Next (Πραχεις Αποστολων 11.2), no surprise, ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä is found in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí—not Ρωμη!
The claim by some that the "Ascension of Isaiah" [a] predates the death of Παυλος (and, therefore, cannot refer to Παυλος) and [b] documents "Πετρος' " death in Ρωμη is blatant misrepresentation, "spinning the text" on both counts.
M.A. Knibb, in James H. Charlesworth "The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha," the best source and that usually cited, dates the "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah," according to its various composite parts, which vary considerably in their dating. Knibb writes of the oft-cited verse, 4.2: "A [Χριστιανοι] addition to the Martyrdom of Isaiah, sometimes given the title the Testament of Hezekiah (3.13–4.22)… There are a number of indications which point to the view that 3.13–4.22 was composed at about the end of the first century [C.E.]" (emphasis added).
Though hearsay (via Ευσεβιος—not until the 4th century C.E., and certainly no less redacted than the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)), the "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah" represents one of the earliest Χριστιανοι claims, even though it brings us back (yet again) to Ευσεβιος. So what does Martyrdom 4.1-2 really say?
Now, therefore, Hezekiah and Josab my son, [these are the days of the completion of the world]. And after it has been brought to completion, Beliar will descend, the great angel, the king of this world, which he has ruled ever since it existed. He will descend from his firmament in the form of a man, a king of iniquity, a murderer of his mother—this is the king of this world—and will persecute the plant which the twelve apostles of the Beloved will have planted; of the twelve will be given into his hand" (M.A. Knibb in James H. Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, "Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah," p. 161).
There are so many flaws in this one wonders where to start. First, this is a prophecy from a Pseudepigraphal source. Do Χριστιανοι represent that the writer of Martyrdom is a serious prophet? It isn't úÌåÉøÈä. Certainly, úÌåÉøÈä éÀäåÌãÄéí don't recognize it as authoritative. The prophecy is dismissed outright. While it does appear to refer to Nero, who killed his mother, "[someone] of/from the twelve" can refer to anyone who had ever been a ðÀöÈøÄéí—including Παυλος. Further, there is no credible evidence that Παυλος was executed later. That's yet another item that Χριστιανοι cannot agree on. Whether they were executed together, in the same persecution, etc. are all argued among the various εκκλησια sources.
| Σιμων " | |
|---|---|
| Pre-135 C.E. Manuscripts | Pre-135 C.E. Hard Evidence |
| None | None |
| Σιμων " | |
| Pre-135 C.E. Manuscripts | Pre-135 C.E. Hard Evidence |
| All of the earliest extant references to ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä locate him in éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì | Ossuary of ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "ëÌÅéôÈà" áÌÇø-éåÉðÈä—in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí (see ossuary photos in the "Mashiakh" section!) |
The string of Χριστιανοι claims subsequent to 135 C.E., with no earlier evidence whatsoever, is clearly a theological necessity in the Χριστιανοι εκκλησια tradition of ἐποιησάμην (click "Fabrication of Popes" in menu above).
That there was an apostasy and counterfeit even the earliest εκκλησια historians have recorded and is undisputed. It's the central theme of Αποκαλυψις. Denying the apostasy of Στεφανος and Παυλος has always been, and remains, essential to any Χριστιανοι claim of legitimacy.
Clearly, the original pro-úÌåÉøÈä ðÀöÈøÄéí under ôÌÈ÷Äéã éÇòÂ÷Éá "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-éÉåñÅó, under his successor, ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó, and the next 13 successor ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí (until éÀäåÌãÄéí were displaced in 135 C.E. by gentile Roman Hellenist "bishop-popes") represent the authentic original teachings of historical øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ. This dictates that the plethora of Hellenist (antinomian = anti-úÌåÉøÈä = misojudaic) non-ðÀöÈøÄéí groups, centered upon the theme of assimilation into Hellenism, and rivaling the ðÀöÈøÄéí, comprised the apostasy.
Virtually all of Judaic prophecy designates evil incarnate first as Babylon, later—by the 1st century C.E.—Ρωμη! And still, Χριστιανοι maintain that this evil incarnate, Ρωμη = ùÒÈèÈï is the Seat of their God!!! How do Χριστιανοι—and Jews, for that matter—not see the blasphemy of so insidiously cloaking a ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄé øÄéáÌÄé in these áÌÀâÈãÄéí öåÉàÄéí?
It's disturbing that anyone could be so blind as to ignore how blasphemously fitting the Χριστιανοι εκκλησια's intractable position is: having made Ρωμη = ùÒÈèÈï the "See" of their man-god, Jesus.
While Protestants would like to imagine how different they are from Catholics and that they've restored the "real deal" of Χριστιανοι, they don't realize that merely rejecting Ηγησιππος' ἐποιησάμην of papal authority (which inextricably also exposes the lie of arrogating ðÀöÈøÄéí authority from the Jewish ôÌÈ÷Äéã, claiming to transfer the Holy City of the éÀäåÌãÄéí from the capital of éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì to the idolatrous City of Ζεύς (Ρωμη) and from the úÌåÉøÈä of
The displacing of the original pro-úÌåÉøÈä ðÀöÈøÄéí by the misojudaic counterfeit, by infusing antinomian Χριστιανοι claims of supersessionist Displacement Theology, is an unparalleled millennia deception of the entire world that boggles the mind, dwarfing all of the other conspiracy theories ever conceived combined. And no one notices??? Or is everyone too frightened by the implications to speak up???
The only solution for Χριστιανοι, Protestant and Catholic alike, is to reject Χριστιανοι apostasy and begin living according to úÌåÉøÈä—non-selectively.
Before 135 C.E., the ðÀöÈøÄéí were located almost exclusively in éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì, visited by âÅøÄéí from the Diaspora.
In 30 C.E., the reason that Hellenist Romans perceived the ðÀöÈøÄéí to be an existential threat was a distortion—reported to them by the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι who were the liaison between Ρωμη and the éÀäåÌãÄéí—purporting that áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã was a threat to the rule of Ρωμη; as a result of which Ρωμη crucified øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ, drove the áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã leaders of the ðÀöÈøÄéí underground and destroyed all of the éåÉçÂñÄéï of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã. (Inadvertently, that made øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ the last possible candidate who could ever satisfy the Biblical requirements to be îÈùÑÄéçÇ!!!)
Four decades later, however, and only 2 years after Nero's persecution (which lasted until 68 C.E.), Tacitus documented his reasons for destroying the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ—but this was in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, in the faraway province (from Ρωμη) of éÀäåÌãÈä, where the ðÀöÈøÄéí had not yet been usurped by Χριστιανοι.
éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí was unlike Ρωμη, where Hellenist anti-Καισαρας Εβιωναιοι or fetal-Χριστιανοι had sprouted among the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ in Ρωμη and the Hellenist Roman gentiles and was already being cultivated by "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate.
The Roman Senator and historian Tacitus who, unlike Nero's wife, couldn't distinguish between Hellenist Εβιωναιοι or fetal-Χριστιανοι and, lᵊ-hav•dilꞋ, the ðÀöÈøÄéí, states in his Annals (ca. 106 c.e.) describing the war of 70 c.e. in Tacitus’ Fragment 2: "…the anti-Roman movement of the Christiani and the Nazoreans…"
Eric Laupot of the University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa observed that "There is little consensus as to the historical nature of the sect identified by Tacitus in Annales 15.44 as the Χριστιανοι… widely suspected of being later Χριστιανοι interpolations… The metaphor stirps [is] used to describe the Χριστιανοι in Fragment 2."
This Latin term corresponds to the Hebrew ðöøéí. As Laupot noted, Ιερωνυμος (Jerome) translated ðöøéí as stirps in the Latin Vulgate—as far as 5th century C.E. gentile Hellenist Roman Catholic Christian Jerome knew it.
"The branch metaphor in frag. 2, stirps, is one of relatively few Latin words with a Hebrew equivalent ([ðÅöÆø]) that can be transliterated into “Ναζωραîος” ("Matt." 2.23, 26.71, Luke 18.37, John 18.5, 7, 19.19, "Acts" 2.22, 3.6, 4.10, 6.14, 22.8, 24.5, 26.9) and “Ναζαρηνóς” (Mark 1.24, 10.47, 14.67, 16.6, Luke 4.34, 24.19) – two words describing the sect that is associated also with the [Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)]‘s “Χριστιανοι”: Πραχεις Αποστολων 11.26)." There is simply no serious scholarly doubt that stirps refers to the ðöøéí—as far as Hellenist Roman gentile Tacitus "understood" it.
In the minds and understanding of the Hellenist Roman gentiles, stirps was merely a Roman gentile (Latin) term for Christian. It is extremely unlikely that any gentile Hellenist Roman like Tacitus distinguished followers of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate in Ρωμη from the original Pᵊrush•imꞋ Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in the far-away, strange and alien, province of éÀäåÌãÈä. By the late 4th through the late mid-5th century C.E. time of Ιερωνυμος, the distinction was entirely lost until I restored the clarity beginning in the 1970s.
While we concur with many other scholars who have effectively rebutted Laupot's argument attempting to deny later Χριστιανοι redactions (i.e., thousands of later Χριστιανοι redactions are incontestably documented), the fact remains that "For our purposes here, the last half of frag. 2 (= Severus‘ Chronica 2.30.7) is the most relevant because it specifically mentions redacted by Χριστιανοι of the 2nd-3rd century to project Χριστιανοι instead, thereby displacing the ðÀöÈøÄéí with the ðåÉöÀøÄéí εκκλησια":
(2.30.6) It is reported that Titus [general at the time (b. 39 C.E., reigned 79–81 C.E.)] first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a consecrated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as it would serve as a witness to Roman moderation; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual brand of cruelty.
(2.30.7) But others, on the contrary, disagreed – including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the religion [per Severus. Tacitus or another classical author would have used the word superstitio (alien religious belief). Compare Hist. 5.8 and Ann. 15.44 (exitiabilis superstitio)] of the éÀäåÌãÄéí and the ðÀöÈøÄéí: For although these religions [i.e., superstitiones] are conflicting, they nevertheless developed from the same origins. The ðÀöÈøÄéí arose from the éÀäåÌãÄéí: With the root [i.e. Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ] removed, the [áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã Royal Succession stirps of the ðÀöÈøÄéí leadership] is easily killed."
At this point, 2 years before the destruction of 70 C.E., the primarily gentile Hellenist fetal-Χριστιανοι εκκλησια of the late Παυλος—in Πελλα!—exerted no influence in éÀäåÌãÈä, even among ðÀöÈøÄéí—who, Ευσεβιος documented, had, decades earlier, excised him as an apostate. What small influence Παυλος, himself, enjoyed as a Roman citizen, was limited to his own lifetime, the Diaspora and among the Romans. It is well documented that Χριστιανοι didn't usurp the ðÀöÈøÄéí until 135 C.E. Thus, in 68-70 C.E., Χριστιανοι in éÀäåÌãÈä presented no presence noticeable to Ρωμη that could have concerned Titus. Rather, in éÀäåÌãÈä, Titus was concerned, instead, about the ðÀöÈøÄéí, among whom there remained, even in this period of 68-70 C.E., éåÉçÂñÄéï of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã with the lingering perceived threat to Καισαρας of the Royal Jewish Family of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã—for which the Romans had earlier crucified øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ and stoned Στεφανος.
In the years leading up to 70 C.E., it is apparent that Ρωμη considered the Royal Jewish Family, áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã, such a threat to Καισαρας that Ιωσηπος wasn't even permitted to name the (obviously most significant party to Ρωμη) áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã sect: the ðÀöÈøÄéí—cited by General Titus as the reason the Romans decided to destroy the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ.
For conspicuously clear religious reasons, the historians—themselves being Roman Χριστιανοι—have virtually erased the political aspect of the ðÀöÈøÄéí as a movement for áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã to recover control of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ from the Roman-collaborating Σαδδουκαιοι "ëÌÉäÅï äÇøÆùÑÇò." Representing a serious threat to the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι as well, they, in turn, amplified the threat to their Roman patrons as a serious threat to Καισαρας. The rest, as they say, is history.
History otherwise finds it inexplicable, and accordingly has always glossed over, why Ρωμη systematically searched out and destroyed the éåÉçÂñÄéï of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã, slaughtered every offspring—of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã, not all Jews—that they could find, many of whom were ðÀöÈøÄéí, and expunged the name of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã and its principle party, the ðÀöÈøÄéí, from the historical record. Ιωσηπος was only permitted to refer to them indirectly as a nameless, unidentified—mysterious—"third sect."
The first documented instance of Roman persecution occurred in 64 C.E. under Nero. When a great fire broke out in Ρωμη destroying great portions of the city and killing many Romans, Nero—who was suspected of setting the fire himself for political and economic reasons—blamed the fire on—we can now conclude—anti-Καισαρας Hellenist Εβιωναιοι or fetal-Χριστιανοι, supposedly living in the Jewish neighborhood. However, the anti-Καισαρας Hellenists were demonstrably distinct; other Jews were not targeted and no Χριστιανοι group ever accepted, or would have been accepted, to live in a Jewish neighborhood. Nero "inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called [perhaps later, in retrospect] Chrestians" (Tacitus, Annals XV).
In Ρωμη, the predominant Jewish presence was Hellenist; Greek speaking and "Reformed" of its day. It would not be surprising to find Hellenist Εβιωναιοι or fetal-Χριστιανοι among Hellenist Jews in (Hellenist neighborhoods of) Ρωμη, even as early as 64-70 C.E. As we have seen earlier, however, Tacitus' Annals—concerning éÀäåÌãÈä, not Ρωμη—was redacted by Χριστιανοι, changing stirps (ðÀöÈøÄéí) to displace ðÀöÈøÄéí by inserting themselves—"Chrestians" (sic), instead. This is exactly the same kind of redaction by the early Χριστιανοι "historians" that is well documented in their redactions of Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) as well.
 |
 Karen in 1st-century Beit ha- |
"[A]t the beginning of the Revolt of the éÀäåÌãÄéí against the Romans in 66 C.E., a contingent of ÷ÇðÌÈàÄéí overpowered the Roman garrison of [îÀöÈãÈä], " immediately establishing this áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú on top of the mountain. "After the fall of [éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí] and the destruction of the [Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ] (70 C.E.) they were joined by other ÷ÇðÌÈàÄéí and their families who had fled from [éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí]. With [îÀöÈãÈä] as their base, they raided and harassed the Romans for two years. Then, in 73 C.E., the Roman governor Flavius Silva marched against [îÀöÈãÈä] with the Tenth Legion, auxiliary units and thousands of Jewish prisoners-of-war. The Romans established camps at the base of [îÀöÈãÈä], laid siege to it and built a circumvallation wall. They then constructed a rampart of thousands of tons of stones and beaten earth against the western approaches of the fortress and, in the spring of the year 74 C.E., moved a battering ram up the ramp and breached the wall of the fortress" (jewishvirtuallibrary.org).
The story of the destruction of the "Temple" in 70 C.E. is well documented. Upon the capture of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí in 70 C.E., Vespasian (emperor 69-79 C.E.) attempted to extirpate áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã. This decimated the ðÀöÈøÄéí leadership, thus weakening them more than any other group of éÀäåÌãÄéí.
In 70 C.E., the Romans conquered éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, our Holy Capital and destroyed our Σαδδουκαιοι "Wicked Priest" desecrated "Temple". Numismatic evidence has proven that, by 130 C.E. (two years before the outbreak of the Bar-KokhꞋvâ Revolt; ergo, 5 years before usurping the ðÀöÈøÄéí), the Romans had already Hellenized éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, building upon its ruins their new idolatrous city dedicated to Jupiter (= Zeus) (the Roman-syncretized version of the Greek Zeus): Aelia Capitolina.
All that remained in 135 C.E. was to expel the éÀäåÌãÄéí, especially the ðÀöÈøÄéí and áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã, and install, in their place, their first gentile Roman, Χριστιανοι, επισκοπος: Markos.
 |
 Original 1st-century Beit ha- Re-used stones probably from Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ ha-Shein•iꞋ |
The Church Father historians date their theorized "return" of the Hellenist Εβιωναιοι or fetal-Χριστιανοι from Πελλα to 3833 (73 C.E.). Therefore, at this time, 3831-32 (71-72 C.E.), even the earliest extant historians agree that the Hellenist Εβιωναιοι or fetal-Χριστιανοι are still in Πελλα. A priori, [a] only the authentic ðÀöÈøÄéí could have been in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to build the áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï ca. 70 C.E. and [b] this is proof that the ðÀöÈøÄéí did not go to Πελλα but remained in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí!!! (See also Catholic priest Bargil Pixner, "Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion," Biblical Archaeology Review, 90.05-06, XVI.3, p. 16.).
Although there were many áÌÈúé-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí while the "Temple" still stood, this first áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú of the ðÀöÈøÄéí contains stones salvaged from the destroyed Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ in its lower wall and foundation (red arrow).
It wasn't until the 10th century C.E. that Χριστιανοι fabricated a claim to have built this áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú. Archeology has demonstrated that the architecture reflects a 1st century áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú, not an early εκκλησια. Interestingly, after exchanging hands during the Crusades, it remains Jewish today.
According to Ευτυχιος (10th century!), the "μαθητες" of the úÌåÉòÅáÈä, who (he alleges) fled to Πελλα to escape the Roman destruction of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí in 70 C.E. "returned to éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí in the fourth year of the emperor Vespasian, and built [on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï] their εκκλησια."
The historical record shows that ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó was appointed by the ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí and kindred of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí. The ùÑÀìÄéçÄéí, kindred of øÄéáÌÄé éÀäåÉùÑËòÇ, and their authentic followers—all ðÀöÈøÄéí —had never left éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí (review). Moreover, the traditional synagogal architecture clearly proves it was a áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú, as contrasted against the Hellenist Χριστιανοι (Octagonal or Basilica architecture) εκκλησια. Χριστιανοι didn't even begin building churches until Χριστιανοι was decriminalized in 313 C.E.! Before that, Χριστιανοι met in homes. There is no evidence that pre-Χριστιανοι Hellenists (Jews) ever built a synagogue. Indeed, Even the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) documents the riotings of the ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí éÀäåÌãÄéí—which included the ðÀöÈøÄéí—against the antinomian Hellenist, Roman-collaborating "Jews" during this period. A priori, Εβιωναιοι were fleeing, not building synagogues during this period!!! It is self-evident, to anyone not grinding a Χριστιανοι axe, that the áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï was built by éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí—namely, ðÀöÈøÄéí—not by Χριστιανοι.
It is, therefore, also clear that the authentic ðÀöÈøÄéí, who had remained in éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí (not Παυλος' Χριστιανοι who had fled to Πελλα), who built their úÌåÉøÈä-centered (as the architecture demonstrates) áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï.
It's crystal clear that only the antinomian (=anti-úÌåÉøÈä, misojudaic) Hellenists—like the Εβιωναιοι of Στεφανος and the Χριστιανοι of Παυλος—had reason to fear persecution and flee to Πελλα. The emigration to Πελλα, a priori, comprised the expelled heretical followers of the úÌåÉòÅáÈä apostasy—Παυλος' Χριστιανοι, including the Εβιωναιοι and 'Nazoraeans' (whatever that referred to), who evolved into the εκκλησια (something that neither Ηγησιππος, nor Ευσεβιος nor any other Χριστιανοι historian could ever acknowledge). It is most likely, therefore, that Ευτυχιος' statement, attributing the building of the áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï to the (probably Παυλος' Hellenist) returnees from Πελλα, was yet another of the Christianizing redactions displacing the ðÀöÈøÄéí with the Χριστιανοι of Παυλος—consistent with all of the other Χριστιανοι redactions.
It isn't even clear that the apostates who fled to Πελλα really returned from Πελλα at all before 135 C.E., or whether their supposed return was merely an assertion doctrinally forced on the early εκκλησια historians in order to fabricate their phony "continuity." Thus, while it is correct to state that Παυλος' Χριστιανοι / Nazoraeans / Εβιωναιοι—of the apostasy of úÌåÉòÅáÈä—fled to Πελλα, perhaps they returned in 73 C.E., but far more likely the return reported solely by Ευτυχιος—but absent from the accounts of other historians—was yet another redacted ἐποιησάμην. In any case, the weight of evidence most certainly contradicts the assertion that the original ðÀöÈøÄéí fled to Πελλα.
Furthermore, Ευτυχιος' inability—in the 10th century C.E.—to distinguish between ðÀöÈøÄéí and the followers of the úÌåÉòÅáÈä (certainly based entirely on, and impossible to be more accurate than, Ευσεβιος and the earlier Church historians upon whom he depended, none of whom could distinguish reliably between these sects) cannot be taken as evidence concerning which group built the áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï.
Since the ðÀöÈøÄéí succession of ôÌÀ÷ÄéãÄéí remained in authority until 135 C.E. it is, therefore, a certainty that the ðÀöÈøÄéí—not the Χριστιανοι of Παυλος or the Εβιωναιοι of Στεφανος,—built the áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú, the foundations of which still stand on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï (see photo).
In 135 C.E. a fledgling group of Hellenist Roman gentile Χριστιανοι—who were small, scattered (predominantly in what is today Turkey) and prohibited by the Roman pagans from building an εκκλησια (proof they couldn't have built the áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú on äÇø öÄéÌåÉï 65 years earlier)—displaced the exiled ðÀöÈøÄéí and converted the vacated ðÀöÈøÄéí áÌÅéú-äÇëÌÀðÆñÆú to their idolatrous, Hellenist Χριστιανοι worship: "From 135 it was forbidden to the éÀäåÌãÄéí to enter éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí under pain of death, and it is even more probable that they could not have had a synagogue after that date; while, on the contrary, this appears to have been in use" (Catholic priest Bellarmino Bagatti, "The Church from the Circumcision," p. 121).
Certainly, the ðÀöÈøÄéí, who were éÀäåÌãÄéí, couldn't even enter éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, much less continue after 135 C.E. in the same building: which Παυλος' Hellenist-Roman Χριστιανοι had corrupted into an εκκλησια. As éÀäåÌãÄéí ôÌÀøåÌùÑÄéí, ðÀöÈøÄéí would not enter a Hellenist temple (that Hellenists called it an εκκλησια made no difference). In any case, ðÀöÈøÄéí, being éÀäåÌãÄéí, were no longer even allowed in the city—which the idolatrous Hellenist Roman gentile occupiers dedicated to Zeus and renamed Aelia Capitolina"—in the country that the same Hellenist Roman occupiers, in 135 C.E., renamed "Palestine," a Hellenist Greek adaptation named after the population of immigrant Mycenaean-Greek "Sea Peoples," originally from the (Mycenaean) Greek city of Pilos—Pilos-tinians—Greeks, not Arabs!!!
Χριστιανοι were exclusively Hellenist-Roman (by the 4th century C.E. almost entirely) gentiles who, with the help of the Hellenizing "Reform" Jew, Παυλος the úÌåÉòÅáÈä, syncretized all of their native Hellenist polytheistic idolatry into an oxymoronic 'mono-tri-theist' man-god—known today as Ιησους! (See "Iesous Name" section in menu at top.)
Domitian continued the campaign to extirpate áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã. Domitian was "known primarily for his conflict with the Senate and the Roman aristocracy" ("Domitian," Microsoft (R) Encarta '95). "Especially in the last three years of his reign, Domitian terrorized the aristocracy, executing many of them for supposed acts of treason and confiscating their property to help pay for his increasing expenses" (ibid.). Just as the Χριστιανοι had expropriated the Judaic idea of the îÈùÑÄéçÇ, these by now mostly Hellenist gentiles also expropriated this persecution of "men distinguished at Rome by family and career" because it included the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι aristocracy, falsely representing it to be a persecution of Παυλος' Hellenist Roman Χριστιανοι "Christian Jews."
Nerva was named emperor on the same day that Domitian was assassinated in 96 C.E. A sexagenarian having no children, "Nerva is credited with beginning the practice of adopting his heir rather than selecting a blood relative" (roman-emperors.org). His short reign reflected a moderate focus on public welfare issues with no significant effect on religion other than, perhaps, to deemphasize and remove it from the agenda. His major accomplishment seems to have been adopting Trajan as his successor.
During the final years of the first century, Trajan focused his attention on border threats on the German frontier.
Ca. 60 C.E., the ðÀöÈøÄéí excised Παυλος. Soon thereafter, it became clear that Παυλος' gentile Hellenist Χριστιανοι were on a path that conflicted unavoidably with Pharisaic Judaism (which included the ðÀöÈøÄéí). With this separation from úÌåÉøÈä (=Judaism), the first gentile Hellenist Χριστιανοι, as a consequence of their inflammatory misojudaic antagonism, alienated themselves from the Pharisee community (which included the ðÀöÈøÄéí). This traces back to their very inception with Στεφανος, the Εβιωναιοι, the excision of Παυλος and their consequent flight to Πελλα.
In the 2nd-4th centuries, the ðÀöÈøÄéí having been exhausted (as prophesied), gentile Hellenist Χριστιανοι first emerged in 135 C.E. as an independent, anti-Καισαρας idolatrous Hellenist religion at enmity with their rival, Καισαρας-worshiping, Hellenist idolaters of the mainstream Roman populace—a conflict that led to persecutions (partly based on roman-empire.net).
The elimination of the "Temple", the éåÉçÂñÄéï of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã and any future Davidic succession (thereby ending any possibility of any future candidate satisfying the úÌåÉøÈä genealogical requirement; i.e., there can be no future îÈùÑÄéçÇ of áÌÅéú-ãÌÈåÄã!!!) marked the end of Ρωμη's persecution of the ðÀöÈøÄéí. With the ðÀöÈøÄéí "threat" of the Davidic Monarchy crushed, there were no subsequent persecutions of the ðÀöÈøÄéí by Ρωμη.
In fact, there were not even any similar religious persecutions until the late 2nd century (177 C.E.) when, it will be seen, for entirely different and unrelated reasons—refusing to worship (sacrifice to) Καισαρας, Ρωμη, indeed, thereafter targeted the Hellenist gentile Χριστιανοι conceived by Παυλος and his resulting fledgling εκκλησια, born in 135 C.E.
| 30-99 C.E. – Go To Page | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next |
 |
|
 |