The first step is to survey what is known about the Εβιωναιοι by legitimate historians and linguists–as opposed to what is proclaimed by modern charlatan wannabes and biased clerics.
Today, there is a plethora of well-intentioned but poorly informed wannabe "Ebionites" publishing websites that compete with Christian (and a wide assortment of other diverse) websites, all claiming to be authorities on Ebionites. That would be justified if any of them knew what an Ebionite was or adhered to Ebionite doctrines. However, all of them rely exclusively on their own "discovery" and superficial reading of the "Gospel of the Ebionites," which, Harvard Ph.D. and Prof. of Religion at Wesleyan University Ron Cameron elucidates,
"The designation customary today is based on the fact that this was the gospel probably (emphasis added) used by the Ebionites, a group of Greek-speaking [Hellenist] Christians who were prominent throughout the second and third centuries. Epiphanius incorrectly entitles this the 'Hebrew' gospel, and alleges that it is an abridged, truncated version of the [Greek, Hellenized] Gospel of Matthew. Whereas the 'Gospel for the Ebionites' is indeed closely related to [Greek, Hellenized] Matthew, examination of the extant fragments reveals that much of the text is a harmony, composed in Greek, of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (and, probably, the Gospel of Mark as well)."
Thus, the so-called "Gospel of the Ebionites" is not a reliable authority for defining even the Ebionites and, indeed, has no more connection to the Ebionites than to any other early 2nd-3rd century Hellenist Christian spin-off from—and often confused by gentile Christian Fathers with—the original 1st century ðÀöÈøÄéí. Even Smith & Wace acknowledge that early Christian Church Fathers, who wrote the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) and earliest Christian (Hellenist) literature, found everything remotely Judaic so alien that they were unable to distinguish Ebionites from other sects ranging from so-called Judaizers to oxymoronic "Essene Gnostics" (Cameron, p. 25-26).
Unlike websites of self-proclaimed "Ebionites," legitimate scholars don't pretend to know much about the Ebionites, acknowledging that
it isn't possible to know which Hellenist Christian sect is described in works of the Church Fathers (Ηγησιππος, Ωριγενη, Ειρηναιος, Ευσεβιος, etc.), including "The Gospel of the Ebionites" and
the accounts of "Ebionites" handed down to us are confused, often contradictory and authored by Church Fathers—who, literally, didn't know a "Nazarene" from a "Nazarite" (no thematic or cognatic connection whatsoever between these two in Hebrew).
Anything these Church Fathers labeled "Ebionite" could refer to any sect of the 2nd-4th centuries that the Church Fathers considered, from their gentile (Hellenist) Christian standpoint, heretical.
University historians, encyclopedias and dictionaries provide a realistic view of the Εβιωναιοι that is very different from the descriptions of Ebionites pontificated by today's Χριστιανοι seminaries and encyclopedias or websites of wannabe "Ebionites" who claim to "know" what "Ebionites" believed and taught. The following, from websters-online-dictionary.org, is typical of what scholars really know. For better clarity, I've edited their misuse of the following misleading or oxymoronic phrases.
"Jewish Christians" – either to ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí or Hellenists, depending whether the author seems to be referring to the original Jewish followers or one of the later spin-off Hellenists, which usually included gentiles, and
"Jerusalem church" – to ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí
"Following schisms within the early [ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí], the graecized Hebrew term "[àáÀéåÉðÄéí ⇒ Εβιωναιοι]" was applied exclusively to [Hellenists] separated from the developing [increasingly uncircumcised gentile] Χριστιανοι of
Παύλοςthe Apostate Hellenizer, and later in the fourth century [emphasis added] a specific group of [Hellenists] or to a [Hellenist] sect distinct from the [ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí]… Without authenticated archaeological evidence, attempts to reconstruct their history have been based on textual references, mainly the writings of the Church Fathers… Ειρηναιος (ca. 180-190 C.E.) was the first to use the term "Ebionites" to describe a heretical Judaizing sect, which he regarded as stubbornly clinging to the Law. [Επιφανιος of Salamis, Παναριον, 30]. Επιφανιος of Salamis in the 4th century gives the most complete but also questionable [emphasis added] account in his heresiology called Παναριον, denouncing eighty heretical [from Christianity] sects, among them the Ebionites… [(Smith & Wace II, p. 24-28)] The actual number of groups described as Ebionites is difficult to ascertain, as the contradictory patristic accounts in their attempt to distinguish various sects, sometimes confuse them with each other… [Cullmann] As the Ebionites are first mentioned as such in the 2nd century, their earlier history and their relation to the first [ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí] remains obscure and a matter of contention" (retrieved 2011.03.23).
In other words, the Church Fathers didn't know the difference between these sects of Jews other than they were Jews—all of whom were as strange to them as Hebrew-speaking, Israeli Jews are strange to gentiles today—and the Church Fathers considered them non-Christian, heretical sects. The only thing that can be gleaned with any confidence from the writings of the Church Fathers regarding the ðÀöÈøÄéí in contrast to Εβιωναιοι is that the two sects were distinct and different from each other—polarized over the apostasy of Hellenism—and mutually exclusive. In the view of the gentile Roman Christians, all of the Jewish sects, including the ðÀöÈøÄéí, by refusing the Hellenized "light" of the evolving gentile Roman Hellenist doctrines and their "Ιησους" image, were seen by Christians as "Judaizers," degenerating instead (in the view of gentile Roman Christians) into heretics—enemies of their evolving (continually being redacted) image of "Ιησους" (i.e., enemies of God, in their view) and the Church; ergo, sons of Sâ•tânꞋ.
Anything else to be known about the Εβιωναιοι can only be derived by excluding these oxymorons and logical fallacies to rely solely on a priori reasoning that describes the 1st century Jewish community gleaned exclusively from Judaic literature of the period (e.g., 4Q MMT within the chronological constraints of documented developing events.
Examination of the etymology of the name, Ebionite, also lends clarity. Only two "ideas" are floated by the Church Fathers (and, accordingly, historians):
Sloppily confusing the Hebrew term àáÀéåÉðÄéí ⇒ Εβιωναιοι with other Hebrew synonyms for "poor," as all scholars are guilty—as if the original language was English and no one would notice that the terms were different in Hebrew, or
"Fabricating" (as per Wace, p. 24) a guy named "Ebion," as Ωριγενη did, and all legitimate scholars rightly reject.
That leaves honest scholars with "no clue." They haven't looked in the right place. The answer is in a close look at Στεφανος.
 |
 Karen outside ancient "Sheep Gate" (Modern "Lion's Gate"), on East Side of Har ha- |
The only early source of information on the life and death of Στεφανος is in the Christian-redacted Πραχεις Αποστολων (6.1–8.2).
Eulogies, claimed endorsement of the oxymoronic early Christians and similar hyperbole are typical of post-135 C.E. Χριστιανος redactions of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)—including Πραχεις Αποστολων. Filtering the 2nd-4th century misojudaic gentile Roman Hellenist noise from the account helps us to understand the events surrounding the stoning of Στεφανος and his relationship both to Hellenist Jews in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí and the ðÀöÈøÄéí.
"St. Στεφανος' Gate," is unheard of until the Crusaders changed the name of the Gate in 1100 C.E.
RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa could have chosen to be a Hellenist, in which case (as few have apparently contemplated) he would have cited Φιλων, taught Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ theology as either a wealthy "Wicked Priest" or aristocrat, advocated (in lock-step with his fellow Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ) for the continued "benevolent" Hellenist Roman rule under "Caesar-god" and railed against the "slippery casuistry" of the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (rather than only against their hypocrisy in not adhering to their own—correct—ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí äÂìÈëÈä). While, at first glance, it may appear to the superficially informed that he did rail against the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, deeper analysis exposes this to be a cover-up by 2nd-4th century misojudaic Hellenist Christian redactions that suspiciously replaced their fellow Hellenists (who were either gentile Roman Hellenists or Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ and their aristocratic Roman-collaborating supporters) to redirect, by redactions, the attacks by RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa away from their own Christian Hellenism to "Pharisees" (Hellenist Herodians, in fact)—"Ιουδαιοι"—instead!!!
Contradicting all of these, however, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa never cited Φιλων, was neither a priest nor a wealthy Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ aristocrat, he polemicized against Tzᵊdoq•iꞋ theology and their wealth, and was, instead, a RibꞋi—and only the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí had RibꞋis or rabbis—and ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí were unalterably opposed to assimilation into Hellenism, opposed Roman occupation (though shrewdly and carefully) and could never reconcile to the idolatry of recognizing Caesar—or any other man—as a god.
While RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa advocated for Beit Hi•leilꞋ (the more tolerant of the two schools of ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí), nevertheless, all ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí were unalterably opposed to assimilation in the apostasy of Hellenism (refusing even to reach out to the Shom•ron•imꞋ), the Hellenist Roman occupation of the Holy Land and the idolatry of acknowledging Caesar as a god.
His original Jewish followers, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, perpetuated (and continue to perpetuate) his example. Thus, RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ were (and remain) unalterably opposed to Hellenist assimilation and viscerally antipathetic to their collaboration with the goy•imꞋ Hellenist Roman occupiers and Hellenism's offspring: Christianity.
Thus, there was (and remains) an irreconcilable chasm, contradiction, distinction and Tor•âhꞋ-commanded havdâl•âhꞋ between the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (which included RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and his original Jewish Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ followers) in contrast against the Hellenist min•imꞋ with their informers.
This is the background to the Christian-redacted account in Πραχεις Αποστολων 6.1-7, in which Στεφανος, in a typically Hellenist ecumenic, requested of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" that the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí set aside the Στεφανος clearly didn't view ecumenism / syncretism that way) in order to support some widows of his Hellenist min who were needy (Hebrew "àáÀéåÉðÄéí"). His idea, along with this term, likely derived from the principle of distributing gifts to the àáÀéåÉðÄéí in celebration of Pur•imꞋ, derived from Ës•teirꞋ 9.22.
Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" didn't challenge whether these Hellenist widows were àÆáéåÉðéí. Indeed, the account provides no indication, or reason to believe, that Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" at all questioned Στεφανος' report that these Hellenist widows (pl.) were àÆáéåÉðéí—the term later transliterated into Greek as Εβιωναιοι and, apparently, stuck with Στεφανος and his Hellenist min.
However, the brusqueness of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ"'s reply, if taken literally, is so odd it beggars credulity: "That is no reason that we should leave the λογος του θεου, and [i.e., in order to] διακονειν τραπεζαις" (Πραχεις Αποστολων 6.2). Nothing in this Christian-redacted, Hellenist text even remotely alludes that Στεφανος made any suggestion whatsoever that they leave the äÂìÈëÈä ("λογος" in Πραχεις Αποστολων) of Στεφανος' Hellenist min as not their own widows—unambiguously a min distinct, separate and different from the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ!!!
Why, then, did the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Shᵊlikh•imꞋ view the request as constructively leaving the äÂìÈëÈä of
That the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí would not leave the ùÑËìÀçÈï of
According to the Christian-redacted Πραχεις Αποστολων, Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" and the Beit Din authorized Στεφανος, along with 6 other Hellenists, to διακονειν to the Εβιωναιοι widows of the Hellenist τραπεζα. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the ðÀöÈøÄéí ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí declined to leave the ùÑËìÀçÈï of
However, Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ"'s recommendation that Στεφανος be the head-waiter διακονος, coming from a ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé to a Hellenist, is a highly unlikely, and suspicious, scenario strongly suggesting that this is yet another, long after-the-fact (2nd-4th century), Christian-redacted fabrication (click on "Fabrication of Popes" in menu above). In any case, a "head waiter" exclusively to the widows of Hellenists is nothing remotely like a ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí religious leader. Moreover, even if it were true, which is doubtful, this would have applied only to the τραπεζα of the widows of Hellenists, who lived in the "1st century Reformed" (or outright goy•imꞋ Roman) community; and, like Reformed Jews today, such widows were frequently shi•qᵊtz•ot′ —from whom the ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí would have, as a îÄöÀåÈä, maintained äÇáÀãÌÈìÈä (making the account in Πραχεις Αποστολων even more doubtful). This assessment is corroborated by subsequent events a decade later: the (by then) widespread suspicion that Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer was attempting to introduce the same kind of uncircumcised Hellenist gentiles into the Hellenized "Temple" (Πραχεις Αποστολων 16.27-28). It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Στεφανος'—and his following—were the precedent uncircumcised gentile Hellenists, unworthy geir•imꞋ who subsequently reverted to their native Hellenism—and, accordingly, were rejected by the ðÀöÈøÄéí—rather than continuing to learn and keep úÌåÉøÈä and progressing to conversion.
 |
 Take-over by Hellenist Romans: like growing a human organ on a scaffolding – redacting into existence an artificial Jewish Anointed ("Christ") image onto their native Hellenist scaffolding of |
That the opposition Στεφανος encountered issued from the "Reformed synagogues" of the Λιβερτινων and "of the [Hellenist Diaspora Jews of] Eastern Libya, and of Alexandria, Egypt, and of the [Hellenist Diaspora Jews of western Turkey in] Cilicia and Asia" shows that even the audience to whom he preached, Diaspora Hellenists, considered him too assimilated. This also constrains the dispute to an internal Hellenist conflict: between the Hellenist τραπεζα of Στεφανος (which, we will find, was anti-Roman) versus the pro-Roman Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι min; both of which were mutually exclusive from the ðÀöÈøÄéí and other ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí.
However, we find (Πραχεις Αποστολων 6.8-10) that Στεφανος is then described not merely as the head-waiter for the τραπεζα of Hellenist widows that the ðÀöÈøÄéí had authorized him to be, but rather one who had become a spokesperson for Hellenizing and assimilating from úÌåÉøÈä and the ðÀöÈøÄéí, as a distinct, intensely-Hellenized, yet anti-Καισαρας min, brought before the Συνεδριον (6.12). This describes the leader of a Hellenized apostate min, differentiated from the ðÀöÈøÄéí, whose leader and spokesman remained ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã.
Doctrine aside (as the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) is no Judaic authority for doctrine), when Στεφανος is condemned and stoned, Πραχεις Αποστολων 8.1 may here offer historical insight: "Then there was a great persecution επι την εκκλησιαν in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí and everyone [of the Hellenist] εκκλησια was scattered… except the ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí"—i.e., except for the ðÀöÈøÄéí, who were in a áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú, not an εκκλησια!!!
All of the "εκκλησια" was scattered, but the "εκκλησια" excluded (excepted) the ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí [who were ðÀöÈøÄéí]! This should be obvious: ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (which included ðÀöÈøÄéí) didn't flee from ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí in éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì to the safety (?!?) of Hellenist Romans in a Roman city—only fanatically misojudaic Hellenist Jews fleeing both Σαδδουκαιοι and ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí did that! Στεφανος' Hellenist τραπεζα is here distinguished from the ðÀöÈøÄéí; Στεφανος' Hellenist τραπεζα is persecuted while the ðÀöÈøÄéí are not!!! Στεφανος' Hellenist τραπεζα is a new min; most probably the Εβιωναιοι.
 |
Scattered? This is the first of two flights of the Εβιωναιοι, not ðÀöÈøÄéí, to Πελλα, one probably historical but the second fabricated and without any corroborative evidence, in the Παναριον by Επιφανιος (see 3820 (60 C.E.))!
Further, it is with the stoning of Στεφανος, the leader (or should I say head-waiter or deacon) of this new min (the Εβιωναιοι), that we are first introduced to Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, one of Στεφανος' persecutors and a legal witness to his execution for excessive Hellenizing (even beyond what was accepted by the Σαδδουκαιοι). Thus, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's future group is likely to become different and distinct from Στεφανος' min (viz., trying to avoid Στεφανος' fatal error) and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's group is chronologically later. It is Στεφανος' min, the Εβιωναιοι, who constitute the first flight to Πελλα, whereas Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Χριστιανοι don't appear on the scene for several more years.
While all elements of the 1st century Jewish community interfaced and worked together at different levels, the Hellenist τραπεζα identified with Στεφανος was always distinct and mutually exclusive from the ðÀöÈøÄéí, even before the time of ùÑÈàåÌì. When the ðÀöÈøÄéí excised ùÑÈàåÌì, Στεφανος' Hellenist τραπεζα had evidently split again, probably most following Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, becoming Χριστιανοι, while some remained Εβιωναιοι.
 |
| Roman & Parthian (Persian) Empires in the 1st century |
Thus, éÀäåÌãÈä and its Procurator, Ποντιος Πιλατος, came under the jurisdiction of Governor Lucius Vitellius. "Vitellius was a man of great ability and supreme statesmanship. Later, his diplomacy effected a truce between Parthia and Rome" (Zeitlin, p. 143)
This forms the background of our introduction to ùÑÈàåÌì, the Hellenist Jew from the Diaspora (in Turkey), which finds him acting as a legal witness to the stoning of Στεφανος (Πραχεις Αποστολων 7.58).
Only a year or two later, ùÑÈàåÌì has his "epiphany," some ambiguous Delphic "sign" along the road or in the clouds (like Constantine would echo in 333 C.E.), in which the enormity of what Στεφανος had died trying to accomplish struck him: syncretizing a Hellenist-hybrid image that interpreted úÌåÉøÈä in a way that would be embraceable by both Hellenist Jews and the whole civilized world (i.e., the Hellenist Roman Empire).
Whereas Romans were forced to worship Καισαρας, Στεφανος and his Εβιωναιοι had attempted to convince the world that (Hellenized to the point of being unencumbered by even the most basic strictures of úÌåÉøÈä, like circumcision) the Jewish îÈùÑÄéçÇ reigned at the Right Hand of
It seems likely that ùÑÈàåÌì had engaged in debates with the Εβιωναιοι or at least had become familiar with their thinking. However, ùÑÈàåÌì thought through the contradictions with far more sophistication. To please (and survive) the Roman gentiles and Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι required somehow avoiding any threat to either Καισαρας' rule or his claim to divinity. Accordingly, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Messianic theology entirely spiritualized the îÈùÑÄéçÇ; surgically, yet conspicuously, divorcing the Messianic Realm and Era from both the physical domain (no longer presenting any apparent threat Καισαρας's reign in this world) and their present time (allowing Καισαρας to continue, during his lifetime, imagining that he was god). Thus, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer hybridized his interpretations of Judaism with Hellenism. By assimilating Hellenist interpretations, he transferred Messianic Rule into the heavens, interpreted úÌåÉøÈä strictures as optional in the earthly realm of Καισαρας and deferred the Messianic Era into the future—neatly navigating around both Καισαρας' earthly rule and his (current and temporal) claim to divinity.
Contrast this deferred-future theology of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, a Messianic Era to be brought about in some future generation, and in some undefined, assimilated Hellenist way, with the pre-Christian, wildly successful evangelistic, "now" theology of the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (including ðÀöÈøÄéí) epitomized by the famous quotation of RibꞋi Hi•leilꞋ: "If not me [accomplishing something], then who? If not now, when?"
The ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (including ðÀöÈøÄéí) rejected Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's apostasy and excised him as an apostate (documented by the earliest extant Church historian, Ευσεβιος). The apostasy of Στεφανος and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer that would become Christianity was never, at any point, part of, or offspring from, the ðÀöÈøÄéí!!! (There is no evidence, beyond misojudaic Christian "tradition," how, where or why Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer died—or that he was killed (by Hellenist Romans or anyone else) because of any aspect of his Christian theology.)
Nullifying the threat to Καισαρας and Hellenist gentile Romans simultaneously eliminated opposition by the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι. The only remaining conundrum left to resolve then was between Hellenism and äÂìÈëÈä of the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (and ðÀöÈøÄéí). Despite his best, Herculean, effort, which persuaded the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι (particularly after the destruction of the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ left them with nothing else) and began attracting hoards of Hellenist gentile Romans, he never succeeded in reconciling äÂìÈëÈä with, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, Hellenism. Consequently, the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (which included the ðÀöÈøÄéí) rejected, and continue to reject, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's theology: the blueprint for, and conception of, Χριστιανοι.
 |
 Tarsus, Eastern Mediterranean Coast of southern Turkey, opposite Cyprus. |
Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer was a Hellenist (Greek-speaking)—"Reformed"—Jew of Tarsus in Turkey. As a citizen of Tarsus, he was also officially a citizen of Ρωμη. Raised in Hellenist (Greek) culture and fluent in Greek, it was natural that he would take the side of the Hellenists in a religious dispute. Though claiming to be a ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, his theology unmistakably places him within the Hellenist sphere of Ηρωδιανων "Boethusian Pharisees" described in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) (and Tal•mudꞋ) as adversaries of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ. This apostate Hellenist—"Reformed" branch of "Pharisees" was called "Ηρωδιανων" because of their patronage under the Hellenist Ë•domꞋite King Ηρωδης and his affinity for his fellow-citizen, Hellenist Romans—the foreign occupiers of éÀäåÌãÈä who appointed and controlled the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι "Wicked Priests" who, in turn, controlled the Hellenized "Temple" for their Roman puppet-masters!!!
Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's natural orientation towards the Hellenist world led to his most significant apostasies from true ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí Judaism (úÌåÉøÈä). The religion Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer left the world may have been a substantially different religion than what he started with before his excision—which was Hellenist "Reformed" apostasy to begin with. The most salient aspect of the theology and ethics of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer is his emphasis on his new innovation as a universal, ecumenical—Hellenist, gentile Roman—religion. øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ and all of the ðÀöÈøÄéí followed the authority of the áÌÅéú ãÄéï under ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã, which were úÌåÉøÈä-teachings consistent with the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí Judaism described in 4Q MMT. Thus, we read øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ teaching: "Don’t go off into the way 3.3.3 of the goy•imꞋ, 6.32.1 don’t even go into the ir 2.23.0 of the ùÑåÉîÀøåÉï. 10.5.1 Rather, go to the sheep who have been led astray 10.6.0 from the House of Israel" (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English)
) 10.5). In other words, the Jew is not to assimilate toward the goyim. Rather, it is the goyim who must be drawn to, come to, and assimilate toward the Jew and keep úÌåÉøÈä. Contrast this against Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, who, in the context of the debate between the ðÀöÈøÄéí and Ελλην, tirelessly and creatively made "missionary journeys" where he preached to goyim audiences and recast Χριστιανοι as a universal, ecumenical Hellenist religion for the âÌåÉéÄí.
Though the seed of Hellenized Messianism traces back to Στεφανος, realizing the apostasy—from non-selective halakhic úÌåÉøÈä-teaching of historical øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ and the original ðÀöÈøÄéí under the áÌÅéú ãÄéï, chaired by ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã, to Hellenized / Romanized / Christianized Messianism—began in 62 C.E.—with a man whom the ðÀöÈøÄéí in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí called úÌåÉòÅáÈä, who "because he had not been made ôÌÈ÷Äéã, beg[an] its corruption by the seven heresies" (Eccl. Hist., iv, xxii, 4).
It is inconceivable that the ðÀöÈøÄéí didn't issue warnings identifying this man of seven great úÌåÉòÅáåÉú, whom the ðÀöÈøÄéí had eschewed as ôÌÈ÷Äéã, choosing ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó instead. To reasonably aspire to be ôÌÈ÷Äéã of the ðÀöÈøÄéí, however, he had to be well-known throughout the congregation. Yet, astonishingly, Χριστιανος historians preserve nothing further about this man except that the ðÀöÈøÄéí refused to make him ôÌÈ÷Äéã in 62 C.E., and that he was responsible for introducing apostasy into the congregation in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí. The only explanation why this great "beast" and "dragon" of prophecy isn't identified is that
it wasn't necessary at the time because everyone in the congregation and throughout the Jewish world knew exactly who this úÌåÉòÅáÈä was,
Χριστιανος historians (the only historians whose records were permitted to survive) buried (redacted out) the identification that exposed the falseness of Χριστιανοι claims and
misojudaic Christians trying to identify 666 are looking for the wrong attributes (Jewish), when they should be looking for Hellenist = Ρωμη = Χριστιανος attributes
—which makes the solution so conspicuous.
A moment's reflection will make it obvious that, subsequent to the Roman crucifixion of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ on conviction of being "anti-Καισαρας" (King of the Jews), fear of further retribution from the Roman occupiers, and fear of Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι informers collaborating with the Roman occupiers who appointed them and kept them in power, certainly forced ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã and the ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí underground; placing them under a cloud of suspicion of being a continuing threat to Roman—and Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι—rule.
While this persecution was clearly against ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí by Hellenist Roman occupiers and Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι, by the 4th century, through their redactions, Χριστιανοι morphed the ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí into "early Χριστιανοι." Now, by emphasizing that the Σαδδουκαιοι were Jews, Church fathers were able to spin the persecution on its head: the persecution became (Σαδδουκαιοι, muddled with all other Jews as simply "the Jews") and, presto: "the Jews" persecuted the "early Χριστιανοι"!!!
The only ones free to expand under this anti-ðÀöÈøÄéí / anti-ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí persecution by the Hellenist Roman occupiers and their Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι collaborators were the Hellenist, increasingly gentile and Roman Χριστιανοι followers of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer!!! (Even the Εβιωναιοι, because they were anti-Καισαρας, had been forced to flee to Πελλα.)
Thus, while ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí were forced to remain "under the radar" of the persecution by the Roman occupiers and their Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι collaborator "Wicked Priests," Χριστιανοι were able to flourish throughout the Hellenist Roman Empire until (with only a brief and moderate opposition by Decius in the late 3rd century) the reign of Diocletian in the 4th century. (Like the persecution of the ðÀöÈøÄéí in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, the so-called persecution of Χριστιανοι in Ρωμη by Nero in 64 C.E. was, in fact, a persecution of ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí, not Χριστιανοι (see Nero's persecution, next page).
Concerned by the threat of the Parthians, Vitellius moved to avert turmoil in éÀäåÌãÈä; "He released [éÀäåÌãÄéí] from the tributes on agricultural sales and permitted the high-priestly vestments to rest in the custody of the high priest. This did not mean that Rome had relinquished authority over the high priesthood" (Zeitlin, p. 144).
The accession of the young and well-educated Gaius Caligula in the year 37 C.E. was received with gladness throughout the empire… As the second year of his rule [3799 (ca. 39 C.E.] ended, however, it was more and more certain that Gaius Caligula would become one of the cruelest caesars—not only towards the people but also to his friends and relatives—and one of the most self-centered, to the point of declaring himself a god, the counterpart of Zeus, and demanding worship from everyone" (Prof. Solomon Zeitlin) (p. 176-77).
There is no longer any "wiggle" room to wonder about the precedent and basis for the gentile Romans' development of Christian worship of a man-god modeled on Zeus. This was the model beloved by the Hellenist Roman gentiles, who weren't permitted to worship their idols in éÀäåÌãÈä and, consequently, bore great enmity against the éÀäåÌãÄéí (Zeitlin, p. 179).
This became acute in éÇáÀðÆä. "Although many of éÇáÀðÆä's inhabitants were [éÀäåÌãÄéí], it had attracted many [Hellenist gentile (Arab)] settlers. As usual, there was no amity between these groups. The [Hellenist gentile (Arab)] worshiped idols, which they could not do in [éÇáÀðÆä] since it was regarded as part of [éÀäåÌãÈä] and hence such worship would not be tolerated by the [éÀäåÌãÄéí]. When the [Hellenist gentile (Arabs)] of [éÇáÀðÆä] learned that Gaius [Caligula] considered himself a god, they [saw an opportunity to force the éÀäåÌãÄéí to antagonize the Romans and] erected an altar to the emperor to avenge themselves upon the [éÀäåÌãÄéí], and the [éÀäåÌãÄéí] promptly destroyed it. Gaius [Caligula] became greatly enraged at this sacrilegious act. He decided to destroy the [éÀäåÌãÄéí] "superstition" and, if necessary, wipe out the entire people. He ordered Petronius, the legate of Syria, to erect an enormous statute of himself in the guise of Zeus, and place it in the Holy of Holies in the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, using force to crush any resistance." (Zeitlin, p. 179).
"In the spring of 40 [C.E.], Petronius marched with his army to Tiberius," stopping off there presumably to delay his arrival (and, thus, the execution of the order) in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí as long as possible on the pretext of seeking some military advice or assistance from King Agrippa—whom, he knew, was absent from Tiberius and was, instead, in Rome at the time. He would have been keenly aware that such avoidance of an imperial order, particularly from Gaius Caligula, would cost him his life—unless he had communicated to friendly members of the Senate in Rome, whom he could trust, the certain and imminent threat of a revolt if such action were carried out… with the high probability that the Parthians would then attack the empire from the East. (Indeed, Gaius Caligula, upon learning of his delaying tactic, issued the order for Petronius to commit suicide.) To the great relief of Petronius, "Gaius Caligula was assassinated by a group of republican conspirators… on the 24th of January, 41 C.E. It is beyond credulity that these events are unconnected. Only thus were the éÀäåÌãÄéí saved from the bloodshed which threatened." (Zeitlin, p. 185).
"Agrippa released the people from the tax on their houses. This not only indicates his desire to gain the people's good will, but shows that the country was in such good economic conditon that he could afford this gesture. He also defrayed the cost of the sacrifices offered by the Nazarites. He removed the High Priest Theophilus son of Ananus, and appointed in his stead Simon son of the Boethus, whose daughter Mariamme had been married to Ηρωδης." (Zeitlin, p. 195)
Because of his friendship with Tiberius Claudius Καισαρας, King Agrippa was able to further endear himself to the éÀäåÌãÄéí by prevailing upon his friend, Tiberius Claudius Καισαρας, to extend Imperial protection of Judaic practice throughout the Roman Empire "to perform their religious observances without disturbance… [p. 196] The edict of the Caesars always ameliorated the situation of the éÀäåÌãÄéí for a while, but could not eradicate the basic religious cause of the hostility" (Zeitlin, p. 197); i.e., misojudaism.
In 44 C.E., while attending the heathen games in [Καισαρεια], King Agrippa died—amidst swirling suspicions he had been poisoned. What Prof. Zeitlin attributes to a "brother Jew" (?!?) who "scrupulously followed the [úÌåÉøÈä]" is simply indefensible when applied to an Εd•om•iꞋ Roman king who "joined in [Roman] self-indulgences" (p. 186), which were routinely idolatrous, and appeased the Romans by presenting (Roman) theater shows, staging gladiatorial combats, and commissioning statues of his daughters (p. 199). Such things intractably contradict "scrupulously follow[ing] the [úÌåÉøÈä]"! Indeed, "Ιωσηπος relates that a certain Simon, a sage, assembled a gathering of éÀäåÌãÄéí once when King Agrippa was in [Καισαρεια], accused him of sinfulness [for, among the other things listed, attending the Hellenist Roman theater] and said he had no right to enter the Hellenized "Temple". The King summoned Simon to [Καισαρεια] and, while sitting near Simon in the theater, asked him what he had done contrary to the law" (Zeitlin, p. 199). However, since Simon was sitting in the theater himself, the hypocrisy was painfully self-evident that Simon was no less guilty of submitting to Roman dictates than King Agrippa.
What Prof. Zeitlin attributes to a úÌåÉøÈä-keeping Jewish brother (non-Davidic) king instead only proves that Agrippa's skill in political prowess, diplomacy and PR [a] echoed that of his grandfather, Ηρωδης the Great, and [b] even excelled that of his grandfather.
"The [Hellenist Arabs] who inhabited [Σεβαστη] and [Καισαρεια] were hostile to [King Agrippa] out of their long-felt hatred towards the éÀäåÌãÄéí. As long as Agrippa lived, they flattered him. When they learned that he was dead, they openly showed their enmity. The soldiers [of the Σεβαστη and Καισαρεια] carried the statues of Agrippa's daughters to the brothels" (Zeitlin, p. 203).
"The year 44 must be seen as the beginning of the fall of [éÀäåÌãÈä] as a State. (Zeitlin, p. 205)
The Chronology of the Tanakh, from the "Big ðÈèÈä" Live-LinkT shows that Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Hellenizing teaching alienated the ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú ãÄéï in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí from his very first "missionary [Hellenizing] journey."
Then, ca. 46 C.E., Βαρναβας and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer… took Ιωαννης Μαρκος… and embarked for Cyprus… reaching Paphos, the residence of the proconsul Sergius Paulus (Πραχεις Αποστολων 13:7), where a sudden change takes place. After the conversion of the Roman proconsul,
ùÑÈàåÌì suddenly became Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer,
is thereafter invariably mentioned before Βαρναβας by Λουκας (reversing his earlier order) and
manifestly assumes the leadership of the mission that Βαρναβας had hitherto directed.
The results of this change are soon evident. It was then that Ιωαννης Μαρκος, cousin of Βαρναβας, dismayed perhaps by the daring claims of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer and Βαρναβας to be αποστολοι rivaling the original 12 ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí, abandoned the expedition and returned to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí. (The text hereafter refers to them as αποστολοι while, until this point, this term had referred exclusively to the original 12 ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí under ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã and the ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí. Thus, this self-elevation as peers rivaling the original 12 (including ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã) exactly pinpoints the conception of fetal-Χριστιανοι—gestating toward giving birth in 135 C.E.
 |
 |
The entire history of ëÌÄôÌåÌø, defined by úÌåÉøÈä exclusively within the áÌÀøÄéú of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, made this newly-born εκκλησια of gentile Roman Χριστιανοι dependent upon their gentile Roman επισκοπος' ability to represent to their Χριστιανος followers the false security that gentile Romans had displaced éÀäåÌãÄéí as the òÇí of àÁìÉäÄéí and of the áÌÀøÄéú.
Spurious claims by âÌåÉéÄí to extra-úÌåÉøÈä "salvation" rested, and continue to rest, solely upon this displacement of éÀäåÌãÄéí by âÌåÉéÄí. Only in this way do âÌåÉéÄí pretend to any claim of obtaining "salvation"—by Displacement Theology's claimed transferral from úÌåÉøÈä-keeping éÀäåÌãÄéí to anti-úÌåÉøÈä (antinomian) âÌåÉéÄí, via a Hellenized man-god (Jesus) that contradicts úÌåÉøÈä.
For further information, see Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-LinkT (ABNC), which demonstrates that
The implications are both enormous and shocking. Keeping úÌåÉøÈä, non-selectively and according to äÂìÈëÈä, to the best of one's ability is a prerequisite to 'salvation' (correctly ëÌÄôÌåÌø). Identifying the îÈùÑÄéçÇ is nowhere stipulated as a precondition to ëÌÄôÌåÌø. (Once identified, however, úÌåÉøÈä does require following him within the constraints of úÌåÉøÈä).
The urgency of following øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ as the îÈùÑÄéçÇ lies in facilitating the transition for Χριστιανοι (both gentiles and apostate "Jews"), who already recognize the îÈùÑÄéçÇ but have been confused and deceived by Χριστιανοι, to now begin to follow the historical ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé úÌåÉøÈä-teacher in non-selective úÌåÉøÈä-keeping according to äÂìÈëÈä, not in a Hellenist idol falsely claiming to 'save' Orthodox éÀäåÌãÄéí—the only ones who already have ëÌÄôÌåÌø!
As will be seen, syncretizing a few ðÀöÈøÄéí ideas into their own Greco-Roman pantheism (e.g., Gods mating with a human woman to produce demigods), the pagan Zeus / Jupiter idol worshipers and sun-worshipers of "Aelia Capitolina" became, under Μαρκος, the first Χριστιανοι—(ðÉöÀøÄéí, not ðÀöÈøÄéí!). This was the birth of the Χριστιανος εκκλησια—in 135 CE. (Documentation and details in my ground-breaking introductory book Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN).)
A close examination of the account of the appointment of ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó "seems to reveal the fact that it was introduced by a notice of the departure of Χριστιανοι" from éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to Πελλα (H.J. Lawlor, 'Eusebiana, Essays on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus', ca 120-180 C.E., p. 32).
This flight occurred during, or immediately following, the tenure of ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã—and, therefore, no later than 62-63 C.E.—chronologically implying that this was the result of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's excision, and could not possibly be the consequence of the destruction of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí 10 years in the future (70 C.E.), as popularly "spun"!!!
However, Ηγησιππος' objective was to "explain how the total destruction of the εκκλησια was avoided; and that is fully done in the Πελλα story" (loc. cit.).
It thus becomes starkly clear that this original Χριστιανοι group of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer comprised a blatant mutiny, led by Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer and his Hellenist gentile Roman followers, against the ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí, who were led by ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã. The only accounts permitted to remain extant are those that survived the Ρωμη destruction of Judaic documents (úÌåÉøÈä scrolls, genealogies of the Royal Family of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã and the like). Later, even what may have survived of these were redacted by the Χριστιανοι εκκλησια to corroborate Χριστιανοι views ("corrections") of the Ρωμη εκκλησια. It cannot, therefore, be surprising that all extant accounts corroborate the view of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Χριστιανοι mutineers—the lie is evident only from contradictions in their fabrications. By contrast, the ðÀöÈøÄéí account—"Hebrew îÇúÄÌúÀéÈäåÌ" (aka "Q")—is well documented as having been either destroyed by the gentile Hellenist Romans or redacted later by the gentile Hellenist Roman Χριστιανος εκκλησια to bring it in line with their Χριστιανος view. ðÀöÈøÄéí were now displaced—in Χριστιανος texts—by "early Χριστιανος." By the 4th century, "early Χριστιανος" were thought to be synonymous with the ðÀöÈøÄéí.
The only reasonable implication from all of this is: in rebellion against the rightful ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã, the followers of the "666" úÌåÉòÅáÈä having been expelled and excised from the ðÀöÈøÄéí, left éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to "regroup" in Πελλα.
In separating from the ðÀöÈøÄéí, these followers of the apostasy of the "666" úÌåÉòÅáÈä (Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer) thereby became the first fetal-Χριστιανοι.
Centuries after the fact, attempting to explain and corroborate accounts that unambiguously placed Χριστιανοι in Πελλα while ðÀöÈøÄéí were still in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí required Ηγησιππος and, therefore, Ευσεβιος to manufacture—with no historical evidence or corroboration whatsoever (other than ðÀöÈøÄéí and Hellenist Χριστιανοι being in different places during a given period)—three classes of migration to Πελλα toward the end of the tenure of ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã, the first ôÌÈ÷Äéã ðÀöÈøÄéí:
Flight to Πελλα, phase:
By the 4th century, Church Fathers asserted, with no evidence (other than their need to "construct" an explanation how the original Church was formed in Πελλα, and not éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí), that the Αποστολοι supposedly fled to Πελλα first, after the death of ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷", under ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷"—who is then simply assumed to be in Πελλα and, therefore, the "assumed Simeon" (if he wasn't completely fabricated) is also assumed to be the same ùÑÄîÀòåÉï who was the leader of the "Apostoloi." Wace flatly states that "the Church was formed at Πελλα under Symeon" ("Ebionism and Ebionites," p. 25). Yet, "whether the appointment of Simeon immediately succeeded, or was not made till the retirement of the Christian Jews [sic] to Πελλα cannot be determined" ("Symeon," Wace IV, p. 678). Moreover, "Of [Simeon's] episcopate [sic]," which is claimed to span 44 years, we know absolutely nothing." (Wace, loc. cit., emphasis added). Yet, some scholars refuse to entertain the idea that there could be a different "Simeon" in Πελλα—if a leader named Simeon even existed in Πελλα—despite evidence that the ðÀöÈøÄéí (and ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷") never went to Πελλα at all. (The ðÀöÈøÄéí were in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí before the hypothesized flight to Πελλα, after the the hypothesized flight to Πελλα and no evidence of any interruption or that they had ever left éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí—contrary to the record of the Εβιωναιοι who had been stoned and persecuted by the entire Jewish community in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí for their anti-Καισαρας Hellenism.) How Christians can reason, on the one hand, that the Lost Tomb cannot be that of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ based on the pure conjecture, contravening all of the hard evidence, that there were countless Jewish families in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, in the year 30 C.E., having nearly all of the family names of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ and no names outside of his family, yet, on the other hand, over a period of 44 years they insist there could only be one "Simeon" between éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí and Πελλα?!? These are clear cases of Christians (and some Jews) incorrigibly determined to peer solely through Christian filters (beliefs, traditions); not historical scholarship, archeology, logic or science!
By the 4th century, Church Fathers asserted, with no evidence (other than their need to "construct" an explanation how the original Church was formed in Πελλα, and not éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí), that the μαθηται then, supposedly, followed later, and
Finally, by the 4th century, Church Fathers asserted, with no evidence (other than their need to "construct" an explanation how the original Church was formed in Πελλα, and not éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí), that the kindred (i.e., the literal physical Royal Family branch of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã); i.e., by their displacement methodology, they redacted in the fabricated-image family of their demigod"Χριστος." (The hypothesized flight of the Royal Family of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã was forced to be last since the Church Fathers would have been contradicted by them—until the Hellenists had completed their eradication and destruction of the yu•khas•inꞋ.)
In this scenario, Ηγησιππος or Ευσεβιος fabricated a 3-stage migration to account for the three displacement elements they needed to fabricate a congregating of their Χριστιανοι εκκλησια that could then claim to return to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí as a complete Χριστιανοι εκκλησια. When these Hellenist Χριστιανοι returned to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, Poof, the Χριστιανοι εκκλησια "returned" to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí!
Similarly, "Επιφανιος has three short narratives of the flight. The first two occur in successive chapters of the Παναριον, in the first of which [out of thin air] he treats of the origin of the 'Nazoraeans,' and in the second, in similar fashion, of that of the Εβιωναιοι (Haer. 29:7; 30:2)…"
It's unclear whether 'Nazoraean' is a corruption of the Hebrew ðÀöÈøÄéí or ðÉöÀøÄéí.
Inducing from one or the other terms, these gentile Roman εκκλησια historians, almost totally ignorant of Judaism and Hebrew, so completely confused entirely unrelated Hebrew terms that some confused it with ðÈæÄéø— thereby mis-attributing Nazirite traits to ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã. The Hellenist Χριστιανοι' confusion became so fanciful as to claim, citing the mis-attribution as evidence, that this áÌÆï-ãÌÈåÄã was a äÇëÌÉäÅï äÇâÌÈãåÉì— despite úÌåÉøÈä definitions and complete genealogical registries of the succession of ëÌÉäÂðÄéí, each of which genealogically excludes áÌÆï-ãÌÈåÄã! Thus, 'Nazoraeans' (a syncretism of "Nazarethans" and "Nazirites"?) represent one of the early Χριστιανος groups fabricating yet another Displacement Theology based upon a fanciful, but non-existent, oxymoron: 'Nazirite high priesthood.'
In the 4th century, Ευσεβιος claims to quote Ηγησιππος as making the same sharp distinction between what he understands as ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí and úÌÇìîÄéãÄéí.
"The second of the three classes of electors [namely, he interprets, Αποστολοι—of επισκοπος Συμεωνα son of Κλωπα] was distinguished from the general body [namely, he interprets, the μαθηται] of the faithful."
What all gentile Roman Χριστιανος Catholic historians—Ηγησιππος, Ευσεβιος, and Επιφανιος, et al.—agree on, however, is that they all viewed 'the general body of the faithful' as not the original éÀäåÌãÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí followers of historical øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ who were under ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó, but rather, their own, subsequent, gentile Roman Χριστιανοι—the 'Nazoraeans,' and (at least originally) ðÀöÈøÄéí, originated the name for these Hellenists who became apostate under Στεφανος, Εβιωναιοι of the apostasy who followed the úÌåÉòÅáÈä, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer (and perhaps other heretics) to Πελλα—misconstrued, via redactions, to be 'the general body of the faithful'!!!
The 'Nazoraeans' and (at least originally) Εβιωναιοι in Πελλα are clearly distinguished from the ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí and kindred of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ—the ðÀöÈøÄéí who appointed ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó. It is these original éÀäåÌãÄéí ðÀöÈøÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí who continued unchanged under the entire 13 successor Jewish ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí until the ðÀöÈøÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí were displaced by the first 'Roman gentile επισκοπος' (Μαρκος) in 135 C.E.—precisely because they wouldn't compromise the pro-úÌåÉøÈä halakhic (Pharisaic Oral Law) teachings of historical øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ; teachings that were necessarily compatible with mainstream (Pharisaic) Judaism documented in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT!!!
Ευσεβιος betrays this split elsewhere as well. The Romans—Hellenists—set about conquering the ðÀöÈøÄéí, in the same way they had conquered the áÌÅéú äÇîÌÄ÷ÀãÌÈùÑ: by absorbing (Hellenizing / syncretizing / assimilating) its leadership—reminiscent of the strategy of
The Romans recognized that eliminating the genealogies of the Royal Family of áÌÆï-ãÌÈåÄã was an essential element of displacing "rivals of Καισαρας" (namely, the Royal áÌÆï-ãÌÈåÄã lineage of the ðÀöÈøÄéí leadership) with Hellenist gentiles. The Roman emperors needed little motivation to kill their rivals, which they did regularly, routinely and even within their own families! øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ was crucified for the charge of being a rival of Καισαρας and ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã, one must remember, was murdered by a Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι Roman-collaborator in 62 C.E. Ευσεβιος credits the murders of several of the original ðÀöÈøÄéí to Vespasian, even before he became emperor (reigned 69-79 C.E.).
The ðÀöÈøÄéí and, lᵊ-hav•dil′ , Χριστιανοι are, therefore, clearly 180° opposite and mutually exclusive groups. They are diametrically antithetical concerning úÌåÉøÈä versus syncretized Roman Hellenism (idolatry)—i.e., the core issue of Χριστιανοι. Recognizing this distinction—rigorously—will greatly reduce existing confusion surrounding the history of this period, enable one to grasp how today's confusion came into being and logically sort out the answers they've been searching for, often for a lifetime.
When the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι äÇëÌÉäÅï äÇâÌÈãåÉì murdered ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã in 62 C.E., ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó was appointed the second ôÌÈ÷Äéã ðÀöÈøÄéí. Ηγησιππος records (according to 4th-century Ευσεβιος): "On the account they called the congregation a virgin; for it was not yet corrupted by vain teachings. But úÌåÉòÅáÈä, because he wasn't himself made ôÌÈ÷Äéã (not Roman gentile επισκοπος; the first usurper to the ðÀöÈøÄéí, Ευσεβιος recorded, wasn't appointed until 135 C.E.), began to corrupt it."
Only a man who was universally well-known by everyone in the congregation as claiming the right of leadership, could have had aspirations of becoming ôÌÈ÷Äéã. One man, and only one man, is well documented in the year 62 C.E. as such a universally well-known in the ðÀöÈøÄéí congregation as an aspiring rival leader, yet conducting a long-running strife with ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó áÌÆï-ãÈåÄã and the áÌÅéú ãÄéï ðÀöÈøÄéí in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí. There is only one historical figure who could possibly have been the úÌåÉòÅáÈä—Hellenized to "Θεβουθις": Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer!
Ηγησιππος (as recorded by Ευσεβιος): "Until then the congregation remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin… But when the sacred company of ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí and the generation of those to whom it had been safeguarded to hear with their own ears the divine wisdom had reached the several ends of their lives, then the conspiracy of god-less error took its beginning through the deception of false teachers with naked heads who, seeing that none of the ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí still remained, attempted to proclaim concerning the truth the counterfeit of falsified knowledge."
A man who advocated Hellenism among the 1st-century ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí community as described by Qum•rân′ scroll 4Q MMT would have been excised as a úÌåÉòÅáÈä. The advocate of Hellenism, e.g. "naked heads," contrasted against the ðÀöÈøÄéí congregation is well documented – throughout the Χριστιανος Διαθηκη Καινη (NT): Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer!
The earliest extant εκκλησια historian, Ηγησιππος, also documented that the ðÀöÈøÄéí excised ùÑÈàåÌì as an apostate (EH III.xxvii.4). Significantly, after that, he is never again referred to as ùÑÈàåÌì; but, rather, exclusively by his Hellenist name, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer. (The last occurrence of the name ùÑÈàåÌì is in Πραχεις Αποστολων 13.9.)
Keepers of úÌåÉøÈä, as the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí (including the ðÀöÈøÄéí) do our utmost to be, don't add harshness, born of hatred, not required by law (or, under Roman occupation, denied by law). Rather, úÌåÉøÈä requires that we exercise justice according to úÌåÉøÈä with the greatest compassion, love, care and gentleness possible – even when, in the extreme, it becomes necessary, in order to remain obedient to úÌåÉøÈä, to carry out the sentence of ëÌÈøÅú.
Thus, what one must look for, to find documentation of a ëÌÈøÅú during (and since) the Roman occupation, is a formula that commends a person into the graciousness (i.e., gracious judgment) of God have mercy on your soul" before executing the condemned.
We find exactly this formula in Πραχεις Αποστολων 15.40, consequent to the contention (previous verse), after which they go separate ways (15.41) and, from that time forward, he is never again called by his Hebrew name, ùÑÈàåÌì!!! From that moment, he is only called by his Hellenist name, Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer—the úÌåÉòÅáÈä ("Θεβουθις", the abominable). Consequently, Ευσεβιος noted (above), Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer became even more zealous—probably vindictive, after being denied the office of ôÌÈ÷Äéã that he coveted and being expelled (excised)—in apostatizing (Hellenizing) the "virgin" ðÀöÈøÄéí congregation everywhere he was able (which meant the Hellenists in the Diaspora)!!! The situation worked in his favor: the ðÀöÈøÄéí were forced to operate "under Hellenist radar" while the Hellenists Χριστιανοι εκκλησια enjoyed almost complete freedom to thrive until late in the 3rd century. (See also Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of îÇòÂáÈø note 15.41.0 of Appendix V in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-LinkT (ABNC).)
| 30-99 C.E. – Go To Page | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next |
 |
|
 |