The earliest Church historian was a post-135 C.E. gentile Roman Hellenist (i.e., Catholic) named Hegesippus, who certainly regarded Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-tzadiq" Ben-Dâwid as the first N^әtzârim Pâqid (not "pope," meaning "father") – headquartered in Y^әrushalayim (not Rome).

According to Hegesippus (whose writings are no longer extant, but as reported by the earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius), "And after Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" [Ben-Dawid] had testified [i.e., served as Paqid]… Pâqid Shimon, "ha-Tzadiq" Bën-Khëlëph (Hellenized to "Clopas"), was appointed Paqid because he was a cousin of the sir [i.e. the Mâshiakh].

Through this [time] they called the congregation virgin: for it was wasn't yet corrupted by heresies. (According to Yoseiph Bën-Matityâhu, Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" was killed in 62 CE.)

Thus, the earliest extant Christian historian, Hegesippus (who wrote circa 280-340 C.E.), verified that the N^әtzârim, under Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" Ben-Dawid, were the only, undisputed, authentic, and original followers of historical Ribi Y^әhoshua — which retained its pristineness until 62 C.E., the specific time at which the N^әtzârim began to be apostatized by Hellenists!!! And we'll find that Church historians refuse to record anything about the supposed transition from the pro-Torah N^әtzârim to the anti-Torah gentile Christians precisely during this critical period between 62 and 135 C.E. when the apostasy of 666 (identified unmistakably in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)) occurred. That's because the 666 apostasy, which occurred between 62 C.E. and 135 C.E., is the process of apostasy (!) and takeover that culminated in the forcible ouster of the pro-Torah N^әtzârim Jews and 15^th N^әtzârim Paqid by the first anti-Torah (antinomian) gentile bishop (Marcus) of Christianity and the Church!

The apostasy — from non-selective halakhic Torah-observance of historical Ribi Yehoshua and the original N^әtzârim under Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" Ben-Dawid to Hellenization / Romanization / Christianization — began in 62 C.E. with a man whom the N^әtzarim in Y^әrushalayim called תועבות ("Thoebut"; To·eivut; abominable-man, Hellenized – just add an "is" ending – to "Thebuthis").

It is impossible that the N^әtzarim didn't issue warnings identifying this great abominator, whom the N^әtzarim had eschewed as Paqid, choosing Paqid Shimon "ha-Tzadiq" Ben-Kheleph (Hellenized to Clopas) instead. To reasonably aspire to be Paqid of the N^әtzarim, however, he had to be well known throughout the congregation. Contrary to reason, it would seem that nothing further is known about this man except that the N^әtzarim refused to make him Paqid in 62 C.E. and that he was responsible for introducing apostasy into the congregation in Y^әrushalayim. The only explanation why there seems to be no further record is that [a] it wasn't necessary because everyone in the congregation knew exactly who this To·eivut was and [b] those trying to identify him are looking for the wrong (Hellenist rather than Judaic) thing. It was someone they all knew and was so obvious no further elaboration was necessary.

Upon the death of Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" in 62 C.E., Pâqid Shimon "ha-Tzadiq" Bën-Khëlëph was appointed the second N^әtzârim Pâqid. Hegesippus records (according to 4^th-century Eusebius): "On the account they called the congregation a virgin; for it was not yet corrupted by vain teachings. But To·eivut, because he wasn't himself made Paqid began to corrupt it." (Yet, Eusebius recorded that the first bishop wasn't appointed until 135 C.E.)

Only a man who was within the congregation, and universally well-known by everyone in the congregation, could have had aspirations of becoming Paqid. One man, and only one man, is well documented in the year 62 C.E. as such a universally well-known leader in the N^әtzârim congregation, yet conducting a long-running strife with Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" and the other leadership. There is only one historical figure who could have been To·eivut, Hellenized to "Thebuthis."

Hegesippus (as recorded by Eusebius): "Until then the congregation remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin… But when the sacred company of sh^әlikhim and the generation of those to whom it had been safeguarded to hear with their own ears the divine wisdom had reached the several ends of their lives, then the conspiracy of g*o*d-less error took its beginning through the deception of false teachers with naked heads who, seeing that none of the shelikhim still remained, attempted to proclaim concerning the truth the counterfeit of falsified knowledge."

A man who advocated Hellenism in the first century Pharisee community as described by Qumran scroll 4Q MMT would have been excised as a To·eivut. The advocate of Hellenism, e.g. "naked heads," in the N^әtzârim congregation is well documented – throughout the Christian NT: Paul!

The earliest extant Church historian, Hegesippus, also documented that the N^әtzârim excised Saul, judging him an apostate (EH III.xxvii.4). Significantly, after that, he is exclusively referred to by his Hellenist name, Paul, and never again called by his Hebrew name, Saul. (The last occurrence of the name Saul is in Acts 13.9.)

Keepers of Torah, as the N^әtzârim do our utmost to be, don't excise a person by cursing them out or chasing them away with stones. Rather, Torah requires that we exercise the greatest compassion, love, care and gentleness possible – even when, in the extreme, it becomes necessary, in order to remain obedient to Torah, to perform כרת (kareit; excision).

Thus, what one must look for to find documentation of a kareit is a formula that commends a person into the graciousness (i.e., gracious judgment) of י--ה – directly (since the Beit-Din is abdicating its responsibility for that person). We find exactly this formula in Acts 15.40, consequent to the contention (previous verse), after which they go separate ways (15.41) and, from that time forward, he is never called by his Hebrew name, Saul. again. From that point, he is only called by his Hellenist name, Paul – the To·eivut (Thebuthis, the abominable)!!! (See also N^әtzârim Reconstruction of Ma·avâr note 15.41.0 of Appendix V in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC).)

Evidenced in Rome as early as a mere couple of years later in ca. 64 C.E., assimilated and apostate (heretical) Jews are already documented syncretizing elements of Judaism into pagan Roman Hellenism (William Smith & Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography, (Kraus Reprint, 1974) Vol. IV, pp. 24-27). The product wasn't compatible, nor connected, with legitimate Judaism recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.

That there was an apostasy and counterfeit even the earliest church historians have recorded. Clearly, the original N^әtzârim under Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" Ben-Dawid, Shimon Ben-Kheleph Ben-Dawid, and the next 13 successor peqidim (until Jews were displaced in 135 C.E.) represent the authentic original teachings of historical Ribi Yehoshua. This dictates that the non-N^әtzârim groups rivaling the N^әtzârim comprised the apostasy. The displacing of the original pro-Judaic N^әtzârim by the misojudaic counterfeit, by infusing antinomian Displacement Theology, is an unparalleled deception that boggles the mind, dwarfing every conspiracy theory ever conceived.

A close examination of the account of the appointment of Shimon Ben-Kheleph Ben-Dawid "seems to reveal the fact that it was introduced by a notice of the departure of Christians" from Yerushalayim to פחל (Pheikhal; Pella).

The archeological site of Pheikhal is located 5 km (3 mi) east of the N^әhar ha-Yardein (Jordan River) in modern Yardein (Jordan) and 10 km (6 mi) SE of Beit Sh^ә·an in Israel's Shomron.

This flight occurred during the tenure of Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" (and, therefore, before 62 CE).

However, Hegesippus' objective was to "explain how the total destruction of the Church was avoided; and that is fully done in the Pella story" (loc. cit.).

The only reasonable implication from all of this is: in rebellion against the rightful N^әtzârim Paqid, the followers of To·eivut separated from the N^әtzârim and left Yerushalayim for Pheikhal. In separating from the N^әtzârim, these followers of the apostasy of To·eivut thereby became the earliest proto-Christians, perhaps synonymous with the Evyonim apostates.

Hegesippus and, therefore, Eusebius are both forced by some unseen reason to distinguish three classes of migration to Pheikhal toward the end of the tenure of Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" as the first N^әtzârim Pâqid:

1. Sh^әlikhim,
2. Talmidim, those who had heard the teaching of Ribi Yehoshua, and
3. the kindred of the Mashiakh.

"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 Evyonim (Haer. 29:7; 30:2)…"

'Nazoraean' is a corruption of the Hebrew 'N^әtzârim' which, NHM 2:23 documents, derived from Yeshayahu 11:1. Inducing from the corrupted term, these non-Jewish Church historians, virtually ignorant concerning Judaism and Hebrew, confused entirely unrelated Hebrew terms — Neitzer ("offshoot") and Nazir ("consecrated") — thereby misattributing Nazirite traits upon Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq". This became so fanciful as to claim that this Ben-Dawid was a Kohein ha-Gadol — despite Torah definitions and complete genealogical registries of the succession of Kohanim, each of which genealogically excludes Ben-Dawid! Thus, 'Nazoraeans' were actually yet another heretical proto-Christian group imagining a displacement theology based upon a non-existent 'Nazirite high priesthood.'

In the 4^th century, Eusebius claims to quote Hegesippus as making the same sharp distinction between what he understands as Sh^әlikhim and talmidim. "The second of the three classes of electors [of Shimon Ben-Khëlëph] was distinguished from the general body of the faithful." Herein, the initial split-off of the apostasy — the very first proto-Christians — from original N^әtzârim is evident. What all Roman gentile (pagan) Christian Catholic historians — Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius, et al. — agree on, however, is that they all saw 'the general body of the faithful' as not the original Jewish N^әtzârim followers of historical Ribi Yehoshua who were under Shimon Ben-Kheleph, but rather, their own, subsequent, gentile Roman precursors of Catholic Christians — the 'Nazoraeans' and Evyonim of the apostasy who followed To·eivut (and perhaps other heretics) to Pheikhal — as 'the general body of the faithful'!!!

The 'Nazoraeans' and Evyonim in Pheikhal are clearly distinguished from the shelikhim and kindred of Ribi Yehoshua — the N^әtzârim who appointed Shimon Ben-Kheleph. It is these original N^әtzârim (Jews) who continued unchanged under the entire 13 successor Jewish p^әqidim (listed and documented from Eusebius in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)), until the N^әtzârim — Jews — were displaced by the first gentile 'bishop' (Marcus) in 135 C.E. — precisely because they wouldn't compromise the pro-Torah halakhic (Pharisaic Oral Law) teachings of historical Ribi Yehoshua; teachings necessarily compatible with mainstream (Pharisaic) Judaism documented in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT!!!

Eusebius betrays this split (between the original N^әtzârim Jews who followed historical Ribi Yehoshua and the subsequent Romanized gentile proto-Christians who displaced them) elsewhere as well. The Romans set about conquering the N^әtzârim in the same way they had conquered the Beit-ha-Miqdâsh — by absorbing its leadership.

The Romans recognized that eliminating the Ben-Dawids was essential in order to justify displacing Ben-Dawid N^әtzârim leadership with gentiles. Eusebius credits the murders of several of the original N^әtzârim to Vespasian even before he became emperor. Soon after the murder of Paqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" in 62 C.E., upon the capture of Yerushalayim in 70 C.E., Vespasian (emperor 69 — 79 B.C.) attempted to extirpate Beit-Dâwid. This decimated the N^әtzârim leadership, thus weakening them more than any other Jewish group.

Domitian (81 — 96 C.E.) continued the campaign to extirpate Beit-Dawid. 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.). Like the Judaic idea of the Mashiakh, Christians expropriated this campaign, billing it as a persecution of Hellenist Roman proto-Christians — " men distinguished at Rome by family and career".

The N^әtzârim and proto-Christians are, therefore, defined as two mutually exclusive groups. They are antithetical on the issue of non-selective observance of Torah according to Oral Law versus syncretized Roman mythologies — i.e., the issue of Judaism versus Christianity. Recognizing this distinction — rigorously — will greatly reduce existing confusion surrounding the history of this period.

According to Eutychius, (the Thebuthian), "talmidim" who fled to Pheikhal to escape the Roman destruction of Y^әrushâlayim in 70 C.E. "returned to Y^әrushâlayim in the fourth year of the emperor Vespasian, and built [on Har Tzion] their church." The historical record shows that Shimon Ben-Kheleph was appointed by the shelikhim and kindred of Ribi Yehoshua in Yerushalayim. The shelikhim, kindred of Ribi Yehoshua, and their authentic followers — all N^әtzârim — had never left Yerushalayim. It is, therefore, virtually certain, that the authentic N^әtzârim, who had remained in Yerushalayim, originally established their Jewish Beit K'neset on Har Tzion. The migration to Pheikhal comprised the expelled heretical followers of the To·eivut apostasy — the proto-Christian precursors of the Church (which neither Hegesippus, Eusebius nor any other Christian historian could ever acknowledge) — including the Evyonim and 'Nazoraeans.'

It isn't clear whether the apostates who fled to Pheikhal really returned from Pheikhal or whether their supposed return was merely an assertion forced on the early church historians in order to fabricate their phony "continuity." So it is correct to state that the precursor proto-Christians / Nazoraeans / Evyonim — of the apostasy of To·eivut — fled to Pheikhal. Perhaps they returned in 73 C.E. or perhaps the return reported by Eutychius and absent from the other historians was phony. But the weight of evidence suggests that it is an error to hold that the original N^әtzârim fled to Pheikhal.

Moreover, Eutychius' inability to distinguish between N^әtzârim and Thebuthians cannot be taken as evidence concerning which group built the Beit K'neset on Har Tzion. Since the N^әtzârim succession of peqidim remained in authority until 135 CE, however, the evidence, too, indicates that it had to be the authentic N^әtzârim who built the Beit K'neset on Har Tzion in 73 C.E. (See also Catholic priest Bargil Pixner, "Church of the Apostles Found on Mt. Zion," Biblical Archaeology Review, 90.05-06, XVI.3, p. 16.)

In 135 C.E. post-135 C.E. Roman gentile Christians, who were prohibited from building a church, displaced the exiled N^әtzârim and converted the N^әtzârim Beit K'neset to Christian worship. "From 135 it was forbidden to the Jews to enter Yerushalayim 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 N^әtzârim, who were Jews, couldn't have continued in the Beit K'neset in Yerushalayim after 135 C.E.

As we document in our books and papers, no part of the legitimate 1st century Jewish community — including the N^әtzârim — tolerated the apostasy of intentionally violating or rejecting some part of Torah. Neither rejecting Oral Law nor selective observance was ever any part of legitimate Judaism — which included the N^әtzârim (but never Christians). Click on icon to see timeline chart; documentation and details are found in our book Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).

Yet, it was only those apostate — illegitimate — proto-Christian groups who advocated this apostasy, and their blatantly pagan, Roman idol-worshipping, fellow sectarians who fabricated their antinomian (anti-Torah) apostasy — Ie*s*o*u*s (J*e*s*u*s)—called "הצמח הרע" in the B.C.E. first-century חזון גבריאל Stone (see also "2008.05.20 "Gavriel's Vision" Stone" in the Archives of our Convention Center). John Romer has documented that they also adopted for this syncretized image the face of their idol — Z*e*u*s (documented in Romer's TV documentary, "Great Wonders of the Ancient World, Part I," summarized in our paper, The Face of Christ).

Thus, J*e*s*u*s is a syncretized counterfeit, antithetical to, and mutually exclusive from, Ribi Yehoshua. Therefore, belief in either necessarily implies rejection of the other! If Ribi Yehoshua is the Mashiakh, this necessarily and logically implies that his diametric opposite — the false messiah J*e*s*u*s — is the antichrist! The apostasy! Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) unequivocally identifies this Roman man-G*o*d idol as "666"!!!

If you want to follow the real Ribi Yehoshua you must renounce the antithetical counterfeit!

By 250 C.E., Hellenist Christian Bishops had developed a significant structure, power and shadow empire within the Hellenist Roman Empire that they had come to be perceived as a threat to traditional Hellenist Romans. Church persecutor Decius "declared that he would rather see a new pretender to the empire than a new bishop of Rome (Cyprian, Ep. lii)" ("Cornelius," Smith & Wace, i, 689). The conflict, pressure, increasing Hellenization and antinomian (misojudaic) evolution continued until Constantine figured out how to take political advantage of it, ca. 313 C.E., and nationalized it at the Council on the northern Black Sea coast of Turkey (Nicea) in 325 C.E. (Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, 2nd ed., (New York: Columbia University Press and the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1952), II, 152).

"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 / N^әtzârim Congregation] of [Yerushalayim], and consequently the argument founded upon it, seems to have come to an end (Hegesippus). For though Eusebius gives a list of the [peqidim] 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'] 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 Kokhva Revolt and physical displacement of the N^әtzârim Paqid from Yerushalayim cum Aelia C*a*p*i*t*o*l*i*n*a] it became a Gentile community… It is scarcely conceivable that if Hegesippus had carried his history beyond the death of [Shimon Ben-Kheleph Ben-Dawid that] Eusebius would not have used the material thus afforded."

How suspect, that the period Christian historians refused to record is precisely that period they claim is the supposed magical "Poof!" transition from Judaic pro-Torah Jews to misojudaic anti-Torah gentile proto-Christians of the 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 N^әtzârim Paqid in 135 C.E. That was the end of the story of the N^әtzârim. There was nothing else to tell. Hegesippus' history of the N^әtzârim was finished at that point. Instead, Hegesippus then turns his attention to his self-confessed fabrication of the counterfeit image of the N^әtzârim — arising in Rome (cf. Daniel 7; see "The 1993 Covenant") instead of Yerushalayim.

To develop a counterfeit to displace the N^әtzârim, however, required discrediting the original N^әtzârim. This was undertaken with a vengeance.

Eusebius also recorded that it wasn't until several decades after the gentile Hellenist Romans had ousted and displaced the 15^th N^әtzârim Pâqid (EH IV.v.3) in 135 C.E. that Hegesippus εποιησαμην (epoieisamein) – "fabricated" – the first list of popes some time between 142 and 168 C.E. (EH IV.xxii.3)!!! Thus, the "papal succession" that Christians claim began with "St. Peter" is a historical fabrication and a total gentile (Roman Hellenist) counterfeit!!! The first list of bishops, from which the entire papal succession has been retrojected back in time, was fabricated by Hegesippus during the episcopacy of the successor to bishop Pius I, namely Anicetus, either between 142 and 157 C.E. or between 153 and 168 C.E. The traditional succession of popes, which Christians claim began with "St. P*e*t*e*r," wasn't even conceived until a few decades after the Hellenist Romans had first paganized Y^әrushâlayim into Aelia C*a*p*i*t*o*l*i*n*a, dedicated to their g*o*d Z*e*u*s.

Moreover, even this late 2^nd-century list of 'bishops' is contradictory: "The dates of the bishops of this early period cannot be fixed with certainty, the traditions about them being contradictory." ("Pius I," William Smith & Henry Wace, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography," New York: AMS Press Inc. & Millwood: Kraus Reprint Co., 1974; IV, 416).

Hegesippus' fabricated list ends with Soter, making Eleutherus the first historical 'pope' (ibid., II, 876). "As is the case with the generality of Hellenist Roman bishops of the earlier centuries, the episcopate of the prelate [Eleutherus, c. 171/77 – 185/192 CE] is memorable rather for contemporary events and celebrities than for anything certainly known of himself or his influence on the age." (ibid., II, 79) [emphasis added; ybd].

The product of the transition to gentile Hellenist Romanization (Christianization) can be seen in Anicetus, perhaps one of the first real-life popes (succeeding the mythical popes). He did not excommunicate those who observed Jewish Pësakh. However, he prohibited it in the church, which was required to observe the festival to I*sh*t*a*r (E*a*s*t*e*r; ibid., I, 116). Anicetus' successor, Soter [ca. 167 to 175 C.E.], was the first to be completely intolerant of the observance of Pësakh (ibid. IV, 722).

Reflecting Christianity and Church doctrine that was already intensely antinomian (anti-Torâh / misojudaic) by the late 3^rd century or early 4^th century C.E., Eusebius reflects the Church's excoriations of the N^әtzârim. In villifying the earliest Judaic followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua for their continuing and tenacious halakhic Torâh-observance, however, Eusebius inadvertently revealed:

1. that any remnant of the original followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua remained uncompromisingly Torâh-observant,
   
   
2. that the earliest recorded church was rabidly anti-Torâh (antinomian),
   
   
3. that the original church (of 135 C.E.) was intensely misojudaic in repudiating the original Jewish followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua, to the extent of calling them dupes of Sâtân (the Evil Demon), and
   
   
4. that the original Jewish followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua accepted only their own Hebrew Matityâhu (i.e., not the NT!!!).
   
   

Hellenist Roman (gentile) Christians were already so distant from Judaism that most were totally ignorant of Hebrew; and none could distinguish the differences between the many Hellenist apostasies, Jewish and Roman gentile, that by then had spun off from the original N^әtzârim. Unable to distinguish between numerous Jewish sects claiming to follow Ribi Y^әhoshua, Eusebius lumped them all under the general term Ëvyonim (Hellenized to Ebionites). In short, Eusebius didn't know an Ebionite from a N^әtzârim, and much of what he objected to was true of the N^әtzârim:

"The evil Demon, unable to wrest them from g*o*d's plan in Christ, ensnared them in a different way. The first householders named these Ebionites because they had poor and humble praise concerning Christ" (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, III, xxvii, 1).

"They held him to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved [justness] merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from M*a*r*y and her husband. They insisted on the complete observation of the [Torâh & Halâkhâh], and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a life in accordance with it.

"But there were others besides these who have the same name. These escaped the absurd folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the L*o*r*d was born of a V*i*r*g*i*n and the H*o*l*y S*p*i*r*i*t, but nevertheless agreed with them in not confessing his pre-existence as g*o*d, being the Logos and Wisdom.

"Thus they shared in the impiety of the former class, especially in that they were equally zealous to insist on the literal observance of [Torâh & Halâkhâh]. They thought that the letters of the Apostle [P*a*u*l] ought to be wholly rejected and called him an apostate from [Torâh & Halâkhâh]. They used only the Gospel called according to the Hebrews and made little account of the rest. Like the former they used to observe Sabbath and the rest of the Jewish ceremonial, but on [Sun-g*o*d-days] celebrated rites like ours in commemoration of the S*a*v*i*o*r's resurrection. Wherefore from these practices they have obtained their name, for the name of Ebionites indicates the poverty of their intelligence, for this name means 'poor' in Hebrew." (Eusebius, EH, III, xxvii, 1-6).

Fittingly, Eusebius in the 4^th century, quotes Hegesippus (of the 2^nd century) as admitting: "While in Rome, διαδοχην εποιησαμην." Even modern Church historians acknowledge that there is no documentation, and nothing reliable is known, of this fabricated and non-existent pre-third-century claimed papal succession.

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible acknowledged, "A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma" ("Text, NT," 2^nd edition, Abingdon, 1962). Of course Christians redacting the Jewish texts made Christian redactions that perverted the Jewish texts remolding them to be compatible with "the substance of Christian dogma" !!! "It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma [thanks for reminding us that Christians made Christian redactions that were, surprise, compatible with Christian dogma; ybd]). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the 'original reading' but in the 'true reading'" (ibid., emphasis added) – as perceived by the antinomian, i.e. misojudaic Hellenist Roman Christian redactors, of course.

4^th Century

The picture of the 4^th-century Christian Church is perfectly clear (see The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue). Projecting backward from the 4^th-century Christian Church, across the 135 C.E. disconnect of forcible displacement, to project the 4^th-century Christian Church onto pre-135 C.E. Judaism is a logical contradiction of mutually exclusive polar opposites. Examination reveals that the Christian Church has no pre-135 C.E. history (documentation) that supports their 4^th-century claims that are polar opposite to pre-135 C.E. N^әtzârim Judaism.

Yet, the only claims that the Christian Church, and the Catholic Church in particular, can make rely on 4^th-century writers (sometimes claiming to quote 2^nd-century writers), redacted by 4^th century and later Christian apologists whose sole purpose was to write a history that explained the emergence of the gentile, Hellenist, Roman Church! " The Catholic Encyclopedia's decision to start at a later period of history when references become frequent itself attests to the lack of evidence from the1st and 2nd centuries… At best it only demonstrates that this Roman Catholic belief was present in the 3rd century Church. As such it remains unknown then whether the 3rd century Church was affirming existing doctrine, developing new doctrine, or borrowing doctrine from some other non-Christian source" (excerpted from biblestudying.net).

This, however, is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam (shifting the burden of proof). To establish a departure from a known point is what requires the burden of proof – not proving the opposite! Logic dictates that the status quo, that there is no departure from the known point to a claimed divergent point, is assumed until proven differently. That's how scientists surmise that there will be a sunrise tomorrow, that a satellite will follow a calculated orbit, etc. By contrast, assuming the opposite, as Christians do, is how cult leaders convince people that a spaceship is coming for them, that they should drink the Kool-Aid and that J*e*s*u*s replaced Torah with the NT and replaced the Jews with goyim in the Biblical covenant.

The known point is the Judaism of the first century as described in Qumran scroll 4Q MMT. This is the Torah that Ribi Y^әhoshua taught, that the masses of Jews thronged to hear and that his original Jewish talmidim promulgated – until there is a proven divergence from that point.

We know, too, from MMT that even the Hellenist "Sadducees" accepted only written Torah as Scripture, that the Oral Law was the center and core of all of the major sects of first-century Judaism and that the N^әtzârim never did accept the NT!!! Denial of Torah or Oral Law would have meant instant expulsion from the Jewish community. Neither he nor his followers could have rejected Torah or Oral Law because – exactly the opposite of being expelled from the Pharisee community – he taught in Pharisee synagogues where thousands of religious Jews thronged to hear him. Further, it's well documented that the original N^әtzârim sect lived in harmony in the Pharisee community, even defended by the most prominent Pharisees, while being at extreme enmity with the Christian Church from 135 C.E. onward (being labeled under bondage to the "law of sin and death," evil servants of Satan and enemies of the Church) until they were finally eradicated by the Church in 333 C.E..

By contrast, all of the known points unique to Christianity are documented to have their origin in paganism, from Christmas to Easter to Sunday worship and misojudaism. Thus, the burden of proof is entirely upon Christian apologists is to prove two points:

1. That Christianity isn't pagan, and then, additionally,
   
   
2. That Christianity originated in 1^st-century Judaism.
   
   

Neither proof has ever been demonstrated. Ever since the 3^rd-4^th-century quotations and redactions of Hegesippus by Eusebius, et al. when Roman Hellenist paganism evolved into Christianity, the goyim have been mindlessly willing to "assume" what their clerics told them.

Nor is either proof possible, because each argument contradicts the historically documented facts. Rather than continuing to mindlessly "assume" all of the intractable contradictions of Christianity, as has always been "assumed" in the past, the burden of proof is entirely upon Christian apologists to present proofs of the diametric change from the centrality of Torah and Oral Law in the 1^st century Pharisee community of Ribi Y^әhoshua described in Qumran scroll 4Q MMT. Two key points make such a proof impossible:

1. Instead of continuing to mindlessly "assume" 4^th-century Christianity back into the polar opposite 1^st-century Judaism, logic dictates that Christian apologists have the burden of proving (not merely suggesting that some remote possibility might exist) every step as they try to project 4^th-century gentile, Roman, Hellenist Christianity and the Church backward – proving a transition of theological continuity through the hostile gentile Roman Hellenist take-over of 135 C.E. – to the known 1^st century Judaism of 4Q MMT.
   
   
2. Most importantly, since, according to the earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius (who wrote ca. 280-340 C.E.), the original followers of Ribi Y^әhoshua, N^әtzârim, never accepted the NT (E.H., III, xxvii, 2-6), Christians cannot apply the logical fallacy of petitio principii (circular reasoning, begging the question): using the NT to prove the NT. Christians must base their arguments solely in the Scripture recognized by the first-century N^әtzârim: the Tana"kh.
   
   

Logic is then seen to expose the flimsiness of all of the Christian arguments, falling apart under scrutiny, while all of the firm evidence points to the opposite conclusion: there was no transition of theological continuity working back from 4^th century Christianity past 135 C.E. to the 1^st-century polar opposite, Ribi Y^әhoshua.

To the contrary, the transition of theological continuity tracks the origins of everything that makes Christianity unique from Judaism clearly and directly back to Roman, Greek and Egyptian paganism!!!

When the same methodology is applied to today's Orthodox Judaism, however, one finds that it tracks clearly and directly back to the 1^st-century Torah and today's Halakhah tracks clearly and directly back to 1^st-century Oral Law of 4Q MMT – and Ribi Y^әhoshua!!!

There is no point of theological convergence at any time in history. Ne'er the twain shall ever meet.

The unavoidable conclusion is that 4^th-century Christianity is Displacement Theology and anyone who wishes to follow Ribi Y^әhoshua must first abandon the polar opposite gentile Roman Displacement Theology of the Hellenist J*e*s*u*s.

Encyclopedias Corroborate

"Christianity – For the first three centuries of Christianity, history is dependent on apologetic and religious writings; there are no chronicles (see patristic literature). Historians differ greatly on how far back the 4th-century picture of the church (which is quite clear [see, inter alia, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue]) can be projected, especially respecting organization by bishops (each bishop a monarch in the church of his city), celebration of a liturgy entailing a sacrament and a sacrifice, and claims by the bishop of Rome to be head of all the churches (see papacy)." – The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001 (excerpted from biblestudying.net).

"Papacy – There is no unequivocal evidence about the status of the pope in the earliest days of the church." – The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001. (excerpted from biblestudying.net).

Additionally, we must recognize that Roman Catholic scholars are fond of referring to the early bishops of Rome by the title pope. However, in all fairness, to avoid being called for dishonest scholarship, Roman Catholic authors should make their readers aware that the title pope was not used in the early Church as it is employed by today's Roman Catholics (excerpted from biblestudying.net).

"Pope – The teaching of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) on the role of bishops the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, or the pope (Latin: papa, from the Greek pappas, "father"), who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic church, the largest of the three major branches of Christianity. The term pope was originally applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title. In 1073, however, Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome." – Britannica.com (see www.biblestudying.net for more in-depth treatment of the early Christian sources).

"Pope" means "father." Read NHM 23.9 "You are not to call anyone upon the earth Father so-and-so, because you have One Father of the heavens." Ribi Y^әhoshua explicitly proscribed a "pope"!!! But the Displacement Theology of the Hellenist Romans, who had just vanquished the Jews in war, destroyed our Beit-ha-Miqdâsh, expelled us from Y^әrushalayim, burned our Torah scrolls and yukhasin, prohibited circumcision and forbade us to learn or teach Torah – all upon pain of death – required something diametrically different from what the hated Jews had taught.

Our books and materials cite even the first Christian historians who noted that anti-Torah, misojudaic Christianity remained the antithesis of pro-Torah N^әtzârim until 333 — when the Church, under Constantine, extirpated whatever remnant of N^әtzârim that may have survived after 135 C.E. And the Christian Church extirpated the N^әtzârim because they were Jews who adamantly remained strictly, and defiantly, halakhically and non-selectively, Torah-observant.

As bad, from the standpoint of the Christian Church, the N^әtzârim lived exclusively in the Jewish community — separated entirely from the Christian Church community, and with whom, because the Christian gentiles didn't qualify as geirim, they refused even to mingle!!! (Documentation and details are found in our book Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).)

The Church couldn't effectively claim legitimacy for their Displacement Theology as long as the true legitimate original followers remained. So in 333 C.E. Constantine gave the surviving remnants of the N^әtzârim the ultimatum — convert to Christianity or die — and, Church historians documented in begrudging admiration, the N^әtzârim refused to abandon their observance of Torah. Thus, the N^әtzârim became dormant as a viable movement in 135 C.E., surviving remnants being extirpated in 333 C.E. and not re-emerging (in the only place possible — the legitimate (Orthodox) Jewish community) until reconstructed from the historical record in the 1980s, as prophesied in Danieil 7.

To clarify a widespread misconception: Jews who practice Buddhism or other religions alien to Judaism are still regarded by most modern interpretations of halakhah (but not Biblical standards) as Jews. However, just as Jews practicing Buddhism don't make Buddhism a valid branch of Judaism, so, too, Jews practicing selective observance of Torah — selective rejection prohibited by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol as demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT — never made Christianity a valid branch of Judaism.

Dâniyeil described a "Fourth Dragon," widely interpreted to refer to Rome and Hellenism, that would be very different from the mammalian "beasts" before it (see Dâniyeil 7.7-8; 12.3 and Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN)). As prophesied, from its conception ca. 62 C.E., Christianity developed as an oviparous offspring of the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire. The Church's incubation as an independent Hellenist egg culminated in 135 C.E., whereupon its mother, the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire, fed it predigested and regurgitated Roman Hellenism – that included Hellenism's characteristic extensive syncretism, until Christianity was weaned as the gentile Hellenist Roman Christian Church in 333 C.E.

Christianity has always remained an apostasy, and can never be anything but the apostasy it was hatched. To follow the authentic historical Ribi Yehoshua requires renouncing the apostasy in order to return to the original teachings of his original followers, the N^әtzârim. (See details in the book Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN).)