eWan


Home (Netzarim Logo)

Atonement in the Biblical 'New Covenant' – Live-Link

A Survey of Salvation For Gentiles
In the Beritot of Israel from Biblical Times

Geirim vs. Benei-Noakh and Displacement Theology

(Incorporating Contributions from Internet Discussions with Kenneth Guentert)

Optimized for Firefox
(MS Explorer doesn't display XHTML 1.0-Standard Unicode Greek)





© 1992-2004, 2006 Yirmeyâhu Bën-Dâwid, qid 16
The Netzârim
www.netzarim.co.il



If you're reading this and the owner of the computer on which this file resides hasn't purchased this book from the author at the website above this is an infringement of copyright. Please contact the author and pay for this book. To discourage piracy, each copy is uniquely identified and can be traced to the original purchaser.



With love to Karen, who has worked tirelessly for many years to make the studies and writing of this, and other, Netzârim book(s) possible, and to Yâ·eil our tzabarit (Israeli-born Jewess), who daily sacrifices time with Abba so he can work on the computer to provide this information to many.


Rainbow Rule

Table of Contents

(Click "Fast Forward" button to go; Hover cursor over math symbols for explanation)

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Yeshuâh Relative to Happiness and Purpose in Life

You will find happiness sublimely above all other lesser imitations only through your own personal relating to, and communion with, the Creator of the universe — as your everyday practice. Only when you achieve this personal communion with the Creator of this universe as your everyday practice can you finally realize His purpose in your life, resulting in personal fulfillment and real happiness.

Note, however, that distortions and misconceptions about Biblical Judaism and historical Ribi Yehoshua frequently stem from, and are perpetuated by, misojudaicDisplacement Theology – intrinsic in non-Jewish translations from the Hebrew. Biblical Judaism cannot be de-Judaized to satisfy non-Jewish expectations alien to Biblical Judaism. One cannot expect to grasp the Biblical plan of yeshuâh without developing a working knowledge of the basic concepts and terms of the ancient and pristine religion of the Jewish Bible – Dërëkh Halâkhâh. This book, and its introductory companion, Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link), illuminate Scriptural Hebrew and historical documentation to demonstrate the derivations of 1st-century Judaic definitions and concepts that are essential to grasp, and properly relate to, the authentic teachings of historical Ribi Yehoshua – which, early 4th century church historian Eusebius recorded, were found only in The Netzârim Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM). (EH III.xxvii.4).

Shamans, shams, cults and institutionalized religions alike all peddle "the" path to g*od, higher spirituality, mysticism, astrology, palm reading, graphology, transcendentalism, rebirthing, the "divine spark within," and what-have-you. The real questions are: to what kind of Prime Force Singularity do the laws of the universe around us testify? What are the origins of our universe, the real world – a spontaneous eruption from nothing, the amusement arcade of an irrational, capricious, and occult g*od, or the creation of an Omniscient(ific) and Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) Creator? And what is the purpose of creation, and your and my purpose in it?

The intelligent and educated person of the 21st century rejects the pseudo-sciences, insisting instead on an authentic scientific approach: a rational view that dismisses the superstitious and irrational to apply mathematical rules of logic to the interpretation of the descriptions, and restore the understanding, of the Creator known by the Patriarchs and Moshëh.

Latest scientific theorizing sees "spontaneous eruption" only in the sense of the "Big Bang" that most likely began our universe. Cosmologists theorize that the 'Big Bang' derived from 37 or more "fields of potential," rather like force fields, that were pumped with energy until they exploded in the "Big Bang." No matter how far back scientists theorize, no matter how far back astronomers can see in time, there is always a dead end: the Prime Cause Singularity. In this case, not only must there be a cause of the 37 or more "fields of potential," but also for what pumped them with energy and the origin of that energy. All scientific theories require – and lack – a "Prime Force Singularity." Scientists contradict logic and science when they preach that everything in the universe has a cause – and that's science, except the universe itself – in which case discussion of cause is religion and anti-science.

It is inconceivable that the "Prime Force Singularity," the only thing around at the time, was anything other than the Omniscient Singularity Force having a comparably intelligent purpose in creating both this universe around us and you and me in it.

What are the implications of an Omniscient Creator? First, an Entity Who is Omniscient makes no mistakes. Therefore, the Omniscient Creator is Perfect, i.e., no imperfection exists, or can exist, in the Creator – as that would render Him imperfect, an intractable contradiction. The absorption of an imperfection, such as imperfect humans like you or me, would, therefore, render an Omniscient Creator self-contradictory. This is the very essence of the principle of Qodësh and le-havdil bein Qodësh le-khol. In other words, the Creator must remain Perfect(Tehilim 92.16) and Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6). This has compelling implications in sorting out the single logical, single true understanding of the Singularity-Creator from the myriad errors. This implies that no contradictions may be attributed to a Perfect Creator simply because of humankind's limited, and distorted, understanding.

Einstein observed that the Creator isn't capricious. The Creator of the complex physical laws of our universe, many still far beyond our understanding, imply the Omniscient Creator. An Omniscient Creator, in turn, implies the creation of an intelligible universe – and you and me within that intelligent and intelligible purpose (Devârim 30.11-14). The only real challenge to our intelligence is to derive this purpose in accordance with His laws – logic, not feelings and intuition.

This further implies that an Intelligent and non-capricious Creator would not leave His sapient creatures without an Instruction Manual to ascertain, and aspire to, His purpose. Logic dictates that an intelligent and non-capricious Ha-Sheim has certainly provided, and ensured the survival of, His Instruction Manual somewhere in timespace that is accessible to intelligent seekers (i.e., in history rather than buried on a still-undiscovered planet or the like) and bears His Imprimatur and Endorsement. Consequently, the circumspect sapien will search for His Signature, His Signet stamp in the affairs of humankind, immediately followed by the handing down of His Instruction Manual. Unsurprisingly, one finds His Instruction Book as simply as translating "Instruction Book" into the language of Avrâhâm Âvinu, Yitzkhâq Âvinu, Yisrâ·eil, Moshëh and Ribi Yehoshua: (Seiphër Torâh)!!!

One can pursue this quest from Atlantis to "ancient mariners" and today's UFO reports searching for His Signature. Yet, only one great series of (natural) miracles stands out in the history of mankind, heralding the Creator's Signature. This Signature is attested in a well-documented ancient text that enjoys continuing archaeological and scientific corroboration with every new discovery. This text describes the 10 makot that culminated in Israel's Yetziâh from Mitzrayim. This increasingly corroborated document, the Hebrew Tana"kh, signals the Divine predesign in the affairs of humankind – His Signature and Imprimatur. Moreover, we find His Seiphër Torâh handed down directly thereafter.

For those who know how to read it – in Hebrew, not English, of course (much less misojudaic interpretations contradicting its authors) – here is the Creator's Seiphër Torâh for you. Torâh explains why the Creator created you and the purpose of your life: relating to the Singularity-Creator and how to commune with Him. Because of the principle of le-havdil bein Qodësh le-khol (wa-Yiq 10.10), necessitated by the mutual exclusivity of His Perfection and our imperfection, His Seiphër Torâh provides the Guidelines (mitzwot, mishpâtim and khuqim) to relate properly to His creation and His other creatures, including the rest of humankind. Living (not believing or intellectually recognizing) according to His Seiphër Torâh is what enables His gracious provision of kipur to blot-out imperfections, thereby permitting us to commune with Him and, eventually, with the rest of His Seiphër Torâh community in hâ-olâm ha-. Herein is happiness and purpose – and, since you're reading this, it isn't too late for you, if you're serious enough about starting a new life dedicated to serving the Creator.

The Seiphër Torâh sets forth the only Perfect and acceptable Dërëkh Halâkhâh of the Perfect Creator to achieve this. Those who argue that g*od loves and accepts them no matter what they do create a diversion, sending you on a wild goose chase. Their premise contradicts Torâh and simple logic. Loves, yes. Grieves, yes. But accepting someone imperfect into communion with Him, into His embrace and Himself, would bring imperfection into Himself – rendering Him no longer Perfect, a logical impossibility and contradiction of the Torâh requirement le-havdil bein Qodësh le-khol (wa-Yiq 10.10). Likewise, for Him to break His own Perfect laws necessarily contradicts His own Perfection – equally impossible. In His khein, He's made provision to blot out your imperfections. He has given you intelligence, Seiphër Torâh and free will to make your choice. The rest is up to you.

Whatever you do, however, He must remain ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Whether you conform to His Seiphër Torâh, enabling you to commune with Him without contaminating Him, is your decision. If you reject His Torâh, your demise will be your own decision. You won't be able to blame the Creator, a relative, or anyone else for your decision.

Probably the greatest misconception non-Jews have is their expectation that, despite their inability, typically, to even to read Tana"kh, nevertheless, Judaism should conform to their expectations rather than them conforming to Torâh. Those who cannot read Tana"kh have no excuse for such presumptuousness, which Torâh equates to -- (megadeiph ha-Sheim) – blasphemy of ha-Sheim (be-Midbar 15.30-31). That is why there is the Beit-Din and the example of Rut. The ignorant, who haven't read the Hebrew Tana"kh and Talmud, should simply adapt to do as the Teimânim and Netzârim do. Those who argue that g*od will accept them while they "follow their own heart and their own eyes"(be-Midbar15.39) either have an arrogant view of themselves speaking (le-tzad; beside, as a peer of) the Almighty (Dâniyeil 7.25), or they view the Almighty, le-havdil, as being as profane as themselves, or they just haven't applied reasonable intelligence and logic. It's impossible to say which is more blasphemous: their arrogant view of themselves as sufficiently dosh to commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, or their view of ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, as being, le-havdil, as profane as they are!

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Biblical Consistency in Parties To and Terms of Beritot

The Immutability of ha-Sheim

Since ha-Sheim9 is Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6), it's impossible that His desires for humankind's behavior are self-contradicting. Why would – indeed, how is it even be possible – a Perfect ha-Sheim contradict His previous perfect Beritot. It's simple and straightforward (indeed, it is the only logical approach) to understand the Beritot as increasingly specific, in a consistent and purposeful way, as humankind progressed. Contradictory Beritot, by contrast, imply a Perfect Creator contradicting Himself – an impossibility, further implying that – either before or after the contradictory berit – He and His Berit(ot) were imperfect.

Aside from relating to the original Hebrew meaning, perhaps the single most urgent factor, needed to grasp kipur for goyim is consistency. This book demonstrates the consistency in the series of Beritot of Yirmeyâhu's new berit, for every berit, including any "New Berit," must be perfectly and logically in harmony with all previous Beritot. A Perfect Creator couldn't put out a series of Perfect Beritot with humankind, then suddenly find they weren't perfect, and break His Word in order to replace them with a "New Berit" that contradicts all of His previous Beritot. To be valid, a "New Berit" of an Immutable(Malâkhi 3.6) Creator cannot be self-contradictory.

Each berit reflects an insight into the Unchanging Singularity-Creator relative to the continual dynamic progress of homo sapiens within an increasingly specific, spiritual pioneering and cutting-edge branch (family) of humankind. The parties and terms of the relationship, defined in the most recent berit, change only with respect to the upgrading, in a consistent Way, of the latest refinement sub-branch within this family, who are pioneering Dërëkh Halâkhâh in their relationship with the Unchanging Creator as they work toward attaining the prophesied level of (mamlëkhët Kohanim we-goy qâdosh; a kingdom of Kohanim and a goy dosh) – Shemot 19.6). Every person is required to follow these beritot, forged with ha-Sheim by this family, in order to qualify for His kipur, bringing them to a level of a goy dosh, fit to commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu.

Thus, no berit can ever contradict the earlier beritot nor displace the original, and current, family of real-world Yisrâ·eil. Each new berit is a refinement correspondingly more specific to the increasingly refined family sub-branch of humankind, who are always engaged in pioneering the next step in Dërëkh Halâkhâh. Consistency is the key and the absolute rule. As well as invalidating "halakhah" passed by rabbis that is illogical and contradicts Torâh shë-bikhtâv, this logic rules out a capricious g*od who offers haphazard, sometimes spiteful, deals with different people, and reneges on previous deals – a g*od that is a liar and undependable! Is that where you want to place your trust for your eternal future?

For millennia before Christianity, countless goyim became geirim – party with the family of Yisrâ·eil to the Beritot between ha-Sheim and humankind, thereby enjoying a share in hâ-olâm ha-. For any of several reasons, many geirim weren't able to become "converts" to Dërëkh Halâkhâh. Throngs of geirim were flocking to share in the berit at the Yetziâh, even before Har Sinai –many centuries before Christianity came onto the scene. Many of these weren't "converts" (in the modern sense) to Dërëkh Halâkhâh either. There were geirim who nilwu onto the natural vine of Beit-Yisrâ·eil even before Har Sinai, resulting in an (eirëv rav; great mixture) coming out of Mitzrayim (Shemot 12.38). Yet, little attention has been paid to the provisions for the throngs of geirim party to the berit of Har Sinai, centuries before the first Christian – though it is they who form the tavnit from which we must extend the logical consistency of the Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) Singularity-Creator to any 1st-century provision of kipur.

The pagan concept of praying to a personal man-g*od savior apart from Torâh-observance traces back well before 135 C.E. Christianity to the Roman counterpart of Z*eus (J*upiter), Hellenist Z*eus, and at least back to the Babylonian g*ods M*arduk / B*el / ba·al. "Each Babylonian had a personal g*od, a kind of good angel, to whom prayers were addressed and through whom salvation could be found" ("Babylonian Religion," Encarta '95). The doctrine of "personal salvation," such as J*esus (Greek I*eisous, derived from Z*eus 1), derived from worship of Z*eus and earlier paganism, not Judaism (see Timeline). The anomaly of kipur for goyim based on the doctrine of Displacement Theology (divine personal man-g*od savior who replaced yeshuâh for Jews with "salvation" for gentiles) didn't exist until it was introduced by Christianity after 135 C.E. Though the historical Ribi Yehoshua taught diametrically the opposite, Displacement Theology holds that goyim believers in Christ, i.e., the Church, self-proclaimed themselves as having become the "true spiritual Israel" authority – in place of the Jews. Because, according to original Christian claims, the Jews had rejected g*od's "Divine S*on" (therein, according to original Christian doctrine, rejecting g*od Himself), the Church proclaimed that the Jews had been blinded, rejected and even cursed by Him. Because they couldn't deny that the berit of Har Sinai was between ha-Sheim and Israel, Christianity's entire validity depended on their spurious pretense of interposing themselves, in place of the Jews they claimed were now rejected, cursed and – most importantly – they could then claim to displace (hence the description, Displacement Theology), in the berit of Har Sinai. In this way, post-135 C.E. Christians fabricated for themselves a pretense of the kipur, which is prerequisite to tâhârâh and dosh that ha-Sheim provides exclusively to Israel under the provision of the berit. This arrogation is Christianity's sole basis for their Hellenist-style pretend 'salvation'

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Benei-Noakh

One finds neither terms for, nor a promise of, "salvation" in the berit with Noakh – other than a rainbow symbolizing protection from another Mabul. The terms and benefits are almost as basic and primitive as the original, single Gan Eidën, Law: comply with Seven Laws and there will be no more Mabul, respectively. Humankind, including Noakh, hadn't yet adequately developed in their knowledge of right and wrong to grasp more abstract aspects of dosh. Except for one family line. culminating in Avrâhâm, the rest of the descendants of Noakh could hardly handle the terms of the berit with Noakh! From the time of Noakh until the berit at Har Sinai, humankind was only responsible for the terms of the berit with NoakhShëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh. Like the earlier berit, the berit with Noakh, though instituted through the one spiritual-pioneer whom ha-Sheim regarded as ha-Tzadiq (cf. be-Reishit 6.9), obligated every living person on into the future to be bound by the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh (i.e. the terms of the berit) so that (the promise of the berit ) there would never be another Mabul. Logical consistency.

The main uniqueness of the berit with Noakh is that ha-Sheim killed all those outside the family of this berit in the Mabul. There was no living person outside the berit with Noakh and, hence, no person living who was (or can now be) in need of seeking inclusion in a berit between ha-Sheim and Noakh.

This changed at Har Sinaiwhen ha-Sheim instituted a new, more exclusive, berit limited to Beit-Yisrâ·eil, but, unlike the berit with Noakh, without killing off the rest of humanity.

Some, even some Orthodox rabbis, argue that Benei-Noakh merit a place in hâ-olâm ha-. Today's misnamed Benei-Noakh movement, which shouldn't really be called Benei-Noakh, is the vanguard among the goyim that is headed in the right direction. Nevertheless, Talmud and the Sages, including Maimonides, agree that the phrase Benei-Noakh is properly defined as all goyim.2 According to Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a) and the Encyclopedia Judaica, "Every non-Jew is a 'son of the berit of Noakh' (see be-Reishit 9)"19 [emphasis added]. Thus, even Hitler is included among Benei-Noakh. Clearly, Benei-Noakh aren't the non-Jews to whom the Sages referred as meriting a place in hâ-olâm ha-. Nor did the Sages ever explicitly state "Benei-Noakh." Rather, the Sages referred specifically and explicitly to geirim, not goyim! It is only modern rabbis, first under persecution by the Church and, more recently, pressure to be 'politically correct' and 'anti-missionary' who have obfuscated this point.

Talmud shows that the Benei-Noakh are goyim who, if guilty of blasphemy, are executed by the sword – rather than by stoning as the Jew (and geir) would be executed for the same offense (Sanhedrin 56a.). Thus, the Bën-Noakh is conspicuously distinguished from the geir. The Bën-Noakh is outside of Judaism and its Beritot, while the geir has been granted nilwëh status, by a Beit-Din, onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil, within the Beritot. While Geir Tzëdëq may here be reasonably inferred, in contrast to the Geir Toshâv, this advanced status is not explicitly specified. In Sanhedrin 56b we find that certain rabbis added interpretations of the basic Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh, probably distinguishing Geir Tzëdëq above the provisional trainee Geir Toshâv. It bears noting here that the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh were originated by the Beit Din ha-Netzârim and the earliest reference to the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh is found in Ma·avâr 15.29 (see Appendix IV – Ma·avâr 15 Text).

The assertion that Bën-Noakh refers only to the one who actually keeps the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh and, consequently, is the one receiving "salvation," simply isn't compatible with the sources. In the interest of promoting interfaith relations, both Christians and Jews earlier focused on a misreading of Maimonides which, in English, seems to, but cannot possibly, extend yeshuâh to gentiles based solely on observing the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh. Encouragingly,Orthodox leaders have recently become increasingly distant from this misreading. As the Encyclopedia Judaica notes: Maimonides equates the 'Khâsid of the (gentile) nations' who has a share in hâ-olâm ha- even though he has not become a Jew with the gentile who keeps the laws of Noakh ("Noachide Laws," EJ, 12:1189). Yet, those who cite this often fail to also note Maimonides other declaration that "he who accepts its [the berit with Noakh] obligations is a Geir Toshâv"(Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 64b; Maimonides Yad, Melâkhim 8.10) – i.e., entailing recognition by a Beit-Din, not a Bën-Noakh / gentile, as the English inaccuracy seems to suggest!

Arguing that real Benei-Noakh are only the ones who keep the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh is tantamount to arguing that only the totally law-abiding portion of US citizens (and by their own, self-professed, reckoning if we follow the Benei-Noakh paradigm) are real US citizens. Most U.S. politicians and clergy probably wouldn't make that cut, to say nothing of a sizeable segment of other acknowledged and legally certified U.S. citizens. To cite an old joke: The only legitimate Americans by that definition would be you and me – and I'm not at all sure about you. Even if Benei-Noakh could keep all of the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh as interpreted by the Batei-Din, all of their life, they still would become no more than Benei-Noakh – all of whom are defined in Talmud as goyim – and we're back where we started – no Mabul, but no yeshuâh either! Keeping all of the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh defined nothing beyond a Bën-Noakh, and in no way implied participation of a member of Benei-Noakh (= all goyim) in the berit between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Israel's corresponding portion (as contrasted with the false synagogues described in Rev. 2.9 & 3.9) in hâ-olâm ha-. Those who keep only the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh receive only the promise of that berit with Noakh – no more Mabul!!!

If I might lend a Middle Eastern flavor to an old maxim: All sheep are animals, but not all animals are sheep. Similarly, all geirim recognize the authority of the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh, but not all who recognize the authority of the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh are geirim. Geirim are those goyim who have been recognized by a Perushim-heritage Beit-Din as abiding by the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh and commiting to learn and implement the rest of Torâh. Contrary to the poorly translated English, Maimonides like the other Sages, spoke of geirim, never implying that a "gentile" – Benei-Noakh – becomes party to Israel's share in hâ-olâm ha- by keeping only the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh. That spin was Church imposition talking. Maimonides14 never even implied that the Benei-Noakh could interpret and judge for themselves whether they were keeping the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh. That would have subverted the authority of the Beit-Din to decide such interpretations, a contradiction of Torâh.

Another misconception must be put to rest. Contrary to Christian canards, Torâh does not, nor has it ever, required perfection as a prerequisite for atonement. Nor has Torâh ever condemned any person for being imperfect. Torâh requires no more – nor less – than that your practice (i.e. keeping Torâh) reflects your utmost, with all of your heart and nëphësh, to love ha-Sheim: "you shall love -- your Ëlohim with all of your heart, with all of your nëphësh and with your utmost" (the Shema, be-Midbar 15.39; Devârim 6.5; 11.13). ha-Sheim promises in Torâh that those – and only those – who do their utmost to keep Torâh receive kipur in the khein of ha-Sheim and, therefore, a place in hâ-olâm ha-.

This could give a non-Jew the erroneous idea that before recognition as a geir one needs only observe the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh and then, immediately upon being recognized as a geir(âh), (s)he is immediately accountable for the full implementation of Torâh according to Halâkhâh – even though the trainee doesn't yet even know Torâh and Halâkhâh. This is a misconception. The learning curve requires a period of transition: proceeding only as fast as the geir(âh) can learn Torâh and Halâkhâh; only then can he or she implement it in his or her practice. "'It also stands to reason that no candidate could acquire full familiarity with the whole system of Jewish observance, which he had to keep from the first day after his hitgaiyerut, through such a single lecture, however long' " 3. While the geir obviously required a transitional learning period, during which partial observance was humanly unavoidable, selective observance as a permanent state beyond a learning period was never an acceptable option for geirim.

Talmud contrasts Benei-Noakh (all goyim) with the non-Jew who is a geir. "Âmar Rabina to R. Ashi: Come and hear: âmar R. Khiya Ben-Abba in the name of R. Yokhânân: A Bën-Noakh is put to death for stealing less than the smallest coin's worth [of the property of a Jew] and is not obliged to make restitution… And what does it mean 'he is not allowed an opportunity of making restitution'? [It signifies that] he does not come within the scope of the law of restitution" (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 71b-72a). Without getting into the complexity of legal acquisition of property, Talmud confirms here that none of Torâh – including the Beritot with its accompanying provision of kipur and corresponding portion in hâ-olâm ha- – applied (and, therefore, cannot accrue) to the Bën-Noakh. The geir, who was in various stages of learning to implement Torâh non-selectively, is thus contrasted with the Bën-Noakh who had made no commitment to the non-selective observance of Torâh. Consequently, only the geir was party to, and obligated under, the berit with Beit-Yisrâ·eil. In other words, the geir is the only non-Jew who can be party to Israel's berit !

The Biblical Archaeology Reviewdeclares, "There is simply no one in the world who has a better grasp of Hellenistic Jewish literature than Louis Feldman"(Feldman, Louis H., "The Omnipresence of the G*od-Fearers," Biblical Archaeology Review, 1986.09-10, p. 45, 58ff). "During the Hellenistic and early Roman period (B.C.E. 323 to 70 C.E.)," Feldman observes, "the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts… A proselytizing movement of such scope, if we may judge from parallel movements in the growth of Christianity and Islam, for example, would seem necessarily to imply the existence of intermediate categories of those at a half-way point or other sympathizers who tried to effect a syncretism of the old religion with the new one…" (loc. cit.).

Already by the 1st century C.E., Feldman notes (loc. cit.) several references to this group of non-Jews who had undertaken to learn and apply Judaism, but hadn't yet reached a satisfactory level to undergo hitgaiyerut. This is the purpose of the status of Geir Toshâv – a "provisional non-Jew, resident-alien trainee" status or internship. This internship lasts as long as the Geir Toshâv is making progress in learning and applying Torâh according to Halâkhâh non-selectively. When a level of halakhic Torâh-observance equivalent to being ready to undergo hitgaiyerut is reached, if the Geir Toshâv cannot undergo hitgaiyerut under the supervision of an Orthodox rabbi (for example, the individual may be married to a non-Jew), then the Beit Din ha-Netzârim may confer upon him the status of (non-Jewish) Geir Tzëdëq.

Pending coming before a Beit-Din to be recognized as a Geir Toshâv, Talmud regards the Bën-Noakh who fully observes only the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh as merely a higher order of heathen (Masëkët Eiruvin 62a, Masëkët Yevâmot 47b).

Therefore, statements that "gentiles" or Benei-Noakh have a place in hâ-olâm ha- can only refer to those who have distinguished themselves out from among the Benei-Noakh – as a geir.

Moreover, if the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh were all that are required for geirim, that would open the door to Messianics, other Christians, Reform and all manner of groups to include themselves in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community since, by their courts, they all satisfy themselves concerning the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

B.C.E. ca. 1467:

The Berit at Har Sinai – Consistency in Kipur & Teshuvâh

The question should properly be asked, "Which comes first, teshuvâh or kipur? Both are essential components of an indivisible process. On the one hand, kipur isn't accepted by ha-Sheim unless it's preceded by the first phases of teshuvâh – contrition for any aveirot Torâh, confession of any âwonot Torâh, and restitution of any wronged parties. On the other hand, while these first phases of teshuvâh must be accomplished before kipur-blood can be invoked, the concluding phases of teshuvâh (restoration to a state of dosh – in the granting by ha-Sheim of kipur – effecting reconciliation) cannot be completed until after ha-Sheim has accepted the kipur-blood.

To investigate how someone from the goyim can become a geir, and thereby a party to the berit and kipur of Beit-Yisrâ·eil, requires rediscovering the path that goyim have always followed, from the time of Har Sinai, to be included as participants in the berit of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (excluding the pretend "salvation" of Displacement Theology).

Respectful and tolerant relations between Jews and goyim is a desirable thing. Inclusion of a gentile as a nilwëh in the Jewish community, as a non-Jew, is something entirely different. How, then, can goyim whom Orthodox rabbis will not convert to Judaism, for no good reason, avail themselves of Biblical kipur? The answer is: "exactly the same as from the time of Moshëh." This is the logical consistency characteristic of a Perfect Creator.

Genealogically, after Noakh, ha-Sheim selected and nurtured the root of a family tree, Avrâhâm, a family trunk from that tree, Yitzkhâq Âvinu, a family branch from that trunk, Ya·aqov-Yisrâ·eil, and a Neitzër from that branch of the family, wid, representative of the shiakh) – each subbranch identified with a berit.

First, the idea of switching to a different family contradicts this process of refinement. Moreover, through Har Sinai, each selection represents a refinement to more refined definitions of dosh, with corresponding penalties for their violation, in order to effect the remedy: teshuvâh and kipur. Each berit provided new, and most importantly logically consistent, refinements and remedies concerning what ha-Sheim requires of humankind to be granted a prerequisite state of dosh that enables ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, to establish, for the individual Jew and geir, an intimate level of communion with Him.

Humankind is responsible, and held accountable, to keep all of ha-Sheim's requirements as they are revealed at the time. No person can reject ha-Sheim's revealed requirements simply because he finds earlier requirements more appealing, any more than those after Noakh can satisfy ha-Sheim be keeping His berit with Âdâm.

The logical conclusion of preferring an earlier berit would yield a group calling themselves Benei-Âdâm dancing around naked in a park they name Gan Eidën and playing with snakes – not very far-fetched considering the bizarre cults that arise periodically. However, Gan Eidën was irrevocably closed, just as each succeeding berit since has been closed by its subsequent berit.

Church doctrines were routinely imposed on Jews during many pograms. Some of these traditions were even internalized over time and still persist despite relief from the persecution. Examples include:

Yet, what ha-Sheim revealed to Beit-Yisrâ·eil on Har Sinai, like all of the earlier Beritot, was His plan and expectation for all humankind – not exclusively for Jews – from the time He revealed it. Unfortunately, for goyim, they all rejected that berit and have since been raised in that rejection. Only Israel accepted the berit. Therefore, only Israel reaps its rewards.

Jews often ask, "Why do the goyim think Jews should be held to a higher standard than themselves?" The doctrine that only Jews need strive for full observance of Torâh, while goyim shouldn't concern themselves beyond the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh is the answer to their question!!!

The notion that "ha-Sheim requires only the Jews to keep Torâh according to Halâkhâh" is no more valid than someone in the time of Noakh claiming "ha-Sheim required only Noakh to keep the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh." They drowned!

Having rejected the existing definitions of "sin" (properly defined only by Torâh) and replaced it with a pagan concept of personal 'salvation' through 'grace,' Christianity never had a fixed standard of "sin" other than "the rejection of the 'Lord J*esus'."

In Judaism, by contrast, "Both the [Tana"kh] and rabbinic theology reflect the belief that [Ëlohim]is dosh, man must be hor in order to remain in communion with Him. Sin4 and tumâh [both defined as aveirot of Torâh] [create a fissure] in the relationship between creature and Creator, and the process of kipur – through teshuvâh and reparation – restores this relationship" ("Atonement," EJ, 3:830).

A Perfect Singularity-Creator is, by definition, without imperfection – mum; i.e., ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu! For ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, to mingle / commune with an imperfect human, i.e. having a mum, would produce a contaminated creator having a mum – no longer ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Hence, ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu is the only One who can, through His khein extricate us from tumâh and khol, elevating us to a state of dosh so that we can then commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, without contaminating Him. This was – and is prophesied to be again in the Messianic Era – the symbolic purpose of the animal sacrifice system.5 Prohibitions against the mingling of unlike things, and the mitzwot to make an Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol are both requirements for us do to our utmost to avoid incurring a mum as well as mnemonics to continually remind us of this critical issue. Torâh sets forth the only means for erasing our imperfections (teshuvâh and kipur) to achieve reconciliation.

Some types of aveirot Torâh dealing with the physical body cause a person to become physically tumâh. As long as the spirit dwells in the body, tumâh causes a state of khol, a barrier to the state of dosh required for any relationship with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Tana"kh instructs that, to attain dosh, tumâh and khol must be remedied – not by "salvation," but by tâhârâh and teshuvâh, respectively – comprising the cessation of transgressing Torâh(Yeshayâhu 33.15 and Tehilim 15; 24.4; cf. also "Repentance," EJ, 14.73) and the commencement of performing the positive precepts of Torâh (Yeshayâhu 1.17; 58.5ff; Yirmeyâhu 7.3; 26.13; Âmos 5.14-15; Tehilim 34.15-16; 37.27; cf. also "Repentance," EJ, 14.73), contrition for inadvertent aveirot Torâh, confession of deliberate(cf. be-Midbar 15.30; et al.) aveirot Torâh, restitution to any wronged party,6 and, only then, kipur for life in hâ-olâm ha-.

From the Biblical beginning, examination of the whole series of Beritot shows that each berit was an upgrade required due to humankind's increase in knowledge, i.e., his developing understanding of the Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol, and his relating to the dosh of ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Just as Âdâm and Khawâh weren't content to obey without understanding, and insisted on ascertaining the reasons why ha-Sheim imposed a law on them – i.e., "they ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Right and Wrong" – they couldn't, after their increase in knowledge, return to the simplicity (innocence) of Gan Eidën and its berit consisting of a single law. The most recently revealed berit has always been the only berit between ha-Sheim and humankind accessible to mankind at any given time. These consistent Beritot reflect ha-Sheim's incremental unfolding of His consistent plan – and definitions – for humankind to eventually develop into a " " (mamlëkhët Kohanim we-goy qâdosh; a kingdom of Kohanim and a goy doshShemot 19.6; for the goy dosh, see also Zekharyâh 8.23 and 14.16-21) in order to commune intimately with Ëlohim – as a wife with her Husband. Since Âdâm, each berit was established as ha-Sheim found the individual and family capable and willing (the operation of free will) to satisfy and establish the latest, increasingly refined, revelation of His definitions of dosh with the corresponding penalties and remedies for their violation, needed to effect teshuvâh and kipur. The purpose is that, in this Way, ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, can, in His khein, can transform individual humans to a state of dosh without contradicting Himself, thereby enabling communion and a relationship with Him.

Through these consistent Beritot, humankind is brought to the necessary state of dosh for communion with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Through the khein of ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, homo sapiens are granted access to a provision erasing their imperfections, thereby making them dosh so that they may commune with ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, in hâ-olâm ha-.

The first stage was through predesigned natural (physical) selection – the Mabul. The second stage is through spiritual selection. Those outside of the berit with Noakh, being arrogantly and hopelessly tumâh, were, like Sedom (corrupted to "Sodom") and Amorâh (corrupted to "Gomorrah"), cut off physically. Within the limits exemplified by Sedom and Amorâh, those outside of the berit with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, are only cut off spiritually since, while remaining alive physically, there is still hope that these might one day repent and choose to satisfy the berit, becoming nilwim to Beit-Yisrâ·eil.

At the time of Har Sinai, only Beit-Yisrâ·eil was willing to satisfy the Creator's desires, to become a party to, and establish the terms of, His berit – for all future humankind. Attempting to claim the benefit of a berit without adhering to the terms of the same berit, and thereby becoming party to the same berit, is as nonsensical as buying a computer game for a Mac and claiming the receipt makes you a shareholder and executive of Microsoft. The reality of Yom ha-Sheim (Day of ha-Sheim, popularly "Judgment Day") sets in when you try to forge a check on Bill Gates' account or move into a room in his mansion. Inclusion in the berit with Noakh is an attribute of every living person. However, just as Bill Gates' approval is needed to have any valid claim to be family, party or beneficiary to what is his, similarly, inclusion of those outside the family of Beit-Yisrâ·eil in the berit between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil requires obtaining authorization and recognition from Beit-Yisrâ·eil (i.e., from a Perushim-heritage Beit-Din) for inclusion in the berit of Har Sinai and subsequent beritot.

At least from the time of Har Sinai the only two options enabling gentiles to obtain nilwëh status from a Beit-Din into Qehilat ha-Sheim were (and remain):

  1. by Berit Milâh and hitgaiyerut according to Halâkhâh, becoming a Jew, or

  2. obtaining nilwëh status without Berit Milâh (i.e., without hitgaiyerut), in other words, as a geir.7

The classic Jewess who underwent hitgaiyerut in ca. B.C.E. 1144 is Rut. She expressed the required attitude of a person from among the goyim who desired to obtain the status of nilwëh status from the Beit-Din into Qehilat ha-Sheim(Rut 1.16ff): "Don't entreat me to leave you, or to turn from following you. For where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your am is my am, and your Ëlohim is my Ëlohim. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried – and so may -- add that [death and burial] to me if anything other than death separates between you and me."

But not all who obtained nilwëh status to Israel were like Rut. "Ancient Israel was acquainted with two categories of strangers, resident aliens and foreigners who considered their sojourn in the land more or less temporary. The latter were referred to as zârim or Nokhrim, terms generally applied to anyone outside the circle the writer had in view (e.g., Shemot 21.8; 29.33). They retained their ties to their original home and sought to maintain their former political or social status…. In contrast with the zâr, the geir lived more or less permanently in his adopted community…. and bound by their laws [emphasis mine] (be-Midbar 15.15-16)…." 23

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

B.C.E. ca. 585

Non-Jews Granted Nilwëh Status In Beit-Yisrâ·eil
Within the Berit Khadâshâh of Yirmeyâhu

Ignorant of Hebrew, some misread Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh (31.31) as heralding a supersessive, Displacement Theology berit.

Yirmeyâhu 31.30-32 reads: " 'Behold, days are coming,' declares --, 'when I will inscribe with Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Yehudâh a (Berit Khadâshâh).' "

"Inscribe a Berit Khadâshâh with goyim," did He say? No!!! With Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Yehudâh!!! Consistence!

Further, there is no implication of any significant difference in kind or radical change in direction inherent in the adjective "new." Even in English, "new" doesn't imply (logically) significant difference in kind or radical change in direction. If someone with one or more children tells you that their wife had a "new" baby, no reasonable person coming to see the "new" baby would be shocked that it isn't a camel or a begonia. Even when a shampoo company advertises an "all new" formula, you would be quite upset if you looked in the mirror after using it and discovered their "new" formula – even though it was advertised as "all new" – was a permanent hair removal cream!

Hebrew is even less ambiguous. (khâdâsh) is a masc. sing. adj. meaning "new." Because (berit) is a fem. sing. noun, Hebrew grammar requires that the adj. match in number and gender: the fem. sing. (khadâshâh).

Assuming the weight of evidence wrong is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam; in modern parlance, proofshift. Whenever there is a known state, anyone wishing to claim a change in that state assumes the burden of proving that change. The burden of proof never shifts to require showing a known state continues to be the same. Logic places the burden of proof on Displacement Theology to prove displacement, not on defenders of Torâh to prove it hasn't been displaced. 4Q MMT demonstrates that Torâh was clearly considered valid and all of the above is consistent with, and corroborates, Judaism before 135 C.E. It is not enough for Displacement Theology or proponents of supersession to assume Displacement or Christian claims of supersession. Displacement or supersession must be proven. No one can even defend it credibly, much less prove it.

Unless Tana"kh states a diametric change explicitly and unambiguously, illucidating the logical consistency in the diametric change of direction, one is never justified in rejecting a well-solved (i.e., known-consistent) interpretation, and never to default to an inconsistent interpretation of some radical change.

If Yirmeyâhu had been writing in English, he would have had to imply such a radical change – encompassing both, direction and kind – by at least explaining that this would be "another" berit, implying kind and direction.

Hebrew has two terms to express the English idea of "another":

If a contradictory displacement berit had been intended, Yirmeyâhu would have had to clarify further that, unlike all previous beritot that were consistent, he was prophesying a berit khadâshâh that was inconsistent with all of the earlier beritot. In Hebrew, without some additional cue, (khadâshâh) suggests an absence of polar change, in kind or direction. To express such a prodigious, polar change in Hebrew, conveying "new that's significantly different in kind or direction" rather than "new that's similar in kind and direction," Yirmeyâhu would, minimally, have had to write: (berit akhërët; another-different berit), making the word khadâshâh (new) redundant. Because neither Torâh nor the Neviyim are deliberately obtuse, however, we should expect Yirmeyâhu to describe it even more precisely, as a (berit makhaliphâh; a berit introducing a radical change in kind or a radical switch in direction), again making the word khadâshâh (new) redundant. Yirmeyâhu doesn't describe his Berit Khadâshâh with these words because his Berit Khadâshâh was neither a berit akhërët nor a berit makhaliphâh!

Yirmeyâhu makes no such explicit and unambiguous statement, which would be needed to introduce Displacement Theology.

Exactly the contrary! Precisely to preclude this kind of straying from Torâh, Yirmeyâhu continues that, unlike the first set of tablets that were broken even before they could be presented to Israel (Shemot 32.19-20), the Berit Khadâshâh, governing the second set of tablets (i.e., Torâh), would never be broken, and it would be khadâshâh, new, (only) in the sense of internalizing the desire to keep Torâh (i.e., in the heart), rather than continuing to depend upon the external imposition of Torâh through the threat of punishment. Yirmeyâhu specifically stipulated that the difference was not any contradiction, or displacement, of Beit-Yisrâ·eil or His Torâh (30.32): " 'Because this is the berit that I will inscribe with Beit-Yisrâ·eil after those days,' declares --, 'I will give My Torâh in their innermost being, and will write it upon their hearts.' "

Has Yirmeyâhu written of ha-Sheim that "this is the berit that [He] will inscribe with 'the gentiles' "? That He "will give a 'NT' in their innermost being"? That He "will write a 'NT' upon their hearts"? Recognizing the difference between a berit concerning Torâh in contrast to Torâh itself is fundamental to understanding Yirmeyâhu's message. This was a new berit concerning how to better relate to Torâh – from the heart, not a displacement of Torâh. The two concepts are mutually exclusive, polar opposites.

Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh was the internalization of Torâh, keeping Torâh from the heart rather than out of fear of punishment – therefore, keeping the "Spirit of Torâh" (the Ruakh ha-Qodësh) rather than the "letter of the law."

For over 700 years after Yirmeyâhu introduced this Berit Khadâshâh – until gentile Roman pagans claimed, after 135 C.E., that it meant something diametrically opposite – the entire Judaic community knew that. The entire Judaic community still knows it. Consistent.

This is the identical "Realm of the heavens" that Ribi Yehoshua explained had come down to men, the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, the Shekhinâh of ha-Sheim, Who would live in the hearts of those of Israel (which included geirim) who are willing.

There's no basis in Yirmeyâhu for a Displacement Theology; whether of the parties, of the Beritot or of its terms. Only by relying upon the consistent Judaic tradition of the author – Yirmeyâhu – may one understand what Yirmeyâhu wrote from his own Judaic perspective.

"During the Hellenistic and early Roman period (B.C.E. 323 to 70 C.E.)," Louis H. Feldman observes,8 "the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts… A proselytizing movement of such scope, if we may judge from parallel movements in the growth of Christianity and Islam, for example, would seem necessarily to imply the existence of intermediate categories of those at a half-way point or other sympathizers who tried to effect a syncretism [emphasis added] of the old religion with the new one…"

Displacement Theology is naked misojudaism deriving from Hellenist (pagan) Roman goyim who syncretized selected concepts from Judaism into their own pagan mythologies and sun(g*od)day worship, to self-proclaim their own ex post facto, retrojected, antinomian and misojudaic image: J*esus. For example, Dec. 25th was the birthday of M*ithra, their sun g*od (= 666,details in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)), while Ribi Yehoshua was certainly born in late spring to early summer. Astronomical correlation fixes that date as May 29th of B.C.E. 7 (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM), notes 2.2.1, 2.0.1 & 2.3.1).

Not only did Yirmeyâhu stipulate that this berit was with Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Yehudâh, and not a contradictory theology of replacing Jews with goyim, neither had there ever been any precedent for rejecting consistency and contradicting previous BeritotBeritot that contain promises that were to Beit-Yisrâ·eil forever, by ha-Sheim's sworn Word.

Those who maintain that g*od broke His Word to Beit-Yisrâ·eil worship a liar!

This is how Judaic and Christian views diverge – exactly the same way that the views of the Netzârim, part of the Perushim-heritage (i.e., Orthodox Jewish) community, diverge from Christian Jews (imposter "Messianics") and the numerous counterfeit Netzârim and 'Nazarenes' springing up like Paul the Apostate and the Ëvyonim. Jews interpret this verse in Yirmeyâhu consistently, along with everything Judaic (all the Beritot) that led forward to it. Christians, by contrast, interpret this verse consistently with everything Christian, attempting to fabricate a path they could retroject back to it – that is, by assuming (petitio principii) that Christianity is the consummate berit described by Yirmeyâhu and then, by naked fabrication, retrojecting their own 4th-century misojudaic (Hellenist Roman) goyim Christian perspectives back in time. What they couldn't do, however, is create pre-135 C.E. documentation for their fabrications.

Yirmeyâhu absolutely limits messianic interpretations of the Berit Khadâshâh to be consistent with all of the previous Beritot with ha-Sheim, remaining strictly within, and for, His earlier familial selection – Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Yehudâh, who continue to be the only beneficiaries; just as Noakh was within the family (descendants) of Âdâm, Avrâhâm within the family of Noakh, Yitzkhâq Âvinu within the family of Avrâhâm, Ya·aqov within the family of Yitzkhâq Âvinu, Aharon and wid (Kohein and mëlëkh, respectively) within the family of Ya·aqov, Tzâdoq and Shlomoh ha-Melekh within the families of Aharon and wid, respectively, and the shiakhRibi Yehoshua Bën-Yoseiph Bën-Dâvid – from the family of wid.

No berit given by ha-Sheim has ever been inconsistent with this process or stepped outside of the previously selected family. Each specification has always focused refining the previous; has always been more comprehensive than the last, constraining human behavior ever more closely to His desires – never abandoning the previously promised family or taking a radical turn in a different direction. Consequently, kipur under the provisions of the berit of Har Sinai became, and necessarily must always continue to be, within the definitions and terms of Torâh and for Beit-Yisrâ·eil (which included geirim) – exclusively.

To become party to Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh, all goyim must meet the terms of all of the previous Beritot, which ha-Sheim obliged Beit-Yisrâ·eil to preserve, and obtain the approval of the current and historical party to the berit (not merely claim, by self-proclamation, that their g*od redirected the berit to make them parties to it). Only a legitimate party to the berit can admit another party into the berit. This is done only through a Perushim-heritage Beit-Din. Yirmeyâhu explicitly stipulated that the requirements to become party to Israel's kipur for a share in hâ-olâm ha- promised to Beit-Yisrâ·eil, were clearly revealed and spelled out earlier – as terms of the berit of Har Sinai. Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh explicitly precluded any changes in ha-Sheim's requirements (the terms) for a person to be 'saved' and go to 'heaven.' That requirement, explicitly spelled out, was "My Torâh." The only thing new that Yirmeyâhu leaves open is the internalization by which ha-Sheim would fulfill the same / consistent terms of His earlier berit – "My Torâh" – with Beit-Yisrâ·eil. Only the promise9of Yirmeyâhu's berit is khadâshâh (new). The terms Yirmeyâhu cites for being party to that promise, by contrast, are not new: one must internalize the terms of the berit of Har Sinai — which is Torâh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

B.C.E. ca. 453 – B.C.E. ca. 8

Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini Era Before Ribi Yehoshua

Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh was confirmed in Dërëkh Halâkhâh as being consistent with the previous Beritot for over half a millennium before Ribi Yehoshua was even born, and it was more than a century after his death when Hellenist and Roman goyim first introduced their misojudaic apostasy of supersessive Displacement Theology – Christianity – in 135 C.E. This demonstrates conclusively that the contradicting goyim syncretizations of the 2nd-4th centuries C.E. are bogus fabrications and deceptions, the greatest deception in history.

But that didn't leave non-Jews out of the picture. The Sages comment on Tehilim 67:3 that Ëlohim's interest wasn't, isn't and won't be confined to Israel. He loves all of His creatures. But He is and must remain ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. Therefore, His provisions for eternal communion with Him are granted exclusively to those who do their utmost to keep Torâh. He is vitally concerned with the welfare and kipur of all who do their utmost to keep Torâh. One purpose of Israel's exile and dispersion was to expose all of the goyim to the Torâh teachings, so that they might have an opportunity to accept these truthes and obtain kipur. The Sages taught(Masëkët Pesâkhim 87b) that ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, exiled Israel among the goyim in order to add geirim to the Jewish people (Artscroll Tehilim I, p. 819); geirim – not goyim, nor Benei-Noakh (Masëkët Pesâkhim 87b).

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Yukhasin Documents: Geirim Are In Qehilat ha-Sheim

But Neither Goyim Nor Bën-Noakh Are Included

In Talmud, the end of Masëkët Qidushin 69a and most of 69b is devoted to the question of who may "come to each other"( (vo zëh be-zëh; "he will come this [one] to that [one]," in the sense of marital intimacy). (vo; he will come) is from the verb (bo; he came). This issue is generally discussed under the topic (bi·âh; coming and, by extension, coitus or sexual intercourse), a cognate of this verb. Based on similar language referring to marriage elsewhere (Devârim 23.2-4), the Sages interpreted this language as referring to physical marriage between various categories within Qehilat-ha-Sheim. (Marriage means a halakhically sanctioned marriage. "Marriage" outside of Judaism has no validity in Judaism.)

Mishnâh Qidushin 69a-b begins "Ten yukhasin went up from Bavël," then lists the 10 categories of yukhasin of the public genealogical registers that were known collectively as the "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life):10 Kohanim, Lewiyim, Yisrâ·eilim, Khalâlim (profaned Kohanim), Geirim, khârârim (freed slave, free man), mamzerim (offspring of coupling prohibited by Halâkhâh), netinim,11 shetuqim (mutes), and asuphim (foundlings).

This Mishnâh sets forth three major groups of these 10 categories of yukhasin who were permitted to "come to each other"; i.e., intermarriage was permitted only within a group and, even then, only under certain conditions:

Certain types were included in two of the groups, indicating that, under certain conditions, members of one group could migrate to a different group and then be permitted to marry certain members of the new group: ( and ) or ( and ). Groups and , by contrast, are mutually exclusive; indicating that cross-group marriage is never permitted, under any conditions, between any members of these two groups of yukhasin.

This implies a number of conclusions:

It should also be clear from this that:

  1. geirim is as valid a category of Qehilat- ha-Sheim as any of the other nine categories, and

  2. being in the category of geirim and not Yisrâ·eilim is no more a slight than this writer being in the category of Yisrâ·eilim and not in the category of Kohanim or Lewiyim.

  3. geirim should not be insecure simply because they are outside of the category of Yisrâ·eilim – neither are the Kohanim, Lewiyim, and the other six categories!

Reverting to the vernacular of modern mainstream Judaism, the questions we're answering are:

  1. whether, from Biblical antiquity, Halâkhâh permits the shomeir-Torah non-Jew to marry into the khârârim, mamzerim, netinim, shetuqim, or asuphim categories (demonstrated in the affirmative); and

  2. whether, from Biblical antiquity, Halâkhâh permits the shomeir-Torah (former geir / Jew who has undergone hitgaiyerut) to marry into the mamzerim, netinim, shetuqim, or asuphim – regardless whether modern Jews refer to him or her as a geir (demonstrated in the negative).

Talmud thus confirms that geirim, unlike either the Benei-Noakh or the goyim, were the only category of non-Jew included as one of the 10 categories of yukhasin that constituted Qehilat- ha-Sheim returning from Bavël. To be included in the yukhasin was to be included in the "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life = 'saved') – and, from antiquity, this has remained the only Dërëkh through which non-Jews can become participants in the Beritot between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil and, thus, have a portion in hâ-olâm ha-!

When the Sidur says "In Shabât contentment, the (areilim; uncircumcised) shall not [be present as a] neighbor," it uses areilim in the plural, to refer collectively to the goyim, not the individual. This is clear because, though infrequent, medical considerations occasionally preclude circumcising a male Jewish baby. The Sidur certainly doesn't refer to such a Jew being excluded from the contentment of Shabât. Similarly, neither does the Sidur preclude the blessings of Shabât to a geir who has also been granted nilwëh status onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil by a Perushim-heritage Beit-Din in accordance with Halâkhâh. To the contrary, the Sidur declares (weekday Shakharit Amidâh): "Upon the tzadiqim, and upon the khasidim, and upon the geirei tzëdëq and upon the remnant of Your am, Beit-Yisrâ·eil may they utter Your compassions ha-Sheim Ëloheinu; and give a good wage to all who trust in Your Name in truth; and set our portion with them le-olâm." The geir is an individual who, despite being âreil (uncircumcised) and a non-Jew, is a member of Beit-Yisrâ·eil and not categorized with the areilim (uncircumcised).

According to a note in Magil's Linear sidur: "The correct tradition is areilim, because such is found in every sidur, both Sephârâdi and Ramb"m sidurim. And this is the language of [Ramb"m's] Moonstone: `And You did not give it, -- our Ëloheinu, to the goyei ha-arâtzot,' (those who aren't star-servers), `You did not bequeath it, O our King, to idol-servers,' (those who serve strange things). 'Also in its comfort do not dwell the areilim (who are neither these nor those, but geirim who accept upon themselves [only] the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh), but rather to Beit-Yisrâ·eil who has accepted upon them all of the Torâh. And concerning such it isn't right to skip them. It is the language that was fixed by the Sages.' end of quote"(Magil's Complete Linear Prayer Book, 16th ed., New York, Hebrew Publ. Co., 1905, II, 125). Significantly, however, this entire section is absent in the sidur Teimâni.

Ramb"m clarifies that even the goyei ha-arâtzot, who aren't star worshippers, weren't given Shabât; clarifying, too, that idol-servers means all those who venerate strange things, and that geirim who have met only the threshold requirements of the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh but who don't undertake to learn (and apply as one learns) full and non-selective halakhic Torâh-observance don't attain to dwell in the comfort of Shabât . Only those who undertake the full halakhic observance of Torâh , achieving recognition from a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din as Geir Tzëdëq, attain the enjoyment of dwelling in the comfort of Shabât.

This Mishnâh also demonstrates the types of yukhasin that must be documented, demonstrating why Jews keep formal records of those who have been recognized by a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din – the yukhasin or "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life).10 By the time of the destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini, "Davidic descendants were not traceable" ("Messiah," EJ, 11:1410.). Since the Roman destruction of the public yukhasin (by the 4th century C.E.), after a lapse of centuries, modern records are distributed among Orthodox institutions across the world. These records determine whether Halâkhâh permits a certain marriage, the status of children, who they may and may not marry, whether they can make âliyâh to Israel under the Law of Return, and the like.

Geirim are not classed as khârârim, mamzerim, netinim, shetuqim, or asuphim, and these kinds of personal data are necessary for keeping proper records that are essential for determining marital eligibility, among other things, by the wider Jewish community. This is handled by Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) rabbis according to Halâkhâh. The Netzârim maintain only yukhasin information specific to Netzârim Jews and geirim.

The geir is granted nilwëh status by a Beit-Din, thereby being registered in this "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life):10 with the rest of Beit-Yisrâ·eil. The relationship can be described as a full interaction, at a specified level, in a dynamic relationship that changes as the geir matures to accept the full authority of Torâh (i.e., becomes a Geir Tzëdëq or converts, thereupon being transformed into a Jew). A primary distinction is that the geir isn't a Jew(ess), but that isn't unique – neither were some of the khârârim. Being a geir is neither an insult nor an epithet. Only when applied to someone who is a Jew – and not a geir – it becomes both. It shouldn't be an insult to be called a man or a woman – if the person in question is such. It's not so nice if the person is of the opposite sex than what they're being called. A Kohein shouldn't be called Yisrâ·eili, etc. Should this writer be insulted at being "only" Yisrâ·eili and Yehudi?

For example, mamzerim, while restricted from marrying in groups or of the yukhasin, were, nevertheless, included in the yukhasin. Since Devârim 23:2-4 prohibits mamzerim from marrying within Qehilat- ha-Sheim, and this was interpreted by the Sages as a prohibition against them marrying in groups or of the yukhasin, we can conclude that one understanding of Qehilat- ha-Sheim was as a synonym for groups and of the yukhasin. Thus, also in this way geirim are clearly demonstrated to be within Qehilat- ha-Sheim (since geirim are included in group of the yukhasin).

While Jews could also become slaves, whenever they were freed they reverted to their previous status. Khârârim comprised non-Jews exclusively. Sandwiched between a category of Jews (khalâlim) on one side and a category of non-Jews (khârârim) on the other, the geir was regarded as in between: more than a zâr / Bën-Noakh but less than a full Jew.

Just like resident-alien status in the U.S. or any other country today, geir is a legal status with legal admission requirements and obligations, not a voluntary code of self-defined behavior or self-proclaimed status. One of the big differences between geirim and goyim is that goyim define and attempt to relate Torâh and Jews to themselves, according to their own beliefs, values and standards, while geirim do the opposite: defining and relating themselves to Torâh and Jews according to Judaic Torâh standards, values and beliefs. Also, goyim are defined as mutually exclusive from Beit-Yisrâ·eil, while geirim are granted nilwëh status onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil as one of its ten documented yukhasin and, therefore, are co-beneficiaries with Beit-Yisrâ·eil in her Beritot and, therefore, co-sharers with her in hâ-olâm ha-.

Thus, along with the nine other categories, Qehilat- ha-Sheim includes geirim comprising:

  1. Geirei Tzëdëq who strive to be shomeir-Torah according to Halâkhâh and will undergo hitgaiyerut to become a Jew (and will then cease being a geir);

  2. Geirei Tzëdëq who strive to be shomeir-Torah according to Halâkhâh but are ineligible to undergo hitgaiyerut due to their marital situation;12 and

  3. Geirei Toshâv provisional trainees learning how to become one of the first two (Shemot 19:5-6 and Zekharyâh 8:23.).

The prohibition of intermarriage between geirim (unless they first undergo hitgaiyerut and become a Jew, in which case they're no longer a geir) and Beit-Yisrâ·eil was first symbolized in the warning against kilaiyim (mixed-up diverse) kinds of seeds, and of sha·atneiz. The only Hebrew term that can be related to sha·atneiz is an acronym: " " Sha·atnei"z Gei"tz, which designates the 7 letters that are adorned with crownlets in the Seiphër Torâh. Why Sha·atnei"z and Gei"tz, and no other letters? And why is Sha·atnei"z separated from Gei"tz as two words rather than one? This was neither accidental nor without significance. Gei"tz is the acronym standing for Geir Tzëdëq! The meaning is, Don't render your seed kilaiyim (mixed-up diverse), producing sha·atneiz in the fabric of Beit-Yisrâ·eil with the Geir Tzëdëq – a cryptic prohibition against intermarriage contained in the crownlets throughout Seiphër Torâh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

The Biblical Period: Was the Geir a Converted Jew?

Where wa-Yiq 25:47 mentions a Geir Toshâv, Onkelos translates this as (aral totâv; an uncircumcised settler) – certainly not a Jew.

Talmud (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 65a) corroborates that the Geir Toshâv was a pre-convert who had not yet undergone Berit Milâh: "… Âmar Râbâ Bën-Bar-Khanan in the name or R. Yokhânân: 'A Geir Toshâv who allows twelve months to pass without undergoing Berit Milâh is to be regarded as a heretic among idolaters!' [Rav Yehudâh] answered, 'This refers to the circumstance where he undertook to undergo Berit Milâh but did not undergo the rite.'" Here Talmud demonstrates both that the Geir Toshâv implied a pre-convert geir in training, and that not all convert trainees / geirim "undertook Berit Milâh." This describes only those geirim who had committed to undergo Berit Milâh, associated with the option of undertaking hitgaiyerut. (Berit Milâh isn't optional for the geir undergoing hitgaiyerut.) Therefore, this condemnation cannot be logically applied to the geir who has undertaken neither Berit Milâh nor hitgaiyerut. (There are also permanent geirim, who, for one reason or another cannot qualify for hitgaiyerut.)

In group of the yukhasin, Talmud documents that Lewiyim, Yisrâ·eilim, Khalâlim, geirim, and khârârim can "come to each other" in Qehilat- ha-Sheim. The language mimics a passage in Torâh that speaks of mamzerim and others who may not "come to each other" in Qehilat- ha-Sheim, i.e., may not marry within Qehilat- ha-Sheim. In saying that geirim were permitted to "come to each other" with other groups in Qehilat- ha-Sheim, Talmud's identical language necessarily implies not only that the geir was permitted, under certain conditions, to marry within Beit-Yisrâ·eil, but also that he was permitted, under certain conditions, to "come to each other" in Qehilat- ha-Sheim.

The sabot in the gears is a statement in Talmud that a Jew may marry a geir: "A geir may marry a Jewish woman, even the daughter of a Kohein" (Masëkët Qidushin 73a; Ramb"m Yâd, Isurei Bi·âh (prohibitions of coming) 19:11; Shulkhân Ârukh, Ëvën ha-Ëzër (the helping stone) 7:22, quoted from "Proselytes," EJ, 13:1184). A geirâh, however, cannot marry a Kohein, unless she [underwent hitgaiyerut] during childhood, not later than the age of three years and one day (Masëkët Yevâmot 60b; Masëkët Qidushin 78a). R. Yose permits the marriage of the daughter of a geir(âh) to a Kohein; R. Ëliëzër Bën-Ya·aqov, however, disputes the matter"("Proselytes," EJ, 13:1184).

In the case of marriage between a geir(âh) and a Kohein the Sages confirm an understood "there is a case in which" (i.e., unless she underwent hitgaiyerut not later than the age of three years and one day). The same understood "there is a case in which" applies to marriage between a geir, a khârâr or a Khalâl and the daughter of a Kohein, demonstrating that permission of intermarriage is not implied in all cases. Intermarriage is restricted in the case of the geir (who must undergo hitgaiyerut to become a Jew) and the khârâr (who must either be a Jew or undergo hitgaiyerut) and, concerning these and the Khalâlim, the daughter of the Kohein forfeits all her rights to any participation in matters pertaining to Kohanim. Just as not all animals are goats, not all geirim can marry the daughter of a Kohein, nor could all khârârim marry the daughter of a Kohein.

If one wishes to explain that Masëkët Yevâmot 60b and Masëkët Qidushin 78a imply that the daughter of a Kohein may marry the Geir Tzëdëq – "as is" because they interpret the phrase to refer to a Jew who has already undergone hitgaiyerut, this implies that, similarly, the khârâr, who is a non-Jew, would also be permitted to marry the daughter of a Kohein "as is" (without hitgaiyerut), because he is a member of the same group. This interpretation of Geir Tzëdëq would introduce a contradiction and, on these grounds as well, therefore demonstrated false.

The apparent specter, raised by yukhasin group , of intermarriage between geirim and Yisrâ·eilim / Lewiyim is very likely the reason that, despite overwhelming evidence that geirim had not undergone hitgaiyerut, many Jewish interpreters continue to insist that, since marrying a Jew is permitted, the geir in group could only refer to Geir Tzëdëq based solely on their equating him to a Jew. The unjustified inference of intermarriage between geir and Jew in the Masëkët Qidushin citation probably cemented the evolving definition of a Geir Tzëdëq as a Jew who has undergone hitgaiyerut. However, this interpretation of Talmud (that it would otherwise contradict the injunction against intermarriage with non-Jews) is based on error.

Talmud isn't discussing ordinary Jews in Masëkët Qidushin 73a. This passage focuses on Khalâlim, khârârim, geirim, mamzerim, and shetuqim. These categories are not despised as in western culture. Rather, although all of the categories except geirim and khârârim are Jews, they are not qualified to be regarded as, i.e., intermarry with, Kohanim, Lewiyim or Yisrâ·eilim. This categorization of geirim – as being a classification separate from, and unqualified to be regarded as, Yisrâ·eilim – is not the association Halâkhâh dictates is due the Jew who has undergone hitgaiyerut. Therefore, the Geir Tzëdëq is yet again demonstrated not to be a Jew.

Jews were required to offer the Passover qârbân, and it is a well recognized halakhic principle that Torâh doesn't include such a phrase without a reason and an implication. If one argues that the Geir Tzëdëq has undergone Berit Milâh and become a Jew, why, then, does Torâh deem it necessary to stipulate that only those from among the geirim who had undergone Berit Milâh could do so(Cf. Shemot 12.48)? If a gentile became circumcised and converted to be a geir, then, a priori, there can be no uncircumcised geirim – implying that Torâh is mumbling nonsense! Yet again, the geir cannot be a Jew. If the Geir Tzëdëq was a Jew who had undergone Berit Milâh and converted, then Torâh would have had no reason to append this stipulation. This unambiguously implies that there were geirim who had neither undergone Berit Milâh nor hitgaiyerut, and weren't classified as Jews.

In fact, there is no way in Hebrew to accurately call someone a "convert" to Judaism. One can convert to Judaism but, in Judaism, one cannot be a convert. One can only be a gentile, geir or Jew. That comports with the Torâh prohibition against reminding a Jew-by-choice of his or her pagan origins.

The only term in Hebrew is geir – a resident-alien Torâh-trainee. To describe a Jew who "converted" would require the circuitous, and prohibited, description "a Jew who has undergone hitgaiyerut." It is often overlooked that when the geir had undergone hitgaiyerut he was then a Jew – which implies that he or she is no longer a geir. He (or she) was guarded by Halâkhâh from ever being reminded that he (or she) had come from the goyim. Calling a Jew a Geir Tzëdëq contradicts the Halâkhâh in Devârim 10:19. Though it is unlikely he had this connotation in mind, R. Avrâhâm Chill correctly wrote of the proselyte (e.g., geir) who undergoes hitgaiyerut, "Never must his past be recalled and never must he be reminded of his origin"(The Mitzwot, p. 387, from Masëkët Bâ Metziyâ 58b & 59b). To remind a geir of his past is described by Torâh as "boiling a kid" (the spiritually new-born Jew who has undergone hitgaiyerut) "in his mother's milk" (his gentile past).13 With every bite the observant Jew eats, taking care to separate (khâlâv) from (sâr), (s)he commemorates this mitzwâh.

In the passage under discussion, Talmud presumes hitgaiyerut of the geir, a geir who changes his or her status (i.e., undergoes hitgaiyerut) to Jew and is, thereafter, no longer a geir. Whatever modern Jews may call them after hitgaiyerut (Geir Tzëdëq or Jew), Talmud in this passage refers to a geir who undergoes hitgaiyerut. We only disagree about whether they may then, after hitgaiyerut, still be called geir, Jew or both. These problems all only resolve, however, by recognizing that a person who has undergone hitgaiyerut is a Jew, and, by definition then, is no longer a non-Jew (geir) of any kind. In Israel, to call a Jew a geir is an oxymoron. Every Jew in the Tephutzâh, by contrast, is a geir.)14

When the Geir Toshâv achieves an acceptable level of Torâh-observance, the Beit-Din may permit the Geir Toshâv to undergo Berit Milâh and hitgaiyerut (if other halakhic conditions, like marital status and the like, are satisfied). Those who cannot qualify to undergo hitgaiyerut at this point are upgraded to the status of Geir Tzëdëq. The only way to hitgayeir to Judaism is by first qualifying as, and going through the learning and applying process of being, a geir. This is also why the characteristics of advanced geirim, near hitgaiyerut, were so often confused with Jews who've undergone hitgaiyerut.

Feldman described the geirim as the (wrongly described) 'sympathizers' found in Batei ha-Kenësët of the NT. Few have ever questioned what non-Jews were doing in a Beit ha-Kenësët before Christianity existed, blissfully assuming these non-Jews were Christians attracted to some kind of "Church of Messianic Christian Jews."

"A clear allusion to Feldman's 'sympathizers' may be found in the work of Philo, the [Hellenist] Jewish philosopher from Alexandria. Commenting on a passage in [Shemot],15 Philo says [writing in Greek] that the term [προσηλυτος (proseilutos; proselyte)] does not refer to proselytes strictly speaking, inasmuch as the Jews did not practice Berit Milâh in Mitzrayim. Consequently, he concludes, the proselyte who, according to these verses, is not to be wronged must be one who has not undergone Berit Milâh. Such a proselyte, says Philo, is what we would term a 'sympathizer,' since he has chosen to honor the one [Ëlohim]. This type of proselyte corresponds to what the rabbis call a Geir Toshâv, a semi-convert [more accurately "pre-convert"] who has embraced monotheism but not [yet] other [mitzwot].16 Perhaps other Alexandrian Jews might have considered such geirim to be converts, but Philo insists that they are not" 8

Both Tana"kh (Devârim 14:21) and Talmud (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 20a) note that the geir was permitted to eat meat from a beast which had died of natural causes – which is prohibited to the Jew. This could only refer to a geir still in the early stages of learning who hadn't yet undertaken kashrut. This, and other distinctions, between the Jew and the geir (who hasn't undergone hitgaiyerut, and isn't yet fully answerable to the full application of Halâkhâh) requires us to acknowledge that a Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini-era geir could not have been a Jew.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Geirim, Nokhrim, or Zârim

Exist Only When Yoveil Was In Effect? (Maimonides)

When examining the role of goyim relative to the Beritot of ha-Sheim with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, the definitions must rigorously preserve basic distinctions:

  1. clearly and unambiguously distinguishing each definition from the other without mingling them;

  2. as the usage of these terms evolved through time (click graphic), their Biblical era meanings must be distinguished from their Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini-era, Roman era, Dead Sea Scroll, post-Christian (i.e. post-135 C.E.) era, and Talmudic meanings, as well as compared and contrasted with their respective synonyms; and

  3. geographical idiosyncracies in meaning due to localized Judaic-Gentilic relations and pogroms ("Gentiles," EJ, 7.410-12).

A statement from Talmud or the Encyclopedia Judaica can mean vastly different things when these factors are not taken into consideration and misleading definitions assumed. The poorly-informed are frequently badly misled. This is one of the reasons that Torâh admonishes individuals to rely on the Beit-Din and not follow their own heart and their own eyes (be-Midbar 15.39).

"The Geir Toshâv was regarded as belonging to a different and special character. He was a non-Jew who accepted some, but had not yet attained to all, of the [mitzwot] of the Torâh, as a result of which he was permitted to reside in the land of Israel and enjoy many of the privileges of citizenship [most especially, the privilege of learning Torâh]. Various views are expressed by the rabbis as to the qualifications which entitle the resident non-Jew to be accepted as a Geir Toshâv, ranging from the renunciation of idolatry to one who accepts the whole of the discipline of the Torâh with the exception of the dietary laws ([Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh] 64b). The Beit Din ha-Netzârim originated the Halâkhâh of applying the 'Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh17 and, centuries later, this was corroborated by Maimonides.18 The laws, privileges, and restrictions of the Geir Toshâv are exhaustively dealt with in the Talmud. As, however, it was laid down that the acceptance of a Geir Toshâv was permitted only during the period that the Yoveil was in force, and that law was no longer in power in Talmudic times, the discussion was purely academic." 23

"That the Yoveil did not apply during the [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini, B.C.E. 453 – 70 C.E.; this spans the time during which there was a great tide of Judaic evangelism and recognition of geirim] was deduced from the verse 'unto all the inhabitants thereof' (wa-Yiq 25.10) with the corollary that 'from the time that the tribes of Ruvein and Gâd and the half-tribe of Menashëh were exiled the Yovlot were discontinued' (Siphrâh, be-Har 2.3)" ("Sabbatical Year and Jubilee," EJ, 14.580).

Yet, despite the fact that the Yovlot had been discontinued before B.C.E. 453, "In late [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini] times… During the Hellenistic and early Roman period (B.C.E. 323 to 70 C.E.)," Feldman observes, "the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts… A proselytizing movement of such scope, if we may judge from parallel movements in the growth of Christianity and Islam, for example, would seem necessarily to imply the existence of intermediate categories of those at a half-way point or other sympathizers who tried to effect a syncretism of the old religion with the new one…" 8 The term geir had become virtually synonymous with 'proselyte,' and strangers were admitted to the religious fellowship of Israel (Josephus, Apion, 2.28)" 23

The Geir Toshâv which Halâkhâh "permitted only during the period that the Yoveil was in force," which "law was no longer in power in Talmudic times," couldn't have referred to the masses of geirim documented during the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini-era! Rather, the Halâkhâh that was laid down was of a later time and against an evolved post-Christian or geographically idiosyncratic definition of Geir Toshâv – more accurately the Nokhri or zâr who were selective "selective-observers" of Halâkhâh and Torâh – from which Christianity had spawned, and which had never been legitimate in Judaism, even when the Yoveil was in force.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Defining Authority Ordained by ha-Sheim – the Beit-Din ha-Jadol

Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) demonstrates from Tana"kh that ha-Sheim ordained the Beit-Din system to be the ultimate authority for Dërëkh Halâkhâh, uninterrupted since Shemot 18.21; Devârim 1.15; 16.18 and 17.9-13. "First century Judaism" necessarily implies recognition by the major streams of first century Judaism, who were represented by the defining authority of what was legitimate in first century Judaism: the Beit-Din ha-Jadol.19

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

4Q MMT

All Judaism, i.e., The Beit-Din ha-Jadol, Required Full Acceptance of Oral Law

The misconception that Judaism included Jews who rejected "the Law," and who, in turn, accepted gentiles without adherence to "the Law," was largely based on the assumption that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim rejected Oral Law, serving as the precedent and example for rejecting "the Law." 4Q MMT has demonstrated this to be in error. Thus, there was in the first century C.E. no precedent in Judaism for rejecting Oral Law. This was entirely a fabrication of Roman Hellenists who usurped the Netzârim in 135 C.E. and redacted the NT to syncretize some of the Judaic ideas into their native Hellenism (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)).

In 1994, the misconception that some sects of first-century Judaism rejected even Oral Law was proven false by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prof. Elisha Qimron of Ben Gurion University of the Nëgëv in Be·eir Shëva, in his definitive book on Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT,20 showed that all three of the major sects of first century Judaism, disputed not whether Oral Law could be rejected, an idea that would have struck all of them with stunned horror, but rather whether Oral Law must be written down or remain transmitted exclusively orally! Oral Law was central to all three of the major sects of first-century Judaism. While they argued whose interpretations should be considered the correct Oral Law, there was never any question as to the validity or authority of Oral Law.

The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim – the NT "Sadducees" – rejected the continued oral transmission of Oral Law insisting that Oral Law instead be committed to writing. Though the Perushim later committed Oral Law to writing too (Halâkhâh, the Talmud), in the 1st century the Perushim disputed the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim initiative to end the Oral transmission of Halâkhâh. In the first century, the Perushim insisted that Oral Law must continue to be transmitted exclusively orally. The Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim did not reject "Oral Law" per se. Quite the opposite, they codified their interpretations of the Oral Law into their "Book of Decrees," which became their precursor of the Perushim' Talmud. It was always absurd on the face of it to imagine that the predominant sect of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol handed down mishpât and khuqim (Oral Law) with one hand and, with the other hand, taught Jews to reject the mishpât and khuqim they themselves handed down! It really wasn't necessary to discover 4Q MMT to figure that out.

While each of these 1st-century Judaic sects advocated their own version of Oral Law, and disputed whether that Oral Law must be codified or transmitted exclusively orally, 4Q MMT demonstrates conclusively that they all accepted the full authority of Oral Law. None of the 1st century sects of Judaism permitted even partial rejection of Oral Law. Logically, this necessarily means that the converse – none of the three major sects of first century Judaism recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol permitted selective or partial adherence to Oral Law – must also hold true.

Rejection, or selective acceptance, of Oral Law was alien to all three of the major sects of Judaism who constituted the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. Therefore, selective acceptance of Oral Law was also alien to their definition – the Beit-Din ha-Jadol definition which served as the defining authority of 1st-century Judaism. Full acceptance of the authority of Oral Law was the sine qua non of legitimacy in 1st-century Judaism, by the definitive authority in 1st-century Judaism: the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. It is inescapable that every legitimate sect of 1st-century Judaism required full acceptance of Oral Law.

Formally integrated (likened to grafting) onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil, Judaism considered the geir neither "wicked" nor goy. Quite the contrary, Torâh requires the geir be accorded special vod.21 Yet, in contrast with geirim who strived toward full (non-selective) acceptance of the Perushim Oral Law that was finally handed down – Halâkhâh – and were not regarded as wicked, "Malbim22 explains that [in the passage of Tehilim (119.155): 'Yeshuâh is far from the reshâ·im,' reshâ·im] refers to people who selectively observe some of the mitzwot of the Torâh, but refuse to accept others. [These reshâ·im selective-observers] embrace mitzwot that are readily understood and that appeal to their sense of history and tradition, but reject the khuqim which they cannot understand. The Psalmist declares that although such people may seem to identify with [Ëlohim] and Judaism, at heart they are estranged from [Ëlohim,] and are far from yeshuâh"(Artscroll, Tehilim, II.1488). Just like Âdâm and Khawâh, those who obey Torâh only selectively are excluded from Gan Eidën and in need of kipur – which can only be obtained through fully (non-selectively) satisfying the Instructions – Torâh.

Since

therefore: these reshâ·im who observe Torâh selectively must be contrasted with geirim (who are non-Jew trainees in the process of fully, i.e., non-selectively, learning and accepting Torâh).

"With the passage of time, the geirim were assimilated culturally and religiously… Hence, the geir, in contrast to the Nokhri, was required in many cases to conform to the ritual practices of the native Israelite. Thus, geirim were subject to laws dealing with ritual purification (be-Midbar 19.2-10), incest (wa-Yiq 18.26) and some of the food taboos (wa-Yiq 17.10-16; but cf. Devârim 14.21). They were expected to observe [Shabât ] (Shemot 20.10; Devârim 5.14), participate in the religious festivals (Devârim 16.11, 14), and fast on Yom ha-Kipur (wa-Yiq 16.29). They were permitted to offer up burnt offerings (wa-Yiq 17.8; 22.18; be-Midbar 15.14ff.) and, if they've undergone Berit Milâh, even to sacrifice the [Pësakh] qârbân (Shemot 12.48-49; be-Midbar 9.14). Indeed, they, no less than the Israelites, were expected to be loyal to Y--H (wa-Yiq 20.2; cf. Yekhëzqeil 14.5-8)…." 23

Talmud also shows that a Geir Toshâv had not attained a full level of observance of Halâkhâh (Masëkët Bâ Qamâ 113b): "… not to a Geir Tzëdëq, but to a mere Geir Toshâv, as [wa-Yiq 25.47] says, 'unto a Geir Toshâv, … or to the offspring of the family of a geir,' this denotes [a family] who worships idols…." Here, Talmud clearly demonstrates the clear distinction between the Geir Toshâv, who hasn't yet shed all of the remnants of his former paganism, contrasted with the Geir Tzëdëq. Even today, one doesn't usually find non-Jews in a Beit ha-Kenësët unless they have a serious interest in Judaism. And unlike today, non-Jews in the first century couldn't be found in Batei ha-Kenësët (because interaction was prohibited by Halâkhâh) unless they had first been admitted as a geir by the Beit-Din and were, consequently, in various stages of progress toward non-selective acceptance of the authority of Torâh and Halâkhâh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Recognition by a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din

Geirim Contrasted Against Self-Proclaimed Pseudo-Israel of Rev. 2.9 & 3.9

The geir(âh) is an individual non-Jew within the host Jewish community – not any kind of group or movement, collectively or otherwise, and certainly neither separate from mainstream Judaism nor independent of a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din.

Talmud stipulates (Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 64b): "Who is a Geir Toshâv? Any [non-Jew] who takes upon himself in the presence of three khaveirim24 not to worship idols. Such is the statement of R. Mei·ir; but the Sages declare: Any [non-Jew] who takes upon himself [in the presence of three khaveirim] the Shëva Mitzwot that the Benei-Noakh undertook; and still others maintain: These do not come within the category of a Geir Toshâv; but who is a Geir Toshâv? A proselyte who eats of animals not ritually slaughtered, i.e., he took upon himself to observe all of the precepts mentioned in the Torâh apart from the prohibition of [eating the flesh of] animals not ritually slaughtered" [emphasis added].

The earliest reference to the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh is found in Ma·avâr 15 (see Appendix III).17 Non-Jewish readers of Ma·avâr, being unfamiliar with the Judaic perspective, overlook 15.21, in which the Beit Din ha-Netzârim recorded the earliest extant witness17 that the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh are sufficient for a minimum entrance requirement because, becoming a geir, the seeker will be permitted to attend a Beit ha-Kenësët where he or she can learn the rest of Torâh from those who recite the Torâh of Moshëh every Shabât: "In every city, from ancient generations, the Torâh of Moshëh is recited every Shabât in the Batei ha-Kenësët."

The status of geir could only be conferred on an individual by three khaveirim, i.e., by a Beit-Din, after the individual had demonstrated to the Beit-Din that he complied with the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh (see Appendix I). This followed the candidate's petition to the Beit-Din, requesting the pequdâh of the Beit-Din. This pequdâh of the Beit-Din recognized the candidate as a geir authorized to interact in the Jewish community and Batei ha-Kenësët where he could then learn and apply the rest of Torâh non-selectively. A geir, therefore, was a non-Jew who had come before a Beit-Din and was recorded by the Beit-Din as satisfying them that he met the threshold requirements. No goy has ever become a geir by self-proclamation.

Thus, the criteria for the Beit-Din to recognize a Geir Toshâv was:

  1. having met the minimum entrance requirements – compliance with the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh as the Beit-Din interpreted them and

  2. having undertaken before the Beit-Din to learn, implementing into daily practice, step-by-step as he or she learns, full (not selectively or partially) Torâh-observance.

  3. It was possible to become a geir only by being recognized – and supervised – by a Beit-Din. The Beit-Din, not the geir (much less a Bën-Noakh), was, and remains, the sole authority for interpreting the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh and the sole authority that requires the geir-candidate, as a condition to being recognized as a geir, to commit to learning and striving to apply Torâh non-selectively. This is further corroborated in Tana"kh, which documents the Beit-Din system and repeatedly emphasizes the theme "One Torâh for Jew and geir alike"(wa-Yiq24.16, 22; be-Midbar 9.14; 15.14-16, 26, 29-30; Devârim 24.19-21).

The counter argument, that Torâh distinguishes between the laws applying to Jew and geir, respectively, while correct, is no basis for rejection of any part of Torâh by geirim. Torâh also distinguishes between the laws for Yisrâ·eilim, Lewiyim and Kohanim – but that's certainly no basis to argue that Yisrâ·eilim, Lewiyim or Kohanim shouldn't be fully and halakhically shomeir-Torah!!! Halâkhâh applied to non-Jews wasn't, and isn't, always identical to its application to Beit-Yisrâ·eil, Leiwi, or Kohein – just as Halâkhâh didn't apply identically to each of these. Nevertheless, wa-Yiq 24.22 and be-Midbar 9.14; 15.14-16, 29-31 require that Torâh, en toto, applies, as applicable, to Jew and geir alike. That Halâkhâh for geirim sometimes stipulates a variance from the Halâkhâh for Yisrâ·eil is no different than the case in which Halâkhâh for Yisrâ·eil sometimes varies from Halâkhâh for Kohanim and Lewiyim. It's still one and the same Torâh being applied – alike, meaning fully and not selectively or partially – for both Jew and geir. Exactly like the specified differences between the application of one Torâh for Yisrâ·eilim, Lewiyim and Kohanim, the differences between the application of one Torâh for Jew and geir alike are limited to those instances in Torâh specifically stipulating geir or areilim (or the equivalent – lo Milâh; not circumcised). Otherwise, Beit-Yisrâ·eil subsumes the geirim, and the application of Torâh is identical for both. The geir is no longer a goy, but an individual non-Jew who is granted nilwëh status onto Beit-Yisrâ·eil, sharing with Beit-Yisrâ·eil in her kipur and her portion in hâ-olâm ha-.

Ha-Sheim desires that all humankind come to know Him, but the only Way that any individual, regardless of birth, can accomplish this is the one Way that ha-Sheim has revealed to, and for, all humankind, not just for Jews alone, under the terms of the most recent berit. All of these factors preclude one set of rules for one race and a different set of rules for a different race. Such a racist view contradicts Torâh. How do racists explain Judaism even having a provision for hitgaiyerut? For all these reasons, the two basic premises underlying the "Shabbos goy" ("it's ok for goyim to do it since only Jews are responsible to Torâh" and "goyim have a part in hâ-olâm ha- anyway") are both invalid.

When the Beit-Din recognized an individual as a geir(âh) his or her name was inscribed in the yukhasin "Seiphër ha-Khaiyim" or "Eitz ha-Khaiyim ([genealogical] Tree of Life) maintained by the various Batei-Din.25 This remains the practice of the Beit Din ha-Netzârim today. The status of geir was, and remains, proper recognition that a non-Jew has satisfied the requirements for nilwëh status. Recognition of a geir can be legitimately conferred only by a Beit-Din of the mainstream Perushim-heritage Jewish community. Self-proclaiming oneself a geir makes about as much sense as self-proclaiming oneself beneficiary to the Microsoft fortune. Persons claiming to be Netzârim Jews or geirim, but not entered in the yukhasin Netzârim, are impostors of Revelation 2.9 & 3.9, following their own heart and their own eyes (be-Midbar 15.39) in Displacement Theology (displacing the rightful authorities in the mainstream Perushim-heritage Jewish community) instead of Torâh.

Anyone claiming to be a follower of Ribi Yehoshua, but who hasn't either undergone hitgaiyerut under the supervision of a Perushim-heritage Beit-Din – informed concerning messianic beliefs – or been recognized by the Beit Din ha-Netzârim, are fraudulently pretending to arrogate the Beritot of Beit-Yisrâ·eil. That's Displacement Theology. These are described in Revelation 2.9 & 3.9. By contrast, authentic Netzârim (Jews and geirim) can always be verified by contacting the Beit Din ha-Netzârim in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

The Roman Era

Goyim Not Permitted to Interact in the Jewish Community (or Beit ha-Kenësët)

"It was only during the later [Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini] period that a sharp distinction and a barrier of separation was erected between the Jew and the gentile… As a result, the conception of, and the attitude toward, the non-Jew from the Talmudic period onward are strikingly different from that during the Biblical period" (Gentiles, Ency. Jud., 7:410-12). This coincides exactly with the explosion of Judaic proselytization and the growth of a population of geirim in various stages of development and observance. "Thus all such statements must be seen in their specific geographical-historical context. Nevertheless, in general it may be said that the Jew's attitude toward the gentile was largely conditioned by the gentile's attitude toward him (see Esth. R. 2.3), so that a gentile's friendship to a Jew would be warmly and uninhibitedly reciprocated"(see the relationships between Meir and Avnimos ha-Gardi, Yehudah ha-N(si and Antoninus, Samuel and Sapor, etc. in Masëkët Bâ Qamâ 38a).

"That gentiles were regarded as impure can be inferred from many places in the Mishnâh (Masëkët Tâhârot 7.6; Masëkët Nidâh 10.4; et al., the Tosëph Masëkët Pesâkhim 7.13 and Josephus Antiquities 14.285; 18.93-94) and in [Ma·avâr 11.3]"("Purity and Impurity," EJ, 13.1409).

Since goyim were regarded as tumâh to be kept separate and distant, the interactions and cordial relations discussed above refer not to (zârim) / (goyim), the Hellenist αλλογενης (allogeneis) or the English "gentiles," but rather can only refer to geirim. This constrains the perception of the non-Jews the NT reports, from its Hellenist orientation, in the "synagogues." Without the permission of the Beit-Din, and the legally conferred status of Geir Toshâv conferred by the Beit-Din, which implies the desire to learn and accept the full and non-selective authority of halakhic Torâh-observance, the "barrier of separation … erected between Jew and gentile" prevented goyim from even entering a Beit ha-Kenësët.

Except for the Hellenist-Roman disregard for Jewish law (namely, planting spies in the guise of geirim in Batei ha-Kenësët), goyim weren't permitted to interact in the Jewish community, much less in the Batei ha-Kenësët26 Goyim weren't permitted to interface with Jews, even socially, without first coming before the Beit-Din and petitioning the Beit-Din to be recognized as a geir, – a non-Jew who thereby formally obligated himself to adhere to the minimum threshold for admittance into the Jewish community, the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh. But adherence to the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh as an end in itself has never sufficed to recognize a non-Jew as a geir, and permit his interaction in the Jewish community. The Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh have never been a satisfactory goal for a non-Jew petitioning to interface in the Jewish community. Rather, the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh were the starting point of a journey to Dërëkh Halâkhâh – non-selective halakhic Torâh-observance and, for most geirim, hitgaiyerut to become a Jew.

The very fact that non-Jews were reported in the Batei ha-Kenësët demonstrates that there were in the first century C.E. geirim learning to comply non-selectively with halakhic Torâh-observance. Becoming a geir legally, before a Beit-Din, was the only way a non-Jew, with whom Jews were otherwise forbidden to have any contact, could legally shoulder a threshold minimum set of entrance criteria required by his host Jewish community in order that the Beit-Din would authorize the Jewish community to allow the geir to interact with them. Otherwise, no non-Jew could even enter a Beit ha-Kenësët to learn Torâh (see Ma·avâr 15.21, Appendix III)! The non-Jews found in the "synagogues" in the NT, therefore, had to be geirim, not goyim! For someone to self-proclaim himself a geir is a false and deceptive pretense described in Rev. 2.9 and 3.9.

To review, the evidence (e.g., Ma·avâr 15.19-21, Appendix III, with notes in Appendix IV) demonstrates that keeping the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh were regarded as no more than the threshold entrance requirement for a geir to gain permission to interact in the Jewish community so (s)he could learn, and apply in his or her practice as (s)he learns, Torâh. The Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh were never an acceptable goal for a geir. ha-Sheim applies the same standard to everyone alike, to follow in the same Way – Dërëkh Halâkhâh – being fully, i.e., non-selectively, commited to do one's utmost to keep Torâh according to Halâkhâh.

This is exactly what Ribi Yehoshua also taught in The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 5.17-20. The Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh were minimum prerequisites to be recognized by a Beit-Din as a geir, thereby obtaining nilwëh status onto the Jewish community (having thereby qualified as marginally acceptable company for the Jewish community) as temporary and provisional trainees in order to study Torâh and, step-by-step, become shomeir-Torah. Knowing how to keep the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh is essential to every Bën-Noakh who is seriously seeking kipur as a participant in the Beritot between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil – because the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh (see Appendix I) are no more than entrance requirements to gain entry to the Jewish community and Beit ha-Kenësët to begin learning Torâh as a geir.

Only the presence of geirim in various stages of development in Torâh-observance resolves without contradiction why in Talmud there are various, otherwise contradictory, expectations and requirements for geirim. This dictates that all of those otherwise contradictory Talmud requirements for geirim are talking about pre-convert provisional trainees in various stages of learning. It was pre-convert provisional trainees – geirim in various stages of learning and applying Torâh-observance – for whom the rabbis set forth various, and otherwise contradictory, degrees of Torâh-observance as geirim progressed towards full and non-selective halakhic Torâh-observance.

By Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini times, unchanged (i.e., logically consistent) since Har Sinai, the only way for the non-Jew to be recognized as a legitimate geir was to petition a Beit-Din. Only after the Beit-Din recognized the non-Jew as a Geir Toshâv could he have contact with Jews, come to Beit ha-Kenësët, etc. All the non-Jews whom the NT describes as being in "synagogues," therefore, had to have been geirim learning to become fully (i.e., non-selectively doing one's utmost; not implying perfection) observant of Torâh and Halâkhâh – not the 'wicked' ones who were selectively-halakhic. Hence, the very NT passages that document non-Jews in the Batei ha-Kenësët confirm that they were geirim and not selective observers of Torâh and Halâkhâh!

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

B.C.E. 0007.05.29 – 0030.04.19 C.E.

Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Yoseiph Bën-Dâvid,
The shiakh Bën-Yoseiph & shiakh Bën-Dâvid

Selective observance of Torâh has always been the "red line" sine qua non that distinguished Hellenism, with its emphasis on syncretism, from Judaism. From the time of the very first Hellenist proto-Christian, around the time of the reit of Paul the Apostate ca. 45 C.E., Christians defined themselves outside the pale of Torâh, proclaiming themselves "freed" from the core definition of Judaism: Torâh – "freed from bondage to the law of sin and death through the grace of J*esus." To then claim that Christianity originated in Judaism is the ultimate self-contradiction of original Christianity.

Full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of the Beit-Din to interpret Torâh (including Halâkhâh), stands in stark contrast to the widespread Christian orientation of individuals following their own heart and their own eyes (be-Midbar 15.39) – mislabeling their contra-Torâh and, therefore, unholy intuition "the holy spirit" – interpreting Torâh according to their own, alien-to-Judaism, gentile and Hellenist-based pagan perspective. In addition to contradicting the prohibition against following one's own heart and own eyes (be-Midbar 15.39), self-interpretation (typically by those who can't even read Torâh) and consequent selective observance contravenes – displaces – the Beit-Din system ordained by ha-Sheim (Shemot 18.13-26). Thus, contra-Judaic interpretations are a self-proclaimed pretense purporting that their Hellenist-based intuitive rejection of Torâh, the mark of a false prophet (Devârim 13.1-6), is of their "holy spirit." Thus equating the Ruakh ha-Qodësh with, le-havdil, a spirit advocating transgressing Torâh not only ascribes evil (defined by Torâh as aveirot Torâh) to, le-havdil, the Ruakh ha-Qodësh but defines the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, le-havdil,, as an evil spirit (demon) – blaspheming the Torâh-defined Ruakh ha-Qodësh.

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that what distinguished all of the major sects of first century Judaism from Samaritans, Ëvyonim and other meshumâdim non-Judaic groups was the full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Oral Law by all sects of first century Judaism. Full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Oral Law (i.e., the Beit-Din system that was the sole legitimate authority to render Oral Law) was the sine qua non of Judaism – by authority of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol – from Har Sinai through the first century C.E. – and remains so today. No other individual, congregation, or association of congregations could, or can, legitimately self-proclaim the proper interpretations of Torâh, or self-proclaim recognition – either of themselves or geirim.

Consequently, of all who claim to follow Ribi Yehoshua, only those recognized by a Beit-Din originating in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community are legitimate! Within this constraint of the Perushim-heritage Beit-Din system, only the Beit Din ha-Netzârim accepts followers of Ribi Yehoshua as the shiakh. Thus, the Netzârim are the only alternative for legitimate followers of Ribi Yehoshua! All others – from the earliest proto-Christian, pseudo-Judaic, Displacement Theology about the time of Paul the Apostate (ca. 45 C.E.) to ca. 64 C.E. – are merely charlatans playing a pretend game, pretending that a Hellenist antithesis is Judaism, and duping the ignorant into a pretend "salvation" based on a counterfeit. They are described in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.

Blindly emphasizing "faith" without Instruction – Hebrew Torâh, Christianity glosses over the Hebrew term tzadiq in Khavaquq 2.4: "the tzadiq shall live in his ëmunâh" (not "the believer shall live by his faith"). Yekhëzqeil (18.5, in the Hebrew) defines tzadiq as one who does mishpât! Therefore, contrary to simplistic Christian "faith," Khavaquq 2.4 declares that it is the one who does mishpât who shall live in his ëmunâh! Further, mishpât is the Biblical term for Halâkhâh that is handed down by the Beit-Din! Thus, Khavaquq 2.4 implicitly declares that it is the one who does Halâkhâh who shall live in his ëmunâh! How far from the Christian apostasy and what an empty and dead-end deception the Christian concept of " 'salvation' by faith" is!

The one Khavaquq prophesied "shall live in his ëmunâh" is Yisrâ·eil (including the nilwim categories of the yukhasin) who, by living according to Torah, remains party to the Beritot. Yisrâ·eil is the tzadiq, not those who selectively-observe = selectively-reject Torah. It is in this context of keeping the revealed Torah that we can appreciate the origins of ëmunâh in be-Reishit 15.6: "And [Avrâhâm] hë·ëmin --, and he considered it a tzedâqâh" – not tzëdëq as confused in English.

Ribi Yehoshua himself explicitly corroborated this Judaic view of tzedâqâh relative to kipur. Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that the hottest topic in the 1st-century Jewish community was the controversy over which sect's interpretation of the Oral Law – Halâkhâh, Ma·asëh or the Book of Decrees – was "correct." Full and non-selective commitment to the Oral Law by all three of the major sects of first-century Judaism is indisputably proven from 4Q MMT. When Ribi Yehoshua's teachings are read from this historically authentic first century Judaic perspective relative to Ma·asëh, as revealed in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT, this emerging controversy leaps from the page, from the lips of Ribi Yehoshua himself, in the earliest extant mss.,27 all of which are incorporated into The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 5:17-20 with notes:

"Not to curtail the Torâh of Moshëh or the Neviyim have I come, nor to add on to the Torâh of Moshëh or the Neviyim have I come. Rather, I have come to reconcile [Torâh] with the True Oral Law. Should the heavens and hâ-Ârëtz exchange places, still, not even one or one Ozeil of the Oral Law of the Torâh of Moshëh shall so much as exchange places; until it becomes that it is all being fully ratified and performed non-selectively. For whoever deletes one Oral Law from the Torâh, or shall teach others such, by those in the Realm of the heavens he shall be declared "deleted." Both he who preserves them and he who teaches them shall be called "Rav" in the Realm of the heavens. For I tell you that unless your tzedâqâh is over and above that of the Sophrim and the Perushim, there is no way you will enter into the Realm of the heavens!"

Ribi Yehoshua confirmed that full and non-selective acceptance of the authority of Torâh was always, and still continues to be, the sine qua non of legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism, just as selective observance of Torâh is the "red line" that has, since the very first day of its inception in 135 C.E., demarcated Hellenism and its offspring, Christianity, from Judaism.

Even with the rampant corruption that pervaded the 1st century "Sophrim and Perushim," no goyim – who, by definition, deliberately rejects practicing Torâh / Halâkhâh either outright or selectively(cf. be-Midbar 15.30; et al.), could ever approach the tzedâqâh of these "Sophrim and Perushim" whom they vilify, much less become "over and above" the tzedâqâh of Orthodox rabbis, who are the successors of the Perushim sect of Judaism. No Christian (including pseudo-Messianics), being only selectively observant of Torah at best 30 (which, conversely, equals selective rejection of Torâh), can possibly be anywhere near as shomeir-Torah as the Orthodox rabbis. These same Christians typically can't even read the first word of Tana"kh (it's Hebrew, and was Ribi Yehoshua's Bible, by the way). Most, probably, are seeing these basics of Torâh for this first time in their life, and are having difficulty grasping them – though they are all elementary school level Judaism for a religious Israeli child. Despite all of this, these Christians, ignorant "missionaries" spouting English quotations from their Roman Hellenist-redacted NT, are the same ones presumptuous enough to think they have something to teach and proclaim, attempting to evangelize, apostatize and assimilate Jews. Christians of Rev. 2:9 and 3:9, whose deliberate rejection of tzedâqâh (cf. be-Midbar 15.30; et al.) makes the "Sophrim and Perushim" appear saints by comparison, are the classic subject of Ribi Yehoshua's admonition: "No way will you enter into the Realm of the heavens!"

Advocating at most the barest selective observance of the Torâh "of sin and death" – and, even then, only among the earliest Jewish sects of proto-Christianity – Christianity couldn't acknowledge that the 'Ëlohim-Fearers' in NT Batei ha-Kenësët were geirim committed to full and non-selective acceptance of Halâkhâh. However, close analysis of the literature demonstrates that those in first century Batei ha-Kenësët, and the non-Jews with whom Ribi Yehoshua interacted, were geirim – not goyim selective-observers of Torâh. If Ribi Yehoshua actually had taught acceptance of selective observance of Torâh or Halâkhâh then the very Torâh upon which any claim to being shiakh is dependent would have disqualified and invalidated him (Devârim 13.1-6)!!!

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT documents that no sect of 1st century Judaism could even conceive of tolerating selective observance of Torâh. We have also seen that there was a barrier in the 1st century between Jews and goyim, who were regarded as tumâh. Assertions that any of the original 12 followers of Ribi Yehoshua were goyim is retrojection of Hellenist fancy by post-135 C.E. (2nd-4th century gentile Roman) Christians.

The apparent contradiction between Ribi Yehoshua's declaration not to go to the goyim and his compassion for the Roman Army Captain and the "Syro-Phoenician woman" crumbles in the face of critical logic. The Kena·anit in The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 15.22 was either a gentile or a Hellenist Jewess (perhaps intermarried) of the Tephutzâh (Lebanese-Phoenician). In either case, Ribi Yehoshua's response to her demonstrates that he strongly discouraged any qiruv in her direction unless she demonstrated the desire to become a geirâh. The Roman Army Captain of The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 8.5ff, on the other hand, was clearly already a geir, by virtue of addressing his request to a religious Jew, the humility of his demeanor, and his dedication to Torâh, confirmed in Lu. 7.5 where we find this Army Captain described as one who "loves our εθνη 31 and has built our synagogue."

Like Torâh, like the Beritot, like Halâkhâh, and like the Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, while there has been increasing specificity corresponding to humankind's developing knowledge of hor , teshuvâh and dosh vs. tumâh and khol, neither Yirmeyâhu nor Ribi Yehoshua contravened the consistency in the relationship of the geir and Beit-Yisrâ·eil, nor in the unveiling of His successive, increasingly specific but entirely consistent, Beritot, which continually refines Yisrâ·eil, throughout timespace. Relating to all of these Beritot as consistent, and to all of the Beritot since Har Sinai as exclusively with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, is Dërëkh Halâkhâh – the only Way – that a person of the goyim may come to participate in the Messianic berit with Beit-Yisrâ·eil to obtain nilwëh status, grafting onto Israel for kipur and a portion in hâ-olâm ha-.

Both Displacement Theology terms ("grace" and "J*esus" displacing Torâh) and Displacement Theology parties (goyim displacing Jews) are specifically precluded in Yirmeyâhu 31.30-32. Apart from the 2nd-4th century C.E. self-proclaimed Christian fabrication of misojudaic claims of supersession, no provision of kipur or yeshuâh different from any of the previous Beritot between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil can be legitimately inferred from Yirmeyâhu or as accruing from Ribi Yehoshua the shiakh to goyim, who are conspicuously absent from the parties Yirmeyâhu specified in the Berit Khadâshâh! Moreover, Torâh explicitly prohibits adding (or subtracting, much less displacing) parties (Devârim 13.1)!

Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT demonstrates that none of the sects that defined first century Judaism in the Beit-Din ha-Jadol tolerated selective observance of Torâh, much less blatant misojudaism. The doctrines that the shiakh is a man-g*od Christ, or that personal acceptance of the shiakh displaces kipur and teshuvâh for personal (spiritual, or any other kind of) 'salvation' over sin and death, are merely variations on the theme of Displacement Theology. Both contradict Torâh (Devârim 13.1-6), including the Judaism that Ribi Yehoshua practiced and taught in the first century. If the Christian J*esus – the post-135 C.E. fabrication of the Hellenist gentiles (Romans) – had ever genuinely existed (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)), then Torâh unequivocally confirms that he was a false prophet (Devârim 13.1-6) – the contra-shiakh of Dâniyeil 7:25 (which Christians call the "antichrist"), not a legitimate shiakh. Whose servant, then, would a misojudaic J*esus have been? Even Paul the Apostate taught that the central Christian tenet – that J*esus serves as expiator to those who wilfully transgress Halâkhâh / Torâh – makes J*esus an αμαρτιας διακονος (amartias diakonos; a deacon of sin)32 – truly a servant of tân and antichrist!

In Tana"kh, the shiakh is an agent of ha-Sheim, not g*od incarnate (Tehilim 28:8). It is the antichrist – the "beast of Daniel," not the shiakh, which is prophesied to elevate itself beside the Highest (Dâniyeil 7.25). "Despite the prominence of the image of the [shiakh] as a redeemer, his role in the process of redemption is no different from those of [Moshëh] and the other redeemers in the past; he is merely an instrument in the hands of [Ëlohim]"("Redemption," EJ, 14.3). "The [shiakh] was always an agent of [Ëlohim] and never a savior [himself] in the Christian meaning"("Messiah," EJ, 11.1410).

Accepting the shiakh of Torâh, besides bringing the Jew or geir into a more intimate communion with ha-Sheim, brings one into an intimate relationship with the shiakh who will be ha-Sheim's 'Arm of yeshuâh' for Israel in the Messianic Era. Moreover, following the teachings of the Judaic shiakh also brings the inner joy, purpose and happiness of working intimately with him to bring about, and participate in, the Messianic era, enjoying a higher level of communion with ha-Sheim as party to Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh, and sharing, as a fellow worker of the shiakh, in his special rewards in hâ-olâm ha-. However, following the teachings of the Judaic shiakh isn't compatible with Christianity nor Displacement Theology of a personal "salvation" for goyim. Rather than yeshuâh, we should more accurately discuss the concepts Christians usually mean to encompass by "salvation": teshuvâh (for shomeir-Torah Jews), hitgaiyerut (for goyim), and kipur.

Messianic kipur has no other basis, and no less a basis, than the Biblical Dërëkh Halâkhâh promised centuries earlier – to Moshëh, to wid ha-Mëlëkh, and to others of Beit-Yisrâ·eil for doing one's utmost to keep Torâh and the mishpât of the Beit-Din (i.e. Halâkhâh) – "which, if a man shall do, in them he shall live" (Nekhëmyâh 9.29). Yekhëzqeil writes (18.9) of those who keep Halâkhâh: "'Tzadiq is he who shall absolutely live,33 declares Adonai --." Consistently, Yekhëzqeil's plan was exclusively to the whole of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (Yekhëzqeil 37.1-14) – not goyim. According to Yekhëzqeil, Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Beit-Yehudâh would merge together as Yehudâh (37.19) and come under the shiakh Bën-Dâvid (37.15-28). This is corroborated in Mishlei Shlomoh 4.4 and 7.1-2.

Not recognizing the true problem – the logical contradictions intrinsic in Displacement Theology – many miss the mark, mistakenly denying that they advocate Christian claims of supersession. Their argument is that a succeeding berit is merely added – in contravention of Devârim 13.1, while all previous Beritot remain in force. Therefore, according to their argument, a new berit , even when it's contradictory (namely the NT), merely "supplements" previous Beritot but doesn't "supersede" any previous berit. Their argument locks a contradiction into their g*od whereas there can be no contradiction in ha-Sheim of Torâh. Clearly, while the argument against Displacement Theology is unlosable, the argument against contradictory Christian claims of supersession is unwinnable.

The messianic implications of Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh are limited to the means of kipur, i.e., the upgrading from the tavnit of the blood kipur of animal sacrifices to the true kipur in the spiritual (i.e., non-dimensional) Realm, provided by the graciousness of ha-Sheim through His agent ("Arm"), the shiakh Bën-Yoseiph. The shiakh Bën-Yoseiph was always (consistently) designed to be ha-Sheim's agent and provision, the tavnit for which animal sacrifices had always (consistently) been mere teaching symbols, illustrations for learning. Just as the real world doesn't make maps useless, so neither Yirmeyâhu's revelation of the real kipur in the non-dimensional Realm nor the death of the shiakh Bën-Yoseiph can be regarded as a replacement of the animal sacrifice system for at least three reasons:

  1. Unlike the later misojudaic Christians, Ribi Yehoshua practiced and taught observance of the sacrificial system, and the Netzârim afterward continued to observe the sacrificial system, until the destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini – consistency;

  2. The cessation of sacrifices was brought about by the Roman destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini and their Hellenist Displacement Theology, not any Displacement Theology of the Netzârim;34

  3. When the shiakh Bën-Dâvid comes he will renew the animal sacrifice system – and officiate himself (Yekhëzqeil 34.24 & 37.25 with 44.3; 45.16-17, 22; ch. 46 and 48.21-22)!!! Consistency.

Consistent with Yirmeyâhu, the earliest extant source mss. underlying The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) elaborate on the means of messianic kipur: the Creator's gracious provisionof the same kipur described all along in the tavnit of the animal sacrifice system, consistent within all of the previous Beritot with Beit-Yisrâ·eil, for Beit-Yisrâ·eil, through His shiakh Bën-Yoseiph. If Ribi Yehoshua had replaced Torâh, he would have instantly invalidated himself as a messianic candidate (Devârim 13.1-6), and the Netzârim would have been expelled from the Jewish community like the Ëvyonim, Paul the Apostate and other apostate minim. But history shows that the Netzârim lived harmoniously in the religious Jewish community, steadfastly opposing the Church, and vehemently opposed by the Church, until the Church annihilated them in 333 C.E., expressly for their insistence on remaining shomeir-Torah (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)).

Consistent with every berit leading up to it, Yirmeyâhu's Messianic berit, while khadâshâh, is neither contradictory nor displacemental. The conclusion is unavoidable: the Christian NT, because it intractably contradicted Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh,cannot be the new covenant based on Yirmeyâhu 31.30-32 that heralded a Jewish messiah!

Yehoshua Bën-Nunn-Yoseiph Ben-D(vid of Nâtzrat represents the culmination in a thematically consistent sequence of Beritot. Unlike the total contradiction of all previous perfect Beritot taught by Christian doctrine, Ribi Yehoshua, by his own declaration, neither contradicted, invalidated, nor compromised the first or Ozeil of Torâh and the Oral Law. By the logic of consistency, the berit of the shiakh has no relevance specific to, and certainly effects no changes relative to, goyim or nilwëh status. The logic of consistency dictates that the relationship of the gentile and geir to Beit-Yisrâ·eil and Torâh is the same subsequent to Yirmeyâhu's berit of the shiakh as it was before.

So what was the point of Yirmeyâhu's berit? Exactly what Yirmeyâhu declared, to change the emphasis from the letter of the law that one couldn't avoid without being punished to keeping the intent of Torâh out of a heartfelt love and desire to please --.

Consequently, in contrast to the Displacement Theology of J*esus and Christianity, Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim taught (among many other things35 to which Christian doctrines of J*esus were later antithetical) three important tenets about messianic kipur for a portion in hâ-olâm ha-:

  1. Consistent with Torâh, Ribi Yehoshua provides blood kipur exclusively for those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (including geirim and the 10 categories of yukhasin) who are doing their utmost to live a shomeir-Torah life (not for willful, "high-handed" –cf. be-Midbar 15.30; et al – rejection, i.e. selective observance, of Torâh).

  2. Those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (including geirim and the 10 categories of yukhasin) who are doing their utmost to live a shomeir-Torah life receive ha-Sheim's provision of blood kipur according to the terms as promised – without any further added conditions (Devârim 13.1, et al.) – to Beit-Yisrâ·eil by ha-Sheim of the berit that ha-Sheim set forth at Har Sinai. Consistently, Yirmeyâhu explicitly precluded any change in terms. Consistently, Ribi Yehoshua explicitly stated that he wasn't adding any new conditions. The notion of some additional condition, such as having to call, or believe, on any name other than ha-Sheim (Yeshayâhu 12.1-4; Tehilim 20.6; 116.13), is antithetical to both Yirmeyâhu and Ribi Yehoshua.

  3. Those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil (including geirim and the 10 categories of yukhasin) who aren't living a shomeir-Torah life are required to make teshuvâh. (goyim are required to qualify for and obtain nilwëh status as geirim.)

Every berit since Har Sinai provides kipur only for shortcomings in the best effort of the Jew (including geirim and the others of the 10 categories of yukhasin) to live a shomeir-Torah life. Until there was teshuvâh, Tana"kh never provided any kipur for deliberate, willful, "high-handed" (cf. be-Midbar 15.30; et al.) rejection of Torâh. Consistently, under the terms of Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh, The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) demonstrates (5.17-20 with notes) how ha-Sheim provides kipur through His shiakh Bën-Yoseiph only for those of Beit-Yisrâ·eil who are genuinely doing their utmost to live a shomeir-Torah life, with no further conditions about identifying, or believing in, the shiakh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

What was Ribi Yehoshua's Unique Contribution to Judaism?

Why Follow Ribi Yehoshua as shiakh?

Some simplistically maintain that the historical Ribi Yehoshua attained fame because he had the power to heal and cast out demons. However, others also demonstrated (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 7.22; in 12.3 Ribi Yehoshua acknowledges others who cast out demons, related to healing.), and continue even today at least to give the illusion of, casting out demons and healing. Still others maintain that Ribi Yehoshua's "resurrection" was his greatest importance. Yet, had he contravened Torâh he would have been invalidated even if his resurrection was indisputably proven. Neither do these explain the myriad of confusions and contradictions shrouding his teachings.

Key contributions Ribi Yehoshua made to Dërëkh Halâkhâh (i.e., Judaism) can be deduced by looking for concept(s) found for the first time in Matityâhu be-Ivrit (or Ma·avâr) but not in earlier Judaic literature. The most significant concept original to Ribi Yehoshua was no less than the landmark realization of an inverse of the dreams of the Parohs. While the Parohs aspired to elevate themselves to the heavens (stars), Ribi Yehoshua understood that combining the principles of Torâh with Yirmeyâhu's prophecy of the Berit Khadâshâh would bridge the Realm of the heavens, bringing the "Kingdom of heaven" down to shomeir-Torah Jews (and geirim, and others of the 10 categories of the yukhasin). Ribi Yehoshua realized that the real domicile of ha-Sheim is in the hearts of shomeir-Torah Jews (and geirim, et al.), that this was the implication of Torâh (Devârim 30.6) with Yekhëzqeil 36.24-38 and the Berit Khadâshâh of Yirmeyâhu (24.7 & 31.30-33). It was Ribi Yehoshua who first realized that this similarly implied that the stones from which the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Shelishit is (already) being built are the nephâshot of Yisrâ·eil (and geirim). This Realm of the heavens, the Realm of ha-Sheim, is, in the vernacular of the physicist, the non-dimensional Realm. This is the domain of the Singularity, implied in the Shema, Who is the Prime Force, and Prime Cause, of our universe.

Before ha-Sheim inspired Ribi Yehoshua's flash of insight, ha-Sheim was viewed as impossibly distant from man, incomprehensibly far away in the heavens. Only an "Arm" or "Hand" or, more often, an "angel" was occasionally extended down to earth. Before Ribi Yehoshua, there was no precedent in the extant Judaic literature for his revelatory insight, nor has any precedent been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.36 This revolutionary perceptiveness was unique and original to Ribi Yehoshua. Yet, today, it has been adopted by the entirety of mainstream Judaism, who now sees ha-Sheim as the "indwelling Shekhinâh" within the heart of every Torâh-observant person, whereas, before Ribi Yehoshua, the Shekhinâh was found only in the Mishkân / Ohël Mo·eid and subsequent Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon – and not even in Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini!!! This revolution originating with a Pharisee Ribi shouldn't be too surprising given that modern mainstream Judaism evolved from the first century Pharisees, that Ribi Yehoshua was a Pharisee Ribi, and the Netzârim were respected Pharisee Jews living in the Pharisee Jewish community throughout their existence – until the Netzârim were annihilated by the Church in 333 C.E.

For his efforts to redirect the eyes of Israel from the increasingly popular Hellenism of the pseudo-Tzedoqim Roman vassals in the Beit-Miqdash Beit ha-Miqdâsh, and from the claimed divinity of Caesar, Ribi Yehoshua was convicted on false charges (of usurping Caesar's claimed divinity) by the same Hellenist Roman vassals – the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim priests who purchased their priesthood in the Temple from the Romans – and executed by the Romans – for claiming to be king of the Jews – not g*od (nor even the shiakh). In satisfying the blood vengeance of Rome – for a time – by his death during the Khag ha-Matzot, he was associated with the qârbân Pësakh for his people – the Jews, not gentiles.

While much of the Christian NT of the Roman gentiles was devoted to the concept of blood atonement, there is only one solitary related statement in (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM): 26.28 – "Having taken the Qidush cup, and having recited the Qidush, he distributed it to them saying, 'Drink it, all of you, commemorating my dâm ha-berit,37 which will be spilled out for the Shemitâh38 of khatâim for many.'" Gentile Hellenist Roman pagans clearly exaggerated this to accommodate the syncretization of their own blood symbolisms.37 As part of the Pësakh Seidër, this imagery is similar to another part of the Pësakh Seidër in which ten drops of wine are spilled – only one of which commemorates blood.

Ribi Yehoshua's cryptic meaning, by contrast, didn't even allude to blood atonement of the kind described in wa-Yiq 17.11; and even that is never alluded to as "blood of a covenant"! There are only two references in Tana"kh referring to dâm ha-berit37Zekharyâh 9.11 and Shemot 24.8! Zekharyâh 9.9-11 is widely acknowledged to refer to the shiakh. Zekharyâh 9:11 explains that the shiakh will send the daughter of Tziyon and Yerushâlayim out of the dry well (spiritless religious trappings – especially rampant at the time the prophecy was given). Citing Shemot 24.4, Ribi Yehoshua outlined (inter alia, The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 5:17-20 with notes) how he has ratified the tradition of Moshëh (namely non-selective observance of Torâh): "all the Devârim of Torâh." In convening the Seidër table, Ribi Yehoshua had (Shemot 24:5) "built an altar at the foot of the mountain," with twelve talmidim representing the "twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel." In instructing his talmidim to fetch the qârbân Pësakh, Ribi Yehoshua "sent the youths of the Benei-Yisrâ·eil" for the prescribed offering to ha-Sheim. In the Pësakh Seidër, Ribi Yehoshua symbolically "took the blood and flicked it upon hâ-Âm" saying (Shemot 24.8) "Hineih39 dâm ha-berit,37 which -- rat (incised or inscribed) with you concerning these matters."

(Though Yokhânân 'ha-Matbil' Bën-Zekharyâh ha-Kohein was the first to announce Ribi Yehoshua's revelation (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 3:2), Yokhânân never elaborated on it himself, only proclaiming Ribi Yehoshua as the one who was coming to explain the revelation – Cf., for example, The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 3.2 and notes 3.2.2 and 4.17.1.)

On the other hand, concealment, deception and hypocrisy (emphatically condemned by Ribi Yehoshua) are deliberate, willful, aveirot Torâh – contradictory to pursuing a life of Torâh-observance. Consider also The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 10.32-33! For all of these reasons, every legitimate follower of Ribi Yehoshua follows the Netzârim: being up-front, straightforward and candid about his or her beliefs; neither hiding nor imposing our beliefs; simply being matter-of-fact and straightforward. Our motto is "neither impose nor conceal" – in a word, integrity.

Moreover, what's easier has no place in this discussion. Jews who seek easiness won't bother to keep the mitzwâh. Christians who seek easiness are in urgent need of reviewing The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 10.37-39, and need only to follow easiness to its logical conclusion to realize they would remain Christian. They are described in The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 7.14. The Netzârim, by contrast, obey The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 7.13 – the gate of truth and integrity.

While it isn't necessary to recognize the shiakh in order to enjoy a share in hâ-olâm ha-, that doesn't imply that one may elect not to recognize the shiakh. It states only that one's share in hâ-olâm ha- doesn't depend on it. Other violaters of Torâh enjoy a share in hâ-olâm ha- too, if, upon becoming aware of their aveirat Torâh they make teshuvâh. But this certainly doesn't suggest that Torâh allows such aveirot. That would be a perversion of Scripture.

It is no different concerning Torâh-required obedience to the vi of Devârim 18. Torâh specifically requires obedience to the shiakh, and all of the Jewish commentators concur. While ignorance of Torâh is no excuse for transgressions, it does make the difference between deliberate and inadvertent transgression. So it all hinges upon whether you realize that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh. Torâh provides kipur for inadvertent violations – including inadvertent disobedience of the vi of Devârim 18. Consequently, shomeir-Torâh Jews who don't realize that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh are covered by the kipur for unknown aveirot provided in the daily qârbânot Shakharit, and weekly Musâph Shabât, the archetypes of which are provided in the heavens by the si envisioned by Yekhëzqeil 37.21-28 – the shiakh. (The astute reader will notice that it is precisely this provision of essential kipur, which the non-Torâh-observant lack.) But, without teshuvâh, there is no kipur for deliberate aveirot – i.e., there is no kipur for willful disobedience of the vi of Devârim 18. You are responsible, and will be held accountable, for information that ha-Sheim has been made accessible to you, even if you choose to ignore it. Note that the onus is upon you to dig out that information and, like Torâh, study it and learn it.

Non-Orthodox Jews present a distorted picture. When many of them don't even believe in ha-Sheim you cannot, despite this conspicuous red flag, yet thoughtlessly accept their picture or their (lack of) perspective, regarding the (lack of) importance of the shiakh. In Orthodox liturgy the shiakh is frequently acknowledged, particularly in the less assimilated Sephârâdi liturgy, and even moreso in the most pristine and authentic Teimâni liturgy. Orthodox liturgy would constantly remind you of your hypocrisy if you recognize that Ribi Yehoshua is likely the shiakh but refuse to acknowledge him and follow him openly, concealing your real beliefs from the rabbis and the community.

Torâh supplies the answer in the most emphatic terms, directly from the mouth of Moshëh (Devârim 18.15, 18-19): "A vi from your midst, from your brothers like me, shall -- your Ëlohim raise up for you; you shall hearken to him… A vi will I raise up for you, from the midst of your brothers like you; then I will give My Speakings by his mouth, and he will speak to you everything which I order him as a mitzwâh. Then it shall be that any man who will not hearken to My Speakings, which he shall speak in My Name, I Myself shall prosecute him." This is entirely consistent with the principle forwarded in Devârim 1.17 that the judgment of the Beit-Din is the judgment of Ëlohim, demonstrating that the judgment of Ëlohim is administered by the Shophtim of Israel. Who moreso, and who would be granted more commensurate vod of Ëlohim, than the shiakh Bën-Dâvid prophesied by Dâniyeil (7.13) and Yekhëzqeil (37.21-28)?

Desperately grasping at straws, some irresponsible Jewish "anti-missionaries" argue that this refers to Yehoshua Bën-Nun, Moshëh's successor, not the shiakh. However, Torâh unambiguously declares their argument is not only false, but misleading people, causing them to stray from Torâh – losing the flock. Not to mention the popular Jewish song in every Orthodox sidur they ignore, the Yigdal, Torâh declares (Devârim 34.9) – after "Yehoshua Bën-Nun had been filled with the Spirit of Wisdom" that, to the very end of the Torâh (Devârim 34.10, the basis of the verse in the Yigdal): "No other vi like Moshëh rose up in Israel, whom -- knew, face to face." It is universally accepted in Orthodox Judaism that Yehoshua Bën-Nun was never considered the equal of Moshëh, much less exceeded him. Torâh unmistakably, explicitly, excludes Yehoshua Bën-Nun as the vi of Devârim 18! To even suggest such an elementary error implies gross ignorance of Torâh, a contradiction that Torâh declares is the mark of a false teacher (Devârim 13.2-6).

More pertinent is the warning in Devârim 18 itself, pesuqim 21-22. Prophecies can culminate in three results:

  1. True: Fulfilled;

  2. False: Contradicted by events and chronologically precluded from ever being fulfilled; and

  3. Outstanding: Neither yet fulfilled nor chronologically precluded from fulfillment.

Impossible For Any Other Candidate To Be The shiakh

For every nomonee held up as a candidate for shiakh, other than Ribi Yehoshua, there are a whole host of prophecies which prove them false.

Prophesied Davidic Genealogy

The genealogical documentation of the public yukhasin for Beit-wid were destroyed by the Romans, dictating that no candidate for shiakh can ever again be legitimate or valid (Yeshayâhu 11.1 & 10-12; Yeshayâhu 9.5-6; Tehilim 2.6-12; 110.1-4; Yekhëzqeil 37.21-28) by Biblical criteria (Nekhëmyâh 7.63) – the only criteria which counts.

Prophesied Timeframe

Many are unable to find a rational cause why messianic ferver reached such a fever pitch in the 1st-century. Yet, the description in Dâniyeil (9.26) is so straightforward in describing and predicting the timeframe in which the shiakh would be reit that virtually every Jew of that time was able to calculate the year in which it would occur: 30 C.E.40 It's so obvious that Jewish "anti-missionaries," in their desperation to deny this timeframe, have even resorted to the breathtaking declaration that both Dâniyeil and Yirmeyâhu ha-Nâvi were mistaken!!!41 This, too, dictates that anyone living after 30 C.E. cannot be the shiakh.

Prophesied "Greater vod" in Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini

Speaking of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini, Khajai prophesied (2.9, 21-23) that "Greater will be the vod of this latter Bayit than the first,' said -- of armies." Yet, the unanimously acknowledged vod of -- – the Shekhinâh – was present only in the earlier, Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon, never in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini! The only vod -- that could possibly have entered the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini was in the person of the prophesied vi of -- (Devârim 18) – the shiakh!!!

Prophesied Birthplace: Beit-Lëkhëm

Beit-Lëkhëm is today an Arab-occupied city. No Jews are born there anymore.

Other Prophecies Describing the shiakh

Zekharyâh 6.11-13 & 2-3; Yirmeyâhu 23.5-6; Mishlei Shlomoh 30.4 – all in addition to the well-known Yeshayâhu 53.

Look Around in the Real World

What year is it according to most of the world??? By what event is time and history supposed to be measured? Arguments against Ribi Yehoshua are absent, focusing instead on denouncing a Roman counterfeit. There is nothing but vacuous, often self-contradicting, rebuttals to a mountain of positive evidence. Further, there is not one whit of positive evidence for any alternative to the forever-foreclosed office of new candidate for shiakh.

The only valid argument – which, all by itself is capable of carrying the day – is that Yesh"u, contradicting Torâh, cannot possibly be the shiakh. This is confirmed by Devârim 13.2-6! That's absolutely true and unassailable. The flaw in the arguments of most Jewish "anti-missionaries," however, is that they doen't apply to historical Ribi Yehoshua!!!

Supporting the premise that historical Ribi Yehoshua (as contrasted with his polar antithesis, Yësh"u, le-havdil) is the shiakh, by contrast, is a mountain of prophecies.

All of these prophecies fall into two categories: fulfilled and outstanding. There are no foreclosed or barrier prophecies relative to historical Ribi Yehoshua that could invoke Devârim 18.21-22.

All other possible candidates are forever invalidated by foreclosed prophecies.

It's a no-brainer.

Consider, too, what a huge precedent it was in the general era of the 1st century C.E. for a Jewish "prophet" (even though a counterfeit) to be recognized outside the Jewish community and throughout the non-Jewish world!!!

Consider how most of the world – the three major religions – still continues today to regard (their misconceptions of) him as an ascendant prophet – 2,000 years later!!!

Torâh set forth the principles of distinguishing between hor and tumâh, and between dosh and khol, along with the remedies of teshuvâh and kipur, the elements by which ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, could, in His khein, effect a state of dosh, elevating Beit-Yisrâ·eil to be qedoshim.42 Only in this way can the Singularity, Who is ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, commune with us without becoming contaminated, imperfected, by our imperfections. This is essential so that He may remain the Perfect ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu.

However, it was through His shiakh – anointed agent – Ribi Yehoshua that ha-Sheim revealed the key insight that would become a cornerstone: relating these prophecies of Torâh to Yirmeyâhu's prophecy of the personal internalization of Torâh (Yirmeyâhu 31.30-33) in the Berit Khadâshâh. This internalization permitted ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu to elevate the individual shomeir-Torah Jew (and geir, et al.) to a state of dosh with whom ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu could commune, bringing the Realm of the heavens into the heart of the shomeir-Torah Jew (and geir)!!!

Logical consistency dictates that the berit of the shiakh cannot be contradictory to earlier Beritot. So what is the berit of the shiakh? Yirmeyâhu (31.30-33) and Ribi Yehoshua stated it clearly: marshalling the real elements of the non-dimensional (i.e., spiritual) realm (previously only symbolized by earthly tokens), to bring the Realm of the Heavens near (i.e., to wed) in the hearts of the previously selected branch of humankind who accepted His Message – Israel. In the berit of the shiakh, the earthly patterns are realized in the actual provisions, on a personal and individual level for shomeir-Torah Jews and geirim. This enables the Shekhinâh of the Singularity-Creator, the real Ruakh ha-Qodësh, to lishkon each stone (each of which is a nëphësh Yisrâ·eil) of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Shelishit – the heart of each shomeir-Torah Jew (and geir).

Here was the marriage of the human nëphësh with his or her Singularity-Creator, the wedding of heaven and earth, about which the Parohs had only dreamed in futility. This is what Ribi Yehoshua brought.

Ribi Yehoshua's mastery over this concept, which surely could only have been by revelation from ha-Sheim, is another demonstration that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh. He, and his Netzârim followers, went on to map the practices and symbols in the earthly realm to the tavnit of the Realm of the heavens which the earthly practices could only symbolize (Beit ha-Miqdâsh, the necessary Havdâlâh between Qodësh and khol, the animal sacrifice system, the Pârâh Adumâh, blood atonement, etc.).

Historical Milestones

Times of the Gentiles

Recognition of the priority of the archetypes in the Realm of the heavens over earthly tavnit demanded that the shiakh Bën-Yoseiph first satisfy the requirements of the Realm of the heavens before addressing the temporal physical world or only secondary significance. The requirements in the earthly domain had to wait for the fulfillment of many remaining and outstanding prophecies: particularly for the curtain to come down on the Times of the Gentiles43 – as it did in 1948 with the birth of the State of Israel.

Reemergence & Regathering of Jews, Becoming the Prophesied Mamlëkhët Kohanim

Another milestone is the development of a critical mass of Jews to develop the prophesied (mamlëkhët Kohanim we-goy doshShemot 19.6) 127 (Shemot 19.5-6), and geirim to fulfill both the prophesied goy dosh (Shemot 19:5-6) and the prophecy of Zekharyâh 8.23.

Having bridged the non-dimensional and physical universe to realize the Omnipotence of ha-Sheim over both, traversing them with His help should no longer be regarded as inconceivable. So when the proper time is fulfilled why wouldn't he then return (hint: in spirit, i.e. restoration of his authentic teachings, rather than physically), as the agent-shiakh of ha-Sheim, to fulfill Dâniyeil 7.13-14 (as Rashi noted44) in demonstrating the mastery of ha-Sheim over the physical universe – without breaking any of His own physical laws – as well?

There could be no better, or more important, reason to follow the teachings of Ribi Yehoshua than this personal internalization of the various provisions of Torâh effecting – by enabling Him to eliminate conceptual (spiritual) contaminants from the shomeir-Torah Jew and geir – intimate communion with the Perfect ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu. There can be no more relevant, urgent or better reason than bringing the "Realm of the heavens near," into the very heart of the individual shomeir-Torah Jew (and geir), wedding him or her as part of Israel the wife, with her Singularity-Creator husband. Neither can there be any greater or more satisfying happiness, or sense of ultimate purpose in one's life, than to realize this communion in one's prayer life – genuinely, for the first time, realizing the dream of mankind since the Parohs: communication with the other, non-dimensional, Realm! The process of tephilâh then changes the shomeir-Torah Jew or geir toward increased awareness and attenuation to the desires of ha-Sheim, instead of the misconceived hedonist and self-oriented notion of reforming the Immutable ha-Sheim to conform to our ill-informed, and often misguided, fallible wishes.

If you believe that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh then you are not permitted to conceal it from the rabbis or anyone else, even passively. With the sole exception of the Netzârim, no "believers" in "Yeshua" (by whatever name) have been, or can be, accepted into the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community. So if you believe that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh then the option of secretly following Ribi Yehoshua in the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community, perhaps even converting, for good reason, is non-existent. When you are eventually found out your false conversion will be exposed, even if performed by Orthodox rabbis and approved by a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din who weren't apprised of your secret beliefs. Even if you fool men, you can be sure that you will be found out by the Great Judge of the Great Beit-Din in the Great Day of Judgment.

Bottom line: if you believe that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh, then the Netzârim are the only legitimate option for you. There is no other option for one who believes that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

1st Century C.E.

Geirim Netzârim versus (le-havdil)

Torâh-rejecting J*esus & Christian 'Displacement Theology'

Before Christians introduced "Displacement Theology," Biblical Israelis like Moshëh, wid ha-Mëlëkh et al., being part of Beit-Yisrâ·eil, were party to the provision for Beit-Yisrâ·eil, under the terms of her berit at Har Sinai, to make teshuvâh by means of kipur. provided by the khein of ha-Sheim. Contrary to the Christian definition of "salvation," yeshuâh in Tana"kh refers exclusively to national deliverance, victories ha-Sheim gave to Israel as an am, i.e., yeshuâh over her enemies. Judaism recognized, by extension, messianic references to yeshuâh as referring to the final victory ha-Sheim will give to Israel in the Messianic Era through shiakh Bën-Dâvidyeshuâh over her enemies. Referring to the shiakh Bën-Dâvid, Jews pray every afternoon: "May You cause the Tzëmakh of wid to quickly grow, and may You raise his qërën in Your yeshuâh. Blessed are You, --, the Grower of the qërën of yeshuâh." 45

However, in their formulation of Christianity, perhaps first Paul the Apostate and, certainly, later Hellenist Roman Gentiles (after 135 C.E.) associated Ribi Yehoshua's resurrection with victory over death, proof, the Church claims – reverting to the paganism of the Parohs – of his victory over (some vague and undefined Christian definition of) "sin." Therefore, they reasoned, personal acceptance of their Christ-g*od brought personal, spiritual, salvation from (i.e., victory over) "vague-sin" and death. The Christian theory of personal, spiritual, entrance into their Displacement Theology contrivance of pretend "true" "spiritual Israel" then follows based on this flawed premise. By this reasoning they claim to be beneficiaries without ever becoming party to, or responsible for, the terms of the berit with Beit-Yisrâ·eil. Contradictions only begin with the realization that the Christian J*esus is only an image – an idol – contrived by 2nd-4th century goyim Hellenist Christians(see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)) and retrojected from the fourth century C.E. goyim Hellenist Christians back into the 1st century. J*esus Christ is an image diametrically antithetical to, the polar opposite of, both 1st century Judaism as described in Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT and the historical religious Jew, Ribi Yehoshua. To blur these mutually exclusive polar opposites as if they were the same is mingling the dosh with the khol (wa-Yiq 10.10), calling the good bad and the bad good (Yeshayâhu 5.20), prohibited by Torâh!!!

One of the earliest Church historians, Eusebius, recorded that the Netzârim accepted only their own Matityâhu be-Ivrit as a legitimate record of the authentic teachings Ribi Yehoshua (EH, III, xxvii, 4), only Tana"kh as Scripture, and that the Netzârim had effected reit of Paul as an Apostate.46 Unlike the Christians, the Netzârim never accepted the "NT" (EH, III, xxvii, 4). Until the mss. were redacted by early misojudaic Christians,47 there was never anything in Ribi Yehoshua's teachings nor in Netzârim teachings – Matityâhu be-Ivrit – claiming divinity for Ribi Yehoshua. The doctrine of a divine man-g*od savior providing eternal life traces back not in Judaism, but in the tradition of their Roman pagan myths, and Greek, Egyptian and other pagan mythology before them, of a man-g*od offspring who was the product of a g*od mating with a human woman.

Nor did Ribi Yehoshua or the Netzârim ever proclaim the NT quotation "no man cometh to the Father but by me." Neither did the Netzârim ever advocate the favorite NT quotation of the Nazis, the Klan, Christian Identity, and other misojudaics – "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me" (KJV Lu. 19.27).

Those who claim to follow J*esus are obligated, bound under a yoke, to follow the NT. Those who reject even a part of the NT are proportionately turning away from the Roman pagan J*esus. Partial – i.e., selective – observance, however, was rejected by historical Ribi Yehoshua, in many passages of Netzârim Matityâhu be-Ivrit, as unacceptable .

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

The Geir & Conversion – Continuity

Feldman explains, "What we call g*od-Fearers, …, refers to several Greek terms. In the Book of [Ma·avâr] we find φοβουμενοι (phoboumenoi; "those fearing")48 and σεβομενοι τον θεον (sebomenoi ton theon; "those reverencing g*od").49 Elsewhere in classical literature we find such terms as θεοσεβεις (theosebeis; "g*od worshippers") and μετυεντες (metuentes; "those who fear")…" 8

"The next question is, to what did these terms refer? Did they refer to a group who stood somewhere between paganism and Judaism, so-called semi-proselytes, who were sympathetic to Judaism, but who had not taken the final step of formal hitgaiyerut (which, in the case of males, would include Berit Milâh)?" 8

"The fact is that, at least in the first century [C.E.], these terms were not limited to the 'sympathizers' I have described above. These terms also referred to Jews by birth or to full converts.50 This is clear from an inscription ([in Biblical Archeology Review, ibid.] p. 60) found at Miletus in Asia Minor, dating from Roman times, that speaks of the 'place of the Jews who are also g*od-fearers.' 51 (Ma·avâr itself [13.43] mentions 'g*od-fearing proselytes.') Similarly, at the beginning of the second century, people who are clearly Jewish, named [Leiwi, Binyâmin and Yoseiph], are called θεοσεβεις (theosebeis; 'g*od worshippers') in the pseudepigraphic work [Yoseiph] and Asenath." 52 & 8

"During the Hellenistic and early Roman period (B.C.E. 323 to 70 C.E.)," Feldman observes, "the Jews were apparently extraordinarily successful in winning converts… A proselytizing movement of such scope, if we may judge from parallel movements in the growth of Christianity and Islam, for example, would seem necessarily to imply the existence of intermediate categories of those at a half-way point or other sympathizers who tried to effect a syncretism of the old religion with the new one…" [emphasis added] 8

Already by the 1st century C.E., Feldman notes8 several references to this group of non-Jews who have undertaken to learn and apply Judaism but haven't yet reached a satisfactory level to undergo hitgaiyerut.

The geir was, and is, the "Ëlohim-Reverer" (pop. "g*od-fearer"). Unlike the Bën-Noakh, the geir – learning and applying toward full and non-selective implementation of Torâh – is a nilwëh in the Beritot between ha-Sheim and Beit-Yisrâ·eil. Accordingly, the geir shares in the inheritance of Beit-Yisrâ·eil – a place in hâ-olâm ha-. "Ëlohim-Reverer" is a synonym for the Geir Tzëdëq and, for the duration of a reasonable transitional period of study, the Geir Toshâv.

When Nero persecuted "Christians" in 64 C.E. he distinguished them as selectively-observant pseudo-Judaic, sectarian-Hellenist, proto-Christians vis-à-vis fully and non-selectively Torâh observant Jews (which included the Netzârim, as attested by their remaining in the Jewish, not Christian, community up through 333 C.E.53). The non-selectively Torâh-observant Jews enjoyed the protective influence of Poppaea. This same distinction is later noted by Suetonius.54 It was the Hellenistic Reform proto-Christians, already distinguished from, and outside of, legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism, whom Nero persecuted as trouble-makers. "The Jews, who at first sight would seem more likely to be chosen, as being more conspicuous and probably more unpopular, were in the first place protected by their influence at court [POPPAEA], and in the next they were strong enough to make even Nero think twice about attacking them. A Jewish persecution in Rome might excite a dangerous revolt in Judaea. A variety of causes on the other hand might point out the [selectively-observant, apostate, proto-] Christians as convenient objects for the emperor's purpose. While they were conspicuous and numerous enough to furnish a plentiful supply of victims, they were too few and weak to be formidable. Possibly the Jewish influence at court which has been alluded to may have thrown its weight into the scale." 55 This "Jewish influence" would obviously have actively opposed all who advocated selective observance of Torâh – the Hellenist, proto-Christian Notzrim (not the Netzârim).

In the late 1st-century, the Netzârim weren't persecuted by Rome (apart from other Jews) while Christians were. "The significance of the Neronian persecution lies in the fact that it was the first. Hitherto the attitude of the state officials to [the Netzârim]56 had on the whole been favorable; at the worst they treated it with contemptuous indifference. All this was now suddenly changed. [A change that logically requires proof but for which there is no explicable evidence.] The head of the state has made a ferocious attack on the infant [Notzrimnot a change] church. Henceforth the two powers are to be in antagonism more or less violent till the struggle of 250 years is closed by the conversion of Constantine." 55 [Discerning the shift in the balance of power in the population of the empire, Constantine switched from Roman support of the Jews and Netzârim against the Notzrim to Roman nationalizing of the Notzrim against the Netzârim and Jews.]

During this period when the selectively-observant proto-Notzrim were being persecuted by Rome, the Netzârim, by contrast, were living within the rabbinic Jewish religious community and being treated by Rome as any other Jews. But, of course, one of Christian Constantine's first acts, in 333 C.E., was to annihilate the authentic followers whose very existence contradicted Christian Displacement Theology – the Netzârim who still lived in the Jewish community, rejecting the Church and Christianity, and refusing to abandon Torâh and Halâkhâh. Thus Constantine eliminated the living contradiction to his Church's (and empire's) claim that Christian Displacement Theology was the original teaching of Yësh"u.

Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) demonstrates from Eusebius and other 1st-4th century C.E. sources that the Netzârim were intractably antithetical to the Church and Christianity – and vice-versa. Church historians recorded that the Church regarded the Netzârim, even though they were the original Jewish followers of Ribi Yehoshua, as lost and blinded servants of tân (Eusebius, EH III, xxvii, 1-2), cursed by g*od for remaining "under the Law of sin and death;" the Church was born in the most extreme misojudaism. Modern historians57 are also unanimous that Christianity was always virulently misojudaic from the time that the Notzrim (i.e., goyim) embryonic Church can first be distinguished from sometime around the time of Paul the Apostate to 64 C.E. – even redacting the mss. to revise Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim, falsely portraying them as rejecting Judaism and the Jews (cf. Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)). The Netzârim and Notzrim were intractably opposed to each other from the appearance of the first proto-Christians, sometime from the time of Paul the Apostate to ca. 64 C.E. to the selectively-observant Ëvyonim, etc. While the Netzârim continued living in the Perushim community until the 4th century,53 the selectively-observant, apostate, Hellenist proto-Christians were excluded from the legitimate Jewish community no later than 135 C.E., and far more likely commenced a few years before 64 C.E., perhaps as early as Paul the Apostate. The Netzârim and Notzrim communities lived physically alienated from, and vehemently opposed to, each other. For more than a century before the birth of the anti-Torâh Notzrim Church (in 135 C.E.) – and thereafter – all Netzârim continued to recognize the full authority of Torâh and Halâkhâh, non-selectively, the only way they could have remained, as they did, within the religious Jewish community while all Notzrim were relegated to the goyim community.

Any suggestion of continuity from Judaism to Christianity, or between Christianity and the Netzârim, contradicts the historical record. There were 1st-century C.E. Hellenist – apostate – Jews who advocated selective observance of Torâh and Halâkhâh. By definition of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol as ascertained from 4Q MMT, et al, however, these Jews were apostates, not practicing Dërëkh Halâkhâh / Judaism. Thus, while the origins of Christianity can be traced to these apostate Hellenist Jews who formed earliest proto-Christianity, there is no link from these apostate, proto-Christian Jews or their apostasy (proto-Christianity) through the impenetrable barrier of their apostasy back to any legitimate (i.e. recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol) sect of Judaism (which included, of course, the Netzârim)!

Christians have been trying every scenario imaginable for nearly 2,000 years, including rewriting ("redacting") the historical record, in a futile attempt to fabricate a viable explanation for a non-existent transition from pro-Torâh Judaism to anti-Torâh gentile Hellenist antinomian Christianity – and then explain why the original Netzârim Jews rejected Hellenism and continued in their original theology – keeping Torâh, for which the Church annihilated them. Now, Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT has demonstrated that the main Christian premise, based upon the non-existent transition, is also invalid. It's now known from 4Q MMT that the supposition that major and legitimate sects of 1st century Judaism were rejecting the Oral Law is exactly opposite to the facts. Hence, there couldn't have been any transition to non-selective Torâh-observance except as Hellenist apostates affiliated with the Kohanei hâ-Rësha, whom Ribi Yehoshua condemned as "hypocrites" (and worse), declaring them not part of legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism! Consequently, the 180° pro-Judaic-Jew-to-misojudaic-goyim flip-flop can only be explained by the infamous "Poof Theory" (introduced in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)), which asks us to believe: One night all of the pro-Torâh, pro-Halâkhâh, pro-Judaic, pro-Jew, Yerushâlayim-oriented Netzârim Jews living in the Pharisee Jewish community went to bed and the next morning when they awoke – poof! – they all, even their entire leadership, decided to betray Torâh and Israel and turned into the anti-Torâh, anti-Halâkhâh, misojudaic, anti-Jew, Rome-oriented goyim Church – and moved out of the Pharisee community of Jews into the goyim Notzrim community and began calling their old selves, the original Netzârim who 'hadn't seen the light,' "servants of tân," who were "rejected by g*od," and "cursed by g*od"! Doubtless Christians will deem their transfer (along with their houses and other archaeological evidence of a transition) from the Jewish community to the goyim community in that one night, along with the complete absence of evidence, as "miraculous"!

To the contrary, as Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) also documents, the Netzârim, in glaring contrast to the goyim Notzrim, were still living in harmony in the Jewish community of Perushim long after 'Poof Night,' completely separate from and intractably antithetical to the Church, in 333 C.E. – the year that the Notzrim impostors eradicated the Netzârim for refusing to abandon halakhic Torâh-observance! This eradication, by the Church, of the living evidence who attested to the fraudulence of Church claims, is silent witness that the Netzârim hadn't followed the apostasy that gave birth to the first Notzrim. The Church eradicated the Netzârim specifically because the Netzârim adamantly refused to abandon non-selective Torâh-observance. That the Church had to eradicate them is the ultimate proof that the Netzârim remained non-selectively Torâh -observant.

Christianity, by a combination of altering and destroying (genealogies, Torâh scrolls, etc.) historical records – and, of course, 'Poof Night' – to corroborate its claim that the Netzârim became the original Christians, then requires an explanation how, having become Christians, the Netzârim then reverted back "under the Law of sin and death" so they were then eradicated by the Church in 333 C.E.! There's no historical support for this second, reverse, transition back to being "Judaizers" either!!! Thus, Christianity now requires a second 'Poof Theory' – the 'Poof2 Theory' – to explain how all of these alleged "Jewish Christians" (products of the first, 'Poof1 Theory') who "brought the original 'truth of Christianity' to the goyim," yet again went to bed one night and, for a second time – poof! – woke up the next morning, this time having flip-flopped 180° yet a second time, this time renouncing all of "their original Christian truths" to return to being pro-Torâh "Judaizers" under the "law of sin and death, rejected by g*od and servants of tân." This time they woke up to – 'poof!' – suddenly find themselves back in their original pro-Jew, Yerushâlayim-oriented Netzârim Jews living in the Perushim Jewish community! How can any intelligent person swallow one 'Poof Theory,' much less two, just to avoid confronting the historical truth? They are both imaginary transitions that never took place! Netzârim were never Christians, and Christians were never Netzârim! There was never any transition between them. Therefore, there has never been any legitimate connection between Judaism and Christianity!!!

As one traces Judaism and Christianity back in time from today into the first 4 centuries C.E., Christian roots bypass, and are always mutually exclusive of, the Netzârim. Christianity sprang not from the original Jews who followed Ribi Yehoshua and remained faithful to the same, consistent, direction in the true path of Dërëkh Halâkhâh, but from Hellenized apostate groups outside of Judaism as defined by the authority of the Beit-Din ha-Jadol who selectively syncretized some messianic elements they found appealing into their own Hellenist culture and pagan Roman mythologies having their roots in Persia and Egypt.

Living in physically separated, mutually hostile communities, which Torâh prohibited from interacting with the principle of le-havdil, from the 1st through 4th centuries C.E. demonstrates there could never have been any linkage between the Netzârim and Christianity. Similarly, the crossing by the proto-Christians of the "red line" out of Judaism (countenancing selective adherence to Halâkhâh) demonstrates that neither was there ever any Judaic-doctrinal linkage between the Netzârim (or legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism generally) and the Hellenist apostates who constituted the first nucleus of proto-Christians.

The J*esus Christ of Christianity is the arch-antithetical counterfeit of Ribi Yehoshua; a syncretized divine image whose precedent is frequently found in various mythologies but never in earlier Judaism. This antinomian counterfeit wasn't the original, real, historical person. Thus, the 4th-century counterfeit is an idol-g*od! Torâh (Devârim 13.1-6) invalidates J*esus as a Jewish messiah, making it absolutely impossible for J*esus to be the messiah!

While the Netzârim regard the shomeir-Torah Ribi Yehoshua Bën-Yoseiph Bën-Dâvid from Nâtzrat to be the shiakh Bën-Yoseiph, we also reconcile this with Ramb"m and other Jews in totally and unequivocally rejecting polar antithesis of Ribi Yehoshua – the Christian counterfeit J*esus Christ! If Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh then his arch-antithesis, J*esus, most certainly cannot be! By definition, following Ribi Yehoshua necessarily entails rejecting J*esus! And vice-versa!

Each time ha-Sheim reveals a more recent berit (e.g., Avrâhâm, Har Sinai & wid) humankind thereafter becomes responsible to adhere to it to qualify for a portion in hâ-olâm ha-. If a portion in hâ-olâm ha- was ever accessible to humankind through the berit Gan Eidën or Noakh – which is far from certain (only a rainbow and no flood was promised in the latter), humankind certainly could never refuse a subsequently revealed berit issued by ha-Sheim, communicating His requirements and conditions, insisting on reverting to an berit. One can no more refuse the berit of Har Sinai and insist ha-Sheim admit him or her into hâ-olâm ha- based on the provisions of the berit with Noakh than they can refuse the berit with Noakh to revert to the berit with Âdâm. Expectations of obtaining kipur for a portion in hâ-olâm ha- from the berit with Noakh conflict with ha-Sheim's requirements and conditions, expressed in His most recent berit. Anything else fails to satisfy the requirement to do one's utmost, as currently revealed, to please ha-Sheim.

Hâ-olâm ha- is the archetype of the tavnit, according to which the Beit ha-Miqdâsh was built. Jews and geirim were included among the 10 categories of yukhasin in Qehilat- ha-Sheim. These were recognized company,23 having obtained nilwëh status in Israel – but αλλογενης (allogeneis; another genus, i.e. gentiles) weren't. Consider the fate of Benei-Noakh (= goyim) in the descriptions of Yom ha-Sheim!!! There is no "Pagans' Gate" in heaven anymore than there was in the tavnit for heaven, Yerushâlayim and the Beit ha-Miqdâsh (Tehilim 119.155; 118.19 – 119.8). Except for geirim (necessarily implying recognition by a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din), there is "No Entrance" to goyim! Christian "salvation" is a massively tragic deception of antichrist proportions and effect.

Soreg warning gentiles to approach no closer

Inscribed stone from the Sorëg (stone-lattice) surrounding the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini warning (in Greek):

NO ΑΛΛΟΓΕΝΗ INTO
THIS STONE-LATTICE MAY ENTER
THE AREA OF THE SANCTUARY COURT
ANYONE CAUGHT DOING SO
WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME
FOR HIS DEATH
WHICH WILL FOLLOW

This ancient inscribed stone from the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini is located in Museum Tschinili-Kirschk. Istanbul, Turkey.

The orientation of the entire NT has been wildly distorted by the same petitio principii of attempting to retroject 4th-century antinomian (and misojudaic) Christian syncretisms back onto first century Judaic stories, heard second-hand in Greek, including excerpts from a Hebrew document (Matityâhu be-Ivrit). Aside from references contrasting the εθνη31 <-- ???? --> (ethnei) against Jews, the lone reference in the entire NT specifying a person of the goyim proper – αλλογενης (allogeneis; another genus, i.e. gentiles) – is found at Lu. 17:18, where it specifies an "almost-Jew," one of the foreign occupiers with whom Syria displaced the 10 Tribes who had resided in the Shomron147 – likewise distinguished by Ribi Yehoshua from Judaism by the same sine qua non. As The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) (5.17-20) demonstrates, and a browse through any Greek concordance of the NT will confirm for you – even in the Greek translations by Hellenist Christians and Christianized through redactions – the original and authentic message of Ribi Yehoshua and the Netzârim was by Jews, based in Judaic writings, addressed to Jews, understood and interpreted not from an alien Hellenist Roman-gentile Christian perspective, but from a 1st-century Judaic perspective.

The key terms are:

  1. Ιουδαιος (Ioudaios), the Hellenist perception of Yehudim;

  2. Ελλην (Ellein; Hellenist Jews,58 mostly in the Tephutzâh but many also in Yehudâh);

  3. λαος (laos; the kindred, usually implying one's own, in the case of Judaic literature, Jews), the Hellenist perception of am; and

  4. τοις εθνεσιν31 (tois ethnesin; [Jews]59 among60 the goyim) i.e., in the Tephutzâh.

Defaulting any of these to mean "gentile" or "Greek" gentiles, upon which the entire validity of Christianity depends, contradicts the earliest extant source texts, a deliberate distortion dating back to the earliest Christian attempts to justify their Displacement Theology (see note 105). In all instances in the entire NT where the English appears to address the gentile or Greek, the original source texts read either λαος (Jewish kindred), Ελλην (Hellenist Jew), or τοις εθνεσιν (Jews"among the goyim31). One, therefore, should not imagine that reading a passage in an antithetical Christian – antinomian de-Judaized – version of Hellenist "Matthew" (or a Hellenized "OT") conveying an antinomian-redacted message, accurately reflects the corresponding passage in The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) or Tana"kh, respectively. The Hellenized Christian "Gospel of Matthew" is intractably antithetical to The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM). Only NHM eliminates all of the detectable Christian redactions and extra-Judaic and misojudaic Hellenist interpretations to restore the pristine original (Judaic = non-selectively Torâh-observant) meanings of the Jewish authors.

The apparent condemnation of "Judaizers" in Ma·avâr 15.24-25 has also been distorted. Aside from the fact that the Netzârim accepted "only Matityâhu be-Ivrit," suggesting that Ma·avâr had been perverted, if Shâ·ul was condemning the practice of Berit Milâh or hitgaiyerut in this passage, then he wouldn't have had Timotheos – an uncircumcised Hellenist Jew – undergo Berit Milâh in the very next chapter (16.3)!!! Even more telling, the phrase "saying you must undergo Berit Milâh and keep the law" (King James Version (KVJ) of 1611 C.E. and Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E. 15.24) is glaringly absent from the earliest extant source manuscripts61 – signaling another blatant Christianizing, misojudaic redaction, of the more than 30,000 redactions that are documented in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) The redaction is blatant misojudaism specifically designed by Christians to stigmatize Judaism and Jews in the eyes of goyim. The Roman-induced stigma of centuries ago persists today; misojudaism remains an original defining, and validating, element of Christian doctrine and its ultimate authority – the NT. Misojudaism is similarly amplified by the needd of the second order Displacement Theology, Islam, to validate itself vis-à-vis the original Jews of the Tana"kh.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

2nd Century C.E.

"G*od-Fearers" vs. Birth of Church –
Syncretizing Worship of Sun(g*od)day, Sun-g*od Birthday, I*shtar = E*aster, et al.

Already by the 2nd century C.E., Feldman points out that "A similar distinction [between the pre-Jew and the full Jew] is implied in Suetonius, who, writing in the early second century,54 declares that two categories of people were persecuted by the Roman emperor Domitian (who reigned from 81 to 96 C.E.) for evasion of the special tax on Jews, namely those who lived as Jews without [yet] acknowledging that faith (vel inprofessi Iudaicam viverunt vitam) and those who concealed their origin. The first group cannot be Christians, as Menahem Stern has pointed out,62 since the Roman government was well aware of the difference between Jews [who recognized the full authority of Torâh and Halâkhâh] and [selectively-observant gentile] Christians from the time of Nero. Hence the first group would seem to refer to the [Geir Toshâv pre-convert] 'sympathizers' (who lived as Jews without [yet] acknowledging [full adherence to] the faith), in contrast to those [i.e., the Jew and Geir Tzëdëq] who acknowledged full adherence to Judaism." 8 Feldman goes on to give other examples.

It was in 135 C.E. that the Romans exiled all of the Jews from Yerushâlayim and built their pagan city, Aelia C*apitolina – named after the Roman emperor Aelius Hadrian and the Roman g*od J*upiter C*apitolina (which the Greeks had called Z*eus), upon its ruins. Moreover, exiling the Jews from their newly paganized city left a pagan-filled vacuum in both the leadership and in the body of the Netzârim – a vacuum filled overnight with a gentile bishop and the birth of the gentile Christian Church oriented to Rome and paganism instead of Yerushâlayim and Torâh (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)). The Church replaced Shabât observance with Sun(g*od-)day only after ousting the Netzârim in 135 C.E..63 "Eusebius, Jerome, and other Church Fathers sought to prove from Hadrian's action that Jews had lost Jerusalem because of the rejection of Christianity."64 A more illuminating way of expressing this is: Eusebius, Jerome, and other Church Fathers sought to conclude from Hadrian's action that the Netzârim, and Jews in general, had lost Jerusalem because the Netzârim, and Jews in general, refused to acknowledge the 'rightness' of the Notzrim. This is why the Netzârim were singled out by Constantine from the rest of the Jews for eradication in 333 C.E. in the Notzrim quest to wrest authenticity from the Netzârim, in order to validate Christianity.

"A passage from the mid-second-century writer Justin65 seems rather clearly to refer to 'sympathizers.' There we read the charge of the Jew Trypho that Christians [selectively observant Notzrim] neither keep the feasts or Sabbaths nor practice the rite of Berit Milâh, whereas all persons (phoboumenoi ton theon [revering Ëlohim]) do so. In this context it makes no sense to look upon the [Ëlohim-reverers] as Jews, since the point is that Christians [selectively observant Notzrim] should know better than to disregard the [mitzwot]; the most likely interpretation is that since [all Ëlohim-reverers] keep these [mitzwot], certainly Christians, who claim to believe in the Scriptures, should do so." 8 We know this refers to selectively-observant goyim "semi-convert" Notzrim, and not Netzârim, because the Netzârim continued to live compatibly in the religious Jewish community until 333 C.E.65 The Netzârim wouldn't have been permitted to remain in the rabbinic Perushim Jewish community unless they were halakhically shomeir-Torah Jews.

"A half century after Hadrian's war we meet in the community an open dispute between the [goyim Notzrim] hierarchy and the [proto-Christian apostate Hellenist Jews], especially under the bishop Narcissus66 and his successor Alexander. The first was present at the Council of Keisâriyâh (196 C.E., anglicized to "Caesarea") at which it was established that E*aster67 should be celebrated on Sun[g*od]-day instead of the 14th of Firstmonth (through Babylonian assimilation became "Nisan")… This is also deduced from St. Epiphanius when he writes that this… came into being after 'the bishops68 of the circumcision had disappeared.' (Patrologia Graeca 42, 355-56)"; quoted by Bagatti, p. 10.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

3rd Century C.E.

Birkat ha-Minim

Feldman cites several examples from Josephus and other examples up into the 3rd century C.E., that differentiate the pre-convert, the geir, from Jews. A pivotal point here is that the Netzârim were (and are) Jews who accept geirim (as non-Jews). Whether to the Netzârim or another sect of legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism, Feldman shows that pre-converts were never legitimately within Judaism until they accepted the principle of, and goal of practicing, non-selective, full authority of Halâkhâh; i.e. until they became geir. The notion that semi-converts could practice something short of legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism, observing Halâkhâh or Torâh selectively flies in the face of the evidence. Thus, while there were apostate Hellenist Jews, sometime between the time of Paul the Apostate and 64 C.E., who formed a proto-Christian nucleus that grew to usurp the original group in 135 C.E., "selective-observance" has always been, and – since ha-Sheim is Immutable (Malâkhi ha-Nâvi 3.6. & Tehilim 148.6) – will always remain, the polar antithesis of legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism, dictating that there could never have been any transitional state of "selective Judaism." Therefore, there could never have been any transition from legitimate, Perushim-heritage Judaism to, le-havdil, Christianity. Therefore, Christianity could NOT have originated in, nor had any point of convergence with its polar antithesis, le-havdil, Judaism. Similarly, J*esus could NOT have originated in, nor had any point of convergence with its polar antithesis, le-havdil, Ribi Yehoshua.

"Perhaps the most important practical effect of the anti-Christian reaction was the new ambivalent attitude toward proselytism… Rumor had it that numerous spies, masked as converts [more accurately, posing as geirim], were being planted by the Roman authorities at the Jewish academies [and Batei ha-Kenësët]… R. Mei·ir, himself apparently a descendant of proselytes (according to a later legend of Emperor Nero), declared that 'even a Gentile [more accurately, geir] who studies the Torâh is equal to a high priest'; but many rabbis insisted on closing the avenues of Jewish learning to non-Jews. [R. Yokhânân], apparently reacting to the new wave of persecutions, exclaimed that 'a Gentile [probably, geir] who studies the Torâh deserves capital punishment' and his colleague and friend, [R. Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh Bën Lâkhish], echoed him in the statement that 'a Gentile [probably, geir] who rests on [Shabât] deserves capital punishment'… In Babylonia, particularly, where the Jews long lived in relative peace and prosperity, and where Christianity never made deep inroads into Jewish communities, a moderate missionary policy was revived. Rabâ and Rav Ashi, the great teachers of Babylonian Jewry in the fourth century, were outspoken advocates of proselytism, and at times the number of proselytes seems to have been considerable… Under these circumstances semi-proselytism [pre-convert geirim-in-training], consisting in the partial adoption of Jewish mores, began to flourish once more. This time, however, taught by experience, the rabbis combatted incomplete hitgaiyerut with all means at their disposal, eventually accepting a [Holy Land] sage's hyperbole, 'The Geir Toshâv [at that time the Hebrew equivalent for σεβομενος (sebomenos; worshipper)]69 existed only when the Yoveil year was in force.' ".3

It is in this context that the Birkat ha-Minim, the Notzrim, and Jerome (XML).htm">Birkat ha-Minim was aimed not at Netzârim (Jews), but rather at Notzrim whom, Jews feared, Roman authorities were placing in the congregations in the guise of "semi-convert" (i.e. geir) spies.3

"In any case, the Jewries of the dispersion doubtless treated with great friendliness those Gentile neighbors who adopted but a few of their beliefs and ceremonies. More readily than the [Jews of the Holy Land] they applied to these half-proselytes [geirim] the friendly Mosaic provisions in favor of the Geir Toshâv which term, too, underwent the usual change from a political to an ethnic-religious category."70

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

4th Century C.E.

Church Eradicates Any Fragmented Remnants of the Netzârim

The Church isolated even selectively-observant Jews like the Ëvyonim with the adoption of the festival for the g*oddess I*shtar / A*shtarah / A*shtoret (E*aster67) at the Council of 196 C.E.. "From the late account of Eutychius (Patrologia Graeca 111, 1012-13) that, just at this time [333 C.E.], the faithful while they were leaving the church on E*aster day, were forced to eat pork under pain of death. We know how the Judeo-Christians refused this in order not to transgress the Mosaic law to which they held they were bound"(Bagatti, p. 14). Any fragmented remnants of the shomeir-Torah Netzârim who may have survived both the exile of 135 C.E. and the forcible adoption of E*aster in 196 C.E. were martyred by the Christian Church or scattered in this pogrom. They are never heard from again as an identifiable group until the 1980s. While there are occasional mentions of selectively-observant Notzrim called "Nazarenes," these are uniformly apostate, selectively-observant Christians. There is no further record of the original and authentic, shomeir-Torah Netzârim until 1983.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

6th Century C.E.

Church Adopts Sun[g*od]day M*ithra's Birthday – Dec. 25th

"The earliest extant documentation of Christmas is the annual calendar published by Dionysius XIX Exiguous, whose calendar was first published in 527 C.E." This was the date they believed to be the birthday of M*ithra, the Roman sun-g*od(see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) and The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM)) and isn't even close to the birth date of Ribi Yehoshua who, according to astronomical calculations, was born in late spring, specifically, May 29,th B.C.E. 0007 (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM), notes 2.0.1 and 2.2.1.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

21st-Century

The Netzârim View

The principle of immutability (Malâkhi 3.6) means ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu, hasn't changed ever, much less since Har Sinai. Adapting to the terms for communing with the Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu in the 21st century, the Beit Din ha-Netzârim interprets Torâh and Halâkhâh consistent with these Beritot to relate 21st century technology, and a scientific and logical approach, to interpreting His authentic, documented, terms from Har Sinai and Yirmeyâhu's Berit Khadâshâh. Only then does He, through His khein, confer a state of dosh required to commune with the Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6) ha-Qâdosh, Bârukh Hu.

The Netzârim are unique. We are the only followers – in the entire world – of Ribi Yehoshua as the shiakh who are, and who have ever been, accepted and recognized in the same community as Ribi Yehoshua and his original followers – the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) (then Pharisee) Jewish community and the State of Israel, just as we were in the 1st-4rd centuries. The Netzârim community and Beit-Din are located in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel. Legitimate Netzârim are thereby easily distinguished from the many self-proclaimed 'copycat' deceivers, false teachers located elsewhere – none of whom have been accepted or recognized by the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community or the State of Israel. Such counterfeits are instrinsic to Christianity: similar to Judaism only cosmetically. This author is an Orthodox Jew (documentation available) and member in good standing of a Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit ha-Kenësët ha-Teimâni in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel – Beit ha-Kenësët Morëshët Âvot – Yad Nâ·âmi (documentation available). Anyone not verified by the Beit Din ha-Netzârim in Ra·ananâ(h), Israel (e.g., via the Internet at www.netzarim.co.il) is not a Netzârim!!!

The Berit Khadâshâh of Yirmeyâhu ha-Nâvi contains the details of how Beit-Yisrâ·eil would internalize Torâh – obeying Halâkhâh non-selectively and, for the first time, to truly do her utmost because it stems from her heart, instead of external imposition of Torâh out of fear of punishment from the Beit-Din. Since Har Sinai, the Neviyim have foretold the day when humankind would be responsible for what was revealed therein. Yeshayâhu 14.1 states: (we-nilwâh ha-jeier; and shall nilwëh the geir) upon them, (we-nispekhu; and they shall be attached) upon Beit-Ya·aqov." Note that this does not state "Bën-Noakh"! Ribi Yehoshua described this in terms of "grafting" a "wild branch" onto the "natural tree." Perhaps humankind today is more receptive to the desires of ha-Sheim – enabling the concomitant fulfillment of Zekharyâh 8.23 & 14.16-21? Indeed, today, it is no longer under threat of punishment from a Beit-Din that Jews observe Torâh and Halâkhâh. Torâh-observance has been internalized as taught by Ribi Yehoshua. Today, the Beit-Din continues to determine Halâkhâh for each element of the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community. Then it's up to the Jew (geir, and others of the 10 categories of yukhasin) to observe that Halâkhâh non-selectively to his or her utmost, motivated from the desire of his or her heart – exactly as prophesied by Yirmeyâhu!

In antiquity, a priest or rabbi class, who could read and had access to the scarce texts, was essential to promulgate Torâh. Today, by contrast, Hebrew is the native language to all lay Jews in Israel. Further, all Israeli lay Jews have access to the texts, are literate and Israeli lay Jewry is generously sprinkled with scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers and the like while the rabbis have deteriorated to the least competent interpreters of Torâh. These conditions reflect the emergence of the (mamlëkhët Kohanim we-goy dosh) prophesied in Shemot 19.6.

The perception of the geir among mainstream Jews today is different than that defined by the Beit-Din ha-Jadol. Today's assumption that geir means a "convert" doesn't square even with all of the Torâh citations on kashrut alone (cf. Devârim 14.21). Further, geirim "were expected to observe Shabât (Shemot 20.10; Devârim 5.14), participate in the religious festivals (Devârim 16.11, 14), and fast on Yom ha-Kipur (wa-Yiq 16.29). They were permitted to offer up burnt offerings (wa-Yiq 17.8; 22.18; be-Midbar 15.14ff.) and, if they had undergone Berit Milâh, even to sacrifice the Pesakh qârbân (Shemot 12.48-49; be-Midbar 9.14). Indeed, they, no less than the Israelites, were expected to be loyal to ha-Sheim (wa-Yiq 20.2; cf. Yekhëzqeil 14.5-8)." 23

The Netzârim (tipeil; care for, tend) / θεραπευω (therapeuo; attend to, care for)71 the sick (even moreso the spiritually sick who have distanced themselves from Dërëkh Halâkhâh). By contrast, as Ribi Yehoshua emphasized (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 9.12-13), we don't insist upon prescribing treatments for the healthy, i.e. the shomeir-Torah. It is an anathema to suppose that the Torâh-observant should repent from Dërëkh Halâkhâh!

Other streams of Orthodox Judaism lack any provision to recognize geirim. Even if they did, they wouldn't recognize one who believes that Ribi Yehoshua is the shiakh. Only the Beit Din ha-Netzârim affords the opportunity to be a legitimate follower of Ribi Yehoshua – viz. in the Perushim-heritage Jewish community like Ribi Yehoshua and the 1st-century Netzârim. Some Orthodox rabbis say that the mainstream Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) don't really have an active Geir Toshâv status today, and that the status of geir is only applicable to Yisrâ·eil. Yet, Orthodox rabbis regularly enroll non-Jews in hitgaiyerut courses, equivalent to the Biblical geirim but without acknowledging the Biblically defined status of geir. The Netzârim merely reassert the Biblical definition, which enables us to harmonize with the historical and Scriptural evidence.

The remedies to intermarriage and assimilation are widely touted in the Jewish community as:72

  1. trying to prevent the intermarriage through increased motivation of Jews to practice Torâh-observance,

  2. trying to persuade the non-Jewish spouse to convert, and

  3. qiruv (wrongly understood in Conservative and Reform practice as accepting the intermarried).

The Netzârim are clearly successful in the first two, caring for (and healing) individuals, marriages and families; and retrieving estranged Jews back into the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community and Beit ha-Kenësët.

The Netzârim concept of qiruv, however, encompasses prophetic proportions:

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Appendix I

The Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh73

  1. Subordinate yourself to a legitimate Jewish Beit-Din;

  2. Do not profane the Name (khilul --, see our monograph, Profaning the Holy Name Unawares);

  3. Have no part in idolatry (Avodâh Zârâh; including J*esus Christ and Christianity);

  4. Do not engage in sexual promiscuity (including intermarriage between Jews and gentiles);

  5. Do not murder (includes, be extension, character assassination and slander but not synonymous with "kill");

  6. Do not steal (includes, by extension, misrepresentation); and

  7. Do not eat reiph (lit. "torn"; i.e., non-sheir) meat, unavoidably implying undertaking kashrut.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Appendix II –

The Birkat ha-Minim, The Notzrim and Jerome

The early church writer Jeromewas the first Christian to notice that the Jews cursed informers and sectarians in their Batei ha-Kenësët using the term Notzrim in the Birkat ha-Minim. Though Jerome didn't correctly understand the distinction between Notzrim and Netzârim, he did recognize that the Jews intended to curse the Notzrim (anti-Torâh goyim Christians),74 not Netzârim!75 The Jews had deliberately introduced the term Notzri76 to permit Jews to curse the Notzrim in Beit ha-Kenësët without cursing the Netzârim.

As the late Oxford scholar James Parkes noted, although the Birkat ha-Minim malediction was introduced ca. 100 C.E., "we know of no actual persecution of [the Netzârim] by the Jews between the death of [qid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq", at the hands of a Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim Kohein hâ-Rësha] and the outbreak of the revolt in the time of Trajan."77 This demonstrates that the Birkat ha-Minim was not aimed at the Netzârim; and, to the contrary, proves it was aimed, instead, at the Notzrim.

According to 3rd-century C.E. Holy Land Church historian Eusebius, the Christians, who were goyim, loathed the Netzârim Jews as belonging to the "wicked demon" tân (EH III, xxvii.1ff). The Jews took advantage of the Notzrim hatred of the Netzârim to curse the Notzrim so cleverly that they escaped the Church's wrath, leaving the Church thinking that the Jews were cursing the Netzârim – whom the Church loathed. Without the helpful – but optional – (vav), Notzrim and Netzârim are spelled identically in Hebrew – ! The Jews cleverly took advantage of this ambiguity. When the Church read the malediction against the 78 (confirmed where, in other scrolls, it was actually spelled 79 the Church understood it as a malediction against the Netzârim Jews, not realizing the Jews were instead cursing Notzrim who had been planted by the Romans as spies! If the Church had realized that the Jews were cursing Notzrim they would have immediately persecuted the Jews and put a stop to the practice.

Commenting in 1893 on Jerome's discovery, Samuel Krauss confirms that the Church and gentiles still had no clue about the subtle distinction between Notzrim and Netzârim. "Indeed, although several Christian sects are mentioned in [Talmud], the Nazarenes80 do not once occur in it. This by no means proves that this name was unknown to the Talmudic doctors. Probably [Notzri] very often occurred in the Talmud, but has been erased by the medieval [Church] censors. There were sufficient grounds for this. Catholic Christendom hated other Christian heresies [by this Catholic Christendom meant hatred of the Netzârim] as much as Judaism did [we have already demonstrated that the Jews hated the Notzrim spies, not the Netzârim], and therefore tolerated allusions to them in the Talmud. But it would not permit mention of the Nazarenes,81 for these, at an earlier period, [Catholic Christendom recognized] were synonymous with the Christians. The Christians were called Nazarenes,82 a name which they have retained in Jewish literature to this day."

This quotation from Jerome now becomes clear: "The Jews cryptically curse the Christians or Christ under the name of Notzrim, which Krauss continued to confuse with Netzârim even in the modern time.83 The malediction in the liturgy is explicitly directed against the Notzrim. From the turn of the phrase, it is evident that Jerome thought he had made a discovery. 'How artful the Jews are,' he seems to say, 'they curse the Nazarenes [Notzrim] when they mean the Christians [Notzrim!].' This then is established, that the so-called Benediction of the Minim contained, in ancient times, the term Notzrim. In fact, a gloss of Rashi, which escaped the censors, and is still preserved in later authorities, makes it clear that, in his days even, the Blessing still retained the term Notzri."79

If Krauss had comprehended the correct distinction between Netzâri and Notzri, his point would more accurately read, "The Jews curse the Christians or Christ under the name of Notzri. But then the gentile would have discovered that the malediction was against the Church! Nevertheless, Krauss' basic observation is correct: Jerome discovered that the early Jewish community indeed distinguished the Netzârim from the Notzrim" – inscrutably somehow cursing the latter, not the former.

See also notes in The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 1.0.1, 3.7.1 & 15.5.1.

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Appendix III

Netzârim Reconstruction of Ma·avâr 15 Text

(See also Netzârim Reconstruction of Ma·avâr 15 Notes, in Appendix IV)

© 1972-2006 Yirmeyâhu Bën-DâvidRelease: 2006.06    
ca. 3804 (44 C.E.)15.0.1
Antakya, Turkey
Netzârim from Yehudâh Raise Questions Concerning the Gâlut
Involving Interaction with, and Eligibility of,
Uncircumcised "Hellenist Jews" and Geirim:

Pesuqim 2-5 supported by P-45, ca. 255 C.E.

15

2






3

Then certain ones, having come down 15.1.1 from Yehudâh, were teaching the brothers, "Unless you have been circumcised according to the Halâkhâh 15.1.2 of Moshëh, 15.1.3 you are not able to be saved." 15.1.4 Consequently, there became no small amount of standing 15.2.1 and shouting, with pilpul Midrâsh,15.2.2 by Shâ·ul and Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 who were with them. So the brothers set everything in order for Shâ·ul, Yoseiph Bar-Nevuâh 15.2.4 ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 and certain others among them, to go up to the Shelikhim and Zeqanim, the Shophtim 15.2.5 of the Beit Din ha-Netzârim, in Yerushâlayim, for a pesaq--Din 15.2.6 on this issue.15.2.7 Then, having indeed been given a send-off by the congregation,15.3.1 they passed through Levanon 15.3.2 and the Shomron, declaring the teshuvâh 15.3.3 of [assimilated Hellenist] Yehudim in the Tephutzâh.15.3.4 So they caused great joy among the brothers.

ca. 3804 (44 C.E.) 15.0.1
Yerushâlayim, Yehudâh

Shâ·ul and Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 Bring the Question Before
The Beit Din ha-Netzârim in Yerushâlayim, Yehudâh

Pesuqim 2-5 supported by P-45, ca. 255 C.E.

4


5

Upon becoming nigh in Yerushâlayim, they were welcomed approvingly 15.4.1 by the Qehilâh,15.3.1 the Shelikhim, and the Zeqanim. They explained all that Ëlohim had been performing with them. Then certain of those of the Rabbinic min of Perushim, who were believing 15.5.1 Netzârim, rose up saying, "It is required to circumcise them and to convey to them to keep the Torâh of Moshëh."

ca. 3804 (44 C.E.) 15.0.1
Yerushâlayim, Yehudâh

Shâ·ul and Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 Argue The Case Before
The Beit Din ha-Netzârim in Yerushâlayim, Yehudâh

6
7



8

9

10

11



12

The Shelikhim and the Zeqanim, gathered together 15.6.1 to look into this vâr. When there had been much pilpul Midrâsh,15.2.2 Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh rose up and said to them, "Men, brothers, you understand that from the early 15.7.1 days Ëlohim selected-out 15.7.2 from among us that, by my mouth, the Tephutzâh 15.3.4 is to hear the saying of the joyful message 15.7.3 and to trust.15.5.1 Ëlohim who knows the heart testified to them by giving the Ruakh ha-Qodësh, just as he did to us. He made no Havdâlâh between us and them, having made their hearts hor through trust.15.5.1 So why do you now test Ëlohim, to put a yoke 15.10.1 upon the neck of the talmidim, which neither our fathers nor we were strong enough to bear?15.10.2 Rather, through the khein 15.11.1 of ad(ni 15.11.2 Ribi Yehoshua, we trust 15.5.1 to be saved 15.1.3 in the same manner as they do."

All of the multitude hushed, and listened to Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 and Shâ·ul dictating what signs and wonders Ëlohim did by them in the Tephutzâh.15.3.4

ca. 3804 (44 C.E.) 15.0.1
Yerushâlayim, Yehudâh

The First qid ha-Netzârim, Ya·aqov Bën-Dâvid
Hands Down the Halâkhâh of The Beit Din ha-Netzârim

13
14

15
16

17
18

When they had hushed, qid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq", replied saying, "Men, brothers, listen to me! Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh has dictated how, the first [time], Ëlohim monitored and took (the Jews for) 15.14.1 an am for His Name out of the Tephutzâh.15.3.4 The Divrei- Neviyim have concurred with this, as it is written (Âmos 9.11-12): 'In that day I will raise up the Sukâh of wid, which has fallen,15.16.1 and close its gaps. I will raise up his ruins, and build it as in the days of old, that they may inherit the remnant of Ëdom and all of the goyim over whom My Name is called,' exhorts ha-Sheim that does this. This has been known from the ages.

Pesuqim 19-27 supported by P-45, ca. 255 C.E.

19



20



21




22

23

Wherefore, I poseiq 15.19.1 that we ought not to oppress those from the Tephutzâh 15.3.4 who are making teshuvâh to Ëlohim.

Rather, we should write them to keep themselves from becoming mei from image-entities,15.20.1 promiscuity,15.20.2 meat which is strangled, and from [meat which has not been made sheir of] dâm, because [then they will be permitted to attend a Beit ha-Kenësët, and] there [they can learn the rest of Torâh from] those who recite [the Torâh of] Moshëh. In every city, from ancient generations, [the Torâh of Moshëh] is recited every Shabât in the Batei ha-Kenësët.

Then the Shelikhim and posqim, with the whole congregation,15.3.1 were inclined 15.22.1 to send men selected-out 15.17.2 from among them back to Antakya, [Turkey] with Shâ·ul and Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3, Yehudâh Bar-Tzovâ 15.23.1 and Yâ·ir,15.23.2 members of the Beit-Din, having written by their hand –

ca. 3804 (44 C.E.) 15.0.1
Yerushâlayim, Yehudâh

The Letter Setting Forth the Halâkhâh
Handed Down by the Beit Din ha-Netzârim

24











25

26


27

28


29

From: The Shelikhim and Zeqanim, brothers of the congregation 15.3.1 in Yerushâlayim " 15.23.3

To: The Hellenist Jews and geir of the Tephutzâh 15.3.4 in Antakya, [Turkey], those of the area of southern Turkey,15.23.4 and of Syria.

Brothers of the Tephutzâh,15.3.4 Shâlom,

Since we have heard that some whom we did not authorize, having come out from among us, disturbed you with sayings, upsetting your nephâshot,15.24.1 we are inclined,15.22.1 having reached agreement, to send men to you that we have selected-out 15.17.2 [to go] with our beloved Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 and Shâ·ul. [These we are sending with them are] men who have risked their nephâshot for the name of our shiakh, Adoni 15.11.2 Ribi Yehoshua. So we have sent forth Yehudâh Bar-Tzovâ and Yâ·ir, conveying these same things to you in person. For the Ruakh ha-Qodësh and we were inclined 15.22.1 to impose no further burden [of eligibility] upon you [who are Hellenist Jews and geirim in the Tephutzâh to begin teshuvâh] beyond the following minimum eligibility requirements 15.28.1 Keep yourselves from:

  1. foods over which a blessing has been recited to an image-entity,15.29.1

  2. [meat which has not been made sheir of] blood,15.29.2

  3. [meat of] strangled animals, and

  4. sexual promiscuity.

If you are keeping yourselves from these things you will be practicing well.

ca. 3804 (44 C.E.) 15.0.1
Antakya, Turkey

Shâ·ul, Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi, Bar-Tzo, and Yâ·ir
Deliver the Letter from the Beit Din ha-Netzârim in Yerushâlayim
Setting Forth the Halâkhâh

Pesuqim 2-5 supported by P-45, ca. 255 C.E.

30
31
32


33
35

36




37

So when they had been dismissed, they went [back] to Antakya, [Turkey] and, having assembled the multitude, they handed over the letter. When they had read it, they rejoiced at the encouragement.15.31.1 Yehudâh Bar-Tzovâ and Yâ·ir, themselves being Neviyim too, encouraged the brothers and reinforced them with many sayings. Having stayed for a time, they were dismissed from the brothers be-Shâlom to [return to] the [Shelikhim in Yerushâlayim.15.33.1 & 15.34.1 However, Shâ·ul and Yoseiph Bar-Nevuâh 15.2.4 ha-Leiwi 15.2.3 tarried in Antakya along with many others, teaching and announcing the joyful message:15.7.3 the Devar-ha-Sheim‎ 15.11.2 After a certain time, Shâ·ul said to Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 "Let's turn around and monitor our brothers in all of the cities in which we have [already] conveyed the announcement of the Devar-ha-Sheim‎ 15.11.2 and see how they are doing. Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 advised to take Yokhânân, called [by his Hellenist name] Markos, with them as well.

ca. 3804 (44 C.E.) 15.0.1
Antakya, Turkey

Shâ·ul and Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi Disagree About Yokhânân Markos and Split Up
Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 and Yokhânân Markos sail to Cyprus
Shâ·ul and Yâ·ir tour southern Turkey and Syria

Pesuqim 15.38 — 16.4 supported by P-45, ca. 255 C.E.

38

39


40

41

However, as Yokhânân Markos had stood apart from them back in the south western coastal area of Turkey 15.38.1 and had not assembled with them in the work, Shâ·ul deemed him unworthy to take along.15.38.2 So there became a provocation between them, such that they separated from each other. Yoseiph Bën-Nevuâh ha-Leiwi,15.2.3 having taken Yokhânân Markos, sailed to Cyprus. Shâ·ul, having chosen Yâ·ir, left, having been "delivered over to the khein"15.11.1 of ha-Sheim‎ 15.11.2 by the brothers,15.40.1 and passed through southern Turkey 15.41.2 and Syria, reinforcing the congregations.15.3.1

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

Appendix IV

Netzârim Reconstruction of Ma·avâr 15 Notes

15.0.1 …ca. 3804… Inferred from the 3rd letter of Paul the Apostate to the congregation of Hellenist Jews in Central Turkey (Christianized to Gal.) 2.1, believed to have been written ca. 51 C.E.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.1.1 …having come… Cf. Ma·avâr 12.2 and note at 15:2.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.1.2 (Halâkhâh), εθος (ethos; a custom prescribed by law) Halâkhâh εθος is found only once in LXX at bә-Midbar 24:1, where it is rendered for "from time to time."

is the post-Biblical term for Oral Law, and not found in xTankh. Halâkhâh refers to the corpus of Judaic law according to the accumulation of case law, which is previously called mishpât, interpreted from Torâh. Halâkhâh has accumulated in an uninterrupted chain since Har Sinai. Prior to being called "Judaism," Torâh-observance was simply called (dërëkh halâkhâh; the Way of the Walk) in modern parlance – Halâkhâh.

should be compared with (dërëkh), the Biblical term paralleling Halâkhâh, corresponding to LXX οδος (odos). Cf. NHM note 3.3.3.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.1.3 …circumcised according to the Halâkhâh of Moshëh Then, as now, it was not enough to be circumcised medically. Circumcision must be according to the Halâkhâh of Moshëh. Those who are only medically circumcised are uncircumcised according to the halakhic definition.

Also then as now, there were Hellenist Jews who paralleled today's Reform Jews, some of whom, particularly among Reform "converts" in the Tephutzâh, are not circumcised.

This suq is crucial to understanding any of the works of the Netzârim. Much of the analysis of Torâh vs. "grace" hinges on this note. These so-called "Judaizers" were teaching that one must be circumcised and convert – become a Jew – in order to , i.e., as a prerequisite to, obtain kipur and a share in hâ-olâm ha- through Ribi Yehoshua ha-shiakh.

There is no argument in this passage against being circumcised nor becoming a Jew per se (and, even if there were, it's written by Paul the Apostate and extensively redacted by Christians). How can we know this? Because after this, in the very next section, Shâ·ul himself took Timothy to be circumcised (16.3)! From this we can be certain that becoming circumcised and converting was considered essential – even by Paul the Apostate.

What the Beit Din ha-Netzârim condemned was the requiring of circumcision and/or hitgaiyerut as a prerequisite for kipur in the shiakh and a place in hâ-olâm ha-.

The mishpât is that circumcision and hitgaiyerut to Judaism is essential where viable, but it may not be required in cases where it may be impossible (e.g., due to marriage or a medical exigency). There are cases, for example marriages in which one spouse is unwilling, where requiring hitgaiyerut would actually contradict Halâkhâh. (The converted Jew would then be transgressing by being married to a non-Jew.)

The argument was against requiring circumcision and hitgaiyerut as a prerequisite for gentiles to be admitted into the Jewish community to learn Torâh. They debated whether the admission of gentiles into the Jewish community was essential to their learning of Torâh, which, in turn, enabled them to convert and obtain kipur of the shiakh with the accompanying share in hâ-olâm ha-. Clearly, there were proponents in the Jewish community who were arguing that gentiles must convert before being welcomed in the Jewish community, much less obtaining a portion in hâ-olâm ha-, feeling that it was neither necessary nor desirable to make a temporary provision for learners.

Essentially, the argument reduced to whether the learners, geirim who hadn't yet achieved complete Torâh-observance, have a portion in hâ-olâm ha- during their learning period or whether they must convert before they receive a portion in hâ-olâm ha- and participate in the berit dâm of the shiakh.

Once the decision was made to assign a corresponding provisional portion in hâ-olâm ha- to the provisional status of uncircumcised geirim, however, then the related question arose whether this implied that "Hellenist Jews" (i.e., "Reform Jews"), many of whom were also uncircumcised (except permanently uncircumcised, not temporarily and provisionally during a learning period), could, then, be required to be circumcised as a prerequisite to obtaining kipur and a share in hâ-olâm ha- through the shiakh.

The mishpât handed down by the Beit Din ha-Netzârim here is that those who are uncircumcised can avail themselves of the provision of the shiakh, but only as geirim, not as Jews. This is consistent with the Halâkhâh of the Judaic world, both then and, semantics aside, now.

So geirim were deemed eligible for a portion in hâ-olâm ha-. But Jews were not permitted to interrelate with the uncircumcised, whether goyim or uncircumcised "Hellenist Jews" (it was uncircumcised "Hellenist Jews," not gentiles, who "had become alienated" 15.1.2-1 from Israel). This raised the question, "How do we communicate to teach them (and, relative to "Hellenist Jews," retrieve them)?" and "What should be required of them in order to interrelate with them and teach them about Torâh and the the shiakh?"

Reading through this passage, we find that the answer was (pesuqim 19-20), "If they keep the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh then it is permissible to interrelate with them and teach them enough about Torâh and the shiakh to have a portion in hâ-olâm ha-. With that foundation, they can learn the rest of Judaism in any Beit ha-Kenësët since Torâh is taught in Batei ha-Kenësët everywhere." The letter communicating their mishpât (pesuqim 28-29) was then drafted to this effect.

The Christian doctrine of condemning conversion to Judaism is an opposite extreme, the intrinsic element of the Church's misojudaic excoriations which is even more contradictory to Torâh than requiring circumcision without exception (even some Jews are excepted due to medical circumstances). This Christian doctrine also ensured a bondage to the gentile world in which the children of geirim could not marry within the Jewish community, constructively pressuring them back into the gentile world to marry. This was, of a certainty, one of the deliberate aims of the church in adopting this doctrine, which was enforced upon pain of death.

See also:

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.1.4 …not able to be saved… The circumcisers' argument was likely based on the words of Ribi Yehoshua: "do not go off into the way of the goyim" (The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 10.5). Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 1.21.2.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.2.1 (âmad; stand [up]), στασις (stasis; standing [up], protest), …standing… The Greek term here correlates via LXX and refers to being stationed or positioned, standing, at a certain location, as in Yehudim 9.8. Also meaning to stand up to dispute or protest, the Greek term is usually rendered insurrection, sedition or dissension.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.2.2 (midrâsh), ζητησις (zeiteisis; inquiry), …pilpul midrâsh The corresponding Greek verb means literally "to seek" correlating, via LXXMT, to (rash, to seek). This kind of study-discussion-debate is typical of those conducted in a courtroom or yeshivot. These intense, animated, and often heated, discussions are described as (midrâsh pilpul; heated [lit. "pepper"] debate).

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.2.3 ha-Leiwi Cf. Ma·avâr 4.36.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.2.4 Yoseiph Bar-Nevuâh Hellenized to "Barnabas," cf. Ma·avâr 4:36.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.2.5 Ya·aqov Bën-Zavdieil had been killed earlier (Ma·avâr 12:2). These emissaries and elders included qid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq", apparently with Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh and Yokhânân Bën-Zavdieil (cf. 3rd letter of Paul the Apostate, to the congregation in Central Turkey; Christianized to "Gal.") 2.9, believed to have been written ca. 60 C.E.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.2.6 (pesaq din; verdict of the Beit-Din), …pesaq-din… the modern term corresponding to the Biblical mishpât. The corpus of accumulated case law, mishpât, along with khoq, constitutes Halâkhâh.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.2.7 ζητημα (zeiteima; topic under discussion, issue, subject-matter of a search, inquiry or investigation), …issue… related to the Greek term in 15.2.2, this Greek term is not found in the most reliable mss. of LXX. This event occurred ca. C.E. 44, cf. III Sh. 2:1.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.3.1 Qehilâh; cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 16.18.3.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.3.2 Lenon… Lit. Phoenicia.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.3.3 (teshuvâh), teshuvâh Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 13.15.1. "Return" could not be used here unless the author was referring to apostate Jews or geirim, who had once been shomeir-Torah. One cannot "return" to some place or state in which (s)he's never been! Pagan Hellenist goyim, e.g. Christians, of the Roman Empire would not be "returning" to halakhic Torâh-observance = Halâkhâh = Dërëkh -- = Judaism.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.3.4 (Tephutzâh; dispersion, the Jewish community outside of the land of Israel), διασπορα (diaspora; scattering, dispersal), Tephutzâh These terms are synonymous with several Greek phrases popularly rendered "gentiles," for which cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 5.47.1.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.4.1 παρεδεχθησαν (paredekhtheisan; welcomed heartily), …welcomed heartily… is preferred according to P-74, א and β rather than απεδεχθησαν, (apedekhtheisan; welcomed back), as found in Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.5.1 …trusting… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 8.10.1.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.6.1 …gathered together… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 1.18.5.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.7.1 …ancient… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 5.21.1.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.7.2 …selected out… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note "congregation," 16.18.3.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.7.3 …joyful message… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 4.23.3.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.10.1 (ol; yoke), …yoke… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 11.29.2.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.10.2 …neither our fathers nor we were strong enough to bear… Bearing the yoke of Torâh is an expression of the pride of a servant of ha-Sheim having the honor of bearing the work and the banner of ha-Sheim. Perverting this yoke into a millstone was a misojudaic, antinomian interpretation introduced by Christians.

If these rabbinic Netzârim were referring simply to Perushim standards of Torâh-observance, which Christians assert was "the evil law of sin and death, the old law of tân," then Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh's statement would have no point, since all Netzârim were Torâh-observant by rabbinic – which were their own – standards. They all – proudly – "bore" this "yoke."

Rather, Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh and other Netzârim were taking exception to the opinion that circumcision and hitgaiyerut were prerequisites to kipur, directly bearing on the provisions of the shiakh, and a corresponding portion in hâ-olâm ha-. In certain cases Talmud exempts circumcision even to a born Jew. For example, children were exempt from circumcision in cases where the first two male children of a mother died as a result of circumcision. Successive male children were then not circumcised. Even some Kohanim in this category were not circumcised. (Heiros. Pësakh, Fol. 36.2 and Zevakhim, Cap. 2.., Hal. 1; noted in Lightfoot, A Commentary on the NT from the Talmud and Hebraica, Vol. 4, p. 213.) Thus, the fathers were not able to "bear" circumcision as an absolute in all cases and, therefore, it was impossible that circumcision is the deciding factor for kipur – nor, therefore, eligibility to follow the shiakh.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.14.1 …took (the Jews for) an am for His Name out of the Tephutzâh Cf. Shemot 6.7.

qid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" argues that just as the Jews were taken out from among the goyim to be an am for His Name, so, too, others can come out from among the goyim to become geirim and convert. How much moreso assimilated Hellenist Jews of the Tephutzâh, some of whom had not been circumcised (cf. Ma·avâr 16.1-3), can come out from among them to make teshuvâh!!!

This agrees with the principles in Torâh (Shemot 23.24; wa-Yiq 18.3-5, 24-30; Devârim 12.30 – 13.1; 18.9; 20.18) and the Neviyim (Yekhëzqeil 11.12) to come out from the goyim and be separate (Havdâlâh).

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.16.1 …fallen… Cf. Yirmeyâhu 22.30; 36.30 and note at The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 1:11.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.19.1 Note that, after all of the discussion and the case has been heard and considered, qid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq", as the Av (head, lit "father") Beit-Din, hands down the Halâkhâh – "I p(seiq." Cf. note The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 7.1.1.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.20.1 αλισγηματων (alisgeimaton ton eidolon; defilements of idol-images), …defilements of image-entities… This refers especially to defilement of one's table, linked symbolically to the Mizbeiakh ha-Sheim, with foods over which a blessing has been said to an image-entity (see suq 29). Cf. be-Midbar 34.15 and note at Ma·avâr 7.41. The word "only" as inserted by the New Revised Standard Version(keep themselves only from…) , is the latest misojudaic Christian redaction and has no basis in any of the earliest extant Greek source texts.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.20.2 (zenunim; licentiousness, primarily prostitution). This was understood among the Greek-speaking Hellenist Jews as πορνειας (porneias; promiscuity, prostitution, from "porn"), …promiscuity… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 5.32.2.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.22.1 δοκεω (dokeo; to incline someone to suppose) has no strong correspondence to a single Hebrew word via LXX.

Generally referring to people, dokeo has an almost reflexive quality, i.e., "incline yourself to suppose" in which the phrase "incline yourself to" becomes superfluous, yielding simply "you suppose." When used in the neuter, however, the "inclining" of one to suppose becomes the dominant concept in English. Since objects cannot "suppose." in such instances the phrase "to suppose" is then superfluous, yielding simply in "it inclines me…" Only in Ma·avâr 25.27 is the complete rendering appropriate.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.23.1 - (Bar-Tzo; son of Tzo), Βαρσαββαν (barsabban; a transliteration of Aramaic having no meaning in Greek), Bar-Tzo Cf. Shemueil Âlëph 8.3, 5, et al., Shemueil Beit 10.6, 8; 14.47; and note at 1.14.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.23.2 Yâ·ir meaning "wooded," correlates to the Greek "Silas".

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.23.3 " The ancient opening style for Judaic correspondence included several acronyms:

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.23.4 …southern Turkey… Lit. "Cilicia."

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.24.1 The phrase "saying you must be circumcised and keep the law," as found in Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E. based on Syp and subsequent mss., is not found in א, β or P-45. This was a crucial redaction introduced in the 4th-5th century C.E. source texts since Christian redactors widened the question from whether circumcision and hitgaiyerut was necessary (cf. Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh) to whether Torâh-observance was necessary, a question that could never be raised among the Netzârim. Indeed, the Netzârim were Torâh-observant until they were eradicated by the church in 333 C.E. for refusing to abandon Torâh-observance!!! This is a key misojudaic and antinomian redaction.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.28.1 επαναγκες (epanagkes; essentials, necessary things), …minimum eligibility requirements… This is the only instance of this term in the entirety of the NT. There is no corollary via LXX to MT. επαναγκες is the intensive form of αναγκη , which means "necessity." Cf. also Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.29.1 ειδωλοθυτος (eidolo-thutos; idol-sacrifice), …foods over which a blessing has been recited to an image-entity… This term is derived from ειδωλον (eidolon; idol), more accurately an image-entity, and θυω (thuo;, to sacrifice). More accurately, this describes saying a blessing over, or associated with, the slaughter or eating. Ειδωλον corresponds, via LXX, to (pësël; a carved or sculpted idol) and to (âtzâv, plural atzabim; an idol cast in silver or gold). However, ειδωλον also corresponds, via LXX. with other MT Hebrew euphemisms for idol, image and false g*od. Thus, the broader eidolon (image-entity) is more accurate than idol, which would misleadingly imply prohibition only of a three-dimensional image.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.29.2 …meat that has not been made sheir of blood… While gentiles have had their own interpretations of "keeping from blood," the interpretation of the Perushim Netzârim Jews who authored these texts is the guiding factor in communicating the proper meaning of their text. Making otherwise kasheir meat kasheir of blood has been obvious to the Jews from time immemorial. That the halakhic making sheir of the meat from blood is intended should also be obvious from its proximity to the prohibition against pagan slaughtering and sacrificing. It should be obvious that the two prohibitions, taken together, permit only meat properly made sheir according to Halâkhâh.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.29.3 (bi-verâkhot ha-Torâh; in the blessings of the Torâh), Ερρωσθε (Errosthe; farewell), bi-verâkhot ha-Torâh "With the blessings of Torâh," i.e., "Sincerely…"

Errosthe, a Roman farewell, is not found outside of Ma·ariv and is a likely redaction ca. the fourth century C.E.

The most common ancient closure formula among Jews was simply bi-Verâkhâh (with a blessing). Specifying the blessing, e.g., "with the blessing of Tziyon," was widespread. Since historians have recorded that the central struggle of the Netzârim was to remain Torâh-observant in the face of pressures, persecutions and the threat of death from the Church, it is reasonable to emphasize that centrality of Torâh in restoring their closure.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.31.1 …encouragement… Cf. The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 8.31.1.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.33.1 …[the shelikhim in Yerushâlayim]… clarifying א, which reads "to those who sent them."

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.34.1 The entirety of suq 34: ("but Yâ·ir decided to remain there") is not included according to א, β, P-74 and Syp.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.38.1 …the south western coastal area of Turkey… lit. Pamphylia.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.38.2 …deemed [Yokhânân Markos] unworthy to take along… Contrast this attitude of Paul the Apostate with that of Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh, who refers to Yokhânân Markos as his son (Lu. 5.13). This highlights the seriousness and fundamental nature of the split caused by the Hellenist assimilation that Paul the Apostate insisted on promoting.

Many scholars believe that Yokhânân Markos penned the first excerpts from the life and teachings of Ribi Yehoshua, dictated from memory of Matityâhu be-Ivrit by Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh as he accompanied Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh to Rome.

Paul the Apostate claims in his letters 15.38.2-1 that Yokhânân Markos later reconciles with him. However, it's likely that this self-asserted and self-serving claim of reconciliation is a later Christian redaction intended to conceal his reit. Recall that, in addition to the NT having never been accepted by the Netzârim (see Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)) and Eusebius), it was extensively redacted to rewrite history more favorable to Christianity.

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.41.1 …having been delivered over to the khein of ha-Sheim Following immediately after such a serious dispute, this is the Torah-gracious language committing Shâ·ul, who subsequently splits with them, into the khein of ha-Sheim, in the sense of divine punishment at the [khein] Hands of heaven, i.e. reit) and (kheirëm; shunning). Kheirëm would have been the penalty for insulting Yokhânân Markos or for contempt of a qein / poseiq of the Beit-Din. However, rejecting another Netzârim, obviously following a disagreement concerning Paul's Hellenism, was an arrogant defiance of the Beit Din ha-Netzârim, an unacceptable breach of Torâh that could not be tolerated.

This would explain the observation of early Church historian Eusebius: "[The Netzârim] thought that the letters of the Apostle [Paul the Apostate] ought to be wholly rejected and called him an apostate from the Torâh. On the other hand, it wouldn't seem to explain why Paul the Apostate is mentioned so frequently in Ma·avâr thereafter – unless it was extensively redacted by Hellenist Christians. On the other hand, he is only called by his Hebrew name, Shâ·ul, up through Ma·avâr 13.9, and by his Hellenist (Greek) name, "Paul," thereafter, which corroborates his reit from the non-Hellenist Netzârim!

Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule

15.41.2 …southern Turkey… Lit. "Cilicia."

Go to Top
Return to Previous Page
Rainbow Rule


Footnotes

  1. Ι*ησους (see I*eisous' name and Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)). Ribi Yehoshua Not equivalent to, le-havdil, I*eisous / J*esus / Yësh"u.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  2. Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 64b; Maimonides Yadaiyim, Melâkhim 8.10 and be-Reishit9 ("Noachide Laws," EJ, 12.1189-91). See also goyim.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  3. Baron, Salo Wittmayer, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1952), Vol. II, p. 147ff.
    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  4. "Sin" blurs several types of aveirot Torâh, which vary both in gravity, in the difficulty of restitution and type of required kipur (see kheit, âwon, and pësha). All produce a state of khol.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  5. In this eternal non-physical realm, unless there are eternal non-physical animals (in which case how can they be sacrificed?), this can only be symbolic.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  6. Yeshayâhu 1.13-17; 58.6-12; Mikhâh 6.6-8. Cf. also "Kipper," EJ, 10.1042. "Atonement is only efficacious … if the sin concerned does not involve suffering or material injury to a second party. If it did, full restitution must be made to the wronged party and his pardon sought. This law was derived from the verse '…all your sins before --…' (wa-Yiq 16.30), i.e., the Day of Atonement is effective for transgressions between man and Ëlohim, but for sins against a fellow man, restitution and forgiveness are also necessary (Yomâ 8.9)" ("Atonement," EJ, 3.831).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  7. For Biblical instances of geir, see, for example, Shemot 12.19 (mistranslated as "stranger"), 48-49; wa-Yiq 16.29; 17.8, 10, 12, 13, 15; 18.26; 19.10,33-34; 24.22; be-Midbar 15; Yeshayâhu 14.1; et al. See also geir in a Hebrew concordance for additional instances.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  8. Louis H. Feldman, The Omnipresence of the G*od-Fearers, Biblical Archaeology Review, 1986.09-19, p. 58ff.
    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  9. The promise, that, unlike the first set of stone tablets, this Berit Khadâshâh would never be broken, implies that Israel will always have a remnant who internalize Torâh and are shomeir-Torah in their heart. ha-Sheim can never break His Word, and here He guarantees that the only other party who possibly could break this Berit KhadâshâhBeit-Yisrâ·eil-Beit-Yehudâh – will not. Thus, both parties are ironclad guaranteed that this Berit Khadâshâh – with Israel, not gentiles – will never be broken.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  10. The "Tree of Life" probably didn't take on this connotation until the Romans destroyed the yukhasin.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  11. (netinim; the "given"). Yehoshua 9 recounts the deception of the (Jivonim; corrupted to "Gibeonites"), as a result of which, Yehoshuatan ("gave") them into forced labor (Yehoshua 9.27).

    Substituting correct Hebrew, pronunciations and translation back into the EJ account ("Gibeonites and Nethinim," 7.552) reveals the Talmudic usage of netinim:

    "The designation [Netinim] is derived from the Hebrew verb [ (tan; he gave)] which can mean devoting someone to cultic service. The verb is used in this sense with respect to Yehoshua's action toward the Jivonim in Yehoshua 9.27, where where cultic service is involved ("for the Mizbeiakh of ha-Sheim"). The Book of Ëz (8.20) states that wid and his commanders "gave" (Heb. tan) the Netinim "to the service of the Lewiyim," which may reflect the ancient practice of committing captives and conquered peoples to temple slavery, which was a widespread phenomenon in the ancient Near East."

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  12. Netzârim recognition of the geir who is limited by the degree of an interfaith spouse's willingness to cooperate is based on two considerations:

    Being married according to secular (though not Judaic) criteria, the geir who non-selectively accepts the authority of Torâh and Halâkhâh, and strives insofar as marital constraints permit to be fully observant of Torâh and Halâkhâh, can satisfy the criteria for being recognized as a Geir Tzëdëq in every respect except qualifying to marry a Jew(ess). However, being already married, even though only in the secular sense, the geir represents no threat of intermarriage. Consequently, there is no reason not to recognize the geir who has reached knowledge level in Judaism of a Geir Tzëdëq and, but for the spouse, strives to by fully observant as a Geir Tzëdëq.

    Should the geir ever separate from the non-Jewish spouse, the geir is then freed from the constraints previously preventing full observance. Hence, the geir can be expected to immediately implement whatever observance the spouse had previously prevented. The geir is therefore a Geir Tzëdëq. Consequently, the Geir Tzëdëq who has become separated from the wife who had been preventing full observance, like any other Geir Tzëdëq, should (s)he become interested in marrying a Jew(ess), is already a candidate qualifying for hitgaiyerut, after which there is no halakhic opposition to marriage.

    Therefore, there is no reason not to recognize a geir who qualifies in every respect except an uncooperative interfaith spouse.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  13. Shemot 23.9 provides a basis for this interpretation of 23.19. It's similar in style to Yirmeyâhu 31.28 and Yekhëzqeil 18.2-3.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  14. Outside Israel, it is the Jew who is the resident-alien in a foreign country! Geirim Netzârim in the Tephutzâh are geirim who are primarily responsible to the Beit Din ha-Netzârim in Israel, and secondarily to the Teimânim and mainstream Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Jewish community in the Tephutzâh.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  15. "Philo, Questions on [Shemot] 2.2, commenting on Shemot 22.20 (21) and 23.9" [quoted by Feldman].

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  16. "Samuel Belkin, Philo and the Oral Law (Cambridge, Mass., 1940), p. 47" [quoted by Feldman].

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  17. Discussing the origins of the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh, the Encyclopedia Judaica notes "… Acts (15.20) refers to four [mitzwot] addressed to non-Jews, "… that they abstain from pollutions of idols, from fornication, from things strangled, and from blood." This latter list is the only one that bears any systematic relationship to the set of religious laws which the Pentateuch makes obligatory upon resident aliens (the jeir ha-jâr) and ëzrâkh)." ("Noachide Laws," 12.1190).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  18. Ramb"m Yâd, Isurei Bi·âh (prohibitions of coming) 14.7; Shulkhân Ârukh, Yorëh Deâh (knowledge gun) 124.1.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  19. Also unlike Christians, the Netzârim were successfully defended in the Beit-Din ha-Jadol, by R. Gamliel (even though the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim whipped them and told them not to speak any further, both in defiance of the court's order). Cf. "Acts" 5:34-40. Since prohibition to speak of Ribi Yehoshua was, like the whipping, despite the court order, verse 41 does not represent disobedience to the court's order enunciated in verses 38-40a.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  20. Discoveries in the Judaean Desert X, Qumrân Cave 4 V, Miqsat Ma'ase ha-Torâh ("Some Halâkhâh of the Torâh"), Oxford, 1994. "Ma'ase" – Ma·asëh – is the Qumrân equivalent of Halâkhâh, which is the Talmudic equivalent of Biblical khuqim and mishpâtim.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  21. Devârim 10.18-19. Every Shabât in Beit ha-Kenësët ha-Teimâni, Tehilim 146.9 is recited: -- - (ha-Sheim shomeir ët-jeirim; watchguards, or keeps watch over, geirim).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  22. Meir Loeb Ben-Yekhiel Michael, rabbi of East Europe (1809 – 1879 C.E.).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  23. Strangers and Gentiles, EJ, 15.419-21. The apparent difference between the level of observance (some food taboos… but cf…) relates to various levels of proficiency of geirim as they progress from novices to full observance.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  24. (khaveirim), plural of khâveir; associate, fellow, comrade). Particularly, and essential in practical terms (though technically not essential according to Halâkhâh), that the three be Shophtim constituting a Beit-Din, who were well-versed and scrupulous in the (non-selective) observance of Torâh.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  25. απογραφω (apographo; enroll in a register) in NT Greek, the reason given for Yoseiph and Miryâm having to go to Beit-Lëkhëm during the census in Lu. 2.3-5 rather than the far simpler method of paying the tax where they currently resided. King James Version (KVJ) of 1611 C.E. de-Judaizes referencing yukhasin from the text by translating this as "tax."

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  26. The Birkat ha-Minim, the Notzrim, and Jerome (XML).htm">Birkat ha-Minim was introduced because the Jews were unable to physically enforce the expulsion of Roman Hellenist "plants," disguised as geirim (not necessarily Netzârim), in their congregations.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  27. Aramaic (Talmud Masëkët Shabât 116b and Syp), Hebrew (2 places in Nestor, 4 places in Seipher Nitzakhonshân, Ms. Or. Rome #53 and Ëvën Bokhan, Greek (P-64, P-86, א and β) and Latin (a-3) .

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  28. yod, the smallest Hebrew letter

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  29. Ozeil (qërën).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  30. Since the birth of the Church in 135 C.E., Christianity has been defined by the premise of replacing Torâh with "grace." Consequently, by definition, a Christian cannot be fully observant of Torâh without contradicting the more basic definition of Christianity.

    Non-selective observance of Torâh includes Halâkhâh adjudicated by the Beit-Din system which has been handed down uninterrupted from generation to generation since Har Sinai. Since 135 C.E., only the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Beit-Din system satisfies this requirement. Consequently, conforming to non-selective observance unavoidably requires reconciling with a Perushim-heritage (i.e. Orthodox) Beit-Din.

    Messianics claiming to be non-selectively observant apart from Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) Batei-Din and congregations are oxymoronic. The only followers of Ribi Yehoshua who have accomplished restoration and reconciliation with the Perushim-heritage Beit-Din are the Netzârim (excluding the many counterfeit groups self-proclaiming themselves to be Netzârim). In other words, though a Christian who decides to become fully shomeir-Torah cannot become a Jew or geir without recognition from a Beit-Din from the Perushim-heritage (Orthodox) community, (s)he would no longer be a Christian either! These either become Netzârim or remain in a limbo between Judaism and the berit, no longer belonging to either.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  31. εθνη (ethnei; peoples), plural of εθνος (ethnos; a people [not a person]), the Hellenist term corresponding to goyim.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  32. αμαρτιας διακονος (amartias diakonos; a servant or minister – deacon – of sin), according to the 3rd letter of Paul the Apostate to the congregation in Central Turkey, believed to have been written ca. 51 C.E. (Christianized to Gal.) 2:17.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  33. (tzadiq hu khâyoh yikheyëh; tzadiq is he [who] having lived, he shall live – Yekhëzqeil 18.9). Repetition of the verb "live" forms a doublet, intensifying the verb. This emphasizes the verb, similar to "absolutely" in English, conveying "he absolutely shall live….

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  34. Only after decades – perhaps centuries – later, Christianity introduced the misojudaic polemic arguing that the cessation of sacrifices was g*od's judgment on the Jews for being "Christ killers," and attempting to bolster their claim that Christianity had displaced Judaism as the true religion; and Christians, therefore, had become "True Israel" – Displacement Theology. Besides being based on a false and misojudaic premise, this completely ignores the evidence: that the Netzârim participated in animal sacrifices for four decades after the death of Ribi Yehoshua. This whole polemic is also contradicted by reason 3 – the shiakh Bën-Dâvid is prophesied to renew the animal sacrifices (figuratively?).

    Various polemics denigrating Jews were instigated by the earliest Christians to show that Israel had been rejected by g*od in support of their Displacement Theology that the Church had become the "True Israel" in place of the Jews. Replacement of the Jews as "True Israel" is the only Christian basis, and false-authority, for its false "salvation."

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  35. See "The Netzârim Challenge" in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  36. Klaus Berger [Professor of NT at the Univ. of Heidelberg], The Truth Under Lock and Key? J*esus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Louisville, Westminster, John Knox Press. 108 pp., Price not stated. According to book review by Walter Zanger in The Jerusalem Post Literary Supplement, 1996.09.26.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  37. - (dâm ha-berit; blood of the covenant). See also The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) ch. 26 with notes.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  38. (Shemitâh). Devârim 31.10-13 relates Shemitâh to enabling the study of Torâh. Cf. also The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 26.28.2.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  39. (hineih; behold; here is…!)

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  40. R. Tovia Singer, Study Guide to the "Let's Get Biblical" Tape Series, Live!, p. 40-41, exposed in detail in The Netzarim Newsletter ("Singer," 1996.03, p, 24-28).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  41. See detailed explanation in The 1993 Covenant & The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) notes 16.19.5 and 24.30.5.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  42. See wa-Yiq 11.44; 19.2; 20.7, 26; 21.8; Devârim 7.6; 14.2, 21; 28.9; 33.3; Tehilim 16.3; 34.10; 89.6, 8; Dâniyeil 8.13, 24; Hosheia 12.1 and Zekharyâh 14.5.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  43. See Dâniyeil 7.25 with The 1993 Covenant and the Comet-Planet Collision of 1994 Heralds Messianic Era (Shoemaker-Levy).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  44. Note to Artscroll Stone Ed. Tana"kh at Dâniyeil 7.13.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  45. From the sidur Teimâni, Minkhâh Amidâh.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  46. The reit of Paul the Apostate is recorded in a typically-Judaic polite and subtle way in Ma·avâr 15.38 (Appendix III). See accompanying note 15.38.2 (Appendix IV).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  47. Even Christian scholars acknowledge many thousands, over 30,000 in Luke alone, of such redactions, many of which were deliberate, ex post facto attempts of early Christians to fabricate a basis for their evolving, and increasingly misojudaic, doctrines. See Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) & Netzârim.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  48. Cf. 13.16, 26 also 10:2, 22, 35.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  49. Cf. 18.7; see also 18.13 and 13.43, 50; 16.14; 17.4, 17 and 19.27.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  50. Neil J. McEleney, Conversion, Circumcision and the Law, NT Studies 20 (1974), p. 326. (Quoted by Feldman, ibid.)

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  51. Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East (London, 1927), p. 452; Jean-Baptiste Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicanum, II (Vatican City, 1952), no. 748. (Quoted by Feldman, ibid.)

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  52. Marc Philonenko, Joseph et Asenath (Leiden, 1968), p. 142. (quoted by Feldman, ibid.)

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  53. Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision (Yerushâlayim, Franciscan Press 1971), pp. 13-14.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  54. Suetonius, in his life of Domitian, Lives of the Caesars, 12.2. (quoted by Feldman).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  55. William Smith and Henry Wace, eds., "Nero (1), Claudius Caesar," A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines; During The First Eight Centuries (New York: AMS Press, Kraus Reprint, Millwood, 1974), Vol. IV, pp. 24-27.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  56. Smith and Wace read "Christianity" here, unaware that 64 C.E. is the earliest reference to true Christians and that the record which is so far extant speaks only of the Netzârim prior to 64 C.E..
    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  57. Cf. James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York: Atheneum, 1977). Also John K. Roth, Prof. of Philosophy at Claremont McKinna College; Moshëhwid Herr, Prof. of Jewish History, Hebrew University, Yerushâlayim; et al.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  58. See the definition of "Hellenist" in almost any dictionary or encyclopedia. Ελλην (Ellein) refers primarily to the Hellenist pseudo-Tzedoqim.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  59. Only Yehudim would be described as "among the goyim" or "in the Tephutzâh." Cf. also The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 12.18; 20.19 and 24.14.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  60. τοις εθνεσιν is identical for the plural of three cases: locative, instrumental and dativea = dative indirect object.b Only circularity and begging the question of retrojecting Christian interpretation argues for interpreting this phrase in the dativea = dative indirect object,b "to the goyim," rather than the Judaic implication of the locativea = dative locationc: "in / among the goyim."

    1. William Hersey Davis, Beginner's Grammar of the Greek NT, p. 31.

    2. The "indirect object" form of dative according to the classifications used by Benjamin Chapman, NT-Greek Notebook, 1977, p. 62-63.

    3. The "location" form of dative according to the classifications used by Benjamin Chapman, NT-Greek Notebook, 1977, p. 62-63.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  61. According to the 3rd century -45, as well as the 4th century Codices א and β. The Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E. is more recent than the King James Version (KVJ) of 1611 C.E.. Both are the product of England under the rabidly misojudaic King James, who exiled the last Jews from England in 1609, just two years before publishing the King James Version (KVJ) of 1611 C.E.. Strong's Concordance has relied exclusively on Textus Receptus of 1624 C.E., leaving its students completely in the dark regarding the readings of the earliest extant source documents.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  62. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors, II: From Tacitus to Simplicius (Jerusalem, 1980), pp. 380-381; quoted by Feldman.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  63. Samuele Bacchiocchi, "How it Came About: From S*atur[n]day to Sun[g*od]day," Biblical Archaeology Review, IV, 3, 78.09-10, 32ff.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  64. "Aelia C*apitolina," EJ, 2:319-20.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  65. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 10.2; quoted by Feldman.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  66. Narcissus, the eleventh horn of Dâniyeil 7.24f – see The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 16.19.5.
    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  67. "E*aster, a Christian festival, embodies many pre-Christian traditions. The origin of its name is unknown. Scholars, however, accepting the derivation proposed by the 8th-century English scholar St. Bede, believe it probably comes from E*aster-, the Anglo-Saxon name of a Teutonic g*oddess of spring and fertility, to whom was dedicated a month corresponding to April. Her festival was celebrated on the day of the vernal equinox; traditions associated with the festival survive in the E*aster rabbit, a symbol of fertility, and in colored E*aster eggs, originally painted with bright colors to represent the sunlight of spring, and used in E*aster-egg rolling contests or given as gifts… The Christian festival of E*aster probably embodies a number of converging traditions."

    "I*shtar / A*shtarah / A*shtoret, chief g*oddess of the Babylonians and the Assyrians…. The name appeared in different forms in every part of the ancient Semitic world…. As a g*oddess, I*shtar / A*shtarah / A*shtoret was the Great Mother, the g*oddess of fertility and the queen of heaven."b

    "E*aster," Encarta '95.

    "I*shtar / A*shtarah / A*shtoret," Encarta '95.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  68. Typical of this Christian rewriting of the historical record, "St." Epiphanius arrogates and perverts the Hebrew peqidim into Hellenist επισκοπος (episkopos, bishop).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  69. Cf. Ma·avâr 13.43, 50; 16.14; 17.4, 17; 18.7, 13; 19.27.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  70. "Suetonius' Tiberius, XXXII, 2; Josephus Against Apion, II, 39.282; Sif on wa-Yiq 19.34, ed. by E. H. Weiss, folio 91a; T. Demai II, 5.47; b. Masëkët Gitin 57b. There is little doubt that Tephutzâh Jewry went further than the [Holy Land] sages in the reinterpretation of the biblical provisions to fit the exigencies of their own environment. On the new meaning of Geir Toshâv in rabbinic letters, cf., e.g., R. Mei·ir's view that this term applied to any Gentile abjuring idolatry in the presence of three learned Jews (khaveirim; Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 64b). If other rabbis required from [geirim] the observance of all seven [of the Shëva Mitzwot Benei-Noakh] or even imposed upon them all laws except those relating to ritually slaughtered meat, they evidently had in mind [Holy Land] realities alone. They may also have been affected by the opposition to the 'G*od-fearing' groups which had spread in [the Holy Land] after the fall of [Yerushâlayim]. R. Mei·ir's opinion was doubtless shared by the [Hellenist] Greek-speaking Jewish masses to whom a geir of any kind had long become an ethnic-religious 'proselyte,' rather than a political 'alien.' This point is too readily overlooked by the formalistic interpretation of rabbinic passages, given, for instance, by E. Schurer in his Geschichte, III, 178 ff. Cf. also H. A. Wolfson's Philo, II, 370 f.; and infra, Chap. XII, n. 28"(Salo Wittmayer Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1952), Vol. I, p. 179 and 375).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  71. See The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 10.8.1.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  72. Intermmariage: see, for example, Vince Beiser, "Intermarried with Children, The Jerusalem Report, 1996.09.05, p. 30.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  73. "Noahide Laws," see also in EJ, 12:1190ff.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  74. For a thorough discussion, read Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link) (WAN).

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  75. Genizâh documents that specify Netzârim date from the 10th century C.E., many centuries after the genuine Netzârim had vanished, and the two terms had become blurred. The Genizâh documents demonstrate only that the Birkat ha-Minim intended Christians to be cursed, but provide no indication of the original spelling of "Notzrim" or any distinction between the two spellings confirmed in earlier documents. At some point after the genuine Netzârim were eradicated in 333 C.E., Eusebius confirms that these terms became blurred, along with the correct spelling of Notzrim. According to Klein: (Nâtzrim), meaning "of Nâtzrat," is also distinguished from Netzârim only by vowels. The 10th century Genizâh documents cannot be taken to reflect any more than this comparatively modern blurring.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  76. Samuel Krauss, "The Jews in the Works of the Church Fathers," The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. V, 1893, p. 132-3.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  77. James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue (New York: Atheneum: 1977), pp. 92-25.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  78. Solomon Schechter, "Genizâh Specimens," The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. X, 1898, p. 657.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  79. Krauss quotes here: "V.M. Bloch, Institutionen des Judenthums, I. 193." Cf. also The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 3.7.1.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  80. Krauss can only mean the vowelized (Notzrim), since the ambiguous and unvowelized is well documented. However, (Notzrim) is found in a reliable mss. of Masëkët Ta·anit 27b (though it may represent an instance of reconstructing earlier mss. in which the term was thought to have been purged by the church).

    This intention is also evident from its context. While the Netzârim remained shomeir Shabât and Sun[g*od]day was instituted by the church only later, this passage reads "Why did they not fast on Firstday? Âmar R. Yokhânân, Because of the Notzrim…." A minority have argued that (Mitzrayim) be read as (Notzrim) in Masëkët Gitin 57a. There are two instances in which (bi netzarpei) is thought to be a "cacophemistic disguise" of Notzrei (the plural connective form of Notzrim) at Masëkët Shabât 116a and Masëkët Avodâh Zârâh 48a. The Munich Codex of Talmud includes the term in Masëkët Berâkhot 17b but this is not included in the preferred mss.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  81. (Notzrim), which is what the church prohibited, being convinced by the Jews that (Notzrim), not (Netzârim), referred to Christian "Nazarenes" – which was true! What the Church didn't know is that, when desired, can be pronounced and intended as Notzrim! Thus, the Church believed that banning the naming of (Notzrim) in the malediction was sufficient, mistakenly believing that both the Church and the Jews hated the Netzârim.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  82. (Notzrim). Krauss cites here "Cp. Tertullian in Marc. vi. 8, unde …. nos Judaei Nazaraeos appellant. Jerome, On Sacr., 143, 16 (ed. Lagarde II. p. 175): et nos…. apud veteres Nazaraei dicebamur."

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  83. Though Jerome saw that the Jews were really cursing the Christians, he didn't understand how, not realizing the distinction between Notzrim and, le-havdil, Netzârim.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

Notes to End Notes

  1. 15.1.2-1 In his 9th letter (to the congregation in Soke, Western Turkey; Christianized to "Eph.") 2.11-12, believed to have been written ca. 60 C.E., Paul the Apostate identifies the addressees as απηλλοτριωμενοι (apeillotriomenoi; having become alienated from) citizenship of Yisrâ·eil. One can become alienated (separated or estranged) only from something of which they were previously a part!!!. Therefore, this passage implies that the congregation that Paul is addressing are "Hellenist Jews," who rejected circumcision.

    Like Reformed Jews today, Hellenist Jews were not always circumcised (e.g. Timothy; cf. Ma·avâr 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 Iy-Zëvël (Hellenized and anglicized to "Jezebel"), when circumcision was abandoned (Melâkhim Âlëph 19.14). "In Hellenistic times, circumcision was widely neglected, according to the Book of Jubilees (15.33-34). Many Jews who wanted to participate [in the nude wrestling of] the Greek games in the gymnasia underwent painful operations to obliterate the signs of circumcision (epispasm)" ("Circumcision," EJ, 5:568-70).

    Such uncircumcised Hellenists were considered by the Perushim as "alienated," i.e. reit. This, in turn, implies that Paul the Apostate recognized, and accepted, that his followers were congregations of "Hellenist Jews" in Turkey that the Beit Din ha-Netzârim in Yerushâlayim considered, like their leader, Paul the Apostate, reit and apostate.

    απηλλοτριωμενοι (apeillotriomenoi; having become alienated from) is the perf. pass. ptc. nom. pl. m. of απαλλοτριοω (apallotrioo). The only correspondence in Hebrew is found in Yekhëzqeil 14.5, where it parallels the verb (zar; separate from, consecrate from, or abstain from), a cognate of zir.

    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  2. 15.10.2-1 For example, children were exempt from circumcision in cases where the first two male children of a mother died as a result of circumcision. Successive male children were then not circumcised. Even some Kohanim in this category were not circumcised. Cf. Heiros. Pesakh, Fol. 36.2 and Zevakhim, Cap. 2.., Hal. 1; noted in Lightfoot, A Commentary on the NT from the Talmud and Hebraica, Vol. 4, p. 213.
    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  3. 15.38.2-1 7th Letter by Paul the Apostate, co-written by Hellenist Jew Timothy, to the Hellenist Jews in Denizli, in southwestern Turkey (4.10, ca. 60 C.E., "Col.") and 7th Letter by Paul the Apostate to Hellenist Jew Timothy (4.11, ca. 64 C.E., "II Tim.")
    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  4. 15.40.0-1 "Herem," EJ, 8:351. Cf. also notes concerning kheirem at The Netzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 4.24.1 and 24.28.3.
    Go to Top
    Return to Previous Page
    Rainbow Rule

  5. 15.40.0-2 EH III, xxvii.4.

Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Netzârim… Authentic