Atonement in the Biblical 'New Covenant' – Live-Link

If you're reading this and the owner of the computer on which this file resides hasn't purchased this book from the author at the website above this is an infringement of copyright. Please contact the author and pay for this book. To discourage piracy, each copy is uniquely identified and can be traced to the original purchaser.

With love to Karen, who has worked tirelessly for many years to make the studies and writing of this, and other, N^etzârim book(s) possible, and to Yâ·eil our tzabarit (Israeli-born Jewess), who daily sacrifices time with Abba so he can work on the computer to provide this information to many.

You will find happiness sublimely above all other lesser imitations only through your own personal relating to, and communion with, the Creator of the universe — as your everyday practice. Only when you achieve this personal communion with the Creator of this universe as your everyday practice can you finally realize His purpose in your life, resulting in personal fulfillment and real happiness.

Note, however, that distortions and misconceptions about Biblical Judaism and historical Ribi Y^ehoshua frequently stem from, and are perpetuated by, misojudaic – Displacement Theology – intrinsic in non-Jewish translations from the Hebrew. Biblical Judaism cannot be de-Judaized to satisfy non-Jewish expectations alien to Biblical Judaism. One cannot expect to grasp the Biblical plan of y^eshuâh without developing a working knowledge of the basic concepts and terms of the ancient and pristine religion of the Jewish Bible – Dërëkh Halâkhâh. This book, and its introductory companion, Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link), illuminate Scriptural Hebrew and historical documentation to demonstrate the derivations of 1^st-century Judaic definitions and concepts that are essential to grasp, and properly relate to, the authentic teachings of historical Ribi Y^ehoshua – which, early 4^th century church historian Eusebius recorded, were found only in The N^etzârim Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM). (EH III.xxvii.4).

Shamans, shams, cults and institutionalized religions alike all peddle "the" path to g*od, higher spirituality, mysticism, astrology, palm reading, graphology, transcendentalism, rebirthing, the "divine spark within," and what-have-you. The real questions are: to what kind of Prime Force Singularity do the laws of the universe around us testify? What are the origins of our universe, the real world – a spontaneous eruption from nothing, the amusement arcade of an irrational, capricious, and occult g*od, or the creation of an Omniscient(ific) and Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) Creator? And what is the purpose of creation, and your and my purpose in it?

The intelligent and educated person of the 21^st century rejects the pseudo-sciences, insisting instead on an authentic scientific approach: a rational view that dismisses the superstitious and irrational to apply mathematical rules of logic to the interpretation of the descriptions, and restore the understanding, of the Creator known by the Patriarchs and Moshëh.

Latest scientific theorizing sees "spontaneous eruption" only in the sense of the "Big Bang" that most likely began our universe. Cosmologists theorize that the 'Big Bang' derived from 37 or more "fields of potential," rather like force fields, that were pumped with energy until they exploded in the "Big Bang." No matter how far back scientists theorize, no matter how far back astronomers can see in time, there is always a dead end: the Prime Cause Singularity. In this case, not only must there be a cause of the 37 or more "fields of potential," but also for what pumped them with energy and the origin of that energy. All scientific theories require – and lack – a "Prime Force Singularity." Scientists contradict logic and science when they preach that everything in the universe has a cause – and that's science, except the universe itself – in which case discussion of cause is religion and anti-science.

It is inconceivable that the "Prime Force Singularity," the only thing around at the time, was anything other than the Omniscient Singularity Force having a comparably intelligent purpose in creating both this universe around us and you and me in it.

What are the implications of an Omniscient Creator? First, an Entity Who is Omniscient makes no mistakes. Therefore, the Omniscient Creator is Perfect, i.e., no imperfection exists, or can exist, in the Creator – as that would render Him imperfect, an intractable contradiction. The absorption of an imperfection, such as imperfect humans like you or me, would, therefore, render an Omniscient Creator self-contradictory. This is the very essence of the principle of Qodësh and l^e-havdil bein Qodësh l^e-khol. In other words, the Creator must remain Perfect (T^ehilim 92.16) and Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6). This has compelling implications in sorting out the single logical, single true understanding of the Singularity-Creator from the myriad errors. This implies that no contradictions may be attributed to a Perfect Creator simply because of humankind's limited, and distorted, understanding.

Einstein observed that the Creator isn't capricious. The Creator of the complex physical laws of our universe, many still far beyond our understanding, imply the Omniscient Creator. An Omniscient Creator, in turn, implies the creation of an intelligible universe – and you and me within that intelligent and intelligible purpose (D^evârim 30.11-14). The only real challenge to our intelligence is to derive this purpose in accordance with His laws – logic, not feelings and intuition.

This further implies that an Intelligent and non-capricious Creator would not leave His sapient creatures without an Instruction Manual to ascertain, and aspire to, His purpose. Logic dictates that an intelligent and non-capricious Ha-Sheim has certainly provided, and ensured the survival of, His Instruction Manual somewhere in timespace that is accessible to intelligent seekers (i.e., in history rather than buried on a still-undiscovered planet or the like) and bears His Imprimatur and Endorsement. Consequently, the circumspect sapien will search for His Signature, His Signet stamp in the affairs of humankind, immediately followed by the handing down of His Instruction Manual. Unsurprisingly, one finds His Instruction Book as simply as translating "Instruction Book" into the language of Avrâhâm Âvinu, Yitzkhâq Âvinu, Yisrâ·eil, Moshëh and Ribi Y^ehoshua: ספר תורה (Seiphër Torâh)!!!

One can pursue this quest from Atlantis to "ancient mariners" and today's UFO reports searching for His Signature. Yet, only one great series of (natural) miracles stands out in the history of mankind, heralding the Creator's Signature. This Signature is attested in a well-documented ancient text that enjoys continuing archaeological and scientific corroboration with every new discovery. This text describes the 10 makot that culminated in Israel's Y^etziâh from Mitzrayim. This increasingly corroborated document, the Hebrew Tana"kh, signals the Divine predesign in the affairs of humankind – His Signature and Imprimatur. Moreover, we find His Seiphër Torâh handed down directly thereafter.

For those who know how to read it – in Hebrew, not English, of course (much less misojudaic interpretations contradicting its authors) – here is the Creator's Seiphër Torâh for you. Torâh explains why the Creator created you and the purpose of your life: relating to the Singularity-Creator and how to commune with Him. Because of the principle of l^e-havdil bein Qodësh l^e-khol (wa-Yiqrâ 10.10), necessitated by the mutual exclusivity of His Perfection and our imperfection, His Seiphër Torâh provides the Guidelines (mitzwot, mishpâtim and khuqim) to relate properly to His creation and His other creatures, including the rest of humankind. Living (not believing or intellectually recognizing) according to His Seiphër Torâh is what enables His gracious provision of kipur to blot-out imperfections, thereby permitting us to commune with Him and, eventually, with the rest of His Seiphër Torâh community in hâ-olâm ha-bâ. Herein is happiness and purpose – and, since you're reading this, it isn't too late for you, if you're serious enough about starting a new life dedicated to serving the Creator.

The Seiphër Torâh sets forth the only Perfect and acceptable Dërëkh Halâkhâh of the Perfect Creator to achieve this. Those who argue that g*od loves and accepts them no matter what they do create a diversion, sending you on a wild goose chase. Their premise contradicts Torâh and simple logic. Loves, yes. Grieves, yes. But accepting someone imperfect into communion with Him, into His embrace and Himself, would bring imperfection into Himself – rendering Him no longer Perfect, a logical impossibility and contradiction of the Torâh requirement l^e-havdil bein Qodësh l^e-khol (wa-Yiqrâ 10.10). Likewise, for Him to break His own Perfect laws necessarily contradicts His own Perfection – equally impossible. In His khein, He's made provision to blot out your imperfections. He has given you intelligence, Seiphër Torâh and free will to make your choice. The rest is up to you.

Whatever you do, however, He must remain ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Whether you conform to His Seiphër Torâh, enabling you to commune with Him without contaminating Him, is your decision. If you reject His Torâh, your demise will be your own decision. You won't be able to blame the Creator, a relative, or anyone else for your decision.

Probably the greatest misconception non-Jews have is their expectation that, despite their inability, typically, to even to read Tana"kh, nevertheless, Judaism should conform to their expectations rather than them conforming to Torâh. Those who cannot read Tana"kh have no excuse for such presumptuousness, which Torâh equates to מגדף י--ה (m^egadeiph ha-Sheim) – blasphemy of ha-Sheim (b^e-Midbar 15.30-31). That is why there is the Beit-Din and the example of Rut. The ignorant, who haven't read the Hebrew Tana"kh and Talmud, should simply adapt to do as the Teimânim and N^etzârim do. Those who argue that g*od will accept them while they "follow their own heart and their own eyes" (b^e-Midbar 15.39) either have an arrogant view of themselves speaking לצד (l^e-tzad; beside, as a peer of) the Almighty (Dâniyeil 7.25), or they view the Almighty, l^e-havdil, as being as profane as themselves, or they just haven't applied reasonable intelligence and logic. It's impossible to say which is more blasphemous: their arrogant view of themselves as sufficiently qâdosh to commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, or their view of ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, as being, l^e-havdil, as profane as they are!

Since ha-Sheim 9 is Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6), it's impossible that His desires for humankind's behavior are self-contradicting. Why would – indeed, how is it even be possible – a Perfect ha-Sheim contradict His previous perfect B^eritot. It's simple and straightforward (indeed, it is the only logical approach) to understand the B^eritot as increasingly specific, in a consistent and purposeful way, as humankind progressed. Contradictory B^eritot, by contrast, imply a Perfect Creator contradicting Himself – an impossibility, further implying that – either before or after the contradictory b^erit – He and His B^erit(ot) were imperfect.

Aside from relating to the original Hebrew meaning, perhaps the single most urgent factor, needed to grasp kipur for goyim is consistency. This book demonstrates the consistency in the series of B^eritot of Yirm^eyâhu's new b^erit, for every b^erit, including any "New B^erit," must be perfectly and logically in harmony with all previous B^eritot. A Perfect Creator couldn't put out a series of Perfect B^eritot with humankind, then suddenly find they weren't perfect, and break His Word in order to replace them with a "New B^erit" that contradicts all of His previous B^eritot. To be valid, a "New B^erit" of an Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) Creator cannot be self-contradictory.

Each b^erit reflects an insight into the Unchanging Singularity-Creator relative to the continual dynamic progress of homo sapiens within an increasingly specific, spiritual pioneering and cutting-edge branch (family) of humankind. The parties and terms of the relationship, defined in the most recent b^erit, change only with respect to the upgrading, in a consistent Way, of the latest refinement sub-branch within this family, who are pioneering Dërëkh Halâkhâh in their relationship with the Unchanging Creator as they work toward attaining the prophesied level of ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש (mamlëkhët Kohanim w^e-goy qâdosh; a kingdom of Kohanim and a goy qâdosh) – Sh^emot 19.6). Every person is required to follow these b^eritot, forged with ha-Sheim by this family, in order to qualify for His kipur, bringing them to a level of a goy qâdosh, fit to commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu.

Thus, no b^erit can ever contradict the earlier b^eritot nor displace the original, and current, family of real-world Yisrâ·eil. Each new b^erit is a refinement correspondingly more specific to the increasingly refined family sub-branch of humankind, who are always engaged in pioneering the next step in Dërëkh Halâkhâh. Consistency is the key and the absolute rule. As well as invalidating "halakhah" passed by rabbis that is illogical and contradicts Torâh shë-bikhtâv, this logic rules out a capricious g*od who offers haphazard, sometimes spiteful, deals with different people, and reneges on previous deals – a g*od that is a liar and undependable! Is that where you want to place your trust for your eternal future?

For millennia before Christianity, countless goyim became geirim – party with the family of Yisrâ·eil to the B^eritot between ha-Sheim and humankind, thereby enjoying a share in hâ-olâm ha-bâ. For any of several reasons, many geirim weren't able to become "converts" to Dërëkh Halâkhâh. Throngs of geirim were flocking to share in the b^erit at the Y^etziâh, even before Har Sinai – many centuries before Christianity came onto the scene. Many of these weren't "converts" (in the modern sense) to Dërëkh Halâkhâh either. There were geirim who nilwu onto the natural vine of Beit-Yisrâ·eil even before Har Sinai, resulting in an ערב רב (eirëv rav; great mixture) coming out of Mitzrayim (Sh^emot 12.38). Yet, little attention has been paid to the provisions for the throngs of geirim party to the b^erit of Har Sinai, centuries before the first Christian – though it is they who form the tavnit from which we must extend the logical consistency of the Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) Singularity-Creator to any 1^st-century provision of kipur.

The pagan concept of praying to a personal man-g*od savior apart from Torâh-observance traces back well before 135 C.E. Christianity to the Roman counterpart of Z*eus (J*upiter), Hellenist Z*eus, and at least back to the Babylonian g*ods M*arduk / B*el / ba·al. "Each Babylonian had a personal g*od, a kind of good angel, to whom prayers were addressed and through whom salvation could be found" ("Babylonian Religion," Encarta '95). The doctrine of "personal salvation," such as J*esus (Greek I*eisous, derived from Z*eus ¹), derived from worship of Z*eus and earlier paganism, not Judaism (see Timeline). The anomaly of kipur for goyim based on the doctrine of Displacement Theology (divine personal man-g*od savior who replaced y^eshuâh for Jews with "salvation" for gentiles) didn't exist until it was introduced by Christianity after 135 C.E. Though the historical Ribi Y^ehoshua taught diametrically the opposite, Displacement Theology holds that goyim believers in Christ, i.e., the Church, self-proclaimed themselves as having become the "true spiritual Israel" authority – in place of the Jews. Because, according to original Christian claims, the Jews had rejected g*od's "Divine S*on" (therein, according to original Christian doctrine, rejecting g*od Himself), the Church proclaimed that the Jews had been blinded, rejected and even cursed by Him. Because they couldn't deny that the b^erit of Har Sinai was between ha-Sheim and Israel, Christianity's entire validity depended on their spurious pretense of interposing themselves, in place of the Jews they claimed were now rejected, cursed and – most importantly – they could then claim to displace (hence the description, Displacement Theology), in the b^erit of Har Sinai. In this way, post-135 C.E. Christians fabricated for themselves a pretense of the kipur, which is prerequisite to tâhârâh and qâdosh that ha-Sheim provides exclusively to Israel under the provision of the b^erit. This arrogation is Christianity's sole basis for their Hellenist-style pretend 'salvation'

One finds neither terms for, nor a promise of, "salvation" in the b^erit with Noakh – other than a rainbow symbolizing protection from another Mabul. The terms and benefits are almost as basic and primitive as the original, single Gan Eidën, Law: comply with Seven Laws and there will be no more Mabul, respectively. Humankind, including Noakh, hadn't yet adequately developed in their knowledge of right and wrong to grasp more abstract aspects of qâdosh. Except for one family line. culminating in Avrâhâm, the rest of the descendants of Noakh could hardly handle the terms of the b^erit with Noakh! From the time of Noakh until the b^erit at Har Sinai, humankind was only responsible for the terms of the b^erit with Noakh – Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh. Like the earlier b^erit, the b^erit with Noakh, though instituted through the one spiritual-pioneer whom ha-Sheim regarded as ha-Tzadiq (cf. b^e-Reishit 6.9), obligated every living person on into the future to be bound by the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh (← i.e. the terms of the b^erit) so that (the promise of the b^erit →) there would never be another Mabul. Logical consistency.

The main uniqueness of the b^erit with Noakh is that ha-Sheim killed all those outside the family of this b^erit in the Mabul. There was no living person outside the b^erit with Noakh and, hence, no person living who was (or can now be) in need of seeking inclusion in a b^erit between ha-Sheim and Noakh.

This changed at Har Sinai when ha-Sheim instituted a new, more exclusive, b^erit limited to Beit-Yisrâ·eil, but, unlike the b^erit with Noakh, without killing off the rest of humanity.

Some, even some Orthodox rabbis, argue that B^enei-Noakh merit a place in hâ-olâm ha-bâ. Today's misnamed B^enei-Noakh movement, which shouldn't really be called B^enei-Noakh, is the vanguard among the goyim that is headed in the right direction. Nevertheless, Talmud and the Sages, including Maimonides, agree that the phrase B^enei-Noakh is properly defined as all goyim.² According to Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a) and the Encyclopedia Judaica, "Every non-Jew is a 'son of the b^erit of Noakh' (see b^e-Reishit 9)"19 [emphasis added]. Thus, even Hitler is included among B^enei-Noakh. Clearly, B^enei-Noakh aren't the non-Jews to whom the Sages referred as meriting a place in hâ-olâm ha-bâ. Nor did the Sages ever explicitly state "B^enei-Noakh." Rather, the Sages referred specifically and explicitly to geirim, not goyim! It is only modern rabbis, first under persecution by the Church and, more recently, pressure to be 'politically correct' and 'anti-missionary' who have obfuscated this point.

Talmud shows that the B^enei-Noakh are goyim who, if guilty of blasphemy, are executed by the sword – rather than by stoning as the Jew (and geir) would be executed for the same offense (Sanhedrin 56a.). Thus, the Bën-Noakh is conspicuously distinguished from the geir. The Bën-Noakh is outside of Judaism and its B^eritot, while the geir has been granted nilwëh status, by a Beit-Din, onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil, within the B^eritot. While Geir Tzëdëq may here be reasonably inferred, in contrast to the Geir Toshâv, this advanced status is not explicitly specified. In Sanhedrin 56b we find that certain rabbis added interpretations of the basic Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh, probably distinguishing Geir Tzëdëq above the provisional trainee Geir Toshâv. It bears noting here that the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh were originated by the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim and the earliest reference to the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh is found in Ma·avâr 15.29 (see Appendix IV – Ma·avâr 15 Text).

The assertion that Bën-Noakh refers only to the one who actually keeps the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh and, consequently, is the one receiving "salvation," simply isn't compatible with the sources. In the interest of promoting interfaith relations, both Christians and Jews earlier focused on a misreading of Maimonides which, in English, seems to, but cannot possibly, extend y^eshuâh to gentiles based solely on observing the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh. Encouragingly,Orthodox leaders have recently become increasingly distant from this misreading. As the Encyclopedia Judaica notes: Maimonides equates the 'Khâsid of the (gentile) nations' who has a share in hâ-olâm ha-bâ even though he has not become a Jew with the gentile who keeps the laws of Noakh ("Noachide Laws," EJ, 12:1189). Yet, those who cite this often fail to also note Maimonides other declaration that "he who accepts its [the b^erit with Noakh] obligations is a Geir Toshâv" (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 64b; Maimonides Yad, M^elâkhim 8.10) – i.e., entailing recognition by a Beit-Din, not a Bën-Noakh / gentile, as the English inaccuracy seems to suggest!

Arguing that real B^enei-Noakh are only the ones who keep the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh is tantamount to arguing that only the totally law-abiding portion of US citizens (and by their own, self-professed, reckoning if we follow the B^enei-Noakh paradigm) are real US citizens. Most U.S. politicians and clergy probably wouldn't make that cut, to say nothing of a sizeable segment of other acknowledged and legally certified U.S. citizens. To cite an old joke: The only legitimate Americans by that definition would be you and me – and I'm not at all sure about you. Even if B^enei-Noakh could keep all of the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh as interpreted by the Batei-Din, all of their life, they still would become no more than B^enei-Noakh – all of whom are defined in Talmud as goyim – and we're back where we started – no Mabul, but no y^eshuâh either! Keeping all of the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh defined nothing beyond a Bën-Noakh, and in no way implied participation of a member of B^enei-Noakh (= all goyim) in the b^erit between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Israel's corresponding portion (as contrasted with the false synagogues described in Rev. 2.9 & 3.9) in hâ-olâm ha-bâ. Those who keep only the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh receive only the promise of that b^erit with Noakh – no more Mabul!!!

If I might lend a Middle Eastern flavor to an old maxim: All sheep are animals, but not all animals are sheep. Similarly, all geirim recognize the authority of the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh, but not all who recognize the authority of the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh are geirim. Geirim are those goyim who have been recognized by a P^erushim-heritage Beit-Din as abiding by the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh and commiting to learn and implement the rest of Torâh. Contrary to the poorly translated English, Maimonides like the other Sages, spoke of geirim, never implying that a "gentile" – B^enei-Noakh – becomes party to Israel's share in hâ-olâm ha-bâ by keeping only the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh. That spin was Church imposition talking. Maimonides14 never even implied that the B^enei-Noakh could interpret and judge for themselves whether they were keeping the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh. That would have subverted the authority of the Beit-Din to decide such interpretations, a contradiction of Torâh.

Another misconception must be put to rest. Contrary to Christian canards, Torâh does not, nor has it ever, required perfection as a prerequisite for atonement. Nor has Torâh ever condemned any person for being imperfect. Torâh requires no more – nor less – than that your practice (i.e. keeping Torâh) reflects your utmost, with all of your heart and nëphësh, to love ha-Sheim: "you shall love י--ה your Ëlohim with all of your heart, with all of your nëphësh and with your utmost" (the Sh^ema, b^e-Midbar 15.39; D^evârim 6.5; 11.13). ha-Sheim promises in Torâh that those – and only those – who do their utmost to keep Torâh receive kipur in the khein of ha-Sheim and, therefore, a place in hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

This could give a non-Jew the erroneous idea that before recognition as a geir one needs only observe the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh and then, immediately upon being recognized as a geir(âh), (s)he is immediately accountable for the full implementation of Torâh according to Halâkhâh – even though the trainee doesn't yet even know Torâh and Halâkhâh. This is a misconception. The learning curve requires a period of transition: proceeding only as fast as the geir(âh) can learn Torâh and Halâkhâh; only then can he or she implement it in his or her practice. "'It also stands to reason that no candidate could acquire full familiarity with the whole system of Jewish observance, which he had to keep from the first day after his hitgaiy^erut, through such a single lecture, however long' " ³. While the geir obviously required a transitional learning period, during which partial observance was humanly unavoidable, selective observance as a permanent state beyond a learning period was never an acceptable option for geirim.

Talmud contrasts B^enei-Noakh (all goyim) with the non-Jew who is a geir. "Âmar Rabina to R. Ashi: Come and hear: âmar R. Khiya Ben-Abba in the name of R. Yokhânân: A Bën-Noakh is put to death for stealing less than the smallest coin's worth [of the property of a Jew] and is not obliged to make restitution… And what does it mean 'he is not allowed an opportunity of making restitution'? [It signifies that] he does not come within the scope of the law of restitution" (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 71b-72a). Without getting into the complexity of legal acquisition of property, Talmud confirms here that none of Torâh – including the B^eritot with its accompanying provision of kipur and corresponding portion in hâ-olâm ha-bâ – applied (and, therefore, cannot accrue) to the Bën-Noakh. The geir, who was in various stages of learning to implement Torâh non-selectively, is thus contrasted with the Bën-Noakh who had made no commitment to the non-selective observance of Torâh. Consequently, only the geir was party to, and obligated under, the b^erit with Beit-Yisrâ·eil. In other words, the geir is the only non-Jew who can be party to Israel's b^erit !

The Biblical Archaeology Review declares, "There is simply no one in the world who has a better grasp of Hellenistic Jewish literature than Louis Feldman" (Feldman, Louis H., "The Omnipresence of the G*od-Fearers," Biblical Archaeology Review, 1986.09-10, p. 45, 58ff). "During the Hellenistic and early Roman period (B.C.E. 323 to 70 C.E.)," Feldman observes, "the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts… A proselytizing movement of such scope, if we may judge from parallel movements in the growth of Christianity and Islam, for example, would seem necessarily to imply the existence of intermediate categories of those at a half-way point or other sympathizers who tried to effect a syncretism of the old religion with the new one…" (loc. cit.).

Already by the 1^st century C.E., Feldman notes (loc. cit.) several references to this group of non-Jews who had undertaken to learn and apply Judaism, but hadn't yet reached a satisfactory level to undergo hitgaiy^erut. This is the purpose of the status of Geir Toshâv – a "provisional non-Jew, resident-alien trainee" status or internship. This internship lasts as long as the Geir Toshâv is making progress in learning and applying Torâh according to Halâkhâh non-selectively. When a level of halakhic Torâh-observance equivalent to being ready to undergo hitgaiy^erut is reached, if the Geir Toshâv cannot undergo hitgaiy^erut under the supervision of an Orthodox rabbi (for example, the individual may be married to a non-Jew), then the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim may confer upon him the status of (non-Jewish) Geir Tzëdëq.

Pending coming before a Beit-Din to be recognized as a Geir Toshâv, Talmud regards the Bën-Noakh who fully observes only the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh as merely a higher order of heathen (Masëkët Eiruvin 62a, Masëkët Y^evâmot 47b).

Therefore, statements that "gentiles" or B^enei-Noakh have a place in hâ-olâm ha-bâ can only refer to those who have distinguished themselves out from among the B^enei-Noakh – as a geir.

Moreover, if the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh were all that are required for geirim, that would open the door to Messianics, other Christians, Reform and all manner of groups to include themselves in the P^erushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community since, by their courts, they all satisfy themselves concerning the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh.

The question should properly be asked, "Which comes first, t^eshuvâh or kipur? Both are essential components of an indivisible process. On the one hand, kipur isn't accepted by ha-Sheim unless it's preceded by the first phases of t^eshuvâh – contrition for any aveirot Torâh, confession of any âwonot Torâh, and restitution of any wronged parties. On the other hand, while these first phases of t^eshuvâh must be accomplished before kipur-blood can be invoked, the concluding phases of t^eshuvâh (restoration to a state of qâdosh – in the granting by ha-Sheim of kipur – effecting reconciliation) cannot be completed until after ha-Sheim has accepted the kipur-blood.

To investigate how someone from the goyim can become a geir, and thereby a party to the b^erit and kipur of Beit-Yisrâ·eil, requires rediscovering the path that goyim have always followed, from the time of Har Sinai, to be included as participants in the b^erit of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (excluding the pretend "salvation" of Displacement Theology).

Respectful and tolerant relations between Jews and goyim is a desirable thing. Inclusion of a gentile as a nilwëh in the Jewish community, as a non-Jew, is something entirely different. How, then, can goyim whom Orthodox rabbis will not convert to Judaism, for no good reason, avail themselves of Biblical kipur? The answer is: "exactly the same as from the time of Moshëh." This is the logical consistency characteristic of a Perfect Creator.

Genealogically, after Noakh, ha-Sheim selected and nurtured the root of a family tree, Avrâhâm, a family trunk from that tree, Yitzkhâq Âvinu, a family branch from that trunk, Ya·aqov-Yisrâ·eil, and a Neitzër from that branch of the family, Dâwid, representative of the Mâshiakh) – each subbranch identified with a b^erit.

First, the idea of switching to a different family contradicts this process of refinement. Moreover, through Har Sinai, each selection represents a refinement to more refined definitions of qâdosh, with corresponding penalties for their violation, in order to effect the remedy: t^eshuvâh and kipur. Each b^erit provided new, and most importantly logically consistent, refinements and remedies concerning what ha-Sheim requires of humankind to be granted a prerequisite state of qâdosh that enables ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, to establish, for the individual Jew and geir, an intimate level of communion with Him.

Humankind is responsible, and held accountable, to keep all of ha-Sheim's requirements as they are revealed at the time. No person can reject ha-Sheim's revealed requirements simply because he finds earlier requirements more appealing, any more than those after Noakh can satisfy ha-Sheim be keeping His b^erit with Âdâm.

The logical conclusion of preferring an earlier b^erit would yield a group calling themselves B^enei-Âdâm dancing around naked in a park they name Gan Eidën and playing with snakes – not very far-fetched considering the bizarre cults that arise periodically. However, Gan Eidën was irrevocably closed, just as each succeeding b^erit since has been closed by its subsequent b^erit.

Church doctrines were routinely imposed on Jews during many pograms. Some of these traditions were even internalized over time and still persist despite relief from the persecution. Examples include:

• Church duress imposed the decision that Christians and other goyim have a place in hâ-olâm ha-bâ if they accept the Seven Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh
  
  
• Judaism was prohibited, upon pain of death, from continuing to evangelize
  
  
• Jews were forced to concede that worshipping J*esus isn't idolatry
  
  
• Jews were forced to wear distinctive hats (true origin of the kipâh, Yiddish "yarmulke")
  
  
• Jews were forced to prohibit polygyny.
  
  

Yet, what ha-Sheim revealed to Beit-Yisrâ·eil on Har Sinai, like all of the earlier B^eritot, was His plan and expectation for all humankind – not exclusively for Jews – from the time He revealed it. Unfortunately, for goyim, they all rejected that b^erit and have since been raised in that rejection. Only Israel accepted the b^erit. Therefore, only Israel reaps its rewards.

Jews often ask, "Why do the goyim think Jews should be held to a higher standard than themselves?" The doctrine that only Jews need strive for full observance of Torâh, while goyim shouldn't concern themselves beyond the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh is the answer to their question!!!

The notion that "ha-Sheim requires only the Jews to keep Torâh according to Halâkhâh" is no more valid than someone in the time of Noakh claiming "ha-Sheim required only Noakh to keep the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh." They drowned!

Having rejected the existing definitions of "sin" (properly defined only by Torâh) and replaced it with a pagan concept of personal 'salvation' through 'grace,' Christianity never had a fixed standard of "sin" other than "the rejection of the 'Lord J*esus'."

In Judaism, by contrast, "Both the [Tana"kh] and rabbinic theology reflect the belief that [Ëlohim]is qâdosh, man must be tâhor in order to remain in communion with Him. Sin⁴ and tumâh [both defined as aveirot of Torâh] [create a fissure] in the relationship between creature and Creator, and the process of kipur – through t^eshuvâh and reparation – restores this relationship" ("Atonement," EJ, 3:830).

A Perfect Singularity-Creator is, by definition, without imperfection – mum; i.e., ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu! For ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, to mingle / commune with an imperfect human, i.e. having a mum, would produce a contaminated creator having a mum – no longer ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Hence, ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu is the only One who can, through His khein extricate us from tumâh and khol, elevating us to a state of qâdosh so that we can then commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, without contaminating Him. This was – and is prophesied to be again in the Messianic Era – the symbolic purpose of the animal sacrifice system.⁵ Prohibitions against the mingling of unlike things, and the mitzwot to make an Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol are both requirements for us do to our utmost to avoid incurring a mum as well as mnemonics to continually remind us of this critical issue. Torâh sets forth the only means for erasing our imperfections (t^eshuvâh and kipur) to achieve reconciliation.

Some types of aveirot Torâh dealing with the physical body cause a person to become physically tumâh. As long as the spirit dwells in the body, tumâh causes a state of khol, a barrier to the state of qâdosh required for any relationship with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Tana"kh instructs that, to attain qâdosh, tumâh and khol must be remedied – not by "salvation," but by tâhârâh and t^eshuvâh, respectively – comprising the cessation of transgressing Torâh (Y^eshayâhu 33.15 and T^ehilim 15; 24.4; cf. also "Repentance," EJ, 14.73) and the commencement of performing the positive precepts of Torâh (Y^eshayâhu 1.17; 58.5ff; Yirm^eyâhu 7.3; 26.13; Âmos 5.14-15; T^ehilim 34.15-16; 37.27; cf. also "Repentance," EJ, 14.73), contrition for inadvertent aveirot Torâh, confession of deliberate (cf. b^e-Midbar 15.30; et al.) aveirot Torâh, restitution to any wronged party,⁶ and, only then, kipur for life in hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

From the Biblical beginning, examination of the whole series of B^eritot shows that each b^erit was an upgrade required due to humankind's increase in knowledge, i.e., his developing understanding of the Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol, and his relating to the qâdosh of ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Just as Âdâm and Khawâh weren't content to obey without understanding, and insisted on ascertaining the reasons why ha-Sheim imposed a law on them – i.e., "they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong" – they couldn't, after their increase in knowledge, return to the simplicity (innocence) of Gan Eidën and its b^erit consisting of a single law. The most recently revealed b^erit has always been the only b^erit between ha-Sheim and humankind accessible to mankind at any given time. These consistent B^eritot reflect ha-Sheim's incremental unfolding of His consistent plan – and definitions – for humankind to eventually develop into a "ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש" (mamlëkhët Kohanim w^e-goy qâdosh; a kingdom of Kohanim and a goy qâdosh – Sh^emot 19.6; for the goy qâdosh, see also Z^ekharyâh 8.23 and 14.16-21) in order to commune intimately with Ëlohim – as a wife with her Husband. Since Âdâm, each b^erit was established as ha-Sheim found the individual and family capable and willing (the operation of free will) to satisfy and establish the latest, increasingly refined, revelation of His definitions of qâdosh with the corresponding penalties and remedies for their violation, needed to effect t^eshuvâh and kipur. The purpose is that, in this Way, ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, can, in His khein, can transform individual humans to a state of qâdosh without contradicting Himself, thereby enabling communion and a relationship with Him.

Through these consistent B^eritot, humankind is brought to the necessary state of qâdosh for communion with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Through the khein of ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, homo sapiens are granted access to a provision erasing their imperfections, thereby making them qâdosh so that they may commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, in hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

The first stage was through predesigned natural (physical) selection – the Mabul. The second stage is through spiritual selection. Those outside of the b^erit with Noakh, being arrogantly and hopelessly tumâh, were, like S^edom (corrupted to "Sodom") and Amorâh (corrupted to "Gomorrah"), cut off physically. Within the limits exemplified by S^edom and Amorâh, those outside of the b^erit with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, are only cut off spiritually since, while remaining alive physically, there is still hope that these might one day repent and choose to satisfy the b^erit, becoming nilwim to Beit-Yisrâ·eil.

At the time of Har Sinai, only Beit-Yisrâ·eil was willing to satisfy the Creator's desires, to become a party to, and establish the terms of, His b^erit – for all future humankind. Attempting to claim the benefit of a b^erit without adhering to the terms of the same b^erit, and thereby becoming party to the same b^erit, is as nonsensical as buying a computer game for a Mac and claiming the receipt makes you a shareholder and executive of Microsoft. The reality of Yom ha-Sheim (Day of ha-Sheim, popularly "Judgment Day") sets in when you try to forge a check on Bill Gates' account or move into a room in his mansion. Inclusion in the b^erit with Noakh is an attribute of every living person. However, just as Bill Gates' approval is needed to have any valid claim to be family, party or beneficiary to what is his, similarly, inclusion of those outside the family of Beit-Yisrâ·eil in the b^erit between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil requires obtaining authorization and recognition from Beit-Yisrâ·eil (i.e., from a P^erushim-heritage Beit-Din) for inclusion in the b^erit of Har Sinai and subsequent b^eritot.

At least from the time of Har Sinai the only two options enabling gentiles to obtain nilwëh status from a Beit-Din into Q^ehilat ha-Sheim were (and remain):

1. by B^erit Milâh and hitgaiy^erut according to Halâkhâh, becoming a Jew, or
   
   
2. obtaining nilwëh status without B^erit Milâh (i.e., without hitgaiy^erut), in other words, as a geir.⁷
   
   

The classic Jewess who underwent hitgaiy^erut in ca. B.C.E. 1144 is Rut. She expressed the required attitude of a person from among the goyim who desired to obtain the status of nilwëh status from the Beit-Din into Q^ehilat ha-Sheim (Rut 1.16ff): "Don't entreat me to leave you, or to turn from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your am is my am, and your Ëlohim is my Ëlohim. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried – and so may י--ה add that [death and burial] to me if anything other than death separates between you and me."

But not all who obtained nilwëh status to Israel were like Rut. "Ancient Israel was acquainted with two categories of strangers, resident aliens and foreigners who considered their sojourn in the land more or less temporary. The latter were referred to as zârim or Nokhrim, terms generally applied to anyone outside the circle the writer had in view (e.g., Sh^emot 21.8; 29.33). They retained their ties to their original home and sought to maintain their former political or social status…. In contrast with the zâr, the geir lived more or less permanently in his adopted community…. and bound by their laws [emphasis mine] (b^e-Midbar 15.15-16)…." ²³

Ignorant of Hebrew, some misread Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh (31.31) as heralding a supersessive, Displacement Theology b^erit.

Yirm^eyâhu 31.30-32 reads: " 'Behold, days are coming,' declares י--ה, 'when I will inscribe with Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Y^ehudâh a ברית חדשה (B^erit Khadâshâh).' "

"Inscribe a B^erit Khadâshâh with goyim," did He say? No!!! With Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Y^ehudâh!!! Consistence!

Further, there is no implication of any significant difference in kind or radical change in direction inherent in the adjective "new." Even in English, "new" doesn't imply (logically) significant difference in kind or radical change in direction. If someone with one or more children tells you that their wife had a "new" baby, no reasonable person coming to see the "new" baby would be shocked that it isn't a camel or a begonia. Even when a shampoo company advertises an "all new" formula, you would be quite upset if you looked in the mirror after using it and discovered their "new" formula – even though it was advertised as "all new" – was a permanent hair removal cream!

Hebrew is even less ambiguous. חדש (khâdâsh) is a masc. sing. adj. meaning "new." Because ברית (b^erit) is a fem. sing. noun, Hebrew grammar requires that the adj. match in number and gender: the fem. sing. חדשה (khadâshâh).

Assuming the weight of evidence wrong is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam; in modern parlance, proofshift. Whenever there is a known state, anyone wishing to claim a change in that state assumes the burden of proving that change. The burden of proof never shifts to require showing a known state continues to be the same. Logic places the burden of proof on Displacement Theology to prove displacement, not on defenders of Torâh to prove it hasn't been displaced. 4Q MMT demonstrates that Torâh was clearly considered valid and all of the above is consistent with, and corroborates, Judaism before 135 C.E. It is not enough for Displacement Theology or proponents of supersession to assume Displacement or Christian claims of supersession. Displacement or supersession must be proven. No one can even defend it credibly, much less prove it.

Unless Tana"kh states a diametric change explicitly and unambiguously, illucidating the logical consistency in the diametric change of direction, one is never justified in rejecting a well-solved (i.e., known-consistent) interpretation, and never to default to an inconsistent interpretation of some radical change.

If Yirm^eyâhu had been writing in English, he would have had to imply such a radical change – encompassing both, direction and kind – by at least explaining that this would be "another" b^erit, implying kind and direction.

Hebrew has two terms to express the English idea of "another":

• עוד (od; another similar, more of the same)
  
  
• אחר (akheir; another that's different), the fem. form is אחרת (akhërët)
  
  

If a contradictory displacement b^erit had been intended, Yirm^eyâhu would have had to clarify further that, unlike all previous b^eritot that were consistent, he was prophesying a b^erit khadâshâh that was inconsistent with all of the earlier b^eritot. In Hebrew, without some additional cue, חדשה (khadâshâh) suggests an absence of polar change, in kind or direction. To express such a prodigious, polar change in Hebrew, conveying "new that's significantly different in kind or direction" rather than "new that's similar in kind and direction," Yirm^eyâhu would, minimally, have had to write: ברית אחרת (b^erit akhërët; another-different b^erit), making the word khadâshâh (new) redundant. Because neither Torâh nor the N^eviyim are deliberately obtuse, however, we should expect Yirm^eyâhu to describe it even more precisely, as a ברית מחליפה (b^erit makhaliphâh; a b^erit introducing a radical change in kind or a radical switch in direction), again making the word khadâshâh (new) redundant. Yirm^eyâhu doesn't describe his B^erit Khadâshâh with these words because his B^erit Khadâshâh was neither a b^erit akhërët nor a b^erit makhaliphâh!

Yirm^eyâhu makes no such explicit and unambiguous statement, which would be needed to introduce Displacement Theology.

Exactly the contrary! Precisely to preclude this kind of straying from Torâh, Yirm^eyâhu continues that, unlike the first set of tablets that were broken even before they could be presented to Israel (Sh^emot 32.19-20), the B^erit Khadâshâh, governing the second set of tablets (i.e., Torâh), would never be broken, and it would be khadâshâh, new, (only) in the sense of internalizing the desire to keep Torâh (i.e., in the heart), rather than continuing to depend upon the external imposition of Torâh through the threat of punishment. Yirm^eyâhu specifically stipulated that the difference was not any contradiction, or displacement, of Beit-Yisrâ·eil or His Torâh (30.32): " 'Because this is the b^erit that I will inscribe with Beit-Yisrâ·eil after those days,' declares י--ה, 'I will give My Torâh in their innermost being, and will write it upon their hearts.' "

Has Yirm^eyâhu written of ha-Sheim that "this is the b^erit that [He] will inscribe with 'the gentiles' "? That He "will give a 'NT' in their innermost being"? That He "will write a 'NT' upon their hearts"? Recognizing the difference between a b^erit concerning Torâh in contrast to Torâh itself is fundamental to understanding Yirm^eyâhu's message. This was a new b^erit concerning how to better relate to Torâh – from the heart, not a displacement of Torâh. The two concepts are mutually exclusive, polar opposites.

Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh was the internalization of Torâh, keeping Torâh from the heart rather than out of fear of punishment – therefore, keeping the "Spirit of Torâh" (the Ruakh ha-Qodësh) rather than the "letter of the law."

For over 700 years after Yirm^eyâhu introduced this B^erit Khadâshâh – until gentile Roman pagans claimed, after 135 C.E., that it meant something diametrically opposite – the entire Judaic community knew that. The entire Judaic community still knows it. Consistent.

This is the identical "Realm of the heavens" that Ribi Y^ehoshua explained had come down to men, the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, the Sh^ekhinâh of ha-Sheim, Who would live in the hearts of those of Israel (which included geirim) who are willing.

There's no basis in Yirm^eyâhu for a Displacement Theology; whether of the parties, of the B^eritot or of its terms. Only by relying upon the consistent Judaic tradition of the author – Yirm^eyâhu – may one understand what Yirm^eyâhu wrote from his own Judaic perspective.

"During the Hellenistic and early Roman period (B.C.E. 323 to 70 C.E.)," Louis H. Feldman observes,⁸ "the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts… A proselytizing movement of such scope, if we may judge from parallel movements in the growth of Christianity and Islam, for example, would seem necessarily to imply the existence of intermediate categories of those at a half-way point or other sympathizers who tried to effect a syncretism [emphasis added] of the old religion with the new one…"

Displacement Theology is naked misojudaism deriving from Hellenist (pagan) Roman goyim who syncretized selected concepts from Judaism into their own pagan mythologies and sun(g*od)day worship, to self-proclaim their own ex post facto, retrojected, antinomian and misojudaic image: J*esus. For example, Dec. 25^th was the birthday of M*ithra, their sun g*od (= 666, details in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)), while Ribi Y^ehoshua was certainly born in late spring to early summer. Astronomical correlation fixes that date as May 29^th of B.C.E. 7 (The N^etzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM), notes 2.2.1, 2.0.1 & 2.3.1).

Not only did Yirm^eyâhu stipulate that this b^erit was with Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Y^ehudâh, and not a contradictory theology of replacing Jews with goyim, neither had there ever been any precedent for rejecting consistency and contradicting previous B^eritot – B^eritot that contain promises that were to Beit-Yisrâ·eil forever, by ha-Sheim's sworn Word.

Those who maintain that g*od broke His Word to Beit-Yisrâ·eil worship a liar!

This is how Judaic and Christian views diverge – exactly the same way that the views of the N^etzârim, part of the P^erushim-heritage (i.e., Orthodox Jewish) community, diverge from Christian Jews (imposter "Messianics") and the numerous counterfeit N^etzârim and 'Nazarenes' springing up like Paul the Apostate and the Ëvyonim. Jews interpret this verse in Yirm^eyâhu consistently, along with everything Judaic (all the B^eritot) that led forward to it. Christians, by contrast, interpret this verse consistently with everything Christian, attempting to fabricate a path they could retroject back to it – that is, by assuming (petitio principii) that Christianity is the consummate b^erit described by Yirm^eyâhu and then, by naked fabrication, retrojecting their own 4^th-century misojudaic (Hellenist Roman) goyim Christian perspectives back in time. What they couldn't do, however, is create pre-135 C.E. documentation for their fabrications.

Yirm^eyâhu absolutely limits messianic interpretations of the B^erit Khadâshâh to be consistent with all of the previous B^eritot with ha-Sheim, remaining strictly within, and for, His earlier familial selection – Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Y^ehudâh, who continue to be the only beneficiaries; just as Noakh was within the family (descendants) of Âdâm, Avrâhâm within the family of Noakh, Yitzkhâq Âvinu within the family of Avrâhâm, Ya·aqov within the family of Yitzkhâq Âvinu, Aharon and Dâwid (Kohein and mëlëkh, respectively) within the family of Ya·aqov, Tzâdoq and Shlomoh ha-Melekh within the families of Aharon and Dâwid, respectively, and the Mâshiakh – Ribi Y^ehoshua Bën-Yoseiph Bën-Dâvid – from the family of Dâwid.

No b^erit given by ha-Sheim has ever been inconsistent with this process or stepped outside of the previously selected family. Each specification has always focused refining the previous; has always been more comprehensive than the last, constraining human behavior ever more closely to His desires – never abandoning the previously promised family or taking a radical turn in a different direction. Consequently, kipur under the provisions of the b^erit of Har Sinai became, and necessarily must always continue to be, within the definitions and terms of Torâh and for Beit-Yisrâ·eil (which included geirim) – exclusively.

To become party to Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh, all goyim must meet the terms of all of the previous B^eritot, which ha-Sheim obliged Beit-Yisrâ·eil to preserve, and obtain the approval of the current and historical party to the b^erit (not merely claim, by self-proclamation, that their g*od redirected the b^erit to make them parties to it). Only a legitimate party to the b^erit can admit another party into the b^erit. This is done only through a P^erushim-heritage Beit-Din. Yirm^eyâhu explicitly stipulated that the requirements to become party to Israel's kipur for a share in hâ-olâm ha-bâ promised to Beit-Yisrâ·eil, were clearly revealed and spelled out earlier – as terms of the b^erit of Har Sinai. Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh explicitly precluded any changes in ha-Sheim's requirements (the terms) for a person to be 'saved' and go to 'heaven.' That requirement, explicitly spelled out, was "My Torâh." The only thing new that Yirm^eyâhu leaves open is the internalization by which ha-Sheim would fulfill the same / consistent terms of His earlier b^erit – "My Torâh" – with Beit-Yisrâ·eil. Only the promise⁹ of Yirm^eyâhu's b^erit is khadâshâh (new). The terms Yirm^eyâhu cites for being party to that promise, by contrast, are not new: one must internalize the terms of the b^erit of Har Sinai — which is Torâh.

Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh was confirmed in Dërëkh Halâkhâh as being consistent with the previous B^eritot for over half a millennium before Ribi Y^ehoshua was even born, and it was more than a century after his death when Hellenist and Roman goyim first introduced their misojudaic apostasy of supersessive Displacement Theology – Christianity – in 135 C.E. This demonstrates conclusively that the contradicting goyim syncretizations of the 2^nd-4^th centuries C.E. are bogus fabrications and deceptions, the greatest deception in history.

But that didn't leave non-Jews out of the picture. The Sages comment on T^ehilim 67:3 that Ëlohim's interest wasn't, isn't and won't be confined to Israel. He loves all of His creatures. But He is and must remain ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Therefore, His provisions for eternal communion with Him are granted exclusively to those who do their utmost to keep Torâh. He is vitally concerned with the welfare and kipur of all who do their utmost to keep Torâh. One purpose of Israel's exile and dispersion was to expose all of the goyim to the Torâh teachings, so that they might have an opportunity to accept these truthes and obtain kipur. The Sages taught (Masëkët P^esâkhim 87b) that ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, exiled Israel among the goyim in order to add geirim to the Jewish people (Artscroll T^ehilim I, p. 819); geirim – not goyim, nor B^enei-Noakh (Masëkët P^esâkhim 87b).

In Talmud, the end of Masëkët Qidushin 69a and most of 69b is devoted to the question of who may "come to each other" (יבא זה בזה (yâvo zëh b^e-zëh; "he will come this [one] to that [one]," in the sense of marital intimacy). יבא (yâvo; he will come) is from the verb בוא (bo; he came). This issue is generally discussed under the topic ביאה (bi·âh; coming and, by extension, coitus or sexual intercourse), a cognate of this verb. Based on similar language referring to marriage elsewhere (D^evârim 23.2-4), the Sages interpreted this language as referring to physical marriage between various categories within Q^ehilat-ha-Sheim. (Marriage means a halakhically sanctioned marriage. "Marriage" outside of Judaism has no validity in Judaism.)

Mishnâh Qidushin 69a-b begins "Ten yukhasin went up from Bavël," then lists the 10 categories of yukhasin of the public genealogical registers that were known collectively as the "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life):¹⁰ Kohanim, L^ewiyim, Yisrâ·eilim, Khalâlim (profaned Kohanim), Geirim, khârârim (freed slave, free man), mamz^erim (offspring of coupling prohibited by Halâkhâh), n^etinim,¹¹ sh^etuqim (mutes), and asuphim (foundlings).

This Mishnâh sets forth three major groups of these 10 categories of yukhasin who were permitted to "come to each other"; i.e., intermarriage was permitted only within a group and, even then, only under certain conditions:

• Between Kohanim, L^ewiyim and Yisrâ·eilim;
  
  
• Between L^ewiyim, Yisrâ·eilim, Khalâlim, geirim, and khârârim; or
  
  
• Between geirim, khârârim, mamz^erim, n^etinim, sh^etuqim, and asuphim.
  
  

Certain types were included in two of the groups, indicating that, under certain conditions, members of one group could migrate to a different group and then be permitted to marry certain members of the new group: (א and ב) or (ב and ג). Groups א and ג, by contrast, are mutually exclusive; indicating that cross-group marriage is never permitted, under any conditions, between any members of these two groups of yukhasin.

This implies a number of conclusions:

• Non-Judaic 'marriage' between a geir and a person of the goyim does not constitute an intermarriage on two counts:
  
  
  1. non-Judaic 'marriage' isn't a marriage according to Halâkhâh and
     
     
  2. no member of Yisrâ·eil (i.e., Jew; namely, group א) is involved.
     
     
• Jews or geirim married to goyim under civil law are unmarried according to Halâkhâh.
  
  
• There were clearly conditions stipulated upon any marriages between these three groups who could "come to each other." For example, not all Yisrâ·eilim could always marry any Kohein. In group א, for example, Mishnâh teaches that a Kohein may not marry a divorcée even if she is in the same group. To be consistent, Masëkët Qidushin 69a-b may only be understood as teaching that conditions can exist such that the categories within any one of these three groups can "come to each other," and not that, in all cases, intermarriage within the categories was unconditionally permitted.
  
  
• In certain cases, the rabbis wouldn't perform marriages even within a group and they wouldn't perform cross-marriages between any two of the three major groups – much less intermarriage outside of these three groups with goyim.
  
  
• If a geir in group ג underwent hitgaiy^erut he would migrate into group ב – as a Yisrâ·eili, however, no longer a geir.
  
  
• Therefore, a priori, the geir in group ב can only be a Geir Tzëdëq (i.e., who has been recognized as fully Torâh-observant in contrast to the temporary and provisional Geir Toshâv who, a priori, occupies group ג).
  
  
• Therefore, a priori, a Kohein may marry a Yisrâ·eilit, whether by birth or choice, but may not marry a geir (whether Toshâv or Tzëdëq). This preserves the Torâh instruction that one may not "boil a kid in its mother's milk" (i.e., deride a Jew-by-choice over his or her native origins). If a Kohein couldn't marry a Jew-by-choice that would be a conspicuous breach of Torâh, demonstrating unequivocally that the "Jew-by-choice" isn't a full Jew. Instead, however, that distinction is a false belief based in bigotry and not supported by Torâh.
  

  To make matters worse, without the ancient yukhasin (all of which were destroyed except the maternal and paternal genealogies of Ribi Y^ehoshua), N^ekhëmyâh documents (7.63) that no person since be a legitimate Kohein.

  
  
  
• The khârârim in group ב then refers only to those khârârim who are Jews.
  
  

It should also be clear from this that:

1. geirim is as valid a category of Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim as any of the other nine categories, and
   
   
2. being in the category of geirim and not Yisrâ·eilim is no more a slight than this writer being in the category of Yisrâ·eilim and not in the category of Kohanim or L^ewiyim.
   
   
3. geirim should not be insecure simply because they are outside of the category of Yisrâ·eilim – neither are the Kohanim, L^ewiyim, and the other six categories!
   
   

Reverting to the vernacular of modern mainstream Judaism, the questions we're answering are:

1. whether, from Biblical antiquity, Halâkhâh permits the shomeir-Torah non-Jew to marry into the khârârim, mamz^erim, n^etinim, sh^etuqim, or asuphim categories (demonstrated in the affirmative); and
   
   
2. whether, from Biblical antiquity, Halâkhâh permits the shomeir-Torah (former geir / Jew who has undergone hitgaiy^erut) to marry into the mamz^erim, n^etinim, sh^etuqim, or asuphim – regardless whether modern Jews refer to him or her as a geir (demonstrated in the negative).
   
   

Talmud thus confirms that geirim, unlike either the B^enei-Noakh or the goyim, were the only category of non-Jew included as one of the 10 categories of yukhasin that constituted Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim returning from Bavël. To be included in the yukhasin was to be included in the "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life = 'saved') – and, from antiquity, this has remained the only Dërëkh through which non-Jews can become participants in the B^eritot between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil and, thus, have a portion in hâ-olâm ha-bâ!

When the Sidur says "In Shabât contentment, the ערלים (areilim; uncircumcised) shall not [be present as a] neighbor," it uses areilim in the plural, to refer collectively to the goyim, not the individual. This is clear because, though infrequent, medical considerations occasionally preclude circumcising a male Jewish baby. The Sidur certainly doesn't refer to such a Jew being excluded from the contentment of Shabât. Similarly, neither does the Sidur preclude the blessings of Shabât to a geir who has also been granted nilwëh status onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil by a P^erushim-heritage Beit-Din in accordance with Halâkhâh. To the contrary, the Sidur declares (weekday Shakharit Amidâh): "Upon the tzadiqim, and upon the khasidim, and upon the geirei tzëdëq and upon the remnant of Your am, Beit-Yisrâ·eil may they utter Your compassions ha-Sheim Ëloheinu; and give a good wage to all who trust in Your Name in truth; and set our portion with them l^e-olâm." The geir is an individual who, despite being âreil (uncircumcised) and a non-Jew, is a member of Beit-Yisrâ·eil and not categorized with the areilim (uncircumcised).

According to a note in Magil's Linear sidur: "The correct tradition is areilim, because such is found in every sidur, both S^ephârâdi and Ramb"m sidurim. And this is the language of [Ramb"m's] Moonstone: `And You did not give it, י--ה our Ëloheinu, to the goyei ha-arâtzot,' (those who aren't star-servers), `You did not bequeath it, O our King, to idol-servers,' (those who serve strange things). 'Also in its comfort do not dwell the areilim (who are neither these nor those, but geirim who accept upon themselves [only] the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh), but rather to Beit-Yisrâ·eil who has accepted upon them all of the Torâh. And concerning such it isn't right to skip them. It is the language that was fixed by the Sages.' end of quote" (Magil's Complete Linear Prayer Book, 16^th ed., New York, Hebrew Publ. Co., 1905, II, 125). Significantly, however, this entire section is absent in the sidur Teimâni.

Ramb"m clarifies that even the goyei ha-arâtzot, who aren't star worshippers, weren't given Shabât; clarifying, too, that idol-servers means all those who venerate strange things, and that geirim who have met only the threshold requirements of the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh but who don't undertake to learn (and apply as one learns) full and non-selective halakhic Torâh-observance don't attain to dwell in the comfort of Shabât . Only those who undertake the full halakhic observance of Torâh , achieving recognition from a P^erushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din as Geir Tzëdëq, attain the enjoyment of dwelling in the comfort of Shabât.

This Mishnâh also demonstrates the types of yukhasin that must be documented, demonstrating why Jews keep formal records of those who have been recognized by a P^erushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din – the yukhasin or "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life).¹⁰ By the time of the destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini, "Davidic descendants were not traceable" ("Messiah," EJ, 11:1410.). Since the Roman destruction of the public yukhasin (by the 4^th century C.E.), after a lapse of centuries, modern records are distributed among Orthodox institutions across the world. These records determine whether Halâkhâh permits a certain marriage, the status of children, who they may and may not marry, whether they can make âliyâh to Israel under the Law of Return, and the like.

Geirim are not classed as khârârim, mamz^erim, n^etinim, sh^etuqim, or asuphim, and these kinds of personal data are necessary for keeping proper records that are essential for determining marital eligibility, among other things, by the wider Jewish community. This is handled by P^erushim-heritage (Orthodox) rabbis according to Halâkhâh. The N^etzârim maintain only yukhasin information specific to N^etzârim Jews and geirim.

The geir is granted nilwëh status by a Beit-Din, thereby being registered in this "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life):¹⁰ with the rest of Beit-Yisrâ·eil. The relationship can be described as a full interaction, at a specified level, in a dynamic relationship that changes as the geir matures to accept the full authority of Torâh (i.e., becomes a Geir Tzëdëq or converts, thereupon being transformed into a Jew). A primary distinction is that the geir isn't a Jew(ess), but that isn't unique – neither were some of the khârârim. Being a geir is neither an insult nor an epithet. Only when applied to someone who is a Jew – and not a geir – it becomes both. It shouldn't be an insult to be called a man or a woman – if the person in question is such. It's not so nice if the person is of the opposite sex than what they're being called. A Kohein shouldn't be called Yisrâ·eili, etc. Should this writer be insulted at being "only" Yisrâ·eili and Y^ehudi?

For example, mamz^erim, while restricted from marrying in groups א or ב of the yukhasin, were, nevertheless, included in the yukhasin. Since D^evârim 23:2-4 prohibits mamz^erim from marrying within Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim, and this was interpreted by the Sages as a prohibition against them marrying in groups א or ב of the yukhasin, we can conclude that one understanding of Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim was as a synonym for groups א and ב of the yukhasin. Thus, also in this way geirim are clearly demonstrated to be within Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim (since geirim are included in group ב of the yukhasin).

While Jews could also become slaves, whenever they were freed they reverted to their previous status. Khârârim comprised non-Jews exclusively. Sandwiched between a category of Jews (khalâlim) on one side and a category of non-Jews (khârârim) on the other, the geir was regarded as in between: more than a zâr / Bën-Noakh but less than a full Jew.

Just like resident-alien status in the U.S. or any other country today, geir is a legal status with legal admission requirements and obligations, not a voluntary code of self-defined behavior or self-proclaimed status. One of the big differences between geirim and goyim is that goyim define and attempt to relate Torâh and Jews to themselves, according to their own beliefs, values and standards, while geirim do the opposite: defining and relating themselves to Torâh and Jews according to Judaic Torâh standards, values and beliefs. Also, goyim are defined as mutually exclusive from Beit-Yisrâ·eil, while geirim are granted nilwëh status onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil as one of its ten documented yukhasin and, therefore, are co-beneficiaries with Beit-Yisrâ·eil in her B^eritot and, therefore, co-sharers with her in hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

Thus, along with the nine other categories, Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim includes geirim comprising:

1. Geirei Tzëdëq who strive to be shomeir-Torah according to Halâkhâh and will undergo hitgaiy^erut to become a Jew (and will then cease being a geir);
   
   
2. Geirei Tzëdëq who strive to be shomeir-Torah according to Halâkhâh but are ineligible to undergo hitgaiy^erut due to their marital situation;¹² and
   
   
3. Geirei Toshâv provisional trainees learning how to become one of the first two (Sh^emot 19:5-6 and Z^ekharyâh 8:23.).
   
   

The prohibition of intermarriage between geirim (unless they first undergo hitgaiy^erut and become a Jew, in which case they're no longer a geir) and Beit-Yisrâ·eil was first symbolized in the warning against kilaiyim (mixed-up diverse) kinds of seeds, and of sha·atneiz. The only Hebrew term that can be related to sha·atneiz is an acronym: שעטנ"ז ג"ץ Sha·atnei"z Gei"tz, which designates the 7 letters that are adorned with crownlets in the Seiphër Torâh. Why Sha·atnei"z and Gei"tz, and no other letters? And why is Sha·atnei"z separated from Gei"tz as two words rather than one? This was neither accidental nor without significance. Gei"tz is the acronym standing for Geir Tzëdëq! The meaning is, Don't render your seed kilaiyim (mixed-up diverse), producing sha·atneiz in the fabric of Beit-Yisrâ·eil with the Geir Tzëdëq – a cryptic prohibition against intermarriage contained in the crownlets throughout Seiphër Torâh.

Where wa-Yiqrâ 25:47 mentions a Geir Toshâv, Onkelos translates this as ערל תותב (aral totâv; an uncircumcised settler) – certainly not a Jew.

Talmud (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 65a) corroborates that the Geir Toshâv was a pre-convert who had not yet undergone B^erit Milâh: "… Âmar Râbâ Bën-Bar-Khanan in the name or R. Yokhânân: 'A Geir Toshâv who allows twelve months to pass without undergoing B^erit Milâh is to be regarded as a heretic among idolaters!' [Rav Y^ehudâh] answered, 'This refers to the circumstance where he undertook to undergo B^erit Milâh but did not undergo the rite.'" Here Talmud demonstrates both that the Geir Toshâv implied a pre-convert geir in training, and that not all convert trainees / geirim "undertook B^erit Milâh." This describes only those geirim who had committed to undergo B^erit Milâh, associated with the option of undertaking hitgaiy^erut. (B^erit Milâh isn't optional for the geir undergoing hitgaiy^erut.) Therefore, this condemnation cannot be logically applied to the geir who has undertaken neither B^erit Milâh nor hitgaiy^erut. (There are also permanent geirim, who, for one reason or another cannot qualify for hitgaiy^erut.)

In group ב of the yukhasin, Talmud documents that L^ewiyim, Yisrâ·eilim, Khalâlim, geirim, and khârârim can "come to each other" in Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim. The language mimics a passage in Torâh that speaks of mamz^erim and others who may not "come to each other" in Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim, i.e., may not marry within Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim. In saying that geirim were permitted to "come to each other" with other groups in Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim, Talmud's identical language necessarily implies not only that the geir was permitted, under certain conditions, to marry within Beit-Yisrâ·eil, but also that he was permitted, under certain conditions, to "come to each other" in Q^ehilat- ha-Sheim.

The sabot in the gears is a statement in Talmud that a Jew may marry a geir: "A geir may marry a Jewish woman, even the daughter of a Kohein" (Masëkët Qidushin 73a; Ramb"m Yâd, Isurei Bi·âh (prohibitions of coming) 19:11; Shulkhân Ârukh, Ëvën ha-Ëzër (the helping stone) 7:22, quoted from "Proselytes," EJ, 13:1184). A geirâh, however, cannot marry a Kohein, unless she [underwent hitgaiy^erut] during childhood, not later than the age of three years and one day (Masëkët Y^evâmot 60b; Masëkët Qidushin 78a). R. Yose permits the marriage of the daughter of a geir(âh) to a Kohein; R. Ëliëzër Bën-Ya·aqov, however, disputes the matter" ("Proselytes," EJ, 13:1184).

In the case of marriage between a geir(âh) and a Kohein the Sages confirm an understood "there is a case in which" (i.e., unless she underwent hitgaiy^erut not later than the age of three years and one day). The same understood "there is a case in which" applies to marriage between a geir, a khârâr or a Khalâl and the daughter of a Kohein, demonstrating that permission of intermarriage is not implied in all cases. Intermarriage is restricted in the case of the geir (who must undergo hitgaiy^erut to become a Jew) and the khârâr (who must either be a Jew or undergo hitgaiy^erut) and, concerning these and the Khalâlim, the daughter of the Kohein forfeits all her rights to any participation in matters pertaining to Kohanim. Just as not all animals are goats, not all geirim can marry the daughter of a Kohein, nor could all khârârim marry the daughter of a Kohein.

If one wishes to explain that Masëkët Y^evâmot 60b and Masëkët Qidushin 78a imply that the daughter of a Kohein may marry the Geir Tzëdëq – "as is" because they interpret the phrase to refer to a Jew who has already undergone hitgaiy^erut, this implies that, similarly, the khârâr, who is a non-Jew, would also be permitted to marry the daughter of a Kohein "as is" (without hitgaiy^erut), because he is a member of the same group. This interpretation of Geir Tzëdëq would introduce a contradiction and, on these grounds as well, therefore demonstrated false.

The apparent specter, raised by yukhasin group ב, of intermarriage between geirim and Yisrâ·eilim / L^ewiyim is very likely the reason that, despite overwhelming evidence that geirim had not undergone hitgaiy^erut, many Jewish interpreters continue to insist that, since marrying a Jew is permitted, the geir in group ב could only refer to Geir Tzëdëq based solely on their equating him to a Jew. The unjustified inference of intermarriage between geir and Jew in the Masëkët Qidushin citation probably cemented the evolving definition of a Geir Tzëdëq as a Jew who has undergone hitgaiy^erut. However, this interpretation of Talmud (that it would otherwise contradict the injunction against intermarriage with non-Jews) is based on error.

Talmud isn't discussing ordinary Jews in Masëkët Qidushin 73a. This passage focuses on Khalâlim, khârârim, geirim, mamz^erim, and sh^etuqim. These categories are not despised as in western culture. Rather, although all of the categories except geirim and khârârim are Jews, they are not qualified to be regarded as, i.e., intermarry with, Kohanim, L^ewiyim or Yisrâ·eilim. This categorization of geirim – as being a classification separate from, and unqualified to be regarded as, Yisrâ·eilim – is not the association Halâkhâh dictates is due the Jew who has undergone hitgaiy^erut. Therefore, the Geir Tzëdëq is yet again demonstrated not to be a Jew.

Jews were required to offer the Passover qârbân, and it is a well recognized halakhic principle that Torâh doesn't include such a phrase without a reason and an implication. If one argues that the Geir Tzëdëq has undergone B^erit Milâh and become a Jew, why, then, does Torâh deem it necessary to stipulate that only those from among the geirim who had undergone  B^erit Milâh could do so (Cf. Sh^emot 12.48)? If a gentile became circumcised and converted to be a geir, then, a priori, there can be no uncircumcised geirim – implying that Torâh is mumbling nonsense! Yet again, the geir cannot be a Jew. If the Geir Tzëdëq was a Jew who had undergone B^erit Milâh and converted, then Torâh would have had no reason to append this stipulation. This unambiguously implies that there were geirim who had neither undergone B^erit Milâh nor hitgaiy^erut, and weren't classified as Jews.

In fact, there is no way in Hebrew to accurately call someone a "convert" to Judaism. One can convert to Judaism but, in Judaism, one cannot be a convert. One can only be a gentile, geir or Jew. That comports with the Torâh prohibition against reminding a Jew-by-choice of his or her pagan origins.

The only term in Hebrew is geir – a resident-alien Torâh-trainee. To describe a Jew who "converted" would require the circuitous, and prohibited, description "a Jew who has undergone hitgaiy^erut." It is often overlooked that when the geir had undergone hitgaiy^erut he was then a Jew – which implies that he or she is no longer a geir. He (or she) was guarded by Halâkhâh from ever being reminded that he (or she) had come from the goyim. Calling a Jew a Geir Tzëdëq contradicts the Halâkhâh in D^evârim 10:19. Though it is unlikely he had this connotation in mind, R. Avrâhâm Chill correctly wrote of the proselyte (e.g., geir) who undergoes hitgaiy^erut, "Never must his past be recalled and never must he be reminded of his origin" (The Mitzwot, p. 387, from Masëkët Bâvâ M^etziyâ 58b & 59b). To remind a geir of his past is described by Torâh as "boiling a kid" (the spiritually new-born Jew who has undergone hitgaiy^erut) "in his mother's milk" (his gentile past).¹³ With every bite the observant Jew eats, taking care to separate חלב (khâlâv) from בשר (bâsâr), (s)he commemorates this mitzwâh.

In the passage under discussion, Talmud presumes hitgaiy^erut of the geir, a geir who changes his or her status (i.e., undergoes hitgaiy^erut) to Jew and is, thereafter, no longer a geir. Whatever modern Jews may call them after hitgaiy^erut (Geir Tzëdëq or Jew), Talmud in this passage refers to a geir who undergoes hitgaiy^erut. We only disagree about whether they may then, after hitgaiy^erut, still be called geir, Jew or both. These problems all only resolve, however, by recognizing that a person who has undergone hitgaiy^erut is a Jew, and, by definition then, is no longer a non-Jew (geir) of any kind. In Israel, to call a Jew a geir is an oxymoron. Every Jew in the T^ephutzâh, by contrast, is a geir.)¹⁴

When the Geir Toshâv achieves an acceptable level of Torâh-observance, the Beit-Din may permit the Geir Toshâv to undergo B^erit Milâh and hitgaiy^erut (if other halakhic conditions, like marital status and the like, are satisfied). Those who cannot qualify to undergo hitgaiy^erut at this point are upgraded to the status of Geir Tzëdëq. The only way to hitgayeir to Judaism is by first qualifying as, and going through the learning and applying process of being, a geir. This is also why the characteristics of advanced geirim, near hitgaiy^erut, were so often confused with Jews who've undergone hitgaiy^erut.

Feldman described the geirim as the (wrongly described) 'sympathizers' found in Batei ha-K^enësët of the NT. Few have ever questioned what non-Jews were doing in a Beit ha-K^enësët before Christianity existed, blissfully assuming these non-Jews were Christians attracted to some kind of "Church of Messianic Christian Jews."

"A clear allusion to Feldman's 'sympathizers' may be found in the work of Philo, the [Hellenist] Jewish philosopher from Alexandria. Commenting on a passage in [Sh^emot],¹⁵ Philo says [writing in Greek] that the term [προσηλυτος (proseilutos; proselyte)] does not refer to proselytes strictly speaking, inasmuch as the Jews did not practice B^erit Milâh in Mitzrayim. Consequently, he concludes, the proselyte who, according to these verses, is not to be wronged must be one who has not undergone B^erit Milâh. Such a proselyte, says Philo, is what we would term a 'sympathizer,' since he has chosen to honor the one [Ëlohim]. This type of proselyte corresponds to what the rabbis call a Geir Toshâv, a semi-convert [more accurately "pre-convert"] who has embraced monotheism but not [yet] other [mitzwot].¹⁶ Perhaps other Alexandrian Jews might have considered such geirim to be converts, but Philo insists that they are not" ⁸

Both Tana"kh (D^evârim 14:21) and Talmud (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 20a) note that the geir was permitted to eat meat from a beast which had died of natural causes – which is prohibited to the Jew. This could only refer to a geir still in the early stages of learning who hadn't yet undertaken kashrut. This, and other distinctions, between the Jew and the geir (who hasn't undergone hitgaiy^erut, and isn't yet fully answerable to the full application of Halâkhâh) requires us to acknowledge that a Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini-era geir could not have been a Jew.

When examining the role of goyim relative to the B^eritot of ha-Sheim with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, the definitions must rigorously preserve basic distinctions:

1. clearly and unambiguously distinguishing each definition from the other without mingling them;
   
   
2. as the usage of these terms evolved through time (click graphic), their Biblical era meanings must be distinguished from their Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini-era, Roman era, Dead Sea Scroll, post-Christian (i.e. post-135 C.E.) era, and Talmudic meanings, as well as compared and contrasted with their respective synonyms; and
   
   
3. geographical idiosyncracies in meaning due to localized Judaic-Gentilic relations and pogroms ("Gentiles," EJ, 7.410-12).
   
   

A statement from Talmud or the Encyclopedia Judaica can mean vastly different things when these factors are not taken into consideration and misleading definitions assumed. The poorly-informed are frequently badly misled. This is one of the reasons that Torâh admonishes individuals to rely on the Beit-Din and not follow their own heart and their own eyes (b^e-Midbar 15.39).

"The Geir Toshâv was regarded as belonging to a different and special character. He was a non-Jew who accepted some, but had not yet attained to all, of the [mitzwot] of the Torâh, as a result of which he was permitted to reside in the land of Israel and enjoy many of the privileges of citizenship [most especially, the privilege of learning Torâh]. Various views are expressed by the rabbis as to the qualifications which entitle the resident non-Jew to be accepted as a Geir Toshâv, ranging from the renunciation of idolatry to one who accepts the whole of the discipline of the Torâh with the exception of the dietary laws ([Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh] 64b). The Beit Din ha-N^etzârim originated the Halâkhâh of applying the 'Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh' ¹⁷  and, centuries later, this was corroborated by Maimonides.¹⁸ The laws, privileges, and restrictions of the Geir Toshâv are exhaustively dealt with in the Talmud. As, however, it was laid down that the acceptance of a Geir Toshâv was permitted only during the period that the Yoveil was in force, and that law was no longer in power in Talmudic times, the discussion was purely academic." ²³

"That the Yoveil did not apply during the [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini, B.C.E. 453 – 70 C.E.; this spans the time during which there was a great tide of Judaic evangelism and recognition of geirim] was deduced from the verse 'unto all the inhabitants thereof' (wa-Yiqrâ 25.10) with the corollary that 'from the time that the tribes of Ruvein and Gâd and the half-tribe of M^enashëh were exiled the Yovlot were discontinued' (Siphrâh, b^e-Har 2.3)" ("Sabbatical Year and Jubilee," EJ, 14.580).

Yet, despite the fact that the Yovlot had been discontinued before B.C.E. 453, "In late [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini] times… During the Hellenistic and early Roman period (B.C.E. 323 to 70 C.E.)," Feldman observes, "the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts… A proselytizing movement of such scope, if we may judge from parallel movements in the growth of Christianity and Islam, for example, would seem necessarily to imply the existence of intermediate categories of those at a half-way point or other sympathizers who tried to effect a syncretism of the old religion with the new one…" ⁸ The term geir had become virtually synonymous with 'proselyte,' and strangers were admitted to the religious fellowship of Israel (Josephus, Apion, 2.28)" ²³

The Geir Toshâv which Halâkhâh "permitted only during the period that the Yoveil was in force," which "law was no longer in power in Talmudic times," couldn't have referred to the masses of geirim documented during the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini-era! Rather, the Halâkhâh that was laid down was of a later time and against an evolved post-Christian or geographically idiosyncratic definition of Geir Toshâv – more accurately the Nokhri or zâr who were selective "selective-observers" of Halâkhâh and Torâh – from which Christianity had spawned, and which had never been legitimate in Judaism, even when the Yoveil was in force.

Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) demonstrates from Tana"kh that ha-Sheim ordained the Beit-Din system to be the ultimate authority for Dërëkh Halâkhâh, uninterrupted since Sh^emot 18.21; D^evârim 1.15; 16.18 and 17.9-13. "First century Judaism" necessarily implies recognition by the major streams of first century Judaism, who were represented by the defining authority of what was legitimate in first century Judaism: the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.¹⁹

The misconception that Judaism included Jews who rejected "the Law," and who, in turn, accepted gentiles without adherence to "the Law," was largely based on the assumption that the Hellenist pseudo-Tz^edoqim rejected Oral Law, serving as the precedent and example for rejecting "the Law." 4Q MMT has demonstrated this to be in error. Thus, there was in the first century C.E. no precedent in Judaism for rejecting Oral Law. This was entirely a fabrication of Roman Hellenists who usurped the N^etzârim in 135 C.E. and redacted the NT to syncretize some of the Judaic ideas into their native Hellenism (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)).

In 1994, the misconception that some sects of first-century Judaism rejected even Oral Law was proven false by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prof. Elisha Qimron of Ben Gurion University of the Nëgëv in B^e·eir Shëva, in his definitive book on Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT,²⁰ showed that all three of the major sects of first century Judaism, disputed not whether Oral Law could be rejected, an idea that would have struck all of them with stunned horror, but rather whether Oral Law must be written down or remain transmitted exclusively orally! Oral Law was central to all three of the major sects of first-century Judaism. While they argued whose interpretations should be considered the correct Oral Law, there was never any question as to the validity or authority of Oral Law.

The Hellenist pseudo-Tz^edoqim – the NT "Sadducees" – rejected the continued oral transmission of Oral Law insisting that Oral Law instead be committed to writing. Though the P^erushim later committed Oral Law to writing too (Halâkhâh, the Talmud), in the 1^st century the P^erushim disputed the Hellenist pseudo-Tz^edoqim initiative to end the Oral transmission of Halâkhâh. In the first century, the P^erushim insisted that Oral Law must continue to be transmitted exclusively orally. The Hellenist pseudo-Tz^edoqim did not reject "Oral Law" per se. Quite the opposite, they codified their interpretations of the Oral Law into their "Book of Decrees," which became their precursor of the P^erushim' Talmud. It was always absurd on the face of it to imagine that the predominant sect of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol handed down mishpât and khuqim (Oral Law) with one hand and, with the other hand, taught Jews to reject the mishpât and khuqim they themselves handed down! It really wasn't necessary to discover 4Q MMT to figure that out.

While each of these 1^st-century Judaic sects advocated their own version of Oral Law, and disputed whether that Oral Law must be codified or transmitted exclusively orally, 4Q MMT demonstrates conclusively that they all accepted the full authority of Oral Law. None of the 1^st century sects of Judaism permitted even partial rejection of Oral Law. Logically, this necessarily means that the converse – none of the three major sects of first century Judaism recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol permitted selective or partial adherence to Oral Law – must also hold true.

Rejection, or selective acceptance, of Oral Law was alien to all three of the major sects of Judaism who constituted the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. Therefore, selective acceptance of Oral Law was also alien to their definition – the Beit-Din ha-Jadol definition which served as the defining authority of 1^st-century Judaism. Full acceptance of the authority of Oral Law was the sine qua non of legitimacy in 1^st-century Judaism, by the definitive authority in 1^st-century Judaism: the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. It is inescapable that every legitimate sect of 1^st-century Judaism required full acceptance of Oral Law.

Formally integrated (likened to grafting) onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil, Judaism considered the geir neither "wicked" nor goy. Quite the contrary, Torâh requires the geir be accorded special kâvod.²¹ Yet, in contrast with geirim who strived toward full (non-selective) acceptance of the P^erushim Oral Law that was finally handed down – Halâkhâh – and were not regarded as wicked, "Malbim²² explains that [in the passage of  T^ehilim (119.155): 'Y^eshuâh is far from the r^eshâ·im,' r^eshâ·im] refers to people who selectively observe some of the mitzwot of the Torâh, but refuse to accept others. [These r^eshâ·im selective-observers] embrace mitzwot that are readily understood and that appeal to their sense of history and tradition, but reject the khuqim which they cannot understand. The Psalmist declares that although such people may seem to identify with [Ëlohim] and Judaism, at heart they are estranged from [Ëlohim,] and are far from y^eshuâh" (Artscroll, T^ehilim, II.1488). Just like Âdâm and Khawâh, those who obey Torâh only selectively are excluded from Gan Eidën and in need of kipur – which can only be obtained through fully (non-selectively) satisfying the Instructions – Torâh.

Since

• geirim weren't regarded as r^eshâ·im, and
  
  
• r^eshâ·im are defined here as those who selectively accept / reject Torâh,
  
  

therefore: these r^eshâ·im who observe Torâh selectively must be contrasted with geirim (who are non-Jew trainees in the process of fully, i.e., non-selectively, learning and accepting Torâh).

"With the passage of time, the geirim were assimilated culturally and religiously… Hence, the geir, in contrast to the Nokhri, was required in many cases to conform to the ritual practices of the native Israelite. Thus, geirim were subject to laws dealing with ritual purification (b^e-Midbar 19.2-10), incest (wa-Yiqrâ 18.26) and some of the food taboos (wa-Yiqrâ 17.10-16; but cf. D^evârim 14.21). They were expected to observe [Shabât ] (Sh^emot 20.10; D^evârim 5.14), participate in the religious festivals (D^evârim 16.11, 14), and fast on Yom ha-Kipur (wa-Yiqrâ 16.29). They were permitted to offer up burnt offerings (wa-Yiqrâ 17.8; 22.18; b^e-Midbar 15.14ff.) and, if they've undergone B^erit Milâh, even to sacrifice the [Pësakh] qârbân (Sh^emot 12.48-49; b^e-Midbar 9.14). Indeed, they, no less than the Israelites, were expected to be loyal to Y--H (wa-Yiqrâ 20.2; cf. Y^ekhëzqeil 14.5-8)…." ²³

Talmud also shows that a Geir Toshâv had not attained a full level of observance of Halâkhâh (Masëkët Bâvâ Qamâ 113b): "… not to a Geir Tzëdëq, but to a mere Geir Toshâv, as [wa-Yiqrâ 25.47] says, 'unto a Geir Toshâv, … or to the offspring of the family of a geir,' this denotes [a family] who worships idols…." Here, Talmud clearly demonstrates the clear distinction between the Geir Toshâv, who hasn't yet shed all of the remnants of his former paganism, contrasted with the Geir Tzëdëq. Even today, one doesn't usually find non-Jews in a Beit ha-K^enësët unless they have a serious interest in Judaism. And unlike today, non-Jews in the first century couldn't be found in Batei ha-K^enësët (because interaction was prohibited by Halâkhâh) unless they had first been admitted as a geir by the Beit-Din and were, consequently, in various stages of progress toward non-selective acceptance of the authority of Torâh and Halâkhâh.

The geir(âh) is an individual non-Jew within the host Jewish community – not any kind of group or movement, collectively or otherwise, and certainly neither separate from mainstream Judaism nor independent of a P^erushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din.

Talmud stipulates (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 64b): "Who is a Geir Toshâv? Any [non-Jew] who takes upon himself in the presence of three khaveirim²⁴ not to worship idols. Such is the statement of R. Mei·ir; but the Sages declare: Any [non-Jew] who takes upon himself [in the presence of three khaveirim] the Shëva Mitzwot that the B^enei-Noakh undertook; and still others maintain: These do not come within the category of a Geir Toshâv; but who is a Geir Toshâv? A proselyte who eats of animals not ritually slaughtered, i.e., he took upon himself to observe all of the precepts mentioned in the Torâh apart from the prohibition of [eating the flesh of] animals not ritually slaughtered" [emphasis added].

The earliest reference to the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh is found in Ma·avâr 15 (see Appendix III).¹⁷ Non-Jewish readers of Ma·avâr, being unfamiliar with the Judaic perspective, overlook 15.21, in which the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim recorded the earliest extant witness¹⁷ that the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh are sufficient for a minimum entrance requirement because, becoming a geir, the seeker will be permitted to attend a Beit ha-K^enësët where he or she can learn the rest of Torâh from those who recite the Torâh of Moshëh every Shabât: "In every city, from ancient generations, the Torâh of Moshëh is recited every Shabât in the Batei ha-K^enësët."

The status of geir could only be conferred on an individual by three khaveirim, i.e., by a Beit-Din, after the individual had demonstrated to the Beit-Din that he complied with the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh (see Appendix I). This followed the candidate's petition to the Beit-Din, requesting the p^equdâh of the Beit-Din. This p^equdâh of the Beit-Din recognized the candidate as a geir authorized to interact in the Jewish community and Batei ha-K^enësët where he could then learn and apply the rest of Torâh non-selectively. A geir, therefore, was a non-Jew who had come before a Beit-Din and was recorded by the Beit-Din as satisfying them that he met the threshold requirements. No goy has ever become a geir by self-proclamation.

Thus, the criteria for the Beit-Din to recognize a Geir Toshâv was:

1. having met the minimum entrance requirements – compliance with the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh as the Beit-Din interpreted them and
   
   
2. having undertaken before the Beit-Din to learn, implementing into daily practice, step-by-step as he or she learns, full (not selectively or partially) Torâh-observance.
   
   
3. It was possible to become a geir only by being recognized – and supervised – by a Beit-Din. The Beit-Din, not the geir (much less a Bën-Noakh), was, and remains, the sole authority for interpreting the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh and the sole authority that requires the geir-candidate, as a condition to being recognized as a geir, to commit to learning and striving to apply Torâh non-selectively. This is further corroborated in Tana"kh, which documents the Beit-Din system and repeatedly emphasizes the theme "One Torâh for Jew and geir alike" (wa-Yiqrâ 24.16, 22; b^e-Midbar 9.14; 15.14-16, 26, 29-30; D^evârim 24.19-21).
   
   

The counter argument, that Torâh distinguishes between the laws applying to Jew and geir, respectively, while correct, is no basis for rejection of any part of Torâh by geirim. Torâh also distinguishes between the laws for Yisrâ·eilim, L^ewiyim and Kohanim – but that's certainly no basis to argue that Yisrâ·eilim, L^ewiyim or Kohanim shouldn't be fully and halakhically shomeir-Torah!!! Halâkhâh applied to non-Jews wasn't, and isn't, always identical to its application to Beit-Yisrâ·eil, Leiwi, or Kohein – just as Halâkhâh didn't apply identically to each of these. Nevertheless, wa-Yiqrâ 24.22 and b^e-Midbar 9.14; 15.14-16, 29-31 require that Torâh, en toto, applies, as applicable, to Jew and geir alike. That Halâkhâh for geirim sometimes stipulates a variance from the Halâkhâh for Yisrâ·eil is no different than the case in which Halâkhâh for Yisrâ·eil sometimes varies from Halâkhâh for Kohanim and L^ewiyim. It's still one and the same Torâh being applied – alike, meaning fully and not selectively or partially – for both Jew and geir. Exactly like the specified differences between the application of one Torâh for Yisrâ·eilim, L^ewiyim and Kohanim, the differences between the application of one Torâh for Jew and geir alike are limited to those instances in Torâh specifically stipulating geir or areilim (or the equivalent – lo Milâh; not circumcised). Otherwise, Beit-Yisrâ·eil subsumes the geirim, and the application of Torâh is identical for both. The geir is no longer a goy, but an individual non-Jew who is granted nilwëh status onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil, sharing with Beit-Yisrâ·eil in her kipur and her portion in hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

Ha-Sheim desires that all humankind come to know Him, but the only Way that any individual, regardless of birth, can accomplish this is the one Way that ha-Sheim has revealed to, and for, all humankind, not just for Jews alone, under the terms of the most recent b^erit. All of these factors preclude one set of rules for one race and a different set of rules for a different race. Such a racist view contradicts Torâh. How do racists explain Judaism even having a provision for hitgaiy^erut? For all these reasons, the two basic premises underlying the "Shabbos goy" ("it's ok for goyim to do it since only Jews are responsible to Torâh" and "goyim have a part in hâ-olâm ha-bâ anyway") are both invalid.

When the Beit-Din recognized an individual as a geir(âh) his or her name was inscribed in the yukhasin "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life) maintained by the various Batei-Din.²⁵ This remains the practice of the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim today. The status of geir was, and remains, proper recognition that a non-Jew has satisfied the requirements for nilwëh status. Recognition of a geir can be legitimately conferred only by a Beit-Din of the mainstream P^erushim-heritage Jewish community. Self-proclaiming oneself a geir makes about as much sense as self-proclaiming oneself beneficiary to the Microsoft fortune. Persons claiming to be N^etzârim Jews or geirim, but not entered in the yukhasin N^etzârim, are impostors of Revelation 2.9 & 3.9, following their own heart and their own eyes (b^e-Midbar 15.39) in Displacement Theology (displacing the rightful authorities in the mainstream P^erushim-heritage Jewish community) instead of Torâh.

Anyone claiming to be a follower of Ribi Y^ehoshua, but who hasn't either undergone hitgaiy^erut under the supervision of a P^erushim-heritage Beit-Din – informed concerning messianic beliefs – or been recognized by the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim, are fraudulently pretending to arrogate the B^eritot of Beit-Yisrâ·eil. That's Displacement Theology. These are described in Revelation 2.9 & 3.9. By contrast, authentic N^etzârim (Jews and geirim) can always be verified by contacting the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel.

"It was only during the later [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini] period that a sharp distinction and a barrier of separation was erected between the Jew and the gentile… As a result, the conception of, and the attitude toward, the non-Jew from the Talmudic period onward are strikingly different from that during the Biblical period" (“Gentiles,” Ency. Jud., 7:410-12). This coincides exactly with the explosion of Judaic proselytization and the growth of a population of geirim in various stages of development and observance. "Thus all such statements must be seen in their specific geographical-historical context. Nevertheless, in general it may be said that the Jew's attitude toward the gentile was largely conditioned by the gentile's attitude toward him (see Esth. R. 2.3), so that a gentile's friendship to a Jew would be warmly and uninhibitedly reciprocated" (see the relationships between Meir and Avnimos ha-Gardi, Yehudah ha-N(si and Antoninus, Samuel and Sapor, etc. in Masëkët Bâvâ Qamâ 38a).

"That gentiles were regarded as impure can be inferred from many places in the Mishnâh (Masëkët Tâhârot 7.6; Masëkët Nidâh 10.4; et al., the Tosëphtâ Masëkët P^esâkhim 7.13 and Josephus Antiquities 14.285; 18.93-94) and in [Ma·avâr 11.3]" ("Purity and Impurity," EJ, 13.1409).

Since goyim were regarded as tumâh to be kept separate and distant, the interactions and cordial relations discussed above refer not to זרים (zârim) / גויים (goyim), the Hellenist αλλογενης (allogeneis) or the English "gentiles," but rather can only refer to geirim. This constrains the perception of the non-Jews the NT reports, from its Hellenist orientation, in the "synagogues." Without the permission of the Beit-Din, and the legally conferred status of Geir Toshâv conferred by the Beit-Din, which implies the desire to learn and accept the full and non-selective authority of halakhic Torâh-observance, the "barrier of separation … erected between Jew and gentile" prevented goyim from even entering a Beit ha-K^enësët.

Except for the Hellenist-Roman disregard for Jewish law (namely, planting spies in the guise of geirim in Batei ha-K^enësët), goyim weren't permitted to interact in the Jewish community, much less in the Batei ha-K^enësët! ²⁶ Goyim weren't permitted to interface with Jews, even socially, without first coming before the Beit-Din and petitioning the Beit-Din to be recognized as a geir, – a non-Jew who thereby formally obligated himself to adhere to the minimum threshold for admittance into the Jewish community, the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh. But adherence to the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh as an end in itself has never sufficed to recognize a non-Jew as a geir, and permit his interaction in the Jewish community. The Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh have never been a satisfactory goal for a non-Jew petitioning to interface in the Jewish community. Rather, the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh were the starting point of a journey to Dërëkh Halâkhâh – non-selective halakhic Torâh-observance and, for most geirim, hitgaiy^erut to become a Jew.

The very fact that non-Jews were reported in the Batei ha-K^enësët demonstrates that there were in the first century C.E. geirim learning to comply non-selectively with halakhic Torâh-observance. Becoming a geir legally, before a Beit-Din, was the only way a non-Jew, with whom Jews were otherwise forbidden to have any contact, could legally shoulder a threshold minimum set of entrance criteria required by his host Jewish community in order that the Beit-Din would authorize the Jewish community to allow the geir to interact with them. Otherwise, no non-Jew could even enter a Beit ha-K^enësët to learn Torâh (see Ma·avâr 15.21, Appendix III)! The non-Jews found in the "synagogues" in the NT, therefore, had to be geirim, not goyim! For someone to self-proclaim himself a geir is a false and deceptive pretense described in Rev. 2.9 and 3.9.

To review, the evidence (e.g., Ma·avâr 15.19-21, Appendix III, with notes in Appendix IV) demonstrates that keeping the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh were regarded as no more than the threshold entrance requirement for a geir to gain permission to interact in the Jewish community so (s)he could learn, and apply in his or her practice as (s)he learns, Torâh. The Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh were never an acceptable goal for a geir. ha-Sheim applies the same standard to everyone alike, to follow in the same Way – Dërëkh Halâkhâh – being fully, i.e., non-selectively, commited to do one's utmost to keep Torâh according to Halâkhâh.

This is exactly what Ribi Y^ehoshua also taught in The N^etzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 5.17-20. The Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh were minimum prerequisites to be recognized by a Beit-Din as a geir, thereby obtaining nilwëh status onto the Jewish community (having thereby qualified as marginally acceptable company for the Jewish community) as temporary and provisional trainees in order to study Torâh and, step-by-step, become shomeir-Torah. Knowing how to keep the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh is essential to every Bën-Noakh who is seriously seeking kipur as a participant in the B^eritot between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil – because the Shëva Mitzwot B^enei-Noakh (see Appendix I) are no more than entrance requirements to gain entry to the Jewish community and Beit ha-K^enësët to begin learning Torâh as a geir.

Only the presence of geirim in various stages of development in Torâh-observance resolves without contradiction why in Talmud there are various, otherwise contradictory, expectations and requirements for geirim. This dictates that all of those otherwise contradictory Talmud requirements for geirim are talking about pre-convert provisional trainees in various stages of learning. It was pre-convert provisional trainees – geirim in various stages of learning and applying Torâh-observance – for whom the rabbis set forth various, and otherwise contradictory, degrees of Torâh-observance as geirim progressed towards full and non-selective halakhic Torâh-observance.

By Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini times, unchanged (i.e., logically consistent) since Har Sinai, the only way for the non-Jew to be recognized as a legitimate geir was to petition a Beit-Din. Only after the Beit-Din recognized the non-Jew as a Geir Toshâv could he have contact with Jews, come to Beit ha-K^enësët, etc. All the non-Jews whom the NT describes as being in "synagogues," therefore, had to have been geirim learning to become fully (i.e., non-selectively doing one's utmost; not implying perfection) observant of Torâh and Halâkhâh – not the 'wicked' ones who were selectively-halakhic. Hence, the very NT passages that document non-Jews in the Batei ha-K^enësët confirm that they were geirim and not selective observers of Torâh and Halâkhâh!

Selective observance of Torâh has always been the "red line" sine qua non that distinguished Hellenism, with its emphasis on syncretism, from Judaism. From the time of the very first Hellenist proto-Christian, around the time of the kâreit of Paul the Apostate ca. 45 C.E., Christians defined themselves outside the pale of Torâh, proclaiming themselves "freed" from the core definition of Judaism: Torâh – "freed from bondage to the law of sin and death through the grace of J*esus." To then claim that Christianity originated in Judaism is the ultimate self-contradiction of original Christianity.

Full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of the Beit-Din to interpret Torâh (including Halâkhâh), stands in stark contrast to the widespread Christian orientation of individuals following their own heart and their own eyes (b^e-Midbar 15.39) – mislabeling their contra-Torâh and, therefore, unholy intuition "the holy spirit" – interpreting Torâh according to their own, alien-to-Judaism, gentile and Hellenist-based pagan perspective. In addition to contradicting the prohibition against following one's own heart and own eyes (b^e-Midbar 15.39), self-interpretation (typically by those who can't even read Torâh) and consequent selective observance contravenes – displaces – the Beit-Din system ordained by ha-Sheim (Sh^emot 18.13-26). Thus, contra-Judaic interpretations are a self-proclaimed pretense purporting that their Hellenist-based intuitive rejection of Torâh, the mark of a false prophet (D^evârim 13.1-6), is of their "holy spirit." Thus equating the Ruakh ha-Qodësh with, l^e-havdil, a spirit advocating transgressing Torâh not only ascribes evil (defined by Torâh as aveirot Torâh) to, l^e-havdil, the Ruakh ha-Qodësh but defines the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, l^e-havdil,, as an evil spirit (demon) – blaspheming the Torâh-defined Ruakh ha-Qodësh.

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that what distinguished all of the major sects of first century Judaism from Samaritans, Ëvyonim and other m^eshumâdim non-Judaic groups was the full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Oral Law by all sects of first century Judaism. Full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Oral Law (i.e., the Beit-Din system that was the sole legitimate authority to render Oral Law) was the sine qua non of Judaism – by authority of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol – from Har Sinai through the first century C.E. – and remains so today. No other individual, congregation, or association of congregations could, or can, legitimately self-proclaim the proper interpretations of Torâh, or self-proclaim recognition – either of themselves or geirim.

Consequently, of all who claim to follow Ribi Y^ehoshua, only those recognized by a Beit-Din originating in the P^erushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community are legitimate! Within this constraint of the P^erushim-heritage Beit-Din system, only the Beit Din ha-N^etzârim accepts followers of Ribi Y^ehoshua as the Mâshiakh. Thus, the N^etzârim are the only alternative for legitimate followers of Ribi Y^ehoshua! All others – from the earliest proto-Christian, pseudo-Judaic, Displacement Theology about the time of Paul the Apostate (ca. 45 C.E.) to ca. 64 C.E. – are merely charlatans playing a pretend game, pretending that a Hellenist antithesis is Judaism, and duping the ignorant into a pretend "salvation" based on a counterfeit. They are described in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

Blindly emphasizing "faith" without Instruction – Hebrew Torâh, Christianity glosses over the Hebrew term tzadiq in Khavaquq 2.4: "the tzadiq shall live in his ëmunâh" (not "the believer shall live by his faith"). Y^ekhëzqeil (18.5, in the Hebrew) defines tzadiq as one who does mishpât! Therefore, contrary to simplistic Christian "faith," Khavaquq 2.4 declares that it is the one who does mishpât who shall live in his ëmunâh! Further, mishpât is the Biblical term for Halâkhâh that is handed down by the Beit-Din! Thus, Khavaquq 2.4 implicitly declares that it is the one who does Halâkhâh who shall live in his ëmunâh! How far from the Christian apostasy and what an empty and dead-end deception the Christian concept of " 'salvation' by faith" is!

The one Khavaquq prophesied "shall live in his ëmunâh" is Yisrâ·eil (including the nilwim categories of the yukhasin) who, by living according to Torah, remains party to the B^eritot. Yisrâ·eil is the tzadiq, not those who selectively-observe = selectively-reject Torah. It is in this context of keeping the revealed Torah that we can appreciate the origins of ëmunâh in b^e-Reishit 15.6: "And [Avrâhâm] hë·ëmin י--ה, and he considered it a tz^edâqâh" – not tzëdëq as confused in English.

Ribi Y^ehoshua himself explicitly corroborated this Judaic view of tz^edâqâh relative to kipur. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that the hottest topic in the 1^st-century Jewish community was the controversy over which sect's interpretation of the Oral Law – Halâkhâh, Ma·asëh or the Book of Decrees – was "correct." Full and non-selective commitment to the Oral Law by all three of the major sects of first-century Judaism is indisputably proven from 4Q MMT. When Ribi Y^ehoshua's teachings are read from this historically authentic first century Judaic perspective relative to Ma·asëh, as revealed in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, this emerging controversy leaps from the page, from the lips of Ribi Y^ehoshua himself, in the earliest extant mss.,²⁷ all of which are incorporated into The N^etzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 5:17-20 with notes:

"Not to curtail the Torâh of Moshëh or the N^eviyim have I come, nor to add on to the Torâh of Moshëh or the N^eviyim have I come. Rather, I have come to reconcile [Torâh] with the True Oral Law. Should the heavens and hâ-Ârëtz exchange places, still, not even one י or one of the Oral Law of the Torâh of Moshëh shall so much as exchange places; until it becomes that it is all being fully ratified and performed non-selectively. For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Torâh, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be declared "deleted." Both he who preserves them and he who teaches them shall be called "Rav" in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your tz^edâqâh is over and above that of the Sophrim and the P^erushim, there is no way you will enter into the Realm of the heavens!"

Ribi Y^ehoshua confirmed that full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Torâh was always, and still continues to be, the sine qua non of legitimate, P^erushim-heritage Judaism, just as selective observance of Torâh is the "red line" that has, since the very first day of its inception in 135 C.E., demarcated Hellenism and its offspring, Christianity, from Judaism.

Even with the rampant corruption that pervaded the 1^st century "Sophrim and P^erushim," no goyim – who, by definition, deliberately rejects practicing Torâh / Halâkhâh either outright or selectively (cf. b^e-Midbar 15.30; et al.), could ever approach the tz^edâqâh of these "Sophrim and P^erushim" whom they vilify, much less become "over and above" the tz^edâqâh of Orthodox rabbis, who are the successors of the P^erushim sect of Judaism. No Christian (including pseudo-Messianics), being only selectively observant of Torah at best ³⁰ (which, conversely, equals selective rejection of Torâh), can possibly be anywhere near as shomeir-Torah as the Orthodox rabbis. These same Christians typically can't even read the first word of Tana"kh (it's Hebrew, and was Ribi Y^ehoshua's Bible, by the way). Most, probably, are seeing these basics of Torâh for this first time in their life, and are having difficulty grasping them – though they are all elementary school level Judaism for a religious Israeli child. Despite all of this, these Christians, ignorant "missionaries" spouting English quotations from their Roman Hellenist-redacted NT, are the same ones presumptuous enough to think they have something to teach and proclaim, attempting to evangelize, apostatize and assimilate Jews. Christians of Rev. 2:9 and 3:9, whose deliberate rejection of tz^edâqâh (cf. b^e-Midbar 15.30; et al.) makes the "Sophrim and P^erushim" appear saints by comparison, are the classic subject of Ribi Y^ehoshua's admonition: "No way will you enter into the Realm of the heavens!"

Advocating at most the barest selective observance of the Torâh "of sin and death" – and, even then, only among the earliest Jewish sects of proto-Christianity – Christianity couldn't acknowledge that the 'Ëlohim-Fearers' in NT Batei ha-K^enësët were geirim committed to full and non-selective acceptance of Halâkhâh. However, close analysis of the literature demonstrates that those in first century Batei ha-K^enësët, and the non-Jews with whom Ribi Y^ehoshua interacted, were geirim – not goyim selective-observers of Torâh. If Ribi Y^ehoshua actually had taught acceptance of selective observance of Torâh or Halâkhâh then the very Torâh upon which any claim to being Mâshiakh is dependent would have disqualified and invalidated him (D^evârim 13.1-6)!!!

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT documents that no sect of 1^st century Judaism could even conceive of tolerating selective observance of Torâh. We have also seen that there was a barrier in the 1^st century between Jews and goyim, who were regarded as tumâh. Assertions that any of the original 12 followers of Ribi Y^ehoshua were goyim is retrojection of Hellenist fancy by post-135 C.E. (2^nd-4^th century gentile Roman) Christians.

The apparent contradiction between Ribi Y^ehoshua's declaration not to go to the goyim and his compassion for the Roman Army Captain and the "Syro-Phoenician woman" crumbles in the face of critical logic. The K^ena·anit in The N^etzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 15.22 was either a gentile or a Hellenist Jewess (perhaps intermarried) of the T^ephutzâh (Lebanese-Phoenician). In either case, Ribi Y^ehoshua's response to her demonstrates that he strongly discouraged any qiruv in her direction unless she demonstrated the desire to become a geirâh. The Roman Army Captain of The N^etzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 8.5ff, on the other hand, was clearly already a geir, by virtue of addressing his request to a religious Jew, the humility of his demeanor, and his dedication to Torâh, confirmed in Lu. 7.5 where we find this Army Captain described as one who "loves our εθνη ³¹ and has built our synagogue."

Like Torâh, like the B^eritot, like Halâkhâh, and like the Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, while there has been increasing specificity corresponding to humankind's developing knowledge of tâhor , t^eshuvâh and qâdosh vs. tumâh and khol, neither Yirm^eyâhu nor Ribi Y^ehoshua contravened the consistency in the relationship of the geir and Beit-Yisrâ·eil, nor in the unveiling of His successive, increasingly specific but entirely consistent, B^eritot, which continually refines Yisrâ·eil, throughout timespace. Relating to all of these B^eritot as consistent, and to all of the B^eritot since Har Sinai as exclusively with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, is Dërëkh Halâkhâh – the only Way – that a person of the goyim may come to participate in the Messianic b^erit with Beit-Yisrâ·eil to obtain nilwëh status, grafting onto Israel for kipur and a portion in hâ-olâm ha-bâ.

Both Displacement Theology terms ("grace" and "J*esus" displacing Torâh) and Displacement Theology parties (goyim displacing Jews) are specifically precluded in Yirm^eyâhu 31.30-32. Apart from the 2^nd-4^th century C.E. self-proclaimed Christian fabrication of misojudaic claims of supersession, no provision of kipur or y^eshuâh different from any of the previous B^eritot between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil can be legitimately inferred from Yirm^eyâhu or as accruing from Ribi Y^ehoshua the Mâshiakh to goyim, who are conspicuously absent from the parties Yirm^eyâhu specified in the B^erit Khadâshâh! Moreover, Torâh explicitly prohibits adding (or subtracting, much less displacing) parties (D^evârim 13.1)!

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that none of the sects that defined first century Judaism in the Beit-Din ha-Jadol tolerated selective observance of Torâh, much less blatant misojudaism. The doctrines that the Mâshiakh is a man-g*od Christ, or that personal acceptance of the Mâshiakh displaces kipur and t^eshuvâh for personal (spiritual, or any other kind of) 'salvation' over sin and death, are merely variations on the theme of Displacement Theology. Both contradict Torâh (D^evârim 13.1-6), including the Judaism that Ribi Y^ehoshua practiced and taught in the first century. If the Christian J*esus – the post-135 C.E. fabrication of the Hellenist gentiles (Romans) – had ever genuinely existed (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)), then Torâh unequivocally confirms that he was a false prophet  (D^evârim 13.1-6) – the contra-Mâshiakh of Dâniyeil 7:25 (which Christians call the "antichrist"), not a legitimate Mâshiakh. Whose servant, then, would a misojudaic J*esus have been? Even Paul the Apostate taught that the central Christian tenet – that J*esus serves as expiator to those who wilfully transgress Halâkhâh / Torâh – makes J*esus an αμαρτιας διακονος (amartias diakonos; a deacon of sin)³² – truly a servant of Sâtân and antichrist!

In Tana"kh, the Mâshiakh is an agent of ha-Sheim, not g*od incarnate (T^ehilim 28:8). It is the antichrist – the "beast of Daniel," not the Mâshiakh, which is prophesied to elevate itself beside the Highest (Dâniyeil 7.25). "Despite the prominence of the image of the [Mâshiakh] as a redeemer, his role in the process of redemption is no different from those of [Moshëh] and the other redeemers in the past; he is merely an instrument in the hands of [Ëlohim]" ("Redemption," EJ, 14.3). "The [Mâshiakh] was always an agent of [Ëlohim] and never a savior [himself] in the Christian meaning" ("Messiah," EJ, 11.1410).

Accepting the Mâshiakh of Torâh, besides bringing the Jew or geir into a more intimate communion with ha-Sheim, brings one into an intimate relationship with the Mâshiakh who will be ha-Sheim's 'Arm of y^eshuâh' for Israel in the Messianic Era. Moreover, following the teachings of the Judaic Mâshiakh also brings the inner joy, purpose and happiness of working intimately with him to bring about, and participate in, the Messianic era, enjoying a higher level of communion with ha-Sheim as party to Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh, and sharing, as a fellow worker of the Mâshiakh, in his special rewards in hâ-olâm ha-bâ. However, following the teachings of the Judaic Mâshiakh isn't compatible with Christianity nor Displacement Theology of a personal "salvation" for goyim. Rather than y^eshuâh, we should more accurately discuss the concepts Christians usually mean to encompass by "salvation": t^eshuvâh (for shomeir-Torah Jews), hitgaiy^erut (for goyim), and kipur.

Messianic kipur has no other basis, and no less a basis, than the Biblical Dërëkh Halâkhâh promised centuries earlier – to Moshëh, to Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh, and to others of Beit-Yisrâ·eil for doing one's utmost to keep Torâh and the mishpât of the Beit-Din (i.e. Halâkhâh) – "which, if a man shall do, in them he shall live" (N^ekhëmyâh 9.29). Y^ekhëzqeil writes (18.9) of those who keep Halâkhâh: "'Tzadiq is he who shall absolutely live,³³ declares Adonai י--ה." Consistently, Y^ekhëzqeil's plan was exclusively to the whole of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (Y^ekhëzqeil 37.1-14) – not goyim. According to Y^ekhëzqeil, Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Y^ehudâh would merge together as Y^ehudâh (37.19) and come under the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid (37.15-28). This is corroborated in Mishlei Shlomoh 4.4 and 7.1-2.

Not recognizing the true problem – the logical contradictions intrinsic in Displacement Theology – many miss the mark, mistakenly denying that they advocate Christian claims of supersession. Their argument is that a succeeding b^erit is merely added – in contravention of D^evârim 13.1, while all previous B^eritot remain in force. Therefore, according to their argument, a new b^erit , even when it's contradictory (namely the NT), merely "supplements" previous B^eritot but doesn't "supersede" any previous b^erit. Their argument locks a contradiction into their g*od whereas there can be no contradiction in ha-Sheim of Torâh. Clearly, while the argument against Displacement Theology is unlosable, the argument against contradictory Christian claims of supersession is unwinnable.

The messianic implications of Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh are limited to the means of kipur, i.e., the upgrading from the tavnit of the blood kipur of animal sacrifices to the true kipur in the spiritual (i.e., non-dimensional) Realm, provided by the graciousness of ha-Sheim through His agent ("Arm"), the Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph. The Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph was always (consistently) designed to be ha-Sheim's agent and provision, the tavnit for which animal sacrifices had always (consistently) been mere teaching symbols, illustrations for learning. Just as the real world doesn't make maps useless, so neither Yirm^eyâhu's revelation of the real kipur in the non-dimensional Realm nor the death of the Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph can be regarded as a replacement of the animal sacrifice system for at least three reasons:

1. Unlike the later misojudaic Christians, Ribi Y^ehoshua practiced and taught observance of the sacrificial system, and the N^etzârim afterward continued to observe the sacrificial system, until the destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini – consistency;
   
   
2. The cessation of sacrifices was brought about by the Roman destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini and their Hellenist Displacement Theology, not any Displacement Theology of the N^etzârim;³⁴
   
   
3. When the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid comes he will renew the animal sacrifice system – and officiate himself (Y^ekhëzqeil 34.24 & 37.25 with 44.3; 45.16-17, 22; ch. 46 and 48.21-22)!!! Consistency.
   
   

Consistent with Yirm^eyâhu, the earliest extant source mss. underlying The N^etzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) elaborate on the means of messianic kipur: the Creator's gracious provision of the same kipur described all along in the tavnit of the animal sacrifice system, consistent within all of the previous B^eritot with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, for Beit-Yisrâ·eil, through His Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph. If Ribi Y^ehoshua had replaced Torâh, he would have instantly invalidated himself as a messianic candidate (D^evârim 13.1-6), and the N^etzârim would have been expelled from the Jewish community like the Ëvyonim, Paul the Apostate and other apostate minim. But history shows that the N^etzârim lived harmoniously in the religious Jewish community, steadfastly opposing the Church, and vehemently opposed by the Church, until the Church annihilated them in 333 C.E., expressly for their insistence on remaining shomeir-Torah (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)).

Consistent with every b^erit leading up to it, Yirm^eyâhu's Messianic b^erit, while khadâshâh, is neither contradictory nor displacemental. The conclusion is unavoidable: the Christian NT, because it intractably contradicted Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh, cannot be the new covenant based on Yirm^eyâhu 31.30-32 that heralded a Jewish messiah!

Y^ehoshua Bën-Nunn-Yoseiph Ben-D(vid of Nâtzrat represents the culmination in a thematically consistent sequence of B^eritot. Unlike the total contradiction of all previous perfect B^eritot taught by Christian doctrine, Ribi Y^ehoshua, by his own declaration, neither contradicted, invalidated, nor compromised the first י or of Torâh and the Oral Law. By the logic of consistency, the b^erit of the Mâshiakh has no relevance specific to, and certainly effects no changes relative to, goyim or nilwëh status. The logic of consistency dictates that the relationship of the gentile and geir to Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Torâh is the same subsequent to Yirm^eyâhu's b^erit of the Mâshiakh as it was before.

So what was the point of Yirm^eyâhu's b^erit? Exactly what Yirm^eyâhu declared, to change the emphasis from the letter of the law that one couldn't avoid without being punished to keeping the intent of Torâh out of a heartfelt love and desire to please י--ה.

Consequently, in contrast to the Displacement Theology of J*esus and Christianity, Ribi Y^ehoshua and the N^etzârim taught (among many other things³⁵ to which Christian doctrines of J*esus were later antithetical) three important tenets about messianic kipur for a portion in hâ-olâm ha-bâ:

1. Consistent with Torâh, Ribi Y^ehoshua provides blood kipur exclusively for those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (including geirim and the 10 categories of yukhasin) who are doing their utmost to live a shomeir-Torah life (not for willful, "high-handed" – cf. b^e-Midbar 15.30; et al – rejection, i.e. selective observance, of Torâh).
   
   
2. Those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (including geirim and the 10 categories of yukhasin) who are doing their utmost to live a shomeir-Torah life receive ha-Sheim's provision of blood kipur according to the terms as promised – without any further added conditions (D^evârim 13.1, et al.) – to Beit-Yisrâ·eil by ha-Sheim of the b^erit that ha-Sheim set forth at Har Sinai. Consistently, Yirm^eyâhu explicitly precluded any change in terms. Consistently, Ribi Y^ehoshua explicitly stated that he wasn't adding any new conditions. The notion of some additional condition, such as having to call, or believe, on any name other than ha-Sheim (Y^eshayâhu 12.1-4; T^ehilim 20.6; 116.13), is antithetical to both Yirm^eyâhu and Ribi Y^ehoshua.
   
   
3. Those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (including geirim and the 10 categories of yukhasin) who aren't living a shomeir-Torah life are required to make t^eshuvâh. (goyim are required to qualify for and obtain nilwëh status as geirim.)
   
   

Every b^erit since Har Sinai provides kipur only for shortcomings in the best effort of the Jew (including geirim and the others of the 10 categories of yukhasin) to live a shomeir-Torah life. Until there was t^eshuvâh, Tana"kh never provided any kipur for deliberate, willful, "high-handed" (cf. b^e-Midbar 15.30; et al.) rejection of Torâh. Consistently, under the terms of Yirm^eyâhu's B^erit Khadâshâh, The N^etzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) demonstrates (5.17-20 with notes) how ha-Sheim provides kipur through His Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph only for those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil who are genuinely doing their utmost to live a shomeir-Torah life, with no further conditions about identifying, or believing in, the Mâshiakh.