Following the great fire of Ρωμη in 64 C.E., were pro-úÌåÉøÈä ðÀöÈøÄéí living in Ρωμη whom Nero could blame and persecute until 68 C.E.? Or were they Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's antinomian (= anti-úÌåÉøÈä = misojudaic) Χριστιανοι whom he blamed and persecuted until 68 C.E. (as Χριστιανοι claim to have been the victims who were persecuted by both Jews and Romans)?
For Ρωμη to persecute Χριστιανοι required an anti-Καισαρας element – which contradicts the historical descriptions of the 1st century Hellenist-assimilated Jewish community in Ρωμη.
The Χριστιανοι community has always been distinct, separate and in open and acrimonious conflict with the Jewish community; never having lived in the Jewish community like the ðÀöÈøÄéí. Rather, it was the Εβιωναιοι, as shown earlier, that had been chased—by ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι and Hellenist gentile Romans— out of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to Πελλα because of their anti-Καισαρας views. While it's an open question whether the monicker had, by this time, migrated to Ρωμη, it appears likely that the group Nero persecuted advocated the anti-Καισαρας views that were eventually identified with the Εβιωναιοι and caused them to be singled-out as trouble-makers .
The answer to this question, whether the persecuted were
Hellenist (antinomian = anti-úÌåÉøÈä) Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Χριστιανοι, or
Hellenist (antinomian = anti-úÌåÉøÈä) anti-Καισαρας Εβιωναιοι or
the ðÀöÈøÄéí anti-Hellenist pro-úÌåÉøÈä, éÀäåÌãÄéí (recognized by the ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí and ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷"
depends, inter alia, on whether or not ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä had established a pro-úÌåÉøÈä, ðÀöÈøÄéí congregation, as distinguished from claims of Χριστιανοι documents that the pro-úÌåÉøÈä, ðÀöÈøÄéí, under ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä (who was not the ôÌÈ÷Äéã)—Poof!—transformed 180°—overnight and with no record—into the antinomian (anti-úÌåÉøÈä) "επισκοπος St. Πετρος" to establish a Hellenist (= antinomian = misojudaic = anti-úÌåÉøÈä), anti-Καισαρας, Χριστιανοι (Εβιωναιοι?) εκκλησια, in Ρωμη.
"Poof!" is neither history nor logic nor science—nor true!!!
The alternative—the existence of ante-Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, anti-Καισαρας, Hellenist, Εβιωναιοι, however, is well-documented and its spread to Ρωμη by that time is virtually certain—avoiding the torturously obscure and distorting stretching of imaginative inferences and extensive circular reasoning dependent upon well-documented 2nd-4th century Χριστιανοι redactions that introduce pure fabrications (e.g., click "Fabrication of Popes" in menu above); all needed in their struggle to make the ðÀöÈøÄéí look like the origin of Χριστιανοι.
Having usurped and eliminated the ðÀöÈøÄéí, the culmination of which is documented in 135 C.E. (click "Birth of Christianity" in menu above), allowed post-135 C.E. Χριστιανοι writers to redact in whatever the 4th century εκκλησια found supported their doctrines while simultaneously rejecting whatever the εκκλησια found incompatible with their 4th century εκκλησια doctrines.
As a result, the 4th century εκκλησια defined Χριστιανοι and Χριστιανοι doctrines and "corrected" all existing texts (which were all under their control) to the "true" reading—which (how amazing is this?) corroborated their definition!!!
Consequently, it is today challenging to disentangle the genuine ðÀöÈøÄéí record and positions from the deliberate and selective syncretizing by the Hellenist Χριστιανοι εκκλησια. Post-135 C.E. εκκλησια sources, therefore, are unacceptably biased by deliberate, Hellenist and misojudaic, redactions reconstruing earlier stories to support their 4th century native Hellenist—idolatrous—doctrines. The historical record is the pre-135 C.E. Judaic literature. Post-135 C.E. εκκλησια accounts are no more than self-serving, re-construing, fabrications (e.g., click "Fabrication of Popes" in menu above).
øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ taught solely from úð"ê and äÂìÈëÈä. Contrast this against Christians who cannot defend their faith from úð"ê because they depend completely on their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), which:
The earliest extant (two) copies of the Χριστιανοι Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) date from the 4th century C.E. Extremely sparse and extremely rare, 2nd-4th century C.E. occasional phrases or a verse do not remotely insinuate the 4th century, Helllenist Roman-gentile Christian-redacted Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), much less an implacable contradiction to úð"ê from which the Roman gentile Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) supposedly originated!
almost all of it was originally authored by an excised apostate, and
the earliest extant Church historian, Ευσεβιος, recorded that the ðÀöÈøÄéí refused, rejected and repulsed Διαθηκη Καινη (NT),
it was extensively redacted by Hellenist Χριστιανοι
Defend your messianic-related doctrines strictly from úð"ê, as øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ and the ðÀöÈøÄéí have always done and see where it takes you! It will take you back to the authentic, historical, øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ!!!
The Jewish religion in the Roman Empire "enjoyed a protected status. Julius Caesar and Augustus had several laws passed that protected the practice of the Jewish religion. éÀäåÌãÄéí were allowed to gather freely in their συναγωγη, observe the Sabbath and other Jewish festivals, they could send money to the Temple in Jerusalem and exercised a good bit of freedom in their own community affairs. Jews were also exempt from military service" (york.edu). Further, it was in 64 C.E. that Ιωσηπος traveled to Ρωμη to plead on behalf of éÀäåÌãÄéí who were having a conflict with Agrippa, which Nero decided in favor of the éÀäåÌãÄéí. "This was granted in order to gratify Ποππαια, Nero's wife, who was a religious woman and had requested these favors of Nero…" (Antiquities XX.viii.iii).
Moreover, Nero knew from his second wife, Ποππαια, a Jewish convert, the difference between úÌåÉøÈä éÀäåÌãÄéí (that included the ðÀöÈøÄéí) and anti-Καισαρας, Hellenist, Εβιωναιοι, whom he singled out and blamed for the fire.
As earlier, in the execution of
In Rome, the Hellenist ersatz Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer had already gained infamy as an anti Caesar-worshiping agitating sect that breached Rome's all-important pax deorum—the Roman (Latin) term for the Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Hellenist parallel of the bᵊrit.
While the anti Caesar-worshiping stance of the earliest Χριστιανοι caused the initial conflict with Rome (viz., Nero in 64 C.E., Domitian in 95 C.E. and Trajan ca. 110 C.E.), this was quickly over-shadowed by Rome's far bigger issue with Χριστιανοι who were seen, particularly in the 2nd-3rd centuries C.E., as the causa discidium of the Roman pax deorum, considered all-important not only to the Roman emperors, but to the majority of Roman citizens throughout the Roman Empire. This made Χριστιανοι absolute enemies of the Roman Empire – until the Χριστιανοι managed to morph Ζεύς into ιε Ζεύς into Ιησους – thereby restoring the all-important pax deorum.
It is clear and indisputable that the later Χριστιανοι (who never lived in the Jewish community and were virulently misojudaic) weren't ðÀöÈøÄéí (who lived in harmony among the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí throughout their existence, even being defended by the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí; i.e. until the ðÀöÈøÄéí vanished from the record in 135 C.E.) and that Nero knew the difference (from his wife, Ποππαια) and blamed and persecuted the (primarily gentile) anti-Καισαρας, Hellenist, Εβιωναιοι, not úÌåÉøÈä ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí. In fact, it remains unclear whether, by 64 C.E., any congregation of ðÀöÈøÄéí distinct from the other ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí had been established in Ρωμη. (It isn't even clear whether, by 64 C.E, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer had developed a fetal-Χριστιανοι εκκλησια capable of attracting the notice by Ποππαια.)
While careful historians are meticulous to qualify εκκλησια claims with phrases like "Christian tradition holds," as opposed to stating undocumented εκκλησια claims as historical fact, many modern commentators routinely regurgitate the 4th century Χριστιανοι fabrications, infusing these beliefs into the ancient record, making it seem that the ancient record says what it does not. For example, www.roman-emperors.org/nero.htm states "Further, at this time two of their most significant "teachers" were in Ρωμη, Πετρος and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer… Separately, Πετρος was crucified upside down on the Vatican hill and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer was beheaded along the Via Ostiensis." This is based, in their note, only on Tacitus XV.38-44 and Suetonius 38 for original sources (not including other commentators blending their assumptions into the ancient record to be regurgitated by others in this manner). Here's the relevant source texts. See if you can find a description of either of these two characters or their peculiar martyrdom:
Tacitus (Italian or Spanish senator and historian in the Roman Empire, ca. 56 – ca. 117 C.E.) XV.38-44:
"A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, worse, however, and more dreadful than any which have ever happened to this city by the violence of fire. It had its beginning… Nero at this time was at Antium, and did not return to Ρωμη until the fire approached his house… And to this conflagration there attached the greater infamy because it broke out on the Aemilian property of Tigellinus, and it seemed that Nero was aiming at the glory of founding a new city and calling it by his name… Nero meanwhile availed himself of his country's desolation, and erected a mansion in which the jewels and gold, long familiar objects, quite vulgarised by our extravagance, were not so marvellous as the fields and lakes, with woods on one side to resemble a wilderness, and, on the other, open spaces and extensive views… The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods… But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Χριστιανοι by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Ρωμη, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired" (classics.mit.edu).
All that Suetonious (African historian in the Roman Empire, ca.71-ca.135 C.E.) writes concerning Χριστιανοι is one sentence in 16.2:
"Punishment was inflicted on the Χριστιανοι, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition (Χριστιανοι, genus hominum superstitionis novae)" (penelope.uchicago.edu)
No documentation whatsoever, not even a mention, of Πετρος (whose inscribed ossuary (see photos) was found and can be seen today in the Har ha-Zeit•imꞋ tomb complex in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, not Ρωμη!) or even Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer! We also know that gentiles were unable to distinguish among the various "Christus" sects (viz., between Εβιωναιοι, Χριστιανοι and a host of similar Hellenist sects); and, outside of the Church Fathers, cared not at all about such fine distinctions.
Arguments from the Χριστιανοι Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), in addition to never having been accepted for doctrine by the ðÀöÈøÄéí, are self-contradicting.
Christians will be appalled to learn how similar they are to modern Muslims who claim that the "faraway place" in their Quran was éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí instead of Medina. Yet, Christians argue no less fancifully that the "someplace else" in Πραχεις Αποστολων 12.17 refers to Ρωμη!
This despite v. 19 clarifying exactly where"ëÌÅéôÈà" went : "And "ëÌÅéôÈà", having gone down from éÀäåÌãÈä—to Καισαρεια, διετριβεν!!!
Not Ρωμη!!! (Chapters later, it was Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, not ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä, who journeyed to Ρωμη.)
 |
Entire Hellenized (Greek) Roman-Gentile "New Testament" came into existence sometime during the mid-to-last half of 2nd century C.E. (Greek), The only, single copy, existing "New Testament": merely a couple of phrases later found in Jn18 31-33 |
 |
Entire Hellenized (Greek) Roman-Gentile "New Testament" came into existence sometime during the mid-to-last half of 2nd century C.E. (Greek), The only, single copy, existing "New Testament": merely a couple of phrases later found in Jn18 37-38. |
 |
 Accreted to "New Testament" in late 2nd century C.E. (Greek); included parts of Matthew 21v34-37; 43 and (perhaps) 45. |
 |
 Sample of 45 leaves that accreted to the developing "New Testament" in late 2nd-3rd century C.E. (Greek); later found in Matthew 20-21; 25-26; Mark 4-9; 11-12; Luke 6-7; 9-14; John 4-5; 10-11; and Acts 4-17. (P-45 also included 66 leaves of |
 |
 Accreted to "New Testament" ca. 250 C.E. (Greek); included parts of Matthew 1:1-9,12,14-20. |
 |
 Accreted to "New Testament" in the 3rd century C.E. (Greek); included 26:29-40; Acts 9:33-10:1. |
None of the Χριστιανοι source mss. predate 135 C.E.—not even a papyrus fragment!
3rd-4th-century Χριστιανοι mss. talk about the 1st century. That's vastly different from a 1st century source ms. And they were all redacted by Χριστιανοι after 135 C.E. to reflect 3rd-4th-century Χριστιανοι doctrines.
Further, the earliest extant post-135 C.E. source (a Χριστιανοι εκκλησια official himself), Ευσεβιος, acknowledges that the whole papal succession was an "ἐποιησάμην" by Ηγησιππος (click "Fabrication of Popes" in menu above).
All of the Χριστιανοι sources assume Ηγησιππος' fabrication—which is no longer extant, so we wind up back where we started, relying on 4th century quotations by Ευσεβιος. Consequently, it cannot be surprising that all of the subsequent εκκλησια writers rely on the same post-135 C.E. fabrications and assumptions about Πετρος and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer being in Ρωμη; and such assumptions are strictly theological fabrications de convenance, which is certainly not historical.
For example, Clement of Alexandria wrote ca. 200 C.E., long after 135 C.E.—and, this instance of Clement no longer being extant, we have only Ευσεβιος' quotation as evidence and it's back to Ηγησιππος again! The entirety of the Χριστιανοι claim is based on circular reasoning of Χριστιανοι pointing to Χριστιανοι-accepted general beliefs—"it is related that…" (per Ευσεβιος), then pointing to other Χριστιανοι who have done the same, relying on corroboration of "popes" for which there is no record… except for Ηγησιππος! It's an endless and futile merry-go-round the εκκλησια would like to keep you on.
Also cited as a source for Πετρος and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer being executed in Ρωμη is a story supposedly picked up and passed on by "St. Ignatius" of Antakya, Turkey (35-107 C.E.)—for which we must depend on quotations by post-135 C.E. Ευσεβιος…and we're back, once again, to Ηγησιππος, corroboration with non-existent (in Ρωμη, at least) "popes" and circular reasoning.
Evidenced in Ρωμη as early as ca. 64 C.E., only a couple of years after the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι "ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑÇò" murdered ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó, assimilated and apostate (heretical) Jews were already documented syncretizing elements of Judaism into pagan Roman Hellenism (William Smith & Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, (Kraus Reprint, 1974) Vol. IV, pp. 24-27).
Thus, a Hellenist εκκλησια of Εβιωναιοι or Χριστιανοι is documented in Ρωμη in 64 C.E.
The product of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's apostasy wasn't compatible, nor connected, with legitimate Judaism recognized by the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì, which had been dominated by the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí during the lifetime of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ. Being incompatible with the áÌÅéú ãÄéï, and the ðÀöÈøÄéí being ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, therefore, the Hellenist Χριστιανοι of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer was, likewise, incompatible with the ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï under the successors of ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" (until usurped in 135 C.E.), subordinate to, and corroborated by, the áÌÅéú ãÄéï äÇâÌÈãåÉì.
Χριστιανοι assume that "St. " was the "Apostle to the Gentiles" and went to Ρωμη where he was executed by Nero. None of these widely-touted traditions turn out to have any credible evidence whatsoever; and despite contradictory evidence that demonstrates that the "missionary" to the gentiles was, instead, ΠετροςΠαύλος the Apostate Hellenizer.
Even a superficial glimpse should make it conspicuous: the "Missionary to the Gentiles" was Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, not ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä.
Way beyond that, the historical facts inherited by the newly-hatched Χριστιανοι εκκλησια of 135 C.E. contained a fatal contradiction: Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer wasn't an authority that these post-135 C.E. founders of the Χριστιανοι εκκλησια could cite as having
transferred leadership—requiring a time machine—from a éÀäåÌãÄé in 135 C.E. to a âÌåÉé back, more than a century earlier, in 30 C.E.,
from a úÌåÉøÈä teaching ôÌÈ÷Äéã in 135 C.E. to an idolatrous, Roman Hellenist syncretism-teaching Roman gentile επισκοπος back, more than a century earlier, in 30 C.E.,
from a ðÀöÈøÄéí to a ðÉöÀøÄéí = Χριστιανοι,
or transferring the Holy City from éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to Ρωμη.
The post-135 C.E. Χριστιανοι needed to retroject "St. " into that role to retroactively "authorize" these fraudulent transfers a century earlier. So we'll investigate the evidence and how they rewrote their own Hellenist-Χριστιανοι image of "ΠετροςSt. " over the original éÀäåÌãÄé ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí — ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä — in the same way they retrojected their own, 135 C.E. Hellenist-Χριστιανοι image of ΠετροςΙησους over the original ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ.
135 C.E. Roman Hellenist Χριστιανοι were the first to wrest authority from the áÌÅéú ãÄéï ðÀöÈøÄéí in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, thereby transforming motley groups of assimilated Hellenist apostates into an independent entity—the birth of the Χριστιανοι εκκλησια in 135 C.E.
However, this fledgling gentile Roman Hellenist Χριστιανοι εκκλησια had no basis to switch authority and "headquarters" from 135 C.E. ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÀäåÌãÈä "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" (whose office was usurped by the Hellenist apostates in 135 C.E.) in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to nonexistent earlier "popes" in Ρωμη without Ηγησιππος' "ἐποιησάμην" his entire list of specious pre-135 C.E. popes in Ρωμη (click "Fabrication of Popes" in menu above). They could not do this while the ðÀöÈøÄéí remained the authority—viz., until after 135 C.E. Tellingly, there is no record of any pope before Ηγησιππος' "ἐποιησάμην" (subsequent to 135 C.E.).
Πραχεις Αποστολων 10, which is cited as the basis from which Χριστιανοι infer "St. " went to Ρωμη speaks only of a trip to Καισαρεια.Πετρος
First, Ευσεβιος documented that "Acts" 10—which is cited as the primary basis for "St. " being the "Apostle of the Gentiles"—was never accepted as legitimate by the ðÀöÈøÄéí. Not even úÌåÉøÈä, much less the heavily Christian-redacted Πραχεις Αποστολων!Πετρος
Moreover, reading from the earliest extant source manuscripts (א; β; P-45, ca. 255 C.E. [vs. -1-2, 10-13, 15-23, 31-41]; P-53, ca. 200-299 C.E. [v. 1]), none of which predate the usurpation by the gentile Hellenists in 135 C.E., Πραχεις Αποστολων 10 doesn't say any of that: neither documenting an "Apostle to the Gentiles," nor any trip to Ρωμη, nor being executed by Nero!
The "pivotal" verse is 10.44. Let's look at the earliest extant language, and even that isn't supported in P-45 nor P-53; leaving only the 4th century C.E. mss. א and β as the earliest extant—both 4th century, neither pre-dating 135 C.E. Πραχεις Αποστολων 10:
44 Ετι λαλουντος του
Πετρουτα ρηματα ταυτα επεπεσεν το πνευμα το αγιον επι παντας τους ακουοντας τον λογον
(During the preaching of these sermons ofΠετρος, the Holy Spirit fell on everyone hearing the λογον
Without the context of verse 45, verse 44 certainly doesn't make "Πετρος" any "Apostle to the Gentiles." So, we'll also examine 10.45:
45 Και εξεστησαν οι εκ περιτομης πιστοι οσοι συνηλθαν τω Πετρω οτι και επι τα εθνη η δωρεα του αγιου πνευματος εκκεχυται
(and believers of the circumcision, ones who were assembled-together toΠετρος, were enthralled that also upon the goy•imꞋ had the gift of the Holy Spirit been poured out [i.e., these non-Jews were âÅøÄéí from the Diaspora who were assembled in Καισαρεια (vs. 23ff)]).
According to this account—which was not accepted by the original ðÀöÈøÄéí as necessarily factual, and certainly not doctrinal authority (see Eusebius), éÀäåÌãÄéí are described as entranced that prospective âÅøÄéí were coming from the Diaspora to éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì to learn úÌåÉøÈä and become ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí. Note the polar change redacted by Χριστιανοι into the liturgy (if this is taken to be liturgy—Christian worship—rather than extra-liturgical explanation) already from Judaic tᵊphil•otꞋ as found in a Tei•mân•iꞋ si•durꞋ to Hellenist Greek preaching / sermonizing—allegedly by "Πετρος."
ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä was reportedly teaching the group of prospective âÅøÄéí in Καισαρεια how to eat according to úÌåÉøÈä—and post-135 C.E. Χριστιανοι read "Apostle to the Gentiles" and Ρωμη into it?!? Well, none of that has any basis in pre-135 C.E. literature, nor even in their own source that they cited, Πραχεις Αποστολων 10!!! And even if it were, the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) was never accepted as doctrinal authority by the ðÀöÈøÄéí! It was misojudaic apostasy, fabrications, redactions and retrojective "reinterpretations" at every level deliberately designed to discredit the ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí, thereby enabling their gentile Hellenist claims of superseding and displacing them.
DavꞋqâ, that same Χριστιανοι εκκλησια still has the khutz•pâh′ to declare that same misojudaic, supersessionist, Displacement Theology that:
"POSSIBLY JERUSALEM would have remained the Catholic [Χριστιανοι] primatial had the Chosen People accepted Christ. But this was not to be; indeed, the Prophets and Christ Himself had foretold rejection of His preaching by most of the Jews" (Catholic Home Study Service,
St.Πετροςin Ρωμη, Catholic Information Network (CIN), cin.org).
From its birth in 135 C.E., the Χριστιανοι εκκλησια has unswervingly held for 2,000 years that Jews and éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí are in the same boat: rejected by God to be superseded and displaced by the gentile, Hellenist, Χριστιανοι εκκλησια and Rome—burying éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí as "Aelia Capitolina" and éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì as "Palestine"—a blasphemy that brings persecution on éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì to this day. This is firsthand reconfirmation of the same Χριστιανοι misojudaism of supersessionism and Displacement Theology that dates back, uninterrupted, to the original, 135 C.E., εκκλησια documented by the Church's own earliest extant historians.
That misojudaism—with its fabricated myth of "St. Πετρος" being the first "pope" in Ρωμη—was, and remains, the sole "basis" for the εκκλησια's claim of transference of power to Ρωμη!
Χριστιανοι writers consistently pervert the same phrase, τα εθνη, in the same way and always for the same reason—for Χριστιανοι to write themselves—"gentiles" (in contrast to âÅøÄéí)—into the "Acts" continuing in Πραχεις Αποστολων 11.1: And the éÀäåÌãÈä heard that the peoples—prospective âÅøÄéí from the Diaspora, not as-they-are idolatrous Hellenist gentiles!—had also accepted the Word— úÌåÉøÈä—of àÁìÉäÄéí.
In diametric contrast to the post-135 C.E. Χριστιανοι writers of "Acts" and the rest of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), 4Q MMT makes it explicit that the only "Word of àÁìÉäÄéí" known by 1-century éÀäåÌãÄéí was the úÌåÉøÈä!
Rather than ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä being "the Apostle to the Gentiles" and a "First Pope," the historical record shows that ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí was the sole authority for the ðÀöÈøÄéí—and ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä was described, in Πραχεις Αποστολων 10, himself answering to that authority!
ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä's presentation to ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó and the ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï, it can be seen, is the original argument that âÅøÄéí, having met the threshold requirements to begin learning úÌåÉøÈä for conversion, obtain ëÌÄôÌåÌø for doing their utmost to keep úÌåÉøÈä during their learning period, while they are learning and implementing úÌåÉøÈä preparing for conversion. The conclusion of ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" and the ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï led directly to the formulation of the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ , which the ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï authored and originally formulated according to their earliest mention: Πραχεις Αποστολων 15.20 ("Noachide Laws," Encyclopedia Judaica, 12:1190ff)—thus proving they were here referring to âÅøÄéí, not any other "as-they-are" gentiles. No Χριστιανοι has ever been a âÅø.
| 30-99 C.E. – Go To Page | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next |
 |
|
 |