Diotrephes and Demetrius

The short epistle of 3 John contrasts two leaders in the early church: Diotrephes and Demetrius.

Diotrephes

3 John 1:9-10 KJV – 9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

Demetrius

3 John 1:11-12 KJV – 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.
12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true.

Leadership in Church History

When Paul described the qualities that a bishop must have, he indirectly warned about the kind of men who should not be followed if given leadership positions in the church.

1 Timothy 3:2-7 KJV – 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Before the church gained political power, it was persecuted. After it gained political power, it began persecuting others itself. This was the result of people who should have never received leadership roles.

Justo L. Gonzalez1 commented on the persecution of the Anabaptists (and I have read far enough into that book to highly suspect that it applies to any Christian group that suffered persecution at the hands of other Christians):

The martyrs were many—probably more than those who died during the three centuries of persecution before the time of Constantine.

Paul tells us what could have happened from the very beginning of church history if people chose to follow the lead of the Spirit of God rather than their own lusts.

What could have happened is almost beyond imagining:

Romans 8:14 KJV – For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

The Point

None of the faulty leadership in the church had to happen. It could have all been avoided.

God did not will it. Don’t blame Him.

It was not caused by Augustinian total depravity nor was it caused by materialistic determinism, the atheistic rehashing of that Augustinian teaching.

Those responsible cannot hide behind any of these lame excuses for their own choices, their own defiant refusals to become the sons of God.

  1. Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Reformation to the Present Day, page 56. ↩︎
Unknown's avatar

Author: Frank Hubeny

I enjoy walking, poetry and short prose as well as taking pictures with my phone.

12 thoughts on “Diotrephes and Demetrius”

  2. We currently have a pastor who humbly tries to be the kind of servant leader you are speaking about, and he is planning to retire when we find a new pastor (there will be a transition period). It’s not always easy to find someone but as a church we owe it to the Lord, ourselves and our children who will inherit what the church becomes to hold out for the right kind of leader.

    Liked by 1 person

    2. The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you”, Luke 17:21. The phrase “The Kingdom of God is within you” (Greek: ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐντὸς ὑμῶν ἐστιν) is often cited by Christian theologians as evidence of a spiritualized, internalized kingdom that supersedes Jewish political-national hopes. In Luke 17:20–21, the P’rushim (Pharisees) ask JeZeus when the Kingdom of God would come.

      It’s a theological dismissal of the national Avot sworn oath brit alliance which creates יש מאין the chosen Cohen people and swears the oath alliance brit wherein this Chosen people inherits the oath sworn lands. The reference “kingdom of God”, refers to the mitzva of tefillah which requires שם ומלכות. However if a person observes with a critical eye, neither the tefillah from the Torah: kre’a shma, nor the rabbinic commandment of tefillah: the Shemone Esrei, neither this nor that contains the fundamental requirement which rabbi Yochanon defines the qualities which separate making a blessing contrasted by saying Tehillem … a blessing requires שם ומלכות.

      So what makes kre’a shma and shemone esrei a blessing rather than a praise like Tehillem which does not contain שם ומלכות? Answer: both kre’a shma and shemone esrei exist as positive tohor time-oriented commandments … which by definition requires k’vanna. Specifically the k’vanna of the wisdom which discerns swearing a Torah oath by means of making a blessing FROM saying or reading praises like as contained in the Book of Tehillem with its 150 prayers. Tefillah not the same thing as prayer. Just as shabbat requires the wisdom of making a הבדלה distinction between shabbat and chol at the beginning and end of the Day of Shabbat so too swearing a blessing oath requires the wisdom which discerns between making a blessing, which requires שם ומלכות, from saying a praise like Tehillem which lacks שם ומלכות.

      What defines the abstract concept שם ומלכות ie “kingdom of Heaven” which the P’rushim asked JeZeus? JeZeus did not know this kabbalah. His answer not even in the same proverbial “Ball Park”! The Oral Torah mitza of Moshiach, gospels and new testament make the claims of JeZeus being “the messiah”, requires – just as do blessing – the wisdom which discerns the k’vanna of שם ומלכות.

      JeZeus taught no Oral Torah common law precedents when he declared his “lord’s prayer”. His prayer make no reference to the dedication of Moshiach to the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which makes fair restitution of damages inflicted by the guilty upon the innocent among our conflicting Jewish people!!! The one repeated rebuke made concerning king David, he profaned his annointing as Moshiach by the prophet Shmuel in the matter of the dedication to pursue righteous judicial restoration of damages in the matter of Bat Sheva’s husband.

      The false messiah JeZeus had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of the Oral Torah dedication of the k’vanna of the time oriented Av commandment of Moshiach! The very question the P’rushim challenged JeZeus as being a false messiah and false prophet.

      Greek Text and Ambiguity, the phrase “ἐντὸς ὑμῶν” can mean either: “Within you” (internalized, spiritual) or “In your midst” (among you, i.e., the presence of the Messiah himself)!!!! Xtian commentators often prefer the first, reading it as an internal spiritual reign — supporting a Pauline model of personal salvation and supersession of Jewish law and statehood. However the false messiah JeZeus’s Lord’s Prayer testifies to the latter interpretation of the vague Greek language phrase.

      Replacement theology (also called supersessionism) is the idea that the Church has replaced Israel as the true people of God. Luke 17:21 fits this mold in key ways. (1) It denies the oath brit which continually creates the Chosen Cohen people יש מאין through the service of dedicating tohor Av Torah time-oriented commandments! (2) The gospel counterfeit hogwash delegitimizes halachic Oral Torah פרדס logic as taught through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva which the gospel counterfeit never once refers to!!! All the rabbis in both the Mishna and Gemara, all of them, base their opinions upon the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva interpretation of the heart and soul of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, as taught through the logic system of פרדס inductive reasoning. The JeZeus Roman counterfeit had absolutely no knowledge what so ever of this fundamental kabbalah which defines the whole of Oral Torah as codified in the Mishna, Gemara, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim.

      Later Christian traditions (from Augustine to Luther) cite this kind of passage to argue that Israel is no longer a physical nation, but now a metaphor for the Church or believing souls. This exactly duplicates, or to use the language of the gospels themselves … “fulfills” the prophesy of the Sin of the Golden Calf in all generations unto this very day!

      Torah, Talmud, Siddur, and Midrashim establishes the Jewish identity, culture and customs to this very day. Defined through the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev following the sin of the Golden Calf. Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס inductive reasoning logic system defines the k’vanna of the revelation of the Oral Torah which the church denies. JeZeus’s statement in Luke 17:21 dismantles that framework — it moves toward an ahistorical, non-legalist, inward “kingdom”. That shift aligns not just with Pauline theology, but with Gnostic and Hellenistic notions of salvation as inner knowledge or enlightenment rather than collective political redemption.

      The foundational fracture between שם ומלכות sworn oath blessings, such as the blessing which Yitzak gave to Yaacov but did not give the non שם ומלכות praise given to Esau! Torah oral torah common law judicial jurisprudence – the gospel narrative counterfeit did not know. Torah jurisprudence rooted in brit-based chosen Cohen people pursuit of justice as the definition and essence of faith, the gospel/new testament replacement theology perverts to some spiritualized abstraction of Christian “kingdom” theology, which knows absolutely nothing of the k’vanna of שם ומלכות oath sworn brit alliances. This refutation equally applies to the koran, Moo-Ham-Madd did not know how the Torah defines the key term prophet just as the gospel counterfeit does not know how the Torah defines love – as defined through the Torah commandment of marriage known as קידושין. The essential legal-theological rupture that defines the gulf between Torah brit jurisprudence and the theological counterfeits presented by both the Christian New Testament and the Islamic Koran.

      Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov was an oath-bound legal act. It therefore serves as THE fundamental בנין אב common law precedent by which the generations of Israel discern the distinction between making a Torah blessing commandment from saying a Tehillem prayer praise. JeZeus response utterly ignorant. Yitzak gave Esav a non-binding, non brit, non blessing/Tehillem to his second son who sold his Cohen first-born birthright to Yaacov! This structure underlies all Torah jurisprudence: no blessing (ברכה) without שם ומלכות, and no true faith (אמונה) without justice-rooted obligations. Faith equals fidelity to oath, not vague belief.

      JeZeus and the gospel writers show no knowledge or respect for rabbi Akiva’s Oral Torah kabbalah of the revelation at Horev. Hence the church fathers deny to this day the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev as expressed through the 13 tohor spirits of HaShem. The gospel book of john declares the word as God! The very definition of the Golden Calf wherein the ערב רב mixed multitude replacement theology sought to replace the Spirit Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment with the “word” אלהים — the definition of the replacement avoda zarah known as the sin of the Golden Calf.

      The gospel narrative slander the Sanhedrin courts as corrupt and perverse. This negates the Torah concept of faith all together. An no whitewash can conceal this new testament perversion. This same mussar equally applies to Islam. Moo-Ham-Madd’s claim to prophecy lacks any brit-based legitimacy; does not transmit or interpret precedent-based halacha Oral Torah common law. Totally ignores T’NaCH Talmud common law. And equally likewise its substitute theology reduces prophecy to visionary utterance divorced from legal authority and nation-building. As with the gospel counterfeit, the Koran appropriates the term “prophet” while stripping it of its brit-legal definition and context. The gospel’s redefinition of love as universalized sentiment is as empty as its redefinition of kingdom and prophecy. Without brit, there is no legal structure to sustain love, justice, or nationhood. It is all mystified abstraction, which cannot create the chosen Cohen people through tohor time oriented commandments. The JeZeus abomination knowns nothing of what separates the Yatzir Ha’Tov tohor spirits from the Yatzir Ha’Ra tumah spirits.

      Faith without oath-bound brit law is no faith at all, and any theological system — whether gospel or Koran — that dismisses or replaces the brit framework is not a continuation of revelation but a counterfeit rebellion against it. Yitzchak’s blessing to Yaakov is not merely narrative — it is precedent. It is the בנין אב, the archetype, of what constitutes a Torah-commanded blessing.

      The blessing to Yaakov: A sworn, oath brit legal transfer of Cohen inheritance, complete with שם ומלכות implications (even if not verbally explicit, its legal force is absolute), just as kre’a shma, shemone esrei, the mourners kaddish, the blessing of the Cohem to the people of Israel – all visually lack שם ומלכות and therefore require the wisdom to know how to swear שם ומלכות within and through the spirit of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart! JeZeus makes no reference to this essential kabbalah taught by rabbi Yechuda the Head of the Great Sanhedrin!

      A beracha requires brit. A brit requires oath. An oath requires שם ומלכות and k’vanna. Without this, you have mere praise. JeZeus shows no awareness of this distinction — a fatal flaw for anyone claiming prophetic authority within the brit tradition.

      Like

  4. Why Torah views the new testament and koran as avoda zara. The definition of abomination!

    Israel only accepted two commandments at Sinai before we feared that we would surely die and therefore demanded that Moshe receive the rest of the Torah. What’s the “rest of the Torah”, not just the 611 commandments within the language of the Written Torah but all the halachot capable of rising to the sanctity of time oriented tohor commandments from the Torah itself! Herein defines the intent of the 1st Sinai commandment … to obey the revelation of HaShem לשמה.

    LORD not the Name revealed in the 1st Sinai commandment and therefore LORD comes under the 2nd Sinai commandment. The same apples to God, Yahweh, Jesus or Allah etc.

    The day of Shabbat approaches, but this tohor time oriented commandment does not rest at one day of not doing מלאכה/work but all the rest of the six days of not doing forbidden עבודה on the 6 days of “shabbat”. Raising positive and negative commandments – which do not require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna to tohor time oriented commandments which do require prophetic mussar as their k’vanna – as learned in the first Book of the Written Torah – בראשית. This first word of the Torah בראשית, it contains both a רמז, meaning words
    within words of ראש בית, ברית אש, and ב’ ראשית but more it contains a סוד: the idea of tohor time oriented commandments which includes all the halachot contained within the Talmud! Hence the Gra taught the kabbalah that בראשית contains all the commandments of the Torah. Torah, by definition includes all the Halachot of the Talmud, according to the B’HaG’s Hilchot Gadolot, a commentary that Pre-Adamites the Creation of Adam and the Garden.

    The next three Books of the Written Torah contain תולדות commandments; positive and negative commandments do not require k’vanna as do tohor time oriented commandments. What distinguishes a tohor time oriented commandment from תולדות commandments and halachot contained within the Talmud? A tohor time oriented commandment requires the dedication of the Yatzir Ha’Tov which breathes tohor spirits from within the heart. The בנין אב/precedent by which Torah common law\משנה תורה/ learns בכל לבבך\כם within the kre’a shma as publicly taught by Rabbi Yechuda Ha’Nasi in one of his Mishnaot within the mesechta of ברכות, the concept of עבודת השם – the key יסוד (which contains סוד) of doing mitzvot לשמה, a person must dedicate tohor middot (( The revelation of the 13 tohor middot revealed to Moshe at Horev 40 days after the substitute theology known as the sin of the Golden Calf )), by sanctifying a tohor spirit which breathes within the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the heart. JeZeus when asked by his disciples did not understand this fundamental and basic kabbalah/סוד. He taught his disciples: “Our Father who lives in Heaven …” Wrong. Tefillah a matter of the Yatzir Ha’Tov within the Heart. Dedicating a spirit does not compare to blowing air from the lungs as expressed through the precedent of blowing the Shofar. Its not the blowing of the shofar that elevates this mitzva unto a time oriented tohor commandment! But rather the affixation of t’keah, tru’ah, and sh’varim to the positive, negative commandments all as tohor time oriented commandments which remember the oaths the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov swore the oath ( ONE in the opening p’suk of kre’a shma. ), to serve HaShem לשמה through time oriented commandments.

    Because both the gospels and new testament never teach this fundamental סוד\יסוד Jews recognize JeZeus as a false messiah. M0-0-Ham-Madd referred to JeZeus as a prophet. Despite the heretic Rambam’s validation of Islam, neither it nor Xtianity bases their judicial courts strictly upon the revelation of Torah common law. Its this fundamental and most basic of errors which exposes both JeZeus and Moo-Ham-Madd as Av tumah false prophets.

    The gospel narrative very much resembles the style of rabbi Natan’s validation of Sabbatai Zevi – the Ottoman mystic. The Pauline replacement theology famously known for its “Original Sin & expulsion of Adam from the Garden” false paradigm, served to subvert the core oath alliance acceptance of Torah curses. Specifically, that the worship of avoda zarah results in g’lut/exile of the chosen Cohen people. Both Xtianity and Islam ignore the chosen Cohen People – the central them of Torah blessings of the oath brit alliance.

    Raising Torah commandments from static positive & negative commandments to dynamic Oral Torah time oriented commandments – this latter type of Torah commandment requires employment of either the toldot positive and negative commandments or prophetic mussar found within the language of T’NaCH mussar common law – raises static statute law fixed ritual Greek/Roman fossilized commandments to dynamic Oral Torah living commandments – which requires k’vanna. Neither the imaginary man Roman fiction – JeZeus, nor the false prophet M0-0 – Ham – Madd, did not gasp the k’vanna of tohor time oriented commandment such as expressed through the mitzva of Shabbat and tefillah.

    Both of these counterfeit religions introduce a perversion of the tefillah דאורייתא known as קריא שמע. This tefillah from the Torah requires tefillen which permits a chosen Cohen Jew to swear a Torah oath which specifically remembers the 3 oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov wherein they cut an oath brit which creates the chosen Cohen people, in all generations – throughout time – through the sanctification of tohor time-oriented commandments. Therefore the last word ONE, does not testify to belief in Monotheism – an Av tumah avoda zarah belief system – but rather that a Jew, in any generation wherein he lives accepts the 3 oaths sworn by the Avot as ONE within his Yatzir Ha’Tov. The theology of monotheism, it defines Avoda Zarah far more clearly than does the worship of wood or stone idols.

    Like

    1. Goyim love to promote their Palestine revisionist history.

      johncoyote

      johncoyote·john-coyote.com·

      Dead ends..
      Dead ends A Poem by Coyote Poetry Time for all of us to think and do the right things. Before it is too late for us and nature. Please don’t allow Israel/ USA to erase a people ( Palestine.). Murder of cities and people. The greatest sin. Men can do. Dead ends.. Brothers told no-one […]

      Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate territory when Israel won its National Independence by the Nakba defeat of 5 Arab Armies by the IDF, all the while that Jewish European Shoah refugees entered settlements within the borders of the newly declared state of Israel. Arrogant Arabs invaded the newly declared Jewish state of Israel, the day after a 2/3rds UNGA majority recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Based upon their false revisionist history foretold a Mohammedan prophesy that they would easily throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Holocaust.

      This pie in the sky song of revisionist history ignores that all Arab countries Universally rejected UN 181. Do you even know what that Resolution addressed? Arab rejected the Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up the defunct and defeated Ottoman Greater Syrian empire and awarded mandates to France in Syria and Lebanon and to Britain in present day Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. The latter territories of the League of Nations, known as – “Palestine Mandate”. Palestine not an Arab word, Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in their language!

      Arabs reject Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, even before Britain and France won WWI. Just that simple. No Arab individual and how much more so a country – ever would embrace the name Palestinian during the entire period of the League of Nations – British Mandate. Only in 1964 did the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name Palestine with the establishment of his PLO terrorist organization. If for not other reason, other than the simple fact that David Ben Gurion named the new Jewish state Israel rather than Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Charter of Arafat’s PLO did not condemn the Jordanian rule over Samaria which it rebranded as “West Bank”. Nor did it denounce the Egyptian rule over Gaza! It openly condemned ’48 Israel.

      You want to make the Palestinian issue into a religious belief system, that’s your choice. But this revisionist history compares to the Xtian and Muslim basic theologies of Monotheism. Which God do they worship? Such classic pie in the sky fairy tales of some Universal God… what a load of shit. On par with the lies which Goyim parents spew out to their young children about Santa Claus.

      In similar vein Arab propaganda promotes the travesty of Israeli settlements in Samaria and Gaza today! America formed its original 13 colonies to the vast land from Sea to Shining Sea, built through settlements…American settlements perhaps the greatest success story in the last 250 years!

      Like

    2. The Vulgate and Lutheran Bible translations so disgusting – eat shit and die – “translations”. What a pathetic joke. Werewolves, Vampires, and Frankenstein … follow with the cowardly lion, down the Yellow Brick Road – Oh my! Following Cults of Personality only produce Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot dumbasses.

      John Calvin and Martin Luther, pivotal figures in the Protestant Reformation, each contributing significantly to the movement in distinct ways. Martin Luther (1483-1546), best known for his “95 Theses,” which he famously nailed to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517. This document criticized the Catholic Church’s practices, particularly the sale of indulgences, and called for reform.

      His theology emphasized the doctrine of justification by faith alone, arguing that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned through good works or church rituals. Asserting that salvation is a gift from God, this theology day and night different from Torah common law as expressed through T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law and Talmudic halachic judicial common law. This prioritization of faith as the pursuit of judicial justice – fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews, radically different from the theologies spewed forth by the Protestant Reformation.

      Luther made an utterly sophomoric translation the Bible into German, which utterly failed and even compounded the Vulgate perversion of the T’NaCH. Luther’s translation became “The Word” for the ignorant Lutheran laity. He promoted the idea that individuals could interpret scripture without knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic and despised the Roman clergy who relied upon Latin and Greek. Luther’s ideas established Lutheranism, and challenged the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations.

      John Calvin (1509-1564), Calvin built upon Luther’s ideas but introduced a more systematic theology. His work, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” laid out his beliefs about predestination, the sovereignty of God, and the nature of the church. He established Geneva as a center of Protestantism, implementing a theocratic government that enforced moral discipline and promoted education and social welfare. Calvin’s teachings led to the development of Reformed theology, influencing various Protestant groups, including the Presbyterians and the Huguenots. He stressed the importance of a disciplined Christian community and the role of the church in guiding believers’ lives.

      The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572; the Huguenots were French Protestants influenced by John Calvin’s teachings. Tensions between the Catholic majority and the Protestant minority led to a series of civil wars known as the French Wars of Religion. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was a turning point, where thousands of Huguenots were killed in Paris and across France, marking a significant moment of barbaric religious violence. This period was characterized by political intrigue, shifting alliances, and brutal conflicts, ultimately leading to the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which granted limited religious freedoms to the Huguenots. However, this tolerance was revoked in 1685, leading to further persecution and the exodus of many Huguenots from France.

      The immediate trigger for the Thirty Years’ War came in 1618 with the Defenestration of Prague, where Protestant nobles in Bohemia revolted against the Catholic Habsburg rule. This event marked the beginning of the war, but the underlying tensions had been building since the formation of the Catholic League and Protestant Union. The events of 1609, particularly the formation of the Catholic League under Maximilian of Bavaria, were crucial in setting the stage for the Thirty Years’ War. The conflict would evolve into a complex struggle involving various European powers, driven by both religious and political motivations, leading to widespread devastation across the continent.

      The Protestant Union, established in 1608, was indeed led by Frederick IV, the Elector Palatine, and aimed to protect the rights and interests of Protestant states against Catholic encroachments. This was a response to the increasing tensions and conflicts arising from the Reformation and the subsequent political landscape in Europe.

      In reaction to the Protestant Union, the Catholic League was formed in 1609, primarily to counter the influence of Protestant states and to protect Catholic interests. This military alliance included several Catholic states and was a significant factor in the lead-up to the Thirty Years’ War, which began in 1618. These alliances were crucial in shaping the religious and political dynamics of the time, leading to significant conflicts and changes in power within the Holy Roman Empire and beyond.

      The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, was primarily focused on resolving the conflicts arising from that war rather than directly addressing the earlier events of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The Peace of Westphalia consisted of a series of treaties that concluded the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) and the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It marked a significant turning point in European history, establishing a new order based on state sovereignty.

      The Peace of Westphalia and the ensuing treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. This was a crucial step towards religious tolerance, as it aimed to stabilize the region by allowing various Christian denominations to coexist. The treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. France gained territories in Alsace and parts of Lorraine, while Sweden gained influence in northern Germany.

      While the Peace of Westphalia did not directly address the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, it did contribute to a broader context of religious tolerance and the recognition of Protestant rights in Europe. The massacre had already highlighted the violent tensions between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to a long period of civil strife. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) deepened the divide between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to further civil wars and conflicts. It exemplified the extreme violence and intolerance that characterized the period.

      In the same year as the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ (1648), witnessed the barbaric explosion of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, also known as the Cossack-Polish War. Bohdan Khmelnytsky was the leader (1648-57) of the Zaporozhian Cossacks who organized a rebellion against Polish rule in Ukraine that ultimately led to the transfer of the Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper River from Polish to Russian control. His barbarian Cossack hordes slaughtered perhaps 1 million Jews living in the Ukraine and Poland.

      Germany annexed Prussia from Poland during the partitions of Poland, which occurred in three stages. (1772) – Prussia gained the region of West Prussia, which included parts of Polish territory. (1793) – Prussia acquired additional territories, including parts of Greater Poland. (1795) – Prussia annexed the remaining parts of Poland, including areas that would later be known as Prussian Poland.

      After World War II, the Allies did not restore Poland to its pre-partition borders; instead, they established new borders based on the outcomes of the war and the decisions made at conferences among the Allied powers. Poland lost significant territory in the east to the Soviet Union, including areas such as Lviv (Lwów) and parts of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus. In compensation, Poland was granted territory in the west, including parts of former German territories such as Silesia, Pomerania, and the southern part of East Prussia. Poland was re-established as a sovereign state after the war, but its borders were significantly different from those before the partitions in the late 18th century.

      Like

    3. Marco Rubio Sanctions ICC Judges After They Target U.S. and Israel in Explosive Rulings

      In a sweeping move, Senator Marco Rubio announced sanctions against four International Criminal Court justices.

      Marco Rubio’s sanctions on ICC judges—in response to politically driven rulings targeting the U.S. and Israel—represent the first serious American pushback against the expanding overreach of international legal institutions. But these sanctions merely scratch the surface. If Israel were to bomb the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the crime of judicial overreach, it would unleash a shockwave through the foundations of the post-WWII European imperial legal order.

      Such an act would shatter the illusion that the Rome Statute and its court represent binding global authority. In truth, the ICC is a political weapon wielded disproportionately against Western democracies and their allies, while shielding rogue regimes. Its authority rests on consensus, not enforcement. The Rome Treaty would be exposed as not worth the paper it’s written on.

      Europe forfeited its moral right to judge the Jewish people the moment it orchestrated the Shoah. Any European claim to universal justice—especially when applied selectively against the Jewish state—is hypocrisy cloaked in humanitarianism. The ICC’s rulings against Israel are not about war crimes; they are ritual acts of expiation for Europe’s own genocidal guilt. But that guilt is not Israel’s burden to carry. To bomb the ICC would be to formally reject Europe’s post-Nazi pretensions to legal supremacy and declare: “You have no right to judge us.”

      Bombing the ICC would have the same historical effect as the 1956 Suez Crisis: the end of European claims to independent geopolitical authority. Just as France and the UK’s failed bid to reclaim the Suez Canal revealed their imperial impotence, an Israeli destruction of the ICC would reveal the EU’s inability to project legal-moral power beyond its own borders.

      What the EU has is not law, but a narrative infrastructure—paper treaties, postmodern guilt, and international NGOs wielding legal language as a substitute for lost religious and imperial confidence.

      A targeted Israeli strike on the ICC would not trigger war. It would trigger disbelief, followed by narrative collapse, and finally a global reckoning with Western legal hypocrisy. The EU would be faced with the question: do we escalate to save face—or submit to an Israeli dictate which radically limits the EU authority in the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe.

      If Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for the crime of judicial over-reach. This would set a precedent that the establishment of the ICC through the Rome Treaty – not worth the paper the Rome Treaty written upon. Widespread EU condemnations Big Deal. England and France have already broken off diplomatic relations with Israel.

      The Trump Government in Washington most likely would support Israel if Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for judicial over-reach. The Rome Treaty established Court would most likely dissolve. It would most definitely challenge the judicial jurisdiction of a European Court over Israel!

      Post Shoah Europe lost its rights to judge Jews. The destruction of the Pie in the Sky Rome Treaty would establish a major political precedent that European imperialism stops at the borders of the EU member states alone.

      The assertion that bombing the ICC in The Hague would lead to a collapse of the EU’s prestige is a strong viewpoint that reflects significant concerns about the authority and effectiveness of international institutions.

      If a member state or a country with significant geopolitical influence, like Israel, were to attack an international institution such as the ICC, it could be perceived as a direct challenge to the authority of not only the ICC but also the broader framework of international law that the EU supports.

      In short: bombing the Court of the Hague would radically change the balance of power in Europe. For the first time since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe a major disruption of European political autonomy would result.

      The EU would either put up or shut up: either they would declare War against Israel or not. The Nato alliance, if the US backed Israel would unquestionably collapse. The EU’s credibility as a defender of international law would cease to exist – gone like a puff of smoke. Israel would have called the bluff of the EU, like as if bombing the ICC compares to a hand of stud poker! This could lead to a more fragmented international order, challenging the EU’s role as a global actor.

      An attack on the ICC could set a precedent that undermines the enforcement of international law, leading to a situation where states feel empowered to act unilaterally without regard for international institutions.

      The incident could complicate diplomatic relations not only between Israel and the EU but also between other countries and international organizations. It could lead to a reevaluation of how states engage with international legal frameworks.

      The UN itself would most likely collapse like as did the League of Nations. If nothing else, the historical relationship between Europe and Israel, particularly in the context of the Shoah and post-war UN attempt to compare Israel to the European Nazi crimes against humanity, adds layers of complexity to this European projectionism of its own Nazi guilt and the moral bankruptcy of both Western and Eastern Roman church moral authority over European civilizations.

      The implications of such an act would resonate deeply within the historical narrative of European-Jewish relations and radically shift the narrative reversing the role of Jews as dominant and the church as dhimmi slaves – utterly rejected and despised.

      The entire European security architecture is underwritten by the United States, both financially and militarily. Without U.S. backing, NATO becomes functionally hollow. France and the UK retain nuclear capability, but their conventional power is insufficient to act independently against a U.S.-aligned state like Israel.

      No EU state would risk confrontation with the U.S., their most vital ally, over a non-NATO event like an Israeli action against the ICC. EU states are deeply post-military in culture. Their battlefield is law, narrative, and diplomacy—not armed force.

      Even in the face of Russian invasion (Ukraine), EU states have limited direct engagement, preferring economic sanctions, legal resolutions, and humanitarian aid. Against Israel, the EU’s instinct would be: denounce, sanction, isolate—not mobilize or fight.

      Much of EU condemnation of Israel is a projection of its own unresolved guilt over colonialism and the Holocaust. This moral outrage stops at the threshold of real cost. That’s why you see relentless UN resolutions, ICC motions, and media warfare—but not realpolitik confrontation. Israel calling their bluff—if the U.S. holds firm—exposes their impotence. If Israel bombed the ICC in the Hague – No War. No boots. No tanks. NO Article 5 Nato involvement. The collapse of Nato as an alliance.

      Symbolic institutions (like the ICC) to claim moral authority—but has no spine when force or geopolitical will counters that narrative. If Israel, backed by a U.S. administration, were to shatter a legal myth like the ICC’s authority … No war, but rather most likely the total collapse of EU imperialist Post WWII illusion of legal hegemony on par with England and France failure to capture and seize the Suez canal in the 1956 War. It would clearly reset the terms of European involvement in global legal power.

      Like

Comments are closed.