Home (Netzarim Logo)
Sukah Vav (Hut, Booth or Exhibit #6)

2nd Century C.E.

Hadrian
Hadrian (117-138 C.E.)

100 C.E.

At the turn of the century, Trajan continued to be occupied by external threats from the north until 106 C.E. when he finally subjugated the area north of the Danube.

"In 113, Trajan began preparations for a decisive war against Parthia [roughly, today's Iraq and Iran]… In 114 he attacked the enemy through Armenia and then, over three more years, turned east and south, passing through Mesopotamia and taking Babylon and the capital of Ctesiphon. He then is said to have reached the Persian Gulf… The territories, however, which had been handily won, were much more difficult to hold. Uprisings among the conquered peoples, and particularly among the Yᵊhud•im in [Judea] and the Diaspora, caused him to gradually resign Roman rule over these newly-established provinces as he returned westward. The revolts were brutally suppressed. In mid 117, Trajan, now a sick man, was slowly returning to Italy, having left Hadrian in command in the east, when he died in Selinus of Cilicia, [117.08.09], having designated Hadrian as his successor while on his death bed" (roman-emperors.org).

117-138 C.E. – Hadrian

"First of all, he had to quash the Jewish uprising which had begun under Trajan and spread throughout the diaspora. Then there were disturbances in Mauretania, Dacia, and in northern Britain. Late in his reign, after deciding to resettle the site of as the city of [lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil] Aelia Capitolina and build a temple to the Roman idol Jupiter ( Hellenist idol Zeus) on the site of the Jewish [Hellenized] Temple, another uprising occurred, more bitter still than its recent predecessor" (roman-emperors.org)

135 C.E.

See "Birth of Christianity" Section (in panel above)
Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's anti-Caesar, Hellenist, Misojudaic Χριστιανοι
vs
1st-2nd Century C.E. Rabbinic Pharisee Judaism
(which included Ribi Yᵊho•shua and the Nᵊtzâr•im)
Biblical Judaism / Second Temple Judaism, Historical Ribi Yehoshua, and his Netzarim followers ALWAYS mutually exclusive from Khristianoi; no point of convergence or transition (chart)
Click to enlargeJudaism-Christian Timeline

To clarify a widespread misconception: modern rabbis regard Yᵊhud•im who practice Buddhism or other religions alien to Judaism as Yᵊhud•im. By Biblical standards, however, they have breached the bᵊrit and -- has excised them from .

Just as Yᵊhud•im practicing Buddhism doesn't transform Buddhism into a valid branch of Judaism, so, too, Yᵊhud•im who adopt the Hellenist practice of selectively syncretizing non- (e.g., Christian) doctrines, rituals or music are not practicing Judaism.

Further, those who practice selectivity concerning which parts of they choose to keep are no less practicing selective rejection of those remaining parts of they are choosing not to keep.

is an indivisible whole. One does his or her utmost to keep all of as an indivisible—perfect—whole or one is constructively rejecting the indivisible whole—perfectness—of . One who rejects even one mi•tzᵊwâh of is rejecting in its a wholeness; i.e., (s)he rejects the whole of . Christians (and some Yᵊhud•im) who boast they keep while practicing selective observance are not keeping ; they are rejecting —and it is not Judaism.

This Hellenist (later Christian) syncretism of idolatry and selective rejection of was prohibited by the Beit Din -Jâ•dol, as demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT. The Nᵊtzâr•im originated this Ha•lâkh•âh (excising Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer), which was confirmed by the Beit Din -Jâ•dol. Christianity was never a valid branch of Judaism.

Displacement Theology

Christian claims of Supersession
How Translations Were Perverted

The orientation of the Mâ•shiakh derives from Ta•na"kh. In Yᵊsha•yâhu 42:6, we find this orientation: the Mâ•shiakh would be . This is demonstrated by the context in Yᵊsha•yâhu 42 to mean Yᵊhud•im in the Tᵊphutz•âh—illuminating for (i.e., among) the , not a Light focused on the , certainly not instead of, Displacement Theology bypassing Yᵊhud•im.

in v. 1 is widely acknowledged to refer to the Mâ•shiakh (cf., for example, the note in the Artscroll Stone Ta•na"kh, Tar•gum). Later in verse 1, Yᵊsha•yâhu stipulates that ! In other words, the Mâ•shiakh would extend to the – extending the authority of the Beit Din to adjudicate mi•shᵊpât .

Verse 4 clarifies that the Mâ•shiakh will establish mi•shᵊpât in -Ârëtz; and (a metonym for the Tᵊphutz•âh) will yearn for His .

Yᵊsha•yâhu 60.3 and Zᵊkhar•yâh 8.23 both show that must come to the Light, not the Light instead shift its focus from Yᵊhud•im to (i.e., supersession and Displacement Theology).

Speaking to a crowd of Yᵊhud•im in the Gâ•lil—then part of the Tᵊphutz•âhRibi Yᵊho•shua also affirmed (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 5.14-16): – you, the audience of -keeping Yᵊhud•im, are the light in the world. (Notice, too, that he did not say or "a Christian church of gentiles will be the light.")

When Yᵊhud•im keep properly, then Yᵊhud•im, bearing the Light of , illuminate – first, the Yᵊhud•im in the Tᵊphutz•âh (i.e., among the ), who, in turn, cause the of the Tᵊphutz•âh to yearn for , as prophesied. (The converse rule is also valid: when the don't yearn for , it is because Yᵊhud•im aren't being the Light, keeping properly, to illuminate them.)

Corroboratively, it is , not , whom Yᵊsha•yâhu describes (9.1) as those " " – the pogroms, Inquisition, persecutions, Holocaust, et al. These are the ones " ."

Everything in is 100% consistent in conferring the bᵊrit•ot, exclusively, upon Yᵊhud•im (and ) – never upon who, by definition, reject (the bᵊrit•ot).

never extends the bᵊritot of to include or embrace . To the exact contrary, strictly requires Yᵊhud•im (and geir•im) to maintain Hav•dâl•âh between Qodësh (as defined by : viz., Yᵊhud•im and geir•im) and khol (i.e., all and all of their religious accouterments).

Everything in declares the polar antithesis precluding the Christian redirection – via their syncretized (Hellenized) antinomian Christ – "to the gentiles."

Ever since, this has, necessarily, been espoused by Christian supersessionism and Displacement Theology because, if Christians acknowledge that Ta•na"kh remains valid and true, then continues to validate Yᵊhud•im – and Dᵊvâr•im 13.1-6 invalidates Christianity!!!

This is why Christians had no choice but to claim that their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) superseded the (Hellenized) "OT".

The 2nd-4th century C.E. gentile Roman Hellenist Christian Church perverted ‭ ‬ 180°, even superseding and Displacing with their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and Yᵊhud•im with gentiles.

Still, these original Christians managed to convince the Roman Empire—and much of the modern world—to believe their post-135 C.E.-redacted apostasy.

Here's How It Happened

-- Caused A Megadrought
(124 C.E. – 210 C.E.)

All of the events dating between 124 C.E. – 210 C.E. occurred within the background of almost a century of dry climatic conditions, including a half-century megadrought. The increasingly catastrophic megadrought increasingly depleted all economies of their ability to function and maintain public order in an increasingly chaotic world.

Hellenist Romans Lose Faith in Zeus & Pantheon

The megadrought not only led to the Dark Ages and spurred uprisings across the entire region of Europe and the Middle East, it emptied public faith in their increasingly transparently feckless Hellenist pantheon of gods – which they blamed for the unprecedented and unending cataclysm.

This provided a religious vacuum among the , fertile ground for promoting the idea of the Hellenist Roman Christians to incorporate their Hellenist Roman-redacted, make-over vision of "Jesus" grown like a living organ on the scaffolding of their native and familiar Zeus, into their native Hellenist pantheon.

All that then remained was for these original Christians to make a pretend distinction from the "feckless" Zeus and his pantheon – which Roman Hellenists already blamed for the seemingly endless cataclysm of the megadrought.

135 C.E. – Birth of the Christian Church

First, the Hellenist Roman-occupiers forcibly expelled all Yᵊhud•im from Yᵊru•shâ•layim, thereby displacing the innate authority of the Yᵊhud•im ha-Nᵊtzâr•im and our Beit Din, arrogating that authority to the office of Hellenist επισκοποςthe birth of the Christian Church.

From Its Inception

The Church's Ineradicable Chasm – Ha•vᵊdâl•âh

Thereafter, the Christian founders, being gentile and Hellenist Romans, in addition to being occupying rulers, freely syncretized and morphed the surrounding Roman and Greek mythologies (idolatry) that were familiar to them. Their only serious problem was the impossible chasm between them and the Pᵊrush•im Yᵊhud•im… and Judaism. This they partially solved, among the gentiles and few Hellenist Yᵊhud•im of their fledgling church, easily, because the Romans were utterly ignorant of Hebrew. Translating—and interpreting and redacting—it into Greek enabled them, as far as Christianity was concerned, to bury Judaic Hebrew, superseding it with their gentile Hellenist Greek.

Finally, the 180° reorientation from to antinomian Hellenism and their brand new, 4th century C.E. Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) being secured, they reoriented from the "Holy City" of the Yᵊhud•im, , to the "holy city" of their idolatrous pantheonRome. These 180° reorientations, however, required an authority Christians lacked (see "30-99 C.E." section in panel above). By the 3rd-century C.E., this need had became so unavoidable that Hegesippus was forced to ἐποιησάμην (fabricate!) a succession of (non-existent) Επισκοπος ("popes") in Rome (see "Fabrication of Popes" section in panel above) to accompany the claim that Rome, the "Holy City" of Zeus (aka Jupiter) and an array of Hellenist idols, had always been the "Holy City" of the Church.

Having completed the apostasy of supposedly transferring authority from Yᵊhud•im to Hellenist (Greek-speaking) gentile Christians, the "Holy City" from to the seat of idolatry and Sâ•tânRome, and no longer restricted by Judaic interpretations of millennia, they began freely redacting the stories that circulated in Greek among Hellenist Yᵊhud•im, compiling their Greek Hellenist-Christian Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) from their Hellenist and gentile perspective.

The Switch

The trick consisted of subtle morphings in the connotations of two closely associated Greek words, ελλενης and εθνος, that were pivotal in their accreting Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) – from their original meanings ("Hellenist Jews" and "in the Diaspora") to, instead, both mean simply "gentile." Pointing these two connotations 180° opposite, from Jews to gentiles, they then creatively reinterpreted a convenient Greek grammar form that can be either locative, dative or instrumental from the original Hebrew connotation (which corresponded to the locative), "among the goyim" – referring to Jews, not gentiles, in the Diaspora, to the dative case: "to the gentiles"! Thus, the 2nd-4th century Christian fathers interposed "gentiles" as the beneficiaries to their nascent Christian audience.

The original meaning had previously been either "[Yᵊhud•im] among the ," i.e., in the Diaspora, or "Hellenist Yᵊhud•im" (of the Diaspora) had been particularly obvious to the Jewish audience under occupation by Hellenists and whose Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh had been Hellenized by Tzᵊdoq•im Ko•han•ei -Rësha. By this combination of creative translation deceptions, the gentile Roman Christian Church founders displaced the Yᵊhud•im in their accreting Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).

Roman Christians Inaugurate The Dark Ages

Ergo, only Judaic Source Mss. Valid For "Black Hole"
(Not 4th-Century Quotes of Christian sources)
"Apostles," Scriptural promises & salvation to whom?
DefinitionMorphed From Judaic Original:To: Greek Translated For
Hellenist Gentiles Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)
ελλενης"Hellenist" – especially (as used in the 1st century Jewish community) Yᵊhud•im who had assimilated into the Roman-Greek culture and languageHellenist Yᵊhud•im"gentiles" or
"Greeks"
εθνος"people" – corresponds to the Hebrew term [Yᵊhud•im] "among the "
[Yᵊhud•im] "in the Diaspora"
(Greek locative for Hebrew ; among the ; i.e., in the Diaspora)
"to the gentiles"
(assumed Greek dative)
Ελλενης, and derivatives:

Interestingly, neither the term ελλενης, nor any of its cognates, are found, at all, in (NHM) —the only account of the life of RibꞋ i Yᵊho•shuꞋ a accepted by his original Jewish followers – who refused the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) as an apostasy! (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. III.xxvii.4-6)

Ελλην are Hellenists—whether Jew, Arab, African or Greek; not "Greeks" or "gentiles" as rendered in the Greco-Roman Hellenists' Διαθηκη Καινη (NT). Jn. 7.35 even specifies it: εις την διασποραν των Ελληνων. The occupiers were Hellenist Romans ruling with the collaboration of Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ  "Wicked Priests" who controlled the "Temple," not "Greeks." See also Acts 14.1; 16.1, 3; 17.4; 20.21; 21.28; III Paul 2.3; 3.28; IV Paul 1.22-24; 10.32; 12.13; VI Paul 1.16; 2.9-10; 10.12, 35 et al.

Greek Warning from Beit ha-Miqdash Soreg: 'allogenæs (Gentiles) No Closer'

Even a superficial examination will disclose that ελλενης refers to the Hellenists, and any good encyclopedia, or even a good dictionary, will confirm that Hellenists referred to assimilated (i.e., apostate) Yᵊhud•im, not gentiles, for which Yᵊhud•im used the term —for which the Greek, as documented on the inscription warning "gentiles" to advance no closer to the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, used the word ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗΣ!

Every instance in which ελλενης is found in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), all 34 instances where it is mistranslated either as "gentile" or "Greek," refers not to gentiles at all but to apostate Hellenist Yᵊhud•im who are being admonished to return to observance!




Εθνος and derivatives:

Εθνος and derivatives: mean "people."

In the earliest extant source documents, the phrase in the Christian book of "St. Matthew," which Christians translate as "to the gentiles," is τοις εθνεσιν.

Τοις εθνεσιν is identical in the locative, dative and instrumental cases:

  1. locative (in / among the peoples, i.e., "in the Tᵊphutz•âh"),

  2. dative (to / for the peoples) or

  3. instrumental (with / by the peoples).

Εθνος is used in the phrase εις τα εθνη – among, in(to) the peoples, not dative nor instrumental – i.e., "in the Diaspora"; cf. Mk. 13.10; Lu. 24.47; Acts 13.46; 18.6; 21.19, 21; et al.)

Because Displacement Theology, and its dependent Christianity, would unavoidably fall without it, Christian translators have always assumed the dative ("to or for the peoples") was "obvious." Intent of the writer, however, is gauged by the understandings of the original audience concerning usage and context, not the preinclination of foreigner occupiers and usurpers centuries later.

Consider even the Christian book of Acts, 16.23 and 28.28. Acts 15.23 speaks of Yᵊhud•im who are "brothers from out of the " – i.e., Tᵊphutz•âh. In Acts 2.5, Εθνος is clearly Yᵊhud•im of the Tᵊphutz•âh. Acts 9.15 reads ενωπιον εθνων – in the sight of the – in contrast with Ërëtz Yi•sᵊrâ•eil; again, explicitly describing Yᵊhud•im of the Tᵊphutz•âh. Acts 11.18 describes Εθνος making tᵊshuv•âh, a clear reference to Yᵊhud•im in the Tᵊphutz•âh contrasted with who cannot return to a -observance that they've never before known! Cf. also Acts 15.23.



Indisputable proof is even found with Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, who used this same phrase when declaring that he would go forth "into the Tᵊphutz•âh"—and is next found in a Beit ha-Kᵊnësët (not a church!) in the Tᵊphutz•âh among Yᵊhud•im!!! He hadn't gone "to the gentiles"!!! (Gentiles attended Roman temples of Zeus, not Jewish Bat•ei ha-Kᵊnësët.)



There is only one other term in the entire Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) that may be translated as gentile (below).



Therefore, just like ελλενης, every instance of Εθνος in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) that is asserted to speak or make a promise to/for gentiles refers not to/for gentiles. Rather, these are teachings and promises to a Jewish, not Hellenist or gentile, audience for Yᵊhud•im (including Hellenists) living in the Tᵊphutz•âh—"among the peoples"!

The primary emphasis always remains upon "Yᵊhud•im in the Tᵊphutz•âh," only thereafter spilling over to illuminate the (NHM 15.27). None imply a different, contra- (antinomian), "gospel" which would be directly "to the ," shunting the prophesied priestly function of the Yᵊhud•im (Shᵊm•ot 19.6; Zᵊkhar•yâh 8.23; et al.).

When Ελλην and Εθνος are properly rendered, there is no reference to gentiles in the entire Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) whatsoever – except one lone exception. The only instance of αλλογενης in the entire Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)—is Lu. 17:18, where it refers to an 'almost Jew'—a Shom•ron-ian (Samaritan) ostensibly a Hellenized remnant of the Ten Lost Tribes!



It is clearly documented that neither Ribi Yᵊho•shua nor the Nᵊtzâr•im ever advocated the Christian doctrine of Christian claims of supersession and Displacement Theology. Even more shocking to many, Displacement Theology was inaugurated by subverting Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) terms which originally referred to Yᵊhud•im!!! They were "spun" by Romans to insert gentiles and displace Yᵊhud•im.

Shockingly, and contrary to what the church has taught that you are to accept "on faith," that leaves a grand total—in the original language and extant sources—of NO legitimate references whatsoever anywhere in the entire Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) which addresses gentiles generally!

While the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) refers to one or two geir•im, the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) says nothing, and promises nothing—whatsoever, to "gentiles" generally! (Think about what Ta•na"kh says about the !) The only proper reference to a gentile per se is the archaeologically proven term, engraved in stone, to warn gentiles to come no closer to the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshαλλογενης.

Therefore, every instance in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) which is asserted to address or make a promise to/for gentiles refers not to gentiles, but to Yᵊhud•im living in the Tᵊphutz•âh (diaspora)—"among the peoples"!

-- promised the legacy of — from Av•râ•hâm, Yi•tzᵊkhâq and to Har Sin•ai, the Nᵊviy•im and Dâ•wid ha-Mëlëkhexclusively to Yᵊhud•im, forever, and He does not break His promises. It should always have been logically obvious to anyone that, when the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) contradicts a promise of -- it cannot be true—and nothing is more contradictory to than the Christian doctrines of supersession and Displacement Theology. The only message legitimately in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) for gentiles per se is to become geir•im to (not pretend Christian pseudo-Judaism, which merely comprises apostate Yᵊhud•im practicing Christian Displacement Theology and selective observance/rejection).

Truth is the kindest medicine

We would be doing Christians no favor, in a misguided effort to avoid appearing offensive, by overlooking Christianity's continuing, post-135 CE usurpation of the authentic 1st century teachings of Ribi Yᵊho•shua (with supersession of Hellenism and displacement theology), of the Nᵊtzâr•im (with the gentile Church) and the Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid (with the "pope"). Like a doctor prescribing an unpleasant remedy for some fatal illness, it is in the Spirit of Holiness and concern for you that we give you the opportunity to see for yourself that your hope is in turning to , which can only be achieved after rejecting Christianity, and obtain ki•pur. is crystal clear about the future of the . There can be no teaching in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) to/for , no promise (messianic, covenantal or other) to/for , and no atonement, forgiveness, salvation, "rapture" or portion in heaven to/for ! Turn to .

The meaning of the concepts that the earliest Christians Hellenized (redacted) into the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) perverted the original Hebrew and Judaic context. To reinforce their budding gentile-centered Displacement Theology, Romans found it necessary to contradict both the entire background of 1st-century Judaism, and Ribi Yᵊho•shua's teaching in NHM 10.5, by perverting the ambiguous Greek τοις εθνεσιν from the originally intended locative—speaking to fellow Yᵊhud•im who were "among the " (i.e., in the Tᵊphutz•âh or Diaspora)—into the dative "to the gentiles"!

ca. 154—175 C.E.

The First Easter

The product of the transition to gentile Hellenist Romanization (Christianization) can first be seen in documented official circles in the person of Anicetus (ca. 154 – ca. 167 C.E.), perhaps the first pope to be a real, live, person (succeeding the mythical popes fabricated by Hegesippus). He did not excommunicate those who observed the Jewish Pësakh. However, he prohibited it in the fledgling church and first syncretized the festival to Ishtar into the Christian Easter (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. I, 116).

Anicetus' successor, Soter [ca. 167 – 175 C.E.], was the first to forcibly insist that Christians celebrate Easter, including eating pork, while being completely intolerant of the observance of Pësakh (ibid. IV, 722).

180 C.E.

When Marcus Aurelius died in 180 C.E., his son Commodus assumed the imperiate. Marcus Aurelius had been appointed by the Senate and proved to be a thoughtful and highly efficient administrator. His son, however, was slightly unbalanced. Fancying himself to be a reincarnation of Hercules, Commodus was both brutal and incompetent. He openly defied the Senate and reveled in all sorts of perversities. He was so violent and vicious, that the palace guards murdered him in 192 C.E. (wsu.edu)

192 C.E. – Roman Empire In Crisis

Threatened By Parthians (Persian-Iranians) & Goths (Germans)

By 192 C.E., the Roman Empire was in extreme crisis. In the east, a new empire was arising in Iran. In the north, the German tribes were beginning to migrate and were pushing past their borders in raiding parties into the Roman Empire. The most dangerous of these Germanic tribes were the Goths, who occupied southern Russia. By the middle of the third century, they had managed to take territory from Rome in the area that is now Bosnia. (wsu.edu)

193-211 C.E.

Military Coup Destroys Roman Empire's Economy

To fan the flames of this crisis, the internal politics of the imperiate fell into chaos. After the death of Commodus, a military general, Lucius Septimius Severus (193-211 C.E.), seized power after two others had tried their hands at the imperiate in the same year and ruled as an absolute dictator. He decimated the economy by dramatically raising taxes, and he dramatically changed the character of the Senate by directly attacking senators. He replaced them with military men, so the Senate gradually began to look more like a military aristocracy. He established a rigid class system which slowly solidified to the point where social mobility was almost completely obviated. (www.wsu.edu)

Result: Today's Christians Find Alien

Contrasted with Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) Christianity

A 1st-century Holy Land Beit ha-Kᵊnësët of Israeli Orthodox (rabbinic) Yᵊhud•im where Ribi Yᵊho•shua was teaching—in Hebrew, not English (or Greek)—would sound and appear entirely alien to non-Yᵊhud•im from today‘s world. Why? Does it make any sense that so-called "followers" of Ribi Yᵊho•shua are so alien to him, his language, his people and his teachings?

Conversely, there is a natural tendency, whether Jew or non-Jew, to try to relate to historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua and his original Jewish followers, the Nᵊtzâr•im, within one‘s modern, often western and English-speaking, mindset. This, of course, would have been entirely alien to Ribi Yᵊho•shua, a 1st century Pharisee (Orthodox, in today‘s vernacular) Jew teaching, and accepted, within the framework of (rabbinic) Pharisaic (i.e. rabbinic Orthodox) Jewish community described in Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT. Even among Yᵊhud•im, the Christian perspective of J*esus occludes the authentic and historical Jew—not just any Jew, a Ribi—who taught in Bat•ei ha-Kᵊnësët, not post-135 C.E. Christianity in churches.

We ask the reader, whether Jew or non-Jew, to keep this in the forefront of your mind as you struggle to break through ancient Christian deceptions that linger as today's Christian preconceptions (many accepted unquestioningly by Yᵊhud•im) to understand the uniqueness of the Nᵊtzâr•im.

"Beast" of Prophecy vs "Dragon" of Dân•iy•eil

Dân•iy•eil described a "Fourth Dragon"—almost unanimously interpreted by Jewish interpreters as referring to Rome and Hellenism—that would be very different from the mammalian "beasts" before it (see Dân•iy•eil 7.7-8; 12.3 and Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-Link (WAN)). Not much thought is generally given to the difference in the prophecies between a "Beast" and a "Dragon" (generally the crocodile in Hebrew). However, the first is a mammal (mothering its young with milk) while the second is an amphibian (laying an egg). Babylon was described as a beast that would mother the Yᵊhud•im in a dependent, assimilating environment while Rome was described as far worse, a dragon that would lay an independent egg: Christianity.

As prophesied, from its conception ca. 46-47 C.E., Christianity developed as an oviparous offspring of the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire, yet, initially, independent of it. The Church's incubation as an independent Hellenist egg culminated in 135 C.E., whereupon the dragon, the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire, fed it predigested and regurgitated Roman Hellenism—that included Hellenism's characteristic extensive syncretism, mythology and idolatry until Christianity was weaned, as the gentile Hellenist Roman Christian Church, in 333 C.E.

Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT

Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT has conclusively proven that commitment to do one‘s very best to observe non-selectively and according to Oral Law was the sine qua non of legitimate (as defined by the Beit Din -Jâ•dol) entering the 1st century CE. Consistently, this has been so from Har Sin•ai. It was true in Ribi Yᵊho•shua‘s day—Ribi Yᵊho•shua explicitly confirmed this in NHM 5:17-20—and it remains true today.

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

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic