At the turn of the century, Trajan continued to be occupied by external threats from the north until 106 C.E. when he finally subjugated the area north of the Danube.
"In 113, Trajan began preparations for a decisive war against Parthia [roughly, today's Iraq and Iran]… In 114 he attacked the enemy through Armenia and then, over three more years, turned east and south, passing through Mesopotamia and taking Babylon and the capital of Ctesiphon. He then is said to have reached the Persian Gulf… The territories, however, which had been handily won, were much more difficult to hold. Uprisings among the conquered peoples, and particularly among the Yᵊhud•imꞋ in [Judea] and the Diaspora, caused him to gradually resign Roman rule over these newly-established provinces as he returned westward. The revolts were brutally suppressed. In mid 117, Trajan, now a sick man, was slowly returning to Italy, having left Hadrian in command in the east, when he died in Selinus of Cilicia, [117.08.09], having designated Hadrian as his successor while on his death bed" (roman-emperors.org).
117-138 C.E. – Hadrian
"First of all, he had to quash the Jewish uprising which had begun under Trajan and spread throughout the diaspora. Then there were disturbances in Mauretania, Dacia, and in northern Britain. Late in his reign, after deciding to resettle the site of éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí as the city of [lᵊ-ha•vᵊdilꞋ] Aelia Capitolina and build a temple to the Roman idol Jupiter (≡ Hellenist idol Zeus) on the site of the Jewish [Hellenized] Temple, another uprising occurred, more bitter still than its recent predecessor" (roman-emperors.org)
135 C.E.
See "Birth of Christianity" Section (in panel above)
To clarify a widespread misconception: modern rabbis regard Yᵊhud•imꞋ who practice Buddhism or other religions alien to Judaism as Yᵊhud•imꞋ. By Biblical standards, however, they have breached the bᵊrit and é--ä has excised them from éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì.
Just as Yᵊhud•imꞋ practicing Buddhism doesn't transform Buddhism into a valid branch of Judaism, so, too, Yᵊhud•imꞋ who adopt the Hellenist practice of selectively syncretizing non-úÌåÉøÈä (e.g., Christian) doctrines, rituals or music are not practicing Judaism.
Further, those who practice selectivity concerning which parts of úÌåÉøÈä they choose to keep are no less practicing selective rejection of those remaining parts of úÌåÉøÈä they are choosing not to keep.
úÌåÉøÈä is an indivisible whole. One does his or her utmost to keep all of úÌåÉøÈä as an indivisible—perfect—whole or one is constructively rejecting the indivisible whole—perfectness—of úÌåÉøÈä. One who rejects even one mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ of úÌåÉøÈä is rejecting úÌåÉøÈä in its a wholeness; i.e., (s)he rejects the whole of úÌåÉøÈä. Christians (and some Yᵊhud•imꞋ) who boast they keep úÌåÉøÈä while practicing selective observance are not keeping úÌåÉøÈä; they are rejecting úÌåÉøÈä—and it is not Judaism.
Speaking to a crowd ofYᵊhud•imꞋ in the Gâ•lilꞋ—then part of the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ— RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa also affirmed (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) 5.14-16): îÈàåÉø àÇúÆí áÌÈòåÉìÈí – you, the audience of úÌåÉøÈä-keeping Yᵊhud•imꞋ, are the light in the world. (Notice, too, that he did not say îÈàåÉø àÈðÄé or "a Christian church of gentiles will be the light.")
Corroboratively, it is äÈòÈí, notâÌåÉéÄí, whom Yᵊsha•yâhꞋu describes (9.1) as those "äÇäÒìÀëÄéí áÌÇçÉùÑÆêÀ" – the pogroms, Inquisition, persecutions, Holocaust, et al. These are the ones "øÈàåÌ àåÉø âÌÈãåÉì."
Everything in úÌåÉøÈä declares the polar antithesis precluding the Christianredirection – via their syncretized (Hellenized) antinomianChrist – "to the gentiles."
All of the events dating between 124 C.E. – 210 C.E. occurred within the background of almost a century of dry climatic conditions, including a half-century megadrought. The increasingly catastrophic megadrought increasingly depleted all economies of their ability to function and maintain public order in an increasingly chaotic world.
The megadrought not only led to the Dark Ages and spurred uprisings across the entire region of Europe and the Middle East, it emptied public faith in their increasingly transparently feckless Hellenist pantheon of gods – which they blamed for the unprecedented and unending cataclysm.
This provided a religious vacuum among the âÌåÉéÄí, fertile ground for promoting the idea of the Hellenist Roman Christians to incorporate their Hellenist Roman-redacted, make-over vision of "Jesus" grown like a living organ on the scaffolding of their native and familiar Zeus, into their native Hellenist pantheon.
All that then remained was for these original Christians to make a pretend distinction from the "feckless" Zeus and his pantheon – which Roman Hellenists already blamed for the seemingly endless cataclysm of the megadrought.
Thereafter, the Christian founders, being gentile and Hellenist Romans, in addition to being occupying rulers, freely syncretized and morphed the surrounding Roman and Greek mythologies (idolatry) that were familiar to them. Their only serious problem was the impossible chasm between them and the Pᵊrush•imꞋYᵊhud•imꞋ… and Judaism. This they partially solved, among the gentiles and few Hellenist Yᵊhud•imꞋ of their fledgling church, easily, because the Romans were utterly ignorant of Hebrew. Translating—and interpreting and redacting—it into Greek enabled them, as far as Christianity was concerned, to bury Judaic Hebrew, superseding it with their gentile Hellenist Greek.
Finally, the 180° reorientation from úÌåÉøÈä to antinomian Hellenism and their brand new, 4th century C.E. ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) being secured, they reoriented from the "Holy City" of the Yᵊhud•imꞋ, éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí, to the "holy city" of their idolatrous pantheon – Rome. These 180° reorientations, however, required an authority Christians lacked (see "30-99 C.E." section in panel above). By the 3rd-century C.E., this need had became so unavoidable that Hegesippus was forced to ἐποιησάμην (fabricate!) a succession of (non-existent) Επισκοπος ("popes") in Rome (see "Fabrication of Popes" section in panel above) to accompany the claim that Rome, the "Holy City" of Zeus (aka Jupiter) and an array of Hellenist idols, had always been the "Holy City" of the Church.
Having completed the apostasy of supposedly transferring authority from Yᵊhud•imꞋ to Hellenist (Greek-speaking) gentile Christians, the "Holy City" from éÀøåÌùÑÈìÇéÄí to the seat of idolatry and Sâ•tânꞋ – Rome, and no longer restricted by Judaic interpretations of millennia, they began freely redacting the stories that circulated in Greek among HellenistYᵊhud•imꞋ, compiling their Greek Hellenist-ChristianΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) from their Hellenist and gentile perspective.
The Switch
The trick consisted of subtle morphings in the connotations of two closely associated Greek words, ελλενης and εθνος, that were pivotal in their accreting ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) – from their original meanings ("Hellenist Jews" and "in the Diaspora") to, instead, both mean simply "gentile." Pointing these two connotations 180° opposite, from Jews to gentiles, they then creatively reinterpreted a convenient Greek grammar form that can be either locative, dative or instrumental from the original Hebrew connotation (which corresponded to the locative), "among the goyim" – referring to Jews, not gentiles, in the Diaspora, to the dative case: "to the gentiles"! Thus, the 2nd-4th century Christian fathers interposed "gentiles" as the beneficiaries to their nascent Christian audience.
The original meaning had previously been either "[Yᵊhud•imꞋ] among the âÌåÉéÄí," i.e., in the Diaspora, or "Hellenist Yᵊhud•imꞋ" (of the Diaspora) had been particularly obvious to the Jewish audience under occupation by Hellenists and whose Beitha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ had been Hellenized by Tzᵊdoq•imꞋKo•han•eiꞋhâ-RëshꞋa. By this combination of creative translation deceptions, the gentile Roman Christian Church founders displaced the Yᵊhud•imꞋ in their accreting ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT).
Roman Christians Inaugurate The Dark Ages
Ergo, only Judaic Source Mss. Valid For "Black Hole"
(Not 4th-Century Quotes of Christian sources)
"Apostles," Scriptural promises & salvation to whom?
Therefore, just like ελλενης, every instance of Εθνος in the ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) that is asserted to speak or make a promise to/for gentiles refers notto/for gentiles. Rather, these are teachings and promises to a Jewish, not Hellenist or gentile, audience for Yᵊhud•imꞋ (including Hellenists) living in the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ—"among the peoples"!
The primary emphasis always remains upon "Yᵊhud•imꞋ in the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ," only thereafter spilling over to illuminate the âÌåÉéÄí (NHM 15.27). None imply a different, contra-úÌåÉøÈä (antinomian), "gospel" which would be directly "to the âÌåÉéÄí," shunting the prophesied priestly function of the Yᵊhud•imꞋ (Shᵊm•otꞋ 19.6; Zᵊkhar•yâhꞋ 8.23; et al.).
Shockingly, and contrary to what the church has taught that you are to accept "on faith," that leaves a grand total—in the original language and extant sources—of NO legitimate references whatsoever anywhere in the entire ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) which addresses gentiles generally!
While the ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) refers to one or two geir•imꞋ, the ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) says nothing, and promises nothing—whatsoever, to "gentiles" generally! (Think about what Ta•na"khꞋ says about the âÌåÉéÄí!) 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 Beitha-Mi•qᵊdâshꞋ—αλλογενης.
Therefore, every instance in the ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) which is asserted to address or make a promise to/for gentiles refers not to gentiles, but to Yᵊhud•imꞋ living in the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ (diaspora)—"among the peoples"!
We would be doing Christians no favor, in a misguided effort to avoid appearing offensive, by overlooking Christianity's continuing, post-135 CE usurpation of the authentic 1st century úÌåÉøÈä teachings of RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa (with supersession of Hellenism and displacement theology), of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ (with the gentile Church) and the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋPâ•qidꞋ (with the "pope"). 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 your hope is in turning to úÌåÉøÈä, which can only be achieved after rejecting Christianity, and obtain ki•purꞋ. úÌåÉøÈä is crystal clear about the future of the âÌåÉéÄí. There can be no teaching in the ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT)to/forâÌåÉéÄí, no promise (messianic, covenantal or other) to/forâÌåÉéÄí, and no atonement, forgiveness, salvation, "rapture" or portion in heaven to/forâÌåÉéÄí! Turn to úÌåÉøÈä.
The meaning of the concepts that the earliest Christians Hellenized (redacted) into the ΔιαθηκηΚαινη (NT) perverted the original Hebrew and Judaic context. To reinforce their budding gentile-centered Displacement Theology, Romans found it necessary to contradict both the entire background of 1st-century Judaism, andRibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa's teaching in NHM 10.5, by perverting the ambiguous Greek τοιςεθνεσιν from the originally intended locative—speaking to fellow Yᵊhud•imꞋ who were "among the âÌåÉéÄí" (i.e., in the Tᵊphutz•âhꞋ or Diaspora)—into the dative "to the gentiles"!
The product of the transition to gentile Hellenist Romanization (Christianization) can first be seen in documented official circles in the person of Anicetus (ca. 154 – ca. 167 C.E.), perhaps the first pope to be a real, live, person (succeeding the mythical popes fabricated by Hegesippus). He did not excommunicate those who observed the Jewish PësꞋakh. However, he prohibited it in the fledgling church and first syncretized the festival to Ishtar into the Christian Easter (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. I, 116).
Anicetus' successor, Soter [ca. 167 – 175 C.E.], was the first to forcibly insist that Christians celebrate Easter, including eating pork, while being completely intolerant of the observance of PësꞋakh (ibid. IV, 722).
180 C.E.
When Marcus Aurelius died in 180 C.E., his son Commodus assumed the imperiate. Marcus Aurelius had been appointed by the Senate and proved to be a thoughtful and highly efficient administrator. His son, however, was slightly unbalanced. Fancying himself to be a reincarnation of Hercules, Commodus was both brutal and incompetent. He openly defied the Senate and reveled in all sorts of perversities. He was so violent and vicious, that the palace guards murdered him in 192 C.E. (wsu.edu)
192 C.E. – Roman Empire In Crisis
Threatened By Parthians (Persian-Iranians) & Goths (Germans)
By 192 C.E., the Roman Empire was in extreme crisis. In the east, a new empire was arising in Iran. In the north, the German tribes were beginning to migrate and were pushing past their borders in raiding parties into the Roman Empire. The most dangerous of these Germanic tribes were the Goths, who occupied southern Russia. By the middle of the third century, they had managed to take territory from Rome in the area that is now Bosnia. (wsu.edu)
193-211 C.E.
Military Coup Destroys Roman Empire's Economy
To fan the flames of this crisis, the internal politics of the imperiate fell into chaos. After the death of Commodus, a military general, Lucius Septimius Severus (193-211 C.E.), seized power after two others had tried their hands at the imperiate in the same year and ruled as an absolute dictator. He decimated the economy by dramatically raising taxes, and he dramatically changed the character of the Senate by directly attacking senators. He replaced them with military men, so the Senate gradually began to look more like a military aristocracy. He established a rigid class system which slowly solidified to the point where social mobility was almost completely obviated. (www.wsu.edu)
A 1st-century Holy Land Beitha-KᵊnësꞋët of Israeli Orthodox (rabbinic) Yᵊhud•imꞋ where RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa was teaching—in Hebrew, not English (or Greek)—would sound and appear entirely alien to non-Yᵊhud•imꞋ from today‘s world. Why? Does it make any sense that so-called "followers" of RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa are so alien to him, his language, his people and his teachings?
Conversely, there is a natural tendency, whether Jew or non-Jew, to try to relate to historical RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa and his original Jewish followers, the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ, within one‘s modern, often western and English-speaking, mindset. This, of course, would have been entirely alien to RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa, a 1st century Pharisee (Orthodox, in today‘s vernacular) Jew teaching, and accepted, within the framework of (rabbinic) Pharisaic (i.e. rabbinic Orthodox) Jewish community described in Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT. Even among Yᵊhud•imꞋ, the Christian perspective of J*esus occludes the authentic and historical Jew—not just any Jew, a RibꞋi—who taught úÌåÉøÈä in Bat•ei′ha-KᵊnësꞋët, not post-135 C.E. Christianity in churches.
We ask the reader, whether Jew or non-Jew, to keep this in the forefront of your mind as you struggle to break through ancient Christian deceptions that linger as today's Christian preconceptions (many accepted unquestioningly by Yᵊhud•imꞋ) to understand the uniqueness of the Nᵊtzâr•imꞋ.
Dân•iy•eilꞋ described a "Fourth Dragon"—almost unanimously interpreted by Jewish interpreters as referring to Rome and Hellenism—that would be very different from the mammalian "beasts" before it (see Dân•iy•eilꞋ 7.7-8; 12.3 and Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-LinkT (WAN)). Not much thought is generally given to the difference in the prophecies between a "Beast" and a "Dragon" (generally the crocodile in Hebrew). However, the first is a mammal (mothering its young with milk) while the second is an amphibian (laying an egg). Babylon was described as a beast that would mother the Yᵊhud•imꞋ in a dependent, assimilating environment while Rome was described as far worse, a dragon that would lay an independent egg: Christianity.
As prophesied, from its conception ca. 46-47 C.E., Christianity developed as an oviparous offspring of the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire, yet, initially, independent of it. The Church's incubation as an independent Hellenist egg culminated in 135 C.E., whereupon the dragon, the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire, fed it predigested and regurgitated Roman Hellenism—that included Hellenism's characteristic extensive syncretism, mythology and idolatry until Christianity was weaned, as the gentile Hellenist Roman Christian Church, in 333 C.E.
Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT has conclusively proven that commitment to do one‘s very best to observe úÌåÉøÈä non-selectively and according to Oral Law was the sine qua non of legitimate úÌåÉøÈä (as defined by the BeitDinhâ-Jâ•dolꞋ) entering the 1st century CE. Consistently, this has been so from Har Sin•aiꞋ. It was true in RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa‘s day—RibꞋiYᵊho•shuꞋa explicitly confirmed this in NHM 5:17-20—and it remains true today.
5.14-16): îÈàåÉø àÇúÆí áÌÈòåÉìÈí – you, the audience of úÌåÉøÈä-keeping 
