Roman Hellenizing (Syncretizing & Redacting)

Even Christian Scholars of the World's Top Universities Agree

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible acknowledged, "A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma" ("Text, NT," 2^nd edition, Abingdon, 1962). Of course Christians redacting the Jewish texts made Christian redactions that perverted the Jewish texts remolding them to be compatible with "the substance of Christian dogma" !!! "It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma [thanks for reminding us that Christians made Christian redactions that were, surprise, compatible with Christian dogma; ybd]). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the 'original reading' but in the 'true reading'" (ibid., emphasis added) – as perceived by the antinomian, i.e. misojudaic Hellenist Roman Christian redactors, of course.

All Major Historians of World's Top Universities Concur

4^th-Century Anti-Tor•âh′  Christianity 180° Opposite to
1^st Century Pro-Tor•âh′  N^әtzâr•im′ 

Why? How? How Does That Affect You As A Christian Today?

It's well established by historians like the late Oxford scholar James Parkes (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) that post-135 C.E. Christianity — from which ALL Christianity today derived — was opposite in the most fundamental ways to the 1^st century historical Rib′ i Y^әho•shu′ a and his original N^әtzarim followers. Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) demonstrates from the historical record — from archaeological evidence to ancient Judaic documents (e.g. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT) — that the 1^st century historical Jew, Rib′ i Y^әho•shu′ a — and his N^әtzarim followers consistently taught pro-Torâh Judaism, contradicting anti-Torâh (antinomian) Christian doctrines. This persisted until 333 CE, when the remaining vestiges of the N^әtzarim were eradicated by the Church for obstinately remaining Torâh observant (cf. WAN).

Church historian Eusebius recorded that after suppressing the Bar-Kokh′vâ Revolt in 135 C.E., "Hadrian now resolved to launch a war of annihilation against the Torâh and to expunge the name of Israel from the land… Desirous of blotting out, too, all reference to the Jews' association with Ërëtz Yisrâ·eil, Hadrian changed the name of Judea to 'Syria Palaestina,' by which it henceforth came to be known in non-Jewish literature." ("Israel," Ency. Jud., 9:248).

The Romans destroyed and paganized Y^әrushâlayim, which had even back then already been our Holy Capital for 1159 years (since B.C.E. 1024), paganizing and renaming the city "Aelia C*apitolina" and renaming Y^әhudâh "Palestine." The Romans expelled all Y^әhudim from Y^әrushâlayim – including our 15^th N^әtzârim Pâqid, a Y^әhudi named Y^әhudâh. Describing these Romans, the cradle and mother of Ch*ristianity and the Church, as misojudaic is fully justified. It's blatant ignorance, or unscholarly negligence, whenever anyone refers anachronistically to Yisrâ·eil or Y^әhudâh as "Palestine" before about 135 C.E.. After 135 C.E., it's merely misojudaic to refer to the Judaic Holy Land by the Hellenist pagan Roman name.

In the vacuum left in "Aelia C*apitolina" as a result of the Romans banishing the Netzarim Paqid, misojudaic gentile Roman Ch*ristians were enabled to install their first non-Jew, Rome-oriented, misojudaic "bishop" — Marcus. Here, and only here, is the otherwise missing transition from strict Torah-observance of 1^st-century Ribi Yehoshua and his original Netzarim followers (demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT and Church historians) to the well documented antinomian Ch*ristianity of the 4^th, and subsequent, centuries! Now Rome-oriented for the first time, these post-135 C.E. misojudaic pagan gentiles were the first to proclaim their Romanized, de-Judaized, gentile-saving, divine man-g-o-d image — J*esus! (Documentation and details in the book Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).)

60-132 C.E.

"Black Hole" In History Where Christians Claim

✧    N^әtzâr•im′ ⇒ Christian Transition

Is Supposed To Have Occurred

(See "30-99 C.E." & "100-199 C.E." Sections)

Only the Church could have kept the record of this period blank… Why???

Hegesippus Cuts Off His Account at 60 C.E.

"It must be observed that just at this point [60 C.E., in Hegesippus' account of the flight of Paul's Hellenist Christians to Pella see section 30-99 C.E.], when he has indicated the moment of the introduction of heterodox teaching, Hegesippus' sketch of the history of the [Jewish / N^әtzâr•im′ Congregation] of [Y^әru•shâ•la′ yim], and consequently the argument founded upon it, seems to have come to an end. For though Eusebius gives a list of the [15 p^әqid•im′ ] up to the reign of Hadrian [117-138 C.E.; actually, until exactly 135 C.E.], and tells us that they were short-lived, and later on adds a list of their [gentile επισκοπος usurpers, see "Fabrication of Popes" section], he tells us nothing else about the fortunes of the ['N^әtzâr•im′ —Jewish—Congregation'] from the reign of Trajan [98 C.E.] to the end of the second century, except the fact that after the seige under Hadrian [135 C.E., consequent to the Bar-Kokh′ vâ Revolt and physical displacement of the N^әtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ from Y^әru•shâ•la′ yim cum Aelia Capitolina] it became a Gentile community… It is scarcely conceivable that if Hegesippus had carried his history beyond the death of [Shim•on Bën-Khël′ëph Bën-Dâ•wid′ that] Eusebius would not have used the material thus afforded." (The N^әtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 24.15.6, citing H.J. Lawlor, "Eusebiana, Essays on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus, ca. 120-180 C.E.," p. 64.)

Hegesippus' history of the N^әtzâr•im′ was finished at that point. Instead, Hegesippus then turns his attention to his self-confessed fabrication of the counterfeit image (see "Fabrication of Popes" section)—arising in Rome (cf. Daniel 7 and "The 1993 Covenant") instead of Y^әru•shâ•la′ yim.

How suspect, that the period that Christian historians refused to record is precisely that period they claim is the supposed magical "Poof!" transition from Judaic pro-Tor•âh′ Jews to misojudaic anti-Tor•âh′ gentile Christians of the Displacement Theology! And how peculiar that if such a transition had occurred, how thoroughly and meticulously these Christian historians would have documented it!

This termination of the account coincides with the inability of Christian writers to come up with any plausible explanation for [a] the discontinuity between their Hellenist beginnings in 60 C.E. and the N^әtzâr•im′  who had excised their founder coupled with [b] their forcible displacing of the N^әtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ in 135 C.E.

132 C.E.

îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà

It should set off alarm bells that a number of prominent historians, at least in some of their books, skirt around the îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà with almost no comment or even mention (inter alia, Louis H. Feldman, Solomon Zeitlin, Victor Tcherikover, et al.).

"Prevailing scholarly opinion, based upon [Qo•hël′ ët] 36.7, holds that [the áÌÄøÀëÌÇú äÇîÌÄéðÄéí] prayer originated during the Syrian-Hellenistic oppression [B.C.E. 175-164] in the time of the [second áÌÅéú-îÄ÷ãÈùÑ]" ("Birkat Ha-Minim," Meir Ydit, Encyclopedia Judaica).

Misdating the áÌÄøÀëÌÇú äÇîÌÄéðÄéí by a couple of centuries combined with failure to distinguish between ðÀöÈøÄéí and Χριστιανος (documented in our 30-99 C.E. section) injected error, attempting to associate the áÌÄøÀëÌÇú äÇîÌÄéðÄéí in the sole paragraph that the late Oxford historian James Parkes devoted to the îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà.

Based on Justinus Martyr (ca. 150-163 C.E., First Apology, xxxi; Patrologia Graeco-Latina, VI,p. 375), Parkes and Fitzmyer both regurgitate Justin's claim that, during this period, "Then indeed they [Χριστιανος] suffered severely for their refusal to accept [áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà], and to share in the defence of the city, and many were put to death" (Parkes, p. 93). What neither mentions, however, is that Justin identifies himself with the Χριστιανος stating: "We alone are hated, even though we hold the same as the Greeks" (see also Justinus Martyr). There is no doubt, whatsoever, that Justin referred to Χριστιανος "suffering severely," not ðÀöÈøÄéí.

Causes of the îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà

Two reasons "are seriously considered today" (Fitzmyer) as plausible causes for the îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà:

1. Hadrian erecting a temple dedicated to the Roman god Jupiter Capitolinus (Greek Zeus) on the site of the ruins of the áÌÅéú-îÄ÷ãÈùÑ and

2. Hadrian including circumcision in his wider ban on castration (not aimed at Jews), a crime punishable by death.

As we have shown in our 30-99 C.E. section, the threat of the continuing campaign to find and eliminate any genealogy and to wipe out any living descendent of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã was another contributing cause of the îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà.

It's instructive to examine how each may have affected the Χριστιανος contrasted with the ðÀöÈøÄéí.

1. Temple of Zeus on site of áÌÅéú-îÄ÷ãÈùÑ: some 75 years after Παυλος infused Hellenism producing the Χριστιανος, they were far further along syncretizing his Hellenized tritheism with their own Hellenist images—including the increasing convergence of their imaging of the Hellenized Ιησουσ into their native perception—idol—Zeus. There can be no question that, like all other éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, the ðÀöÈøÄéí were well documented as recognizing the holiness and sanctity of the áÌÅéú-îÄ÷ãÈùÑ.

2. Ban on Circumcision: Χριστιανος didn't bother with circumcision; wouldn't have bothered them at all. Like all other éÀäåÌãÄéí, the ðÀöÈøÄéí continued to uphold the most basic áÌÀøÄéú of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì.

3. áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã: Convinced that Ιησουσ had provided "salvation" for gentiles, Χριστιανος had no interest in any further successors of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã. By contrast, the ðÀöÈøÄéí preferred, perhaps exclusively, áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã for their ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí. Certainly, like the other éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, the ðÀöÈøÄéí upheld the messianic doctrine of the prophesied eternal reign by áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã.

Relative to each plausible cause of the conflict, Χριστιανος were inclined toward their fellow Hellenist Romans (except for their worship of, and sacrificing to, Caesar) while the ðÀöÈøÄéí were inclined toward their fellow éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí.

When we look back on (section) 30-66 C.E., we can easily see that the Hellenist Χριστιανος wouldn't have been willing to fight on the side of the "Jews"— whom they were constantly striving to supersede and displace, "Jews" who rioted at them and stoned them as apostates—against their fellow gentile Roman Hellenists. The éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, which included øÇáÌÄé òÂ÷ÄéáÈà áÌÆï-éåÉñÅó, ‭ ‬ áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà… and the ðÀöÈøÄéí all viewed the Hellenist Χριστιανος as the Hellenist Roman occupier enemy.

The conflict wasn't between Roman Hellenists toward whom the ðÀöÈøÄéí inclined, on one side, against éÀäåÌãÄéí on the other side, as conventionally mispresented. Rather, the conflict was between pro-Caesar Hellenist Romans toward whom the Caesar-rejecting Hellenist Χριστιανος inclined, against éÀäåÌãÄéí (including ðÀöÈøÄéí)!!!

Consequently, persecutions of the Caesar-rejecting Χριστιανος would have come from the pro-Caesar Roman Hellenists and continued from the ðÀöÈøÄéí and other éÀäåÌãÄéí, who regarded the Χριστιανος as apostate collaborators with the Roman occupiers. Persecutions of ðÀöÈøÄéí, by contrast, were at the hands of the Hellenist Roman occupiers—increasingly abetted by the Χριστιανος.

Accordingly, the premise that this created a break between éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí and ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí is false—and self-contradicting. The ðÀöÈøÄéí certainly fought shoulder-to-shoulder with their fellow-ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí to liberate éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí from the âÌåÉéÄí Roman-occupiers!!!

It is also crystal clear that the Hellenist Χριστιανος, who had been stoned and rioted against by the ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí since Στεφανος and Παυλος, would not have sided with the ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí!!! It was the misojudaic Hellenist Χριστιανος who drew the ire and enmity of the ðÀöÈøÄéí as well as the other ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí.

The ones who were crushed in the crossfire, viewed as an enemy by both sides, were the in-between, orphaned Caesar-rejecting Hellenists:

1. "Reformed Jews"—predominantly the Σαδδουκαιος (who had been deprived of the áÌÅéú-îÄ÷ãÈùÑ by the Romans who turned it into a pagan temple of Zeus) and

2. Χριστιανος.

135 C.E.

"After the defeat of the revolt, when the [éÀäåÌãÄéí] were formally prohibited from entering éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, for the first time a Gentile [επισκοπος] was established in the city. As the choice of [áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà] confirmed the refusal of the éÀäåÌãÄéí to accept [øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ], so the presence of a Gentile επισκοπος emphasized the break from [úÌåÉøÈä] Judaism of the new religion" (Parkes with corrected terminology, p. 93).

Incorporating analyses of the Dead Sea Scrolls—which were secreted by the éÀäåÌãÄéí participants in the îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà, Jesuit Priest Fitzmyer shed considerably more light on the îÆøÆã áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà.

"The number of historical documents pertaining to the [pre-135 C.E.] second century [C.E.] in [éÀäåÌãÈä] has always been small. It is consequently of interest to learn of new discoveries of original texts which come from that century and shed light on an otherwise obscure movement in the history of that part of the world. Though this movement has little direct bearing on Christianity, it is an important episode in the history of the Jewish people, for it is in effect the aftermath of the fateful destruction of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí by the Romans in [70 C.E.] and the beginning of their long separation from the Holy City… the details of the Second Revolt under áÌÇø-ëÌåÉëÀáÈà, which apparently rivaled the first in scope and duration, have been only very briefly recorded by contemporary writers. Hence any new information, no matter how meager, helps to fill out the picture." (Fitzmyer, p. 305)

"Fate of the Jews was sealed"

"Not only were they defeated and massacred or enslaved, but an imperial edict added the crowning ignominy: they were forbidden access to 'Holy City'—an edict which had its consequences until the Six-Day War in 1967." (Fitzmyer, p. 351).

Ευσεβιος recorded (corrected to reverse the Hellenist redactions:

"…up to the siege of the Jews by Hadrian the successions of [ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí] were fifteen in number. It is said that they were all Hebrews by origin who had nobly accepted the knowledge of [the Mâ•shi′ akh]… For their whole congregation at that time consisted of Hebrews who had continued [N^әtzâr•im′ ] from the [Sh^әlikh•im′ ] down to the siege at the time when the Jews again rebelled from the Romans and were beaten in a great war. Since the Jewish [ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí] then ceased, it is now necessary to give their names from the beginning. The first was… (see list at ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí; EH IV..v.1-3).

"Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree and ordinances the whole nation should be absolutely prevented from entering from thenceforth even the district round [Y^әru•shâ•lay′ im], so that not even from a distance could it see its ancestral home. Thus, when the city came to be bereft of the nation of the Jews, and its ancient inhabitants had completely perished, it was colonized by foreigners, and the Roman city which afterwards arose changed its name, and in honour of the reigning emperor, Aelius Hadrian, was called Aelia. The church, too, it it was composed of Gentiles, and after the Jewish ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí the first who was appointed to minister to those there was [Markos]." (EH IV.vi.3-4).

ðÀöÈøÄéí Vanish From the Historical Record

135 C.E. is as far as we can trace the ðÀöÈøÄéí. All subsequent references are to Χριστιανος and their Ιησουσ. Unsurprisingly, these were rejected and aggressively and passionately opposed by ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí, including the ðÀöÈøÄéí.

As Χριστιανος and their Ιησουσ ascended with Constantine in the early 4^th century, the ðÀöÈøÄéí, being advocates of an eternal áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã king as their core theme and raison d'être, had been hunted down and áÌÀìÈà (Dân•i•eil′  7.25) by the Romans from 30 C.E. into the mid-2^nd century. By the end of the 2^nd century they were already a distant, dim and rapidly fading memory, having been forcibly usurped and displaced by the Χριστιανος and their Ιησουσ 2 centuries before Constantine. In 135 C.E. the ðÀöÈøÄéí vanished from the historical record. All references subsequent to 135 C.E., by gentiles and Jews, refer to Χριστιανος, the original Christian root defining all Christians today and who were passionately rejected by the Jews.

Implications

We have filled in what accounts are extant during the historical blank of 60-130 C.E. from Josephus, Roman historical records and historians of the world's top universities, high-lighting Roman actions and observations that related to these issues (see sections "30-99 C.E." and "100-199 C.E."). But during this critical period, Christians were too small and insignificant to attract much attention from the Romans or Josephus and the N^әtzâr•im′ , uninterested in those who had been excised except as they represented a threat, referred to Christians only sparsely and cryptically, as the apostasy or the dragon. Eusebius found no Christian record of this critical so-called "transition" period.

There is no Christian record of Christianity between 60-135 C.E. Before 60 C.E., there is only a record of the N^әtzâr•im′ . From 60-135 C.E., the Christian Church (4^th century and subsequent) permitted only a very sparse record of the N^әtzâr•im′  to be preserved—parts that didn't contradict the Church's account (even purging the records of the Jewish community, burning Tor•âh′  scrolls, etc.). After 135 C.E., there is only a record of Christianity—plus post-135 C.E. Christian redactions projected back into the 1^st century, accounts that are betrayed by their intractable contradicting of Tor•âh′  and by the dating of the earliest extant manuscripts as post-135 C.E. recountings of Hellenist-to-Christian stories syncretized with Hellenist mythology.

This "black hole" is all the more astonishing since the entirety of Christian claims hinges on demonstrating their continuity from the original N^әtzâr•im′ . However, such continuity does not exist and Christians have, for millennia, employed all manner of argumentation to distract attention from this "black hole" in which all Christian claims of supersession, Displacement Theology and legitimacy of their NT are buried.

By 135 C.E., tiny groups of the anti-Caesar Christians scattered throughout the Roman Empire, often having to keep as low a profile as they could to avoid execution by Caesar, had already developed multiple versions of a counterfeit replacement: a syncretism of their native Hellenist mythology blended with stories from Hellenist Jews.

The dragon's egg, conceived by Paul the Apostate, was ready to hatch.

Christians Originate Misojudaism

Once hatched, however, the hatchling, a non-Jewish Hellenist counterfeit, lacked credibility to displace the original and authentic N^әtzâr•im′ without first discrediting the earlier authentic and original N^әtzâr•im′ . The earliest Christians undertook this with a vengeance that would have repercussions for millennia.

Eusebius, himself implicitly admitting that he didn't know the differences between an "Ebionite" and a "Nazarene," documented the origin of the Church's misojudaism against Jewish "??Ebionites??":

"The evil Demon, unable to wrest them from god's plan in Christ, ensnared them in a different way. The first householders named these Ebionites because they had poor and humble praise concerning Christ" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, xxvii, 1).

[Referring to N^әtzâr•im′ ]

"They held him to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved [justness] merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband. They insisted on the complete observation of the [Torâh & Halâkhâh], and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a life in accordance with it.

[Referring to Ëv•yon•im′ ]

"But there were others besides these who have the same name. These escaped the absurd folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the lord was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless agreed with them in not confessing his pre-existence as god, being the Logos and Wisdom.

"Thus they shared in the impiety of the former class, especially in that they were equally zealous to insist on the literal observance of [Torâh & Halâkhâh]. They thought that the letters of the Apostle [Paul] ought to be wholly rejected and called him an apostate from [Torâh & Halâkhâh]. They used only the Gospel called according to the Hebrews and made little account of the rest. Like the former they used to observe Sabbath and the rest of the Jewish ceremonial, but on [Sun-god-days] celebrated rites like ours in commemoration of the Savior's resurrection. Wherefore from these practices they have obtained their name, for the name of Ebionites indicates the poverty of their intelligence, for this name means 'poor' in Hebrew." (Eusebius, EH, III, xxvii, 1-6).

These excoriations of the N^әtzâr•im′  would echo against Jews generally for millennia.

The eminent Oxford historian, James Parkes, demonstrated in his book (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue), that, in 135 C.E., when the Romans expelled the N^әtzarim leadership from Y^әru•shâ•la′ yim⇒"Aelia Capitolia" (and subsequently from the rest of Israel⇒"Palestine" through the 4^th and 5^th centuries C.E.), idolatrous Hellenist Roman gentiles—including a small minority of Paul's anti-Caesar Hellenist Christians—filled the vacuum left by the exiled N^әtzâr•im′  Pâ•qid′  and Beit-Din. No longer prevented by the N^әtzâr•im′ , Hellenist gentile Christians began to freely syncretize their own pagan and polytheistic belief system, displacing Tor•âh′  Judaism of the N^әtzâr•im′ , thus creating their own apostate counterfeit, based on stories learned from Hellenist-Jews, converging their native, Hellenist, polytheistic chief god, their idol Zeus⇒Jupiter, with their Hellenizing image of a tritheistic chief god, ⇒Jesus—converged in the same idol, the face of which was an enhanced sculpture of Alexander the Great.

Church historian Eusebius recorded that after suppressing the Bar-Kokh′vâ Revolt in 135 C.E., "Hadrian now resolved to launch a war of annihilation against the Torâh and to expunge the name of Israel from the land… Desirous of blotting out, too, all reference to the Jews' association with Ërëtz Yisrâ·eil, Hadrian changed the name of Judea to 'Syria Palaestina,' by which it henceforth came to be known in non-Jewish literature." ("Israel," Ency. Jud., 9:248).

The Romans destroyed and paganized Y^әrushâlayim, which had even back then already been our Holy Capital for 1159 years (since B.C.E. 1024), paganizing and renaming the city "Aelia C*apitolina" and renaming Y^әhudâh "Palestine." The Romans expelled all Y^әhudim from Y^әrushâlayim – including our 15^th N^әtzârim Pâqid, a Y^әhudi named Y^әhudâh. Describing these Romans, the cradle and mother of Ch*ristianity and the Church, as misojudaic is fully justified. It's blatant ignorance, or unscholarly negligence, whenever anyone refers anachronistically to Yisrâ·eil or Y^әhudâh as "Palestine" before about 135 C.E.. After 135 C.E., it's merely misojudaic to refer to the Judaic Holy Land by the Hellenist pagan Roman name.

In the vacuum left in "Aelia C*apitolina" as a result of the Romans banishing the Netzarim Paqid, misojudaic gentile Roman Ch*ristians were enabled to install their first non-Jew, Rome-oriented, misojudaic "bishop" — Marcus. Here, and only here, is the otherwise missing transition from strict Torah-observance of 1^st-century Ribi Yehoshua and his original Netzarim followers (demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT and Church historians) to the well documented antinomian Ch*ristianity of the 4^th, and subsequent, centuries! Now Rome-oriented for the first time, these post-135 C.E. misojudaic pagan gentiles were the first to proclaim their Romanized, de-Judaized, gentile-saving, divine man-g-o-d image — J*esus! (Documentation and details in the book Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).)

The diametric and intractable differences between historical, Judaic, Ribi Y^әhoshua and the apostate Roman image are myriad and discussed throughout the 'N^әtzarim Quarter,' especially in our Museum of N^әtzarim history (click on 'History Museum' in the panel at left) and our 'Christianity' 'Torah Community & Family' Conference Rooms, both in our Web Café (click on Web Café in the panel at left).

For the first time since 135 CE, mainstream Orthodox Jews and genuine followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua wind up on the same team, sharing the same goals and learning to cooperate to further the truth — the historically-authentic teachings, of Ribi Y^әhoshua of Natzrat.

These, and countless similar life-changing experiences for both Jews and Christians, are being accomplished by restoring historical accuracy, documentation and honesty to the Judeo-Christian Dialogue.

Hebrew Matthew

Uncovering the genuine historical Jew who was Ribi Y^әhoshua, and his authentic teachings, requires identifying the authentic record, the earliest extant source documents that chronicle his life and true teachings. Only the earliest extant source documents help filter out subsequent — well-documented and extensive — redactions of the Roman gentile Hellenist pagans.

The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius, was describing the original followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua, the N^әtzarim Jews, when he declared that the "only" account they accepted of the life and authentic teachings of Ribi Y^әhoshua was "their own Hebrew Matthew" (later Hellenized by non-Jews to "Hebrew Matthew"). The original, Jewish, followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua, the N^әtzarim, never accepted the NT. Indeed, the NT didn't even exist in their time (up through 135 CE). Moreover, the N^әtzarim Jews regarded only the Tan"kh as Scripture.

Source Manuscripts for Hebrew Matityâhu

Extant Hebrew source texts begin in the 5^th century C.E. with occasional citations from Talmud (whose tradition, however, extends back into the 1^st century and earlier) and continue with Nestor (9^th century C.E.), Ya·aqov Bën-Ruvein's Milkhâmot ha-Sheim (1170 C.E.), Ms. Or. Rome #53 (12^th century C.E.), Seiphër Yoseiph ha-M^әqanei (13^th century C.E.), Seipher Nitzakhon Yâshân (13^th century C.E.), and the Ëvën Bokhan (1380 C.E., cf. George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text, Macon: Mercer Univ. Press, 1987).

Following a well-established trend in this Hebrew tradition, the subsequent Munster of 1537 C.E. and du Tillet of 1555 C.E., translated from the Greek (George Howard, "Was the Gospel of Matthew Originally Written in Hebrew?," Bible Review, Winter 1986, p. 19), virtually complete the evolution toward agreement with Church doctrines and the King James NT Greek (the TR of 1624; see note ^Note). Since Ëvën Bokhan is a complete Hebrew source for Matityâhu, the subsequent Munster and du Tillet represent only further corruption and (variant) Christianization of the Hebrew tradition subsequent to the Ëvën Bokhan. Judaic documents providing the perspective within which Hebrew Matityâhu must be interpreted are discussed in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).

As NHM repeatedly shows, TR sometimes diverges from all of the ancient source mss. and was basically rendered from the King James English published, also under King James, 13 years earlier - only 2 years after the 1609 expulsion of the last remnants of Jews from England. KJV and TR are hardly unbiased or reliable texts from which to reconstruct the original Hebrew, and Judaic, Matityâhu.

A compendium of more than 25 years research, the N^әtzarim publish "our own" Hebrew Matityahu, reconstructed from the earliest extant Hebrew and Greek source documents with extensive Judaic explanations: The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM).

Evidence from Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′ u—
not Paul the Hellenizer (Turkish-Jew) or his NT

"Pope" means "father." Read NHM 23.9 "You are not to call anyone upon the earth Father so-and-so, because you have One Father of the heavens." Ribi Y^әhoshua explicitly proscribed a "pope"!!! But the Displacement Theology of the Hellenist Romans, who had just vanquished the Jews in war, destroyed our Beit-ha-Miqdâsh, expelled us from Y^әrushalayim, burned our Torah scrolls and yukhasin, prohibited circumcision and forbade us to learn or teach Torah – all upon pain of death – required something diametrically different from what the hated Jews had taught.

Atonement & New Covenant: With Israel,
Not Displacement Theology

The entire history of kipur relative to the britot of Israel made this newly born Church of gentile Roman Ch*ristians dependent upon their Roman bishops' ability to represent to their Ch*ristian followers the false security that Roman gentiles had displaced Jews as the people of G*od and the covenant.

Gentiles' claims to kipur rested, and continue to rest, solely upon this displacement of Jews by gentiles. Only in this way do gentiles have any claim of obtaining kipur — by Displacement Theology's claimed transferral from Torah-observant Jews to anti-Torah (antinomian) gentiles.

For further information, see Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)). ABNC demonstrates that é--ä promised kipur to Jews who do their best to keep Torah according to halakhah — non-selectively — irrespective of their beliefs about the Mashiakh.

The implications are both enormous and shocking. Observing Torah, non-selectively and according to halakhah, to the best of one's ability is a prerequisite to 'salvation.' Identifying the Mashiakh is nowhere stipulated as a precondition to kipur.

The urgency of following Ribi Yehoshua as the Mashiakh lies in facilitating the transition for Jews and gentiles who have recognized the Mashiakh to now begin to follow him in non-selective Torah-observance according to halakhah, not in 'saving' the only ones who already have kipur!

The Dragon Exposed

Dâniyeil described a "Fourth Dragon," widely interpreted to refer to Rome and Hellenism, that would be very different from the mammalian "beasts" before it (see Dâniyeil 7.7-8; 12.3 and Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)). As prophesied, from its conception ca. 46-47 C.E., Christianity developed as an oviparous offspring of the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire. The Church's incubation as an independent Hellenist egg culminated in 135 C.E., whereupon its mother, the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire, fed it predigested and regurgitated Roman Hellenism – that included Hellenism's characteristic extensive syncretism, until Christianity was weaned as the gentile Hellenist Roman Christian Church in 333 C.E.

N^әtzâr•im′ … Authentic