135 CE

The Greeks of Asia Minor, Hellenists, identified M*ithra, the Persian sun-g*od, with Ηλιος (Eilios; the Greek sun-g*od corrupted to H*elios). It was a rival to Christianity in the Hellenist Roman world and, in many respects, M*ithraism was the pattern later continued by these same Hellenists in forming Christianity; for example, in the ideals of humility and brotherly love, baptism, the rite of communion, the use of holy water, the adoration of the shepherds at M*ithra's birth, the adoption of S*undays and of December 25 (M*ithra's birthday) as holy days, and the belief in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection. ("M*ithraism," Encarta '95).

In 70 C.E., the Romans conquered Y^әrushâlayim, our Holy Capital and destroyed our Beit ha-Miqdâsh. Numismatic evidence has proven that by 130 C.E. (two years before the outbreak of the Bar-Kokhva Rebellion) the Romans had already paganized Y^әrushâlayim, building their new pagan city of "Aelia C*apitolina" — dedicated to the Roman G*od J*upiter (the Roman version of the Greek Z*eus) — on its ruins.

Church historian Eusebius recorded that after suppressing the Bar-Kokhvâ Rebellion in 135 C.E., "Hadrian now resolved to launch a war of annihilation against the Torâh and to expunge the name of Israel from the land… Desirous of blotting out, too, all reference to the Jews' association with Ërëtz Yisrâ·eil, Hadrian changed the name of Judea to 'Syria Palaestina,' by which it henceforth came to be known in non-Jewish literature." ("Israel," Ency. Jud., 9:248).

The Romans destroyed and paganized Y^әrushâlayim, which had even back then already been our Holy Capital for 1159 years (since B.C.E. 1024), paganizing and renaming the city "Aelia C*apitolina" and renaming Y^әhudâh "Palestine." The Romans expelled all Y^әhudim from Y^әrushâlayim – including our 15^th N^әtzârim Pâqid, a Y^әhudi named Y^әhudâh. Describing these Romans, the cradle and mother of Christianity and the Church, as misojudaic is fully justified. It's blatant ignorance, or unscholarly negligence, whenever anyone refers anachronistically to Yisrâ·eil or Y^әhudâh as "Palestine" before about 135 C.E.. After 135 C.E., it's merely misojudaic to refer to the Judaic Holy Land by the Hellenist pagan Roman name.

In the vacuum left in "Aelia C*apitolina" as a result of the Romans banishing the Netzarim Paqid, misojudaic gentile Roman Christians were enabled to install their first non-Jew, Rome-oriented, misojudaic "bishop" — Marcus. Here, and only here, is the otherwise missing transition from strict Torah-observance of 1^st-century Ribi Yehoshua and his original Netzarim followers (demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT and Church historians) to the well documented antinomian Christianity of the 4^th, and subsequent, centuries! Now Rome-oriented for the first time, these post-135 C.E. misojudaic pagan gentiles were the first to proclaim their Romanized, de-Judaized, gentile-saving, divine man-g-o-d image — J*esus! (Documentation and details in the book Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).)

Early Christianity / Birth of the Church

Syncretizing a few Netzarim ideas into their own pagan pantheism (e.g., G*ods mating with human women to produce divine offspring), the pagan Z*eus / J*upiter worshippers and sun-worshippers of "Aelia C*apitolina" became, under Marcus, the first Christians -- (Notzrim, not Netzarim!). This was the true birth of the Christian Church — in 135 CE. (Documentation and details in the book Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).)

Atonement & New Covenant: With Israel, Not Displacement Theology

The entire history of kipur relative to the britot of Israel made this newly born Church of gentile Roman Christians dependent upon their Roman bishops' ability to represent to their Christian followers the false security that Roman gentiles had displaced Jews as the people of G*od and the covenant.

Gentiles' claims to kipur rested, and continue to rest, solely upon this displacement of Jews by gentiles. Only in this way do gentiles have any claim of obtaining kipur — by Displacement Theology's claimed transferral from Torah-observant Jews to anti-Torah (antinomian) gentiles.

For further information, see Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)). ABNC demonstrates that י--ה promised kipur to Jews who do their best to keep Torah according to halakhah — non-selectively — irrespective of their beliefs about the Mashiakh.

The implications are both enormous and shocking. Observing Torah, non-selectively and according to halakhah, to the best of one's ability is a prerequisite to 'salvation.' Identifying the Mashiakh is nowhere stipulated as a precondition to kipur.

The urgency of following Ribi Yehoshua as the Mashiakh lies in facilitating the transition for Jews and gentiles who have recognized the Mashiakh to now begin to follow him in non-selective Torah-observance according to halakhah, not in 'saving' the only ones who already have kipur!

Displacement (Replacement) Theology

Christian Claims of Supersession

The orientation of the Mâshiakh derives from Tana"kh. In Y^әshayâhu 42:6, we find this orientation: the Mâshiakh would be לאור גוים (l^ә-or joyim; for a light of the goyim). This is demonstrated by the context in Y^әshayâhu 42 to mean Jews in the T^әphutzâh – among the goyim, not a Light to the goyim in the sense of directly to goyim, much less bypassing Jews.

עבדי (av^әdi) in v. 1 is widely acknowledged to refer to the Mâshiakh (cf., for example, the note in the Artscroll Stone Tana"kh, Targum). Later in verse 1, Y^әshayâhu stipulates that יוציא (yotzi; he will cause to go forth) משפט לגוים (mishpât la-goyim; adjudication of Beit-Din judgment to the goyim)! In other words, the Mâshiakh would extend Or Torâh to the goyim – extending the authority of the Beit-Din to adjudicate mishpat Torâh over the goyim.

Verse 4 clarifies that the Mâshiakh will establish mishpât in hâ-Âretz; and איים (the islands – a metonym for the T^әphutzâh) will yearn for His Torâh.

Y^әshayâhu 60.3 and Z^әkharyâh 8.23 both show that goyim must come to the Light, not the Light come to goyim.

Speaking to a crowd of Jews in the Gâlil – then part of the T^әphutzâh – Ribi Y^әhoshua also affirmed (NHM 5.14-16): מאור אתם בעולם (mâ·or atëm bâ-olâm; you are a light in the world) – Jews. (Notice, too, that he did not say מאור אני (mâ·or âni; I – Ribi Y^әhoshua – am a Light) or "a gentile church will be a light.")

Jews bearing the Light of Torâh illuminate the Jews in the T^әphutzâh (i.e., among the goyim), for the goyim, causing the goyim to yearn for Torâh as prophesied.

It is העם (hâ-âm), not gentiles, whom Y^әshayâhu describes (9.1) as those who "walked in darkness [e.g., the Holocaust, persecutions, et al.] have seen a great Light."

Everything in Torâh is 100% consistent in bestowing the b^әritot, exclusively, upon Jews and those non-Jews who have submitted to a Beit-Din (i.e. geirim), placing themselves under the jurisdiction of mishpat Torâh. Torâh never extends the b^әritot of Torâh to include or embrace goyim. To the exact contrary, Torâh strictly requires Jews (and geirim) to maintain Havdâlâh between qodësh (Jews and geirim) and khol.

Everything in Torâh declares the polar antithesis of the Christian redirection of an antinomian christ "to the gentiles," espoused by Displacement Theology, which is why Christians had no choice but to claim that their NT superseded the Jews' OT. The gentile Roman Hellenist Christian Church eventually perverted Torâh 180°, yet, still managed to convince the Roman Empire – and much of the modern world – to believe their perverted apostasy.

Here's how they did it. First, they forcibly displaced the innate authority of Jewish P^әqidim ha-N^әtzârim, arrogating that authority to Hellenist gentile bishops – creating the first Christians and the birth of the Church. Then, their utter ignorance of Hebrew and dependence on Greek led them to reject Judaic Hebrew, displacing it with their gentile Hellenist Greek. Finally, the Hellenization being complete, they reoriented from the "Holy City" of the Jews, Y^әrushâlayim, to the "holy city" of their pagan pantheon – Rome; complete with their 3^rd-century fabrication of papal succession, permanently usurping the P^әqidim ha-N^әtzârim. Having completed the deception of transferring authority from Jews to Hellenist (Greek-speaking) gentile Christians and no longer restricted by Judaic interpretations of millennia, they began freely redacting the circulating Greek stories of Jews, compiling their Greek Hellenist-Christian NT from their Hellenist and gentile perspective, interpreting two Greek words as referring to "gentile":

1. εθνος (ethnos) and
2. ελλενης (elleneis).

Ελλενης (elleneis, and derivatives):

Ελλην (Ellein) are Hellenist Jews, not "Greeks" or "gentiles" as rendered in NT. Jn. 7.35 even specifies it: εις την διασποραν των Ελληνων (eis tein diasporan ton Elleinon; into the Diaspora of the Hellenists). See also Acts 14.1; 16.1, 3; 17.4; 20.21; 21.28; III Paul 2.3; 3.28; IV Paul 1.22-24; 10.32; 12.13; VI Paul 1.16; 2.9-10; 10.12, 35 et al.

Even a superficial examination will disclose that ελλενης refers to the Hellenists, and any good encyclopedia, or even a good dictionary, will confirm that Hellenists referred to assimilated (i.e., apostate) Jews — not gentiles! Every instance in which ελλενης is found in the NT, all 34 instances where it is mistranslated either as "gentile" or "Greek," refers not to gentiles at all but to apostate Jews who are being admonished to return to Torah observance!

Εθνος (ethnos, and derivatives):

Εθνος (ethnos, and derivatives): means 'people.' In the earliest extant source documents, the phrase in 'Matthew' which Christians render as "to the gentiles" is τοις εθνεσιν (tois ethnesin).

Τοις εθνεσιν (tois ethnesin) can be:

1. locative (in / among the peoples, i.e., "in the T^әphutzâh"),
2. dative (to / for the peoples) or
3. instrumental (with / by the peoples).

The other Greek term popularly, but wrongly, rendered as "gentile" is εθνος (ethnos; people). Εθνος is used in the phrase εις τα εθνη (eis ta ethnei; among, in(to) the peoples – in the Diaspora; cf. Mk. 13.10; Lu. 24.47; Acts 13.46; 18.6; 21.19, 21; et al.) Εθνη can be any of three cases: instrumental ("with" or "by"), dative ("to" or "for"), or locative ("in" or "among") the peoples. Because Displacement Theology, and its dependent Christianity, would unavoidably fall without it, Christian translators have always assumed the dative was "obvious." Intent of the writer, however, is gauged by usage and context, not the reader's preinclination. Consider Acts 16.23 and 28.28. Acts 15.23 speaks of Jews who are "brothers from out of the goyim" – i.e., T^әphutzâh. In Acts 2.5, εθνος is clearly Jews of the T^әphutzâh. Acts 9.15 reads ενωπιον εθνων (enopion ethnon; in the sight of the goyim) – in contrast with Ërëtz Yisrâ·eil, again explicitly describing Jews of the T^әphutzâh. Acts 11.18 describes εθνος making Teshuvah t^әshuvâh, a clear reference to Jews in the T^әphutzâh contrasted with goyim who cannot return to a Torâh-observance that they've never before known! Cf. also Acts 15.23.

Therefore, just like ελλενης, every instance of εθνος ethnos? in the NT which is asserted to speak or make a promise to/for gentiles refers not to/for gentiles. Instead, these are teachings and promises to/for Jews living in the T^әphutzâh (diaspora) — "among the peoples"!

Further confirmation is even found with Sha·ul (Paul), who used this same phrase when declaring that he would go forth "into the T^әphutzâh" — and is next found in a Beit K'neset in the T^әphutzâh among Jews. He hadn't gone "to the gentiles"!!!

There are no other terms which may be translated as gentile in the entire NT.

The primary emphasis always remains upon "Jews in the T^әphutzâh," only thereafter spilling over to illuminate the goyim (NHM 15.27). None imply a different, contra-Torâh (antinomian), "gospel" which would be directly "to the goyim," shunting the prophesied priestly function of the Jews (Sh^әmot 19.6; Z^әkharyâh 8.23; et al.).

When Ελλην (Ellein) and εθνος (ethnos) are properly rendered, there is no reference to gentiles in the entire NT whatsoever excepting the lone instance of αλλογενης (allogeneis; gentile).

It is clearly documented that neither Ribi Y^әhoshua nor the N^әtzârim ever advocated the Christian doctrine of Displacement Theology (also called Replacement Theology and supersession). Even more shocking to many, Displacement Theology was inaugurated by subverting NT terms which originally referred to Jews. They were reinterpreted by Romans to imply gentiles (and Displacement Theology).

Shockingly, and contrary to what the church has taught you accept "on faith," that leaves a grand total — in the original language and extant sources — of NO legitimate references whatsoever anywhere in the entire NT which addresses gentiles!

While the NT refers to one or two non-Jewish proselytes in the process of conversion to Judaism,the NT says nothing, and promises nothing, to "gentiles" per se! The only proper reference to a gentile per se is the archaeologically proven term, engraved in stone, to warn gentiles to come no closer to the Beit ha-Miqdash — αλλογενης (allogeneis; lit. "another genus"). There is only one instance of αλλογενης in the entire NT — at Lu. 17:18, where it refers to an 'almost Jew' — a Shomron-ian (Samaritan)!

Therefore, every instance in the NT which is asserted to address or make a promise to/for gentiles refers not to gentiles, but to Jews living in the T^әphutzâh (diaspora) — "among the peoples"!

We would be doing gentiles no favor by continuing the post-135 CE Christian 'papering over' of the authentic 1^st century teachings of Ribi Yehoshua in a misguided effort to avoid appearing offensive. Like a doctor prescribing an unpleasant remedy for some fatal illness, it is in the Spirit of Holiness and concern for you that we give you the opportunity to see for yourself that there is no teaching in the NT to/for gentiles, no promise (messianic, covenantal or other) to/for gentiles, and no atonement, forgiveness, salvation, "rapture" or portion in heaven to/for gentiles!

ה--י promised the legacy of Mt. Sinai to Jews forever, and He does not break His promises. It should always have been logically obvious to anyone that, when the NT contradicts a promise of ה--י — and nothing is more contradictory than Christian Displacement Theology — it cannot be true. The only message legitimately in the NT for gentiles per se is to become proselytes to legitimate Judaism (not pretend Christian pseudo-Judaism, which merely comprises apostate Jews practicing Christian displacement theology and selective observance).

The meaning in its original Hebrew context was ignored. To reinforce their budding gentile-centered Replacement Theology, Romans found it necessary to contradict both the entire background of 1st-century Judaism, AND Ribi Yehoshua's teaching at The N^әtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) 10.5, by perverting the ambiguous Greek tois ethnesin from the originally intended locative — speaking to fellow Jews who were "among the goyim," i.e., / in the T^әphutzâh — into the dative — "to the gentiles"!