 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋu |
 |
 Πελλα (Pella) – one of the Decapolis, in present-day Jordan, 13km (8mi) SE of áÅÌéú ùÀÑàÈï (then Scythopolis). |
2005.08.09 – A close examination of the account of the appointment of ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó Bën-Dâ•widꞋ in 62 C.E. "seems to reveal the fact that the appointment was introduced by a notice of the departure of the [Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι gentile Christians] from [Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim]" to Πελλα during the tenure of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ.
Πελλα was the quickest and easiest Hellenist city to reach from Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim, following the main caravan trade route north up the Jordan River Valley; the quickest and easiest Hellenist Roman refuge city in the Decapolis for Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι gentiles "Gettin' Out of Dodge" (Judea) – putting distance between themselves and "the Jews" (Judeans, which included the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, thereafter referred to as "Judaizers") – before the impending Roman destruction.
Even Christian scholars acknowledge that Hegesippus' conspicuous objective in writing his account, against the backdrop of 70 C.E., when the Hellenist Romans crushed the Judeans and destroyed the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, and continued persecuting and inflaming hatred toward all Judeans ("Jews"), which included the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, was to construct – fabricate – a story that would "explain how the total destruction of the [gentile Hellenist Roman] Church was avoided—and that is fully done in the Πελλα story" (loc. cit.).
However, the plot is even more complicated than that because Eusebius documented the uninterrupted line of Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pᵊqid•imꞋ remained in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim – from the first, Pâ•qidꞋ, Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ to the fifteenth Pâ•qidꞋ, Pâ•qidꞋ Yᵊhud•âhꞋ ha-Tza•diqꞋ, who was forcibly usurped by the first Roman (gentile Hellenist-Christian) ἐπίσκοπος (Μαρκος) in the aftermath of the Bar-KōkhꞋvâ Rebellion in 135 C.E.
Except for occasional and sporadic persecution of perceived rival Jewish royalty by "King (of the Jews)" Herod, limited specifically to Royalty of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ (and Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" survived until 62 C.E.), the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ were no more threatened prior to 70 C.E. than any of the countless other Pᵊrush•imꞋ Jews in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim.
By the time of Hegesippus, the gentile Hellenist Roman Christian Church's disconnection from Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews required extensive imagineering to invent a fabricated splice. This was accomplished by claiming, with no basis whatsoever, three desertions of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim / "migrations" to Πελλα, one of which, this contrivance claimed, was the gentile "faithful body" – the gentile Christian Church.,
Thus, Hegesippus and Eusebius are both forced, as if "by some some unseen reason," to distinguish three classes of desertions of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim / migrations to Πελλα toward the end of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ"'s tenure (i.e., before 62 C.E.) as the first Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ:
Shᵊlikh•imꞋ (emissaries, corrupted to "apostles") – who, in fact, never left Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim,
the "faithful body" of Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι gentile Roman Christian "disciples"
Kindred of the Mâ•shiꞋakh. – who, in fact, never left Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim.
Correspondingly, "Epiphanius has three short narratives of the flight. The first two occur in successive chapters of the Panarion, in the first of which he treats of the origin of the 'Nazoraeans,' and in the second, in similar fashion, of that of the Ἐβιωναῖοι (Haer. 29:7; 30:2)…"
'Nazoraean' is a corruption of the Hebrew Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, which, The Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhꞋu (NHM) 2:23 documents, derived from Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu 11:1.
Inducing from the corrupted term, these non-Jewish Church historians, virtually ignorant concerning Judaism and Hebrew, confused entirely unrelated Hebrew terms—NeiꞋtzër and Nâ•zirꞋ—as 'Nazoraean,' thereby mis-attributing Nazirite traits to Ya•a•qovꞋ. This became so fanciful as to claim that this Bën-Dâ•widꞋ (tribe of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ) was a Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ—despite úÌåÉøÈä definitions and complete genealogical registries of the succession of ko•han•imꞋ, each of which genealogically excludes Bën-Dâ•widꞋs who were all of the tribe of Yᵊhud•âhꞋ! Thus, 'Nazoraeans' were actually yet another heretical proto-Christian group imagining a Displacement Theology based upon a non-existent 'Nazirite high priesthood.'
Using a slightly different classification system, Eusebius, nevertheless, makes the same sharp distinction between "apostles" and "disciples".
Referring to the "kindred of the Mâ•shiꞋakh" combining with the "apostles" in the election of ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó – both "electors" disenfranchised by the Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι newborn gentile Roman Christian Church, along with their newly elected leader, as Judaizers, "The second of the three classes of electors was distinguished from the general body of the faithful."
Herein is proven evident the Great Apostasy of the initial split-off of the Hellenist Roman gentile Christian Church — the very first body (or "second migration") of the 'faithful' Hellenist Roman gentile Christian Church, the Ἐβιωναῖοι — from the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ.
Gentile Christian Catholic historians (namely Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius) all agree that by their description, 'the general body of the faithful,' they referred not to the original úÌåÉøÈä Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews who were the original followers of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and were under ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó and his "electors"; but rather, to their own, subsequent, gentile Roman Hellenist proto-Catholic Christians — the 'Nazoraean' Ἐβιωναῖοι Christian Church of the apostasy who followed Thebuthis (see also Boethus; and perhaps Aristion and other heretics) to Πελλα. Corroborating this, Aristion remained in Πελλα, leading an apostate movement.
As fellow gentile Hellenist Romans, it is clear that, very early on, they began to coordinate and cooperate with the 7 Churches of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate's in Turkey, where they are first identified as "Christian," as well as their contingent in Rome – the nucleus and conception of the Roman Catholic Christian Church.
The gentile Christian 'Nazoraeans' (as contrasted with the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ) and Ἐβιωναῖοι in Πελλα are clearly distinguished from the Shᵊlikh•imꞋ and kindred of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa—the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ under ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó. It is these original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (Jews) who continued unchanged and in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim under the entire 13 successor Jewish Pᵊqid•imꞋ (listed and documented from Eusebius in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN), until the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ—Jews—were displaced by the first gentile ἐπίσκοπος (Μαρκος) in 135 C.E. – precisely because they would not abandon, or accept selective observance of, the original Judaic / pro-úÌåÉøÈä, halakhic (Oral Law) teachings of historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa. Contrary to Christian doctrines that evolved in the gentile Christian Church by the 4th century C.E., the red lines constraining 1st-century úÌåÉøÈä teachings in the religious Jewish community in the Holy Land are described in Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT.
Eusebius betrays this lack of connection (between the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews who followed historical RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and the subsequent Hellenized gentile Christians who displaced them) elsewhere as well. The Romans set about conquering the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ in the same way they had conquered the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ, by buying-off, assimilating (Hellenizing) or forcibly absorbing its leadership.
The nascent gentile Roman Christians recognized that eliminating the Royalty of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ was essential in order to justify displacing the Bën-Dâ•widꞋ leaders of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ with gentiles. However, the nascent gentile Roman Christians didn't even begin to have the political clout to drive the eradication of the Royal Line of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ and the yo•khas•inꞋ upon which their royal line depended, until after they were enabled to forcibly oust the 15th Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ in 135 C.E.
Apostate spin-offs like the Ἐβιωναῖοι and the plethora of other gentile Hellenist syncretistic permutations of Ζεύς worship cum budding Christian movements (which historians now concede are well documented), lacking authentic Jewish roots, deserted Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim well before 70 C.E. By contrast, however, this would have been anathema to Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews.
Eusebius credits the assassinations of several of the Royal – Beit-Dâ•widꞋ – leaders of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ to Vespasian even before he became emperor. Soon after the assassination of Pâ•qidꞋ Ya•a•qovꞋ "ha-Tza•diqꞋ" Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ (brother of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa Bën-Yo•seiphꞋ Bën-Dâ•widꞋ) by the Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ Ko•heinꞋ ha-Jâ•dolꞋ in 62 C.E., following the capture of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim and destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ in 70 C.E., Vespasian (emperor B.C.E. 69–79) attempted to extirpate the Royal Line of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ.
Since the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pᵊqid•imꞋ were primarily – in all likelihood exclusively – of the Royal Line of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ, this eradication of Beit-Dâ•widꞋ Royalty decimated the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ leadership, and the Roman destruction of the yo•khas•inꞋ expunged future descendants of the Royal Line, thus eviscerating the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ while leaving ordinary Pᵊrush•imꞋ Jews unaffiliated with Beit-Dâ•widꞋ unaffected – and the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•imꞋ ko•han•imꞋ collaborators with the Hellenist Roman occupiers retained religious control over the Jews.
Domitian (81 – 96 C.E.) continued the campaign to extirpate Beit-Dâ•widꞋ Royalty.
Domitian was "known primarily for his conflict with the Senate and the Roman aristocracy" ("Domitian," 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.). Like the Judaic idea of the messiah, Christians expropriated this campaign, billing it as a persecution of Roman "Christians" — "men distinguished at Rome by family and career" (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. III.xvii.1). 5
It has been demonstrated above that the úÌåÉøÈä-derived Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ are then differentiated, and mutually exclusive, from the earliest, original Hellenist-derived (i.e., idolatrous) Christians. The two have always been mutually exclusive. Ergo, Christianity did not derive from Judaism in any fashion; nor has Christianity any roots in Judaism nor in úÌåÉøÈä. The two religions are intractably contradictory and antithetical, not only relative to the prohibition against supersession and Displacement Theology, but on the issue of non-selective observance of the indivisible whole úÌåÉøÈä as well – according to Oral Law in the 1st century C.E. (documented in Qum•rânꞋ Scroll 4Q MMT). Thus, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ stand, always entirely exclusive of syncretized Roman mythologies (idolatry) – the watershed chasm between Judaism versus Christianity. Recognizing this distinction – rigorously – will greatly reduce existing confusion surrounding the history of the period between 30 C.E. and 135 C.E.
According to the 6th century C.E. Hellenist Roman Catholic Christian 
, Eutychius (Turkey, 512-582 C.E.), the Thebuthisan "disciples" – gentile Hellenist proto-Christians who fled to Πελλα before 62 C.E. to escape the looming Roman destruction of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim in 70 C.E. – “returned to Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim in the fourth year of the emperor Vespasian [i.e., 73 C.E.], and built [on Har Tzi•yonꞋ] their 'church'.” 6
Contradicting Eutychius' account, the historical record shows that ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó was appointed by the Shᵊlikh•imꞋ and kindred (Beit-Dâ•widꞋ Royalty) of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa in Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. There is no evidence that the Shᵊlikh•imꞋ, kindred (Beit-Dâ•widꞋ Royalty) of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa, or their authentic (Jewish) followers—all Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ—had ever left Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim – and no evidence, other than this account by a 6th century Roman Catholic Christian in Istanbul, that the Hellenist gentile Roman Christians ever returned in any significant numbers to Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. A fortiori, the building on Har Tzi•yonꞋ followed the Judaic pattern of a beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët, not the Hellenist gentile Roman Christian basilica pattern of a Church.
A priori, we must conclude that the migration to Πελλα comprised the expelled heretical followers of the Thebuthisan apostasy — a significant gentile Hellenist Roman proto-Christian precursor of the Church (the true basis of the Christian Church that neither Hegesippus, Eusebius nor any other Christian historian could ever acknowledge) — including the Ἐβιωναῖοι and 'Nazoraeans,' of the fabricated return from Πελλα in the fourth year of Vespasian. Therefore, it is correct to state that the precursor proto-Christians / Nazoraeans / Ἐβιωναῖοι — of the apostasy of Thebuthis — fled to Πελλα and returned not before 73 C.E. However, the weight of evidence implicates that it is an error to hold that the original Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ ever fled to Πελλα at all. Moreover, Euthychius’ inability to distinguish between Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and Thebuthisans cannot be taken as evidence concerning which group built the beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët on Har Tzi•yonꞋ. Since the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ succession of Pᵊqid•imꞋ remained in authority until 135 CE, however, the weight of evidence demonstrates conclusively that it had to be the authentic Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ who built their beit ha-kᵊnësꞋët on Har Tzi•yonꞋ. (It must be noted, however, that the "upper room" is a later addition, not the room in which RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa observed his last PësꞋakh SeiꞋdër.)
Lawlor notes, "It must be observed that just at this point, when he has indicated the moment of the introduction of heterodox teaching, Hegesippus' sketch of the history of the [Jewish / Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Congregation] of [Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim], and consequently the argument founded upon it, seems to have come to an end. For though Eusebius gives a list of the [Pᵊqid•imꞋ] up to the reign of Hadrian, and tells us that they were short-lived, and later on adds a list of their successors, he tells us nothing else about the fortunes of the ['Congregation' – which?] from the reign of Trajan [98 C.E.] to the end of the second century, except the fact that after the seige under Hadrian [135 C.E., consequent to the Bar-KōkhꞋvâ Revolt and physical displacement of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ from Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim cum Aelia Capitolina] it became a Gentile community… It is scarcely conceivable that if Hegesippus had carried his history beyond the death of [ôÌÈ÷Äéã ùÑÄîÀòåÉï, "äÇöÌÇãÌÄé÷" áÌÆï-çÆìÆó Bën-Dâ•widꞋ that] Eusebius would not have used the material thus afforded." How suspect, that, singularly, the very period Christian historians refused to record is precisely that period they claim is the supposed magical transition from pro-úÌåÉøÈä Jews to lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ anti-úÌåÉøÈä gentile proto-Christians of the miso-Judaic Displacement Theology! And how peculiar that if such a transition had occurred, how thoroughly and meticulously these Christian historians would have documented it!
This termination of the account coincides with the displacing of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ in 135 C.E. That was the end of the story of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ. There was nothing else to tell. Hegesippus' history of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ was finished at that point. Instead, Hegesippus then turns his attention to fabricating his counterfeit image—arising in Rome (cf. Dân•iy•eilꞋ 7; see "The 1993 Covenant") instead of Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim. Fittingly, according to Eusebius, Hegesippus admits, "While in Rome, diadokhein epoieisamein" (I fabricated / constructed the [papal] succession). Even modern Church historians acknowledge that there is no documentation, and nothing reliable is known, of this fabricated and non-existent 'early papal succession.' ”
The only reasonable implication from all of this is: in rebellion against the rightful Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ, the followers of Thebuthis separated from the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ and left Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim for Πελλα. In separating from the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, these followers of the apostasy of Thebuthis thereby exposed the gash that had progressed to an unbridgeable chasm between the úÌåÉøÈä Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ of RibꞋi Yᵊho•shuꞋa and, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdilꞋ, the Hellenist gentile Roman Christian nascent Church. It was these first gentile Hellenist Christians who, some time subsequent to 73 C.E., returned from Πελλα to oppose and vilify the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews as "Judaizers."
Consequent to the expulsion of all Jews from Yᵊru•shâ•laꞋyim in 135 C.E. (which included the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Jews—but not the gentile Hellenist Roman Christians), it was the gentile Hellenist Roman Christians of this nascent Church who usurped the last Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pâ•qidꞋ, displacing him with the first gentile ἐπίσκοπος (Μαρκος). Not until two more centuries after this usurpation of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ did Hegesippus fabricated the first "papal succession." Thus, the popes of the Roman Catholic Church (the origin of all Protestant Churches), usurped the divine authority that, because é‑‑ä doesn't change, remains with the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ Pᵊqid•imꞋ, Yi•sᵊr•â•eilꞋ and moderate Orthodox Jews.
 |
|
 |