Home (Netzarim Logo)
Highlighting Critical Hidden Religious and Linguistic Immiscibles
Tor•âh, Jews & Hebrew versus Hellenism, Gentiles & Greek
Greek Warning from Beit ha-Miqdash Soreg: 'allogenæs (Gentiles) No Closer' Warning Stone from :

upon pain of death!

(Museum Tschinili-Kirschk. Istanbul, Turkey.)

Sukah Hei
(Hut, Booth or Exhibit #5)

1st Century C.E.

Στεφανος & Παυλος
Split From The

© 1996-2011 Yirmeyahu Ben-David – Updated: 2011.04.13

Method & Apparatus

One cannot come to grips with the development of Christianity as it was originally defined without first internalizing the religious-political caldron that orchestrated the reaction between the two principle, and immiscible, forces—Judaism versus Hellenism—to forge Christianity. At least as far back as B.C.E. 4, the conflict between these two immiscible forces was recognized by Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus as the principle irresolvable incompatibility that, if forced to intermingle, would strike together like flint to ignite a catastrophic conflagration. The same forces have, ever since, produced the same misojudaism. To help keep track of these two immiscible forces, they will be color coded:

From the Roman expulsion of from "Aelia Capitolina" in 135 C.E. through the 4th century C.E., Greek-speaking gentile Roman Hellenist Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) were limited by their Greek language to rely solely on accounts told to them in Greek by Hellenizing Jews (even Paul had been dead since ca. 67 C.E.), ill-informed proselytes and–mostly–blatantly assimilated Hellenist apostates (like Ιωσηπος).

These Roman Hellenists never budged from their Hellenist position of rejecting , therefore declaring followers of the original Jews (who had been taught by ) to be "under the law," "enemies of [their Hellenist perception of] God and the Church" and "servants of Satan." Down through subsequent centuries, these pronouncements have been the cause of countless pogroms, the Inquisition, the Holocaust and still fuel persecution of Jews today.

Peering back 1-3 centuries into the 1st century Jewish community from outside, these Hellenist Roman gentiles perceived only what their gentile Hellenist lenses could process—of accounts passed down to them by Hellenist Jews and some Hellenist, primarily Arab, gentiles. Their knowledge of Judaism was less than gentiles today (after two additional millennia of study) know of the Orthodox Jewish community and Orthodox Judaism—blind ignorant and filled with misojudaic misconceptions. As a result, these 2nd-4th century, Greek-speaking Roman, primarily Arab, gentiles were unable to distinguish rival (Hebrew-speaking) Jewish factions, muddling them all into their composite stereotype of "the Jews"—as they redacted the final text of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) that the world has today.

Thankfully, the Dead Sea Scrolls, (4Q) MMT in particular, has removed all doubt about what was always evident to objective readers of the descriptions of the 1st century Jewish community and Judaism in the Judaic literature (as contrasted against the Hellenist Greek literature—principally the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).

This Hellenized stereotype has glossed over the differences in language and culture between Judaism and Hellenism, which lay at the very core of the #1 argument among 1st-century Jews: the Oral Law of versus assimilation into ΕλληνHellenism. This assumptive failure to distinguish between opposites of language, culture and religion—symptomatic of Christians and Jews each nursing extreme ignorance, bias and misconceptions of the other—is blindly memorized and, though these errors are beginning to be acknowledged (as knowledge of the DSS and archeological discoveries are disseminated), they still continue to be assumed, and unquestioningly regurgitated, by many Ph.D.s and Professors of History alike.

Relating to the 1st-century, historical dissonances between

requires developing the ability to distinguish between their cultures, religions and languages that, coupled with pressures for to assimilate into the Ελλην world of their Roman occupiers, created a schismatic cancer that would grow, divide, inflame and ultimately lead to pogroms, the Inquisition and the Holocaust.

This conflict-laden cancer can only be diagnosed by keeping the divisive differences they faced daily in the forefront of your study, precluding contra-historical assumptions of compatibility that allows the many oversights and impossible misconceptions that are widespread among today's students of 1st-century, Judeo-Roman and Christian history. The reader will quickly develop an appreciation of the persistent conflict, and its inexorable intractability, between the (usually Hebrew language) figures and concepts in blue (which includes the ) contrasted against the (usually Greek language) Ελλην figures and concepts in amber.

This apparatus permits the reader to see at a glance the general predominance within any screen of text as well as changes and trends when screening up or down.

Only by keeping these heterogenous players distinct can one recognize two primary and distinct iterations of increasingly Hellenist assimilation develop from this milieu into gentile (primarily Arab), Roman Christianity.

To help you cope, I've tried to limit the number of untransliterated Hebrew and Greek terms to two contrasting essential nuclei; plus, I've provided instant-English by simply hovering the cursor over non-English words having an amber or blue background. Additionally, nearly all of these also have links that you can click for a more complete glossary definition.

Although it may at first seem daunting, there are only a handful of words; they are merely used over and over, making the page look far more complicated and difficult than it really is. Yet, if you haven't worked your way through this section in this website, then—be you Ph.D. or Professor in one of the most eminent universities in the world—you do not grasp the fundamental differences and conflicts in the 1st century C.E. enumerated above. Stop being part of the regurgitated ignorance being proliferated by the ignorant "assumers"—grinding their religious axe instead of exercising scientific method and scholarship.

If it was easy, everyone would already have done it. Apply yourself seriously, work your way through this and learn.

Rainbow Rule

From ca. 2300 To 3173

(From ca. B.C.E. 1460 To B.C.E. 587)

Background of the
(Hellenized to "Συνεδριον")
Beit ha-Miqdash ha-Sheini
Second "Temple"Click to enlarge(Hellenized Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh ha-Shein•i)

Συνεδριον Meeting Hall on balcony

The rabbinic tradition of the transmission of , while helpful, is grossly oversimplified.

The was chaired by , a pair of leaders functioning, counterbalanced, in flank:

  1. the (or other national leader), as , and

  2. the , as .

From the inception of the by Mosh•ëh (Shᵊm•ot 18.25-26; bᵊ-Mi•dᵊbar 11.16-17), who was himself flanked by A•har•on, Mosh•ëh anointed Yᵊho•shua Bën-Nun and (while the anointing ceremony itself is not mentioned) Ëlâzâr the .

This succession of pairs heading the continued through the Zᵊqan•im (Sho•phᵊt•im) through the paired partnering of (as ) and Nᵊviy•im (as ) until the last of was vanquished in B.C.E. 586.

3174 (B.C.E. 586)

Without A

From B.C.E. 586, the position of could no longer be filled by a .

Not much is known about the leadership of the next link in the succession listed by the rabbis: in the time of ; Ëzᵊr•â (B.C.E. 409-359).

The , Hellenized to γερουσια, was led by Nᵊkhëm•yâh Bën-Kha•kha•lᵊyâh (probably of the tribe of , of -) as , and Ëzᵊr•â the -, as the .

In this body, for the first time, learned laymen—the origin of the , who first appear ca. B.C.E. 135—joined with , Lewiy•im and - in authoritatively interpreting and adjudicating in case law (Tor•âh shë-bikh•tâv). The result was a diluting of Hellenism and the Greek name, γερουσια consequently retreated to the Hebrew name .

This continued until B.C.E. 175.

3585 (B.C.E. 175)

Hellenization of to Συνεδριον

In B.C.E. 175, the last faithful to , Yᵊkhon•yâh Bën-Shim•on 2 - , was ousted by his rabidly Hellenist brother, "Yᵊho•shua Bën-Shim•on 2 - —who preferred the Hellenized name: "Ιασονας." That year, "Ιασονας" went to Syria and purchased from Αντιοχος the transferral of the position of from Yᵊkhon•yâh to himself in return for a large sum of money and in return for his promise to Hellenize the Jews – and Judaism" (see Kha•nukh•âh).

From B.C.E. 175, the schism between and Hellenist factions within the resulted in a schism between the anti-Hellenist min and the Hellenizing pseudo- min (which had already split from the original priestly who would later become known as Essenes and Qum•rân ).

The remained predominated and controlled by the Hellenizing pseudo-. By the time of the destruction of the in 70 C.E., it is clear that the had been controlled by the for 40 years (i.e., since 30 C.E., details and documentation below). It has always been disputed exactly when the balance of power tipped from the Hellenizing pseudo- to the .

3661 (B.C.E. 99)

Background B.C.E. 1st Century

Environment: Hellenist Roman, primarily Arab, Society

According to the Encarta Encyclopedia, the Greeks of Asia Minor, Hellenists, identified Mithra, the Persian sun-god, with Ηλιος. In many respects, Mithraism was the pattern later continued by these same Hellenists in forming Christianity; for example, in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at Mithra's birth, the adoption of Sungodday [displacing Shab•ât] and of December 25th (Mithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. ("Mithraism," Encarta '95).

The most important, and revolutionizing, source document discovered in the past 2 millennia, providing spectacular and unparalleled insight into 1st-century Judaism that overturns "traditional" assumptions, without which no Ph.D. or Professor of History correctly grasps 1st-century Judaism, is (4Q) MMT, by Prof. El•ish•a Qim•ron, Chairman of the Department of Hebrew Language at Ben-Gurion University of the Nëgëv in

3703 (B.C.E. 57)

Becomes Συνεδριον

According to Ιωσηπος, in B.C.E. 57, the Roman-Syrian (Arab) governor, Gabinus, divided the Holy Land into five Roman (primarily Arab) provinces, placing a Συνεδριον at the head of each. The Senate Assembly in had been purchased from the Roman-Syrian Arab governor back in B.C.E. 175 and from ca. B.C.E. 57 it became known as the Συνεδριον rather than .

It seems likely that, during this period, the Hellenizing domination of the Συνεδριον by the Hellenist pseudo- included their arrogation of the position of in addition to the .

Approaching 1st Century C.E.

Absolute Barrier Between Jews & Gentiles

The 1st-century Bat•ei ha-Kᵊnësët in which Ribi Yᵊho•shua taught also included non-Yᵊhud•im seeking to convert. Yet, it was forbidden by the rabbis for Yᵊhud•im even to socialize or eat with . Even the Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) recorded that the rabbis suspected Ribi Yᵊho•shua of violating this prohibition (Mark 2.13-17). Only necessary business and governmental dealings were permitted. During the 1st-century the Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT makes it crystal clear that religious Yᵊhud•im weren't permitted to mix with ordinary at all (see geir and Ency. Jud. 7.410-412). Thus, even meeting with a non-Jew to teach him or her , a prerequisite to learning and, therefore, a requirement for achieving ki•pur (and, therefore, a place in ha-O•lam ha•ba), was subject to great examination and criticism – creating the requirement that a proselyte attain the status of geir before proceeding. This need for a standard, rabbinically-acceptable, definition of proselyte, enabling non-Yᵊhud•im to meet with Yᵊhud•im for the purpose of – learning and converting, was the impetus for the Nᵊtzâr•im development of the Shëva mi•tzᵊw•ot associated by some modern rabbis with Bᵊn•ei-Noakh, defining the .

Moreover, it should be obvious that neither ordinary gentiles nor misojudaic Christians frequent, or would be permitted, in a Beit ha-Kᵊnësët.

Louis H. Feldman (The Omnipresence of the God-Fearers, Biblical Archeology Review, 86.09-10, pp. 58-69), combined with Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT, demonstrate that such a non-Jew was a proselyte—the Geir To•shâv—who had met the Nᵊtzâr•im-defined minimum threshhold requirement: the Shëva Mi•tzᵊw•ot Bᵊn•ei Noakh ("Seven Noakhide Laws"), and were thereafter in various stages of learning to implement non-selective -observance according to Ha•lâkh•âh. While this typically led to circumcision and conversion, this wasn‘t always the case. Some, prevented by marriage to a disinterested spouse (which would have resulted in an intermarriage) or medically prevented from circumcision, upon achieving the level of -observance required of converts, remained permanent non-Jewish geir•im—the Geir Tzëdëq.

We urge those who are committed to following the authentic Ribi Yᵊho•shua as the Mashiakh, whether Jew or non-Jew, to learn to become like the 1st-century halakhic Jew, the historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua.

3723 (B.C.E. 37)

Reign of Ηρωδης the Great (B.C.E. 37 – B.C.E. 4)

Herod Great (marble, israelemb.org)
Click to enlarge"Ηρωδης "the Great"

(marble, Herod Exhibition)

Although "Ηρωδης [the Great] considered himself the rightful king of [], … [he] was severe with [] and tortured and put to death anyone suspected of disloyalty, [while being] lenient with the [Hellenist Arabs] who inhabited the cities ceded to him by Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus." However, while his policy of placating [] while showing magnanimity toward the Hellenist Arabs kept him in control, "no matter how hard he tried to gain the good will of the [Hellenist Arabs] in his domain, he failed. They regarded him as a tyrant and looked upon him as one of the [], whose manners and ways of life differed greatly from theirs; they regarded [] as barbarians." (Zeitlin, p. 42).

By patronizing both sides, Hellenist Arabs and anti-Hellenist , in the end he was revered by neither. Only Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus seems to have been his genuine friend. Yet, Ηρωδης's syncretism, superficially patronizing both Hellenism and Judaism, was certainly the inspiration for Paul to produce the theology, Christianity, that would appeal to "Hellenist Jews" and Arabs (i.e., gentiles) fooled into believing that these two immiscible opposites could be homogenized into one theology.

3741 (B.C.E. 19)

Ηρωδης the Great Institutes Daily Sacrifices to Καισαρας
Gaius Octavius Caesar Augustus
Click to enlargeGaius Octavius Caesar Augustus (white marble 1st century ht 204cm Vatican Museum)

In B.C.E. 20-19, Ηρωδης the Great "ordered the people to take an oath of allegiance to himself and to Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus. It is probable that at this time, too, daily sacrifices for the welfare of the emperor and Rome were instituted in the . Both were an expression of subjugation" (Zeitlin, p. 43).

Those who refused to take the oath of allegiance were severely punished or put to death. But he made some exceptions…" (Zeitlin, p. 43). These included Hi•leil (Greek Pollion) and Shamai (Greek Samias), the Essenes and a group, numbering about 6,000 members, of Apocalyptic , who freely "prophesied" whatever would gain them political leverage (Zeitlin, p. 44-45). "They strongly opposed Ηρωδης [the Great], considering him a and not properly of the royal [Davidic] family. They resented subjugation to Rome in any form, believing that [] by supernatural power, would free []… Ηρωδης [the Great] imposed a fine on them" (Zeitlin, p. 44-45).

To mitigate the institution of the pledge of allegiance, Ηρωδης the Great "remitted a third of the exorbitant taxes… and turned his attention to… [enhancing] the " (Zeitlin, p. 45).

"Ιωσηπος says that when Ηρωδης [the Great] completed the [enhancement], the people were filled with joy and gave thanks to []. Ηρωδης [the Great] himself offered hundreds of oxen to God and others made similar offerings. It might seem that Shᵊlom•oh ha-•Mëlëkh and Zᵊru-Bâ•vël had established the precedent in this regard. [However, unlike Ηρωδης the Great, they were not Εd•om•im "strangers."] Ιωσηπος does not mention, and rabbinic literature does not refer to, consecration or dedication on the completion of Ηρωδης [the Great]'s [enhancement], as was the case in connection with the earlier ruler's celebrations. Moreover, during the Second Commonwealth the sages did not favor the offering of sacrifices to [], except such as were prescribed in []. It is questionable whether the spiritual leaders and the rank and file of the [] were happy over the [enhancement] that Ηρωδης [the Great] built. They knew from the Bible that [even] was not permitted to build a [ ] to [] because he was a warrior and had shed blood. Ηρωδης [the Great]'s hands were bloody, not only from the death of the enemies of [], but from many innocent [] as well. Thus, rabbinic literature makes reference to Ηρωδης [the Great]'s building, but never refers to it as a . The Tal•mud speaks about the First (of Shᵊlom•oh ha-•Mëlëkh) and the Second (of Zᵊru-Bâ•vël) but never refers to a Third —and this period is referred to only as the period of the Second . Ηρωδης [the Great]'s [enhancement] was beautiful, but, because it was built by Ηρωδης [the Great], the sages ignored it" (Zeitlin, p. 52).

3746 (B.C.E. 14)

King Agrippa I & Ηρωδης the Great

On the West Coast of Turkey

The local Diaspora complained against the majority Hellenist Turks, who were preventing them from keeping and from sending money to for the … [King] Agrippa [I] confirmed the right of the [ of the Turkish Diaspora] to live in accordance with the religious customs, and forbade the Hellenes (sic) to hinder the [] from sending money to for the . While [King] Agrippa [I] was in Asia, he issued other decrees favoring the [] of the Diaspora" (Zeitlin, p. 53). However, this also aggravated and intensified misojudaic sentiments among the Hellenists Turks and Arabs.

3750 (B.C.E. 10)

Ηρωδης the Great Builds Caesar's Place: Καισαρεια Σεβαστειον
Nucleus of Hellenization Destruction of 70 C.E.
Click to enlargeAncient Caesarea Harbor (photo, Univ. of Victoria article, British Columbia, Canada)

Καισαρεια Σεβαστειον would become the main deep-water port – and the cancerous epicenter of Hellenist idolators that would inexorably lead to the destruction of 70 C.E.

"[] had but one port on the Mediterranean, [Yapho]… [which] became increasingly inadequate… Ηρωδης [the Great] therefore decided to build a new harbor… [for which] he chose the village of Straton's Tower… [about 16 km / 10 mi.] south of Dor. He had materials assembled in the year [B.C.E.] 22 and the work begun in the year [B.C.E.] 20… Straton's Tower, hitherto an obscure village, was rebuilt into a magnificent city… Ηρωδης [the Great] built a theater and a temple of Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus, and in it he placed statues of Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus and Rome. The statue of the emperor was a replica of the Pheidian Zeus of Olympia… On the south side of the harbor he constructed an ampitheater for gladiatorial combats, [naked] athletic competitions and fights between wild beasts. [Ηρωδης the Great] renamed the city Καισαρεια Σεβαστειον in honor of Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus. On its completion, in the year [B.C.E.] 10, it became one of the most important ports of the eastern Mediterranean coast and the economic welfare of greatly prospered as a result." (Prof. Solomon Zeitlin), p. 40-41).

Keisariyah Promontory Palace
Click to enlargeΚαισαρεια Σεβαστειον – full name of ancient city; Caesar Augustus' Hellenist Temple (left), ancient Israel's sole deep sea harbor and commercial hub of the Middle East (center); chariot racing arena (right)

The dedication of the city was celebrated with great pomp and splendor. There were musical contests, [naked] athletic contests, horse racing and fights by gladiators with wild beasts… Everything was done on an elaborate scale on a par with what was to be seen in Rome. He arranged that Olympic Games be held at four-year intervals" (Zeitlin, p. 55).

"The celebration, with its pagan overtones, displeased the spiritual leaders of [], causing them to declare that [Καισαρεια Σεβαστειον] was legally outside the land of [], and that such gentile lands outside [] were in a state of ritual uncleanness… Not long after the dedication of [Καισαρεια Σεβαστειον], Ηρωδης [the Great] completed the construction of the various buildings of the . He then had a large golden eagle placed over the entrance of " (Zeitlin, p. 56).

3753 Thirdmonth 21

(B.C.E. 0007.05.29)

Birth of Ribi Yᵊho•shua

3756 (B.C.E. 4)

King Ηρωδης the Great Dies

Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus
From A Roman-Client Kingdom To An Εθναρχια
And Names Αρχελαος As Εθναρχης

It is clear that Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus recognized that, unless the two sides were mostly separated, the conflict between the and Hellenist (primarily Arab) gentiles would lead to a catastrophic clash, creating a weakness in the east of the empire that would invite invasion from the Parthians. Accordingly, in order to make the region of more homogeneous (and, thus, easier to control and avert the disaster), "[Gaius Octavius] Καισαρας [Augustus] detached a few cities populated by Hellenist [Arabs], making them independent of ." However, [Εd•om (Idumea)] and [the ] remained within the Εθναρχια—including , [Καισαρεια Σεβαστειον]. He also dismissed Joazar grandson of Boethus from the high priesthood" (Zeitlin, p. 134).

ca. 3765 (5 C.E.)

the Galilean

(12 year-old - Had Returned To Galilee From Egypt
The Previous Year, After the Death of Ηρωδης the Great)

led an uprising against Rome, proclaiming that paying tribute to Rome was a sin, tantamount to slavery (Zeitlin, p. 140). The Romans crushed the uprising and crucified 2,000 Jews—which Roman sympathizer and collaborator Ιωσηπος described as a mild Roman retaliative punishment.

3766 (6 C.E.)

Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus

Changes From An Εθναρχια To A Roman Province
And Names Knight Coponius As Procurator
Ιωσηπος: Is an Aristocracy Ruled By High Priests

After complaints of cruelty from both and , [Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus] deposed and exiled Αρχελαος, declared a Roman Province and named a Roman Knight, Coponius, as Procurator, responsible solely to Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus (Zeitlin, p. 137).

Procurator Coponius, having no national army, was dependent upon auxiliary forces consisting of soldiers of [Καισαρεια Σεβαστειον] (Zeitlin, p. 138).

"While Rome eradicated all political authority, the Romans also made it a practice not to disturb religious authorities and allowed them to retain certain civil powers. The sacerdos provinciae, the high priest, was the head of the province, holding office for one year" (Zeitlin, p. 139).

There were 3 essentials of Roman rule: tax, conscription and Roman law. Due to religious requirements, was exempted from both of the latter two (Zeitlin, p. 137) and balked at taxation. Understandably, from a gentile perspective, , even despite receiving special privileges over other Roman citizens, because of the centrality of the bᵊrit , still remained anti-social and bellicose—the origin of misojudaism, at its very core, has always been .

3774 (14 C.E.)

Death of Gaius Octavius Καισαρας Augustus


Succeeded By Τιβεριος Νερο

Appoints Valerius GratusProcurator

"There were no serious disturbances in during the time of Gratus" [14-26 C.E.] (Zeitlin, p. 141).

3780 (20 C.E.)

Take Control of the Συνεδριον

From B.C.E. mid-first century (based on my Chronology of the Tan"kh from the “Big Stretch-Apart”), the scenario that best fits the documented historical facts, including 4Q MMT and the Dead Sea Scrolls, seems to be:

In contrast to Hi•leil the , the Hellenist pseudo- saw Sha•mai the as a political minority (and, therefore, controllable) representative of the ascending min, who were gaining political ground (support among the populous).

Backing the minority leader in the Συνεδριον served to:

  1. pacify the min,

  2. split the min (pitting Beit Hi•leil against Beit Shamai) and

  3. provide the Hellenist pseudo- an opportunity to dump their main rival, the legitimate (later known as Essene or Qum•rân) , viz., Mᵊnakhëm .

This appears to have resulted in the gaining a foothold (or bigger foothold), ca. B.C.E. 50, in the Hellenist pseudo--controlled Συνεδριον.

Compounding the problems for each successive Hellenist of the pseudo-, their aristocratic pandering to the rich continued to become increasingly unpopular and alienated the Jewish populace. The parleyed all of this into the election, ca. 20 C.E., of as and apparent control of the (aka Συνεδριον).

1st-century Galil Boat
Click to enlargeDiscovered in Yâm Ki•nërët, this Gâ•lil-boat's length is 8.2 m., its width 2.3 m. and its depth 1.2 m. Apparently a fishing boat, the vessel was large enough to carry 15 people, including a crew of five. Carbon-14 tests confirmed that the boat was constructed and used between B.C.E. 100 and 70 C.E. (mfa.gov.il).

There remained in the , however, a powerful undercurrent of underhanded and corrupt, opposition in the form of each successive Hellenist of the pseudo-—who were zealous to stop at nothing to wield power and protect their wealth and positions as sycophants of their patron Hellenist Roman occupiers.

In the jumble of Hellenist (Greek) versus rabbinic ( Hebrew) sources during this period, little confidence can be derived from these sources indicating which office was won by the at this time. The consistent hints from the inception of the , however, suggest that the position won by the during this time was the office of —and traditionally held by a descendant of -. This has significant implications for the emerging of - at this time: !

The traditional office held by each successive Ko•hein (even the Hellenist of the pseudo-) likely continued to be .

3786 (26 C.E.)

Τιβεριος Νερο Appoints
Ποντιος Πιλατος Procurator

Tenure: 26-36 C.E.

"The new procurator was portrayed by his contemporary, Φιλων, and later by Ιωσηπος, as a man of greed, venality and cruelty, utterly lacking in human compassion. He resorted to robbery and oppression. Hence there were frequent clashes between the and Ποντιος Πιλατος" (Zeitlin, p. 142). These clashes resulted from a ham-fisted determination to impose his Hellenism on the .

Ποντιος Πιλατος began the construction of an aquaduct to bring a greater water supply to , which suffered periodic water shortages. To pay for this construction, he seized the funds from the sacred treasury… The protested strongly against this sacrilege… [Ποντιος Πιλατος] ordered his soldiers to garb themselves as civilians with their swords concealed under their clothing. When the persisted in their protestations, he signaled his army to attack them. A fearful slaughter ensued…" (Zeitlin, p. 143).

This was the state of the Hellenists vs conflict in which taught, "" began his tenure and Στεφανος was stoned.

3787 (27 C.E.)

The of All Time

This was the setting in 27 C.E. when was becoming famous as the foremost (for which, see The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhu (NHM).

3790 (30 C.E.)

Trial of
Hellenizing pseudo- Συνεδριον

Even the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) corroborates that, at the trial of in 30 C.E., a Συνεδριον (certainly not the "Great Συνεδριον) was predominated by Hellenizing pseudo-—whose leaders, Ανανιας and his son-in-law (also of the House of ) Καιαφας, were Hellenizing pseudo-.

The very name, Συνεδριον, a Hellenist Greek term, testifies to the Hellenization of the body by the Hellenizing pseudo- in contrast to the intensely anti-Hellenist . Yet, as noted above, the was predominated by the since 20 C.E. Clearly, the Συνεδριον conducting the trial against —which convened at night and during a Khag (both prohibited by Ha•lâkh•âh)—was a lower Συνεδριον.

Tal•mud (Ma•sëkët Pᵊsâkh•im 57a) included this priestly house in its list of families: "Woe is me because of the house of [which included his son-in-law, Καιαφας], woe is me because of their whisperings."

"Roman power appointed the [Hellenist of the pseudo-] who was in charge of the religious sites of [Judea]. And [the , like the Essene " " before him,] openly denounced these [Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι ] priests, so much is known. This indirect threat to Roman power, together with the Roman perception that was claiming to be the 'King of the Jews', was the reason for his condemnation.).

Accounts in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) document that the Συνεδριον that convicted violated several legal requirements of a legitimate trial set forth in Ma•sëk′ ët Sunedrion 4.1 and 5.2:

While some scholars have asserted that Jews could not carry out the death penalty, the death penalty for blasphemy was stoning. Crucifixion was a Roman punishment for political crimes. Moreover, Jews most certainly could, and did, carry out the death penalty for blasphemy: witness the stoning of Στεφανος only about 4 years later!!! Even during his own lifetime, intervened in a stoning of an alleged adulteress.

The criticism of secret conclave "whisperings" in Tal•mud is consistent with the secret night convening of the Hellenizing pseudo- min of the Συνεδριον.

Found: The Upheaval That The Church Erased

The entire premise that Jesus saved goy•im rather than Jews was predicated on the first-order quintessential Christian doctrine that "God" had rejected the Jewsbecause the Jews had first rejected "God," in the person (man-god) of the Lord Jesus" and, consequently, God had "chosen" the goy•im to displace "the rejected Jews"—"the Jews" thereby having "made themselves enemies of God" and, therefore, "servants of Sâ•tân and enemies of the Church"—Christians thereby exclusively inheriting "the covenant," thereby displacing the rejected Jews as the "True Chosen Israel."

Only then does it follow that the salvation of Jesus was, as a result, given to Christian goy•im instead.

Thus, blaming the "the Jews" for "rejecting the Lord Jesus" was absolutely essential to Christian salvation and theology: without "the Jews" rejecting Jesus, there could be no transferral of Judaic to the Hellenist goy•im "personal salvation"!

This unavoidable fabricated thread from which ALL Christianity, and the "pesonal salvation" of EVERY Christian dangles, is what, despite all attempts to make nice-nice, always, inexorably, brings Christianity back to its existential misojudaisc root: the Displacement Theology without which Christianity is patently invalid.

Displacement Theology can be glossed over but never renounced without invalidating Christianity. Thus, Christian Displacement Theology, with its unavoidable misojudaism, is irremediable without invalidating Christianity ideologically, at its very core. Reconciliation between Christianity and Judaism is intractably impossible because Judaism, unless it is declared false (as Christianity holds), invalidates Christianity (transferral of covenant and salvation)—and false Judaism is clearly the enemy of God, therefore…


  1. the rejection of the Συνεδριον that had executed (documented below),

  2. the opposition to the Συνεδριον that continued to persecute the original Jewish followers of Hellenists persecuting that Christians turn on its head to claim that this was Jews persecuting Christians!!!

  3. the defense of the followers of in the Συνεδριον and (as documented by Ιωσηπος) even against the gentile (primarily Italian and Arab) Romans!!!

ALL contradicted, and militate against, the post-135 C.E. gentile, primarily Italian and Arab, Hellenist Roman Christian premise that "the Jews" had rejected (and vice-versa). The had not rejected their own . These inconvenient facts constituted existential contradictions of Christianity and the Church, which had to be redacted out of their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)—erased from Christian history. But the Judaic literatureretains the evidence to piece it back together.

Rejection of the illegitimate Συνεδριον of the of the Hellenist pseudo- by Israel/Jewswho were demonstrating sympathy to incontrovertibly contradicted and invalidated the Christian claim that "the Jews" had rejected him! Jews sympathetic to , proving the Church's lie, was unacceptable to the Church. Thus, the event had to be erased—redacted—from Christian-controlled history.

Pseudo- Allege Threat to Herod Antipas As "King of the Jews"

As a result, the trial of also presents us with the most likely reason for the shattering schism in the Συνεδριον precisely at the time—and, obviously, as a result—of this conviction, by the Hellenizing pseudo-, of a , carried out behind the backs of the and, thereby, betraying the in a political power play – pushing Herod Antipas' "hot button" by alleging that Ribi Yᵊho•shua had designs on Herod Antipas' claimed legacy as "King of the Jews" – designed to enable the Hellenizing pseudo- to crush and dominate the ascendant and end the threat of a Jewish revolt against their Hellenist Roman, primarily Arab, patrons. Thus, the Hellenizing pseudo- were desperate, since a successful revolt against their Italian and Arab Hellenist Roman-occupier patrons would unseat them, accompanied by the demise of their Hellenized "Temple"–their raison d'être–in 30 C.E. Nevertheless, by 67 C.E. they could no longer forestall the rebellion.

This is the inescapable core of misojudaism (misdefined as "antisemitism"). No nice words from any pope, seminarian or evangelist can alter these dynamics. That wishful thinking is pure Jewish self-delusion. The only alternative for Jews is to show that Christianity IS false and invalid.

Death of Shamai

(ca. 30 C.E.)

The Revolution

Συνεδριον Exiles Itself From the Hellenized

Any suggestion that the internal break-up of the Συνεδριον occurred the same year as, yet was unrelated to, the greatest event ever to shape history, is laughably absurd. The only intelligent question is what that connection was.

Mi•shᵊn•ëh Tor•âh Ramba''m
Mishneh Torah Rambam, autograph, cursive Sephardic, Cairo Genizah
Click to enlargeMi•shᵊn•ëh Tor•âh, Ram•ba"m autograph, (cursive Sephardic), Cairo Gᵊniz•âh

In his Mi•shᵊn•ëh Tor•âh (Sanhedrin 14.13), Ramba''m observed (translation follows):

, ; , . , . , ; , . , .

(12 In the beginning, when the was built, the would convene in the that was in the . And the place in which they convened was khol, for there is no convening in this court except for the Royalty of -.

And when the succession broke down, they exiled themselves from place to place. They exiled themselves to ten places, the last of them being Τιβεριας. From then on, the ceased to convene until now. It is accepted that they are destined to return first to Τιβεριας and from there they will relocate to the .)

, , , .

(13. Forty years before the destruction of the second (Note: exactly 30 C.E.!!!), adjudications of capital punishment cases ceased from Israel, even though the still existed, because the Συνεδριον exiled themselves, and none [convened] in their place there in the .)

, -- , : , .

(14 While capital punishment cases are adjudicated in , similarly, capital punishment cases are adjudicated the same way outside of -- viz., the Συνεδριον will be based in , as we have explained: the Συνεδριον directs [both] in hâ-Ârëtz and outside of hâ-Ârëtz.)

Ramba''m properly reasoned his conclusions from Tal•mud:

How did the original meaning morph from "gracious room" to today's meaning of a commercial "store" or "shop" of business? The connotation of "store" is more easily seen, since a store (storage area) can be either charitable or commercial. We seem to find here, during the lifetime of , the first documented usage (coining) of the term to refer to the commercialization, by the shady-dealing, money-oriented, profiteering first-century C.E. (Ανανιας) family of Hellenist of the pseudo-, having turned their "gracious chamber"——which was where the Συνεδριον convened following their exile from the , into a commercial store or shop. This was also likely a significant element of that to which objected: turning the into a of business and a den of thieves. thereafter stuck as meaning a commercial shop or store.

Note that the son-in-law of the high priest Ανανιας was Καιαφας.

Tal•mud Ma•sëkët Rosh ha-Shân•âh 31a-b (English translation follows):

" ( )

( ) [ ]

( )

( )

( ) '

( ) '

( )

( ) '

( ) '

( ) '

( )

( ) '

" ( )

[ , ] ( )

•mar Rav Yᵊhud•âh Bar-Idi, a[mar]"R[av] Yokhanan, by ten journeys journeyed the Biblical Shᵊkhin•âh and, correspondingly, the Συνεδριον exiled herself. From the Gᵊmâr•â, the Biblical Shᵊkhin•âh journeyed ten journeys:

  1. from the Ka•porët (symbolizing the spiritual realm) to the [first] Kᵊruv (symbol of the spiritual nexus),

  2. from the Kᵊruv (first=spiritual nexus) to [the other] Kᵊruv (=physical nexus),

  3. from the Kᵊruv [outward] to the threshold [of the Qodësh ha-Qâ•dâsh•im],

  4. from the threshold to the [inner] Court [of ],

  5. from the [inner] Court [of ] to the Miz•beiakh,

  6. from the Miz•beiakh to the roof [of the ],

  7. from the roof [of the ] to the wall,

  8. from the wall to the City [of ],

  9. from the City [of ] to the Mount [of Olives],

  10. from the Mount [of Olives] to the mi•dᵊbar She ascended and convened in Her Place; as it is said (Ho•sheia 5 [.15]), "I will go; I will return to My Place…"

From the Ka•porët to the Kᵊruv and from the Kᵊruv to the threshold, as it is written (Shᵊm•ot 25[.22]), "And I will make My appointments… with you from above the Ka•porët."

And it is written (Shᵊmu•eil Beit 22[.11]), "and He rode a Kᵊruv and flew."

And it is written (Yᵊkhëz•qeil 9[.3]), "Then the kâ•vod of the Ël•oh•im of went up from over the Kᵊruv, where it had been over [the Kᵊruv], to the threshold of the House, and from the threshold to the [inner] Court [of ]."

As it is written (Yᵊkhëz•qeil 10[.4]), "… and the House was filled with the Cloud, and the Brightness of the Kâ•vod -- filled from the [inner] Court [of ] to the Miz•beiakh."

As it is written (•mos 9.1), "From the [inner] Court [of ] to the Miz•beiakh, as it is written, "I saw A•don•ai standing on the Miz•beiakh."

And from the Miz•beiakh to the roof, as it is written (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlomoh 21[.9]), "Better to dwell on a corner of a roof…" [than with a contentious woman, that woman being contentious ].

From the roof to the wall as it is written (•mos 7[.7]), "Behold, A•don•ai is stationed on a plumbed wall…"

From the wall to the City as it is written (Mikh•âh 6[.9]), "The Voice of -- shall call to the City…"

And from the City to the Mount [of Olives] as it is written (Yᵊkhëz•qeil 11[.23]), "Then the Kâ•vod -- ascended from over the midst of the City, and stood over the Mount which is east of the City."

Then from the Mount [of Olives] to the mi•dᵊbar as it is written (Mi•shᵊl•ei Shᵊlom•oh′  21[.19]), "Better to dwell in mi•dᵊbar land…" [than with a contentious woman, that contentious woman being ].

Then from the mi•dᵊbar She ascended and settled in Her Place as it is written (Ho•sheia 5 [.15]), "I will go; I will return to My Place…" etc.

•mar R[av] Yokhâ•nân, six months the Shᵊkhin•âh tarried for in the mi•dᵊbar in the hope that they would return [tᵊshuv•âh]. When they did not return [tᵊshuv•âh], He said, . As it is written (I•yov 11[.20]), "Then the eyes of the wicked ones shall be finished and escape shall be lost from them; and their hope [shall become] -.

Correspondingly, the Συνεδριον exiled herself. Gᵊmâr•â:

Click to enlargeΤιβεριας

Viewed looking North along SW shore of Yâm Ki•nërët (© 1983 Yirmeyahu Ben-David)

  1. From the to the ,

  2. from the to ,

  3. from to Yavnëh,

  4. from Yavnëh to Usha,

  5. from Usha returned to Yavnëh,

  6. from Yavnëh returned to Usha,

  7. from Usha to Shᵊphar•im,

  8. from Shᵊphar•im to Beit Shᵊar•im,

  9. from Beit Shᵊar•im to Tzi•por•i (Sepphoris)

  10. from Tzi•por•i to Τιβεριας;

and Τιβεριας is the lowest [both topographically low and spiritually Hellenized] of all of them. As it says (Yᵊsha•yâhu 29[.4]): "Then you will sink to the bottom and speak from the land…"

Judaism Fixed ca. 30 C.E.
Rabbinic (Orthodox)

Primarily under the influence of the 2nd century C.E. (Rashb"i), this fixed the principles of rabbinic Judaism, preserved until today by the Tei•mân•im. (The Tei•mân•im chant a song commemorating Bar Yo•khai each evening during the counting of the Omër. As a point of information, however, neither Ramba''m nor the Tei•mân•im in his time, accepted the specious claim of Kabbalists that Bar Yo•khai authored the Zo•har, an apostasy that was never even conceived until the 14th century C.E., or had any connection to Qa•bâl•âh—which wasn't even conceived until more than a millennium after his death.

The Judaism described in the fifth century C.E. Tal•mud faithfully reflects the same tradition as taught it in 30 C.E. and Mosh•ëh taught at Har Sin•ai.

3791 (31 C.E.)

"" - -

Original ‭ ‬ (31-62 C.E.)

The earliest εκκλησια historian was a post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Hellenist (i.e., Catholic) named Ηγησιππος, who certainly regarded "" - as the original and authentic Jewish (not a Roman gentile επισκοπος) – and headquartered in , not Ρωμη (H.J. Lawlor, 'Eusebiana, Essays on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus,' ca. 120-180 C.E., p. 16-17).

According to Ηγησιππος (whose writings are no longer extant, but as reported by the earliest extant εκκλησια historian, Ευσεβιος), "And after "" -[ had testified [i.e., served as … then] , "" -, was appointed , because he was a cousin of the κυριος.

Through this [time] they called the congregation virgin: for it was wasn't yet corrupted by heresies. (According to Ιωσηπος, "" - was murdered in 62 C.E. (Ant. xx, ix, 1 and Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision : Franciscan Printing Press 1971, p. 6-7).

Thus, the earliest extant Χριστιανος historian, Ηγησιππος, verified that "" - and the were the only, undisputed, authentic, and original followers of historical ; and that they retained their pristineness until 62 C.E.—exactly the time that the Σαδδουκαιοι , Ανανιας, murdered "" and the and other began to be apostatized by Hellenists—who attempted to discredit the original .

Unsurprisingly, εκκλησια επισκοποί "historians" refused to record anything overtly Judaic about the during the supposed transition from the pro-, ‭ ‬ of 62 C.E. to the anti- gentile Hellenist Χριστιανοί subsequent to 135 C.E. Precisely during this critical period between 62 and 135 C.E. is when the apostasy of 666 occurred. That's because the 666 occurred and was cryptically identified—the Hellenizing apostasy and displacement theology of Στεφανος and Παυλος that culminated in the forcible ouster and expulsion, in 135 C.E., of the pro- ‭ ‬ 15th of the , namely "", displacing him with the first Hellenist (antinomian = anti- = misojudaic) Roman gentile επισκοποί of Χριστιανοί and the εκκλησια!

30-99 C.E. – Go To Page
 Previous   1   2   3   4   Next 

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic