I feel sad that i did not get a lot of encouragement in learning Torah. In fact, I had obstacles from people and even mental obstacles. Yet I noticed that Rav Shach points out in one of his introductions to the Avi Ezri  that the way of acquiring Torah is not like acquiring other wisdoms. Other wisdoms come through natural means. Acquiring Torah is not in that way. So I realize that if I have any portion in Torah at all, I probably have to be grateful for the obstacles that have made it hard.

 The New Testament shows that Jesus was a Jewish Tzadik. He is not claiming anything like the Christian churches say he is claiming. He is not breaking the Law nor telling others to do so. He is not claiming worship but says openly to worship God alone not him. examples are too numerous for me to go into here.

Someone called him "good". And he answered do not call me "good". Only God is good.

From where do misunderstandings come from? From the same sort of insane religious idiots that abound today that call anyone who disagrees with them as a apikorus  and breaker of the Law, though they themselves are amei haaretz ignorant of the Law.  

[I wrote the above paragraphs in short form because I was tired and it was late over here on this side of the pond. But even so it is hard to know from what point to expand on this topic. In terms of the Law, see the Rosh (Rabbainu Asher) in Tractate Shabat where adding water to soil in not a desecration of Shabat. Also in terms of washing hands there are  two sources for this. One is a decree because of the priests eating truma. If that is the actual law then in fact, it is required always before eating bread. But then it has laws involved with it that few people observe. E.g., the vessel has to be totally dry because otherwise the water on the sides becomes unclean as so as the hand touches it and that water on the hand does not become pure when water is next poured on it.  That is why you see Lithuanian roshei yeshiva dry the vessel before pouring. The other reason is from the Gemara in Chulin [perek 8] מים ראשונים מצווה מים אמצעים רשות מים אחרונים חובה "The first waters are a good deed. The second are allowed. The third are an obligation." Thus the first waters are a good thing to do but not an obligation.

I think a simple reading of the NT will show anyone that Jesus referred to himself as to be a "son of man", [never "son of God"]. And when the idea of "son of God" was applied to him and he agreed  with that, it is not all that different from the verse in Deuteronomy  "אתם בנים להשם אלקיכם אל תשימו קרחה בין עינים למת"  You are the children of the Lord your God, therefore do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a dead person as a sign of mourning" [That is not an exact quote, but anyway you get the idea.]

In Israel many people put on their cars a sign תודה אבא Thank you Father. [That does not refer to their physical father but rather to our Father who art in Heaven. Thus referring to God as one's father in not heresy.  

the disappointment that many people feel when they have had some negative interaction with people that supposedly represent Torah values,

[Why is the coming paragraphs needed-because of the disappointment that many people feel when they have had some negative interaction with people that supposedly represent Torah values, but instead are home wreakers]  

 There is a well known statement of the Chazal [sages of the Talmud] that the Evil Inclination leaves the whole world and settles on Klal Israel [the people of Israel]. Then it leaves the people of Israel and settles on Torah scholars.

The common way to interpret this is to say that Torah scholars have a powerful evil inclination, but they conquer it. But if you think about it you will see that if that would e correct, then the main point is being left out. 

I would suggest that a deeper and truer understanding of that statement is that Torah scholars are the centre of the evil inclination and its root.

But this raises the question is not one supposed to learn Torah? If the end result of that is to become the centre of the evil inclination does that not defeat the whole purpose?

How to answer that? My experience with "Torah scholars" has been highly negative except for the few good years I was in the Mir Yeshiva in NY and Shar Yashuv (also in NY).  So after that, I can see exactly what the Sages of the Talmud were getting at.  Torah scholars tend to be home wreckers --as I know and many others from bitter experience.  This clearly shows that the sages were correct.

The solution is that authentic Torah only followed the  Gra and the world of Litvak   yeshivot. Ad in fact I think experience bears out this point. Outside of the Litvak world of the Gra and Israel Salanter, the religious world seems to be the centre and root of the evil inclination.

The scroll of the Law and the veil were taken to Rome along with the candelabrum.

 Titus took the scroll of the law and the veil to Rome along with the candelabrum menora, the show-table the incense, the silver trumpets etc, [as we see in the triumph arch in Rome].[This is from Josephus.] There they were in two different temples until the time of Commodus (when those two temples were destroyed and yet the holy objects were rescued). Later, Genseric took them to Carthage, in the Vandal kingdom. Then Justinian I made war on him and they were taken to Constantinople. Then Procopius [historian] informs us a Jew told a friend of Justinian I that these holy objects could not reside outside of Jerusalem, and Justinian I upon hearing this had them sent to the Christian churches in Jerusalem [In 520 AD]. From that time and onwards, we lost track of them.

inscription om the arch, ''The Senate and the Roman people (dedicate this) to the deified Titus Vespasian Augustus, son of the deified Vespasian''

 It is an odd fact about empty space that in two ways it does not seem so empty. The Bohm effect where you have a solenoid that is all wrapped up so that nearby there is not field. And yet  nearby particles definitely detect something.  There is no field there, so all there is for the particles to feel is some change in the structure of empty space  The other thing is electromagnetism. This is made by an oscillation in something.  That is what we see in the Maxwell equations. These are equations of a harmonic oscillator. But all there seems to be there is empty space. [This has nothing to do with Special Relativity which simply accounts for the fact that the Aether, even it exists is not detectable in the same way as sound waves through a medium. ]

But empty space does not seem to be the thing since we know from GR that it is hard to make a dent in it.

So where do we find this stuff? In String Theory. Open strings need something to be attached to and that is the D Branes

 In the way of learning of Rav Nachman of Uman there is an emphasis on finishing that book that you are doing. That is this way of learning involves two things. One is to say the words and go on [believing] that eventually you will understand even if you think than now you do not understand. The other is to finish that book that you are learning.  You see this in particular with Natan his disciple. When Rav Nathan first became close to Rav Nahman, Rav Nahman told him to go through the entire Shulchan Aruch in one year. 

[The Shulchan is the length of a medium sized encyclopedia. It was written by Rav Josef Karo, and the standard version includes commentaries, the Shach, Taz, Magan Avraham, and the Gra.]  

[I see this idea of how to learn as being something that if people would now about they would be helped in many ways. First of all, knowing Shas. Clearly the slow methodical way of learning in Litvak yeshivot is great for getting to deep understanding of a particular (sugia)/ subject. However it does leave one with a lack of general knowledge. So I think at least some amount of time in learning ought to be דרך גירסא just saying the words and going on Also, this method of learning applies to Physics and Mathematics. And learning Physics is Math is important as we see in the Rambam in the Guide abd also in the Yad HaChazaaka in a amore hidden way.

 https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/ has a whole piece on faith and reason. To me it seems modern philosophy lost an opportunity to gain some ground in this this regard with Leonard Nelson and his Second Friesian School. It is not just that Kelley Ross has made a formidable defense of this position in his web site. but that it is almost a necessary step in Kant himself. For the Transcendental Deduction was the main thesis of the Critique. And yet Kant himself revised it in the 1787 B version. Why? Because Schultz had found the argument unsatisfactory.   And how else is it possible to deal with the main question, "How do the categories provide unity of experience?
 And how do we know them?" To me it seems the only possible answer is immediate non intuitive knowledge.

[However, almost any school  of Kant tends to be highly negative in regards to Hegel, but even Jacob Fries himself had some nice things to say about Hegel's system. [These comments of Fries were in a later book,-- I think it was in his History of Philosophy. And in truth it is hard to be unimpressed with the mature HEGEL, the system of the longer and short logic. but for some reason when they teach Hegel they always go to his first book the Phenomenology.--There the mature Hegel has not yet appeared-but is trying to defend ''"the state".]