Optimized for Firefox
(MS Explorer doesn't display XHTML 1.0-Standard Unicode Greek)
© 1994, 1997, 1998, 2006 Yirmeyâhu Bën-Dâwid, Pâqid 16
The Netzârim
www.netzarim.co.il
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, Netzârim 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.
(Click "Fast Forward" button to go; Hover cursor over math symbols for explanation)
Gentile 'Bishop'
(le-havdil) Netzârim) + (Bishop (le-havdil) Pâqid) → Birth of Church (135 C.E.)
Ιησους (I*eisous) / J*esus / Yesh"u
(English translation)
 Click to enlarge |
Office of the Chief of Tziyon
Chief Rabbi of Israel
Blessings of י--ה, 24th of Sivan, 752
Honorable Mr. Yirmeyahu Ben-David (May י--ה preserve him and keep him alive)
Peace and blessing!
We received your letter to the honorable Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rav Mardakhai Eliyahu (May he live long and happily, amein) and the enclosed materials.
Your letter was brought to the attention of the honorable Chief Rabbi.
Here is our wish for blessing and success to you.
With blessings and all the best,
Rav Shmuel Za'afrani
Personal Assistant
 |
 |
This book isn't aimed at persuading Jewish readers that Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat is the Mâshiakh. History documents that Ribi Yehoshua taught, and the Netzârim urged Jews to keep Torâh according to Halâkhâh. For Christian Jews, this means making teshuvâh.
One reason the Netzârim have a unique insight into Christian perspectives that traditional Jews cannot is because, before this author's Orthodox conversion, he was a Baptist preacher who translated the entire NT directly from the all of the earliest extant source documents for Hebrew Matityâhu up through the 4th century C.E., as well as the Hebrew tradition up through the Ëvën Bokhan.
The primary aim of this book is twofold:
Virtually all Christian Jews are already unalterably persuaded by prophecies from Tana"kh, which are logically compelling, that the 1st century Jew from Nâtzrat is the Mâshiakh. The only way they will ever abandon the Hellenist Roman pagan, antinomian, Displacement Theology of the idol counterfeit, Yesh"u / J*esus to make teshuvâh is to disconnect the alien Hellenist Roman paganism from the authentic, halakhic Torâh-observant, historical Jew – Ribi Yehoshua, i.e., to demonstrate discontinuity between Judaism and Christianity. This translates to discontinuity between Ribi Yehoshua and Yesh"u / J*esus, as well as between halakhic Torâh-observance and Christian Displacement Theology.
The Netzârim reject Christianity. with its antinomian Christian claims of supersessive Displacement Theology, and the Christian man-g*od savior of gentiles, Yesh"u / J*esus in toto. We are not associated in any way with Christianity nor any Christian organization. In fact, Christianity is intractably antithetical to the Netzârim. We demonstrate from the historical record that Yesh"u / J*esus of Christianity was a Hellenist Roman counterfeit diametrically antithetical to the historical Pharisee Jew Ribi Yehoshua. In other words, Yesh"u / J*esus is a Hellenist Roman syncretism and a pagan idol.
To proclaim Ribi Yehoshua as the Mâshiakh simultaneously implies logically that his diametrically antithetical counterfeit, Yesh"u / J*esus, has to be the antichrist!!!
Those who accuse Netzârim of believing in Yesh"u / J*esus are, prima facie, liars guilty of לשון הרע (leshon ha-ra) and מוציא שם רע (motzi sheim râ).
The Netzârim are the pre-Christian "Nazarene Jews," the original Pharisee Jews who followed Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat according to Torâh and halakhic Judaism – before his image was mythicized and his teachings Christianized by misojudaic goyim Hellenist Roman Christian redactions – only after displacing the Netzârim, and long after his death and the deaths of his twelve Shelikhim.
The unique Netzârim contribution is showing Christian Jews and other Christians that Ribi Yehoshua taught halakhic Judaism, and that to follow the authentic teachings of Ribi Yehoshua they must become halakhically Torâh-observant. The rest we accomplish by tutoring these – who are invariably unfamiliar with Judaic customs, practices, Beit ha-Kenësët liturgy, ettiquette, and Hebrew.
We utilize recognized Orthodox texts (preferring Teimânim) and Hebrew courses from Israel to educate them in basic Judaism as well as the liturgy, ettiquette and customs, and Hebrew of the Orthodox Beit ha-Kenësët. In this way we prepare them to avoid most of the pitfalls, embarrassments, and awkward moments when making their transition into an Orthodox Beit ha-Kenësët and community – "where," the 1st century Netzârim noted (Acts 15:21) "they can learn the rest of Torâh and Torâh shë-be·al pëh every Shabat."
The Netzârim are uniquely able to bridge the gap between the Judaic and Christian worlds. As a result of Netzârim efforts, many Christian Jews have abandoned, and are abandoning, Christianity, reversing their assimilation, recognizing the authority of Halâkhâh, and returning to keep Torâh in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. Christians are forsaking Christianity, with its inherent misojudaism, to undertake halakhic Torâh-observance. Education in 1st-4th-century historical documentation – factual truth – is dissolving the religious barriers that have traditionally prevented goyim spouses of intermarried couples from abandoning Christianity and converting to Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism – thereby unifying and healing Jewish families.
Neither is it our objective to defend the NT as true. In fact, we accept only Tana"kh as Bible and, as documented by the earliest Church historian, Eusebius, the Netzârim accepted only the 1st-century Hebrew Matityahu as an authoritative account of the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua – rejecting the Hellenist Greek NT in its entirety. This book (Who Are the Netzârim?), by contrast, addresses those who either already believe the NT is true, or have reconciled their belief system to accommodate others who believe it.
However, a point should be made about all pre-4th century C.E. Judaic documents – including the NT. Whether x and/or y in the source documents underlying the NT (e.g., a Dead Sea Scroll fragment, in the Pseudepigrapha, et al.) are true or not, it can usually be determined whether x and/or y are indeed written in them. Whether the statements in them are true or not, the documents themselves are undeniable facts, hard evidence, that one can see and touch. Determining just what is written in them, apart from its credibility and truth, can usually be established by various scientific techniques. Excepting occasional controversial readings, this aspect is not mere opinion nor belief, and does not afford that "everybody is entitled to their own." Irrespective of whether what is declared in these documents is objective or true, reasoning logically from this hard evidence is often revealing.
Even when not regarded as true, ancient documents can still reveal a lot. For example, a third century church historian excoriated "Jewish followers of Christ," regarded as lost heretics following Satan and not Christians – because they kept Torâh. Though his statement is blatantly misojudaic, it tells us:
A factual approach enables formal logic (discrete mathematics) to demonstrate that
One of the greatest weaknesses is the pervasive yeshivâh ghetto mentality – i.e., "as long as members of our yeshivâh are convinced, that's sufficient." Of course, yeshivâh students are convinced of the "pros" over the "cons" before any arguments are even examined. The resulting feeble treatment of the most difficult issues has utterly failed to convince 90% of Jews of today who aren't yeshivâh students – much less in the 21st century of the shrinking global village of the Internet.
Scientists, intellectuals, and much moreso misojudaic goyim, find the Medieval mentality underwhelming. Intelligent people don't ignore ancient Judaic documents antedating written Talmud by several centuries. However uncomfortable, the fact is that this includes the pre-Christianized source documents of the NT. By facing these things squarely, the Netzârim approach works on Christians instead of being conceived strictly by and for pre-convinced, religious Jews in a yeshivâh. Those who cavalierly dismiss documents illuminating early Torâh Judaism will be dismissed by those outside their pre-convinced little circle, and compared to the Church's insistence that the sun revolves around the earth. Torâh and the Name, often dismissed along with them, are profaned as a result.
Jewish attempts to extrapolate an antidote to Christian misojudaism from the Jewish frame of reference is proven wrong-headed by nearly two millennia of impotence and endless abject failure. The Netzârim also offer the only effective solution to the inherent misojudaism inherent in the Christian NT (see Antidote For Misojudaism).
Our effectiveness in retrieving Christian Jews, healing mixed marriages, and combating misojudaism and assimilation depends upon the credibility as a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) tradition in the Orthodox community that is in your hands. Otherwise, the world will consider Christian Jews (cf. p. 66) and other Christians – with their intrinsic misojudaic, antinomian and, too-often, Christian missionary, and anti-Israel agendas – to be as legitimate as the Netzârim, who are Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jews championing Torâh and Halâkhâh and a member in good standing of an Orthodox Beit ha-Kenësët.
In this book, the Netzârim demonstrate both the discontinuity – the disconnect – between Judaism and Christianity and, correspondingly, between Ribi Yehoshua and his Hellenist Roman-syncretized antithetical counterfeit: Yesh"u / J*esus. We restore the Christian-distorted teachings of Ribi Yehoshua back to their original – halakhically Torâh-observant – form. If you have a relative involved in Christianity (pseudo-Messianic Judaism) you should put a copy of this book in his/her hands.
Whether you are aware of it or believe it, your closest Christian friends, deep in their heart, hope someday to "save" you by the 'grace' of 'the Lord Yesh"u Christ.' I'm a former Christian and I know. Do both of you a favor: let them discover from the sequel to this book, Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), that it is the halakhically Torâh-observant Jew who has always had salvation and the Christian who, relying on a Hellenist Roman counterfeit, has always had only a pretend-salvation. Put a copy of this book in their hands.
|
|
The glossary links, operable only when reading on-line, will be essential for most. Transliterated Hebrew words without a separate footnote are linked to the glossary in our website in Ra·anana, Israel (www.netzarim.co.il).
Most Christians assume their interpretations and doctrines reflect the accurate teachings of Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat. Consequently, they require detractors to produce contradictory evidence. Even then, undeniable truth – and inconvenient NT passages – are widely ignored and rejected in favor of "faith."
The Christian's commitment is supposed to be to follow the teachings of the Jew of Nâtzrat as the Mâshiakh. Yet, this book will document that his teachings have been grossly distorted from the earliest involvement of pagans of the Hellenist Roman Empire. Christians ever since have been diverted from the authentic teachings of Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat by counterfeit teachings of Hellenist Roman pagans syncretizing their native mythology with selected ideas from apostate Jews.
The aim of this book, and the Netzârim, is to enable thinking Christians, for the first time since 135 C.E. to follow the genuine Jew from Nâtzrat, authentically – within the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community just as Ribi Yehoshua and the pre-135 C.E. Netzârim were within the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. All others are counterfeits masquerading in various Judaic-like cosmetics.
According to the Christian NT, Ribi Yehoshua said, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Yn. 8:32). How can his follower then be afraid of the truth? Either the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat originated in Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism and Tana"kh, or the Tana"kh (upon which his claim to messiahship must depend) declares he was a false prophet (Devârim 13:2-6)! Therefore, the onus is upon Christians to prove how every interpretation which differs from halakhic Torâh Judaism legitimately derived from authentic Judaism – or the doctrine is illegitimate. Logic dictates that one assume documented Judaism and Halâkhâh true until the detractor produces proof to the contrary. This is exactly opposite to the opening paragraph.
The Netzârim are the only Way that goyim wishing to follow Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat as the Mâshiakh can interface with the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. Goyim can do this by becoming Netzârim geirim. Goyim Christians married to Jews and suffering ostracism from the Jewish community will find that the Netzârim can resolve doctrinal objections to conversion, and families can be healed.
Christians who are quick to teach Jews how to be saved suddenly find they cannot even read Bible passages placed in front of them – much less find or quote them. Even the names of the books of the Bible, being Hebrew, are alien to Christians. They find themselves hopelessly lost in the authentic liturgy which Ribi Yehoshua observed, and which is patterned after services in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh. Isn't it odd that the religion Ribi Yehoshua practiced and taught is entirely alien to you? Does Ribi Yehoshua, the Netzârim Jew, ask too much of you, to be like him rather than like Hellenist Roman pagans who killed him and then perverted his teachings and reputation?
Goyim are likely to find this book challenging. To smooth your path we provide cross-referencing, explanations and documentation through footnotes, a dictionary of abbreviations (appendixed) and glossary links that include a Hebrew Alephbeit and pronunciations in .wav format.
Similarly, Christianized counterfeits (versions of the NT) must not be confused with The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) – the only work of its kind, free of Christian bias and faithful to the Torâh-observant perspective of 1st -4th century Netzârim Jews. So-called "Jewish" versions by Christian Jews are the most insidious. Substituting Jewish names and a sprinkling of Judaic terms they camouflage their Christian doctrines in pseudo-Judaic cosmetics, beguiling readers into thinking that their counterfeit teachings are legitimately Jewish. Orthodox rabbis everywhere unanimously confirm they aren't.
|
|
The Hellenist-Greek Christian NT documents in Mt. 2:23 and Acts 24:5 that the נצרים (Netzârim) were the original Jews who followed Ribi יהושע (Yehoshua) of נצרת (Nâtzrat), including his first twelve Torâh-observant, Jewish, תלמידים (talmidim).
The name Netzârim was corrupted, first by Hellenizing it to Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios) / Ναζαρηνος (Nazareinos / Nazoraeans, confusing it with Nazirites) and then anglicizing it to "Nazarenes."
The Netzârim are unique. We have only recently reemerged after being dormant since 135 C.E., when we were forcibly ousted and displaced by the Hellenist-Roman Christian Church, remaining within the Pharisee Jewish community – Torâh-observant according to Halâkhâh.
Qumran scroll 4Q MMT, discovered only in the 20th century, describes the 1st-century status quo. Contrary to popular Christian beliefs, all three of the major sects of Judaism that were recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol viewed Oral Law as the core tenet and defining element of Judaism. By contrast, James Parkes (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue) and others have conclusively demonstrated that the Church of the 4th-century was the polar opposite: antinomian and misojudaic. Thus, the Christian claim to have sprung from the status quo in the 1st century depends upon proving, by showing physical evidence – historical documentation (not unfounded assertions) – demonstrating that each and every step of the Christian-claimed transition from known Judaism in the first state to claimed "Judaism" in the second state. That is impossible because no such transition ever happened!
This book demonstrates historical discontinuity – disconnection – between Judaism and Christianity and, correspondingly, between Ribi Yehoshua and Yesh"u / J*esus. An inescapable conclusion will be shown: that the antinomian Christian Yesh"u / J*esus and the pro-Torâh historical Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat are intractably antithetical and, therefore, mutually exclusive. Yesh"u / J*esus is then shown to be a Hellenist Roman-mythicized, misojudaic counterfeit of the authentic 1st century, pro-Halâkhâh historical Jew – Ribi Yehoshua. The two are polar opposites must never be confused; Torâh commands that we make a Havdâlâh between the qâdosh and the khol.
Today's Netzârim are headquartered in Ra·anana, Israel. Readers should beware of, and dissociate from, false teachers and deceivers who masquerade as Netzârim / "Nazarenes," and/or claim to practice Netzârim Judaism. No other followers of Ribi Yehoshua are recognized in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. Some imposters even claim – fraudulently – to operate a Netzârim Beit-Din. The only authentic Beit Din ha-Netzârim is in Ra·anana, Israel. Readers should verify through our headquarters in Ra·anana, via our website at www.netzarim.co.il, anyone claiming to be a Netzârim / "Nazarene."
|
|
Christianity claims that there is continuity from Judaism (le-havdil) to Christianity, from Ribi Yehoshua (le-havdil) to Yesh"u / J*esus, from Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid (le-havdil) to St. J*ames, from Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh (le-havdil) to St. P*eter, etc. Christianity also acknowledges the historical record that confirms that Judaism, Ribi Yehoshua, Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid and Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh were all pro-Torâh while (le-havdil) earliest Christianity (post-135 C.E.), J*esus, St. P*eter, St. J*ohn, St. P*aul and the rest are all represented as having preached the antinomian message of Displacement Theology – a saving gospel of the 'grace' of J*esus displacing the "Old Testament." Thus, these post-135 C.E. Hellenized images are the polar antitheses of the pre-135 C.E. historical Jews.
Christianity obtains "continuity" from pro-Torâh Judaism of Jews to (le-havdil) antinomian Hellenist-Christianity of goyim by a logical fallacy called petitio principii (begging the question, also called circular reasoning). Christianity simply assumes it!!! "I believe it; therefore, it was!" Poof! Magic. Misdirecting attention away from the many contradictory and unconnected "links."
The logical approach, by contrast, is to rigorously define these principals and distinguish rigorously between the definitions in order to discover whether or not the evidence compels identity or proves a transition. Only if the evidence clearly shows that they are identical, or proves every step of a transition, is continuity established. Notice that any reasonable doubt, concerning any link in the claimed transition, prevents a chain of transition, precluding the Christian assertion of one sect of Jews taking a 180° reversal of direction to reject the very core of Judaism – Torâh and Halâkhâh – to become, instead, antinomian, misojudaic, Hellenist goyim. In other words, any reasonable doubt concerning any link in the asserted transition fails to displace the status quo before 135 C.E. proven in DSS 4Q MMT, thus precluding Christianity's claim of a transition and continuity.
To test the claim of continuity, we distinguish rigorously between the 1st-century description, proven in Qumran scroll 4Q MMT, and the 4th-century description, demonstrated by Oxford scholar James Parkes (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue). Because the two are mutually-exclusive, arch-antithetical, polar opposites, one can never understand Ribi Yehoshua or the Netzârim while peering through lenses imprinted with the 4th-century Hellenist, antinomian man-g*od, J*esus. It is, therefore, essential to rigorously distinguish between:
The criterion then becomes simple. If a documented attribute describing followers of historical Ribi Yehoshua is pro-Torâh then it cannot reliably be assumed to describe antinomian J*esus, proto-Christian heretical Jewish sects, nor post-135 C.E. Christians; but must describe Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim Jews (and geirim). Conversely, if an attribute is antinomian then it absolutely cannot describe historical Ribi Yehoshua nor the Netzârim who, even the earliest Church historians scathingly documented with excoriations and vilifications, always remained pro-Torâh. (Moreover, an antinomian attribute precludes a candidate from qualifying – on the basis of Torâh – as the Mâshiakh!) Displacement Theology, as well as antinomian and misojudaic attributes, therefore, can only describe J*esus and Christians, and/or hybrid proto-Christian heretical Jewish sects.
The blurring of the two with the hybrid proto-Christian heretical Jewish sects is the prime reason Jews have had no choice but to throw out the baby with the bath water – and all of the Church and Christianity hangs from the single thread of that blurring to give the illusion of a transition between them.
With concise definitions in place and used rigorously, the antidote to misojudaics becomes as simple as composing questions which expose the logical flaws of Christianity, combined with answers that both demonstrate the integrity of halakhic Judaism and hold true under logical and scientific scrutiny. (Additionally, with the precedent for rejecting Torâh eliminated, the validity of Mohammed's subsequent teachings in the 6th century C.E., entirely dependent for authenticity in the Biblical period upon the Jewish Tana"kh, and hanging upon the supposed precedent of J*esus' rejection of Jewish law, is seen to be based not on any historically authentic precedent, but upon the fraudulence of misojudaism and Displacement Theology prophesied concerning Rome in Dâniyeil 7.24-27.)
We believe, within halakhic constraints, that the genuine, Torâh-observant, Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat is the Mâshiakh. Belief in the opposite, the Christian ersatz christ of the goyim – Yesh"u / J*esus – by contrast is, by virtue of being diametrically antithetical to pro-Torâh Ribi Yehoshua, belief in the "anti-christ." Accordingly, calling the Netzârim Christians is brazen slander.
The first Netzârim Pâqid, Pâqid Ya·aqov Bën-David (the brother of Ribi Yehoshua) was popular in, even defended by, the Perushim Jewish community (against the Hellenist Kohanei hâ-Rësha in the "Temple"). The Perushim recognized his title as a leader of a sect of Khasidim (the Netzârim): " ha-Tzadiq."
Unlike the contra-Judaic Notzrim, the Netzârim lived in, and were respected by, the Perushim Jewish community long after the Hellenist Roman goyim expelled the Jews – which included the Netzârim – from Yerushâlayim ⇒ (le-havdil) Aelia C*apitolina, in 135 C.E.
|
|
The Hebrew term from which "Pharisees" derived is פרושים (Perushim). The Perushim were the antecedants of today's Orthodox rabbis.
|
|
צדוקים (Tzedoqim; supposedly Kohanim who were בני-צדוק [Ben-Tzâdoq), the Hebrew term from which "Sadducees" derived.
The Tzedoqim cannot be understood without understanding their origins and their split into two factions. This wasn't evident until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and not realized until the analysis of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT by Prof. Ëlishâ Qimron of Bën-Guryon University.
|
|
In the Biblical period, the corpus of authoritative interpretations of Oral Law tradition, evolved by the twelve tribal chiefs from the time of the twelve Patriarchs was compiled under the Guidance of י--ה by Moshëh at Har Sinai. The chain of succession in the continuing development of mishpât and khuqim, and its oral transmission – the continuing "Oral Law" – may be generalized as follows: Moshëh was succeeded by Yehoshua ha-Nâvi Bin-Nun, the Zeqeinim / Shophtim, and the Neviyim, all in concert with the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. This 'Oral Law' was termed Torâh shë-be·al pëh or Mishnâh and comprises the Biblical khuqim and mishpâtim. Together, Torâh shë-bikhtâv and Torâh shë-be·al pëh constitute Torâh. When Jews speak of Torâh, we invariably mean Torâh shë-bikhtâv and Torâh shë-be·al pëh together. When Jews – including Tana"kh and Ribi Yehoshua – refer to written Torâh alone, we specify Torâh shë-bikhtâv.
An analysis by Prof. Ëlishâ Qimron shows that 4Q MMT was a work of the Tzedoqim. 4Q MMT contrasts the Ma·asëh – the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim version of Torâh shë-be·al pëh – with both: the Torâh shë-be·al pëh of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in Yerushâlayim (their "Book of Decrees") and the Torâh shë-be·al pëh of the Perushim (Halâkhâh).
The contrast between their respective versions of Torâh shë-be·al pëh demonstrate that the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq variety of Tzedoqim was distinguished from the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in Yerushâlayim by the same factor that distinguished the Tzedoqim from the Perushim – differences in their interpretations of Torâh shë-be·al pëh – Oral Law!!!
All of the literature of the period refers to three major sects in 1st century Judaism. In deriving these three major sects, besides distinguishing the Perushim, it's essential to distinguish Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim from the Roman-oriented, Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in Yerushâlayim. Note that all three of the major sects – which dictated decisions of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol together – unanimously subscribed to adherance to the entirety of Torâh shë-be·al pëh. They differed only in their versions of Torâh shë-be·al pëh, and the insistence of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in Yerushâlayim, subsequent to codifying their version of the Oral Law, on transmitting Torâh shë-be·al pëh exclusively in written form (their "Book of Decrees"), no longer orally.
Since the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in Yerushâlayim – Roman-appointed vassals often not even genealogically legitimate – were obviously more Hellenized, Rome-oriented, and corrupted, it's clear that, of the two sects of Tzedoqim, the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim were the more authentic to the earlier traditions – likely the Khasidim who may well have dated back to this title found in Tehilim, and even Shmueil ha-Nâvi. When we think of Tzedoqim as Ben-Tzâdoq, we should think not of "Sadducees" (nor even all Tzedoqim), but rather of the more purely Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim – associated with the ultra-strict Qumran "Essenes."
Thus, "Sadducees," in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in Yerushâlayim, who were there by power of the Hellenist Roman occupiers, often appointed despite not being genealogically qualified, and reviled by the great majority of the Jewish people as Kohanei hâ-Rësha, fit perfectly the description "Kohanei hâ-Rësha" described by the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim. These Hellenist Roman-puppet, Hellenist-assimilated Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in Yerushâlayim, when contrasted with the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim, were clearly Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim – the Roman-oriented Hellenist "Sadducees," described in the NT, are therefore identified henceforth as Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim.
As sycophant quislings dependent upon the goyim Roman occupiers, the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim would naturally view goyim Hellenist Roman Notzrim, including Hellenist ethnic Jews, as allies against "anti-Hellenist fanatic Jewish fundamentalists" within their own community (the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim and, even moreso, the Perushim – most notably the Netzârim who, possibly with one foot in each (any remnant of the followers of Yokhânân 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zekharyâh ha-Kohein), might bridge and merge the two, instigating open rebellion against the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim / Hellenist Roman arrangement).
This represented a serious threat to the Roman occupiers' status quo and the Hellenist Roman power base of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim. Hellenist Romans (subsuming the foetal but developing Christian community) and Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim were thus pitted against the Zealots, the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim and the chief rival of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim: the Perushim (rabbis) – the most visible and formidable of whom was the person of Ribi Yehoshua and his the Netzârim followers.
Collusion between the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim and the Hellenist Romans also explains the intractable conflict with the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim, evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls, toward the "Kohein hâ-Rësha" (and his successors) of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim who had wrested control of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh by purchasing their appointments from the Hellenist Roman occupiers.
To the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim, the idea of Hellenist Roman Christians that included Hellenist ethnic Jews also represented an opportunity to reinforce their Hellenist Roman connection in the conflict they all shared together against Torâh-strict – anti-Hellenist by definition – Jewish sects threatening the Roman-oriented, Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim coalition. This dovetails with the killing of Ribi Yehoshua's brother, Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid, by a Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Kohein hâ-Rësha – triggering condemnation from the rabbinic Perushim community.
The DSS painted a picture of the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) 1st century Jewish community – as defined by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, comprising representatives of the three major sects described in 4Q MMT – as a Torâh-strict community – who would have recognized only a Torâh-strict Mâshiakh (!) – never the Torâh-superseding man-g*od of the Christians who turned against Torâh and Jews as "lost servants of Sâtân" to save goyim instead. The historical record also shows that the Netzârim continued to live compatibly and harmoniously within this unanimously halakhic and Torâh-strict community, something impossible for proto-Christian apostates, much less Christian ethnic Jews and gentiles who are clearly documented as living apart from the "lost servants of Sâtân" – the Netzârim.
In large measure due to these scrolls, world-renowned scholars on the cutting edge are increasingly connecting Ribi Yehoshua with Torâh-strictness, and, some claim (mistakenly), even with the super-strict Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim to which his cousin, Yokhânân 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zekharyâh ha-Kohein, had belonged.
Such connections corroborate the Netzârim view, maintained since the 1st century, that Ribi Yehoshua, the Mâshiakh, uncompromisingly taught non-selective Torâh-observance – including Halâkhâh – i.e., the authority of the entirety of Torâh shë-be·al pëh to Jews and geirim in Batei ha-Kenësët – not antinomian Christianity to goyim in churches.
|
|
The primary evidence cited in support of the assertion that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim rejected Oral Law is Josephus' "Antiquies of the Jews" – dated ca. 94 C.E. and widely acknowledged to have been redacted by Notzrim.
Contrary to the note by Dean Prideaux ("Antiquities," XIII, x, 5-6) included in William Whiston's translation of Josephus, examination of the ancient documents reveals that Ribi Yehoshua's condemnations were of corruption and extremism, never of Torâh shë-be·al pëh.
Josephus explains:
"What I would now explain is this, that the Perushim have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the Law of Moshëh; and for that reason it is that the [Hellenist pseudo-]Tzedoqim reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word [Does Josephus refer to Torâh shë-bikhtâv? Or does he include his own sect's written Book of Decrees?], but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers; and concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the [Hellenist pseudo-]Tzedoqim are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Perushim have the multitude of their side." [emphasis added; ybd]
The very fact that Josephus gives only his own, Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim sect, as the example, that only the rich followed this departure from the ancient Judaism of the "succession from their fathers," and that the populace followed the Perushim all inform readers that Ribi (!!) Yehoshua didn't embrace the Hellenism of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim. To the contrary, the The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) records (23.1-3) that Ribi (!!) Yehoshua was a Perushi Ribi and recognized the authority of the Perushim interpretation Torâh shë-be·al pëh, i.e. Halâkhâh, as opposed to the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Book of Decrees. Moreover, hard evidence, physical documentation, continues to corroborate his Perushim affiliation, on the one hand, while simultaneously contradicting the mistakenly theorized affiliation with the Tzedoqim.
Prideaux fails "Freshman Logic 101," commenting that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim (even failing to identify them as such) "deny all unwritten traditions, which the Perushim were so fond of… the abolishing of all the traditionary constitutions of the Perushim, which our Saviour condemned as well as they." First, in writing "our Saviour," Prideaux reveals the logical fallacy in the axe he grinds. Josephus wrote "a great many" – not "all." If I deliver "a great many" tomatoes to your door, have I, then, delivered even a small percentage of the world's tomatoes – much less "all" tomatoes – to your door? Similarly, 4Q MMT has since proven, the debate in the first century Jewish community was over what they perceived as a 'great many' of the differences in interpretation of Torâh shë-be·al pëh, which distinguished them from each other, but certainly a small percentage relative to differences from the goyim or even the entirety of Torâh shë-be·al pëh.
First, Josephus' statement that "the Tzedoqim reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers" refers to the "great many" – of Perushim interpretations, declared invalid by the affluent Hellenist Roman-assimilated Hellenists – not Prideaux's "all" (Perushim observances). Moreover, this statement ascribed to Josephus is a likely Christian redaction. While they certainly rejected some fences and interpretations of the Perushim, the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim couldn't possibly have rejected what all three regarded to be the core principle of Torâh shë-be·al pëh. Even before considering the physical evidence of Tana"kh and Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT we will examine next, it's conspicuous that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim, who had predominated the Beit ha-Miqdâsh and Beit-Din ha-Jadol could not have handed down their khuqim and mishpâtim with one hand while simultaneously, preaching the rejection of their own decisions (Torâh shë-be·al pëh)!
Beyond even this, however, the term Torâh has always conveyed a different meaning to Jews than to gentiles. Gentiles have always understood Torâh to mean the five books of written Torâh (be-Reishit through Devârim).
To Jews, by contrast, Torâh has always conveyed Torâh as applied in everyday life; that is, what we know today as these five written books as applied in real life practice. This understanding includes not only the rest of Tana"kh as context and clarification, but also the khuqim and mishpâtim that was ordained from Har Sinai. For Jews of all epochs, all of these together constitute Torâh mei-Har Sinai. The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim had codified their version of Torâh shë-be·al pëh into their "Book of Decrees." Consequently, the 'written law' Josephus records as being all that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim accepted included not only the five written books of Torâh, which gentiles understand, but also the "Sadducees'" own written Torâh shë-be·al pëh. They objected only to the tradition of the other sects, which continued to be transmitted orally. Neither they, nor any other Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaic sect, has ever crossed the sine qua non of rejecting Torâh shë-be·al pëh.
|
|
Relying on the English as 'Tana"kh' is like mistaking two fistfuls of feathers for a pair of wings. A person with two fistfuls of feathers can argue about rate of climb and ceiling, or red-line, cruise and stall speeds – but in the end they cannot fly. They can only flap around on the ground, looking rather silly.
In the original Hebrew, Scriptural admonitions in Tana"kh to obey mishpât and khoq are overwhelming. Christianized English translations subtly gloss over more than 450 admonitions in written Tana"kh to obey mishpât and khoq – the Biblical terms combined into Torâh shë-be·al pëh, the rabbinic interpretation of which is called Halâkhâh. All quotations from Tana"kh in this book are translated directly, and rather literally, sometimes causing these citations to differ from English versions translated even by Orthodox Jews – who
The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim codified their version of Torâh shë-be·al pëh their "Book of Decrees." The Perushim interpretations of Torâh shë-be·al pëh, subsequently compiled in Talmud, are called Halâkhâh. The Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim labeled their opinions of Torâh shë-be·al pëh, evidenced by Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, Ma·asëh – which is how 4Q MMT was named: מקצת מעשה התורה (Mi-qetzat (a little, a few, some) Ma·asëh ha-Torâh; a little / some Ma·asëh of the Torâh.
The following sections are a sampling from "Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), where further information can be found.
"Happy are those who are shomeir mishpâtim" (Tehilim 106.3).
|
|
Malâkhi ha-Nâvi (3.22) demonstrates that Torâh comprises khuqim + mishpâtim: "Remember the Torâh of Moshëh avedi, which I tziwâh him at Khoreiv for all Israel – the khuqim and mishpâtim."
When the remnants of the Ten northern Tribes of Israel were absorbed into the tribe of Yehudâh (B.C.E. 722), the religion began to be called Yahadut – Judean-ism, or Judaism. (This is also how Israelis came to be called Jews, the Hellenist term, Ιουδας (Ioudas), subsequently anglicized to Judah, Judas and Judeans.) Previously, "Judaism" was called Dërëkh י--ה.
Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh describes Dërëkh י--ה as being in accordance with mishpâtim: "He guides the humble in mishpât, teaching the humble His Dërëkh" (Tehilim 25.9).
What are His derâkhim? " His actions are tâmim, for all of His derâkhim are mishpât" (Devârim 32.4).
|
|
"In that day shall י--ה tzevâ·ot be … for a Ruakh mishpât to him who sits over the mishpât" (namely, the shopheit who sits on the kisei of the Beit-Din; cf. Yeshayâhu 28.5-6). Tana"kh stipulates that the Ruakh י--ה is the "Ruakh mishpât."
|
|
"For to us a child is born …upon the Kisei of Dâwid … to establish it with mishpât and tzedâqâh, from henceforth and forever." (Yeshayâhu 9.6).
"Behold avedi, whom I will raise up, My chosen one in whom is the desire of My nëphësh; I have given My Ruakh upon him. He will bring mishpât to the goyim. (!!) …to truth he shall bring mishpât …he shall not be darkened nor crushed until he has set mishpât in hâ-Âretz and the isles await him" (Yeshayâhu 42.1-4). "Listen to me my kindred, give ear to me my nation, for Torâh shall go forth from Me, and I will apply the momentum of My mishpât for a light to the kindreds" (Yeshayâhu 51.4). "…he was taken from otzër and from mishpât, and who from his generation will bow down?" (Yeshayâhu 53.8).
"In those days and at that season I will implant a Tzëmakh of tzedâqâh for Dâwid, and he shall make mishpât and tzedâqâh in hâ-Âretz" (Yirmeyâhu 33.15).
"For mishpât will return to tzëdëq, and all who are straight in heart shall follow him/it" (Tehilim 94.15).
|
|
"'Wash up, clear yourself.… Learn [what is] good, seek mishpât.… Prithee come, let us reprove,' says י--ה, 'If your kheit are like scarlet they shall be whitened like snow.'" (Yeshayâhu 1.17-18).
"Behold, I lay a foundation stone in Tziyon, a touchstone, a dear cornerstone, the ultimate foundation. The one who believes in Me shall not hurry. And I have set mishpât by a line… and your berit with death shall kupar, and your berit with She·ol shall not arise…" (Yeshayâhu 28.16-18).
|
|
The emphasis in Tana"kh on the case law mishpâtim of the Batei-Din is overwhelming. To avoid acknowledging the obvious Jewish authority, the KJV skirts mishpât by rendering it variously as "judgment," "lawful," "manner," "ceremony," "fashion," "cause" and "ordinance." Any comprehensive study of this term in a Hebrew concordance of Tana"kh, however, will confirm the validity and authority of the operation of Halâkhâh and its institutions tracing back, in an unbroken succession, to Avrâhâm.
The authority of halakhic mishpât carries the full weight of י--ה: "for the mishpât it is Ëlohim's" (Devârim 1.17). "Shema Yisrâ·eil, to the khuqim and mishpâtim…!" (Devârim 5.1). The curse beginning in wa-Yiqrâ 26.14 is popularly thought to apply only to those who reject written Torâh. However, the curse applies to those who reject mishpât: "…or if your nëphësh abhor My mishpâtim…" (wa-Yiqrâ 26.15).
|
|
Just as legislation is of no value unless it is enforced, so too, if Torâh is not implemented it remains mere hypothetical theory, fuel for sanctimony. Just as legislation must be interpreted and implemented by competent courts in actual cases to keep the law from being perverted, so too, Torâh if not implemented as Moshëh communicated it at Har Sinai (in contrast to modern, often Judaically-apostate, interpretation) then it is perverted.
"You shall provide Shophtim [to staff the Batei-Din] and shotrim in all of your gates, which י--ה your Ëlohim gives you, for all of the tribes of your kindred; and they shall shâphat the kindred in tzëdëq of mishpât" (Devârim 16.18).
Thus, Torâh requires Jews to appoint Shophtim of the Beit-Din in every generation who will decide the mishpâtim that accumulate over the centuries – Halâkhâh. Those who reject Halâkhâh, therefore, are rejecting the written Tana"kh, relying on men – misojudaic goyim at that – and their institutions rather than the written Tana"kh they mistakenly believe they satisfy.
Moshëh stated clearly that the mishpât of the Shophtim of the Batei-Din "is Ëlohim's mishpât" (Devârim 1.17). Thus, י--ה calls the mishpâtim of the Batei-Din "My mishpâtim." Moreover, by tziwâh the observance of "My mishpâtim" in written Torâh, י--ה makes keeping the mishpâtim an integral part of written Torâh: "You shall make/do My mishpâtim and you shall be shomeir of My khuqim, to holëkh in them; I am י--ה your Ëlohim" (wa-Yiqrâ 18.4).
Though made by human Shophtim of the Batei-Din, "From י--ה is the mishpât-איש (ish; of the man)." (Mishlei Shlomoh 29.26).
Continuing the Patriarchal example of Avrâhâm, Yitzkhâq, and Ya·aqov that was promulgated by the Twelve Tribal chiefs and their successors, Moshëh compiled their corpus of case law, unbroken even while under bondage to the Parohs in Mitzrayim: "And Moshëh sat to adjudicate mishpât for the kindred" (Shemot 18.13).
When the burden became too much for one man, Moshëh delegated some of his judicial powers to appointed "Sarim of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens" (Shemot 18.21; Devârim 1.17) reserving jurisdiction for himself only over the most difficult, major, and nationally significant issues (Shemot 18.22, 26; Devârim 1.17). This is establishment of the institution of the Beit-Din system.
When Benei-Yisrâ·eil settled in Ërëtz Yisrâ·eil, the allocation of jurisdiction on a purely numerical basis (thousands, hundreds, etc.) was to be replaced by allocation on a local basis throughout the Twelve Tribes. Shophtim were to be appointed to a Beit-Din in every village, convened in the Name of י--ה in the village gate – the place designated by י--ה in addition to the Beit-Din ha-Jadol located in the Mishkân or, later, the Beit ha-Miqdâsh.
"When there shall arise an unprecedented matter among you requiring a mishpât… you shall arise and go up to the place that י--ה your Ëlohim shall choose. Having come to the Kohanim, the Lewiyim or the Shophtim [of the Beit-Din] which shall be in those days, seek and they shall relate to you the mishpât of the case. With respect to this case, you shall do as they tell you from the place which י--ה shall choose. You shall be shomeir to do everything which they shall morâh you, according to the Torâh that they shall morâh you and you shall do according to the mishpât that they shall tell you. You shall not deviate left nor right from the case as they relate it to you. The man who acts presumptuously, to neglect to Shema to the Kohein who stands ministering to י--ה your Ëlohim there, or to the shopheit [of the Beit-Din], that man shall die. You shall burn out this evil from Israel." (Devârim 17.8-13).
The interpretations arising from the implementation of Torâh in real life cases make up the corpus of case law mishpâtim handed down by Batei-Din – Halâkhâh.
|
|
The mishpâtim and khuqim form an unbroken succession of Oral Law from Moshëh at Har Sinai through Yehoshua ha-Navi Bin-Nun, the zeqanim / Shophtim, and the Neviyim. Each functioned in concert with the Beit-Din ha-Jadol and lower Batei-Din until 70 C.E. Despite the demise of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, the lower Batei-Din continued to function throughout the Jewish community uninterrupted – the Batei-Din of today. This forms an unbroken chain from Biblical times through today – the Beit-Din system that defines Halâkhâh.
Moshëh declared (Devârim 4.5, 14), "See, I have taught you khuqim and mishpâtim whenever י--ה my Ëlohim tziwâh (instructed), for you to make/do similarly in hâ-Âretz; Devârim 4.14.
In Devârim 16.18, Jews are directed to appoint Shophtim of Batei-Din in every generation who will adjudicate mishpâtim: " Shophtim and shotrim you shall give yourself, in all of your gates which י--ה your Ëlohim shall give you, for your tribes; and they shall adjudicate mishpât-tzëdëq when they adjudicate mishpât for the kindred" (cf. also Masëkët Sanhedrin 16b).
When Yehoshâphât "said to the Shophtim [of the Beit-Din], 'See what you are doing, because it is not âdâm's mishpât that you are adjudicating, but י--ה's, who is with you in mishpât' (Divrei ha-Yâmim Beit 19.6).
"…hear their tephilâh and make their mishpâtim" (Melâkhim Âlëph 8.45), "that He may make the mishpât of His ëvëd and the mishpât of His kindred Yisrâ·eil in daily cases" (8.59).
י--ה confirmed the mishpâtim of Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh – presaging the Mâshiakh: "you have sat on the kisei rendering tzëdëq mishpât" (Tehilim 9.5). "Tzëdëq and mishpât is the institution [i.e., basis] of Your kisei" (Tehilim 89.15). (Tzëdëq is a name of the Mâshiakh.) The purpose of the kisei of י--ה is to adjudicate mishpât according to the mishpâtim: "He has prepared His kisei for mishpât, and He will adjudicate mishpât to the world-order in tzëdëq, He adjudicates-Din to the nations straightforwardly" (Tehilim 9.8-9).
"Straight mishpâtim" were ordained from Har Sinai by the hand of Moshëh (Nekhëmyâh 9.13-14): "And You descended upon Har Sinai and spoke with them from the heavens, and You gave them straight mishpâtim and true Torot: khuqim and good mitzwot; and you made known to them Your Shabât Qodësh; and the mitzwot and the khuqim, and the Torâh You tziwâh, by the hand of Moshëh Your ëvëd."
Consider here the teaching of Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid, "With whatever mishpât you adjudicate-mishpât, mishpât shall be adjudicated to you."
In NHM 23.1-3 Ribi Yehoshua confirms the authority of the Perushim rabbis to administer the halakhic system. That Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid must be in harmony with Torâh and Halâkhâh is logically inescapable, otherwise he would be a fraud by authority of Devârim 13.2-6!
By his own words Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Yoseiph Bën-Dâwid claimed to be:
The notion that Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid could contradict the perfect laws of the Perfect and Immutable י--ה by rejecting Halâkhâh is non sequitur – moreover, in perfect logical consistency, Torâh shë-bikhtâv requires keeping Halâkhâh.
The halakhic system was further confirmed by Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid, when he enjoined his talmidim to set up a Beit-Din for their community in each city, in accordance with Halâkhâh: wherever two or three were authorized by the head Netzârim Beit-Din ha-Qâtân to convene a local Beit-Din "he would be represented among them" (NHM 18:20). Reconfirming the authority of the Batei-Din system, whatever mishpât these Batei-Din adjudicated would be binding in the heavens as well as on earth (NHM 18:15-20)!!!
This real world implementation of Torâh, as it developed from an embryonic collection of decisions beginning with recorded history, Âdâm, was the accumulation of the corpus of mishpât from י--ה passed down via the conduit of a specific family line. These mishpâtim accumulated and developed to a plateau with Noakh – the Shëva Mitzwot Mitzwot Benei-Noakh – and then again at Har Sinai.
Proto-Torâh development of mishpâtim continued in this family line through שם (Sheim; "name," the origin of "Semites") and עבר (Eivër; "across," origin of "Hebrews") to Avrâhâm and the Patriarchs. The proto-Torâh mishpâtim accumulated and developed in this particular family line as י--ה continued to inspire mishpâtim, until it culminated in the second, major, plateau, a refinement of the earlier, more primitive Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh – the Torâh handed down by י--ה to Moshëh at Har Sinai.
The mishpâtim continued to accumulate, in concert with the tribal Batei-Din, first under Yehoshua ha-Nâvi Bin-Nun, then succeeded by the Shophtim, the Neviyim, the Zeqanim of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, and lesser Batei-Din of the earliest times, to Yavnëh and on down to Orthodox (descendents of the Perushim) Batei-Din of today. The Beit Din ha-Netzârim of today is restored within the structure of Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Batei-Din, and more narrowly, within the most pristine Judaic tradition on the planet: the Teimânim.
|
|
Mishpât is an intrinsic element of Torâh shë-bikhtâv. Therefore, rejection of mishpât is rejection of Torâh. Whoever doesn't keep the mishpât י--ה isn't shomeir-Torâh either: "My kindred doesn't know the mishpât of י--ה. How can you say, "We are wise and the Torâh of י--ה is with us? …Behold, it is the Devar-י--ה that they have despised" (Yirmeyâhu 8.7-9). This is but a tantalizing taste of the approximately 450 instances in Tana"kh which divinely ordain the authority and validity of the mishpâtim – Oral Law Halâkhâh!
"He whose ear strays from Shâmâ (hearkening) to Torâh, even his tephilâh is a to·eivâh" (Mishlei Shlomoh 28.10). Neglecting the mishpâtim, i.e., neglecting Torâh, renders one's tephilâh a to·eivâh.
|
|
"It is an occasion of rejoicing for the tzadiq to do/make mishpât" (Mishlei Shlomoh 21.15). But "the resh·im… refuse to do/make mishpât" (Mishlei Shlomoh 21.7).
The one who is shomeir-Halâkhâh is contrasted against those who do to·eivot: "Therefore you shall all be shomeir of My khuqim and My mishpâtim; none of you are to do any of these to·eivot – neither a citizen nor a geir who is resident-alien among you" (wa-Yiqrâ 18:26). (Geirim must abandon their native ways and culture, and adopt mishpâtim, not the reverse.)
According to be-Midbar 15.16, "There shall be one Torâh and one mishpât, for you and for the geir who resides amongst you." "[Israel] shall have one mishpât – like geir, like citizen – because I am י--ה your Ëlohim" (wa-Yiqrâ 24.22).
"The resh·im and doers of âvën don't understand mishpât, but those requesting [understanding] of י--ה will understand everything" (Mishlei Shlomoh 28.5).
|
|
Speaking of Yisrâ·eil regathered from the four corners of the world, י--ה declares, "But I will give them one heart, and I will give a new Ruakh in your [Israel's] midst; and I will extract the heart of stone from their bâsâr and I will give them a heart of bâsâr so that they shall holëkh in My khuqim and My mishpâtim…" (Yekhëzqeil 11.20; 36.26-27).
"And Dâwid avedi shall be mëlëkh over them, and there shall be one shepherd for all of them, and they shall holëkh in My mishpâtim…" (Yekhëzqeil 37.24).
"And they shall morëh (instruct) My kindred the difference between the Qodësh and the khol and inform them as to the difference between the tâmei and the tâhor. And they shall stand concerning controversy to adjudicate mishpât in My mishpâtim; and they shall adjudicate the mishpât of My Torâh and My khuqim." (Yekhëzqeil 44:23-24).
"…and I will betroth you to Me in tzëdëq and in mishpât…" (Hosheia 2.21).
It is these prophecies, not 'believing in J*esus', that precede the resolution of our sovereignty over Yerushâlayim!
|
|
The most serious misconception about 1st century Judaism, widely held for nearly two millennia, has only recently come to light (1994) from an excellent analysis of Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT by Prof. Ëlishâ Qimron. "This scroll will undoubtedly stand in the centre of all future discussion of the halakha and identity of the [Qumrân] sect and the history of the halakha in general."
|
|
4Q MMT shows that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim advocated imposing their written Torâh shë-be·al pëh – their 'Previously-Oral Law' Book of Decrees – rather than the Perushim oral Halâkhâh! Arguing against the other sects' versions of Oral Law was not new. They did not reject 'Oral Law' per se. They had always defined Oral Law somewhat differently from the other two sects – the definition of Oral Law is what distinguished and defined the three sects – and, after codifying their own, found it convenient to argue against the versions still being transmitted orally – both of the other versions! "Other [non-Perushim] sects did not believe in the oral law; they maintained that obligatory laws should be written down [i.e., their Book of Decrees], and that the Pentateuch was not the only source for halakha."
Prof. Qimron has further demonstrated that the traditional view (that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim rejected Halâkhâh) is a misunderstanding of 1st century discussions in the Jewish community. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT reveals that while each of the three major sects of 1st century Judaism (as recognized by the unquestioned authority – the Beit-Din ha-Jadol) had their own interpretations, they all accepted Oral Law in its entirety. The dispute, instead, was which sect's version was authoritative and whether Oral Law should be codified or continue to be transmitted exclusively orally. The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim were arguing, 4Q MMT demonstrates, to reject only the oral transmission of interpretational case law, in favor of eliminating the two rivals to their own, now-written, version.
Consequently, when Josephus wrote of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim accepting only the "written word," to them the 'written word' included their (Previously-Oral Law) written Book of Decrees.
When Josephus writes that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim reject "them" he could only refer to the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim exclusion of anything not "written in the Law of Moshëh" – which, to the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim, included their written Book of Decrees rather than the Halâkhâh of the Perushim (or Ma·asëh of the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim). It's absurd to suggest that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim rejected Torâh shë-be·al pëh as they handed it down in the Beit-Din ha-Jadol!
Re-reading, in this light, the source texts upon which the NT depends corroborates this conclusion. These source texts show that Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim disagreed with the Perushim on interpretations formulating the doctrines of resurrection and an eternal nëphësh. This difference of opinion doesn't constitute rejection of Torâh shë-be·al pëh, but rather, a difference of opinion regarding the 'correct' interpretation, i.e., the 'correct' version of Torâh shë-be·al pëh.
|
|
By diverting Christians from the original Hebrew sources, which specifically require obedience to khuqim and mishpâtim – i.e., Halâkhâh, the earliest Church redirected Christians to the petitio principi of their own Christianized renderings (circular reasoning of Christian doctrines based on Christianized documents redacted to support Christian doctrines based on…). Every competent concordance of the Tana"kh demonsrates that, in this way, the Church effectively buried hundreds of passages in the written Bible that command obedience to the Jewish Beit-Din and the Oral Law that has evolved into today's Orthodox Teimâni Halâkhâh.
The astute reader may now discern that the 'Oral Law,' which Hellenist Roman Christians could misconstrue as rejected, was first subtly blurred, then generalized into Halâkhâh. Subsequently, Christians expanded their rejection to written Torâh as well. The Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and all other early Judaic documents, and even pre-5th century source mss. of the NT corroborate 4Q MMT (below) in confirming that "Oral Law" was the absolute core of all three principle sects of 1st century Judaism:
"Observance of the Torâh's laws and the milieu of the Halâkhâh were the central factor in Jewish life during this period. The assertion that 'there was no factor, force or event which made so significant an impression on the history of the Jewish people, molded its life and forged its character, as the Halâkhâh,' is particularly appropriate with regard to the [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini] period, not only with respect to the [Perushim], but also with regard to their opponents, who scrupulously observed the law according to the [Tzedoqim] tradition. Not only observance of the Torâh's [mitzwot], but also preoccupation with the proper interpretation of the law in its most minute details, stood in the center of their spiritual world. The halakhic minutiae, concepts, and terms of the Talmudic sages that we find in the Mishnâh of the later Tanâim and which occasionally appear to be the result of late, abstract rabbinic speculation, actually have their roots in this period; they now come alive in front of our eyes as a concrete historical reality, in contemporary documents stemming from [Khashmonâim] times. The people toiled over the Halâkhâh and meditated upon it; they clashed over it and divided because of it."
The central issue that divided the 1st century Judaic sects (which includes the Netzârim) was Halâkhâh. This limits the differences to matters of hypocrisy and corruption in the keeping of Halâkhâh, which of the three versions were correct on any given point of Halâkhâh, whether those parts of rabbinic legislation in excess of interpreted Torâh (Oral Tradition "fences") were a valid part of Halâkhâh, which sect's Halâkhâh was "right," and whether Halâkhâh should be committed to writing (codified), as the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim argued, or transmitted exclusively orally as the Perushim maintained. These were the issues hotly debated throughout 1st century Judaism.
Each of the three principle sects of 1st century Judaism (defined by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol) shared the same trait of being extremely Torâh-strict – according to their respective version of Torâh shë-be·al pëh. Criticizing both the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim as "you" and the Perushim as "they," a priori the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim were the "we" who wrote 4Q MMT. The rabbis, whom Christians today regard as impossibly "strict," were the most lax of the three! No Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) sect of 1st century Judaism brooked any rejection, partial rejection, or compromise, of the authority of the entirety of (their respective version of) Torâh shë-be·al pëh.
They "divided because of it." Even those keeping Torâh shë-be·al pëh – merely differing on how – were regarded by the other sects as straying (though there is no record that the Beit-Din ha-Jadol ever decided in favor of any of these three to the exclusion of the other two from Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism).
The suggestion of rejecting Halâkhâh – even partially – was unthinkable; inconceivable among the three principle sects of 1st century Judaism recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. A moment's reflection confirms that since the Beit-Din ha-Jadol was composed exclusively of representatives from these three sects who couldn't conceive of selective observance of Torâh shë-be·al pëh, they couldn't possibly have voted a Beit-Din ha-Jadol decision to permit selective observance of Torâh shë-be·al pëh. All of the members of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol came from these three sects – none of whom would tolerate even the smallest rejection of Torâh shë-be·al pëh. Even if such an unthinkable motion had been raised, the vote against it would have been unanimous.
Those who even partially rejected (selectively observed) Torâh shë-be·al pëh were clearly apostates, rejected by all of sects of 1st century Judaism under the aegis of the undisputed authority (the Beit-Din ha-Jadol). Anyone even partially rejecting Torâh shë-be·al pëh, like the proto-Christian Jews and later Ëvyonim (Hellenized to Ebionies), had crossed the sine qua non into apostasy. They were outside of Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism by unanimous and undisputed agreement of all three of the sects constituting – ergo by authority of – the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.
4Q MMT confirms that none of the three principle sects of 1st century Judaism compromised regarding observance of the entirety of Torâh shë-be·al pëh. Yet, while the apostate and heretical Jewish proto-Christian sects like the Ëvyonim were clearly excluded from Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) 1st century Judaic community, the Netzârim continued to live in harmony in the Jewish community. Eusebius pointedly recorded that the conflict between the Netzârim and the Church was vehement, virulent, and mutually exclusive into the 4th century when the Church eradicated the last remaining vestiges of the Netzârim!
Though controversy raged over which sect's version of Torâh shë-be·al pëh was authoritative, and whether it should be transmitted orally or codified, it is clear from 4Q MMT that none of the three principle sects in the 1st century Jewish community (i.e., defined by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol) ever considered rejecting Torâh shë-be·al pëh. Therefore, as demonstrated in 4Q MMT, and corroborated in Torâh shë-bikhtâv, observance of the entirety of Torâh shë-be·al pëh as an inherent part of Torâh-observance was the core element and sine qua non of Judaism in the 1st century. That hasn't changed.
|
|
It was not only the Netzârim who regarded themselves antithetical to the Church. The antipathy was mutual. Invalidated by even the continuing existence of the original Netzârim insisting that Torâh was the core of Ribi Yehoshua's teachings, the Church officially defined the Netzârim as the enemy of the Church, the antithesis of Christianity and ultimately, in 333 C.E., forcibly converted the Ëvyonim and bâlâh any vestiges of the Netzârim who may have survived the Roman pogrom of 135 C.E. – specifically for adamantly refusing, upon pain of death, to abandon their Torâh-observance.
Predominantly goyim Christians insisted that they, not the Netzârim, were the "true believers" in "grace." (This, too, is a misojudaic Christian canard. Jews have always believed Torâh: teaching that kipur is the product of the khein of י--ה, granted to those who make teshuvâh.) The original Christian Church, which was born of Hellenist Roman gentiles in 135 C.E., declared – and NT still declares (Jn. 8.44) – that the Netzârim were followers of Sâtân! Antinomian Christianity disdained the Netzârim, regarding them apostate servants of Sâtân, the "Evil Demon," cursed by G*od and lost precisely because they would not abandon their Torâh-observance.
The very existence of the Torâh-observant Netzârim contradicted – and invalidated – the antinomian image of J*esus, sparking perverse vilifications . Yet, this newly-syncretized antinomian hybrid was an essential rallying image (idol) to both the Hellenist Roman Christians and, in 325 C.E. as a result of Constantine's nationalization of the Church, to the Hellenist Roman vassals – the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim
In contrast to the perceptions of the gentile Christian Church outside of the Jewish community, the historical record shows that none of the three principle sects in the 1st century Jewish community in any way accepted partial observance (= selective observance or partial rejection) of Torâh shë-be·al pëh, much less Torâh shë-bikhtâv. Partial observance implies partial rejection, of Torâh shë-be·al pëh as well as Torâh shë-bikhtâv; and this was the sine qua non that demarcated 1st-century Judaism defined by the Beit-Din Ha-Gadol from the apostate Hellenist proto-Christian sects of ethnic Jews outside of 1st-century Judaism.
|
|
Like most 1st century sects of Judaism, the Netzârim attracted geirim from among the among the goyim as the movement spread into the communities of Jews in the Tephutzâh. Some geirim continued in their study and observance of Torâh, living among the Jews and attending local Beit ha-Kenësët. With zârim / Benei-Noakh barred from interacting with the Jewish community during the latter part of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini era (circa B.C.E. 1st century to 1st century C.E.), it is clear that geirim (of all sects of Judaism), along with Jews, comprised the "[Yerei-ha-Sheim]," which have confounded traditional apologists who, apart from Louis H. Feldman, have always been unable to explain them.
|
|
Since the Great Flood, all people on the earth trace their ancestry to Noakh. Halâkhâh, in Talmud, understands Benei-Noakh as goyim = all human beings, with Jews (and geirim) subsumed more narrowly. (Corroborating this, Jews are also a goy; cf. Shemot 19.6.) Accordingly, the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh were given to all of the goyim. Just as not all Americans obey American laws, not every Bën-Noakh keeps the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh. This doesn't justify contradicting the Talmud definition to declare keepers of Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh the only Benei-Noakh.
Halâkhâh of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol era forbade Jews from having any contact or social relations with Benei-Noakh – a euphemism for zârim, (popularly goyim). Benei-Noakh wishing to have dealings with the Jews, whether business or learning Torâh, had to meet minimum standards before they could interact or do business with the Jewish community, whether in Israel or in the Tephutzâh. These minimal standards were the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh, and the earliest extant reference to them is Ma·avâr 15:20, where it refers to the threshold requirements set forth by the Beit Din ha-Netzârim under the leadership of Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq".
A Bën-Noakh who made an informed commitment before a Beit-Din to observe the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh was recognized as a Geir Toshâv. The Geir Toshâv is a temporary and provisional "resident-alien," as distinguished from Benei-Noakh (= zârim), on the one hand, and the Geirei Tzëdëq, and geir who converted, becoming a Jew – who was no longer a geir of any kind.
Jews were permitted to interact only among themselves or with geirim. With Benei-Noakh (zârim) barred from any interaction with the Jewish community, a priori the "Yerei-ha-Sheim," who were found in Batei ha-Kenësët both in Israel and τοις εθνεσιν (tois ethnesin) – in the Gâlut, could only be geirim. No "gentiles" were involved. Ramb"m and other Judaic sages agree that it is these geirim, not Benei-Noakh (= zârim), who have a place in 'hâ-olâm ha-bâ.'
Benei-Noakh / zârim today who adopt the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh and seek to draw closer to י--ה, Torâh, and the Jews should be pursuing recognition from a Beit-Din as a Geir Toshâv. The Netzârim admit talmidim geirim as non-Jews nilwëh (i.e., grafted onto) Israel with a share in hâ-olâm ha-bâ.
Except when precluded by circumstances such as marital status, the Geir Toshâv aspires, beyond the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh, to Torâh-observance. When the rabbis were satisfied that such a person was adequately Torâh -knowledgeable and Torâh-observant, the Geir Toshâv was promoted into one of two categories. Unless precluded by special circumstances, the Geir Toshâv was expected to convert, (which, of course, included circumcision). Upon conversion the geir became a Jew, no longer a geir! Alternately, the geir who couldn't qualify for conversion became a permanent, Torâh-observant, non-Jew – a Geir Tzëdëq ("a resident-alien non-Jew who is tzadiq").
|
|
Since 333 C.E., in the absence of the Netzârim and any evidence other than the NT, historians assumed that Ribi Yehoshua (Ben-Yoseiph) Ben-David rejected Torâh shë-be·al pëh – the Oral Law / Halâkhâh. Further, there seemed to be little evidence contradicting Church claims that the "disciples" of J*esus taught supersession both of the NT displacing the OT (i.e., displacing the entire Torâh) and Christian "spiritual Jews" displacing "natural Jews." First under imposition of the Church and later largely in disinterest, Jews were content to accept the Church's attribution of these Hellenist teachings to Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim.
Perpetrated by the original misojudaic Church of 135 C.E., with no effective challenge since 333 C.E. this fallacy has finally been exposed by the source codices and papyri of the NT, archaeology, the earliest historical record – including the earliest Church historians (e.g., Eusebius), all increasingly confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls – especially 4Q MMT.
Not even the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim rejection of oral transmission can reasonably be ascribed to Ribi Yehoshua. The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim were completely devoted to relations with the Hellenist Roman occupiers who controlled the fate of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini. They saw Batei ha-Kenësët – where Ribi Yehoshua predominantly taught – as a threat to their monopoly on Judaism. Batei ha-Kenësët were the bastions of halakhic rabbis, Jews and geirim; not the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim, much less Hellenist Roman zârim – gentiles!
While condemning widespread hypocrisy and corruption, Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid himself endorsed the halakhic authority of the Perushim Ribis – which included himself – in NHM 23:1-3.
Christian assertions that Ribi Yehoshua replaced Torâh and Halâkhâh contradict Ribi Yehoshua's own declaration in NHM 23:1-3. Misojudaics are quick to point out how Ribi Yehoshua, like any responsible Jew, deplores the corruption and sanctimonious (hypocritical) behavior of some rabbis. Yet, Christians are blind to the recognition, in the same passage, which Ribi Yehoshua bestows upon the rabbis – who "sit on the [Beit-Din] kisei of Moshëh" – as the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) conduits of Torâh shë-be·al pëh / Halâkhâh and the Beit-Din system.
Rejection of Torâh, Halâkhâh, and Jews was instilled in the Christian church only long after the death of Ribi Yehoshua, requiring centuries of evolving apostasy. This was essential to the gentile Hellenist-Roman pagans' campaign to establish goyim Hellenist Roman hegemony over the Jews, and to usurp the Jewish Beit-Din system. Declaring Torâh obsolete, changing Judaic holy days to pagan holidays and Hellenizing Judaic traditions was the antithesis of all of the Jewish Messianic movements of Ribi Yehoshua's era, including the Netzârim, and didn't occur until several centuries after his death.
That Ribi Yehoshua would be in harmony with Torâh and Halâkhâh was logically inescapable long before the corroboration of the publishing of the DSS and 4Q MMT. By his own words Ribi Yehoshua claimed to be a son of י--ה (in the Judaic sense; cf. Tehilim 2.7). Being completely attuned to, and aligned with, the Will of י--ה, Ribi Yehoshua logically had to be committed to supporting the perfect mitzwot (Tehilim 19:8) and mishpâtim / Halâkhâh of the Immutable Singularity (Malâkhi 3.6 & Tehilim 89:35). The notion that Ribi Yehoshua could contradict the perfect laws of the Perfect and Immutable י--ה by rejecting His perfect Torâh or Halâkhâh, is self-contradicting and irrational.
The point of difference among sects of Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism, then, could not have been the propriety of Halâkhâh. The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim predominated the Beit-Din Ha-Gadol which handed down the Halâkhâh. Thus, not even the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim – who insisted their written version of Torâh shë-be·al pëh be imposed and that Torâh shë-be·al pëh no longer be transmitted orally – could reject the very Torâh shë-be·al pëh they themselves handed down!!!
Many scholars hold that Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid's first cousin, Yokhânân 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zekharyâh ha-Kohein, belonged to the extremely Torâh-strict Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim. When Ribi Yehoshua tevilâh in the miqwëh of his cousin, probably according to the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim, he would, in such case, have been endorsing the ultra-strict halakhic tradition of the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim. Ribi Yehoshua was himself a Ribi of the Perushim and, through his cousin, closer to the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim than to Kohanei hâ-râshâ of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim. He was also, therefore more pro-Halâkhâh than the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim – in glaring contrast with antinomian gentile Christianity of the Hellenist Roman pagans.
Collusion with the Hellenist Romans was characteristic of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim – appointees of the Hellenist Romans, appointments sold to the highest bidder, often not even genealogically qualified as Kohanim (much less Ben-Tzâdoq). It should come as no surprise that Hellenist Roman goyim, who evolved Christianity during and after two wars with the Jews, rejected any hint of Jewish religious authority. Any recognition of Jews as a religious authority would have invalidated Christianity from its inception and prevented the Hellenist Romans from launching their goyim-oriented, antinomian Christianity. No Netzârim Beit-Din could ever have conceived of displacing Shabât with the Hellenist Roman Sun(g*od)day, Pësakh with the festival to the pagan g*oddess I*shtar, or adapting the annual Hellenist Roman celebration of the birthday of the sun-g*od (Dec. 25th to be the birthday of their idol counterfeit – J*esus. (Historical evidence shows that Ribi Yehoshua was definitely born in late spring – cf The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 2.2.1). Moreover, all of these antinomian apostasies, which also contravene Halâkhâh, were introduced centuries after Ribi Yehoshua's death!
None of the original Netzârimever worshipped or taught in goyim temples. Christian churches hadn't come into existence. The Beit ha-Kenësët, where Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim prayed and taught were the bastions of the pro-Halâkhâh rabbis / Perushim not of the anti-Oral Law (but pro-Book of Decrees) Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim. The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim were almost exclusively devoted to the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini. Yet, not even the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim rejected Torâh shë-be·al pëh, how much more absurd to think that the Perushi Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid (NHM 23:1-2) and his Netzârim talmidim rejected Halâkhâh.
Author of the definitive Oxford reference text on the definitive Dead Sea Scroll illuminating 1st century Halâkhâh, 4Q MMT, Prof. of Linguistics Elisha Qimron of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Be'er Sheva, Israel writes:
"First of all, one should note that 4Q MMT is a written halakhic text from the [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini] period. The [Perushim] at that time maintained the principle of not writing down Halâkhot, believing that the Torâh was the only written law, and that it had been transmitted from [Har Sinai] together with an oral law; henceforth no [nâvi] would have the authority to introduce any halakhic innovation.
"Other sects did not believe in the oral law [i.e., they did not believe that Torâh shë-be·al pëh should be transmitted orally]; they maintained that obligatory laws should be written down, and that the [Torâh] was not the only source for Halâkhâh."
Ribi YehoshuaBen-Yoseiph Ben-David of Nâtzrat was one of the Perushim Ribis who opposed the efforts of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Kohanei hâ-râshâ to end the oral transmission of Halâkhâh (see The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 23.1-3). Subsequently, a few centuries later however, even the Perushim would also codify their Oral tradition – the Talmud. To argue that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim effort to switch from orally transmitted Torâh shë-be·al pëh to their codified Book of Decrees was a rejection of Halâkhâh is tantamount to arguing that the rabbis rejected Halâkhâh by compiling Talmud.
Either Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim subscribed to one of the three versions of Torâh, some hybrid of them, or they were apostates outside of Judaism, in Torâh disqualifies "it" (the Roman idol) as a candidate for Mâshiakh!
However, the historical documents record that Ribi Yehoshua and his Netzârim followers were members of this 1st century Jewish community, not the Hellenist Roman culture (or even the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim) and remained so, opposing the apostasy of Christianity to their deaths. This is evidenced by their continuing to live exclusively in the rabbinic community and in virulent, sometimes violent, opposition to the gentile Christian community into the 4th century. Therefore, the record shows that the original and authentic Netzârim couldn't be anything other than strictly Torâh-observant. Their acceptance in the Jewish community, praying and teaching in Batei ha-Kenësët and living among the Jews, continued until 333 C.E. This is indisputably documented, and couldn't have happened if the Netzârim had been Christians or selectively / partially rejecting Halâkhâh like the proto-Christian apostates.
Therefore, Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim were necessarily halakhically Torâh-observant – just as Eusebius condemned them for being – and stricter than some of the Perushim (probably Herodian-Boethusian "Pharisees") if we are to judge by the endorsement of his cousin Yokhânân 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zekharyâh ha-Kohein – who seems to have been affiliated with the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim who, like Ribi Yehoshua, also condemned sanctimonious Perushim. Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid's own declaration declares this explicitly (NHM 5.17-20):
"I did not come to crash down, or subtract a word from, the Torâh of Moshëh or the Neviyim because, rather, I came to bring about the full observance of the Oral Sayings of ëmët. The heavens and hâ-Âretz shall be changed, but not even one י or one ` of the words of the Torâh of Moshëh shall be changed until they are all being observed in their entirety. For whoever deletes one word of these mitzwot from the Torâh, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be called 'deleted'. And whoever ratifies these mitzwot shall be called 'Rav' in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your tzedâqâh is over and above that of the sophrei-Torâh and of the Rabbinic-Perushim sect of Judaism, no way will you enter into the Realm of the heavens" (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 5.17-20)
|
|
Ribi Yehoshua's personal talmidim, sometimes called the Twelve, were Jews widely known as the Netzârim. After Ribi Yehoshua's death, the Netzârim flourished in Yerushâlayim, enjoying the patronage of Ribi Jamliyeil I, grandson of Hileil and Nasi of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, and the community of Pharisaic (rabbinic) Jews. Indicative of more widespread implications, a Hellenist Roman vassal – a Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim "Kohein hâ-râshâ" – murdered Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid, brother of Ribi Yehoshua and first Pâqid of the Netzârim. Yet, the rabbinic community widely esteemed Pâqid Ya·aqov, calling him "ha-Tzadiq."
Josephus and Eusebius record that the rabbis were so supportive of Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid and the Netzârim, and disapproved of the killing so strongly, that they succeeded in insisting that the Hellenist Romans depose the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Kohein who murdered Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid. Far from being adversaries, the rabbis were protective of the Netzârim. This is also seen in Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid being known – in the rabbinic community – as "ha-Tzadiq." None of the three principle sects of 1st century Judaism (as defined by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol) up through the 4th century C.E. ever embraced Christianity.
|
|
The first proto-Christians were apostate, ethnically Jewish, Hellenists attracted by Hellenized accounts, in Greek, no earlier than around ca. 64 C.E. In their acceptance of selective observance, they compromised the authority of the entirety of Halâkhâh, violating the sine qua non of Judaism. These proto-Christian apostate Jews, with their Hellenist Roman goyim proselytes, quickly won, and to some extent may have dictated, the support of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim during the era of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini. Enmity of Hellenist Roman Christians toward the Torâh-strict sects is consistent both with the Church's bâlâh of Torâh-strict sects, culminating in 333 C.E., and with the Hellenist Romans' natural enmity toward a national enemy – the Jews. Post-64 C.E. proto-Christianity was the embryo from which the syncretic post-135 C.E. Christian Church was born.
 Sha·ar Yapho (corrupted to 'Jaffa'), Yerushalayim where Herod presented Ribi Yehoshua to the Tzedoqim "Kohanei hâ-Râshâ." |
Probably by means of a similar collusion, the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim and Hellenist Romans earlier combined to eliminate Ribi Yehoshua. First, to forestall Jewish opposition against delivering Ribi Yehoshua to the Hellenist Romans, the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim convicted him on trumped-up religious grounds in an illegal Beit-Din. Armed with the excuse that they were unable to stone him under the rule of the Hellenist Roman occupiers, the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim arranged for Ribi Yehoshua to be tried in the court of their Hellenist collaboraters – the Roman occupiers. As concerned about igniting a Jewish rebellion as about the original threat to the status quo, Pilate histrionically washed his hands of it, passing the decision back to the small crowd of Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim extremists in the courtyard.
Blaming the Jews, the Hellenist Romans executed Ribi Yehoshua on political, not religious, charges – sedition against the oppression of the Hellenist Roman occupiers by rivaling Caesar as king over the Jews. Read the inscription that was above his head. The Hellenist Roman occupiers crucified Ribi Yehoshua, not Jews. Crucifixion was a Hellenist Roman method of execution in contrast to stoning required under Jewish law. Crucifixion was the method of execution employed exclusively by the Hellenist Roman occupiers for political sedition. It was from the confarreation of Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim with the gentile Hellenist Roman occupiers that Hellenist proto-Christianity was conceived, at enmity with the perceived "fundamentalist" Judaism of the Perushim – championed, as reported by the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim, by the Netzârim, led Ribi Yehoshua – and the Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim.
|
|
J*esus, say the Christians, replaced "law" (Torâh) with 'grace,' displaced the OT with the Christian NT, displaced "natural Jews" with goyim Christian "spiritual Jews" as the chosen people – Displacement (or replacement) Theology. Christians displaced "natural Israel" with the "true spiritual Israel." These Church claims logically required that "Jews of the flesh" had been invalidated, rejected by g*od, in order that the Torâh disqualification of the Christian man-g*od (Devârim 13.1-6, et al.) would be "superseded." Jews, then, still claiming to serve Ëlohim, were labelled "wolves in sheep's clothing," impersonating and deceiving (ironically) "true believers." Jews thereby officially became enemies of the Christian g*od and the Church. Earliest church historians described the Torâh-observant and halakhic Netzârim Jews as belonging to "the wicked demon" (Sâtân).
"By the second century [i.e., 100 C.E.] the controversy over the Law had ceased to play the role which it had played at the earlier period. The Church had become predominantly Gentile in membership and almost exclusively so in leadership. Justin refers pityingly to some few [non-Jew geirim] who, from weakness, still observed the [Torâh], and as a magnanimous concession on his part admitted that they might be saved (Justin, in "Trypho," xlvii; cited by Parkes), but he adds [demonstrating the already-evident separation and enmity between the Netzârim and the Christian Church] that other Christians would not venture to have any intercourse whatever with such persons. – The mechanism (cf. geirim and Yerei-ha-Sheim) arranged in Ma·avâr and the concessions made by [Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh] and [Paul the Apostate], had absolutely no further validity, and the actions of the [Netzârim Shelikhim], approved in the 1st century, would, as Jerome and Augustine later agree, have been the rankest heresy once the Church was properly established. The field of controversy has shifted from the [Torâh] to the promises, in other words, to the whole question of the fulfillment of all prophecy in the person of J*esus Christ.
"We may at first wonder why the attempt to prove the reality of the Divinity of Christ made it necessary to falsify the whole of Jewish history, as the Gentile Church undoubtedly did, but if we study their approach to the problem we see that they were led on inescapably by the method of their own argumentation from the first legitimate assumption to the last and most extravagant fabrications" (Parkes, pp. 96-97).
"… The [Christian] Fathers insisted on [J*esus' ] relation to Jewish prophecy and the divine history of His [sic] people. But … they were compelled to interpret the whole of the Jewish scriptures in such a way as to support their own view.
"…The only alternative was to claim the whole of it for themselves and to antedate the rejection of the Jews and the emergence of the Church to the beginning of revealed history [Parkes, pp. 96-97], by emphasizing the position of [Avrâhâm] as the father of many nations, of whom only one, and that themselves, was chosen…
"The Messianic question once settled, there was an inevitable deduction to be made by the Christian writers. If J*esus was the Mâshiakh promised to Israel, then they were the true Israel. It is here that we see how inevitable was the defamation of the actual history of the Jews, for if the Gentiles were the true Israel, then the Jews had all the time been sailing under false colours. That [the Gentile Hellenist Christians] were the true Israel they proved by innumerable passages from the prophets, in which g*od speaks of His rejection of His own people and His acceptance of the Gentiles. Little by little the Church was read back into the whole of Old Testament history, and Christian history was shown to be older than Jewish history in that [Christian history] dated from the creation, and not from Har Sinai, or even Avrâhâm. Continual references to Christ were found in the Old Testament, and it was 'the Christ of g*od' who 'appeared to Abraham, gave divine instruction to Isaac, and held converse with Moses and the later prophets.
"In order to justify this reading of history, they were compelled to challenge the Jewish conception of the Law…" map[ping] out a consistent history of the Church in the Old Testament by contrasting it with every lapse from the ideal, while the sum of these lapses made up the whole of the history of the Jews. This method of rewriting history led later to the conclusion that the Jews were heretics, or apostates." [Parkes, pp. 96-97]
"The [Netzârim] of the [early] second century was no more the [Christian] Church of the fourth than was the Judaism of the second century the complete Judaism of the Talmud…" (Parkes p. 94).
"We may correctly date the actual separation [more accurately, the conception of foetal Christianity and the Church; ybd] from the end of the 1st and the beginning of the second century."
This deliberate and connived denial of Jewish history is called displacement (or replacement) theology, and the Church is still entirely dependent on it today, with no choice but to deny Jewish history – from Jews being the true and spiritual children of Avrâhâm, to the history of Yisrael and Yehudah (as opposed to "Palestine"), and even the Holocaust.
Acknowledging mishpât as the judgment of the Jewish Beit-Din contradicted Christian hegemony. Therefore, Christian translators of the NT arrogated mishpât as κρισις (krisis; judgment) and eliminated khoq, distributing it among Δικαιωμα (dikaioma) rendered as 'judgment.' Δικαιωμα (dikaioma) rendered as righteousness,' Δικαιωμα (dikaioma) rendered as 'justification' and Δικαιωμα (dikaioma) rendered as 'ordinances.'
This allowed the goyim to read out the original judgments and statutes documenting the authority of the Jewish Beit-Din and read in their own misojudaic judgments and statutes in their place. In this way, the Church disconnected the Judaic Scriptures from their Judaic context and opened the door for Hellenist Roman hegemony – displacement theology. To avoid acknowledging the Beit-Din system, King James Version (KVJ) of 1611 C.E. adjudicates mishpât variously as "lawful," "manner," "ceremony," "fashion," "cause" and "ordinance." khuqim is rendered as "statutes."
Halâkhâh, the collection of mishpât and khuqim, and the Beit-Din system are described in Torâh and Tana"kh in terms of shaphat mishpât – lit. "judging the judgment," of the Beit-Din. Most people are somewhat aware of this with respect to the Beit-Din ha-Jadol – more popularly known as the 'Great Sanhedrin' – but fail to notice the continuity of the lower Batei-Din which continues the unbroken chain today.
|
|
That the Birkat ha-Minim was aimed at the Netzârim is contradicted by the historical record. This is further corroborated by Jerome
If the Birkat ha-Minim, introduced under Jamliyeil II in the 1st century C.E., had been aimed at the Netzârim, then we couldn't have found these Jews still living in harmony in the Jewish community in 135 C.E., and even into the 4th century C.E. This proves (reductio ad absurdum) that the Birkat ha-Minim can earlier only have been directed at Hellenist Roman gentile informers posing as Yerei-ha-Sheim generally (and who virtually disappeared from Judaism and the Jewish community at that time), not followers of Ribi Yehoshua in particular.
Jerome discovered that the Jews, which included the Netzârim, distinguished the נצרים (Netzârim Jews) from the נצרים (Nâtzrim). Jerome noticed that the Jews adopted the term נוצרים (Notzrim) to enable Jews (including Netzârim) to recite an interdiction against the Nâtzrim (a variant pronunciation of Notzrim), while making the Christians think they were reciting an interdiction against Netzârim Jews. To further shield themselves from the wrath of the church, it seems clear that they used the variant pronunciation for Notzrim – נצרים (Nâtzrim). Without the vowels, it was impossible for the church to detect in the written form that Jews were pronouncing an interdiction against the נצרים (Nâtzrim) / Notzrim), instead of the identically-written נצרים (Netzârim). For further details see also the appropriate section in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), p. 87.
|
|
After suppressing the Bar-Kokhva Rebellion in 135 C.E., the Hellenist Romans banished our 15th Pâqid ha-Netzârim, Pâqid Yehudâh, ha-Tzadiq, from Yerushâlayim along with all of the other Jews and destroyed the Holy City which had been our Capital since B.C.E. 1024 (cf. Chronology of the Tan"kh from the 'Big Bang').
|
|
Atop the ruins of our Holy Yerushâlayim, the Hellenist Roman occupiers built their new pagan Hellenist city of "Aelia C*apitolina" – with their pagan Temple dedicated to their g*od J*upiter, also known as Z*eus, C-a-p-i-t-o-l-i-n-u-s (EJ, 9:238.). Having crushed Israel in war, the Hellenist Roman goyim occupiers destroyed and paganized our Holy Capital, eradicated the last genealogy of Beit Dâwid (except that of Ribi Yehoshua), and replaced the annual tax for the Beit ha-Miqdâsh with a higher tax to maintain their Hellenist temple of J*upiter.
|
|
Gentile 'Bishop'"To ensure the permanence of its purely pagan [Hellenist] character, Jews still residing there were driven out and Gentile colonists [occupiers] settled in their place. From then on no Jew was permitted to enter the city area; any Jew seen there was punished with death… A shrine to A*phrodite (A*starte) stood on the traditional site of J*esus' tomb" (Emil Schürer, "The History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of J*esus Christ," I:553-6). Only from the birth of Christianity and the Church was J*esus first associated with the g*oddess of E*aster! "Even by the fourth century, [Jews] were only allowed access to the city once a year by Constantine, on the anniversary of the destruction of Jerusalem (9 Ab)…" (Emil Schürer, "The History Of The Jewish People In The Age Of J*esus Christ," I:553-6).
The Netzârim were centered in Yerushâlayim until 135 C.E. when Hadrian exiled all of the Jews from the city. Among the Jews exiled from Yerushâlayim were the Netzârim and our 15th Pâqid, Pâqid Yehudâh, ha-Tzadiq, Hellenist Roman goyim occupiers paved the way to dominance overtop Yerushâlayim, "ethnically cleansing" it of Jews in 135 C.E. and building their pagan city, Aelia C*apitolina, on its ruins.
The Hellenist Roman occupiers named Aelia C*apitolina after one of the "Seven Hills of Rome," the hill crowned by the Temple of J*upiter / Z*eus – C*apitolina. In the process of paganizing this city of J*upiter / Z*eus and the sun-g*od, the Hellenist Roman occupiers banished our 15th Pâqid, Pâqid Yehudâh, ha-Tzadiq, along with other Jews. After 135 C.E., the Netzârim were reduced to disjecta membra living in the Jewish community.
In the vacuum (EJ, 9:238) left in "Aelia C*apitolina" after the banishment of פקיד יהודה, הצדיק (Pâqid Yehudâh, ha-Tzadiq), these misojudaic and pagan Hellenist Roman occupiers installed their first goy, Rome-oriented, misojudaic επισκοπος (episkopos; bishop) – Μαρκος (Markos; Mark) in 135 C.E. Thereafter Rome-oriented for the first time, these misojudaic pagan occupiers were the first to proclaim a Hellenist Romanized, de-Judaized and misojudaic, gentile-saving, idol counterfeit of, le-havdil, Ribi Yehoshua – marking the birth of the Church in 135 C.E.
Twice at war with Jews, these Hellenist Roman goyim occupiers could never accept the Jewish religious authority of the Beit-Din and Halâkhâh. For these goyim Hellenist Roman Christians it was a short step from the indirect Hellenist Roman éminence grise behind anti-rabbinic Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim (Kohanei hâ-Râshâ) to ascribing Hellenist Roman hegemony directly to goyim Hellenist Roman Christian leaders. These goyim Christian leaders then had the undisputed authority (since there were no Jews left there to object) to retroactively confabulate their man-g*od theocrasy – J*esus, and "falsify" history and the documents to corroborate their doctrines – as noted by scholars of the stature of Oxford's James Parkes [pp. 92-102] and The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible.
Between the cooperation of the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim and the crushing of the Jews in two wars, antinomian, goy Hellenist Christian doctrines vilifying Jews were retroactively redefined, also obtaining hegemony and usurping the original, Torâh-strict, Netzârim teachings. From mere wartime enemies of Rome and Hellenists, Jews were transformed into enemies of g*od and, therefore, enemies of the Church of "g*od's Holy Hellenist Roman Empire." As enemies of the Church and their g*od, Jews were branded as "blinded servants of Sâtân rejected by g*od, under the Law of sin and death" – rabid and virulent misojudaism.
Ever since, it has been goyim Christians, who claim, solely by Displacement Theology, to be the "True Israel" and the "True (spiritual) Jews," against the rejected, blinded, wicked "Jews of the flesh." In this way, the "earliest Christians" bâlâh the Netzârim, and Christianity matured – with no Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) origins in Judaism. This is the origin of Displacement Theology, the sole thread from which Christian claims dangle. If Christianity did not displace Jews as the "True Spiritual Israel" then the Church is a fraudulent counterfeit – and it is – and the historical Jews are the True Israel, both physically and spiritually. And, if the promises of י--ה are to believed, we are.
The Netzârim were always pro-Torâh and pro-Jewish while the Christians have always been antinomian and misojudaic.
After 135 C.E., Torâh-observant Jewish sects allegedly connected with a Ribi Yehoshua tradition are mentioned only occasionally, and then only by goyim who knew neither Judaism nor Hebrew and couldn't distinguish one sect from another. Until 333 C.E., some of these sects may have been either remnants of the dormant Netzârim or apostate vestiges like the Ëvyonim,
The face of the Hellenist Roman antichrist idol has been documented to trace to the face of the Great Idol of Z*eus. Even the counterfeit's name syncretizes I*sis, the g*od of the Egyptians for whom LXX, with its Greek Ιησους (I-ei-sous; I*eisous), was translated. Ιησους (I-ei-sous; was then transliterated into the English J*esus. Note also how I*eisous syncretizes I*sis and Z*eus. Z*eus was the Hellenist Romans' version of J*upiter – whose altar the Hellenist Romans built on the "Temple Mount" in Yerushâlayim in 135 C.E., inadvertently, and ironically, commemorating the birth of the Church.
Selectively syncretizing some Netzârim concepts into their own pagan pantheism (e.g., g*ods mating with human women to produce a man-g*od), the pagan Z*eus-worshippers and sun-worshippers of "Aelia C*apitolina" became, under "Bishop" Marcus, the first Christians (Notzrim, not Netzârim!). Here, in 135 C.E., is the true birth of the Christian Church, and the first, original, true Christian Church that would never need weaning.
|
|
Haven't you ever wondered exactly when, where, how, and by whom the leadership was transferred from Yerushâlayim to Rome and from Jews to goyim? Via "S*imon P*eter"? Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh, and even Paul the Apostate, died at the hands of Hellenist Roman goyim (viz. Nero, reigned c. 54-68 C.E.) about 70 years before the transfer of leadership in 135 C.E. Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh recognized only Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid as the Pâqid ha-Netzârim, not himself nor Rome.
As a Hellenist Roman gentile, Bishop Markos recognized Rome as the ultimate authority even before he was installed in 135 C.E. These first Christians then arrogated all of the trappings – name, authority and legitimacy – from the vacated Netzârim, eventually transferring them to Rome, and retroactively painted their counterfeit image / idol, J*esus, in a cloak of pseudo-Judaic origins – wolves in sheep's clothing.
It didn't matter that Christian preference for the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim over the Perushim contradicted Ribi Yehoshua himself. Supersessive (Displacement Theology) Hellenist Roman authority subtly reinterpreted – and "corrected" – offending Jewish documents.
First, the early Christians usurped Netzârim authority. The Netzârim, who were living contradictions of antinomian Christian assertions, had to be purged before Christians could pervert their writings and arrogate their history. Simultaneously, the church rejected – displaced – Jewish authority. Finally, early Christians declared war on the potential of rival authority from Netzârim Jews. All Netzârim Jews were seen as a threat, the arch-enemies of the "Truth" of the antinomian Hellenist Roman Christian goyim Church and their developing Hellenist J*esus idol. Christians declared Netzârim Jews, who adamantly continued to submit solely to the Netzârim Beit-Din, to be servants of Sâtân. The Crusades, Inquisition and Holocaust are natural, and inescapable, products of this antinomian vilifying of Jews by the misojudaic Roman Church.
"Early Christians" (not Netzârim) evolved their own perceptions of "J*esus" in increasingly antinomian and misojudaic terms (which is why the earliest source documents for Hebrew Matityâhu are the least misojudaic). They retroactively redefined those perceptions and redacted them into the Greek mss. of the NT. The product is an increasingly Hellenist Romanized, antinomian counterfeit Ιησους (I*eisous) – in their Greek language. The introduction of this idol-image, antithetical to the Torâh-observant historical Netzârim Jew of Nâtzrat, was the true "birth" of Ιησους – J*esus. These Hellenist Romans transferred the birthday of their sun-g*od , Dec. 25th to their developing J*esus' more than a half millennia after Ribi Yehoshua's death!!!
Unlike Judaism, Christian doctrines and their counterfeit man-g*od savior-image (J*esus) evolved in a goyim, Hellenist, culture. At the same time that Christians were redacting the source texts of their NT the rabbis – the community of Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim – were becoming the dominant Jewish tradition. Later, Christians retroactively substituted or inserted their current rival, the rabbis, as targets of their opposition as well as the defunct Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim. The goyim Hellenist Roman Christians condemned all Jews refusing to convert to Christianity.
In much the same way that gentile Roman Christians Hellenized J*esus and "St. P*eter," they subtly reinterpreted Tana"kh passages, which refer to Light and Salvation to Jews in the Tephutzâh and geirim, redirecting them, where they could, to imply that their Christian man-g*od savior-image was "the" Divine Light and Salvation to "gentiles." Where redactions failed, Christians claimed to supersede the OT with the NT – Displacement Theology. The Neviyim, and even the source documents of the NT, agree the Mâshiakh is a Light (of Torâh) to / for the Jews εν τοις εθνεσιν (en tois ethnesin; among the goyim) – i.e., in the Jewish communities of the Tephutzâh.
 Inscribed stone from the Sorëg (stone-lattice) surrounding the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini warning (in Greek):
This ancient inscribed stone from the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini is located in Museum Tschinili-Kirschk. Istanbul, Turkey. |
Ambiguous in Greek, this phrase was perverted into English reading "to the gentiles," to bolster Christian claims of supersession of their NT. Similarly, Ελλενης (Elleneis; Hellenists, especially Jews) was perverted into "Greeks" and "gentiles." However, even in the earliest source documents of the NT there is only one reference to gentile per se: αλλογενης (allogeneis), the Greek term inscribed in the Sorëg (stone-lattice) surrounding the Beit ha-Miqdâsh, prohibiting gentiles from approaching any closer. This single NT reference, Lukas 17.18, refers to a Samaritan – an "almost Jew." All other NT passages popularly supposed as referring to gentiles refer, instead, either to Hellenist Jews in Judea, or Hellenist Jews in Jewish communities in the Tephutzâh.
The Sorëg stone inscription bears silent, but indisputable, physical witness, proving the intense Jewish adherence, in the 1st century C.E., to the Torâh precept (wa-Yiqrâ 10.10) of Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol; the diametric antithesis of Hellenist syncretism of Christian redactions.
The only message for non-Jews, even in the NT (much less Torâh) is as non-Jewish postulants to halakhic Torâh-Judaism – geirim formally recognized by, and under the authority of, the Jewish Beit-Din and Halâkhâh. These passages were authored by Jews, addressed to and for Jews (and geirim), about Judaism. There is no connection between the original, unredacted, Matityâhu be-Ivrit (which was the only record of Ribi Yehoshua's teachings recognized by the Netzârim) and, le-havdil, goyim-allogeneis or Christianity.
The Neviyim, which Christians are wont to cite as basis for their antinomian, gentile-saving Christ, never applied any of the beritot to goyim. Jews of that time were not permitted to eat with, teach, nor even associate with goyim unless they had first satisfied the sine qua non of a postulant geir – the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh. Ribi Yehoshua even forbade his talmidim from teaching Samaritans in the Shomron. Though many Jews considered Samaritans to "almost Jews," the nearest thing to a Jew, Ribi Yehoshua regarded Samaritans as goyim "dogs" and "pigs" (NHM 7.6; 15.26-27). Neither Tana"kh, nor Matityâhu be-Ivrit, nor even the earliest extant source mss. of the NT refers, or applies, to gentiles.
Evidence and analyses from James Parkes and countless other historians has demonstrated that 4th century Christianity was antithetical to 1st century Netzârim, and 4th century J*esus to 1st century Ribi Yehoshua.
A point of logic: the onus is never upon those who assume continuation of the proven status quo, in this case proven in 4Q MMT, to demonstrate change. Rather, anyone who would claim the 180° reversal of the status quo to create continuity between these antithetical opposites must demonstrate and explain the reversal that allows a Judaic-Christian transition and continuity. Excluding Christian-redacted sources (petitio princip – circular reasoning) there is no historical record of any transition of the Netzârim to antinomian, misojudaic supersession (Displacement Theology), only discontinuity.
Totally dependent upon falsified claims as Parkes noted (pp. 96-97), pre-5th century documents not only fail to show evidence for, they provide overwhelming evidence against, any continuity between the pro-Torâh Judaic religion of the Netzârim up to 135 C.E. and Beit ha-Kenësët, on the one hand, and the Displacement Theology of misojudaic, antinomian, Hellenist-M*ithra-ic goyim supersession church doctrines (however, anticipate the likely response). Contrary to popular belief, Christianity and the Church have no authentic origins in Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism.
|
|
The traditional view pits the earliest "Nazarene-Christians" against both other Jews and the Hellenist Roman Empire. Such a portrayal requires that "earliest Christians" be defined as:
Moreover, excepting the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim, the Jews were mortal enemies, not allies, of Hellenist Romans!!!
In its infinite capacity for inconsistency and tolerance of logical contradictions and impossible conundrums, Christian "blind faith" would have you believe that a self-contradicting group started out as purely pro-Torâh, anti-pagan, Jews. With no record of any transition – poof – one morning they woke up just as purely, antinomian, misojudaic goyim Hellenist Roman M*ithra-worshipping pagans (with whom Jews could not even associate unless they first became geirim).advocating Christian claims of supersession and Displacement Theology.
Even more fantastically, this "poof" occurred at the very time Christians were banishing, ousting, persecuting and annhilating the original Netzârim!!!
But one "poof" still isn't enough to explain Christian claims. How did the once-poofed hypothetical "Nazarene-Christian" leaders change from nice "poofed" Christians under 'grace' back into the "servants of Sâtân" as documented by Eusebius? Since there is no record of this transition either, trying to harmonize Christian "history" with the evidence requires a second, reverse, "poof" turning the hypothetical "Nazarene-Christians" back into their original form – now described though as "servants of Sâtân under the Law of sin and death." The gullible filter out "Pharisaic hypocrisy" and "Judaizing" to swallow two "poofs" to maintain their blind folly "faith"!!!
Since 135 C.E. the church has deliberately misrepresented the Netzârim, whom they vilified specifically for their Torâh-observance, into antinomian Christianity. Likewise, Christianity has blurred the Torâh-observant, historical, Netzârim Jew – Ribi Yehoshua – into, le-havdil, his antinomian misojudaic, and antithetical counterfeit, conceived by the M*ithra-worshipping, goyim – the Hellenist-Roman image (idol), J*esus.
Between 135 C.E. and 333 C.E., Christians, through Bishop Markos and his successors in Aelia C*apitolina, focused on spreading their Hellenist Roman-based authority wherever Netzârim remnants existed. Having seized the former Netzârim headquarters and usurped their leadership, converting the Hellenist Roman Empire became far simpler. Bishop Markos et al. in Aelia C*apitolina simply recognized selected Hellenist Roman leaders in the various cities to supersede local Netzârim Shelikhim.
Christians recorded 3rd -century appointments in Rome, claiming they were the natural succession of "bishops," just as in Aelia C*apitolina – and even there, where Christianity all began, starting only in 135 C.E..
Only after the Netzârim had been exhausted, silenced, could they retroactively fabricate a succession of bishops supposedly going back to "St. P*eter" and claim that these fabricated bishops in Rome had been a succession of popes. But whereas the Jewish succession of exactly fifteen Netzârimpeqidim in Yerushâlayim is not in dispute, there was never any record of popes in Rome before 135 C.E.. It isn't that they haven't been discovered. They never existed!
Tellingly, within a few decades after 135 C.E., Hegesippus retroactively concocted the first record of papal succession. Nothing is known about Hegesippus' early popes. 135 C.E., Hegesippus describes one or two historical events which took place during each period and assigns a name to the period. Except for "St. P*eter," the earliest even the names are probably completely fictitious – and even these are contradictory. As the church grew, we know that Hellenist Roman political leaders of the 3rd century C.E. began to regard these bishops as an innovation of the original threat. Consequently, they were persecuted and pressured by Hellenist Rome to mold themselves into an increasingly Roman-Hellenist religion. Only a vague claim of "Jewish roots" survived the evolution.
Christians can produce no record transferring authority from Yerushâlayim to Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh, much the antinomian "St. P*eter" or Rome. Christian tradition asks you to assume that authority over the "gentile mission" was authority independent of the Netzârim Beit-Din in Yerushâlayim, and that this fictional authority was transferred to "St. P*eter."
Christian tradition asserts that, contrary to the church's own account of Netzârim Torâh-observance, Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh assimilated into antinomian goyim Hellenist Christian society – becoming apostate from Torâh – becoming "St. P*eter" – the first "pope."
|
|
Ιησους (I-ei-s-o-u-s / J*esus / Yesh"u)ריבי יהושע (Ribi Yehoshua) means "י--ה saves"). Notice that even the name declares that י--ה saves, not "I save" or "J*esus saves"!!!
יהושע (Yehoshua) ha-Nâvi Bin-Nun was transliterated into Greek in the LXX, for the Egyptian Hellenist Jews in Alexandria, two centuries before Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Yoseiph Bën-Dâwid, as Ιησους (I*eisous).
The earliest extant source texts are the codices א and β – the primary source texts for both LXX and the NT; and, not surprisingly, both were redacted by the Christians. Consequently, it shouldn't be surprising that the name Yehoshua ha-Nâvi Bin-Nun in LXX is different from any other name ending with ע in Tana"kh. Thus, the question must be asked, "Why was Yehoshua (and its Hellenized diminuitive transliteration, Yeishua) the only name in Tana"kh ending in ע to "evolve" its "s" ending (I*eisous/J*esus)?
Most telling are the immediately related Avishua which became Αβισου (Abisou) ⇒ Abishua, not Abesus; Ëlishua which became Ελισουε (Elisoue) ⇒ Elishua, not "Elesus"; Malkishua became Melchi-shua and Malchi-shua, not "Melchesus" or "Malchesus". Ëlisha became Elisha, not "Elesus." Hosheia became Hosea, not "Hosus." Mesha became Mesha, not "Mesus". Why didn't Shua become "Sus"? Bat-Shua became Bathshua, not Bathesus. And whoever heard of Bathshebas, Kadeish Barneias, Kiryat Arbas, or Beer Shevas?
Indeed, excepting Ribi Yehoshua, and it's Christian-redacted Greek spin-off, Yeishua, none of the names in Tana"kh ending in ע were given an "s" ending.
So how would the name Yehoshua appear had it been Hellenized and anglicized according to the usual rules? Applying the same rules of transliteration to Yehoshua that are evident from all of the other names in Tana"kh ending in ע produces something like Ιοσου (Iosou). Even the Greek-derived diminuitive transliteration, Yeishua, produces something like Ιεσου (Iesou), not ιησους (I-ei-s-o-u-s), which approximates the Hellenist g*od, Z*eus.
Clearly this one name evolved exceptionally, having nothing to do with Hebrew or Greek transliterations or grammar. Rather, the most probable explanation for the anomolous I*eisous is a confluence between Ιοσου (Iosou, which is generated by the usual rules of Greek) and the phrase ης Ζευς (eis Z*eus; he was Z*eus) – the most popular and powerful Hellenist Roman g*od also called J*upiter. Inserting the initial letter of Iosou, to produce their syncretized idol-man-g*od born on the birthday of their sun-g*od Ei*lios – I*eisous.yielding Ιησους (I-[ei-s]-o-u-s), which was anglicized to J*esus.
At first, one wonders how the 70 (LXX) Jewish translators, B.C.E. 200, would have broken their own clear rule for transliterating names ending in ע. Since LXX was translated 2 centuries before "J*esus," that couldn't have been the reason. Yet, it's inconceivable that 70 religious Jews from Yerushâlayim, even Hellenist Jews, whose entire lives revolved around safeguarding such rules, trampled the rule in this lone exception for no rational reason. Nor is it conceivable that these 70 would have blurred Yehoshua ha-Nâvi Bin-Nun with the idolatry of the Egyptian g*od I*sis, one clear and obvious model for morphing Yehoshua to I*eisous.
Then the insight breaks through. Extant sources of LXX are א and β – the same extensively redacted and highly Christianized source mss. that give us the NT!!! The only viable explanation for this otherwise inconceivable anomaly confronting us is that either proto-Christians or the first post-135 C.E. true Christians "morphed" something like Ιωσου (Iosou) in the LXX – which should have given us "Josu" – coupled with the Egyptian pagan g*oddess I*sis producing Ιησους (I*eisous) ⇒ J*esus.
The question must also be asked whether the diminuitive transliteration of Yehoshua, ישוע (Y?shua), was forced by the Church to acquire the Hebraically unnatural "ei" (Greek eita) vowel – Yeishua – in the 6th – 7th century C.E. Masoretic Text vowels ("Masorah," EJ, 16:1416) – 2-3 centuries after the Christian redactions of א and β.
It seems likely that this was designed to deliberately encourage Hellenists to associate "I*eisous" with I*sis, rationalizing that they were weaning them from I*sis to I*eisous. Later, in the Hellenist Roman era, the connection (and further evolution from I*sis) to Z*eus has been proven and documented. The Christian-redacted "transliteration" in LXX is Ιησους (I*eisous) a syncretization of (1) the initial letter the Greek transliteration of Yehoshua should begin with (I), plus (2) the un-Hebraic first letter of Ηλιος (Ei*lios; pop. H*elios, the popular sun g*od of the Hellenist Roman Empire, adopted from M*ithR*a, in turn probably borrowed from the Egyptian sun-g*od R*a), and (3) an un-Hebraic ending stikingly similar to the Hellenist Roman g*od Z*eus (probably an evolved adaptation of the Egyptian g*oddess I*sis)!!!
Notice also the similarities in the theme of a "man-g*od son of g*od(-dess) I*sis" – tracing back to H-o-r-u-s in Egyptian paganism – and in the theme of a "man-g*od, son of g*od, and g*od" theme tracing back to the Hellenist Roman son of Z*eus (A*pollo). In Christianity, the son of g*od (Z*eus) is g*od (Z*eus ⇒ I*ei-sous ⇒ J*esus). Yet, not one shred of unambiguous evidence of any these themes is found in pre-Christian Judaism. The weight of evidence is clear: these Christian themes are idolatrous!
Zekharyah's flying scroll (5.1-4) – read "האלה" (hâ-âlâh; the curse) also (as a play on words) as האל (hâ-eil; the 'g*od') "going forth over the face of the entire earth" – and perhaps Yekhezqeil's scroll which is sweet in the mouth (which Revelation describes as subsequently bitter in the stomach), can be understood as the Christian NT.
|
|
To avoid persecution by the Church, early Netzârim encrypted this mystery in the number 666 – which the Church has still never figured out. 666 identifies the antichrist through a mathematical encryption device known as a "magic square" concealing twin keys. A magic square is identified by the sum of all of its numbers, in this case 666. An n by n magic square (the two n's are the encrypted keys that reveal the identity) is a square matrix of numbers, from 1 to n,2 in which no number is repeated and the matrix is arranged so that each row and each column sums to the same number. The sum of the columns or the rows identifies the 'magic square.'
The question becomes: What are the two n's of the magic square which totals 666, and what do the two n's symbolize? The only magic square summing to 666 is the 6 x 6 magic square. Each of six rows and each of six columns are equal, each totaling 111. Thus, whether totaling by row or column, the sum of the numbers from 1 to n2, where n = 6, is 666!
By means of the 6 x 6 'Magic Square', early Netzârim avoided persecution by the Hellenist Roman church while cryptically communicating to their followers the identity of the Hellenist Roman syncretism between their 6 = sun-g*od (Ei-l-i-o-s) and their 6 = inanimate idol and counterfeit Christ – i.e., the "antichrist" – the polar antithesis of Ribi Yehoshua the Mâshiakh. They assigned to this emerging Hellenist Roman theocracy, described as the "dragon" (or "beast") the number 666, cryptically designating the 6 x 6 "magic square." Decrypting the 6 x 6 "magic square" required understanding the numerology underlying the two contributing the keys: one 6 denoted the sun – the Hellenist Roman sun-g*od Ηλιος (Ei*lios; corrupted to H*elios) – and the other 6 denoted an inanimate nature – the inanimate Hellenist Roman idol (Z*eus).
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Totals | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 32 | 3 | 34 | 35 | 1 | 111 |
| 2 | 7 | 11 | 27 | 28 | 8 | 30 | 111 |
| 3 | 19 | 14 | 16 | 15 | 23 | 24 | 111 |
| 4 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 21 | 17 | 13 | 111 |
| 5 | 25 | 29 | 10 | 9 | 26 | 12 | 111 |
| 6 | 36 | 5 | 33 | 4 | 2 | 31 | 111 |
| Totals | 111 | 111 | 111 | 111 | 111 | 111 | 666 |
In ancient cosmology the number 6 represented the sun; in numerology 6 represented the inanimate (Jay Kapparaff, "Connections: The Geometric Bridge Between Art And Science," New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991, p. 4, 138.). The Hellenist Roman beast / dragon of Dâniyeil had already begun to emerge from the pagan culture of the Hellenist Roman Empire, which revolved around the worship of the sun-g*od – "6" – and inanimate – "6" – idols, especially J*upiter = Z*eus). The 6 by 6 magic square identified Dâniyeil's "Fourth Beast" as: 6 (one connotation) cum 6 (the other connotation) ⇒ the magic square ⇒ 666!!!
|
|
The Christian Church also fulfilled prophecy. As the antithesis of Ribi Yehoshua, J*esus / Yesh"u fulfilled the prophecy of the 10 + 1 Horns of Dâniyeil's 'Beast' (Dâniyeil 7.7).
A קרן (qërën; radiant-beam, horn) in Biblical symbolism indicates a leader. Correlating two conflicting lists supplied by Eusebius, Bishop Markos, who supplanted Pâqid Yehudâh, ha-Tzadiq in 135 C.E., was the first of ten bishops in Yerushâlayim. Then, an eleventh, Bishop Narcissus, who had been charged with some "heinous crime," was exonerated and "restored" to the episcopate of Yerushâlayim retroactively – displacing the tenures of bishops 8-10 (episcopal offices of bishops 8-10 ca. 183-215 C.E.)! (See lists and further details in The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 16.19.5)
The following describes this 11th "horn," Bishop Narcissus, who displaced three of the ten "horns" before him and instigated or intensified:
|
|
Prior to 135 C.E., Israel had never been known as 'Palestine'. Philistia, from which the Hellenist Romans derived 'Palestina', was limited to an area of Syria and a narrow coastal strip closely correlating to Gaza today. The first mention of this coastal strip, Συρια η Παλαιστινει (Suria ei Palaistinei; Philistine-Syria) was by the B.C.E. 5th century Greek historian, Herodotus. There is no reference to the land of Israel by any variation of the name 'Palestine' until the Hellenist Romans renamed Israel to 'Palestine' in their de-judaization of the land subsequent to 135 C.E.
From Creation to B.C.E. 1411 the area was known as כנען (Kena·an). From Israel's conquest of Kena·an during the period ca. B.C.E. 1410 to B.C.E. 952, the land was known as Yisrâ·eil. All of the inhabitants of Kena·an were absorbed into the population of Israel. No native Kena·ani existed, even in late Biblical times. From B.C.E. 951 to the present, Jews – and everyone except misojudaics – have referred to the land either as Yehudâh (Hellenized and anglicized to Judea & Jew) or Israel. After 135 C.E., the Hellenist Roman occupiers renamed Israel / Yehudâh to "Syrian-Palestina." Describing these pagan Hellenist Roman goyim occupiers – the first Christians of the earliest Church – as misojudaic is fully justified.
It is undisputed that today's 'Palestinians' are Arabs. However, the ancient Philistines were not Arabs. Even modern Arabs denied they were "Palestinians" until the mid-20 century when it became politically advantageous to dupe world opinion. In historical fact, the ancient Philistines immigrated to the coastal strip bearing their name long before the first Arabs, Yishmâeil and Eisâw, were even born!!! There is absolutely no connection whatsoever between today's 'Palestinians' and the ancient Philistines. In fact, the first modern usage of the term 'Palestinians' referred to Jews, not Arabs! The modern Israeli newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, was originally established as The Palestinian Post!!! Modern Arab 'Palestinians' have no connection to Israel until the Islamic conquests subsequent to 634 C.E. – over 20 centuries after Israel's eternal claim on this land. It's always been Israel – the land has NEVER been called "Ishmael." Arabs have always been sons of Yishmâeil, never the etnhically Greek-colonist Philistines.
|
|
Historical evidence is overwhelming. No identifyingly Christian doctrines were instituted until after 135 C.E., often centuries after – by sun-worshipping, misojudaic non-Jews: the spring festival for the g*oddess E*sotera / I*shtar / A*shtoret (E*aster), the birthday of the sun-g*od, M*ithra (Dec. 25th), and changing from Shabât to Sun(g*od)day) worship. Every day of their week was named after a pagan g*od: Sun(g*od, aka M*ithra)day, Moon (S*elene/D*iana)-day, T*ui's (aka the Saxon M*ar's) day, O*den's (aka M*ercury) day, Th*or'sday, F*ryga's (aka V*enus) day and S*aturnday ("Week," Encarta '95).
Antinomian, misojudaic Christianity remained the antithesis of pro-Torâh Netzârim. The Netzârim and Christian communities remained mutually exclusive and virulently antagonistic and hostile to each other until, in 333 C.E. – the Church, under Constantine, eradicated the Netzârim for remaining strictly, and defiantly, halakhic and exclusively in the Jewish community!!!
The Church's eradication of the remaining vestiges of the Netzârim in 333 C.E. as the direct consequence of their refusal to compromise Halâkhâh attests to the unswerving dedication of the Netzârim to observing the entirety of Halâkhâh for four centuries after the death of Ribi Yehoshua – though the Netzârim never interrelated with the misojudaic, Christian, Church of the non-Jews.
All of these agree: Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid and his Netzârim talmidim were all strictly and halakhically Torâh-observant, living exclusively among the Jews of their 1st – 4th century community, praying and teaching in Batei ha-Kenësët for centuries after Ribi Yehoshua's death – until 333 C.E., when the Netzârim were eradicated by the Christian Church for rejecting goyim Christianity and remaining Torâh-observant, as well as for rejecting the Church by living and praying exclusively in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community.
|
|
As the church grew, Hellenist Roman political leaders of the third century C.E. sometimes viewed them as a potential threat. (The mere continuing existence of the original pro-Torâh Netzârim, opposing the Church, contradicted the Church's claim to have superseded the original Netzârim to become the "real" Israel.) Politics placed great pressure on the church to mold themselves into a purely Hellenist Roman religion. Only a vague notion of "Jewish roots," for credibility, survived the transition.
|
|
The Christianization process conducted through extensive redaction, and destruction, of Judaic records as well as forcible impositions by the Church produced a dragon by the 4th century that wouldn't have been recognizable in the 1st century (demonstrated by Oxford historian James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism – see excerpts in next section).
|
|
The analysis of the internationally recognized Oxford scholar, James Parkes, becomes especially illuminating just by adhering to the historically accurate definitions provided in the links.
"There is no more tragic group in [the history of Judeo-Christian relations] than [the Netzârim]. They, who might have been the bridge between the Jewish and the [goyim] world, must have suffered intensely at the developments… which they were powerless to arrest… They ceased to be a factor of any importance in the development of either Christianity or Judaism. It is conventional to state that they would have permanently confined [the Netzârim congregation] to the Jewish world, that they wished to impose conditions which were impossible for the [goyim], but we only possess the evidence against them. And they on their side might well say – paradoxical as it may appear to us now – that the [goyim] Church by its [counterfeiting of their own man-g*od Christ image (idol)] made the acceptance of the Messianic claims of [Ribi Yehoshua] impossible to the Jew; and that the perpetual statement of the [goyim] leaders that the Jews continued to reject [the Mâshiakh] was fundamentally untrue, because they were being offered [J*esus] only upon conditions which were false and impossible for a loyal Jew to accept – in other words, an attitude to the whole of Jewish history and to the [Torâh] which was based upon [goyim] ignorance and misunderstanding, and was quite unsupported by the conduct of [Ribi Yehoshua] himself.
"Though thus isolated, they lingered on in [Israel] for centuries. For them, the critical years were not so much from [C.E.] 70 to 100, as from 70 to 135 C.E., and the final destruction of [Yerushâlayim] under Trajan. Until the Jews had in large numbers decided for another [Mâshiakh], they might continue to hope that they would accept [Ribi Yehoshua]. But when, led by the famous [Aqiva], the bulk of the population followed [Bar-Kokhvâ], then the position became hopeless. Though the [Birkhat Ha-Minim] dates from thirty or forty years before these events, yet we know of no actual persecution of them by the Jews between the death of [Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid at the hands of a Pseudo-Tzedoqim Kohein hâ-Râshâ] and the outbreak of the revolt in the time of Trajan (98-117 C.E.). Then indeed they suffered severely for their refusal to accept [Bar-Kokhvâ], and to share in the defence of the city, and many were put to death. After the defeat of the revolt, when the Jews were formally prohibited from entering [Yerushâlayim], for the first time a [goy] bishop was established in the city. As the choice of [Bar-Kokhvâ] confirmed the refusal of the Jews to accept J*esus, so the presence of a [goy] bishop [heralded the birth] of a new religion [displacing the Netzârim]…"
|
|
Constantine was the first Hellenist Roman politician to convert Christian fervor into Realpolitik. Seizing the opportunity to unite his fragmented empire between 313-325 C.E., he nationalized goyim (Hellenist) Roman Christianity and syncretized the existing diverse local worship into Christianity – under the unified banner of the Holy (Hellenist) Roman Catholic Church.
To ensure the popularity of Christianity and enhance its political effectiveness, this new, thoroughly Judaically-apostate, state religion syncretized the most popular elements of the local religion into the state theocrasy – Christianity. This syncretism, still evident in today's Catholic practices, mixes Hellenist Roman Christianity with Mayan, Voodoo, African, Oriental and other pagan rituals and symbols in their respective parts of the world.
|
|
From as early as ca. 64C.E., geirim, particularly Hellenists, after being exposed to Torâh, began to follow the Hellenist proto-Christian Jewish apostates (see discussion: 64 CE: Proto-Christians -The Christian Church Is Conceived) in rejecting the authority of the Jewish Beit-Din and Halâkhâh, and to identify themselves not merely independently of, but alien to, and at enmity with, Judaism and the Jewish community. In their native Hellenist Roman society, Christians retained only those Judaic trappings that appealed to them, syncretizing these into their native pagan mythology. Increasingly Hellenist Roman goyim in composition, it became easier and easier to reject Jewish authority altogether. By 135 C.E. the dichotomy was complete; two entirely distinct, separate, antithetical entities had developed, each alien to the other and at enmity with each other. While the Netzârim were consistently Torâh-observant according to Halâkhâh throughout their short history, so, too, Christians were consistently antinomian from the very start. Netzârim and Christians have at all times been mutually exclusive and diametrically antithetical – to the point of killing-off the Netzârim for refusing to convert.
Ultimately, in 333 C.E. Christians consolidated their power. They forced all remaining Jews claiming any connection with Ribi Yehoshua to choose between:
At that point, any possible last vestiges of the Netzârim were exhausted – precisely because, to the very last, they would not abandon halakhic Torâh-observance exactly as described in 4Q MMT!!!
The Netzârim always remained Torâh-observant! At no point was there ever any transition from the Torâh-observant Netzârim to Hellenism and Christianity.
Thus, there is utter discontinuity (click graphic). Continuity is intractably contradicted by both: complete continuity between Judaism of before and after the 2nd-3rd centuries, on the one hand, and Hellenist paganism before to Hellenist Christianity after, on the other!!! All that was added to the Hellenist paganism were some Jewish stories circulating in Greek, defying Judaic sources and authority.
|
|
After the disappearance of the Netzârim, Hellenists adopted the Hellenized Greek ("Nazarenes") to refer to Hellenized Christians of Jewish enthnicity (apostates from Judaism) and the name fell into disuse, eventually developing the meaning of wicker straw. Remaining Jews were soon preoccupied with survival from persecutions by the Notzrim. Although the Netzârim and Notzrim have always been intractably opposite poles, over the centuries, by deliberate Christian imposition, their names became blurred. The true nature of the Netzârim vis-a-vis the Notzrim was sealed (cf. seal #5, Rev. 6.9-11) until the present when the Netzârim, like the State of Israel, re-emerged.
After 333 C.E. references to נצרים (Netzârim) in Hebrew became non-existent, displaced entirely by נצרים (Nâtzrim) / נוצרים (Notzrim) – exclusively by Hellenists in Greek: Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios) and Ναζαρηνος (Nazareinos – "Nazarenes"), invariably referring to the antinomian, Hellenist Roman goyim – the very Hellenists who killed Ribi Yehoshua were the same Hellenists, now identifying themselves as Christians, who usurped the original Netzârim and, in 333 C.E., snuffed out the last vestiges of the Netzârim..
|
|
It would be generous to grant that extant records document Ribi Yehoshua discussing even 1% of the myriad issues of 1st century Oral Law which, Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT documents, were central to all three Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish sects and occupied the heated religious debates of his time. Yet, for millennia, non-Jews have insisted on filling in the 99% lucana with gentile culture and Christian tradition, which was alien to all 1st century Jews, rather than filling in the lucanae with the native Judaic 1st century Oral Law native to Ribi Yehoshua!
Filling in the lucanae with assumptions generated from cultures alien to Judaism results in many distortions. For example, records recognized by the original Netzârim don't indicate Ribi Yehoshua's teaching concerning separation of dairy and meat. Which should be assumed right then, Christian tradition or Judaic tradition? This assumption is pivotal. It guides 99% of religious decisions. Christians assume Christian tradition until rabbis can prove them wrong, which is impossible. Jews assume Judaic tradition until Christians can prove them wrong, which is likewise impossible. This assumption takes on enormous proportions.
Assuming the superimposing of an alien culture upon 1st century Judaism, now known from 4Q MMT, commits two logical fallacies upon which Christianity depends: petitio principi (begging the question) and argumentum ad ignorantiam (shifting the burden of proof).. Logic dictates that the onus of proof rests upon whomever wishes to demonstrate a change from the known. The known is 4Q MMT, not the extensively Christianized NT!
In contrast, there is every logical reason to understand such questions within the same frame of perspective as the 1st century Jews. Archaeology and Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT have demonstrated that, invariably, Halâkhâh has been confirmed while misojudaic positions have consistently proven wrong. When one switches to assuming Halâkhâh is right until proven wrong his or her horizon shifts 180°.
In this context, the logic can be seen of pursuing, and adopting, the most pristine representation of Halâkhâh on the planet to fill in these lucanae. Here, scholars are virtually unanimous in nominating the Teimani as the least influenced by outside cultures and influences since Har Sinai. Consequently, the modern reconstructed Netzârim adopted Teimani Halâkhâh.
|
|
The term Pâqid derives from Tana"kh and is the Hebrew term from which the later Hellenist Greek term επισκοπος (episkopos; bishop) derived. Pâqid was the original title designating the earliest leaders of the Netzârim under Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Bën-Dâvid and all 14 succeeding peqidim who led the Netzârim until being forcibly displaced by the first gentile, Hellenist Roman "bishop" in 135 C.E.
By opening the many "impossible" doors that enabled me to become the first – and only – Netzârim Jew recognized as legitimate within the same Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Israeli religious Jewish community since the 15thPaqid was deposed by the Christian "Bishop Marcus" in 135 C.E., י--ה placed the mantle of the 16th Pâqid ha-Netzârim upon my shoulders, as His choice.
I was born Clinton E. (Clint) Van Nest III and raised as a Christian, spending my childhood in New Jersey and my early teens in the Florida Keys. As a teenager, I attended Hampden DuBose Academy (a private evangelical Christian boarding school in Florida). Subsequently, I was a "witnessing Christian" and church organist in a suburban Baptist Church in Central Florida. As I was growing into adulthood, I increasingly questioned contradictions between church teachings and the NT.
After a stint in USAF Intelligence in Germany (honorably discharged) where I played keyboard in a small-time rock band, and a couple of years working in New England and Toronto (as a safety engineer for an insurance company), I moved back to Orlando (working as a Personnel and Safety Director for a trucking and construction company), where I met and married my dental hygienist, Karen, a devout Christian girl also seeking to resolve the many contradictions in Christianity.
I recognized that the first challenge was to identify the earliest extant source texts of NT, quickly finding that Strong's Concordance was indexed on a "King James Greek" (Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E.) – itself a circular-reasoning, Greek substantiation of the King James Version (KVJ) of 1611 C.E.!!!
To cut out the middlemen who had created, and continued to perpetuate, these distortions, and assess the readings of the earliest extant source texts with my own eyes and subject them to my own logical analysis, I learned to translate Greek with the help of dictionaries and books on Greek grammar. I obtained the Greek text with an apparatus providing the readings of all of the earliest extant source manuscripts from which the 'NT' is rendered: the Novum Testamentum Graeca (Deutsche Bibelstiftung, Stuttgart).
I quickly realized that this had to be read in the context of the Jewish authors and characters, the Judaic background, which formed the only frame of reference within which this historical material could be accurately and authentically understood. This realization, and some checking, resulted in obtaining and reading R.H. Charles 1913 edition of the Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha. With this quantum update it became clear, long before the recent publishings of Charlesworth's Pseudepigrapha (much less most DSS books that would later corroborate and confirm my studies) that there was an enormous chasm between the Christian Church, the 1st century Jews the Church purports to represent, and the antithetical Christian images that the Church presents as being those 1st century Jews.
Recognizing the Judaic nature of the source texts underlying the Christian NT, I then taught myself to translate Hebrew in order to bridge from NT Greek, through its corresponding LXX Greek, to its corresponding MT Hebrew. In this way, I eventually translated the entire NT directly from all of the earliest extant source documents up through the 4th century C.E., incorporating the earliest extant Hebrew tradition of Matityâhu be-Ivrit from Talmud through the Ëvën Bokhan.
In the early 1970s, I began translating the NT, citing the readings of all of the earliest extant source mss. and teaching my findings to others. To facilitate this, I founded Beit Ha-Natzrim synagogue in Orlando as a non-profit organization chartered in Florida. At first, neither I nor the other proto-Netzârim in our congregation were recognized by the Jewish community. And rightly so. Though several young Jews had left churches to join our congregation, I and several others were goyim. Most Jews assumed I was hawking yet another version of Christianity. But whether we were ever accepted by the Jewish community or not, Karen and I were irrevocably committed to the Biblical paradigm of Rut (1.16-17). This required disassociating ourselves from the last vestiges of Christianity. We even legally changed our name from Clint and Karen Van Nest to Yirmeyâhu and Karen Ben-David.
Struggling to be like Torâh-observant Jews to our utmost, we were careful to be open and above-board with our adopted Jewish community who, at this point, hadn't then even accepted us. We were candid about the name change and Netzârim teachings. We hadn't heard of geirim (and there were no Netzârim at that time to recognize geirim anyway). If we could not become Jews openly and legitimately, then we really had no alternative but to relate to the Jewish community the best we could as goyim keeping Torâh to our utmost.
For the next decade I researched and taught. Karen courageously applied what we were learning in the "real world," sharing this knowledge with her family, friends and numerous patients – routinely smarting from simplistic but excoriating responses from Christians who often screamed the same vilifications in her face that the first Christians published against the Netzârim Jews.
In the early 1980s, I began posting my research findings on the fledgling Internet to see if my shocking findings were due to some error. With repeated responses that no one – including a Harvard divinity professor and other seminarians and scholars around the world – could mount a credible disputation against my work, I struggled to flesh-out historically and halakhically accurate Netzârim teachings from the earliest Judaic source documents for Hebrew Matityâhu One of my first questions, since the NT came several centuries after the fact, was, "Did the Netzârim accept the "NT" as part of the Bible? In this way I began reconstructing the Judaically authentic Netzârim history and teachings while simultaneously building a valid case for preserving its ancient legitimacy in the Jewish community.
I became publicly known as the Netzârim leader, opening a proto-Netzârim synagogue (Beth Ha-Natzrim) as well as through personal contacts with local rabbis and Jewish leaders. I became active in the Jewish Community Center, and placed a precedent-setting ad in the Central Florida Yellow Pages under "Synagogues." The latter prompted discussion in the Jewish press that was noted nationally, and prompted a local TV news feature. I was controversial, the subject of several articles, and many letters of debate from Jewish activists to the editor of The Orlando Sentinel. Articles about me appeared in Jewish newspapers from Florida to Canada. All of these things are well documented in the public record. To allege, more than two decades after the fact, that I was later converted while concealing these things is ludicrous and blatant slander.
Over the years, we earned some trust. Bits of respect began to surface. Several prominent members of the Jewish community, seeing slander against me that they knew was false, even came to be protective of me. Aware, and explicitly apprised, of my position as leader of the proto-Netzârim movement and 'Beth Ha-Natzrim' Synagogue, a Beit-Din of Orthodox rabbis converted my wife and me in 1984, recognizing us as observant Orthodox Jews.
Halâkhâh, Orthodox rabbis and official records of the Israeli Supreme Court are clear and unanimous that there are no other recognized – or legitimate – Netzârim other than those recognized and attested by our Beit-Din. Halâkhâh requires recognition by a Beit-Din that has been recognized by Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism. Since ours is the only Beit-Din of followers of Ribi Yehoshua as the Mâshiakh that has satisfied this requirement, all others are 'wolves in sheep's clothes' – leading both Jews and goyim astray from Torâh according to Halâkhâh.
In being formally recognized by the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community, we became the first, and only, Netzârim Jews and authentic followers of Ribi Yehoshua in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) religious Jewish community since 135 C.E. Having legitimately entered the Jewish community made me and my wife the first and only Netzârim in the world, at least since 135 C.E. No other candidate existed in the Israeli Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community to resume the Netzârim mantle of Pâqid left in the Jewish community and within Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism by the ouster of Yehudâh, our 15th Pâqid, in 135 C.E. This mantle of Netzârim authenticity has never been outside of Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism and the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. Christians were never in the Jewish community – while authentic Netzârim have never been anywhere else!!! The Netzârim have been restored to their home; they didn't "get in." Neither will Christians – including Christians of Jewish ethnicity.
In 1985 we made âliyâh to Israel under the Law of Return. When the time drew near to leave for Israel, I closed the doors of the Netzârim synagogue in Orlando and instructed that all attendees, who were studying to become Netzârim, emulate the original Netzârim and begin attending an established Beit ha-Kenësët that was recognized by a Beit-Din, whose authority, in turn, was recognized in the State of Israel and the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community. The ancient Halâkhâh established in the Beit-Din ha-Jadol by Jamliyeil was reconfirmed when the Israeli Ministry of Interior conferred Israeli citizenship as Jews, under the Law of Return, upon my wife and me.
Karen continues to work in Ra·ananâ(h) and Kephar Saba, as a dental hygienist. We have a tzabârit (native Israeli daughter), Yâ·eil, who attended the full 12 years and graduated from the Israeli Orthodox school system and now (as of this 2006 update) is a junior at Tel Aviv University in the officer candidate program of the Tzahal. We pray regularly at our (Orthodox) Teimâni Beit ha-Kenësët where we have been attending more than a decade and members in good standing since 1998.03. Until my recent retirement, I served a month of reserve duty each year in the Tzahal. Until I retired, I occasionally patrolled, when I had time, as an Israeli reserve police officer.
|
|
Even based solely on Devârim 13.2-6, the Netzârim confirm that J*esus is an antinomian man-g*od idol, which cannot be the Mâshiakh.
The conundrum, however, is that even Talmud confirms that Yehoshua 53 describes the Mâshiakh!!!
What Jews and Christians each have trouble comprehending, though from opposite perspectives, is suddenly discovering and confronting the ridiculousness of the contra-historical Church fable that holds that, although Ribi Yehoshua and his 1st-century Jewish followers were all pro-Torâh while all 4th-century gentile Christians were anti-Torâh (antinomian), these two polar antithesis were all the same thing – Christians. This deception has persisted because Christians are happy and content with their assumed fable and Jews have avoided it as having nothing to do with them. No one cared to investigate the more inconvenient and troubling facts, which imply that Christianity is a hybrid of native Hellenist Roman g*ods syncretized with 135 C.E. stories, circulating in Greek, by apostate Hellenist Jews. There was no Church, and no Christian existed, before 135 C.E. Therefore, rejection of J*esus, which is proper and required by Torâh, implies nothing whatsoever about whether or not Ribi Yehoshua is the Mâshiakh.
To the contrary, because Ribi Yehoshua and, le-havdil, J*esus are mutually exclusive polar antitheses of each other, belief in either constitutes disbelief in the polar antithesis. Ergo, to believe that Ribi Yehoshua is the Mâshiakh constructively holds that his polar antithesis, le-havdil, J*esus, is the false Mâshiakh – or, as Christians prefer to call it, the Antichrist.
Conversely, Christians should realize, belief in J*esus the Antichrist is the constructive denial that Ribi Yehoshua is the Mâshiakh.
Halâkhâh prohibits blaming an innocent and Torâh-observant Jew, Ribi Yehoshua, for the sins of his polar antitheses, or the sins of the goyim, or the sins of the Kohanei hâ-Râshâ, or the sins of apostates acting diametrically opposite to his teachings – Torâh.
Judaism regards belief in the Mâshiakh as peripheral, not central like Christians believe. Also unlike Christians, Jews are defined by doing their utmost to keep Torâh according to Halâkhâh, NOT belief in the Mâshiakh. Many in Chabad, an Orthodox Jewish sect, continue to believe the dead Rebbe Schneerson is the Mâshiakh as "our Lord, our Instructor, our Rabbi, the Mashiakh King forever." Netzârim, by contrast, believe Ribi Yehoshua is the non-divine Mâshiakh. When the Mâshiakh issue is finally resolved and clear to everyone we'll all get our signals straight. It's a peripheral issue, not a core principle.
Halakhic tradition regarding the Netzârim goes back to c. 33 C.E. in the Beit-Din Ha-Gadol, when Jamliyeil I, grandson of Hileil and first Perushim Nâsi, spoke for the newly-predominant, rabbinic majority. Enjoying the popular support of the Jewish community, Gameli-Eil successfully defended the Netzârim before the Roman-quisling, Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim minority. He argued that the Jewish community should "turn aside" from any decision to punish them. His recommendation that the Jewish community should accept the Netzârim was adopted by the Beit-Din Ha-Gadol. This decision established Halâkhâh for the Jewish community. No court today has the authority to challenge Halâkhâh established by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.
Aside from the trial of Ribi Yehoshua in an illegal Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Beit-Din, Jamliyeil gave the earliest known rabbinic pronouncement concerning the Netzârim ca. 33 C.E. Gameli-Eil successfully argued for the Perushim (rabbinic) majority position against the Hellenist-Tzedoqim minority in the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, championing acceptance of the Netzârim in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community. Apart from Hellenist Roman / Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim actions, negative Halâkhâh is clearly 135 C.E. and directed at Yesh"u and Christians, not Ribi Yehoshua or the Netzârim. This is irrefutable because the Netzârim continued to live and be accepted among, respected by, and even defended by the Perushim – while entirely separate from, and vilified by, the Church – throughout the short history of the Netzârim (until 333 C.E.).
The occasional offenses against the Netzârim in the 1st century, including the crucifixion of Ribi Yehoshua, were instigated by Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim and their Hellenist Roman patrons, but opposed by Perushim and ensuing rabbinic Halâkhâh. Josephus records that, in 62 C.E., a Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Kohein ha-Jadol (regarded by both Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim and Perushim as a Kohein hâ-Râshâ), convened an illegal Beit-Din (just as they had done against Ribi Yehoshua), in which they condemned and conspired to kill Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Yoseiph Bën-Dâvid – the brother of Ribi Yehoshua, and first Netzârim Paqid. The Perushim, however, condemned the murder, corroborating the standing Halâkhâh of accepting the Netzârim – to the extent that they even persuaded the Roman occupiers to remove the murdering Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Kohein hâ-Râshâ from the office of Kohein ha-Jadol.
The Netzârim became dormant as an organized movement in 135 C.E. By 333 C.E., the Hellenist Roman-occupier Christians exhausted the Netzârim, exiling our 15thPaqid, Yehudah, from Yerushâlayim with the other Jews, and installing their own (Hellenist Roman zâr) bishop, Markos, in his place. Halâkhâh after that date aimed at organized groups that posed a threat, not fragmented and widely dispersed Netzârim. Other groups filled the vacuum, including already-existing Jewish proto-Christians like the Ëvyonim who had compromised the sine qua non by accepting partial rejection of Halâkhâh, and the newly emerging gentile Hellenist Roman Christians. Henceforth, Nazarenes, Natzrim, Notzrim, Nazoraeans, and similar terms subsequently referred to post-135 C.E. Christian groups, not the original Netzârim.
The Halâkhâh accepting and respecting the Netzârim remained in force until the disappearance of the Netzârim in 333 C.E. Then, under Constantine, Christians exhausted the last vestiges of the Netzârim (and/or similar sects) for their refusal to abandon Torâh-observance.
When J*esus, and proto-Christian apostate sects like the Ëvyonim and subsequent gentile Hellenist – pagan and idolatrous – Christians are not confused with the Netzârim, it becomes clear that references in Talmud, etc. are to the post-135 C.E. gentile Christians; and that no further Halâkhâh was directed toward Ribi Yehoshua or the Netzârim proper.
As we've shown, the Netzârim position is that J*esus is a fictional, Hellenist Romanized counterfeit – the antithesis – of Ribi Yehoshua. Goyim fabricated their goy-saving (i.e., claims of supersession and Displacement Theology) man-g*od by syncretizing selected Judaic cosmetics with their pagan myths of g*ods mating with human women to give miraculous birth to g*od-men offspring. All of the halakhic prohibitions are, rightly, directed at the image (idol) developed by the Christian Church: J*esus.
By contrast, Ribi Yehoshua was an historical Torâh-observant and halakhic Jew whose intent was to bring about teshuvâh among "the lost sheep of Israel" (non-observant Jews) to Torâh-observance. There is no halakhic decision against the authentic Ribi Yehoshua.
Excepting misdirected fear and hatred, tolerance of belief in the halakhically pro-Torâh Ribi Yehoshua eliminates all of the negatives from the Netzârim that are – properly – associated exclusively with J*esus and Christianity.
Further, utilizing the Netzârim as an ally offers several major advantages to Judaism.
Since Ribi Yehoshua is demonstrated to have taught Torâh according to Halâkhâh, and not the antithetical Christian doctrines of the idol counterfeit (Yesh"u), there is halakhic support for accepting the Netzârim while opposing the Netzârim defies the ancient Halâkhâh of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.
|
|
The Netzârim are the polar opposites of, le-havdil, Christianity and J*sus. Despite the Church's deception and claims, there has never been any continuity, nor transition, nor connection, nor linkage between them. In fact, the most thorough repudiation of one is the acceptance of its polar antithesis!!!
As mentioned earlier, the Netzârim were reconstructed within the 1st-century definitions established within Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) groups of Judaism as recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, which are found and documented in Tana"kh, Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT and The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM), all complemented by Teimani Halâkhâh.
It bears repeating here that the only account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yehoshua accepted by his original, Netzârim, Jewish followers was The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM). The 99% lucanae – the myriad points of Halâkhâh for which no teaching by Ribi Yehoshua is recorded in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) – are then filled-in not from Christian (gentile Hellenist idolatry) tradition, like all Christians do, but rather from Teimânim Halâkhâh, which scholars acknowledge is the most pristine on the planet. Consequently, while Christians assume Christian doctrine correct until rabbis prove them wrong, Netzârim presume Teimânim Halâkhâh correct unless there is evidence to the contrary in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM). The importance and implications of this distinction cannot be overstated.
The acceptance of the Netzârim as the first, and only, followers of Ribi Yehoshua admitted into the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community since 135 C.E. is a direct result of this authentic Judaic reconstruction, and distinguishes the Netzârim in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel from all other pretenders, of pretend "Judaism," described in Rev. 2.9 and 3.9. Consequently, this author and his family were accepted in 1998.03 as members for life, in good standing, of the largest Beit ha-Kenësët ha-Teimâni in Ra·ananâ(h), Morëshët Âvot – Yad Nâ·âmi, where my family and I pray regularly.
This consistent tenet, originating from the mouth of Ribi Yehoshua Ha-Mâshiakh himself, is why the Netzârim obtained – openly and above-board – recognition and acceptance from both the 1st century Beit-Din Ha-Gadol and, correspondingly, from today's Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community as well. Halakhic recognition and acceptance of the Netzârim is also corroborated by Ribi Jamliyeil in the Beit-Din ha-Jadol (Netzârim Reconstruction of Ma·avâr 5.34, 38-40).
Being halakhic Jews, the Netzârim are principally distinguished from Christian Jews by
These distinctions simultaneously define the Netzârim within the definition of Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism. Though guided by logic and science rather than ritualistic minutiae of men, the Netzârim are more strictly shomeir-Torâh than mainstream, and even Ultra-, Orthodoxy (who, for one glaring example, with rare exception don't wear the petil tekheilët). To abandon a Torâh-observant and halakhic Jew solely because the goyim perverted his Torâh teachings is to condemn an innocent Jew – and constitutes leshon hâ-râ and consequent khilul י--ה, both aveirot of Torâh.
For Jews, the Beit-Din Ha-Gadol was the Supreme Court. Until the Mâshiakh comes, no Beit-Din since can ever have the authority to question even the decision of a Beit-Din Ha-Qatan, much less the position upheld by Ribi Jamliyeil and the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.
But the question, more properly, is why Christian Jews (popularly, but falsely, "Messianic Jews") are not part of the Jewish community. And the answer is "because, as Christians, they don't subscribe to keeping the entirety of Halâkhâh." Just one of the Christian doctrines above excludes a person from the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. Yet, the pseudo-'Messianic Jews' agree with the Christians on most, often all, of the points listed above.
Further, while the Christian Jews are alien to the Jewish community and interrelated in the Christian Church, this was never true of the Netzârim. From the time of the Beit-Din Ha-Gadol and the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini throughout our history the Netzârim have always been in the Torâh-observant Jewish community, never outside the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community! Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim were Torâh-observant Jews, not Christians. Since the Netzârim have never been anywhere other than within the Jewish community, the Netzârim didn't need to "come in" but, instead, merely re-establish and reconstruct their rightful place where they had been before they were eradicated by the Hellenist Romans. The apostate Hellenist Christian Jews, by contrast, left the Jewish community – and they cannot return carrying Christian baggage with them.
In modern Christian parlance, the phrases "Messianic Jews" and "Messianic Judaism" are popularly employed to connote Christians who exhibit some Jewish trappings and cosmetics while believing in J*esus and Christian doctrines. These are Christian groups who should properly be called Christians of Jewish ethnicity. The rabbis and Israeli Supreme Court agree that these Christians do not practice Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism, even though they were born Jews. They selectively don only those trappings of Judaism which they deem appropriate. They reject the authority of a Jewish Beit-Din to set forth legitimate guidelines of Judaism for them. Any one of these touchstones (sine qua non) excludes them from Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism and good standing in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community.
As a result of their selective acceptance / partial rejection of Halâkhâh, some appear more "halakhic" and others more Christian, with many shades between the two, according to their personal preference. But they are all Christian in that they don't subscribe to the entirety of Halâkhâh. If they did, they would be in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community.
Unless they conceal their beliefs, defrauding the rabbis, these expressions of recognition are, rightly, denied to Christian Jews – even Christians who are born Jews! The Israeli Supreme Court has consistently corroborated this Orthodox position. Many Christians have learned to say Ribi Yehoshua or Yeshua rather than J*esus. Many claim to believe "the same" as the Netzârim. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some false prophets with no connection to us or the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism recognized by Orthodox rabbis or Israel now even claim to be Netzârim. Yet, one who wishes to follow Ribi Yehoshua can only do so legitimately in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community as Ribi Yehoshua did, and as he taught. No others who claim to follow Ribi Yehoshua enjoy this recognition by the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. No others are authentic.
Even professing to abandon their paganism isn't enough. Christian Jews, like any other Christians, must formally satisfy the requirements of a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din. Self-proclaimed "Jews," Christian Jews, and pseudo-geirim (calling themselves Orthodox, Netzârim, "like" Netzârim, or whatever), who have not been formally recognized by a Beit-Din in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community, are described in Apocalypse 2.9 (& 3.9) as: "the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Sâtân." Don't be deceived into a false synagogue when you can easily verify from us whether any person or group is certified by our Beit-Din as Netzârim via the contact link in the appropriate Ministry of our website.
On the other hand, former Christian Jews who make teshuvâh into the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish religious community carry no residual taint. There is special respect for the ba·al teshuvah, as one who has shown great courage in making the road back. As a result of their Jewish rearing and perhaps some Hebrew, the ba·al teshuvah typically enjoys great advantage over the geir who must learn everything from scratch. Moreover, the ba·al teshuvah is respected throughout the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community as a Jew in good standing, and called to Torâh. Christian Jews, by contrast, are like a neon sign with an arrow that, through ignorance, came to point the wrong way, unknowingly deceiving everyone around. If that sign is simply turned in the right direction, it is already wired and lit and immediately becomes a guiding light for all who pass by. Former Christian Jews who have become ba·alei teshuvah, because of the unique knowledge gained from their experience, often go on to become Jewish leaders who are highly effective against assimilation, and a true Light in the Tephutzâh among the goyim.
Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism is multi-faceted, having many traditions besides the moderate mainstream Orthodox. Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) traditions range from many varied sects of Khasidim and anti-Israel khareidim to anti-khareidim, the "Temple Mount Faithful," Arab-allied Satmar, Notorei Karta, Kach, etc. Within these, there are further divisions of Sephârâdi, Ashkenazi, Bavli, Teimâni, and other traditions. Heated disagreements, even violence, among these traditions isn't rare. Jews can bridge differences regarding who is the Mâshiakh and the halakhic validity of such interpretations and "fences." But all Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) religious Jews share a commitment to Torâh-observance, the propriety of Halâkhâh and the intractable rejection of Christianity, Christian doctrines and their J*esus.
Several factors combined to allow the Netzârim to revive their ancient tradition in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community:
|
|
Early Netzârim regarded only their own Hebrew Matityahu as an authentic account of the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua – but not "Bible." No copy of our Hebrew Matityahu has yet been found by archaeologists. Such copies were either destroyed by the Hellenist Roman Christians or hidden by Netzârim and remain undiscovered. The rest of the NT was never accepted by the Netzârim – one of the reasons the Church vilified them. Consequently, like the original Netzârim, we regard the "NT" as supplementary on a par with Josephus – and highly distorted through documented Christian redactions. Like our earliest predecessors, we uphold only Tana"kh as the Holy Scriptures.
Judaic writings of this period include Talmud, Josephus, LXX, the Pseudepigrapha, the Qumrân (Dead Sea) Scrolls (especially 4Q MMT), the Apocrypha, Philo, the Nag Hammadi Codices and continuing archaeological findings. Included among these Judaic works of the period, which are helpful in understanding Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini era Judaism, are the subtextual source texts of the NT. In places, the source texts are radically different from modern versions of the NT supposedly derived from them. The extant source texts underlying NT are principally Greek, including papyrus fragments dating through the 4th century C.E. The Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E. is a special exception. Though Greek, Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E. is a product of the 17th century Church of England and the misojudaic King of England: the King James Version (KVJ) of 1611 C.E..
The Netzârim method takes advantage of scholarly tools to understand the Judaic community, the Messianic and Halakhic teachings, and, for contrast – what to reject, pagan Hellenist Roman Hellenism of that period.
Under the editorship of Yirmeyâhu Bën-Dâwid, and in consultation with the Orthodox Jewish community and internationally recognized scholars, the Netzârim have reconstructed The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) from all of the earliest extant source documents, within the Judaic perspective of that time. DTP formatted to facilitate continual updating, NHM incorporates the latest discoveries and analyses of world-renowned scholars. To eliminate illegitimate copycat charlatans and fakes – many of which have popped up since the first edition of this book – readers should note that NHM can only be obtained directly from the Netzârim.
|
|
No. That is a Christian doctrine, derived from the paganism of the Hellenist Roman Empire and is intractably contradictory to Torâh and Halâkhâh. A man-g*od, the offspring of sexual intercourse between a g*od and a human woman, was a pagan idea popular in the Hellenist Roman, goyim community and, 4Q MMT confirms, was an anathema to Ribi Yehoshua and the Jewish community. Jews understood "son of Ëlohim," a term applied to several characters in Tana"kh, as a member of the household (i.e., faith) of י--ה. "Son of Ëlohim" implied "divine" to the Hellenist Romans, NOT Jews!!! An observant and halakhic Jew, Ribi Yehoshua could not have thought of himself as Ëlohim. If he had, MMT demonstrates that, rather than the large following described in the documentation, he would have been immediately expelled from the Perushim community. Even the most apostate Kohanei hâ-Râshâ regarded that as a capital offense. (Proving this point, that's exactly what they eventually charged him with, using the Hellenist interpretation and false witnesses to wrongly convict him.) Far worse, he would have contradicted the Perfect One and His perfect Torâh (Tehilim 19:8). Understood in the perspective of their Jewish authors, no early ms. implies that Ribi Yehoshua regarded himself, or that any of his Netzârim followers regarded him, as g*od.
All ancient Judaic documents suggest that Jews understood the "maiden birth" of Yeshayâhu 7:14 as a maiden bride who was presumed to be a virgin (Yeshayâhu 62:5). The Jewish perspective of Yeshayâhu implies that the presumed-virgin maiden he described, after marrying, became pregnant by her husband in the usual way ordained by י--ה (in contrast to pagan mythology): nuptial or later marital sexual intercourse. Miryâm was an ארוסה (arusâh; fiancée) to Yoseiph (cf. NHM 1.18.4.).
Alternately, pregnancy as a result of intimacy short of full intercourse is not without medical precedent. Unlike Christians, who are obliged to worship "Virgin M*ary, mother of g*od," Jews recognize that these were flesh and blood Jews, with human temptations and weaknesses. While it's beyond the scope of this introductory book, that Yoseiph did not have intercourse with Miryâm until after the birth of Ribi Yehoshua is neither scientifically untenable nor "emaculate" (cf. NHM note 1.23.1).
The conceptions of Sârâh in old age and the Shunamit (Melâkhim Beit 4) are no less miraculous. Today's doctors perform artificial insemination. Is י--ה inferior to modern doctors? On the other hand, the statement is dependent upon Christian-redacted source documents for The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM). For further discussion, cf. NHM note 1.18.5.
|
|
Talmud teaches the resurrection of the Mâshiakh. "Âmar Rav Yehudâh in [the name of] Rav, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, will raise up another Dâwid for us, as it is written, ' 'But they shall serve י--ה their Ëlohim, and Dâwid their mëlëkh, whom I will raise up for them;' ' not ' 'I raised up,' ' but ' 'I will raise up' ' ' " (Masëkët Sanhedrin 98b, based on Yirmeyâhu 30.9). Tana"kh records that a dead man who was merely thrown into the tomb of Elishâ Bën-Shâphât ha-Nâvi was resurrected (Melâkhim Beit 13.21). Is the Mâshiakh of י--ה to be inferior to Elishâ Bën-Shâphât ha-Nâvi?
Orthodox Judaism recognizes the ability of י--ה to restore life, to revivify – resurrect. This is confirmed in every Shabât service directly from the Teimâni sidur: "Who is like You, Master of Heroics? And who resembles You? And it is trustworthy that it is You Who resurrects the dead. May You be blessed, י--ה Who resurrects the dead" (from the Shemonëh Ësreih). Interestingly, an additional reference to 'implanting,' found in the Ashkenazi sidur, alludes directly to a well-known metonym for the Mâshiakh that has been documented in the Dead Sea Scrolls – צמח (Tzëmakh).
|
|
No. Both Jews and Christians are always astonished to learn that Ribi Yehoshua taught that it isn't the halakhically Torâh-observant Jew (the healthy) who need kipur (the doctor). "Spiritually sick," in the Jewish community of NHM, meant sheep who had strayed from the flock; this has always referred to those who have strayed from halakhic Torâh-observance (cf., for example, Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT). Ribi Yehoshua instructed halakhically Torâh-observant Jews – the shepherds of the flock of Israel (not goyim) – to go to the lost sheep of Israel, i.e., Jews who have strayed from halakhic Torâh-observance. In Ribi Yehoshua's words, "It isn't the healthy," the halakhically Torâh-observant Jews, "who need a doctor. Rather, it is the sick who need a doctor" (NHM 9:12-13). Ribi Yehoshua taught that it is those Jews who fall short in their observance of Torâh and Halâkhâh who need to make teshuvâh. Excepting geirim Yerei-ha-Sheim, goyim aren't even in the picture.
Following the authentic teaching of Ribi Yehoshua, convincing Jews that Ribi Yehoshua is the Mâshiakh is not our main thrust – though we do indeed believe Ribi Yehoshua (not Yesh"u/ J*esus) is the Mâshiakh. This book primarily addresses those who already either believe that Ribi Yehoshua of Nâtzrat is the Mâshiakh or have reconciled their belief system to accommodate others who believe it. Proclaiming the historical documentation demonstrating that halakhic Torâh-observance was the central theme and tenet of Ribi Yehoshua's teachings is our primary mission.
The sequel to this book, Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC), conclusively demonstrates that halakhically Torâh-observant Jews (see discussion re: Only Those Who are shomeir-mishpât are shomeir-Torâh), are the sole heirs of the Biblical Covenants – which includes kipur – as a promise through the khein of י--ה to those who do their utmost to keep Torâh. There was no condition of "believing on the Mâshiakh" and Torâh prohibits adding conditions (Devârim 13.1). Despite Christian claims of supersession, י--ה doesn't break His promise. Halakhically Torâh-observant Jews (and geirim) alone have kipur. Christians (including Christian Jews) have no kipur and only a pretend "salvation" based on Hellenist Roman deceptions.
Biblical kipur is predicated upon the promises, recorded in Tana"kh, of י--ה, Whose Word is reliable and can never be annulled. Did Avrâhâm, Yitzkhâq Âvinu, Ya·aqov, and Moshëh believe in Ribi Yehoshua as the Mâshiakh? Eiliyâhu ha-Nâvi, Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh or Shlomoh ha-Melekh? Yet, י--ה does not change (Malâkhi 3.6)! Ribi Yehoshua taught that these, and countless other Jews before us, are already with י--ה.
|
|
Millions are already firmly persuaded by the many compelling Biblical prophecies that Ribi Yehoshua is the Mâshiakh – including many Christian Jews whom we all wish to see make teshuvâh. Since it is clear that the historical Ribi Yehoshua taught halakhic Torâh-observance, the better question is, 'How can these millions, who are already firmly resolved to follow Ribi Yehoshua, be brought to Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism?' – by following the authentic Ribi Yehoshua! (See also Why follow Ribi Yehoshua
|
|
Each of these statements refers to what has always been, and still is, the central argument in Judaism: Torâh shë-be·al pëh. Both of these three (!) were Perushim-heritage (Orthodox). Thus, to both, Torâh shë-be·al pëh means Halâkhâh and the Netzârim, representing the return of Ribi Yehoshua, ha-Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid in the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, are busy resuming his work – stitching back together the breaches of logic and tzëdëq in Halâkhâh.
The most difficult aspect for Christians is usually to get beyond Displacement Theology's need for a "personal savior" who revolutionizes Judaism to save the gentile world through "faith" superseding "law." Christians tend to reason, "G*od loves me; so, I and my loved ones are saved by J*esus, therefore…" (Recognize the logical fallacy of begging the question?)
Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC) helps to dispel this Hellenist Roman deception. It's true that י--ה loves you, but י--ה is Qodësh, has instructed the need to maintain Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol (wa-Yiqrâ 10.10 & Yekhëzqeil 42.20) and He doesn't change (Malâkhi 3.6). He's made provision for you to be Qodësh and instructed you that you must also do your utmost to be Qodësh and when you do He'll take care of the shortfall. If you refuse His provision, though, then it isn't י--ה's fault. You doom yourself by rejecting Him and His Way to live for yourself!
To discover the genuine purpose of the Mâshiakh (which has always been accessible to Jews who seek י--ה), the gentile must keep in mind that ha-Sheim is Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) and, therefore, learn to relate to the earliest well-documented (in 4Q MMT) causes of Messianic fervor – in the 1st century Jewish community. What did 1st century Jews (as contrasted with post-4th century goyim) expect of the Mâshiakh?
The Bën-Yoseiph mission of the Mâshiakh, better known today among Christians than Jews (though it is corroborated in Talmud), is described in Yeshayâhu 53 and Zekharyâh 12.10 in the context of wa-Yiqrâ 17:11. These passages were the basis for Dâniyeil's prophecy (9.26): יכרת משיח (yikâreit Mâshiakh; the Mâshiakh will be kâreit) by the hand of the Hellenist Roman occupiers, who would then destroy Yerushâlayim, etc.
The Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid mission of the Mâshiakh, however, was – and is – expected to redress the schisms in the Jewish community arising from the breaches in Halâkhâh. In the 1st century, these schisms were between [1] Qumrân Khasidim Ben-Tzâdoq Tzedoqim, [2] the Roman-collaborating Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim and [3] the Perushim. The major expectation of the Mâshiakh was to stitch together these three divergent opinions of Oral Law – "completing the Torâh" – in order to heal the fragmented Jewish community and heal the Jewish families split by the sectarian conflicts.
The anticipated unification of Oral Law under the Mâshiakh was expected to empower the retrieving of Jews who had assimilated into the Hellenist environment and culture of the Roman occupiers, healing Jewish families who were torn apart, between assimilated family members and the Torâh requirement to maintain Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol (wa-Yiqrâ 10.10 & Yekhëzqeil 42.20).
Further, in unifying the Jewish people under a unified Oral Law, the Mâshiakh was expected to demonstrate a logic in the unified Oral Law that would enable the unified Jewish people to [a] practice Torâh according to that Oral Law [b] in peace – i.e., the Messianic Era (cf. Mikhâh 4.15, 11-12; Yeshayâhu 2.2-4; 66.23; Zekharyâh 9.21-23; 14.16-21 and other Messianic Prophecies).
Indeed, Ribi Yehoshua was making considerable progress in this direction, attracting throngs of Jews throughout Israel; but the villains (the Kohanei hâ-Râshâ Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim collaboraters of the Roman occupiers) conspired to kill Ribi Yehoshua to prevent their arrangement with the Roman occupiers from being destroyed – and the rest, as they say, is history.
In addition to the many Messianic Prophecies that he satisfied that no one else can ever satisfy (unless they can travel back in time), the healing of the schisms in the fragmented Jewish community that are offered through following the paradigm originated by Ribi Yehoshua are proof that he is the Mâshiakh! Consider the words of Ramb"m:
"And if there arise a [scion] from Beit-Dâwid who meditates on the Torâh and practices its mitzwot like his ancestor Dâwid [in contrast to medieval or modern traditions], in accordance with the Written and Oral Law, prevails upon Israel to walk in the Ways of the Torâh and to repair its breaches , and fights the battles of the Lord [Ribi Yehoshua – "I came to complete the Torâh"], then one may properly assume that he is the Mâshiakh."
"The Mâshiakh will arise and restore the kingdom of Dâwid to its former might. He will rebuild the sanctuary [the nephâshot of Israel] and gather the dispersed of Israel. All the laws will be reinstituted in his days as of old [Ribi Yehoshua – "I came to complete the Torâh"]. Sacrifices will be offered and the Sabbatical and Jubilee years will be observed exactly in accordance with the mitzwot of the Torâh. But whoever does not believe in him or does not await his coming denies not only the rest of the Neviyim, but also the Torâh and our teacher Moshëh" [emphasis added].
"Do not think that the Mâshiakh needs to perform signs and miracles, bring about a new state of things in the world, revive the dead, and the like. It is not so… Rather it is the case in these matters that the statutes of our Torâh are valid forever and eternally. Nothing can be added to them or taken away." – See last two passages of his code of laws, in the eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the 'Laws Concerning the Installation of Kings,' (Gershom Scholem, "The Messianic Idea in Judaism," Schocken, 1971, p. 28).
Unlike the perverted and polar antithetical Christian idol-image, le-havdil, this was precisely the teaching of Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid of Nâtzrat in the 1st century, and of the Netzârim until the Christian Church eradicated them in the 4th century precisely for remaining loyal to this teaching.
In perverting Ribi Yehoshua's reputation to the polar opposite of what he stood for, the Church unknowingly fulfilled the prophecy of Zekharyâh 3.3: cloaking Ribi Yehoshua in בגדים צאוים (Begâdim Tzo·im; feculent clothes) – the feculent cloak of Yesh"u, which his Netzârim couldn't remove until they had been properly restored in the Jewish community. Only now are his Netzârim able to remove the feculent cloak to reveal the authentic and true Ribi Yehoshua as the Mâshiakh (Zekharyâh 3.4ff).
If 17th century Jews had understood the play on the words והוא מחלל (we-hu mekhulal; and he was profaned) in this way, they would not have fallen victim to the apostasy of the false Mâshiakh Shabtai (cf. Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 32-33, 47-48, 97). Perhaps this lesson can be internalized before another false Mâshiakh emerges. According to Talmud after all, Yeshayâhu 53 was understood by the Sages to refer to the personal Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph until the 12th century when Ramb"m and the 'rationalistic Messianists' changed the interpretation in response to the Jewish 'apocalyptics' – with an exaggerated change of interpretation aimed primarily at Christianity. It wasn't until the 16th century, however, as a backlash against Shabtai, that the Qabâlists recast "the people of Israel" displacing the Mâshiakh in Yeshayâhu 53. That attempt at innovation crumbles on logical grounds.
As Ramb"m pointed out, because following the Mâshiakh is a required part of keeping Torâh and Halâkhâh, that is sufficient requirement to follow the Mâshiakh, once identified. Beyond that, following a historical Jew as Mâshiakh, whose fate is long sealed by completing his mortal life in halakhic Torâh-observance, ensures, by his earthly life being done and entirely behind him, that it's totally impossible for this Mâshiakh to ever abrogate Torâh or Halâkhâh – precluding another straying after some future Torâh-rejecting false mâshiakh like Shabtai.
Moreover, Ribi Yehoshua offers the clear hope for healing the schisms in Jewish families and in the Jewish community and for resolving the conflict and misojudaism between Judaism and Christian Displacement Theology, with the clear strategy for dismantling the second order Displacement Theology, Islam, thereby bringing about the fulfillment of prophecies to bring all nations and tongues to pray to י--ה in the truth of Torâh and Halâkhâh.
Yehoshua Bën-Yehotzâdâq prefigured the future Mâshiakh Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâwid – no mere mortal Yehoshua Bën-Yehotzâdâq was "standing before the malâkh-י--ה, and the Sâtân was standing on his right" (Zekharyâh 3.1)!!! Relieved of his Begâdim Tzo·im to be dressed in clean attire and the turban of the Kohein ha-Jadol (pesuqim 4-5), this live-coal rescued from the fire (i.e. from his pollution and death, pâsuq 2) he thereby unified the offices of mëlëkh of the tribe of Yehudâh (Beit-Dâwid) and Kohein ha-Jadol. Zekharyâh then describes the followers of Ribi Yehoshua Ha-Mâshiakh (3.8): "Listen, now, O Yehoshua, Kohein ha-Jadol, you and your companions who are sitting before you (for they are men of the wonder); for, behold, I am bringing avedi: Tzëmakh."
To follow the Mâshiakh is, as Ramb"m acknowledged, an intrinsic and unavoidable element of obeying Torâh and Moshëh. It's also an honor to be a part of these prophecies, and share in the work of encouraging more of Israel "to meditate on the Torâh and practice its mitzwot in accordance with the Written and Oral Law, prevailing upon Israel to walk in the ways of the Torâh and to repair its breaches' – from restoring their beards to including the petil tekheilët in their tzitziyot and the Asërët ha-Dibrot in their tephilin shël Rosh.
Messianics in Judaism (not the Christians falsely calling themselves such) have vacillated from zealots who vainly sought to cause the coming of the Mâshiakh to others who insist that human efforts are unrelated to the Mâshiakh. Both are oversimplifications, and wrong. To have even the tiniest and most insignificant share in the work of the Mâshiakh is a signal honor for which Jews have waited and hoped for millennia. That some Jews, and geirim, have the opportunity now is unparalleled in history. Some will be involved in helping to retrieve remnants from the non-Orthodox Jewish community who are willing to embrace the entirety of Torâh and Halâkhâh, reconciling them with elements of the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community oriented to logic as the ultimate earthly authority for interpreting Halâkhâh. Others will be involved in qiruv, sharing our website and these books, with both, [a] the 90% of Jews who have been estranged from Torâh and the Jewish community and [b] the goyim. Some will help us by translating these materials into other languages, others by supporting this Messianic effort financially with ma·asrot and terumot, helping to promulgate Hebrew as the spiritual vernacular and many other aspects of this present, Messianic, era that commenced with the curtain coming down on the 'Times of the Gentiles' with the reemergence of Israel in 1948 (or recovery of Yerushâlayim in 1967). Yet, as history teaches, some will just miss the opportunity and be "Left Behind."
Additionally, following Ribi Yehoshua as the Mâshiakh is an unparalleled opportunity to have a part, in the words of Ramb"m, in 'repairing the breaches of Torâh'.
|
|
Unlike Judaism, in Christianity the ultimate authority is the NT, not contemporary leaders. The ultimate, and unalterable, source of misojudaism in the Christian world derives from the NT. Only the Netzârim offer a solution to this misojudaism, demonstrating that even the earliest Church historian, Eusebius, recorded that the genuine followers of Ribi Yehoshua never accepted the NT. The Netzârim subscribed only to Tana"kh as "Bible" and to their own Matityâhu be-Ivrit as the only legitimate account of the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua. Showing those who are already firmly commited to following this 1st century Jew as the Mâshiakh that they must follow Matityâhu be-Ivrit instead of the NT is the only effective antidote to Christian claims of supersession resulting, inexorably, in misojudaism to validate their Displacement Theology.
|
|
Netzârim geirim (being non-Jews) don't wear talit in public Tehilot. Consequently, in the Shema when Teimânim kiss their tzitzit, Netzârim geirim borrow one of the tzitziyot of a Jew sitting nearby. This Netzârim Halâkhâh, combined with the multi-lingual reach of the Internet, is bringing about the fulfillment of Zekharyâh 8.23: "In those days ten men from each language of the goyim shall grasp and hold the fringe [i.e. tzitzit] of a Jew saying 'We will go with you for we have heard that Ëlohim is with you'"
For further discussion of prophecies, see The 1993 Covenant and The Unveiling.
|
|
Before the Netzârim illuminated these logical definitions, the questions and answers in this book appeared as problematic to Judaism as to Christianity. Distinguishing between Ribi Yehoshua and, le-havdil, J*esus compels all those who genuinely wish to follow the authentic Ribi Yehoshua to turn from the supersessive misojudaic doctrines of J*esus to, le-havdil, the pro-Jew and Torâh-observant doctrines of Ribi Yehoshua.
Those who blur these two polar opposites into one "J*esus" aid and abet the misojudaics in perpetuating the antinomian lie, and keeping the misojudaic fires burning.
Misojudaism in both the religion of Christianity and their NT are intrinsic, and incommutable, wellsprings of misojudaism. Therefore, any cure must be two-tracked:
The Netzârim provide the resolution of all of the Messianic prophecies in Tana"kh that have always proven so thorny in disputing Christianity. It's completely impossible that any Messianic prophecies in Tana"kh refer to an antinomian J*esus! Mainstream Jews, for millennia unable to effectively refute certain prophecies (e.g. Yeshayâhu 53, which is backed up by Talmud as referring to the Mâshiakh), would be more effective arguing that the passage may refer to the 1st century Torâh-observant Ribi Yehoshua from Nâtzrat of the historical Netzârim, but that Devârim 13.2-6 precludes any possibility that any Messianic prophecy in Tana"kh could refer to the J*esus of Christianity who claimed to supersede Tana"kh. (If Christians relent on the point of supersession, then they no longer have the NT from which to argue Christianity further and must accept Torâh.)
Distinguishing between Ribi Yehoshua and, le-havdil, J*esus enables us to demonstrate the validity of Judaism vis-à-vis Christianity by
The Netzârim demonstrate as false the premises from which implacable and inexorable Christian polemics dangle, completely neutralizing them. Further, other Jewish arguments that were previously ineffective, with Netzârim clarifications, now fully and intractably disprove Christianity! The Netzârim have turned the tables 180°!!!
We have documented our facts. No credible and documentable refutations exist in Christianity, nor among their seminarians and scholars, for any of the challenges below. So, require Christians, and non-Orthodox Jews considering assimilation, to provide – one at a time – compelling documentation disproving to the following. (Critical lesson: don't let Christians off the hook. When they cannot disprove A point, ANY ONE point is "Game Over," NOT time to dismiss it as unimportant and change the subject!!! Allowing Christians to change the subject is where most people lose it trying to show off their knowledge. Don't make their mistake.)
Notice that these and similar questions couldn't even have been formulated until the return of the Ruakh ha-Qodësh of Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâvid, ha-Mâshiakh, embodied in the restoration of his Netzârim, to insist on the logical definitions that distinguish between them.
Since the early 1980s, these assertions have been continually tested, world-wide, via the computer internet in leading universities, including seminaries. In the 1990s, they proved invulnerable in the major Internet forums in the field: Ioudaios, Crosstalk and O-r-i-o-n (the Dead Sea Scrolls forum). Despite unsubstantiated protestations and slanders, no Christian or serious scholar has yet mustered any serious or credible disputation.
|
|
וכל המקיים נפש אחת מישראל מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו קיים עולם מלא
("And he who preserves one nëphësh of Israel, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he preserved the entire age"; Masëkët Sanhedrin 37a; Masëkët Bâvâ Batrâ 11a)
Through his teachings, which his Netzârim have restored after nearly 2,000 years of dormancy in the Begâdim Tzo·im (feculent cloak) of Christianity and J*esus, le-havdil, Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Dâvid, ha-Mâshiakh is responsible for far more than one nëphësh keeping Torâh. So, Talmud teaches, "Scripture ascribes it to him as though he preserved the entire age"; which, along with the other prophecies he has satisfied (and no one else can – ever), completes his qualifications as the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid – and he's just getting started.
The Netzârim have retrieved, and continue to retrieve, many Jews who had strayed from Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism into Christianity and assimilation, preserving their nëphësh and those of their children. They have returned to pray in an Orthodox Beit ha-Kenësët, to marry within the Jewish community, and to bring up their Jewish children with a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) education, a love of ha-Sheim and Torâh, of Israel, and of their fellow Jews. If Ribi Yehoshua had retrieved but one nëphësh of Israel — dayeinu (it would have been enough).
Further discussion of numbers is contrary to Torâh and schismatic to the Jewish community. We're not trying to separate from or outnumber other sects of Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Judaism. Rather, we're trying to encourage bridges of understanding, greater tolerance, and help stitch back together a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community that already has too many schisms. Both to promulgate the 1st – 4th-century Netzârim practice (as opposed to Christian misojudaism) and to preclude introducing yet another schism, where practical the Netzârim pray exclusively in existing Orthodox Batei ha-Kenësët. So, our numbers will never be schismatic in the Jewish community. Orthodox Jews will become increasingly likely to meet a Netzârim Jew or geir in their Beit ha-Kenësët, but we prefer there not be a rival " Netzârim synagogue" or distinct " Netzârim congregation" in their (or any) community.
Individuals who lack confidence in their Divinely-endowed intellect scurry to the perceived security of the herd – numbers – even when it is logically clear that the herd is headed for the slaughterhouse. The "Herd Instinct" addicts such people to numbers. However, the rational person avoids the tragedy of cults by comparing and evaluating evidence and the logic of arguments propounded by leading exponents of other religions, not the "Herd Instinct" or numbers. What we're doing is right because it's Scriptural. Numbers have nothing to do with it. If you're persuaded by numbers, you're on the wrong track.
Netzârim fellowship is also different from Christianity for two additional reasons: (1) The primary fellowship for Netzârim is the wider Judaic community, particularly the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Teimânim Torâh community, rather than within an internal sectarian definition and orientation, and (2) the resulting orientation of "fellowshipping" with fellow Netzârim in Internet SIG (special interest group) forums.
Netzârim Jews are entirely comfortable and satisfied praying among their fellow Torâh-observant Teimânim Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jews, with little thought to whether they are Netzârim or not. Netzârim pray with other Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jews in identically the same way that a Teimâni Jew can pray in a non-Teimânim Beit ha-Kenësët or a Chabad Jew can pray in a Modern Orthodox Beit ha-Kenësët. It is the non-Jew, the geir or convert, who experiences culture shock. But the non-Jew must recognize that they are the tail, not the body. The tail cannot wag the dog. Nor can they organize a lot of tails together to form a new body. geirim oriented to fellowshipping with other geirim are tails organizing together distinct from the body.
All Netzârim are part of the body of Israel; but not all of the body of Israel are Netzârim. All halakhically Torâh-observant Jews (and geirim recognized by Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din) are part of the body of Israel.
Fellowshipping primarily together, i.e., apart from the wider Torâh-observant Jewish community, would lead both to (1) a schism between Netzârim and the wider Jewish community and (2) a tendency for geirim to gravitate together as tails developing their own culture and spin apart from the body. That's how Christianity got its start.
One tail teaching another tail about Judaism is the blind leading the blind. One joins the Netzârim to enable followers of Ribi Yehoshua to follow his authentic teachings – halakhic Torâh-observance – in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community like Ribi Yehoshua and the 1st century Netzârim did – not to fellowship with, or build yet another, body of tails.
|
|
Ribi Yehoshua taught halakhic Torâh-observance. Learn and do likewise through our Khavrutâ (distance learning Syllabus).
For further information,
After digesting all of the information in the Netzârim Virtual Village, you should follow the instructions in our Misrad ha-Qlitâh, and follow the Khavrutâ link, to complete our Syllabus requirements, which leads to certification as a Netzârim Jew(ess).
|
|
Though we can be reached by snailmail, the quickest and most efficient way to get started learning with us is on the Internet, by taking our Khavrutâ (distance learning course): The Netzârim Virtual Community in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel: www.netzarim.co.il.
|
|
See the Khavrutâ link to the appropriate Syllabus page in the appropriate Ministry building:
Peruse our other materials in our virtual Mall (in the left panel of our 'Netzârim Quarter' Virtual Village.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. "The view of almost all of the commentators and clearly that of the Sages in the Talmud and numerous Midrâshim" is that "the fourth beast" of Dâniyeil 7.7, "different from all of its predecessors" (7.8), refers to Rome (= Hellenism; Daniel, Artscroll Tanach Series, Rabbis Nosson Scherman / Meir Zlotowitz, General Editors, Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1979, p. 199). The writer of the Christian Apocalypse (Revelation) translates this beast as δρακων (drakon; dragon; 12:3, et al.), which equates, via LXX, to MT תנין (tanin; crocodile, sea-monster, dragon).
Though this is applied by extension to whales as great air-breathing monsters of the sea, both terms referred primarily to reptililian "dragons" – the crocodile and its relatives. Reptilian in nature, the "fourth beast" of Dâniyeil was different from the mammalian beasts (lion = Babylon, bear = Persia & leopard = Greece; cf. Artscroll daniel 7.4ff) before it. Mammals are born with an umbilical cord; reptiles are hatched from an independent egg. Here is disjunction. There is no continuity between Christianity and Judaism as a 'mother religion.' Christianity / the Church has no authentic or legitimate origins or roots in Judaism. The "ten horns" and eleventh which consumed three of the original ten (7.7-8) are demonstrated from the historical record in The 1993 Covenant.
|
|
First, of course, none of the NT is authoritative for doctrine.
Beyond that, interestingly, both "proclamations" take place in synagogues, which means Jews in Jewish communities in the Tephutzâh, i.e., outside Yehudâh (Judea) – to the Hellenist-Reform and Judean-Orthodox of the Tephutzâh – not "unto the Gentiles" as rendered in Christian versions.
In the first instance, Paul the Apostate is answering some Jewish protagonists of Judea by saying, "It is because those Yehudim [Jews / Judeans] from Yehudah [Jew / Judea] are not receptive that we are turning to the Yehudim [Jews / Judeans] in the Tephutzâh."
This is proved as we find that Paul the Apostate is next found not among gentiles, as NT predicted, but in the synagogue in Iconium [southwestern central Turkey], teaching Yehudim (Acts 14.1)!!!
The next incident is virtually identical. The Greek phrase is the same. From the latter incident, Paul the Apostate goes straight to the president of the synagogue who lived adjoining the synagogue. After that, Paul the Apostate went to Ephesus [on the west coast of Turkey], to the synagogue where he taught Yehudim [Jews / Judeans] ("Acts" 18.19)!!! In neither case did Paul the Apostate discontinue teaching Yehudim [Jews / Judeans] to turn to gentiles as predicted by the NT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, this is not the same as saying Christian Jews are Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jews. They certainly are not. Neither is one a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jew simply because they were brought up in a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish home. Every Orthodox rabbi in good standing in the world confirms that the religious practice of Christian Jews is not Judaism.
Yet, to restore their respected status in the Jewish community they don't need to convert to Judaism, only make teshuvâh – now made far easier with the educational help of the Netzârim, following historical Ribi Yehoshua, instead of the antithetical Christian counterfeit J*esus, as the Mâshiakh.
Until the Christian Jew makes teshuvâh, however, they remain defined as a משמד or משמדת (masc. meshumâd or fem. meshumëdët; apostate, masc./fem.) – deserving compassion, but strays from Torâh from whom the Torâh-observant must maintain Havdâlâh and whom no one should emulate.
Intermarriage complicates teshuvâh. Children of an intermarried couple further complicates teshuvâh. Intermarried couples (only) should contact us individually to help resolve these difficulties in conjunction with an Orthodox rabbi. Teshuvâh of an intermarried couple is especially critical for their children. The Netzârims resolve these difficulties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only with the formal and legitimate recognition by Orthodox rabbis, which accompanied my Orthodox conversion under Orthodox auspices – concealing nothing, was I permitted entry into Israel the people and the Jewish community. It was this formal recognition by the Orthodox Jewish community that marked ha-Sheim dropping the mantle and Shekhinâh upon me as the first Pâqid ha-Netzârim since theh 15th Pâqid (Yehudâh) in 135 C.E. Only when a modern Netzârim was recognized once again by the same Perushim-Orthodox Jewish community in which Ribi Yehoshua and the original Netzârim practiced and taught Torah – in Israel – could that mantle be restored on the earth.
Halâkhâh requires that every Jewish community establish a Beit-Din of Torâh-observant. While three members are optimal and required in normal circumstances, in fledgling communities lacking three, even one Torâh-observant member satisfies Halâkhâh. As the first Netzârim in the Perushim-Orthodox Jewish community, in Israel, of Ribi Yehoshua and the original Netzârim since 135 C.E., and consequently, (with my wife, Karen) the only living Netzârim in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community since 135 C.E., י--ה, by opening all of the doors that had been closed to followers of Ribi Yehoshua, and considered "impossible!!!" for millennia, dropped this mantle on me – the only candidate He permitted.
|
|
Another interpretation fitting this prophesy may be the Dead Sea Scrolls. At first, they were sweet in the mouth – thought by Christians to herald proof that 1st century Judaism had preached the doctrines of Christianity. Later investigation has demonstrated, however, that they have proven exactly the opposite, that the DSS described an ultra-strict Torâh-observant sect of Tzedoqim, not the Christian-like Hellenist and Hellenist Roman-oriented goyim-embracing community they had expected. For Christians (only), the DSS have turned bitter in the stomach.
|
|
|
|
"The view of almost all of the commentators and clearly that of our Sages in the Talmud and numerous Midrâshim" is that 'the fourth beast' of Dâniyeil 7:7, which was 'different from all of its predecessors,' (7:8) refers to Rome" (Dâniyeil, Artscroll Tanach Series, Rabbis Nosson Scherman / Meir Zlotowitz, General Editors, Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, Ltd., 1979, p. 199).
The writer of NT book of Revelation translates this beast as δρακων (drakon; dragon, 12:3; et al.), which traces back, via LXX, to MT תנין (tanin; crocodile, sea-monster, dragon).
Though this is applied to whales by extension, the term refers primarily to reptiles: crocodiles; as well as land and (probably based on fossils that had been found) dinosaur-like sea mammoths. Reptilian in nature, this "dragon" – Hellenist Rome – was prophesied to be different from its mammalian-like predecessor empires. Reptiles are hatched from eggs, not weaned. Weaning implies nurtured and suckled by a mother empire. Hellenist Rome and the resulting Hellenist Roman Catholic Church (along with its offspring, including Protestantism) was a syncretization representing an entirely new "dragon" – not like previous empires that had been suckled by a mother.
|
|
|