֲבֵֽהוּ, וּמִמִּצְרַֽיִם קָרָֽאתִי לִבְנִי׃
ki na'ar yisra'el va'ohavéhu, umimitzrayim kara'ti liv'ni
"When Yisraél was a 'youth', I loved him—I have been calling out to My 'son' ever since Egypt."

This prophet is imitating the language that God Himself used in His threat to the Pharaoh in the early part of narrative leading up to the Exodus (Sh'mot 4:22-23):

וְאָמַרְתָּ אֶל פַּרְעֹה: כֹּה אָמַר יְיָ: "בְּנִי בְכֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל! וָאֹמַר אֵלֶֽיךָ, שַׁלַּח אֶת בְּנִי וְיַעַבְדֵֽנִי! וַתְּמָאֵן לְשַׁלְּחוֹ, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הֹרֵג אֶת בִּנְךָ בְּכֹרֶֽךָ!"
v'amarta el par'oh: koh amar adonai, "b'ni b'chori yisra'el!
va'omar élecha, shalaḥ et b'ni v'ya'avdéni;
vat'ma'én l'shal'ḥo, hinneh anochi horeg et bin'cha—b'chorecha!"
Tell the Pharaoh, This is what Adonai has said: "Yisraél is My 'son'—My 'first-born'! I said to you—Allow My 'son' to leave so 'he' can serve Me! If you [continue to] refuse to let 'him' leave, I am going to kill your son—your first-born!"

It is very obvious in the verse in Sh'mot that God is using the word "son" as a metaphor for the Yisraélite nation and not referring to any specific individual, and the language in the Hoshé'a verse parallels this exactly. This particular christian deception goes right back to the actual "gospels" and can be found in the passage starting at Mattai 2:13—

13  ¶ And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
14  When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:
15  And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son.
.....
.....
19  ¶ But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt,
20  Saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Yisraél: for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.

The Mattai-writer's deception lies in his alteration of the indirect object liv'ni "[I have been calling out] to My son" into a direct object "[I have called] My son", and his implication that "called" has the sense of "summoned".

Finally, "God in the flesh"? A "messiah" is not a "god", and certainly not God Himself. Scripture makes it very clear that God is not a human being (Sh'muél Alef 15:29)—

וְגַם נֵֽצַח יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יְשַׁקֵּר וְלֹא יִנָּחֵם; כִּי לֹא אָדָם הוּא לְהִנָּחֵם׃
v'gam nétzaḥ yisra'el lo y'shakkér v'lo yinnaḥém, ki lo adam hu, l'hinnaḥém!
"...and what is more, Yisraél's God doesn't lie and doesn't back down; He is not a man—only men back down!"

There is one specific verse that christians frequently point to whenever their absurd insistence that Yéshu "was God" is challenged. The verse is Y'shayahu 9:5 (although for some unknown reason christians call it verse 6)—

כִּי־יֶֽלֶד יֻלַּד־לָֽנוּ, בֵּן נִתַּן־לָֽנוּ, וַתְּהִי הַמִּשְׂרָה עַל־שִׁכְמוֹ; וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּֽלֶא־יוֹעֵץ־אֵל־גִּבּוֹר־אֲבִי־עַד "שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם"׃
...ki yeled yullad lanu, bein nittan lanu, vat'hi hamisrah al shich'mo;
vayikra sh'mo pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad "sar shalom"
...a boy has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and one day the responsibility of kingship will rest on his shoulder... [God] has named him "Peace-Prince".

Actually, I cheated slightly in my translation of that verse. The Hebrew text doesn't say "God" (a single word) in the second half of the verse: it uses a unique string of Divine titles "Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity" that occur together in no other place in the Scriptures. That's why I have set the name God in brackets—taking this small liberty in translation does not affect the meaning in any way, but it does make the verse very much easier to read and understand.

The first thing that is obvious from this verse is that the prophet is talking about a boy who had already been born. Hmm... so we need to know when Y'shayahu made this statement/prediction... and it would also be helpful to know whom he was talking to. Can we find this out from the text? Yes: we can—the opening of chapter 9 "those who walked in darkness have seen bright light, over those who were living in a land of deathly shadow light has blazed out!" refers back to the abortive attack on Y'rushalayim by R'tzin and Pekaḥ, the kings of Syria ("Aram") and the northern Hebrew kingdom, recorded at the very beginning of chapter 7, and to the subsequent deaths of Pekaḥ in Aḥaz's 4th year (M'lachim Beit 15:30) and R'tzin shortly afterwards (M'lachim Beit 16:9) and the consequent removal of the threat that had been hanging over Y'hudah since their attack, which had been foretold by Y'shayahu in 7:14-16. Chapter 9 was therefore written in (or very soon after) the 4th year of Aḥaz's reign over Y'hudah, and most likely it was Aḥaz himself that Y'shayahu was speaking to.

If you look in "King James's Per-Version", or any other christian "per-version", you may notice that their translation is rather different from mine. Okay, it will have the string of Divine titles "Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity" written out in full, but you will find that the difference is much greater than just this—the verb וַיִּקְרָא vayikra, "has called" (past tense, active voice) will have been cunningly changed into "will be called" (future tense, passive voice), with the result that the string of Divine titles are now subsumed into the child's name.

I have carefully examined the entry in "Strong's Concordance" for the verb וַיִּקְרָא vayikra in this verse, and also the entries relating to the same word in many other verses (it occurs throughout the Scriptures more than 200 times). Every single instance other than this one is translated as "called" or "he called", giving the phonetic "pronunciation" (written as qara') of the verb's root letters kuf, resh, alef—but not the pronunciation of the form of the word that occurs in the specific verse. And in every case other than this one, the tense is given as "perfect" (past tense)—Dr Strong does not give the "voice" of a verb (active or passive) at all (unless you understand what "Stem—Qal" etc mean).

Thus, according to "Strong's Concordance", וַיִּקְרָא vayikra is always the "perfect tense" of the "Qal stem" (that is, the active conjugation) of the verb "to call" and means "[he] called"—except in this one single case. In Y'shayahu 9:5 (9:6 in christian "holy bibles"), according to "Strong's Concordance", וַיִּקְרָא vayikra suddenly becomes the "imperfect" (future) tense of the verb "to call" (although still the "Qal stem"), and means "shall be called". No explanation is offered as to why it should be translated using the future passive in this one, apparently unique, case.

So, how should this verse be translated correctly? The first half is relatively straightforward: "...for a boy has been born for us, a son has been given to us, and one day he is going to be king" (literally "and the kingship will rest on his shoulder"). The Old English usages "is born" and "is given" that are found in KJPV are especially unhelpful because they sound very much like the present tense to an uneducated speaker of modern English, but they are actually ordinary perfects in 17th century English, equivalent to "has been born" and "has been given" in the modern idiom (similar constructions are common, for example, in Shakespeare's writing).

It's when we come to the second half of the verse that complications arise. Yet the verse is actually very simple, apart from the use of the compound Divine Name pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad ("Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity"). Now, if a statement such as Y'shayahu is making here was written in the context of ordinary prose narrative, the normal word order would be something like vayikra A et sh'mo B (i.e. "he called, A, his name, B", meaning "A named him B"). But the prophets used poetic language, and in poetry the poet often does not follow the normal word order. In this verse Y'shayahu places שְׁמוֹ sh'mo ("his name") directly after the verb וַיִּקְרָא vayikra ("he [has] called"), and before the subject of the verb—the one doing the "calling"—so that the structure of the statement becomes "he has called, his name, A, B"—"A" being the one giving the name, and "B" being the actual name given. We therefore have—

וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ
vayikra sh'mo
and He has called his name
 .....um, who has?—
פֶּֽלֶא־יוֹעֵץ־אֵל־גִּבּוֹר־אֲבִי־עַד
pëlë-yo'étz-él-gibbor-avi-ad
"God" (lit., 'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity')
 .....and what has He named him?—
שַׂר־שָׁלוֹם
sar-shalom
"Peace-Prince"

...that is to say, "and 'Wondrous One, Adviser, Mighty God, Father of Eternity' has named the child 'Peace-Prince'." The way this verse is translated in KJPV and other christian "per-versions" is ludicrous and completely ignores cultural context—no Hebrew would ever even think of referring to another person by any of God's "Names" (much less of actually naming a child "God"). This would present no problem to a christian, who has been conditioned all his life to think of Yéshu as "being" God, but Hebrews are not conditioned in this way and are raised knowing that Scripture says "God is NOT a man".

In any case, who was this "boy who had been born for them"—this "son who had been given to them"? The answer is obvious to anyone who has studied Hebrew history of that period, but christians do not in general concern themselves with Hebrew history because it "isn't important", so they have no clue what or whom Y'shayahu is talking about in this verse. Any reader who is interested in this subject is invited to download the book Biblical Chronology (12.3Mb), co-written by myself and my cousin Dr B'tzalel Barzillai, which provides an introduction to the study of the historical narratives in the Scriptures and provides a year-by-year timeline covering the entire period from the "creation" of Adam in about 3924BCE to the completion of the Second Temple in 516BCE, the 6th year of Darius I (Ezra 6:15), which just happens to be exactly seventy years after the destruction of the First Temple by Nebuchadnezzar II in 586BCE.

We concluded earlier that Y'shayahu made the prediction we have been examining in or very soon after the 4th year of King Aḥaz of Y'hudah's reign (742-727BCE), and was probably speaking to Aḥaz himself when he made it. Aḥaz reigned for 16 years (M'lachim Beit 16:2) and, when he died, he was succeded by his son Ḥizkiyyahu (M'lachim Beit 16:20), who reigned from 726 until 698BCE. Furthermore, Ḥizkiyyahu was 25 years old when he came to the throne (M'lachim Beit 18:2), so he was already 9 years old at the beginning of his father Aḥaz's reign and about 13 years old at the time Y'shayahu announced that God had named someone the "Peace-Prince".

In the 14th year of Ḥizkiyyahu's reign (713BCE), he was attacked by the armies of the Assyrian king Sargon II (reigned 721-705BCE), commanded by the king's son Sanḥériv or "Sennacherib" (M'lachim Beit 18:13ff). The account in M'lachim doesn't mention Sargon, but 18:17 does refer to a military commander named Tartan, who Y'shayahu tells us was Sargon's general (Y'shayahu 20:1); in fact, Sanḥériv didn't become king of Assyria until after his father's death in 705BCE, nearly ten years after this campaign.

Rejecting the Assyrian commander's crude threat to maintain the siege of Y'rushalayim until the people were reduced to "eating their own shit and drinking their own piss" (M'lachim Beit 18:27, Y'shayahu 36:12—literal translation) if the city did not capitulate, the pious Ḥizkiyyahu appealed to the prophet Y'shayahu for help (M'lachim Beit 19:1-2) and, as a result of this, God intervened and 185,000 Assyrian soldiers miraculously died in their sleep that very night (M'lachim Beit 19:35). After that, Sanḥériv slunk back to Nin'veh in humiliation, never to venture forth against Y'hudah again. He was assassinated by two of his own sons (but see Prof. Parpola's paper The Murderer of Sennacherib) more than 30 years later in 681BCE, and was succeeded by another son called Ésar-Ḥaddon (M'lachim Beit 19:37, and corroborated by surviving Assyrian records).

After the disastrous attack on Y'rushalayim in 713BCE (i.e. disastrous for the Assyrians), there was peace in Y'hudah for more than 100 years, which lasted until Pharaoh Wehem-ib-ra Nekau II (610-595BCE)—the Biblical "Pharaoh Necho"—attacked Josiah at M'giddo in 610BCE (M'lachim Beit 23:29). Thus, by his piety, Ḥizkiyyahu (who was about 13 years old when Y'shayahu prophesied that "a boy has been born for us who one day will be king and God has named him Peace-Prince") initiated more than a century of peace and tranquillity in Y'hudah—the longest period of continuous peace that the kingdom of Y'hudah ever enjoyed. Can there really be any doubt whom Y'shayahu was talking about?

In contrast, Yéshu never brought peace to anyone, and more wars have been fought in his name than in any other... on top of which, he was anything but a man of peace: he himself said

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth: I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to create division between a man and his father, and between a daughter and her mother, and between a daughter-in-law and her mother-in-law." (Mattai 10:34-35)

and

"Do you suppose that I have come to bring peace on earth? I tell you, No; but rather division: For from now onwards if there are five in one house they will be divided three against two and two against three. The father will be divided against his son, and the son against his father; the mother will be divided against her daughter, and the daughter against her mother; the mother-in-law will be divided against her daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." (Lukos 12:51-53)

 


11th August 2005—Yesterday brought a new twist on the "does God have a 'son'?" question. I had asked a christian to quote even one verse from the Scriptures that says God has a "son" and, instead of all the usual verses, this one cited Daniyyél 7:13. So does Daniyyél 7:13 say that God has a "son", or is this yet another christian deception? Let's take a look at what the verse says:

חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵילְיָא, וַאֲרוּ עִם־עֲנָנֵי שְׁמַיָּא כְּבַר אֱנָשׁ אָתֵה הֲוָא; וְעַד־עַתִּיק יוֹמַיָּא מְטָה, וּקְדָמֽוֹהִי הַקְרְבֽוּהִי׃
ḥazéh haveit b'ḥezvei leilya, va'aru! im ananei sh'mayya k'var enash atéh hava; v'ad attik yomayya m'tah, uk'damohi hakrivuhi.
"I was dreaming [literally, 'I was seeing nocturnal sights'] and wow! [something] like a human being was approaching with clouds of the sky... he advanced towards the One from the Ancient Years, and was brought before Him."

So Daniyyél is reporting a DREAM that he had. Not something that actually happened. We ALL dream, and we often see very strange things in our dreams. But are the things that a person sees in a dream REAL EVENTS, even in the Scriptures? In ch.41 of B'réshit , the Pharaoh dreamt that seven thin cows swallowed up seven fat cows (and presumably swallowed them WHOLE, as the narrative doesn't mention any biting and chewing), and also that seven thin ears of grain "swallowed up" seven fat ears of grain. Does anyone seriously think that actually happened? Well, in fact SOME of the more extreme fundie christians might, but even most christians realise it was ONLY A DREAM.

In any case, I am at a loss to understand how this verse says that God has a "son". It doesn't even mention the word "son"! I suppose the christian response would be that they believe the "one like a human being" who "was approaching with clouds of the sky" and who "advanced towards the One from the Ancient Years" (i.e. God) in Daniyyél's dream was God's "son".... well, I can't help what they choose to believe, but they are seriously mistaken if they DO "believe" that, because it isn't what Daniyyél SAYS, and it certainly isn't what he MEANS. And in any case it was only a dream—I could dream about Gandalf the Wizard, but would that make him a real person?



Isn't a "messiah" supposed to be descended from the blood-line of King David?

For sure. God's promise to David was explicit: his throne was always to pass from a father to his natural son (the Hebrew word zera, seed, literally means semen or sperm) "who came out of his genitals" (Sh'muél Beit 7:12, 16)—

כִּי יִמְלְאוּ יָמֶֽיךָ וְשָׁכַבְתָּ אֶת־אֲבֹתֶֽיךָ, וַהֲקִימֹתִי אֶת־זַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶֽיךָ אֲשֶׁר יֵצֵא מִמֵּעֶֽיךָ וַהֲכִינֹתִי אֶת־מַמְלַכְתּוֹ...
...וְנֶאְמַן בֵּיתְךָ וּמַמְלַכְתְּךָ עַד־עוֹלָם לְפָנֶיךָ; כִּסְאֲךָ יִהְיֶה נָכוֹן עַד עוֹלָם׃

....ki yiml'u yamecha v'shachavta et avotecha, vahakimoti et zar'acha aḥarecha asher yétzé mimé'echa vahachinoti et mam'lach'to"
"v'ne'man beit'cha umam'lach't'cha ad olam l'fanecha—kis'acha yihyeh nachon ad olam....
"When your days are ended and you have passed away, I shall raise up your own 'zera' that will have come out of your genitals and I will make his kingdom secure...
your dynasty and your kingdom are secure for ever—your throne will be established [in this way] for all time."

When God made this promise to King David, He established at the same time the law of succession to the throne of Yisraél: it passes by blood and only by blood: an adoptee can have no claim to the succession because he is not "the king's own 'zera' that came out of his genitals". This last point is very important, as will become apparent in a moment.

The authors of the Mattai and Luke "gospels" try very hard to establish that Yéshu was a direct descendant of the blood-line of King David. Unfortunately, though, the two writers disagree about the lineage, and provide two completely different ancestries! But in any case, the whole exercise is futile, because in fact they're not actually tracing Yéshu's ancestry at all but that of "Yoséf the carpenter", who they then go on to say was not actually the baby's biological father at all! And, if he was not the baby's biological father, his ancestry is irrelevant. Aha, they say... but Yéshu was Yoséf's "adopted son", which is as good as being his natural son... well, no it isn't—an adopted son is not from the Royal blood-line, as I have already explained.

Ah, the christians say, but the reason the two "lineages" are different is because one was Yéshu's "legal" ancestry and the other was his "biological" ancestry (whatever that is supposed to mean!), and furthermore, they claim, only the lineage in Mattai 1:2-16 is "really" Yoséf's—the one in Lukos 3:23-38 is "really" Mary's.

Yeah, right. What utter boloney! First of all, the mother's ancestry is totally irrelevant when we are considering heirdom to the throne. Why?—because a woman cannot be "king" in Hebrew law, and a king's daughter does not have "royal blood". A mother cannot pass on to her child something she does not have herself, and hence the daughter of a king cannot pass to her son "royal blood". So Mary's ancestry is irrelevant, and a Hebrew writer would have known this; but "Lukos" was a gentile, as even all christians admit.

In fact, it simply is not true that an adopted child's name is quoted in Hebrew culture using the adoptive father's name, rather than the biological father's name, as christians claim. As ever, this claim is always made without any Scripture being cited as precedent—for no precedent exists to support it. On the contrary: the only instance of adoption in Scripture that I can think of discredits the claim. In Estér 2:5-7, it is recorded that—

אִישׁ יְהוּדִי הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה, וּשְׁמוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי בֶּן יָאִיר, בֶּן־שִׁמְעִי בֶּן־קִישׁ, אִישׁ יְמִינִי....
....וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת־הֲדַסָּה, הִיא אֶסְתֵּר בַּת־דֹּדוֹ, כִּי אֵין לָהּ אָב וָאֵם....
....וּבְמוֹת אָבִֽיהָ וְאִמָּהּ לְקָחָהּ מָרְדֳּכַי לוֹ לְבַת׃

....ish y'hudi hayah b'shushan habirah ush'mo mordochai ben ya'ir ben shim'i ben kish ish y'mini
....vay'hi omén et hadassah hi estér bat dodo ki ein lah av va'ém....
.uv'mot avihah v'immah l'kaḥah mordochai lo l'vat....
A certain Y'hudahite man was living in Shushan, the capital—his name was Mordochai son of Ya'ir, a descendant of Shim'i son of Kish—a man of [the tribe] Binyamin....
....who was raising his cousin Hadassah—that is, Estér—because she had no father or mother....
....when her father and mother died, Mordochai had adopted her as his own daughter.

Here is an explicit example in Scripture of the adoption of a Hebrew orphan: "when her parents died, Mordochai had adopted her as his own daughter". But is she ever called "Estér daughter of Mordochai"? No—on the contrary, her full name is used twice in the text (Estér 2:15, 9:29), and on both occasions she is called בַּת אֲבִיחַֽיִל "daughter of Aviḥayil"—her biological father. There is no instance of an adoped child ever being called the "son" or "daughter" of the adoptive father; indeed, that would be considered most disrespectful to the memory of the deceased biological father (the references to "keeping alive the name of the dead one" in Rut 4:5 & 4:10 refer to the Hebrew custom, which is still practised, of naming a child of the next generation in memory of a departed parent or grandparent to "keep alive" that parent's or grandparent's name).

Secondly, the lineage given in Lukos 3:23ff is not Mary's, however much christians pretend that it "really" is. This is very clear in the actual text, which begins...

23  Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα ἀρχόμενος ὢν ὡς ἐνομίζετο υἱός Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ
24  τοῦ Ματθὰτ.....


23  And Yéshu himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Yoséf, which was [the son] of Heli,
24  Which was [the son] of Matthat.....

In fact, both the "ancestries" are unreliable and show that these two writers were not familiar with Scripture. The "Lukos" version has an extra generation between Shem's son Arpach'shad and his son Shelaḥ—the additional name quoted is "Kénan", the same as the grandson of Shet nine generations earlier. The "Mattai" version begins with Avraham and reckons correctly the fourteen generations (inclusive) from him until David, but then it only lists fourteen of the eighteen generations from Sh'lomoh to Y'hoyachin (also called Y'chonyah), who was exiled by the Chaldæan king Nebuchadnezzar II in 597BCE. Aha, christians will tell you (they have an answer for everything, don't they?), it is common in Scripture for lineages to be abbreviated. Well yes, it is—but here, the author is not intending to abbreviate the lineage, because he counts the number of generations and he is very specific about how many generations he claims that there were (Mattai 1:17)—

17  Πᾶσαι οὖν αἱ γενεαὶ ἀπὸ Ἀβραὰμ ἕως Δαβὶδ, γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες καὶ ἀπὸ Δαβὶδ ἕως τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος, γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες.....

17  So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations.....

...except there were not fourteen generations "from King David until the carrying away into Babylon", there were actually eighteen, as can be readily verified by studying M'lachim and Divrei Hayamim:

  1. Sh'lomoh, son of David
  2. R'ḥav'am, son of Sh'lomoh
  3. Abiyyam (also called "Abiyyah"), son of R'ḥav'am
  4. Asa, son of Abiyyam (or Abiyyah)
  5. Y'hoshafat, son of Asa
  6. Y'horam (also called "Yoram"), son of Y'hoshafat
  7. Aḥazyah, son of Y'horam
  8. Yo'ash (also called "Y'ho'ash"), son of Aḥazyah
  9. Amatz'yahu, son of Yo'ash
  10. Azar'yah (called "Uzziyah" or "Uzziyahu" in Divrei Hayamim), son of Amatz'yahu
  11. Yotam, son of Azar'yah/Uzziyahu
  12. Aḥaz, son of Yotam
  13. Ḥizkiyyah, son of Aḥaz
  14. M'nasheh, son of Ḥizkiyyah
  15. Amon, son of M'nasheh
  16. Yoshiyyahu, son of Amon
  17. Y'hoyakim, son of Yoshiyyahu
  18. Y'hoyachin (also called "Y'chonyah"), son of Y'hoyakim

The devices that christians employ to try to explain away the glaring error in Mattai's statement that "there were fourteen generations from David until the carrying away into Babylon" are so contrived that they are laughable: some will claim that the writer is "not counting those kings who were wicked" (oh yes? then why does he include Aḥaz and M'nasheh, who were probably the two worst ones of all?), others even try to pretend that a "generation" has some completely different "meaning" in Hebrew culture—how do they know this? It's news to me, and to any other native-born Hebrew! In fact, the Hebrew word dor, a "generation", means exactly the same as the English word used to translate it—a single father-to-son step in the listing of a person's ancestry. I have no doubt that the dishonest christian clergy who, even today, continue to promulgate this kind of deception, know perfectly well that Mattai's statement is false and whatever they say will be an attempt to cover it up and explain it away—what constantly amazes me is that the ordinary rank-and-file christians can be so stupid that they never question anything they are told and fall for such transparent lies time after time!

Finally, the last section of Mattai's "ancestry"—which cannot be corroborated from any Scriptural or external source—contains only thirteen names up to and including Ἰωσὴφ τὸν ἄνδρα Μαρίας, ἐξ ἧς ἐγεννήθη Ἰησοῦς ("Yoséf the husband of Mary, of whom was born Yéshu...."—1:16)—and yet in this case, too, verse 17 claims that

.....καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς μετοικεσίας Βαβυλῶνος ἕως τοῦ Χριστοῦ, γενεαὶ δεκατέσσαρες.....

.....and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Messiah are fourteen generations......

It doesn't seem to matter a jot to the deceitful author that "Yoséf" was not Yéshu's father: after all, he (the author) knew that none of his readers would even notice this detail, and wouldn't care about it anyway, even if they did notice; and he seems to deliberately obfuscate the issue by writing "Yoséf the husband of Mary, of whom was born Yéshu"—implying that, at least in some sense, Yéshu was "born of" both of them.

In fact, the "gospels" never call Yéshu "the son of David". The Hebrew name David is spelt Δαυιδ (delta, alpha, upsilon, iota, alpha—"Dauid") in the pseudo-septuagint, but the name of Yéshu's alleged ancestor is consistently given as Δαβιδ (delta, alpha, beta, iota, alpha—"Dabid") throughout the Textus Receptus of the "gospels". I have no idea who "Dabid" was, but being a "son of Dabid" gives him no claim to messiahship.


Does a "messiah" have to be born in Beit Leḥem?

No. This is yet another warped idea that has its origins in the "gospels" (Mattai 2:3-6)—

3  Ἀκούσας δὲ Ἡρώδης ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐταράχθη, καὶ πᾶσα Ἱεροσόλυμα μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ
4  καὶ συναγαγὼν πάντας τοὺς ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ γραμματεῖς τοῦ λαοῦ, ἐπυνθάνετο παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννᾶται
5  οἱ δὲ εἶπον αὐτῷ, Ἐν Βηθλεὲμ τῆς Ἰουδαίας οὕτως γὰρ γέγραπται διὰ τοῦ προφήτου,
6  Καὶ σὺ Βηθλεὲμ γῆ Ἰούδα, οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ἰούδα ἐκ σοῦ γὰρ ἐξελεύσεται ἡγούμενος, ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ.
3  When King Herodos heard, he was troubled, and all Y'rushalayim with him.
4  And he assembled all the chief priests and scribes of the people together and asked them where the Messiah would be born.
5  And they told him, At Beit Leḥem in Y'hudah: for thus it is written by the prophet—
6  "And you Beit Leḥem, in the land of Y'hudah, are not the least among the princes of Y'hudah—for out of you shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Yisraél."

We have here another example of how the dishonest Mattai-writer twists, manipulates and misquotes Scripture to serve his own purposes. He is pretending to quote from the prophecies of Michah, one of the 12 relatively obscure prophets whose writings are collectively known as "the Book of the Twelve Prophets". The verse (Michah 5:1) actually says this—

וְאַתָּה בֵּית לֶחֶם אֶפְרָתָה, צָעִיר לִהְיוֹת בְּאַלְפֵי יְהוּדָה;
מִמְּךָ לִי יֵצֵא לִהְיוֹת מוֹשֵׁל בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמוֹצָאֹתָיו מִקֶּדֶם מִימֵי עוֹלָם.
v'attah beit leḥem efratah tza'ir lih'yot b'alfei y'hudah,
mim'cha li yétzé lih'yot moshel b'yisra'el umotza'otav mikedem miy'mei olam.
"...as for you, Beit Leḥem Efratah, although you are too small to be counted among the 'thousands' of Y'hudah—yet, even so, the one who is to be My ruler in Yisraél will come from you, because his roots were [from you] in the ancient times".

Notice how sneakily "Mattai" has twisted what the prophet actually said. Michah was saying that even though Beit Leḥem was a small, insignificant town in his time—too small to be reckoned among the "thousands" of Y'hudah (i.e. the big cities, those with populations of 1,000 people or more), yet in spite of how obscure a place it was at that time, one day it would come to be considered the King-Messiah's "home-town", because it was the birthplace of his ancestor King David in ancient times.

This is nothing like what "Mattai" the Deceiver "quotes", though. He pretends that Michah in fact said the opposite—that Beit Leḥem was not insignificant... in fact, he says it was an important city, "because out of [it] shall come a Governor, that shall rule My people Yisraél", and he presents this as a "prophecy" that the King-Messiah must be born there. And in any case—when did Yéshu ever "rule [God's] people Yisraél"? Even if this were a prophecy as the Mattai-writer pretends, Yéshu certainly never fulfilled it!


Does the death of a "messiah" atone for sins?

The death of a "messiah" does not provide "atonement" or "forgiveness of sins". Scripture indicates several ways of "atoning" for sin, but none of them involves human sacrifice. Rather, obtaining God's forgiveness requires penitence, remorse, contrition and prayer. The most striking example of this is the story the prophet Yonah's mission to the Assyrian capital, Nineveh (Yonah 3:1-10)—

Adonai's word came to Yonah for a second time: "Stand up, and go to that great city Nineveh, and call out to it the announcement that I will tell you".
So Yonah stood up and went to Nineveh, as Adonai had commanded him (now Nineveh was an enormously large city—it was three days' walk across). Yonah started to walk into the city and, when he had gone about one day's walk, he began to call out: "In another forty days, Nineveh will be overthrown!"
The people of Nineveh believed in God; so they declared a Public Fast and dressed themselves in sacking, from the greatest to the least of them. When Nineveh's king heard about it, even he rose from his throne, removed his royal robes, dressed himself in sacking, and sat on ashes; on the advice of his officials he ordered that it should be proclaimed throughout Nineveh: "Neither man nor livestock—cattle and sheep—shall eat or drink anything; all of them—both people and livestock—must cover themselves in sacking and cry out loudly to God; all men must repent from their evil ways and the violence in their hands! Who knows, perhaps God will relent and change His mind, and turn His blazing fury away from us and not destroy us?"
And when God saw their deeds—that they had repented from their evil ways—God did change His mind about the destruction He had decreed that He would bring upon them—and He did not do it.

The people of Nineveh (who were gentiles) were "saved" by their own deeds, giving up their former wickedness and repenting wholeheartedly, demonstrating their contrition and remorse through fasting, prayer, and the symbolic act of dressing in coarse, uncomfortable and unattractive sacking (their king even went one step further, humbling himself by "sitting on ashes"). In other words, they were "saved" by what christians sneeringly call "works". Nobody should ever be deceived by the christian lie that "works cannot save"—the story of the people of Nineveh is conclusive proof that "works" can and do "save".

The situation for Yisraélites is exactly the same. For us, God has provided the annual "Atonement Day", Yom Kippur, on the 10th day of Tishri, the 7th month (reckoned from the Spring month, in accordance with the commandment of Sh'mot 12:2). Sure, there was an "atonement sacrifice" on that day that was offered while the Temple existed, but the sacrifice was purely ceremonial and symbolic: it was not the actual sacrifice that "atoned" for Yisraél's sins. How do we know this? Well, first of all apply a little logic: can anyone really think that God is so "cheap" that He can be "bought off" with one little goat to pay for all the sins committed by an entire nation in a whole year? And secondly, look at what the chapter that prescribes the Yom Kippur rituals says after the ceremonies have been described (Vayikra 16:29-30)—

וְהָיְתָה לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם: בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ תְּעַנּוּ אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם וְכָל מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ... כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם, לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם, לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ!
v'hay'tah lachem l'ḥukat olam: baḥodesh hash'viy'i be'asor laḥodesh t'annu et naf'shoteichem v'chol m'la'chah lo ta'asu.....
.....ki bayom hazeh y'chapper aleichem, l'tahér et'chem mikol ḥato'teichem—lif'nei adonai tit'haru!
It will be an eternal law for you that you will fast and do no work on the 10th day of the 7th month..... for on that day, [God] will provide atonement for you, to purify you from all your sins—you will be purified before Adonai!

and again, just a few verses later (Vayikra 16:34)—

וְהָיְתָה זֹּאת לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְכַפֵּר עַל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִכָּל חַטֹּאתָם אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה...
v'hay'tah zot lachem l'ḥukat olam l'chapper al b'nei yisra'el mikol ḥato'tam aḥat bashanah.....
This will be an eternal law for you, for providing atonement to the Yisraélites for all their sins on one day every year.....

Sadly, christians have a tendency to sneer at the idea that fasting can get forgiveness (although, of course, just fasting by itself, and nothing else, indeed does not accomplish atonement: fasting is only an outward demonstration, and it is effective only if it is accompanied by sincere repentance and heart-felt prayer); but it was God who ordained fasting as a sign of repentance on Yom Kippur, so when they scoff at fasting, it is God Himself they are ridiculing.

Scripture is also very clear about the individual bearing personal responsibility for his own actions. This concept is found throughout the Scriptures, starting at the very beginning: a careful analysis of chapter 3 of B'réshit reveals that the offence for which the adam was being punished when he was expelled from Éden was his refusal to take responsibility for his own actions, trying instead to lay the blame both on the woman and even on God Himself! The point is emphasized by D'varim 24:16—

לֹא יוּמְתוּ אָבוֹת עַל בָּנִים וּבָנִים לֹא יוּמְתוּ עַל אָבוֹת: אִישׁ בְּחֶטְאוֹ יוּמָתוּ.
lo yum'tu avot al banim uvanim lo yum'tu al avot; ish b'ḥet'o yumatu.
[nobody can die in anyone else's place,] not even a father in his son's place or a son in his father's place—every man must pay for his own sins.


Was Yéshu a prophet?

Before I answer this, remember what Scripture says about false prophets (D'varim 18:21-22):

וְכִי תֹאמַר בִּלְבָבֶךָ, אֵיכָה נֵדַע אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא דִבְּרוֹ יְיָ? אֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר הַנָּבִיא בְּשֵׁם יְיָ, וְלֹא יִהְיֶה הַדָּבָר וְלֹא יָבֹא, הוּא הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר לֹא דִבְּרוֹ יְיָ...
v'chi to'mar bil'vavecha, eichah néda et hadavar asher lo dib'ro adonai?
asher y'dabber hanavi b'shem adonai, v'lo yih'yeh hadavar v'lo yavo—hu hadavar asher lo dib'ro adonai...
If you are wondering: how can we tell if a matter is something that Adonai has not spoken?—when a "prophet" makes a declaration in Adonai's Name and it does not happen, and does not occur—this is a matter that Adonai has not spoken... (D'varim 18:21-22)

That may appear simplistic, but it's a very simple test; if a "prophet" makes a prediction in God's Name and it does not happen, he is a false prophet. Now let us look at one specific prediction that Yéshu made (Mattai 24:1-2):

1  ¶ And Yéshu went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2  And Yéshu said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Did Yéshu's "prophecy" come true? Was the Temple torn down so completely that "not one stone was left upon another, that was not thrown down"? Well, judge for yourself, dear reader: the photograph below, taken in 1990, shows part of the enclosing wall that Herod the Great built around the Temple complex in the 1st century BCE; the courses of large stone blocks starting at ground level, each block around 1.5m (five feet) in height, date from Herod's time and were certainly in place at the time Yéshu was supposedly there. They are still in place, "one upon another" and not "thrown down", to this very day. Here is tangible, physical evidence that the Temple was not torn down so completely that "not one stone was left upon another, that was not thrown down". His "prophecy" did not come true: he was a false prophet.

Many christians try to explain this away by claiming that the "prophecy" only "referred to" the main Temple buildings and not to the enclosing wall. But there are two other reports of this incident: one in Mark (13:1-2)—

1  ¶ And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2  And Yéshu answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

and one in Luke (19:41-44)—

41  ¶ And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
42  Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
43  For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44  And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

It seems from the Mark version that Yéshu is referring to the entire Temple complex, including all its "stones and buildings"; but it is the version in Luke that finally removes all ambiguity, because there it is beyond doubt that he is talking about the whole city of Y'rushalayim, which certainly includes the portion of wall shown in the photograph.

In fact, not only was Yéshu a false prophet, but he did not even follow the Torah (although he claims in Mattai 5:17 that he "was come to fulfil it"). Just look at this passage (taken from Mattai 12:46-50)—

46  ¶ While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
47  Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
48  But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
49  And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
50  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

His own mother comes to see him and, instead of jumping up and running to the door to welcome her, he leaves her standing outside while he chats with his friends! Is that showing respect for her, as the Torah demands? No, it most definitely is not; in fact it shows what a thoroughly despicable person he really was!

I have saved the best for last. There is an incident in Yéshu's life that gives a glimpse of his true character, for those whose eyes are not blinded by "faith"; it is reported by Mattai at chapter 15, verses 22ff. The English translation I give here is my own:
22  καὶ ἰδού, γυνὴ Χαναναία ἀπὸ τῶν ὁρίων ἐκείνων ἐξελθοῦσα ἔκραύγασεν αὐτῷ λέγουσα, Ἐλέησόν με, κύριε, υἱὲ Δαβίδ ἡ θυγάτηρ μου κακῶς δαιμονίζεται
23  ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῇ λόγον καὶ προσελθόντες οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἠρώτων αὐτὸν λέγοντες, Ἀπόλυσον αὐτήν, ὅτι κράζει ὄπισθεν ἡμῶν
24  ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Οὐκ ἀπεστάλην εἰ μὴ εἰς τὰ πρόβατα τὰ ἀπολωλότα οἴκου Ἰσραήλ
25  ἡ δὲ ἐλθοῦσα προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγουσα Κύριε βοήθει μοι
26  ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Οὐκ ἔστιν καλὸν λαβεῖν τὸν ἄρτον τῶν τέκνων καὶ βαλεῖν τοῖς κυναρίοις.....
22  Just then a Canaanitish woman who was from that region cried out to him "Take pity on me, master, David's son! my daughter is mentally ill, and she is suffering terribly!"—
23  but he completely ignored her. His students came and begged him "Get rid of her—she keeps pestering us",
24  and he replied "I was only sent to the house of Yisraél's lost sheep".
25  Then she came again and bowed in front of him, saying "Please help me, master!"—
26  but all he said was "It's wrong to take the food from one's own children and throw it to dogs".....

The poor woman came to him begging for help, and he at first ignored her and then, when his followers begged him to do something for her just to get rid of her, he called her and her sick daughter dogs! This disgusting, appalling show of racism against a Canaanitish woman who was from that region is in stark contrast to what the Torah teaches, which is that the "foreigner who lives among us" is to be treated with exactly the same respect, and love, as any native Yisraélite (Vayikra 19:34). As always, christians try to "explain away" this glaring character-flaw in their hero, but the facts speak for themselves: he was a narrow-minded, cruel bigoted racist.


Postscript: The significance of the "heart" in the Scriptural context

One of the many accusations frequently made by christians about Hebrews is that we have book knowledge but do not understand "with our hearts". We do not have "circumcised hearts", they sneeringly mock (a crude misrepresentation D'varim 10:16 and other passages). But christians who say this are falling into a trap of their own making: they assume that references to the "heart" in Scripture refer to the seat of the emotions, just because the heart is seen as the seat of the emotions in their culture.

But in ancient Hebrew culture—and, hence, in the Scriptures—the heart was not seen as the seat of the emotions... it was seen as the seat of wisdom and the intellect. There are many verses that demonstrate this; here are just a few—

By contrast, in ancient Hebrew culture—and, hence, in the Scriptures—the seat of the emotions was considered to be the liver. This is evidenced by the prophet Yirmyahu's tragic poems lamenting the calamitous events that occurred when the Babylonian armies over-ran Y'rushalayim in 587/586BCE

So christians who claim Scripture has to be read "with the heart" are completely missing the point: in the Scriptures, the expression "the heart" doesn't mean "the emotions", rather it means using your brain—your intellect—in other words, thinking and reasoning rationally and logically. What they need to do is what God commanded Yisraél to do in D'varim 10:16—"circumcise" their "hearts' foreskins". To "circumcise" means to cut away something that is unwanted or undesirable, and the "heart's foreskin" is the unwanted and undesirable part of their mind that inclines them to "believe" that God has a "son", leading them to worship their three worthless idols (papa, junior, and casper "the friendly ghost").


Addendum: "Mister Sayten"

Like all control cults, christianity needs its fear-element, which takes the form of the "devil" or "Mister Sayten". This character is totally fictitious and does not get even a single mention in the Hebrew Scriptures. I am sure that this statement will make christians start jumping excitedly up and down and feverishly turning up their perverted "translations" of the writings of the prophet Z'charyah and the Parable of Iyov, but those two isolated passages refer to an Angel that is called by the title "THE satan" (pronounced with both A's rhyming with "cup" and the emphasis on the second syllable), not to a person or entity named "Sayten" who spends his/its time going around "deceiving" people. It is also evident from both of those passages that "the satan" has no authority to take any action against a human being without God's express command or permission. Incidentally, it also appears from the passage in chapter 3 of Z'charyah, that "the satan" was still very much a part of God's Heavenly "Court" when that passage was written and the prophet Z'charyah's writings are dated "in the 2nd year of Darius I" (Z'charyah 1:1), i.e. about 520 BCE; it is impossible to reconcile this with the christian nonsense about "Mister Sayten" having been "cast out" of Heaven because he/it had "rebelled" against God.

The truth is that, in common with its pagan roots, christianity perpetuates the pagan concept of two "warring" gods... a "good" one and a "bad" one. Obviously they deny this and, while it is true that they never call Mister Sayten a "god", that's just a matter of semantics... "Power of Light" and "Power of Darkness" or "good god" and "bad god"—what's the difference? Hebrew culture does not have a "bad god" or a "Power of Darkness"; as strange an idea as it might be to grasp, the prophet Y'shayahu says

"I form Light and I create Darkness, I make Peace and I create Evil: I am Adonai and I do all these things" (Y'shayahu 45:7)
 


The infamous Robert Turkel
(a well-known christian "apologetic"), hiding behind his pseudonym "James Patrick Holding", has published a "critique" of the above essay on his website "tektonics.org"... it may be seen at http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tzzzt.html. His lack of scholarship is evident from the large number of personal ad hominems scattered throughout that webpage (starting with the original title, "Zion's Dope", which he now seems to have removed), and also from his failure to give the URL of this page to allow his readers to read the whole essay and to view the fragments that he excerpts and ridicules in their original context. He mentions that I am not currently mentioned on any online website—well of course I'm not: I am now 93 years old and have been retired for over 20 years. If the Hebrew University had had a website twenty years ago I would certainly have been mentioned on it, but the internet was then in its infancy and the University didn't even have a website in those days. And I am not a person who actively seeks publicity.

There is an interesting and very informative article by Farrell Till about Turkel at http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/4/024jph.html, which sheds a great deal of light on the man, his background and his activities, and his dishonest methods.

Turkel's "critique", if it even deserves to be thus described, is so replete with errors and absurd claims that I do not intend to waste my time responding to them individually. Mostly he is simply regurgitating the same, tired old fallacious "explanations", half-truths, misrepresentations and downright lies that have been repeated over and over for centuries. One point he raises is, however, worthy of mention, because it demonstrates beyond any doubt that he is clueless about the Hebrew Scriptural text and cannot even read it—either that, or he is so utterly dishonest that he isn't even worth talking about. In the context of messiahs and whether the term refers specifically to the ceremony of smearing with the Holy "Anointing" Oil, he cites Rut 3:3 and sarcastically sneers "so presumably MBT thinks she was being told to undergo a priesthood initiation ceremony". In fact, מִשְׁחָה mish'ḥah or "anointment" was the ceremony which was performed at the coronation of a Hebrew king, and the kohanim ("priests") were not "anointed" (apart from the very first generation of kohanim, i.e. Aharon and his four sons)—but we can let that pass. The point is that the verse doesn't say anything about Rut "anointing" herself, although the foolish Turkel, slavishly following "King James's Per-Version", has been fooled into thinking that it does.

What Na'omi actually tells Rut in that verse is וְרָחַצְתְּ וָסַכְתְּ וְשַׂמְתְּ שִׂמְלֹתַֽיִךְ עָלַֽיִךְ v'raḥatz't vasach't v'sam't simlotayich alayich ("wash yourself, put on your make-up, and dress yourself up") — סַכְתְּ sach't is a completely different verb from מִשְׁחָה mish'ḥah. By citing this verse, Turkel betrays his own woeful ignorance — even a quick look at the notoriously unreliable "Strong's Concordance" reveals how specious this argument is.

Mr Turkel, as someone (I can't imagine who it could have been) is alleged to have said a long time ago, "If only you knew the truth, it would set you free".


Some of the material on this page has been adapted from articles by Uri Yosef of the Messiah Truth Project and Rav Ariel bar Tzadok.

Any advertisements appearing below this line are inserted by "tripod", please IGNORE them

ℼⴭ∧⼼楴汴㹥⼼敨摡ⴾ㸭㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸢⼊伯湷牥光瘊牡张潟煩灟瑣㴠㔠㬰椊⡦张潟煩灟瑣㴾〱‰籼䴠瑡⹨汦潯⡲慍桴爮湡潤⡭⨩〱⼰ㄨ〰弭潟煩灟瑣⤩㸠〠⤠笠瘊牡张楯煱㴠张楯煱簠⁼嵛਻潟煩⹱異桳嬨漧煩慟摤慐敧牂湡❤✬祌潣❳⥝਻潟煩⹱異桳嬨漧煩慟摤慐敧慃❴✬湉整湲瑥㸠圠扥楳整❳⥝਻潟煩⹱異桳嬨漧煩慟摤慐敧楌敦祣汣❥✬湉整摮崧㬩弊楯煱瀮獵⡨❛楯影潤慔❧⥝਻昨湵瑣潩⡮
੻慶⁲楯ⁱ‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※楯⹱祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴※楯⹱獡湹⁣‽牴敵਻楯⹱牳⁣‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩⹮牰瑯捯汯⬠✠⼯硰漮湷牥煩渮瑥猯慴⽳⽳祬潣湳樮❳਻慶⁲⁳‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※⹳慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥楯ⱱ猠㬩紊⠩㬩紊⼊䜯潯汧⁥湁污瑹捩ੳ慶⁲束煡㴠张慧ⁱ籼嬠㭝弊慧⹱異桳嬨弧敳䅴捣畯瑮Ⱗ唧ⵁㄲ〴㘲㔹ㄭ✹⥝਻束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥潄慭湩慎敭Ⱗ琧楲潰⹤潣❭⥝਻束煡瀮獵⡨❛獟瑥畃瑳浯慖❲ㄬ✬敭扭牥湟浡❥✬潭摲捯慨❩㌬⥝਻束煡瀮獵⡨❛瑟慲正慐敧楶睥崧㬩⠊畦据楴湯⤨笠瘊牡朠⁡‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧※慧琮灹⁥‽琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㬧朠⹡獡湹⁣‽牴敵਻慧献捲㴠⠠栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩⹮牰瑯捯汯㼠✠瑨灴㩳⼯獳❬㨠✠瑨灴⼺眯睷⤧⬠✠朮潯汧ⵥ湡污瑹捩⹳潣⽭慧樮❳਻慶⁲⁳‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰※⹳慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧‬⥳਻⥽⤨਻⼯祌潣⁳湉瑩昊湵瑣潩敧剴晥牥敲⡲
੻慶⁲污㵬琠楨⹳潤畣敭瑮挮潯楫㭥椊⁦愨汬㴽✠⤧爠瑥牵慦獬㭥瘊牡挠潯楫彥慮敭㴠✠䕒䕆剒剅✽਻慶⁲瑳牡⁴‽污⹬慬瑳湉敤佸⡦潣歯敩湟浡⥥਻晩⠠瑳牡⁴㴽ⴠ⤱爠瑥牵慦獬㭥猊慴瑲⬠‽潣歯敩湟浡⹥敬杮桴਻慶⁲湥⁤‽污⹬湩敤佸⡦㬧Ⱗ猠慴瑲㬩椊⁦攨摮㴠‽ㄭ
湥⁤‽污⹬敬杮桴਻敲畴湲愠汬献扵瑳楲杮猨慴瑲‬湥⥤਻੽畦据楴湯朠瑥畑牥⡹
੻慶⁲晲⁲‽敧剴晥牥敲⡲㬩椊⁦爨牦㴠‽✧
敲畴湲映污敳਻慶⁲ⁱ‽硥牴捡兴敵祲爨牦‬礧桡潯挮浯Ⱗ✠㵰⤧਻晩⠠⥱爠瑥牵㭱焊㴠攠瑸慲瑣畑牥⡹晲Ⱳ✠Ⱗ✠㵱⤧਻敲畴湲焠㼠焠㨠∠㬢紊昊湵瑣潩硥牴捡兴敵祲昨汵ⱬ猠瑩ⱥ焠灟牡浡
੻慶⁲瑳牡⁴‽畦汬氮獡䥴摮硥晏猨瑩⥥਻晩⠠瑳牡⁴㴽ⴠ⤱爠瑥牵慦獬㭥猊慴瑲㴠映汵⹬慬瑳湉敤佸⡦影慰慲⥭਻晩⠠瑳牡⁴㴽ⴠ⤱爠瑥牵慦獬㭥猊慴瑲⬠‽影慰慲⹭敬杮桴਻慶⁲湥⁤‽畦汬椮摮硥晏✨✦‬瑳牡⥴਻晩⠠湥⁤㴽ⴠ⤱攠摮㴠映汵⹬敬杮桴਻敲畴湲甠敮捳灡⡥畦汬献扵瑳楲杮猨慴瑲‬湥⥤⸩灳楬⡴•⤢樮楯⡮⬢⤢਻੽畦据楴湯朠湥牥瑡䡥敲⡦瑡条‬整灭慬整笩愊慴⹧牨晥琽浥汰瑡⹥敲汰捡⡥弧奍剕彌Ⱗ眠湩潤⹷潬慣楴湯栮敲⹦敲汰捡⡥栧瑴㩰⼯Ⱗ✠⤧⸩敲汰捡⡥弧奍䥔䱔彅Ⱗ䌧敨正㈥漰瑵㈥琰楨╳〲牔灩摯㈥䴰浥敢╲〲楳整✡㬩ਠ੽慶⁲祬潣彳摡㴠䄠牲祡⤨਻慶⁲祬潣彳湯潬摡瑟浩牥਻慶⁲浣牟汯⁥‽氢癩≥਻慶⁲浣桟獯⁴‽琢楲潰⹤祬潣⹳潣≭਻慶⁲浣瑟硡摩㴠∠洯浥敢敲扭摥敤≤਻慶⁲牴灩摯浟浥敢彲慮敭㴠∠潭摲捯慨≩਻慶⁲牴灩摯浟浥敢彲慰敧㴠∠潭摲捯慨⽩敹桳⹵瑨汭㬢瘊牡琠楲潰彤慲楴杮彳慨桳㴠∠㔱〰㘹㔵㔴㐺㥣㠵昱㝤㝣昵㘸㤹〵㔶㤵㤱愹㠶挲∲਻瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤慣整潧祲㴠笠搢潭≺∺潳楣瑥屹栯獩潴祲Ⱒ漢瑮牡敧≴∺䌦呁昽浡汩╹〲湡╤〲楬敦瑳汹獥Ⱒ昢湩彤桷瑡㨢匢畴祤吠敨䈠扩敬索਻瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤敲潭整慟摤⁲‽㈢⸳〲ㄮ㌹㌮∳਻慶⁲祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶⁲‽眢睷琮楲潰⹤祬潣⹳潣≭਻慶⁲祬潣彳摡瑟慲正獟慭汬㴠∠瑨灴⼺洯浥敢獲琮楲潰⹤潣⽭摡⽭浩⽧潣浭湯漯彴浳污晬慲敭朮晩爿湡㵤㐴㤲ㄳ㬢瘊牡氠捹獯慟彤牴捡彫敳癲摥㴠∠瑨灴⼺洯浥敢獲琮楲潰⹤潣⽭摡⽭浩⽧潣浭湯漯彴摡敳癲摥朮晩爿湡㵤㐴㤲ㄳ㬢瘊牡氠捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⁹‽敧兴敵祲⤨਻⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琢硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰•牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯捳楲瑰⹳祬潣⹳潣⽭慣浴湡椯楮⹴獪㸢⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 慶⁲潧杯敬慴⁧‽潧杯敬慴⁧籼笠㭽 潧杯敬慴⹧浣⁤‽潧杯敬慴⹧浣⁤籼嬠㭝 昨湵瑣潩⡮
੻†瘠牡朠摡⁳‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨捳楲瑰⤧਻†朠摡⹳獡湹⁣‽牴敵਻†朠摡⹳祴数㴠✠整瑸樯癡獡牣灩❴਻†瘠牡甠敳卓⁌‽栧瑴獰✺㴠‽潤畣敭瑮氮捯瑡潩⹮牰瑯捯汯਻†朠摡⹳牳⁣‽用敳卓⁌‿栧瑴獰✺㨠✠瑨灴✺
ਫ††✠⼯睷⹷潧杯敬慴獧牥楶散⹳潣⽭慴⽧獪术瑰樮❳਻†瘠牡渠摯⁥‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥獴祂慔乧浡⡥猧牣灩❴嬩崰਻†渠摯⹥慰敲瑮潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥慧獤‬潮敤㬩 ⥽⤨਻⼼捳楲瑰ਾ㰊捳楲瑰琠灹㵥琧硥⽴慪慶捳楲瑰㸧 潧杯敬慴⹧浣⹤異桳昨湵瑣潩⡮
੻†朠潯汧瑥条搮晥湩卥潬⡴⼧㔹㘹㔳㘹启䥒㍟〰㉘〵摟灦Ⱗ嬠〳ⰰ㈠〵ⱝ✠楤⵶灧⵴摡ㄭ㔴㈰㐰㔱ㄹ㘲〭⤧愮摤敓癲捩⡥潧杯敬慴⹧異慢獤⤨㬩 †潧杯敬慴⹧敤楦敮汓瑯✨㤯㤵㌶㤵⼶剔彉扡癯彥㈷砸〹摟灦Ⱗ嬠㈷ⰸ㤠崰‬搧癩札瑰愭ⵤ㐱〵〲ㄴ㤵㈱ⴶ✱⸩摡卤牥楶散木潯汧瑥条瀮扵摡⡳⤩਻†朠潯汧瑥条搮晥湩卥潬⡴⼧㔹㘹㔳㘹启䥒扟汥睯㝟㠲㥸弰晤❰‬㝛㠲‬〹ⱝ✠楤⵶灧⵴摡ㄭ㔴㈰㐰㔱ㄹ㘲㈭⤧愮摤敓癲捩⡥潧杯敬慴⹧異慢獤⤨㬩 †潧杯敬慴⹧異慢獤⤨攮慮汢卥湩汧剥煥敵瑳⤨਻†朠潯汧瑥条攮慮汢卥牥楶散⡳㬩 ⥽਻⼼捳楲瑰ਾਊ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴‾⠊畦据楴湯椨噳਩੻††晩
椡噳⤠ †笠 †††爠瑥牵㭮 †素 †瘠牡愠䵤牧㴠渠睥䄠䵤湡条牥⤨਻††慶⁲祬潣彳牰摯獟瑥㴠愠䵤牧挮潨獯健潲畤瑣敓⡴㬩 †瘠牡猠潬獴㴠嬠氢慥敤扲慯摲Ⱒ∠敬摡牥潢牡㉤Ⱒ∠潴汯慢彲浩条≥‬琢潯扬牡瑟硥≴‬猢慭汬潢≸‬琢灯灟潲潭Ⱒ∠潦瑯牥∲‬猢楬敤≲㭝 †瘠牡愠䍤瑡㴠琠楨⹳祬潣彳摡损瑡来牯㭹 †愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭瀧条❥‬愨䍤瑡☠…摡慃⹴浤穯
‿摡慃⹴浤穯㨠✠敭扭牥⤧਻††晩⠠桴獩氮捹獯獟慥捲彨畱牥⥹ †笠 †††愠䵤牧献瑥潆捲摥慐慲⡭欢祥潷摲Ⱒ琠楨⹳祬潣彳敳牡档煟敵祲㬩 †素ਠ††汥敳椠⡦摡慃⁴☦愠䍤瑡昮湩彤桷瑡਩††੻††††摡杍⹲敳䙴牯散偤牡浡✨敫睹牯❤‬摡慃⹴楦摮睟慨⥴਻††੽†† †映牯⠠慶⁲⁳湩猠潬獴਩††੻††††慶⁲汳瑯㴠猠潬獴獛㭝 †††椠⁦愨䵤牧椮即潬䅴慶汩扡敬猨潬⥴਩††††੻††††††桴獩氮捹獯慟孤汳瑯⁝‽摡杍⹲敧却潬⡴汳瑯㬩 †††素 †素ਊ††摡杍⹲敲摮牥效摡牥⤨਻††摡杍⹲敲摮牥潆瑯牥⤨਻⡽昨湵瑣潩⡮
੻瘊牡眠㴠〠‬⁨‽ⰰ洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⁤‽〳㬰ਊ晩⠠潴⁰㴽猠汥⥦笊 †爠瑥牵牴敵਻੽晩⠠祴数景眨湩潤⹷湩敮坲摩桴
㴽✠畮扭牥‧਩੻††⁷‽楷摮睯椮湮牥楗瑤㭨 †栠㴠眠湩潤⹷湩敮䡲楥桧㭴紊攊獬⁥晩⠠潤畣敭瑮搮捯浵湥䕴敬敭瑮☠…搨捯浵湥⹴潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥⹴汣敩瑮楗瑤⁨籼搠捯浵湥⹴潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥⹴汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笊 †眠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥⹴汣敩瑮楗瑤㭨 †栠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴潤畣敭瑮汅浥湥⹴汣敩瑮效杩瑨਻੽汥敳椠⁦搨捯浵湥⹴潢祤☠…搨捯浵湥⹴潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴簠⁼潤畣敭瑮戮摯⹹汣敩瑮效杩瑨⤩笊 †眠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴潢祤挮楬湥坴摩桴਻††⁨‽潤畣敭瑮戮摯⹹汣敩瑮效杩瑨਻੽敲畴湲⠠眨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤☠…栨㸠洠湩浩浵桔敲桳汯⥤㬩紊⤨⤩㬩ਊਊ眊湩潤⹷湯潬摡㴠映湵瑣潩⡮਩੻††慶⁲⁦‽潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤䘢潯整䅲≤㬩 †瘠牡戠㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭∨潢祤⤢せ㭝 †戠愮灰湥䍤楨摬昨㬩 †映献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠∠汢捯≫਻††潤畣敭瑮朮瑥汅浥湥䉴䥹⡤氧捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭⤧献捲㴠✠愯浤愯⽤潦瑯牥摁椮牦浡⹥瑨汭㬧 †ਠਊ†† †⼠ 佄⁍湉摁 †⠠畦据楴湯椨味敲汬硩਩††੻††††慶⁲⁥‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥潢摲牥㴠✠✰਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥慭杲湩㴠〠਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥楤灳慬⁹‽戧潬正㬧 †††攠献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽爧杩瑨㬧 †††攠献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††攠献祴敬漮敶晲潬⁷‽栧摩敤❮਻††††⹥瑳汹⹥慰摤湩⁧‽㬰 †††攠献祴敬眮摩桴㴠✠〳瀰❸਻ਊ††††慶⁲獩求歯摥祂潄慭湩㴠映湵瑣潩⡮栠敲⁦਩††††੻††††††慶⁲汢捯敫䑤浯楡獮㴠嬠 †††††††∠湡湡慹潰湲㌱〰⸰牴灩摯挮浯Ⱒ †††††††∠硸灸牯确硸琮楲潰⹤潣≭ †††††崠਻††††††慶⁲汦条㴠映污敳਻†††††† †††††映牯
慶⁲㵩㬰椠戼潬正摥潄慭湩⹳敬杮桴※⭩‫਩††††††੻††††††††晩
牨晥献慥捲⡨戠潬正摥潄慭湩孳椠崠⤠㸠‽‰਩††††††††੻††††††††††汦条㴠琠畲㭥 †††††††素 †††††素 †††††爠瑥牵汦条਻††††੽ †††瘠牡朠瑥敍慴潃瑮湥⁴‽畦据楴湯
敭慴慎敭⤠ †††笠 †††††瘠牡洠瑥獡㴠搠捯浵湥⹴敧䕴敬敭瑮䉳呹条慎敭✨敭慴⤧਻††††††潦⁲椨〽※㱩敭慴⹳敬杮桴※⭩⤫ †††††笠ਠ††††††††晩
敭慴孳嵩朮瑥瑁牴扩瑵⡥渢浡≥
㴽洠瑥乡浡⁥਩††††††††⁻ †††††††††爠瑥牵敭慴孳嵩朮瑥瑁牴扩瑵⡥挢湯整瑮⤢※ †††††††素ਠ††††††੽††††††敲畴湲映污敳਻††††੽†††† †††瘠牡朠瑥潃浭湥乴摯獥㴠映湵瑣潩⡮敲敧偸瑡整湲਩††††੻††††††慶⁲潮敤⁳‽絻਻††††††慶⁲潮敤䅳㴠嬠㭝 †††††瘠牡瀠敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩⁴‽❛❡‬挧Ⱗ✠❢㭝 †††ਠ††††††昨湵瑣潩敧乴摯獥桔瑡慈敶潃浭湥獴渨‬慰瑴牥⥮ †††††笠 †††††††椠⁦渨栮獡桃汩乤摯獥⤨਩††††††††੻††††††††††晩⠠⹮慴乧浡⁥㴽‽䤧剆䵁❅਩††††††††††੻††††††††††††敲畴湲映污敳਻††††††††††੽††††††††††潦⁲瘨牡椠㴠〠※⁩‼⹮档汩乤摯獥氮湥瑧㭨椠⬫਩††††††††††੻††††††††††††晩⠠渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩渮摯呥灹⁥㴽‽⤸☠…瀨瑡整湲琮獥⡴⹮档汩乤摯獥楛⹝潮敤慖畬⥥⤩ †††††††††††笠 †††††††††††††瘠牡愠敲乡浡⁥‽慰瑴牥⹮硥捥渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩渮摯噥污敵嬩崱਻††††††††††††††潮敤孳牡慥慎敭⁝‽㭮 †††††††††††素 †††††††††††攠獬⁥晩⠠⹮档汩乤摯獥楛⹝潮敤祔数㴠㴽ㄠ਩††††††††††††੻††††††††††††††敧乴摯獥桔瑡慈敶潃浭湥獴渨挮楨摬潎敤孳嵩‬慰瑴牥⥮਻††††††††††††੽††††††††††੽††††††††੽††††††⡽潤畣敭瑮戮摯ⱹ爠来硥慐瑴牥⥮㬩ਊ††††††潦⁲瘨牡椠椠牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳਩††††††੻††††††††晩⠠潮敤孳牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳楛嵝਩††††††††੻††††††††††晩
獩牔汥楬⁸☦渠摯獥灛敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩孴嵩⹝慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯⹥慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯⁥਩††††††††††੻††††††††††††潮敤䅳瀮獵⡨潮敤孳牰晥牥敲乤摯獥楌瑳楛嵝瀮牡湥乴摯⹥慰敲瑮潎敤瀮牡湥乴摯⹥慰敲瑮潎敤㬩 †††††††††素 †††††††††攠獬੥††††††††††੻††††††††††††潮敤䅳瀮獵⡨渠摯獥灛敲敦牲摥潎敤䱳獩孴嵩⁝㬩 †††††††††素 †††††††素 †††††素 †††††爠瑥牵潮敤䅳਻††††੽†††† †††ਠ††††慶⁲牰灯牥潎敤㴠渠汵㭬 †††瘠牡愠敲乡摯獥㴠朠瑥潃浭湥乴摯獥
敮⁷敒䕧灸
帧牡慥吠灹㵥愢敲彡尨睜⤫✢⤠⤠਻ †††映牯⠠慶⁲⁩‽㬰椠㰠愠敲乡摯獥氮湥瑧㭨椠⬫਩††††੻††††††慶⁲⁡‽慰獲䥥瑮木瑥潃灭瑵摥瑓汹⡥牡慥潎敤孳嵩⸩楷瑤⥨਻††††††晩⠠愨㸠‽〳⤰☠…愨㰠‽〴⤰਩††††††੻††††††††牰灯牥潎敤㴠愠敲乡摯獥楛㭝 †††††††戠敲歡਻††††††੽††††੽ਊ††††慶⁲牰灯牥祴慎敭㴠朠瑥敍慴潃瑮湥⡴瀢潲数瑲≹
籼映污敳਻††††晩
獩牔汥楬⁸☦⠠牰灯牥潎敤
਩††††੻††††††⹥牳⁣‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴⹤晩慲敭栮浴❬਻††††††牰灯牥潎敤椮獮牥䉴晥牯⡥ⱥ瀠潲数乲摯⹥楦獲䍴楨摬㬩 †††素 †††攠獬⁥晩
獩牔汥楬⁸☦℠
牰灯牥潎敤⤠⤠⼠ 汓灡琠敨愠⁤癥湥桴畯桧⁴桴牥⁥獩渠污捯瑡摥猠潬ੴ††††੻††††††⹥牳⁣‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴⹤晩慲敭栮浴❬਻††††††⹥瑳汹⹥獣䙳潬瑡㴠✠潮敮㬧 †††††瘠牡挠楤⁶‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨楤❶㬩 †††††挠楤⹶瑳汹⁥‽眢摩桴㌺〰硰活牡楧㩮〱硰愠瑵㭯㬢 †††††挠楤⹶灡数摮桃汩⡤攠⤠਻††††††⹢湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨楤ⱶ戠氮獡䍴楨摬㬩 †††素 †††攠獬⁥晩
椡䉳潬敫䉤䑹浯楡⡮氠捯瑡潩⹮牨晥⤠⤠ †††笠 †††††瘠牡椠橮⁆‽潤畣敭瑮挮敲瑡䕥敬敭瑮✨晩慲敭⤧਻††††††湩䙪献祴敬戮牯敤⁲‽〧㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹⹥慭杲湩㴠〠਻††††††湩䙪献祴敬搮獩汰祡㴠✠汢捯❫਻††††††湩䙪献祴敬挮獳汆慯⁴‽渧湯❥਻††††††湩䙪献祴敬栮楥桧⁴‽㈧㐵硰㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹⹥癯牥汦睯㴠✠楨摤湥㬧 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹⹥慰摤湩⁧‽㬰 †††††椠橮⹆瑳汹⹥楷瑤⁨‽㌧〰硰㬧 †††††椠橮⹆牳⁣‽⼧摡⽭摡椯橮捥䅴⹤晩慲敭栮浴❬਻ †††††椠⡦戠☠…
椡味敲汬硩簠⁼
祴数景椠味敲汬硩㴠‽產摮晥湩摥•


⼯䄠汬漠桴牥琠楲潰⁤牰灯ੳ††††††੻††††††††慶⁲摣癩㴠搠捯浵湥⹴牣慥整汅浥湥⡴搧癩⤧਻††††††††摣癩献祴敬㴠∠楷瑤㩨〳瀰㭸慭杲湩ㄺ瀰⁸畡潴∻਻††††††††摣癩愮灰湥䍤楨摬
湩䙪⤠਻††††††††⹢湩敳瑲敂潦敲挨楤ⱶ戠氮獡䍴楨摬㬩 †††††素ਠ††††੽†⡽搠捯浵湥⹴獩牔汥楬⁸⤩਻੽㰊猯牣灩㹴ਊ搼癩椠㵤琢形潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺䙄䍄䙃※潢摲牥戭瑯潴㩭瀱⁸潳楬⁤㌣㌹㌹㬹瀠獯瑩潩㩮敲慬楴敶※⵺湩敤㩸㤹㤹㤹㤹ℹ浩潰瑲湡≴ਾℼⴭ潦浲渠浡㵥猢慥捲≨漠卮扵業㵴爢瑥牵敳牡档瑩⤨•摩✽敨摡牥獟慥捲❨㸠㰊湩異⁴祴数∽整瑸•汰捡桥汯敤㵲匢慥捲≨猠穩㵥〳渠浡㵥猢慥捲㉨•慶畬㵥∢ਾ椼灮瑵琠灹㵥戢瑵潴≮瘠污敵∽潇∡漠䍮楬正∽敳牡档瑩⤨㸢㰊是牯㹭㰊瑳汹㹥昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲⁨੻††楷瑤㩨㤠㘱硰਻††慭杲湩›‰畡潴㠠硰਻††潰楳楴湯›敲慬楴敶਻੽ਊ潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵笠 †栠楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †映湯⵴楳敺›㐱硰਻††楬敮栭楥桧㩴㐠瀰㭸 †瀠摡楤杮›‰瀸㭸 †戠硯猭穩湩㩧戠牯敤⵲潢㭸 †戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠㑆㉆㥅਻††潢摲牥›瀱⁸潳楬⁤䈣䉂䈸㬸 †琠慲獮瑩潩㩮戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬⁲〳洰⁳慥敳漭瑵ਬ††††††††潣潬⁲〳洰⁳慥敳਻੽昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲⁨湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢笠 †眠摩桴›〱┰਻੽潦浲栣慥敤彲敳牡档椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥琢硥≴㩝潦畣⁳੻††潢摲牥挭汯牯›䄣䐲㔰㬴 †戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦 †戠硯猭慨潤㩷〠〠硰ㄠ瀲⁸㐭硰⌠㉁い㐵਻੽ਊ昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲⁨湩異孴祴数∽畢瑴湯崢笠 †瀠獯瑩潩㩮愠獢汯瑵㭥 †琠灯›瀱㭸 †爠杩瑨›瀱㭸 †漠慰楣祴›㬱 †戠捡杫潲湵㩤⌠䙄䍄䙃਻††潣潬㩲⌠㘴㜳㐳਻††楷瑤㩨ㄠ㔲硰਻††畣獲牯›潰湩整㭲 †栠楥桧㩴㌠瀸㭸 †戠牯敤㩲渠湯㭥紊昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲⁨湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮㩝潨敶Ⱳ昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲⁨湩異孴祴数✽畢瑴湯崧栺癯牥笠 †戠捡杫潲湵ⵤ潣潬㩲⌠㕁䕃㘵਻††潣潬㩲⌠晦㭦紊昊牯⍭敨摡牥獟慥捲⁨湩異孴祴数∽整瑸崢昺捯獵縠椠灮瑵瑛灹㵥戧瑵潴❮⁝੻††慢正牧畯摮挭汯牯›㔣䄲䑅㭆 †挠汯牯›昣晦਻੽㰊猯祴敬ਾ㰊捳楲瑰ਾ畦据楴湯猠慥捲楨⡴笩 †ਠ††⼯搠瑥牥業敮攠癮物湯敭瑮ਠ††慶⁲敳牡档敟癮ਠ††晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶⹲湩敤佸⡦⸢摰∮
‾ㄭ
੻†††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ瀮⹤祬潣⹳潣⽭⽡㬧 †素攠獬⁥晩⠠祬潣彳摡睟睷獟牥敶⹲湩敤佸⡦⸢慱∮
‾ㄭ
੻†††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ焮⹡祬潣⹳潣⽭⽡㬧 †素攠獬⁥੻†††猠慥捲彨湥⁶‽栧瑴㩰⼯敳牡档ㄵ氮捹獯挮浯愯✯਻††੽瘊牡猠慥捲彨整浲㴠攠据摯啥䥒潃灭湯湥⡴潤畣敭瑮献慥捲⹨敳牡档⸲慶畬⥥瘊牡猠慥捲彨牵‽敳牡档敟癮猫慥捲彨整浲਻楷摮睯漮数⡮敳牡档畟汲㬩ਊ敲畴湲映污敳紊㰊猯牣灩⵴㸭㰊瑳汹㹥 †⸠摡敃瑮牥汃獡筳慭杲湩〺愠瑵絯㰊猯祴敬ਾ搼癩椠㵤琢形摡•汣獡㵳愢䍤湥整䍲慬獳•瑳汹㵥搢獩汰祡戺潬正椡灭牯慴瑮※癯牥汦睯栺摩敤㭮眠摩桴㤺㘱硰∻ਾ愼栠敲㵦栢瑴㩰⼯摡牴捡⹫業楮瑳牥慩㕬挮浯振楬正敮⽷愿㘽㜳㤳∴琠瑩敬∽畢汩⁤潹牵漠湷眠扥楳整愠⁴牔灩摯挮浯•瑳汹㵥昢潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢㰊浩⁧牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯祬氮杹⹯潣⽭祬琯印瑩⽥浩条獥是敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴䴢歡⁥潹牵漠湷映敲⁥敷獢瑩⁥湯吠楲潰⹤潣≭猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯≫⼠ਾ⼼㹡ਠ搼癩椠㵤愢彤潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴㜺㠲硰∠ਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥⹴牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛敬摡牥潢牡❤⥝㰻猯牣灩㹴㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ猼牣灩⁴祴数∽整瑸樯癡獡牣灩≴搾捯浵湥⹴牷瑩⡥祬潣彳摡❛汳摩牥崧㬩⼼捳楲瑰‾ℼⴭ愠摤摥㜠㈯′ⴭਾ搼癩椠㵤䘢潯整䅲≤猠祴敬∽慢正牧畯摮⌺䙄䍄䙃※潢摲牥琭灯ㄺ硰猠汯摩⌠㤳㤳㤳※汣慥㩲潢桴※楤灳慬㩹潮敮※楷瑤㩨〱┰椡灭牯慴瑮※潰楳楴湯爺汥瑡癩㭥稠椭摮硥㤺㤹㤹ℹ浩潰瑲湡㭴栠楥桧㩴〹硰椡灭牯慴瑮㸢ਠ搼癩挠慬獳∽摡敃瑮牥汃獡≳猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※楷瑤㩨ㄹ瀶㭸㸢㰊⁡牨晥∽瑨灴⼺愯瑤慲正洮湩獩整楲污⸵潣⽭汣捩湫睥㼯㵡㌶㌷㐹•楴汴㵥戢極摬礠畯⁲睯敷獢瑩⁥瑡吠楲潰⹤潣≭猠祴敬∽汦慯㩴敬瑦※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫眠摩桴ㄺ㘸硰※潢摲牥〺㸢㰊浩⁧牳㵣栢瑴㩰⼯祬氮杹⹯潣⽭祬琯印瑩⽥浩条獥是敲䅥㉤樮杰•污㵴䴢歡⁥潹牵漠湷映敲⁥敷獢瑩⁥湯吠楲潰⹤潣≭猠祴敬∽潢摲牥〺※楤灳慬㩹汢捯㭫∠⼠ਾ⼼㹡ਠ搼癩椠㵤昢潯整䅲彤潣瑮楡敮≲猠祴敬∽楤灳慬㩹汢捯Ⅻ浩潰瑲湡㭴映潬瑡氺晥㭴眠摩桴㜺㠲硰㸢㰊晩慲敭椠㵤氢捹獯潆瑯牥摁䙩慲敭•瑳汹㵥戢牯敤㩲㬰搠獩汰祡戺潬正※汦慯㩴敬瑦※敨杩瑨㤺瀶㭸漠敶晲潬㩷楨摤湥※慰摤湩㩧㬰眠摩桴㜺〵硰㸢⼼晩慲敭ਾ⼼楤㹶㰊搯癩ਾ⼼楤㹶ਊ