|
áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ("Noahides") |
|
(Bᵊn•eiꞋ-NoꞋakh), pl. combin. of masc. sing. áÌÆï ðÉçÇ, fem. áÌÇú ðÉçÇ.
Since the îÇáÌåÌì, authors and
"The peoples" (âÌåÉéÄí), when used by Jews, generally means "the peoples other than us" (i.e., non-Jews – including
To claim that a few who commit to keep the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ are "the" áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ is comparable to a tiny anti-American revolutionary sect in a wilderness camp somewhere in the U.S. claiming that they are "the" real Americans. Just as some Americans do not observe American laws, yet are still Americans, not all áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ observe all of the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ. Nevertheless, they are still áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ!
It is not keeping the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ that defines the áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ. Rather, keeping the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ is the prerequisite for a áÌÆï ðÉçÇ or áÌÇú ðÉçÇ to qualify as a âÌÅø. Modern usage – based solely on an innovation of 20th century C.E. rabbis – has blurred the áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ with âÌÅøÄéí (perverting the latter, which is a proselyte committed to learning – and practicing a life of – úÌåÉøÈä).
"áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ," then, is clearly an improper nomenclature for âÌÅøÄéí (popularly misunderstood as "righteous gentiles") and it is nonsensical to argue that áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ (i.e., âÌåÉéÄí) have a portion in ha-
The door to úÌåÉøÈä is always open, however, to âÌÅøÄéí.
Maimonides equates the "
Nor was there a lack of technical terminology available specifically to describe the resident alien" ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12:1189-91). Thus, áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ is synonymous with âÌåÉéÄí. Those áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ = âÌåÉéÄí who commit before a Beit Din to keep the laws of the áÌÀøÄéú ðÉçÇ are recognized as âÌÅø úÌåÉùÑÈá.
In the 1st century C.E., the rabbis prohibited Jews from interacting with âÌåÉéÄí on any level ("Gentile," Ency. Jud., 7.410-412). "The first-century philosopher Euphrates is quoted by Philostratus (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 5.33) as noting that the Jews do not mingle with others in common meals, libations, prayers or sacrifices" (Feldman).
Consider a gentile of the 1st century C.E. faced with learning enough of úÌåÉøÈä to practice at the level acceptable to the Jewish community – in the blink of an eye.
Anyone who reflects quickly realizes that a considerable period of learning time is unavoidable. Yet, no interaction with a gentile was permitted, making learning úÌåÉøÈä from a Jew – the only source – a complete impossibility.
"Jews, ironically, welcomed others into their midst as proselytes – but only on their terms" (Feldman, p. 126). These terms were a special transitional non-gentile-but-not-yet-Jew status, âÌÅø, developed in order to enable non-Jews to interact in the Jewish community in order to learn to practice úÌåÉøÈä well enough to convert.
âÌÅøÄéí, though not yet Jews, were no longer classified as âÌåÉéÄí. 
).
Thus, the set of prerequisites for recognizing a gentile as a âÌÅø was pivotal. If a gentile wasn't a legitimate âÌÅø, then no Jew could associate with him (or her) and the individual from the âÌåÉéÄí was excluded even from the opportunity to learn úÌåÉøÈä. This, de facto, excluded âÌåÉéÄí — the Hellenist Roman idolaters destined to become the Christian Church — from Ζεύς-based "Christ").
The deliberation in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts" 15 focused on Hellenist Jews, not âÌÅøÄéí. Discussion of the âÌÅøÄéí arises from the confusion of Hellenist Jews that later resulted, including the many confusions in the discussions of âÌÅøÄéí found in
Like Reformed Jews today, Hellenist Jews were not always circumcised (e.g. Timothy; cf. Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts" 16.1 & 3) and, consequently, were not universally recognized as Jews within the Jewish community. There was even a period in the kingdom of Israel, under the influence of Queen àÄæÆáÆì, when circumcision was abandoned (
"… The word âÌÅø, which in Biblical times meant … an alien [non-citizen], became synonymous with a [convert]" (ibid., emphasis added). This blurring of the terms âÌÅø and convert led to disputes concerning what should be required. The same blurring, with resulting confusion and disputes, persists today.
The confusion between âÌÅø and convert further confused the distinction between "convert" and Jew. Indeed, the âÌÅø converted – but in order to become a Jew not a "convert."
While the process of "conversion" is documented, there is no such thing as a "convert" in Tanakh (nor even a legitimate reference to a "convert" in
In Biblical – and proper
Once a âÌÅø converts, (s)he is a Jew; not a "convert" – nor, any longer, a âÌÅø. There is no distinction between Jew and Jew, and even to mention a non-Jewish background after a âÌÅø has converted is forbidden by
"Religious leaders at that time differed about the necessity for circumcision for [âÌÅøÄéí]" (ibid.). "R. Ël•i•eizꞋër and R.
Since the gentile had to qualify as a âÌÅø before even beginning his learning, a priori, R. Ël•i•eizꞋër and R.
The core of the arguments here is that if Hellenist Jews were not required to be circumcised in order to be recognized as Jews, then circumcision cannot be an essential element of
On the other hand, however, under certain circumstances Jews were exempt from circumcision (cf. ABNC Live-LinkT Technology, Appendix III, note 15.10.2). Ergo, spiritual
This finding widened the discussion, since conversion (implying circumcision and immersion) had been ruled out as a minimum eligibility requirement, to formulate proper minimum eligibility requirements for the uncircumcised. The
No clear and specific Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's action ("Acts" loc. cit.) – taking Timothy to be circumcised in order to be recognized as a Jew.
This list of four criteria in Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts," comprising the prototypical ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ, "is the only one that bears any systematic relationship to the set of religious laws which [úÌåÉøÈä] makes obligatory upon resident aliens (the âÌÅø äÇâÌÈø and ëz•râkhꞋ)" ("Noachide Laws," Ency. Jud., 12:1190).
This
Concerning circumcision, this, and subsequent (
As eligibility requirements, doing one's utmost to comply with the ùÑÆáÈò
îÄöÀååÉú
áÌÀðÅé
ðÉçÇ is not an end in itself. The Beit Din regarded the ùÑÆáÈò
îÄöÀååÉú
áÌÀðÅé
ðÉçÇ only as sufficient eligibility requirements to begin, and continue in, Judaic study because (Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) "Acts" 15.21) the âÌÅø could then learn the rest of úÌåÉøÈä in any
Contrary to popular assumptions, being a áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ, therefore, doesn't depend on, and isn't defined by, observing the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ. Only the rainbow depends upon observance of the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ.
More consequential, and often a more shocking realization, the only promise associated with the Bᵊrit of ðÉçÇ is that there won't be another
It is crystal clear from both their description and life-practice that áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ don't reflect the standards stipulated in úÌåÉøÈä at Har
The giving of úÌåÉøÈä is the central and essential point of Har
The life-practice of áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ, when they refuse to subordinate to a
Among many other historians (inter alia, Christian priest Bellarmino Bagatti), the late eminent Oxford scholar on anti-Semitism, James Parkes, noted in his book The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism, the glaring, diametric, antithesis between the pro-úÌåÉøÈä Jews who followed
"Jewish Christianity" is inescapably that which is documented in the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), which even Christian historians and scholars acknowledge was extensively redacted by post-135 C.E. âÌåÉéÄí Roman, Hellenist = antinomian Χριστιανοι, who were antipodally antithetical to the 1stcentury úÌåÉøÈä-observant
In other words, as historians documented but gloss over, the 2nd-4th century C.E. Church επισκοπος redacted doctrines as needed in order to subtly remold them into conformance with their âÌåÉéÄí Roman, Hellenist – idolatrous – perspectives. Christianity is the post-135 C.E., Roman âÌåÉéÄí product of syncretism into Hellenist idolatry, not (
The same historians further document that the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) reflects exclusively post-4th-century Christianity, which was, and is, intractably antithetical to the 1st-century pro-úÌåÉøÈä original followers of historical
No serious scholar, recognized among leading world universities, disputes the findings presented in our
To call the pro-úÌåÉøÈä Jesus," as if these antipodal antitheses were the same, is to scurrilously slander the 1st-century úÌåÉøÈä-observant Jews by ascribing to them Christian doctrines that historians and encyclopedias indisputably document—and (4Q) MMT proved—didn't exist in Judaism at all, and weren't even syncretized from Hellenist idolatry into âÌåÉéÄí Χριστιανοι until after 135 C.E.!
All major encyclopedias corroborate, and our books document, that even the earliest Christian Church historians recorded that Easter, Christmas, Sunday worship and every unique element of Christian doctrine was syncretized from Hellenist idolatry, only after 135 C.E., long after the death of Capitolina" dedicated to Ζεύς.
Long before Christ, Easter was the spring festival for Esotera / Ishtar / Astarte / Ashtoreth. Easter didn't become part of Christianity until âÌåÉéÄí, centuries after the death of Capitolina built overtop the ruins of
The idolatrization of Capitolina, dedicated to Ζεύς and sun worship, is complemented by the "coincidental" – and hypothesized – Poof! "gentilization" of the
Long before Christ, Christmas was the idolatrous celebration of the birthday of the sun-god, Mithra! It is also well demonstrated, in our books as well as others, that historical demonstrates this, and further that his birth occurred in late spring. The astronomical events even allow the intercalation of the exact date (identified and documented in NHM).
The change from Shabat to Sun-(god-)day didn't occur until after 135 C.E., more than a century after the death of Capitolina built overtop the ruins of
Throughout
Most áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ probably already recognize that "Jewish-Christianity" is an oxymoron. While Jews can practice religions from Hindu to Buddhism to Christianity, often injecting Jewish symbols and terminology into their worship, that aspect doesn't make Christianity any more "Jewish" than Hinduism (because some Jews embrace it) or Buddhism (because some Jews embrace it). Consequently, any claim by "Jewish Christians" – Jews who accept Jesus and Christianity – that the fact that they are practicing Christianity, or incorporating Jewish symbols and terminology, makes it Jewish is silly. The only claim which "Jewish-Christianity" can responsibly pursue is historical. This focus of this website is the investigation of that claim.
The only Way provided in úÌåÉøÈä for non-Jewish seekers to find Truth and the Creator-Singularity
Together, Jews and âÌÅøÄéí comprise, respectively, the "Realm of ).
All of the Judaic documentation through 135 C.E. demonstrates that historical
The Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically (4Q) MMT) demonstrate that all sects of legitimate 1st-century Judaism (i.e., recognized by the Beit Din ha-Jâ•dolꞋ) included the Oral Law within the definition of úÌåÉøÈä / Judaism.
As religious Jews functioning within the legitimate Jewish community, this included
It shouldn't be surprising, then, that we find (NHM 23:1-3) that
Rejection of Oral Law by Χριστιανοι differentiated them from every form of Judaism.
Post-135 C.E. redactions and Christian literature present a diametrically antithetical, 4th century C.E. Hellenized revision – yet another evolution of their Hellenist idol!
The product of the Hellenist Roman âÌåÉéÄí – Ιησους and Χριστιανοι – is also the antipodal antithesis of historical
Since these two are polar antitheses, historical Ιησους)…the prophesied "antichrist" = 666!
Confusing these two intractably antipodal antitheses is either ignorance or, more frequently, obsessive self-deception to defend one's beliefs against all evidence and reason.
One cannot follow two masters – much less two intractably contradictory opposites. Those who desire to follow the 1st Jew are forced to abandon the antinomian and misojudaic arch-antithesis and counterfeit, Ιησους and Χριστιανοι, in order to follow
Neither
Accordingly, unlike Christians, including Jewish Christians, the
Like the original
ôÌÈ÷Äéã
The 16th
ôÌÈ÷Äéã
It defies reason to follow the Roman counterfeit and deception, the "antichrist" prophesied in
While this is true for áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ, it is even more true for estranged secular Jews who have the background making them accountable to reject idolatry and its syncretism of mingling the
Whether you are a Jewish Christian or áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ, through our on-line
The Hebrew term that is used to describe those who have a portion in ha-
According to
In the Second Temple period, áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ (non-Jews according to the Biblical definition) weren't even permitted to interact in any way with Jews. They couldn't eat with Jews, socialize with Jews... or study úÌåÉøÈä with Jews!
âÌÅø is very different from áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ. A âÌÅøÄéí was defined in Biblical times as a non-Jew proselyte, recognized by the Beit Din as worthy to be admitted into the Jewish community for the purpose of non-selectively learning, and putting into practice, the rest of úÌåÉøÈä ('Acts' 15.21).
Just as all horses are animals but not all animals are horses, so, too, all âÌÅøÄéí are non-Jews but not all non-Jews are âÌÅøÄéí.
âÌÅøÄéí were included in the Talmudic definition of Israel; one of ten categories (
áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ are defined as ALL "non-Jews" — âÌåÉéÄí facing the same fate as all âÌåÉéÄí – not among the
Moreover, the ùÑÆáÈò
îÄöÀååÉú
áÌÀðÅé
ðÉçÇ were authored by the
The
During this transition phase, âÌÅøÄéí were — obviously — semi-observant non-Jews (proselyte disciples who hadn't yet been converted), at various stages of progress in their learning and practice. That's why âÌÅøÄéí are described at various stages of úÌåÉøÈä-observance that, otherwise, would seem contradictory.
Only in recent, post-medieval, times have these definitions been corrupted, mostly through ignorance of Biblical practices and definitions (even among Orthodox rabbis and universally among Ultra-Orthodox rabbis), to supposedly include non-Jews who keep only the ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ.
The ùÑÆáÈò îÄöÀååÉú áÌÀðÅé ðÉçÇ were only the starting point, never the end point.
 |
|
 |
