This vision begins in the middle of 7.2, and we paraphrase "The great sea [of peoples] were stirred up from the four points of the compass and four great çÅéåÈï came up from this sea of peoples, each different from the other."
These Four çÅéåÈï are described in Dân•i•eil′ 7:
Commentators are virtually unanimous in designating
This is reinforced in verse 7.7 where this fourth çÅéåÈä is seen to have great iron teeth and ten ÷øðéï—corresponding to the shins of iron and 10 toes, some of which are iron and others of muddy clay in Dân•i•eil′ 2. Here, however, we learn added details. This fourth çÅéåÈä is extraordinarily different from the earlier çÅéåÈï: more fearsome, terrorizing and severe.
7.8 informs that the 11th in succession of the ÷ÆøÆï arises and displaces 3 predecessors, and this "÷ÆøÆï æÀòÅéøÈä" gains control. Beginning in 7.23, this interpretation is verified. The 10 ÷øðéï are described as 10 kings who would arise from the Roman Empire and an eleventh king would humble 3 predecessor kings.
The identification of these 10 kings and the "other (11th) king" has occupied commentators down through the ages—with no success. Some have suggested the first 10 emperors of the Roman Empire. Others have attempted to fit the fragmentation of the Roman Empire into 10 subsequent empires. Others have suggested 10 popes. Still others have suggested that the European Common Market will define 10 countries within (one set of) the borders of the Roman Empire. Until this book, however, no one has ever presented documented historical "kings" who exactly fit this description. This book is the first to do so.
The importance of the identification of the 10 ÷øðéï/toes resides in the resulting identification of the "other ÷ÆøÆï who would humble" 3 of his predecessors. This "other ÷ÆøÆï" is the root power prophesied to áÌÀìÈà (Dân•i•eil′ 7.25) the "÷ãéùé òìéåðéï," introducing the final end-time era (ibid.). Identification of these 10 "kings," then, is essential in recognizing the approach of the òÅú of the ÷õ.
A logic problem demonstrates the methodology we will use to unlock Ja•vәr•i•eil's Code:
A man is marooned on an island of cannibals. All of the short ones always tell the truth and all of the tall ones always lie. The man is tested and if he is able to solve a problem he will be set free. He is blindfolded and three cannibals are brought to stand before him on the beach. From what they say he must, with complete certainty for his life depends upon it, identify which of the three are tall and which are short. They may all be short, all tall or any combination. As the first cannibal begins to speak a wave breaks and he is unable to hear the first cannibal. So, he must solve the problem strictly from what the last two say. The second cannibal says 'The first one said he was short and he is, and I am short also.' The third cannibal said, 'He is lying. He is tall and I am short.
At first reading it may seem logically impossible to know with complete certainty what the first cannibal is. But sometimes logical analysis can be quite powerful in revealing subtle information. If the first cannibal was short what would he have said? He would have had to tell the truth and say that he was short. The only other possibility is that he was tall, so what would he have said if he were tall? He would have had to lie and say that he was short. In either case, he said he was short—so, although it wasn't given we can deduce what he said, and the rest of the solution is then trivial.
What data do we have that we can analyze to identity the "÷ÆøÆï æÀòÅéøÈä"? One clue is found in 7.23. The fourth empire is well understood to refer to the Roman Empire. Also (v. 24), this ruler shall be very different from the previous rulers. Being different, we must also note that "king" is symbolic. This rulers of this power were called by a different title.
An important clue emerges from the Aramaic:
7.25a åîìéï ìÀöÇã òìéà éîìì, and the ÷ãéùé òìéåðéï he will áÌÀìÈà .
In the same verse are other important clues.
7.25b He will suppose to change the æÄîÀðÄéï and ãÈú, åÀéÄúÀéÇäÂáåÌï into his hand until an òÄãÈï, òÄãÈðÄéï and half an òÄãÈï.
The time delimited by the 3½ "òÄãÈðÄéï" has been in the hands of the "÷ÆøÆï æÀòÅéøÈä" that "áÌÀìÈà [the kindred who make] sanctifications to the Supreme" and "change[d] the æÄîÀðÄéï and ãÈú" (7.25)—from 70 C.E. (9.26) through Constantine the Great until the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the recapture of Yәru•shâ•la′ yim in 1967 and the re-emergence of the Nәtzâr•im′ in 1984 (7.25 & 12.7). This "÷ÆøÆï æÀòÅéøÈä" was Bishop Narcissus and Christianity. Thus, this period of 3½ "òÄãÈðÄéï" = either 1878 years (from 70 C.E. to 1948) or 1914 years (70 C.E. to 1984)!!! This will be the most important key in unlocking Ja•vәr•i•eil's Code.
It is not only Christianity that has "change[d] the æÄîÀðÄéï and ãÈú." When Ha•lâkh•âh′ was given on Har Sin•ai′ , Rosh ha-Shân•âh′ began on the 1st of Firstmonth, just two weeks before Pës′ akh; Yom Tәru•âh′ is in the Biblical Seventhmonth. Today, Firstmonth on the Judaic calendar corresponds to the Babylonian month of Nisan, exactly 6 months (on the Judaic calendar)—diametrically—opposite to the modern Rosh ha-Shân•âh′ . The modern theme of Rosh ha-Shân•âh′ has overshadowed the Biblically-ordained Yom Tәru•âh′ , which, along with Yom ha-Ki•pur′ , is stipulated in Ta•na"kh′ to be celebrated in the Seventhmonth—not the beginning of the year.
Even the modern names of months on the Judaic calendar are of Babylonian origin—adapted from the Babylonian (Iraqi) pagans in direct contravention of Tor•âh′ , which forbids adopting any of the pagan ways (Dәvâr•im′ 12.30-31; 18.9; 20.18). Just as the names of the days of the week in Hebrew are Firstday, Secondday … Sixthday (and Shab•ât′ ), the proper names of the Judaic months are Firstmonth, Secondmonth … Twelfthmonth (and, occasionally, a Leapmonth). This is how they are generally found in the Ta•na"kh′ (except where subsequent redactions reflect the influence of the Babylonian Exile).
Another example of "change[s in] the æÄîÀðÄéï and ãÈú." manifests itself in the wearing of tzitz•iy•ot′ and tәphil•in′ . In Biblical times, these were worn by adult males of Israel at all times, just as one today wears pants and shirt. Only as a result of rationalizing constraints imposed upon the Jew by goy•im′ , especially Christians persecutions, did Jewish religious leaders "naturalize" the changed practices, ascribing a Jewish meaning to them. Eliminating the pәtil′ tәkheil′ ët from the tzitz•iy•ot′ and the A•sër′ ët ha-Di•bәr•ot′ from the head box of the tәphil•in′ , as well as limiting the wearing of tәphil•in′ to prayer resulted from this process.
In Ta•na"kh′ , the male Tor•âh′ -observer is commanded to include a pәtil′ tәkheil′ ët in their tzitz•iy•ot′ —bә-Mi•dәbar′ 15.38.
Tal•mud′ describes pәtil′ tәkheil′ ët in several contradictory ways and indicates that the dye was made from one of several conflicting types of marine snails or cuttlefish. The rabbis rationalized that, since the exact shade is not definite, the thread should not be dyed at all—contradicting the Biblical admonition to do one's utmost. Moreover, archaeology has revealed with the certainty of chemical analysis that the Jews of Bar-Kokh′ vâ's army, under the rabbinic authority of Rabbi A•qi′ vâ (of considerable rabbinic authority!!!), used ordinary indigo—from the indigo plant—to dye their tzitz•iy•ot′ . Apparently, as is often the case today and in other societies, the richer folks can afford one thing while ordinary folks make do with something less expensive, yet still satisfies the Tor•âh′ 's requirement to do one's utmost.
Two schools of archeologists have recently identified, and two schools of rabbis have certified, two different proper sources of the "kosher" dye: the Murex trunculus snail and Mediterranean cuttlefish, respectively. There is no longer any excuse for transgressing this mi•tzәw•âh′ .
This demonstrates that the rabbis aren't always perfect either. Contrary to the radical extremist idolization among many of their Ultra-Orthodox Jewish followers, rabbis are fallible men. Obeying the rabbis is distinct from, occasionally even contradictory to, obeying Tor•âh′ (see, inter alia, Shәm•ot′ 23.2). Ta•na"kh′ sets forth the authority under which the rabbis interpret Tor•âh′ and deliberate mi•shәpât′ ; but forbids their legislation of new law (inter alia Dәvâr•im′ 13.1). The overriding authority for determining mi•shәpât′ , which constitutes valid Ha•lâkh•âh′ , is the perfect law of the Creator—logic. When the rabbis (or anyone else) conflicts with logic, logic has the overriding authority.
As an additional note for the Christian reader Ribi Yәho•shu′ a specifically confirmed this rabbinic (Pharisee) authority to determine Ha•lâkh•âh′ , and specifically commanded his followers to obey the rabbis (Pharisees) and be like them, while being very careful (i.e. by exercising meticulous logic) not to mimic some of their hypocritical ways (The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 23.1-3).
The observance of a second Yom Tәru•âh′ in Seventhmonth (Babylonian month of Tishrei) is another example of the rabbis straying from the original path. The reader can see that already the described strayings from Tor•âh′ have been extensive enough—even within rabbinic Judaism—that even the terminology used requires explanation. The tradition of observing a second day derives from the early method of signalling the beginning of the new month from Yәru•shâ•la′ yim to the outlying villages and diaspora via the lighting of fires on mountaintops when the new moon was seen by three witnesses in Yәru•shâ•la′ yim. The Samaritans had a different tradition and they would light their own signal fires on different nights, confusing Jews in the outlying areas. Thus, Jews in the diaspora weren't sure which night was the new moon—so they had to observe both possible days. This custom has persisted in the diaspora even though the cause has disappeared, with reliable calendars, astronomical calculations and clocks. When the need to observe both days disappeared, the observance of both days became an addition to Tor•âh′ , prohibited by Tor•âh′ (Dәvâr•im′ 13.1).
Another tradition regarding Yom Tәru•âh′ appears to be based upon another rabbinic divergence from Biblical teaching. Ta•na"kh′ commands that the sho•phâr′ be blown on Yom Tәru•âh′ . No exceptions are given. The rabbis "reasoned" that a sho•phâr′ should not be carried on Shab•ât′ , a dubious interpretation in itself, and, therefore (non sequitur), as a fence, the sho•phâr′ should not be blown on Shab•ât′ . (Now why the sho•phâr′ couldn't be placed where it was needed prior to Shab•ât′ , when tal•it′ , si•dur•im′ and other similar needs are, remains a mystery; but that is beside the point.) Within certain limits (within an Ei•ruv′ ), carrying Tor•âh′ is not regarded as a violation of carrying on Shab•ât′ ; neither is carrying a Ta•na"kh′ , nor one's tal•it′ , nor a si•dur′ . When used to satisfy a commandment of Tor•âh′ the sho•phâr′ is no less a holy instrument and is not a violation of the prohibition against carrying, particularly within the rabbinic fiction of an Ei•ruv′ .
The rabbis have decreed (by consensus—see Shәm•ot′ 23.2) that a custom, when persisting for an undefined time (a generation or two), attains the authority of Ha•lâkh•âh′ and becomes binding as an integral part of Judaism. This, not logic, is how many of the traditions—strayings from Tor•âh′ —came to be recognized by the rabbis as "Ha•lâkh•âh′ ." This notion is responsible for idolatry within Judaism in some ultra-orthodox circles in which the "rebbe" is idolized, despite heated denials, by their followers who cannot dare ot question his decisions. Followers of some of these "rebbes" have idols of those "rebbes" which they hang from their rear-view mirrors for good luck charms, have in their homes, etc. This is no less idolatry than Christian idolatry and the justification is near-verbatim identical to Christian justification. Via this "halakhizing" of persisting customs ordinary superstitions have, and continue to become an integral part of modern Judaism. The Ër′ ëv Shab•ât′ Beit ha-Kәnës′ ët services are so permeated with medieval superstition—xQabalah—that only vestiges of Biblical Judaism remain in this particular service.
Although there is the occasional reference in Tal•mud′ to some Jewish man wearing a head covering it can clearly be seen that, except for the Ko•han•im′ , this was atypical and not the customary practice among Jewish men. All archaeological evidence of drawings of Jews in Biblical times depicts Jewish men as bearded and bare-headed. The yarmulke," or kip•âh′ ) is another change in the law within modern Judaism which stems from the evolving head covering imposed by Christians upon Jewish men to set Jews apart in the middle ages. Originally, i.e. the origin of the kip•âh′ is, these were dunce caps. They eventually evolved into less conspicuous headgear and finally were "halakhized" by the rabbis who attributed Jewish meaning to them (reverence for é--ä).
Polygyny was practiced by the patriarchs. According to authentic Ha•lâkh•âh′ (but contrary to most Orthodox rabbis), polygyny is still as acceptable as monogyny. Monogyny was imposed on Jews by Christianity—who continue trying to impose it on others. (The worst part is the perverted logic used by their arguments, fabricating straw men by blaming polygyny for such evils as child abuse, spouse abuse, incest and the like. These evils happen in monogynous marriages too. But no reasonable person argues that they are caused by monogynous marriage. Meanwhile, Christianity and apostate Jews approve homosexuality. They are perverted!) Only afterward the rabbis "halakhized" monogyny as the only acceptable Jewish practice. Polygyny was never "the" only acceptable practice in Judaism. Neither was monogyny. According to Tor•âh′ , neither was imposed and both were acceptable. Unlike clerics, é--ä doesn't change.
The Tor•âh′ of Har Sin•ai′ was Divinely endorsed by the Visible Presence of the Shәkhin•âh′ . The straying from this Tor•âh′ described above was the cause of the Holocaust—Ya•a•qov′ 's Trouble, (Yi•rәmәyâh′ u 30.7). Warnings were clearly spelled out in Dәvâr•im′ 26.16—30.20. Why é--ä permitted the Holocaust is not a mystery. This is not an exhaustive treatment of the "change[s in] the æÄîÀðÄéï and ãÈú," but they suffice to show that neither Christian nor Jew (much less Muslim) is fit to cast the first stone, that even the most pious of religious Jews has been affected by the "change[s in] the æÄîÀðÄéï and ãÈú" and stands in need of tәshuv•âh′ to the authentic Ha•lâkh•âh′ of Har Sin•ai′ endorsed by the Shәkhin•âh′ .
In Dân•i•eil′ 9.26 we read that "After the 62 weeks, the Mâ•shi′ akh éÄëÌÈøÅú and he won't have [followers], and the kindred of a noble who will come éÇùÀçÄéú the city [Yәru•shâ•la′ yim] and the Qo′ dësh."
Interestingly, Dân•i•eil′ prophesied that the Hellenist Roman occupier would "éÇùÀçÄéú" the qâ•dosh′ "—stipulating that the Hellenist Roman occupier would render Yәru•shâ•la′ yim and Har ha-Bay′ it no longer qâ•dosh′ . This cannot be surprising since only the Presence of the Kâ•vod′ (viz., Shәkhin•âh′ ) made these qâ•dosh′ in the first place. With the exit of the kâ•vod′ from the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ hâ-Rish•on′ (Yәkhëz•qeil′ 10.4; 11.23), which never entered the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ ha-Shein•i′ (Ma•sëk′ ët Yom•â′ 21b; Artscroll Yechezkel, p. 691), the Hellenist Roman occupier "ùÄçÅú the qâ•dosh′ " of Yәru•shâ•la′ yim and Har ha-Bay′ it! They have never since been qâ•dosh′ !!! Thus, the rabbinic prohibition of the area trampled for two millennia—and still ùÄçÅú today—by gentiles is a superstition promulgated by ignorant fools who have alienated 90% of the world's Jews from Tor•âh′ .
No serious reader can deny that the "kindred" described in this passage is the Romans and, below, we positively identify this Roman "king." However, we must defer identifying this particular "noble" until all of the other information is examined and analyzed. Suffice for now to point out that
The noble of the Roman Empire is the one who shouldered the banner of "speak[ing] words ìöã the Supreme" while, at the same time, "áÌÀìÈà [the kindred who make] sanctifications to the Supreme," namely, the Tor•âh′ -observers. The Hellenist Roman Christian Church "áÌÀìÈà [the kindred who made] sanctifications to the Supreme" by the fourth century C.E. Without doubt, the only Roman nobles who fit this description are Hadrian (emperor 117-138 C.E.) and Constantine the Great (ca. 325 C.E., emperor 274-337 C.E.).
Though it was Hadrian who exiled Jews from Yәru•shâ•la′ yim (135 C.E.), enabling Hellenist Christianity to displace the Nәtzâr•im′ and to found the Hellenist Roman Christian Church, it was Constantine the Great who transformed the Roman Empire from a state worshipping various Hellenist-Roman idols to a state unifying under the banner of Hellenist Christianity as its state religion—while simultaneously "áÌÀìÈà [the kindred who make] sanctifications to the Supreme," namely, the Tor•âh′ -observers. Under Constantine the Great, the Nәtzâr•im′ , who were the original followers of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a the Mâ•shi′ akh, were completely áÌÀìÈà, displaced by Hellenist Roman Christian occupiers and the Church. The Nәtzâr•im′ were not to be heard from again until the 1980's—a very literal "áÌÀìÈà [the kindred who make] sanctifications to the Supreme."
These same 10 ÷øðéï/toes are mentioned in Dân•i•eil′ 2.42-43, and in verse 44 we find that "in the yâm•im′ of these kings shall the Elohim104 of the heavens set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed." This kingdom, then, was been set up "in the days215 of" these 11 bishops of Yerushalayim! That is, the kingdom was set up during the 2nd century C.E.!!! This implies that immediately prior to this time frame the Mashiakh had to have come (Dân•i•eil′ 9.26)! It also confirms that, following the Yehoshua 53-type kipur made here on earth at the crucifixion, "in the yâm•im′ of these kings" Ribi Yәho•shu′ a established the Realm of the Mashiakh (i.e. the "messianic kingdom") in the heavens—the spiritual domain. This bridged the gap between the physical and spiritual realms, bringing, as Ribi Yәho•shu′ a had announced, the Realm of the heavens down to every Torah-observant person. In this context, we point out the consistency with Ribi Yәho•shu′ a's many declarations, recorded in NHM,197 that this Realm of the heavens had indeed converged with men.
The "Realm of the heavens" is the spiritual realm, a real that wasn't conceived as within one's heart until Ribi Yәho•shu′ a and, through the Mashiakh, has since become sown in the hearts of his Torah-observing kindred (including geirim232). This is the fruit of his teaching.
It is this spiritual realm which continues to predominate in the hearts of his followers and, indeed, in the hearts of all those who are Torah-observant; an eternal kingdom "that shall never be destroyed" (Dân•i•eil′ 2.44) a "gem that was cut out of the mountain without hands, that broke in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold" (Dân•i•eil′ 2.45). All the armies of the world are unable to withstand truth sown in the heart and mind. In the same way, none of these earthly kingdoms have stood against the spiritual realm which is established in the hearts of the "holy kindred of the Supreme." It is this seed of the spiritual realm, the Shekhinah,501 resident in the hearts of the holy kindred that functions as a spiritual transreceiver, with which the holy kindred perceives, relates to and effectively communicates (prays) with the Realm of the heavens.
Thus, we may narrow the search for the 10 ÷øðéï/toes of the "fourth çÅéåÈä", the seeds from which the Roman Empire sprang, to the time window beginning from 70 C.E. (the termination of Israel as a nation and the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ ha-Shein•i′ ) to 325 C.E., when Constantine the Great made the new religion of Hellenist Roman Christianity the religion of the Hellenist Roman empire, and the Hellenist "Holy Roman Empire" was born.
What we are looking for, finally, is historical documentation of 10 rulers or leaders ("kings"), followed by an 11th who uproots and demotes 3 of his predecessors, plus historical documentation that this 11th ruler changed the times and the Tor•âh′ of Judaism, e.g., to the Roman Hellenism of Christianity.
There still remain two obstacles to the solution.
This raises the question: How did pro-Tor•âh′ Nәtzâr•im′ Judaism of Jews evolve into anti-Tor•âh′ Roman—gentile—Hellenism of Christianity? This is the most crucial question in two millennia. And the solution to the identification of the 10 ÷øðéï / toes hangs upon this answer. The details fill three books, one of which is two volumes: 1. Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link), 2. Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC Live-Link) and 3. (a&b) The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM), Volumes I & II—comprising the brunt of the Nәtzâr•im′ Khav•rut′ â.
Even for a thumbnail overview if you haven't read these texts, we must plod quite tediously through some historical data and follow the Nәtzâr•im′ movement, Pâ•qid′ by Pâ•qid′ , to see precisely where the changes occurred. According to the earliest extant historian, Eusebius, the Nәtzâr•im′ (i..e. Jewish) succession of pәqid•im′ , prior to being forcibly ousted, displaced and ceasing to exist in 135 C.E., were only 15 in number:
The Nәtzâr•im′ remained unchanged—pro-Tor•âh′ and practicing all of the Tor•âh′ mi•tzәw•ot′ —in 135 C.E. as they had from the first teachings of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a.
Note: No changes in times nor Tor•âh′ are recorded before 135 C.E.
Birth of the Church—135 C.E.: Eusebius notes that upon the exile of the Jews from Yәru•shâ•la′ yim in 135 C.E. the Nәtzâr•im′ Jewish leadership forcibly was supplanted by gentile—Christian Hellenists for the first time—leadership with the title of επισκοπος ("bishop"), the first being Markus. It is at this point that the apostate Hellenist gentile sects, which had been growing in popularity among pagans of the Hellenist Roman Empire since the time of Paul the Apostate (a Hellenist Turkish-Jew) about 64 C.E., first attained dominance and legitimacy: the Christianity Church, in Yәru•shâ•la′ yim. This marks the true "birth" of Christianity and the Church.
Now we can begin tracing through the first 11 in the gentile line of bishops of Yәru•shâ•la′ yim beginning with Markus, the first gentile/Christian Bishop who assumed the vacancy left by the forcible expulsion of Yәhud•âh′ , ha-Tza•diq′ , the Nәtzâr•im′ Pâ•qid′ , in 135 C.E.
The list of the succession of bishops after Markus according to EH and the Chronicon don't match. Regarding several of these bishops the only thing claimed (much less known or documented) about them is their name. Of the first 15 (depending on how and whom you count, as you will soon see), three are named twice—though nothing is known about them except their name and their place in the succession according to Eusebius EH & Chronicon. Further, the Chronicon lists another, Antonius, who is absent in EH.
First we present the 2 lists provided by Eusebius:
| EH # | Ecclesiastical History Bishops | Chronicon # | Chronicon Bishops | Estimated Dates C.E. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Markus | 1 | Markus | 136-155 |
| 2 | Cassianus | 2 | Cassianus | 156-164 |
| 3 | Publius | 3 | Publius | 165-167 |
| 4 | Maximus | 4 | Maximus | |
| 5 | Julianus | 5 | Julianus | |
| 6 | Gaius | 6 | Gaius | |
| 7 | Symmachus | 7 | Symmachus | |
| 8 | Gaius II | 8 | Gaius II | |
| 9 | Julianus II | 9 | Julianus II | |
| 10 | Capito | 10 | Capito | |
| 11 | Maximus II | |||
| 12 | Antoninius | |||
| 11 | Valens | 13 | Valens | |
| 12 | Dolichianus | 14 | Dolichianus | |
| 13 | Narcissus | 15 | Narcissus | 190-198+ |
According to Rufinas (ca. 392 C.E.), there was only one Caius (Gaius). From this it appears that when Eusebius had two conflicting sources, which is clearly evident from these two conflicting lists, and one source listed bishop Caius before bishop Symmachus while the other source listed them in reverse order (or listed bishop Julianus, for example, after Maximus and before Gaius while another source indicated that he was after Gaius and before Capito) then Eusebius recorded all possibilities, introducing the convention Julianus I and Julianus II.
This suggestion is further bolstered by the fact that nothing, other than the name in the list and a consequent guess as to approximately when such service could have occurred, is known about any of the names to which "II" is appended. The order of the first 10 are not critical to our investigation—only that they are 10 in number, not 11 or more. Based on the doubts cited, we filter out the three II's (Maximus II, Julianus II and Gaius II) as likely duplicates whose guessed successions were confused. Further, the doubtful Antoninius of the Chronicon—absent from EH—is dropped from the list. This yields the following list of the first 10 "bishops" of Yәru•shâ•la′ yim:
| # | Bishop | Estimated Dates C.E. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Markus | 136-155 |
| 2 | Cassianus | 156-164 |
| 3 | Publius | 165-167 |
| 4 | Maximus | 168-185 |
| 5 | Julianus | ??? |
| 6 | Caius | ??? |
| 7 | Symmachus | 180-182 |
| 8 | Capito | 183-185 |
| 9 | Valens | ??? |
| 10 | Dolichianus | ??? |
| 11 | Narcissus | 190-198+ |
A quick glance at the "guessed" dates of service of these bishops shows some problems. Bishops #5-8 served before or concurrently with bishop Maximus if these dates are accepted. Further, the 11th bishop, Narcissus, served from ca. 190-200 C.E. and his office is documented in 198 C.E. because he presided over a council of 14 bishops in Yәru•shâ•la′ yim that year. Thus, the guessed dates of Valens is untenable. What we can be reasonably sure of is that the above list of 10 bishops did indeed serve prior to Narcissus by 198 C.E. But that's all we need to know to unlock the code.
As this list represents the 10 ÷øðéï/toes, then to satisfy the prophecy of the 11th ÷ÆøÆï/toe, the "÷ÆøÆï æÀòÅéøÈä," the 11th bishop of Yәru•shâ•la′ yim, Narcissus, must be documented to uproot and demote the three preceding bishops, and that he changed the times and the laws.
This is exactly the case!!! Smith and Wace note that Narcissus was "accused of some heinous crime" and (though apparently innocent) thereupon abdicated his bishopric and retired to the remotest part of the desert, where for several years he lived the ascetic life, … no one knowing the place of his concealment. Having been sought for in vain, the neighboring bishops declared the see vacant, and ordained Dius as his successor. Dius was succeeded by Germanicus and he by Gordius … During the episcopate of the last named, Narcissus reappeared, as it were rising from the dead." The charges against Narcissus were then accepted as false and he returned "to his see, the oversight of which he at once resumed at the earnest request of all." Thus, Narcissus in this sense "uprooted" and "demoted" the rulers (bishops or "religious kings") Dius, Germanicus and Gordius, and restore his see. This yields the following list of bishops:
| # | Bishop | Estimated Dates C.E. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Markus | 136-155 |
| 2 | Cassianus | 156-164 |
| 3 | Publius | 165-167 |
| 4 | Maximus | 168-185 |
| 5 | Julianus | ??? |
| 6 | Caius | ??? |
| 7 | Symmachus | 180-182 |
| 8 | Capito | 183-185 |
| 9 | Valens | ??? |
| 10 | Dolichianus | ??? |
| 11 | Narcissus | 190-198+ |
| 11 | Narcissus (reinstated) |
Dân•i•eil′ 7.7-8 (discussed in more detail later) suggests that Bishop Narcissus is the "other ÷ÆøÆï." But the prophecy stipulates (Dân•i•eil′ 7.25) that this "other ÷ÆøÆï" would change the times and the laws. Is there evidence of this?
Yes. There is. Bishop Narcissus presided over the Council of Caesarea in 196 C.E., at which it was established that the festival of the goddess of E*sotera (E*aster) would be celebrated on sun-g*od-day instead of on Passover, thus changing from Passover to E*aster; changing the time. This was the first celebration of E*aster by Christians. It is likely that the change from Shab•ât′ to sun-g*od-day was also part of this package.
Christianity wasn't established in the Roman Empire until Constantine the Great made the newly evolved religion the official religion of the Roman Empire, giving birth to the "Holy Roman Empire," in 325 C.E. But it was a little more than a century earlier, in the Council of Caesarea in 196 C.E., that this "÷ÆøÆï æÀòÅéøÈä" first formalized a perversion of Nәtzâr•im′ Tor•âh′ -teachings and the fearsome, terrorizing and severe fourth çÅéåÈä—Hellenist Christianity—began to formalize as a mәshum•âd′ ⇒to⇒gentile,Hellenist-pagan religion.
It was "allowed into the hand" of this 11th Christian Church ruler, Bishop Narcissus, "to change the times and the law, which would [then] stand for a specified duration of time: an i•dân′ and òÄãÈðÄéï and a fraction of an i•dân′ ." Thus, it is not only the 11th gentile Bishop, Narcissus, but the "çÅéåÈä" of Hellenist gentile Christianity he inaugurated, into whose hand it was given to dominate until the end of the period that Christians have long called the "Time of the Gentiles."
Contrary to what Christians have always been misled to believe, many practices of Christianity, heretofore assumed to have been instituted by "J*esus" in the 1st century C.E., are Roman Hellenist apostasies, historically documented to have been instituted long afterward, often centuries later, by Hellenist Roman gentile Christians who syncretized the messianic theme, from stories related to them in Greek by apostate Hellenist Jews, into their Hellenist idolatry.
These changes in the times, by the "hand" of the 11th bishop, were first introduced centuries after the death of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a and include changing Shab•ât′ ⇒sun-g*od-day, the adoption of the birthday of the sun-g*od M*ithra (Dec. 25th) as Christmas, and a long list of "saint's" days. This original Hellenist Roman Church is the same çÅéåÈä that, from its inception, espoused the antinomian (misojudaic) Displacement of Tor•âh′ with the Hellenist "grace" of "J*esus" and the NT, which they redacted to rewrite history to their Hellenist liking, thereby molding it to corroborate their evolved syncretism. (See Oxford historian James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue.)
This refers not only to Christianity, but to the Displacement Theology and perversion of Judaism that has misled innocent people away from Tor•âh′ into the second Displacement Theology, Islam, as well.
Scriptural references to "Babylon"—present-day Iraq—are often symbolic of Hellenist Rome in the Hellenist Christian realm. But in its more literal sense, it clearly symbolizes Iraq… and Islam. Both Christianity and Islam are Displacement Theology, counterfeits falsely claiming that their religion derives from Av•râ•hâm′ . (Arabs—not Islam—derive through Yi•shәmâ•eil′ and Ei•sâu′ . Islam, by contrast, was first conceived in the 6th century C.E.) While Arabs (not Islam) are descendents of Av•râ•hâm′ , however, Christian claims of being descendants of Av•râ•hâm′ are utterly false.
There was never a transition from pro-Tor•âh′ Nәtzâr•im′ Judaism to anti-Tor•âh′ Christianity (cf. Yi•rәmәyâh′ u Bën-Dâ•wid′ , Who are the Nәtzâr•im′ ? (WAN)). Indeed, any 4th grader could see that these are polar opposites, absolutely and intractably antithetical to each other, mutually exclusive and could not possibly transition smoothly from one to the other as Christians, ignorant of history, believe. Something has obviously been glossed over, concealed and rewritten. Historians call it "redacted" and document thousands of instances (see, inter alia, WAN or The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible).
The Nәtzâr•im′ remained Tor•âh′ -observant until they were "áÌÀìÈà" by this same çÅéåÈä in the person of Constantine the Great who, upon pain of death, decreed that the Nәtzâr•im′ —Jews—must go to the gentile Roman Hellenist-Greek—pagan—church on E*aster and eat pork upon leaving the church. "We know how the [Nәtzâr•im′ ] refused this in order not to transgress the [Tor•âh′ ] to which they held they were bound" (The Church from the Circumcision, Bagatti, Franciscan Press, 1971, p. 14). Since this was "upon pain of death" and they refused to compromise Tor•âh′ -Ha•lâkh•âh′ , they ceased to exist, being killed or forced into hiding.
Later references to "Nәtzâr•im′ " confuse various apostate Jewish-Christian sects (like the Ëv•yon•im′ , perhaps the followers of Paul the Apostate (and Hellenist Turkish-Jew). Even more than the other Tor•âh′ -observing Jews, Constantine the Great indeed focused "áÌÀìÈà" on these "÷ãéùé òìéåðéï."
This realization also implies that the image which gentiles have of their savior is the polar opposite of the documented historical Jew, Ribi Yәho•shu′ a. While Ribi Yәho•shu′ a was pro-Tor•âh′ , J*esus is an anti-Tor•âh′ (antinomian) counterpart created by Bishop Narcissus, the 11th ÷ÆøÆï. That Christians obtained the name for their savior via the Greek Ι*ησους (I*æsous⇒J*esus; Hebrew éù"å), doesn't alter the fact that Narcissus, and later Constantine the Great, formalized their gentile-Roman, Hellenist distortion as their savior, based on syncretizing accounts from gentile apostates into their native Hellenist idolatry.
These two intractably contradictory polar opposites are not now, nor were they ever, nor can they ever be the same. Pursuing this impossibility is the rabbinic formula that has failed for 2,000 years and is, with all certainty, destined to fail forever. The choice is between continued failure forever in order for Orthodox rabbis to continue promulgate Christian claims or expose the falseness of the Christian claims and clear the Pharisee Tor•âh′ teacher's name, fulfilling Zәkhar•yâh′ 3.1-5. The authentic historic Jew was a human-being, a Rib′ i Pәrush•i′ , while the other has never been anything more than a human-conceived, man-g*od idol-image, redacted into the gentile Roman Hellenist doctrine of the Christianity; formalized by Narcissus, Constantine the Great and their successors.
It is beyond the scope of this book to present a treatment of the underlying causes of misojudaism, which those Christians who know about it at call "antinomianism." The late Oxford historian, James Parkes, explained the basics in his authoritative The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue. The core reason for misojudaism in Christianity (and Islam) is the inherent Displacement Theology of Christians and Muslims, whose claim of having Displaced Israel and the Jews is disproven and debunked by the continuing existence of the original and true Israel keeping Tor•âh′ . Contrary to the wishful thinking of deceptive ecumenical claims by Christian and Musim moderates, both Christianity and Islam are proven false—their claim of superseding Tor•âh′ and Jews is proven false by the very existence of Jews who still keep Tor•âh′ . Until Judaism has been destroyed or abandoned by Jews, the Truth of the original puts the lie to both counterfeits. When Christians or Muslims confront this, then Constantine the Great's ugly çÅéåÈä rears its head charging, exactly like the original Church, the Crusaders and the Nazi Christians that: "The Jews are impostors, wolves in sheep's clothing and, therefore, sons of Sâ•tân′ and enemies of the church."
Yet, the historical Rib′ i Pәrush•i′ , Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a, offers the only solution: bringing Christians willing to follow him in truth out of their Hellenist Christianity to Tor•âh′ , uniting with Tor•âh′ -keeping Jews. Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a is the only possible solution to unifying, in Tor•âh′ , the sincere peoples of two (three, including Islam) otherwise intractably contradictory religions.
 |
|
 |