Home (Netzarim Logo)
Sukah 16 (Hut, Booth or Exhibit #16)

("Noahides")
Rainbow (Binyamin, Israel)
Rainbow (Binyamin, Israel)
Rainbow Rule Presented by

The Nᵊtzâr•im

In Ra•a•nanâ(h),
Earliest Documented Framers of the

Pronunciation TableHear it!

(Bᵊn•ei-Noakh), pl. combin. of masc. sing. , fem. .

Since the , authors and Nᵊviy•im of the Bible perceived all mankind as tracing their ancestry to . The Biblical definition of , then, is who have lived since the .

"The peoples" (), when used by Jews, generally means "the peoples other than us" (i.e., non-Jews – including A•mâ•leiq, Hâ•mân and Hitler). Similarly, Ta•lᵊmud consistently corroborates this in the definition of (Ma•sëkët Avod•âh Zâr•âh 64b, Ma•sëkët Συνεδριον (Sunedrion) 56a, and Maimonides' Guide for the Perplexed (III:48)). According to Ta•lᵊmud (Ma•sëkët Avod•âh Zâr•âh 64b) and Ram•ba"m (Yâd Mᵊlâkhim 8.10), "…Every non-Jew is a son of the covenant of Noakh (see bᵊ-Reish•it 9), and he who accepts its obligations is a …" ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12:1189, emphasis added).

To claim that a few who commit to keep the are "the" is comparable to a tiny anti-American revolutionary sect in a wilderness camp somewhere in the U.S. claiming that they are "the" real Americans. Just as some Americans do not observe American laws, yet are still Americans, not all observe all of the . Nevertheless, they are still !

It is not keeping the that defines the . Rather, keeping the is the prerequisite for a or to qualify as a . Modern usage – based solely on an innovation of 20th century C.E. rabbis – has blurred the with (perverting the latter, which is a proselyte committed to learning – and practicing a life of – ).

" ," then, is clearly an improper nomenclature for (popularly misunderstood as "righteous gentiles") and it is nonsensical to argue that (i.e., ) have a portion in ha-O•lam ha•ba in defiance of the overwhelming Scriptures that describe the fate of .

Door to Open To

The door to is always open, however, to .

Maimonides equates the "Khâ•sid of the Tᵊphutz•âh" who has a share in the ha-O•lam ha•ba even before becoming a Jew [conversion; i.e., in training for conversion] with the non-Jew who keeps these laws. "…the term sons of is, in rabbinic usage, a technical term including all human beings [that generally assumes] except those whom Jewish law defines as being Jews – i.e., .

Nor was there a lack of technical terminology available specifically to describe the resident alien" ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12:1189-91). Thus, is synonymous with . Those ‭ ‬ = who commit before a Beit Din to keep the laws of the are recognized as .

1st century C.E.: Jews Forbidden To Interact With Gentiles

In the 1st century C.E., the rabbis prohibited Jews from interacting with on any level ("Gentile," Ency. Jud., 7.410-412). "The first-century philosopher Euphrates is quoted by Philostratus (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 5.33) as noting that the Jews do not mingle with others in common meals, libations, prayers or sacrifices" (Feldman).

In-Between Exception Allowed Interaction For Proselytes

Consider a gentile of the 1st century C.E. faced with learning enough of to practice at the level acceptable to the Jewish community – in the blink of an eye.

Anyone who reflects quickly realizes that a considerable period of learning time is unavoidable. Yet, no interaction with a gentile was permitted, making learning from a Jew – the only source – a complete impossibility.

"Jews, ironically, welcomed others into their midst as proselytes – but only on their terms" (Feldman, p. 126). These terms were a special transitional non-gentile-but-not-yet-Jew status, , developed in order to enable non-Jews to interact in the Jewish community in order to learn to practice well enough to convert.

, though not yet Jews, were no longer classified as . Ta•lᵊmud documents that are one of 10 classes included as part of Israel (Mishᵊnâh Ma•sëkët Qi•dush•in 69a-b; details in my book Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)).

Thus, the set of prerequisites for recognizing a gentile as a was pivotal. If a gentile wasn't a legitimate , then no Jew could associate with him (or her) and the individual from the was excluded even from the opportunity to learn . This, de facto, excluded — the Hellenist Roman idolaters destined to become the Christian Church — from ki•pur and, therefore, from ha-O•lam ha•ba — or even learning about the Mâ•shiakh (as distinguished from their eventual Hellenist, Ζεύς-based "Christ").

The deliberation in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts" 15 focused on Hellenist Jews, not . Discussion of the arises from the confusion of Hellenist Jews that later resulted, including the many confusions in the discussions of found in Ta•lᵊmud.

1st Century C.E. Hellenist Jews Complicate Picture
What's the Difference Between…
An uncircumcised Hellenist Jew and
a circumcised, not yet converted, -keeping ?

Like Reformed Jews today, Hellenist Jews were not always circumcised (e.g. Timothy; cf. Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts" 16.1 & 3) and, consequently, were not universally recognized as Jews within the Jewish community. There was even a period in the kingdom of Israel, under the influence of Queen , when circumcision was abandoned (Mᵊlâkh•im Âlëph 19.14). "In Hellenistic times, circumcision was widely neglected, according to the Book of Jubilees (15.33-34). Many Jews who wanted to participate [in the nude wrestling of] the Greek games in the gymnasia underwent painful operations to obliterate the signs of circumcision (epispasm)" ("Circumcision," Ency. Jud., 5:568-70).

"… The word , which in Biblical times meant … an alien [non-citizen], became synonymous with a [convert]" (ibid., emphasis added). This blurring of the terms and convert led to disputes concerning what should be required. The same blurring, with resulting confusion and disputes, persists today.

The confusion between and convert further confused the distinction between "convert" and Jew. Indeed, the converted – but in order to become a Jew not a "convert."

While the process of "conversion" is documented, there is no such thing as a "convert" in Tanakh (nor even a legitimate reference to a "convert" in Ta•lᵊmud – no word for a "convert," referring to a Jew, even exists in Hebrew) or Biblical Judaism.

In Biblical – and proper Ta•lᵊmud – Judaism, there is only , ‭ ‬ and Jew.

"Don't Boil a Kid in it's Mother's Milk"

Once a converts, (s)he is a Jew; not a "convert" – nor, any longer, a . There is no distinction between Jew and Jew, and even to mention a non-Jewish background after a has converted is forbidden by Ha•lâkh•âh, embedded, repeatedly, in Ta•na"kh: "you shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Shᵊm•ot 23.19; 34.26; Dᵊvâr•im 14.21).

Controversies Over Circumcision and Immersion

"Religious leaders at that time differed about the necessity for circumcision for []" (ibid.). "R. Ël•i•eizër and R. Yᵊho•shua disagreed as to whether someone who immersed himself but was not circumcised or vice versa could be considered a []. According to R. Ël•i•eizër, he is a [], even if he performed only one of these [mi•tzᵊw•ot]. R. Yᵊho•shua, however, maintained that immersion was indispensable" ("Proselytes," Ency. Jud., 13:1182-3).

Since the gentile had to qualify as a before even beginning his learning, a priori, R. Ël•i•eizër and R. Yᵊho•shua could only have been debating whether the was still a following circumcision or immersion but not both; or had the already become a Jew as a consequence of either alone and was no longer a ?

The core of the arguments here is that if Hellenist Jews were not required to be circumcised in order to be recognized as Jews, then circumcision cannot be an essential element of ki•pur nor, correspondingly, essential to ha-O•lam ha•ba . Being recorded despite being contrary to Christian doctrine (the very reason lending credibility as an historical event rather than Hellenic syncretism), this is resolved by the example, in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts," of the Hellenist Jew, Timothy – who is required to be circumcised (16.3). Thus, the essentiality of circumcision in the Jewish community is historically documented.

On the other hand, however, under certain circumstances Jews were exempt from circumcision (cf. Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), Appendix III, note 15.10.2). Ergo, spiritual ki•pur and ha-O•lam ha•ba could not be dependent upon physical circumcision. Thus, physical circumcision could not be an intrinsic element of spiritual ki•pur or ha-O•lam ha•ba.

This finding widened the discussion, since conversion (implying circumcision and immersion) had been ruled out as a minimum eligibility requirement, to formulate proper minimum eligibility requirements for the uncircumcised. The Nᵊtzâr•im Beit Din determined this ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12:1190ff) to be the essential to recognize a transitional status of . This brought the into the focus of discussion.

No clear and specific Ha•lâkh•âh is recorded regarding what recognition was extended to, or withheld from, Hellenist Jews per se; whether they were accepted as Jews or, possibly, even as . Since the were applied to them on par with the uncircumcised, it may be inferred that they were also recognized as rather than Jews. This is reinforced by Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's action ("Acts" loc. cit.) – taking Timothy to be circumcised in order to be recognized as a Jew.

Ency. Jud.:

Nᵊtzâr•im Prototype the

This list of four criteria in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts," comprising the prototypical , "is the only one that bears any systematic relationship to the set of religious laws which [] makes obligatory upon resident aliens (the and ëz•râkh)" ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12:1190).

This Ha•lâkh•âh set forth the prototypical set of mi•tzᵊw•ot as the minimum eligibility requirements for the uncircumcised person to be recognized as no-longer-a-gentile – i.e., a – thereby allowing him or her to interact with Jews in order to receive teachings in . In the case of Nᵊtzâr•im, this, therefore, also meant the minimum eligibility requirements to receive teachings about the Mâ•shiakh from a legitimate source. Accordingly, Ha•lâkh•âh requires recognition as a , with its concomitant compliance with these eligibility requirements, for basic eligibility for ki•pur and a corresponding share in ha-O•lam ha•ba and, in the case of the Nᵊtzâr•im, eligibility to receive teachings about Ribi Yᵊho•shua the Mâ•shiakh from a legitimate source.

, Circumcision & Immersion, and Jew

Concerning circumcision, this, and subsequent (Hi•lᵊkhâ•ti) immersion, is required of a convert, who is then a Jew. By contrast, circumcision is not required of a , who remains a non-Jew ( ).

As eligibility requirements, doing one's utmost to comply with the is not an end in itself. The Beit Din regarded the only as sufficient eligibility requirements to begin, and continue in, Judaic study because (Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts" 15.21) the could then learn the rest of in any Pᵊrush•im-heritage Beit ha-Kᵊnësët in the world.

Only Promise To The : Rainbow & No More Ma•bul
Nothing About Ki•pur or ha-O•lam ha•ba

Contrary to popular assumptions, being a , therefore, doesn't depend on, and isn't defined by, observing the . Only the rainbow depends upon observance of the .

More consequential, and often a more shocking realization, the only promise associated with the Bᵊrit of is that there won't be another Ma•bul, symbolized by the sign of the rainbow. That's all one gets for being a . There's no promise of life in ha-O•lam ha•ba associated with .

of Har Sin•ai vs Selective-Observance

It is crystal clear from both their description and life-practice that don't reflect the standards stipulated in at Har Sin•ai. If they did, they would, instead, be non-selectively -observant— and Jews, not .

The giving of is the central and essential point of Har Sin•ai! A "spiritual instruction" innovation of men authorizing an abbreviated selection of -observance, while understandable and tolerable for a limited discipling period, is logically, necessarily, intractably opposed to as handed down at Har Sin•ai.

The life-practice of , when they refuse to subordinate to a Pᵊrush•im-heritage Beit Din and practice non-selectively and according to Ha•lâkh•âh, demonstrates that their experience is often the antithesis of Har Sin•ai. "By their fruits, that is their Ma•as•ëh, you shall know them."

"Jewish-Christianity," An Oxymoron

Among many other historians (inter alia, Christian priest Bellarmino Bagatti), the late eminent Oxford scholar on anti-Semitism, James Parkes, noted in his book The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism, the glaring, diametric, antithesis between the pro- Jews who followed Ribi Yᵊho•shua in the 1st-century (the Nᵊtzâr•im) and (lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil) the anti-, ‭ ‬ Χριστιανοι of the 4th-century (i.e., post-135 C.E.) — the origin of all of today's Christianity.

"Jewish Christianity" is inescapably that which is documented in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), which even Christian historians and scholars acknowledge was extensively redacted by post-135 C.E. Roman, Hellenist = antinomian Χριστιανοι, who were antipodally antithetical to the 1stcentury -observant Nᵊtzâr•im Jews.

In other words, as historians documented but gloss over, the 2nd-4th century C.E. Church επισκοπος redacted doctrines as needed in order to subtly remold them into conformance with their Roman, Hellenist – idolatrous – perspectives. Christianity is the post-135 C.E., Roman product of syncretism into Hellenist idolatry, not (lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil) Ribi Yᵊho•shua!

The same historians further document that the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) reflects exclusively post-4th-century Christianity, which was, and is, intractably antithetical to the 1st-century pro- original followers of historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua — the Nᵊtzâr•im.

No serious scholar, recognized among leading world universities, disputes the findings presented in our Kha•vᵊr•utâ and books: Christianity is a post-135 C.E. gentile and Hellenist religion – i.e., idolatry; a faith or belief movement diametrically and intractably contradictory to historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua and his original Nᵊtzâr•im Jewish followers in Israel — who were not self-contradictory "Jewish Christians".

To call the pro- Nᵊtzâr•im, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil, 'Jewish-Christianity,' or call Ribi Yᵊho•shualᵊ-ha•vᵊdil — "Jesus," as if these antipodal antitheses were the same, is to scurrilously slander the 1st-century -observant Jews by ascribing to them Christian doctrines that historians and encyclopedias indisputably document—and (4Q) MMT proved—didn't exist in Judaism at all, and weren't even syncretized from Hellenist idolatry into Χριστιανοι until after 135 C.E.!

Idolatrous Hellenist Festivals

All major encyclopedias corroborate, and our books document, that even the earliest Christian Church historians recorded that Easter, Christmas, Sunday worship and every unique element of Christian doctrine was syncretized from Hellenist idolatry, only after 135 C.E., long after the death of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, by idolatrous (Hellenist) Roman , and only after the idolatrous Roman had forcibly wrested control from the Nᵊtzâr•im and idolatrized Yᵊru•shâ•layim into, lᵊ-ha•vᵊdil, "Aelia Capitolina" dedicated to Ζεύς.

Long before Christ, Easter was the spring festival for Esotera / Ishtar / Astarte / Ashtoreth. Easter didn't become part of Christianity until , centuries after the death of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, syncretized the idolatrous festival into their own native Roman (and gentile) belief system. This occurred only after the Roman had wrested control from the original followers of Ribi Yᵊho•shua (then headed by the 15th qid, Yᵊhudâh, who was forcibly ousted by the first gentile Roman "bishop," Markos, in 135 C.E.) in their idolatrized city of Aelia Capitolina built overtop the ruins of Yᵊru•shâ•layim.

Christianity Dangles From "Poof!" Theory

The idolatrization of Yᵊru•shâ•layim into Aelia Capitolina, dedicated to Ζεύς and sun worship, is complemented by the "coincidental" – and hypothesizedPoof! "gentilization" of the Nᵊtzâr•im by who commenced to syncretize idolatrous worship: the birth, some time after 135 C.E., of Christianity and the Church!!!

Long before Christ, Christmas was the idolatrous celebration of the birthday of the sun-god, Mithra! It is also well demonstrated, in our books as well as others, that historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua was absolutely not born in winter. The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhu (NHM) demonstrates this, and further that his birth occurred in late spring. The astronomical events even allow the intercalation of the exact date (identified and documented in NHM).

The change from Shabat to Sun-(god-)day didn't occur until after 135 C.E., more than a century after the death of Ribi Yᵊho•shua – after idolatrous Roman wrested control from the original followers of Ribi Yᵊho•shua and established their idolatrized city of Aelia Capitolina built overtop the ruins of Yᵊru•shâ•layim.

Fate of in contrast to the

Throughout Ta•na"kh, the promise of life in ha-O•lam ha•ba is entirely and consistently reserved for , defined as a "Realm of Ko•han•im" and "a qâ•dosh" of Shᵊm•ot 19.5-6 – not . For eternal life, trust, solely, on the innovations of a few men with a paper, also from men, certifying them as a rabbi.

Most probably already recognize that "Jewish-Christianity" is an oxymoron. While Jews can practice religions from Hindu to Buddhism to Christianity, often injecting Jewish symbols and terminology into their worship, that aspect doesn't make Christianity any more "Jewish" than Hinduism (because some Jews embrace it) or Buddhism (because some Jews embrace it). Consequently, any claim by "Jewish Christians" – Jews who accept Jesus and Christianity – that the fact that they are practicing Christianity, or incorporating Jewish symbols and terminology, makes it Jewish is silly. The only claim which "Jewish-Christianity" can responsibly pursue is historical. This focus of this website is the investigation of that claim.

Biblical Solution For Non-Jews Unable To Convert

The only Way provided in for non-Jewish seekers to find Truth and the Creator-Singularity -- is not by fixating on becoming a Jew (many unlearned Orthodox rabbis may refuse them anyway), but, rather, to focus on satisfying ; exploring how to keep as a (a non-Jew who is neither any longer a nor a ).

Yi•rᵊei --

(Hellenized & Anglicized to Ζεύς Θέος "God-Fearers")

Together, Jews and comprise, respectively, the "Realm of Ko•han•im and a qâ•dosh" (Shᵊm•ot 19.5-6) described in the 1st century C.E. collectively as Yi•rᵊei -- (details in my book, Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)).

All of the Judaic documentation through 135 C.E. demonstrates that historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua and the Nᵊtzâr•im were Pᵊrush•im (no other sect had "rabbis," or even visited "synagogues" that, "Sadducees" perceived, rivaled their "Temple"), all of whom were defined by their keeping of according to Ha•lâkh•âh – the Pᵊrush•im version of the Oral Law. (The Qum•rân Tzᵊdoq•im version was their Ma•as•ëh and the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•im, codified, version was their Χειρόγραφον τοῖς Δόγμασιν – the infamous Boethusian "Book of Decrees".)

The Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically (4Q) MMT) demonstrate that all sects of legitimate 1st-century Judaism (i.e., recognized by the Beit Din ha-Jâ•dol) included the Oral Law within the definition of / Judaism.

As religious Jews functioning within the legitimate Jewish community, this included Ribi Yᵊho•shua and the Nᵊtzâr•im. Our books demonstrate that Ribi Yᵊho•shua received his sᵊmikhâh from Raban Jamliyeil ("Gamliel II") Bën-Shimon Bën-Jamliyeil ha-qein himself, the grandson (and patriarch of the House) of Hileil, and Nâ•si of the Beit Din ha-Jâ•dol. This necessarily means that Ribi Yᵊho•shua was a Pᵊrushi Ribi, as international scholars, and, increasingly, even mainstream Orthodox rabbis, acknowledge!

It shouldn't be surprising, then, that we find (NHM 23:1-3) that Ribi Yᵊho•shua endorsed the Pᵊrush•im. The title Ribi was exclusive to those who received sᵊmikhâh by the patriarch of one of the two primary Houses (in this case, Hileil). Subsequent to ca. 20 C.E., the patriarch of the Pᵊrush•im also held the office of Nâ•si of the Beit Din ha-Jâ•dol Yᵊhudâh (corrupted to Judea and Jew). (Before ca. 20 C.E., the office of Nâ•si was held by the patriarch of Beit-Shamai.) Ribi Yᵊho•shua received sᵊmikhâh directly from Nâ•si of the Beit Din ha-Jâ•dol, from the grandson-patriarch of Hileil! He clearly didn't get there by advocating the Hellenism, Displacement Theology, Christian claims of supersession, self-divinity and blatant idolatry of the post-135 C.E. idolatrous Roman who created Christianity and the Church.

Χριστιανοι, the Antithesis of

Rejection of Oral Law by Χριστιανοι differentiated them from every form of Judaism.

Post-135 C.E. redactions and Christian literature present a diametrically antithetical, 4th century C.E. Hellenized revision – yet another evolution of their Hellenist idol!

The product of the Hellenist Roman Ιησους and Χριστιανοι – is also the antipodal antithesis of historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua and his original, authentic, Nᵊtzâr•im Jewish followers on the issue of the validity of the versus its Displacement Theology, particularly the claimed supersession of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT).

Since these two are polar antitheses, historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua being the Mâ•shiakh makes his opposite (Ιησους)…the prophesied "antichrist" = 666!

Confusing these two intractably antipodal antitheses is either ignorance or, more frequently, obsessive self-deception to defend one's beliefs against all evidence and reason.

How To Follow Ribi Yᵊho•shua and the Nᵊtzâr•im

One cannot follow two masters – much less two intractably contradictory opposites. Those who desire to follow the 1st Jew are forced to abandon the antinomian and misojudaic arch-antithesis and counterfeit, Ιησους and Χριστιανοι, in order to follow Ribi Yᵊho•shua as the Mâ•shiakh.

Neither Ribi Yᵊho•shua nor his original, authentic, Nᵊtzâr•im followers had to pretend to be in a "spiritual" Israel, to pretend to be in a "spiritual" Jewish community, or pretend to practice "Messianic" Judaism. They were – and remain – the real thing, in the mainstream Pᵊrush•im-heritage community anchored in Israel.

Accordingly, unlike Christians, including Jewish Christians, the Nᵊtzâr•im were legitimate. Unlike Christians, including Jewish Christians, today, we Nᵊtzâr•im remain authentic to the 1st century teachings and legitimate.

Like the original Nᵊtzâr•im, the Nᵊtzâr•im of today are reconstructed according to the earliest extant historical documentation within the Pᵊrush•im-heritage community here in Israel — the real Jewish community in the real Israel. No pretend stuff.

Nᵊtzâr•im

Ya•a•qov "ha-Tza•diq" Bën-Dâ•wid (brother of Ribi Yᵊho•shua Bën-Dâ•wid) was the first Nᵊtzâr•im .

The 16th Nᵊtzâr•im is Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu, "ha-Tza•diq" in Ra•a•nanâ(h), Israel. (For the interim 14 , see and Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., IV.v.3.).

Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu, "ha-Tza•diq" is fully-documented, having been recognized as an Orthodox Jew by Orthodox rabbis, by the Israeli rabbinate Chief Rabbis, and by the State of Israel. For more than a decade, he and his family have been a member in good standing of the Orthodox synagogue of Yemenite Jews (Beit ha-Kᵊnësët Mo•rëshët Âv•ot) in Ra•a•nanâ(h), where he and his family prayed regularly and participated fully in its functions and social life. Nᵊtzâr•im live and function within the mainstream Pᵊrush•im-heritage community and Israel in the real, rational – not pretend Christian "spiritual" – world.

It defies reason to follow the Roman counterfeit and deception, the "antichrist" prophesied in Dân•iy•eil as the "Beast" and "Dragon" who would change the times and seasons, which is obviously, widely and long recognized as, Rome, Christianity and Christian holidays.

While this is true for , it is even more true for estranged secular Jews who have the background making them accountable to reject idolatry and its syncretism of mingling the Qodësh with the khol.

Whether you are a Jewish Christian or , through our on-line Kha•vᵊr•utâ, you can learn how to practice like Ribi Yᵊho•shua — a legitimate part of mainstream Pᵊrush•im-heritage – real Israel and the real Jewish community in the real – not pretend "spiritual – world.

("Seven Noakhide Laws")

Ancient Biblical Application
vs
Modern Extra-Biblical, Torah-Exempt " "

See Dᵊvâr•im 13.1

Right Track, Wrong Ticket

Won't Get You On the Train

The Hebrew term that is used to describe those who have a portion in ha-O•lam ha•ba is , never in ante-Medieval literature " ."

According to Ta•lᵊmud and all Judaic sources prior to Ta•lᵊmud, " " described ALL non-Jews; those who didn't keep the as well as those who did!!! At no point were the sons of ‭ ‬ — (= ALL mankind) — declared no longer sons of unless they kept the .

In the Second Temple period, (non-Jews according to the Biblical definition) weren't even permitted to interact in any way with Jews. They couldn't eat with Jews, socialize with Jews... or study with Jews!

is very different from . A was defined in Biblical times as a non-Jew proselyte, recognized by the Beit Din as worthy to be admitted into the Jewish community for the purpose of non-selectively learning, and putting into practice, the rest of ('Acts' 15.21).

Just as all horses are animals but not all animals are horses, so, too, all are non-Jews but not all non-Jews are .

were included in the Talmudic definition of Israel; one of ten categories (Ta•lᵊmud Ma•sëkët Qi•dush•in 69a-b), though not Jews. Consequently, have a place, as part of Yi•sᵊr•â•eil, in ha-O•lam ha•ba.

are defined as ALL "non-Jews" — facing the same fate as all not among the Ta•lᵊmud categories included in Israel. Therefore, also consequently, nowhere does grant a place in ha-O•lam ha•ba to this all-inclusive category. The only promise makes to is "no more floods"!

Moreover, the were authored by the Nᵊtzâr•im Beit Din, being first recorded in 'Acts' 15.20ff ("Noachide Laws," Encyclopedia Judaica, 12.1190).

The Nᵊtzâr•im Beit Din were the original Beit Din who defined the as the minimum threshhold requirements to admit a (proselyte), thereby enabling him or her to study with Jews, in the Jewish community, and begin the transition of learning and becoming non-selectively -observant.

During this transition phase, were — obviously — semi-observant non-Jews (proselyte disciples who hadn't yet been converted), at various stages of progress in their learning and practice. That's why are described at various stages of -observance that, otherwise, would seem contradictory.

Only in recent, post-medieval, times have these definitions been corrupted, mostly through ignorance of Biblical practices and definitions (even among Orthodox rabbis and universally among Ultra-Orthodox rabbis), to supposedly include non-Jews who keep only the .

The were only the starting point, never the end point.

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

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic