2nd Century C.E. |
 Hadrian (117-138 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 Jews 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).
"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 Yәru•shâ•la′ yim as the city of [lә-hav•dil′ ] Aelia Capitolina and build a temple to the Roman idol Jupiter (≡ Greek idol Zeus) on the site of the Jewish [Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ ], another uprising occurred, more bitter still than its recent predecessor" (roman-emperors.org)
To clarify a widespread misconception: modern rabbis regard Jews who practice Buddhism or other religions alien to Judaism as Jews. By Biblical standards, however, they have breached the bәrit and é--ä has excised them from Yi•sәr•â•eil′ .
Just as Jews practicing Buddhism doesn't transform Buddhism into a valid branch of Judaism, so, too, Jews who adopt the Hellenist practice of selectively syncretizing non-Tor•âh′ (e.g., Christian) doctrines, rituals or music are not practicing Judaism.
Further, those who practice selectivity concerning which parts of Tor•âh′ they choose to keep are no less practicing selective rejection of those remaining parts of Tor•âh′ they are choosing not to keep.
Tor•âh′ is an indivisible whole. One does his or her utmost to keep all of Tor•âh′ as an indivisible—perfect—whole or one is constructively rejecting the indivisible whole—perfectness—of Tor•âh′ . One who rejects even one mi•tzәw•âh′ of Tor•âh′ is rejecting Tor•âh′ in its a wholeness; i.e., (s)he rejects the whole of Tor•âh′ . Christians (and some Jews) who boast they keep Tor•âh′ while practicing selective observance are not keeping Tor•âh′ ; they are rejecting Tor•âh′ —and it is not Judaism.
This Hellenist (later Christian) syncretism of idolatry and selective rejection of Tor•âh′ was prohibited by the Beit-Din hâ-Jâ•dol′ , as demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT. The Nәtzâr•im′ originated this Ha•lâkh•âh′ (excising Paul the Apostate), which was confirmed by the Beit-Din hâ-Jâ•dol′ . Christianity was never a valid branch of Judaism.
The orientation of the Mâ•shi′ akh derives from Ta•na"kh′ . In Yәsha•yâh′ u 42:6, we find this orientation: the Mâ•shi′ akh would be ìÀàåÉø âÌåÉéÄí (lә-or joy•im′; for a light of the goy•im′). This is demonstrated by the context in Yәsha•yâh′ u 42 to mean Jews in the Tәphutz•âh′ —illuminating Tor•âh′ for (i.e., among) the goy•im′, not a Light focused on the goy•im′, certainly not instead of, Displacement Theology bypassing Jews.
òÇáÀãÌÄé (avәdi) in v. 1 is widely acknowledged to refer to the Mâ•shi′ akh (cf., for example, the note in the Artscroll Stone Ta•na"kh′ , Tar•jum′ ). Later in verse 1, Yәsha•yâh′ u stipulates that éåÉöÄéà (yo•tzi′; he will cause to go forth) îÄùÑÀôÌÈè ìÇâÌåÉéÄí (mi•shәpât′ la-goy•im′ )! In other words, the Mâ•shi′ akh would extend Or Tor•âh′ to the goy•im′ – extending the authority of the Beit-Din to adjudicate mi•shәpât′ Tor•âh′ over the goy•im′.
Verse 4 clarifies that the Mâ•shi′ akh will establish mi•shәpât′ in hâ-Âr′ ëtz; and àÄéÌÄéí (the islands – a metonym for the Tәphutz•âh′ ) will yearn for His Tor•âh′ .
Yәsha•yâh′ u 60.3 and Zәkhar•yâh′ 8.23 both show that goy•im′ must come to the Light, not the Light shift instead to goy•im′ (supersession and Displacement Theology).
Speaking to a crowd of Jews in the Gâ•lil′ —then part of the Tәphutz•âh′ —Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a also affirmed (NHM 5.14-16): îÈàåÉø àÇúÆí áÌÈòåÉìÈí (mâ•or′ at•ëm′ bâ-o•lâm′; you—the audience of Tor•âh′ -keeping Jews—are a light in the world). (Notice, too, that he did not say îÈàåÉø àÈðÄé (mâ•or′ â•ni′; I (Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a) am a Light…) or "a Christian church of gentiles will be a light.")
When Jews keep Tor•âh′ properly, then Jews, bearing the Light of Tor•âh′ illuminate, first, the Jews in the Tәphutz•âh′ (i.e., among the goy•im′), who, in turn, cause the goy•im′ of the Tәphutz•âh′ to yearn for Tor•âh′ , as prophesied. (The converse rule is also valid: when the goy•im′ don't yearn for Tor•âh′ , Jews aren't keeping Tor•âh′ properly.)
It is äÈòÈí (hâ-âm), not gentiles, whom Yәsha•yâh′ u describes (9.1) as those who "walked in darkness [e.g., the Holocaust, pogroms, Inquisition, persecutions, et al.] who have seen a great Light." Everything in Tor•âh′ is 100% consistent in bestowing the bәritot, exclusively, upon Jews (and geir•im′ who have submitted to the jurisdiction of a Beit-Din for mi•shәpât′ Tor•âh′ , i.e., Ha•lâkh•âh′ ).
Tor•âh′ never extends the bәritot of Tor•âh′ to include or embrace goy•im′. To the exact contrary, Tor•âh′ strictly requires Jews (and geir•im′ ) to maintain Hav•dâl•âh′ between Qo′ dësh (as defined by Tor•âh′ : viz., Jews and geir•im′ ) and khol.
Everything in Tor•âh′ declares the polar antithesis of the Christian redirection of an antinomian Christ "to the gentiles," espoused by Christian supersessionism and Displacement Theology, which is why Christians had no choice but to claim that their NT superseded the Jews' "OT." The gentile Roman Hellenist Christian Church eventually perverted Tor•âh′ 180°, even superseding and Displacing Jews and Tor•âh′ with gentiles and their NT; yet, still managed to convince the Roman Empire—and much of the modern world—to believe their post-135 C.E.-redacted apostasy.
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. This 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 Hellenists, fertile ground for promoting the idea of the Hellenist Roman Christians to incorporate their Hellenist Roman-redacted, make-over vision of "Jesus" replacing Zeus into their native Hellenist pantheon.
First, in 135 C.E., the Hellenist Roman-occupiers forcibly displaced the innate authority of the Jewish ôÌÈ÷Äéã ha-Nәtzâr•im′ , arrogating that authority to the gentile office of Hellenist επισκοπος—the birth of the Church.
Thereafter, the Christian founders, being gentile and Hellenist Romans, freely syncretized and morphed the surrounding Roman and Greek mythologies that were familiar to them. Their only serious problem was the impossible chasm between them and the Jews… and Judaism. This they partially solved, among the gentiles and few Hellenist Jews of their fledgling church, easily, because the Romans were utterly ignorant of Hebrew. Translating—and interpreting and redacting—into Greek enabled them to reject Judaic Hebrew, displacing it with their gentile Hellenist Greek.
Finally, the 180° reorientation from Tor•âh′ to antinomian Hellenism being secured, they reoriented from the "Holy City" of the Jews, Yәru•shâ•la′ yim, to the "holy city" of their pagan pantheon – Rome. This reorientation, however, required an authority Christians lacked (see "30-99 C.E." section). By the 3rd-century C.E., this need had became so unavoidable Hegesippus was forced to fabricate a succession of "popes" in Rome (see "Fabrication of Popes" section) to accompany the claim that Rome, the "Holy City" of Zeus and Jupiter and an array of pagan idols, had always been the "Holy City" of the Church.
Having completed the apostasy of supposedly transferring authority from Jews to Hellenist (Greek-speaking) gentile Christians, the "Holy City" from Yәru•shâ•la′ yim to the seat of idolatry and Sâ•tân′ , and no longer restricted by Judaic interpretations of millennia, they began freely redacting the Greek stories that circulated among Hellenist Jews, compiling their Greek Hellenist-Christian NT from their Hellenist and gentile perspective.
The trick: by subtly translating two Greek words as "gentile," and creatively interpreting a Greek grammar form that can be either locative, dative or instrumental, they were able to interpose "gentiles" to their gentile audience where, originally, either "[Jews] among the goy•im′ ," i.e., the Diaspora, or "Hellenist Jews" (of the Diaspora) had been obvious to the Jewish audience. By this combination of creative translation deceptions, the gentile Roman Christian Church founders displaced the Jews:
| Definition | Original Hebrew Meaning to Jewish Audience |
Greek Translated to Hellenist Gentile Audience |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| ελλενης (ellenæs) | "Hellenist" especially (as used in the 1st century Jewish community) Jews who had assimilated into the Roman-Greek culture and language | Hellenist Jews | "gentiles" or "Greeks" |
| εθνος (ethnos) | "people" corresponds to Hebrew goy•im′ | [Jews] "among the goy•im′ " [Jews] "in the Diaspora" (Greek locative for Hebrew áâåéí; among the goy•im′; i.e., in the Diaspora) | "to the gentiles" (assumed Greek dative) |
Therefore, just like ελλενης, every instance of εθνος (ethnos) in the 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 Jews (including Hellenists) living in the Tәphutz•âh′ —"among the peoples"!
The primary emphasis always remains upon "Jews in the Tәphutz•âh′ ," only thereafter spilling over to illuminate the goy•im′ (NHM 15.27). None imply a different, contra-Tor•âh′ (antinomian), "gospel" which would be directly "to the goy•im′," shunting the prophesied priestly function of the Jews (Shәm•ot′ 19.6; Zәkhar•yâh′ 8.23; et al.).
It is clearly documented that neither Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a nor the Nәtzâr•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 NT terms which originally referred to Jews!!! They were "spun" by Romans to insert gentiles and displace Jews.
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 NT which addresses gentiles generally!
While the NT refers to one or two geir•im′ , the NT says nothing, and promises nothing—whatsoever, to "gentiles" generally! (Think about what Ta•na"kh′ says about the goy•im′ !) 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•qәdâsh′ —αλλογενης (allogenæs; lit. "another genus").
Therefore, every instance in the NT which is asserted to address or make a promise to/for gentiles refers not to gentiles, but to Jews living in the Tәphutz•âh′ (diaspora)—"among the peoples"!
é--ä promised the legacy of Mt. Sinai to Jews, forever, and He does not break His promises. It should always have been logically obvious to anyone that, when the NT contradicts a promise of é--ä—and nothing is more contradictory than Christian Displacement Theology—it cannot be true. The only message legitimately in the NT for gentiles per se is to become geir•im′ to Tor•âh′ (not pretend Christian pseudo-Judaism, which merely comprises apostate Jews practicing Christian Displacement Theology and selective observance/rejection).
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 Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a (by Christian doctrines), of the Nәtzâr•im′ (by Christianity and the Church) and of the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ (by 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 Tor•âh′ , which can only be achieved after rejecting Christianity, and obtain ki•pur′ . Tor•âh′ is crystal clear about the future of the goy•im′ . There can be no teaching in the NT to/for goy•im′ (gentiles), no promise (messianic, covenantal or other) to/for goy•im′ , and no atonement, forgiveness, salvation, "rapture" or portion in heaven to/for goy•im′ ! Turn to Tor•âh′ .
The meaning of the concepts that the earliest Christians Hellenized (redacted) into the NT perverted their 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 Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a's teaching in The Nәtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 10.5, by perverting the ambiguous Greek tois ethnesin from the originally intended locative—speaking to fellow Jews who were "among the goyim" (i.e., in the Tәphutz•âh′ or Diaspora)—into the dative "to the gentiles"!
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 Jewish Pësakh. However, he prohibited it in the fledgling church and first syncretized the festival to Ishtar (Easter; ibid., I, 116). Anicetus' successor, Soter [ca. 167 – 175 C.E.], was the first to be completely intolerant of the observance of Pësakh (ibid. IV, 722).
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)
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)
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)
A 1st-century Holy Land Beit ha-Kәnës′ ët of Israeli Orthodox (rabbinic) Jews where Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a was teaching—in Hebrew, not English (or Greek)—would sound and appear entirely alien to non-Jews from today‘s world. Why? Does it make any sense that so-called "followers" of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a 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 Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a and his original Jewish followers, the Nәtzâr•im′ , within one‘s modern, often western and English-speaking, mindset. This, of course, would have been entirely alien to Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a, a 1st century Pharisee (Orthodox, in today‘s vernacular) Jew accepted within the (rabbinic) Pharisaic (i.e. rabbinic Orthodox) Jewish community described in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT. Even among Jews, the Christian perspective of J*esus occludes the authentic and historical Jew—not just any Jew, a Rib′ i—who taught Tor•âh′ in Bat•ei′ ha-Kәnës′ ët, 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 Jews) to understand the uniqueness of the Nәtzâr•im′ .
Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT has conclusively proven that commitment to do one‘s very best to observe Tor•âh′ non-selectively and according to Oral Law was the sine qua non of legitimate Tor•âh′ (as defined by the Beit-Din hâ-Jâ•dol′ ) entering the 1st century CE. Consistently, this has been so from Har Sin•ai′ . It was true in Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a‘s day—Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a explicitly confirmed this in The Nәtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 5:17-20—and it remains true today.
The 1st-century Bat•ei′ ha-Kәnës′ ët in which Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a taught also included non-Jews seeking to convert. Yet, it was frowned on for Jews even to socialize or eat with goy•im′ . During the 1st-century the records are clear that religious Jews weren‘t permitted to mix with ordinary goy•im′ —at all. Thus, meeting with a non-Jew to teach him or her Tor•âh′ , a prerequisite to learning Tor•âh′ and, therefore, a requirement for achieving ki•pur′ (and, therefore, a place in hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′ ), was subject to great examination and criticism. This need for a standard, rabbinically-acceptable, definition of proselyte, enabling non-Jews to meet with Jews in order to learn Tor•âh′ and convert, was the impetus for the Nәtzâr•im′ development of the Shëv′ a mi•tzәw•ot′ Bәn•ei′ -No′ akh defining the geir.
Moreover, it should be obvious that neither ordinary gentiles nor misojudaic Christians frequent, or would be permitted, in a Beit ha-Kәnës′ ët.
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 Nәtzâr•im′ -defined minimum threshhold requirement: the Shëva mitzwot Bәnei-Noakh ("Seven Noakhide Laws"), and were thereafter in various stages of learning to implement non-selective Tor•âh′ -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 Tor•âh′ -observance required of converts, remained permanent non-Jewish geir•im′ —the Geir Tzëd′ ëq.
We urge those who are committed to following the authentic Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a as the Mashiakh, whether Jew or non-Jew, to learn to become like the 1st-century halakhic Jew, the historical Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a.
Dân•i•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•i•eil′ 7.7-8; 12.3 and Who Are the Netzarim? (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 Jews 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.
 |
|
 |