The reason this simple page of glossary definitions is ranked so popular with the search engine is because so many people click on our links to these definitions from the content in… the 'Netzarim Quarter' Village web site in Ra•an•an′ â(h), Israel at www.netzarim.co.il
The real content is in the 'Netzarim Quarter'! Click on our logo above for an exciting visit to the 'Netzarim Quarter' where you'll learn about Historical Ribi Yehoshua and his original, Jewish, followers before the great Roman-Hellenist apostasy of 135 C.E.—and even more importantly, how you (whether Jew or non-Jew) can follow the historically true, Judaic, Ribi Yehoshua. In Hebrew, his original followers were called the Netzarim (Hellenized to "Nazarenes").
Until Paqid Yirmeyahu researched the Netzarim name and sect and began publishing about it in 1972 in The Netzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) no one in modern times was even aware of the name Netzarim. It stretches credulity that no one in modern times had heard of the Netzarim until Paqid Yirmeyahu published it in 1972… and then, suddenly, everybody figured it out??? Check (and verify) the dates of the earliest works about the Netzarim by the others and you'll see that they are deceiver-plagiarists. Then insist on the person whom ha-Sheim selected to entrust the knowledge, not imposters who falsely call their continuing practice of Displacement Theology "Nazarene Judaism."
Because we teach and practice the authentic Judaic teachings of Ribi Yehoshua—not Displacement Theology—we are the only group who have restored the Netzarim to be accepted in the legitimate Jewish community in Israel—genuinely like Ribi Yehoshua and the original Netzarim. Consequently, the 'Netzarim Quarter' is the only web site of legitimate Netzarim / Nazarene Judaism.
Give all the friends you've ever known the chance to know about this exciting site; send them our web site address (www.netzarim.co.il) that opens modern eyes for the first time to the Judaic world that Ribi Yehoshua and his original Netzarim knew, practiced and taught.
[Updated: 2008.08.26]àÂãÈîÈä (a•dâm•âh′ ; soil, dirt, earth) is a cognate of àÈãÈí.
 124x150.jpg "First DNA homo sapien NationalGeographic.com, Frank Bender (sculptor and photographer)") First DNA homo sapien (and photo) by forensic sculptor Frank Bender. © 1996-2005 NationalGeographic.com. |
Use of the specifier prefix, -ä (hâ-; the…), generally differentiates àÈãÈí (â•dâm′ ; "a man") from äÈàÈãÈí (hâ-â•dâm′ ; "the man").
Cognates include the masc. adjective àÈãÉí (â•dom′ ; red, lit. "clay-red" or chestnut) and its feminine counterpart, àÂãËîÌÈä (a•dum•âh′ ; red, lit. "clay-red" or chestnut), as in "Red Heiffer".
The time needed for various regions cited in bә-Reish•it′ to achieve their respective populations would seem to corroborate a 2003 DNA study (geneticist Spencer Wells; American Journal of Human Genetics, 2003.09) that dates the DNA mutation that produced the first homo sapien to ca. B.C.E. 60,000, originating in what is now Ethiopia-Sudan. This region not only corroborates the general skin color of the first homo sapien as â•dâm′ , the cognate of clay-red soil color, but corroborates as well the genetic mutation of a new microcephalin allele, which mutated ca. B.C.E. 35,000, and, more recently (only about 5800 years ago), the ASPM allele.
It seems clear from this that the original color of the first homo sapien was a dark red, rather than pallid, as most caucasion-dominated people from more northerly climates (e.g., Europeans) have always presumed.
The first DNA homo sapien, dating from B.C.E. 60,000, is far older than the Biblical •dâm′ estimated to have lived only about 6,000 years ago (i.e., ca. B.C.E. 4131). This suggests that bә-Reish•it′ , rather than being a record of every generation from •dâm′ , is an oral proto-history that recorded only milestone paragons, skipping lesser important generations, from ca. B.C.E. 60,000, when man's language suddenly exploded and he began to recount his pre-writing history, up into the time of Av•râ•hâm′ and his posterity—a period of about 55,000 years.
"The Chicago team… note that the [newer] ASPM allele emerged at about the same time as… the emergence of the civilizations of the Middle East some 5,000 years ago" (NYT); i.e. B.C.E. 3,000.
"Research by UK and American scientists has struck another blow to the theory that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) became extinct because they were less intelligent than our ancestors (Homo sapiens)… Published today ([2008.08.26]) in the Journal of Human Evolution, their discovery debunks a textbook belief held by archaeologists for more than 60 years… The team from the University of Exeter, Southern Methodist University, Texas State University, and the Think Computer Corporation… The Neanderthals, believed to be a different species from Homo sapiens, evolved in Ice Age Europe, while the latter evolved in Africa before spreading out to the rest of the world around 50-40,000 years ago. Neanderthals are thought to have died out around 28,000 years ago, suggesting at least 10,000 years of overlap and possible interaction between the two species in Europe" (New evidence debunks 'stupid' Neanderthal myth EurekAlert, 2008.08.26).
"Many long-held beliefs suggesting why the Neanderthals went extinct have been debunked in recent years. Research has already shown that Neanderthals were as good at hunting as Homo sapiens and had no clear disadvantage in their ability to communicate. Now, these latest findings add to the growing evidence that Neanderthals were no less intelligent than our ancestors… Metin Eren, an MA Experimental Archaeology student at the University of Exeter and lead author on the paper comments: "Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals." (EurekAlert).
It is also fascinating that the emergence of the recent ASMP mutation coincides with the distinction between, and convergence of, Neandertal man with Cro-Magnon (man′ yon) man and the disappearance (or absorption, the jury is still out) of the former. Both shared language, eliminating language as the distinction affected by these genes.
"While Cro-Magnon man had been assumed extinct, modern DNA analyis has shown that Cro-Magnons are a significant subset of today's human population, sharing the human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Haplogroup N" (NYT).
In other words, it increasingly appears that the two mingled, the distinctions blurred and they merged to become today's modern human. DNA research seems to corroborate this conclusion. The recent (B.C.E. 12,100—1500 C.E.) ASPM allele also corresponds precisely (as close as anyone can tell) to ca. B.C.E. 4131—when the Bible and other sources seem to begin recorded history. Combining various archeological and historical sources points to the •dâm′ of bә-Reish•it′ living ca. B.C.E. 4131 (Chronology). Based on a compilation of historical documentation, this is certainly a far more precise—within a couple of centuries at the outside—and reliable dating. To be within 3½ centuries of the "favor[ed] mid-way date" when the range is 13,600 years is so precise it's almost scary. Could bә-Reish•it′ 1.1—6.8 be the history of the distinctions, interactions and final convergence of Neandertal and Cro-Magnon man less than 6,000 years ago?
While this new mutation spread quickly through the most of the homo sapien population, yet today "Some 70 percent or more of people in most European and East Asian populations [still] carry [the older] allele of the gene, as do 100 percent of those in three South American Indian populations" (NYT). "It is already present in about a quarter of people alive today, and is more common in Europe and the Middle East than the rest of the world." (Mason Inman, "Human brains enjoy ongoing evolution" NewScientist.com news service, 2005.09.09). "The [new] allele has attained a frequency of about 50 percent in populations of the Middle East and Europe, is less common in East Asia, and found at low frequency in some sub-Saharan Africa peoples." (NYT)
This leads to the fascinating possibility that the pre-•dâm′ (i.e., pre-ca. B.C.E. 4131) ASMP allele, ASMPN, is that of Neandertal man (anatomically modern human, most adept at predatory cunning) while the post-•dâm′ ASMP allele, ASMPC, is that of Cro-Magnon (anatomically modern human, most adept at higher, abstract, intelligence)—presumed (perhaps another example of wishful assumptions overriding science to be taken as axiomatic) to be the humans of today.
Apparently shattering our lofty self-illusions, however, scientists find that each person today has one of three possible pair combinations of this gene:
These possibilities, in turn, could lend a whole new twist to bә-Reish•it′ 6.1-4… even Dәvâr•im′ 7.3, et al and, particularly, Yәsha•yâh′ u 6.9-10 and Yi•rәmәyâh′ u 5.21, paralleled in The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′ u (NHM) 11.(approx v.14), 13.9, 19, 43.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]In the possessive plural, àÂãåÉðÈé (A•don•âi′ ; my Lords), abbreviated éé,
Note, however, that there are no upper and lower case and, thus, no distinctions based on capitalization, in Hebrew. Accordingly, the possessive singular, by constrast, àÂãåÉðÄé (a•don•i′ ; my lord or m'lord) refers to ordinary men, in modern English as "sir." Because, without vowels, the possessive plural is spelled identically to the possessive singular, àãðé or àãåðé, early Hellenist Christians translating into Greek found it particularly easy to pervert the singular, referring to a man, into the plural, implying divinity.
When spelled without vowels, the helpful å is often added (àãåðé).
•don′ was Hellenized, via LXX, to the Greek κυριος (kurios; sir, lord). See also mor′ i, rabb′ i and NHM note 6.24.1.
[Updated: 2007.03.07] [Updated: 2006.04.27]Hellenized / de-Judaized (Hellenized) to "Aaron."
[Updated: 2006.04.27]This is the prayer—which likely dates back to Har Sin•ai′ (in contrast with some parts of the Si•dur′ which date from the Middle Ages)—introducing the recitation of the Shәma.
[Updated: 2007.07.09] [Updated: 2007.02.26] [Updated: 2006.04.27]This is the penultimate prayer in morning liturgy of the Yemenite prayer book (differing only in a few words from other traditions):
"òÈìÅéðåÌ ([it is] upon/for us) to praise •don′ of everything, to give greatness to the Creator [Who], bә-Reish•it′ (at first, distorted to "in the beginning"), didn't make us [to be] like the goy•im′ of the lands nor placed us where the families of the a•dâm•âh′ are; Who hasn't placed our portion [to be] like their portion, nor our destiny [to be] like all of the teeming-masses who bow to vain and empty [g*o*ds] and pray to an eil that won't save;
But we bow before the King, [Who is] King of kings, blessed be He, Who spread the heavens and founded the land, the settlement of His dearness is in the heavens above, and the Shәkhin•âh′ of His strength is in the pinnacles of the heights.
He is our Ël•oh•im′ and there is no other. It is true, He is our King. There is none beside Him.
As it is written in His Tor•âh′ ,
"And you shall know today, and restore it to your heart, that ha-Sheim′ is Who is the Ël•oh•im′ of the heavens above and the land below. There is no other like Him."
Therefore, we shall hope for You, ha-Sheim′ our Ël•oh•im′ , to see quickly by the opulence of Your strength, to transfer camel-droppings (i.e. idols) from the land and the charlatans shall be absolutely excised; to repair O•lâm′ in the Realm of the Almighty, and all of the children of flesh shall call in Your Name to turn toward You all of the wicked of the land. May all of the settlers of the world recognize and know that to You every knee shall crouch, every tongue shall swear. Before You, ha-Sheim′ our Ël•oh•im′ , they shall crouch and fall, and to the kâ•vod′ of Your Great Name they shall give dearness and they shall all accept the yoke of Your Realm and You shall reign over them to O•lâm′ and beyond. For Your Realm is to the O•lâm′ s until [infinity], You shall reign in kâ•vod′ .
As is is written in Your Tor•âh′ , "ha-Sheim′ shall reign to the O•lâm′ and until [infinity]."
And it is written, "And ha-Sheim′ shall be for a King over all the land. In that day, ha-Sheim′ shall be, One, and His Name One."
[Updated: 2006.04.27]This contrasts with âÌåÉéÄí [modern spelling âåÉéÄéí] (goy•im′ ), peoples.
However, the phrase òÇí-äÈàÈøÆõ (am hâ-â′ rëtz; lit. "kindred of the land") referred (and still refers) to âåÉéÄéí occupiers in äÈàÈøÆõ (and "Jews" assimilating, becoming or behaving like them). Thus, òÇí-äÈàÈøÆõ, contrasted against òÇí-éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì (am-Yi•sәr•â•eil′; kindred of Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ), is a pejorative phrase that includes both âåÉéÄéí and unlearned and apostate Jews like them and assimilating into them.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]One of the most frequently used verbs in the Scriptures is åÇéÉàîÆø (yo′ mër; and he said or told, and [so-and-so] said or told). This is the fu. tense with a conversive å, transforming it into past perf..
See also Dâ•vâr′
[Updated: 2008.05.09]From àÈîÇï (â•man′ ; he / it trained / coached to competence, reliability, trustworthiness). See also the cognate àÁîåÌðÈä.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2010.02.21]There are, according to Ernest Klein (A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language For Readers of English, p. 476-7), four distinct themes in Hebrew whereas, according to Marcus Jastrow (Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature, p. 1093), there are two principle themes in Aramaic. In order of their primary meanings, these are:
| Hebrew (Klein) | Aramaic (Jastrow) |
|---|---|
|
Each of these are further modified by the bin•yân′ instantiated. Scholars are often divided concerning a number of passages in which the bin•yân′ is ambiguous. This is particularly true of the verb describing how one is to "answer-afflict" oneself on Yom Ki•pur′—and, therefore, the same verb in Yәsha•yâh′u 53.
While the fourth Hebrew connotation is the TC ([modern] traditionally correct) meaning of the pi•eil′, these all complement one shared and overriding theme: the focus on—and "how to" of—responding or answering to someone or for something.
Most instances mean, straightforwardly, "reply." However, in the following instances, the traditional method of responding or making oneself answerable—tradition (e.g., by fasting)—has evolved to eclipse the earliest straightforward meaning:
wa-Yi•qәr•â′ 16.31, 23.27, 32; bә-Mi•dәbar′ 29.7 – bin•yân′ pi•eil′ prêt. 2nd pers. masc. pl., prefixed by å that can be either connective or conversive (past⇒fu. perf.), concerning Yom ha-Ki•pur′: åÀòÄðÌÄéúÆí àÆú-ðÇôÀùÑÉúÅéëÆí (wә-i•ni•tëm′ ët-na•phәsh•ot•ei′khëm; and you m.pl. {made, shall make} your m.pl. nәphâsh•ot′ answer for, you m.pl. {afflicted, shall afflict} your m.pl. nәphâsh•ot′).
Yәsha•yâh′u 53.4, – bin•yân′ pu•al′ pres. part. m.s.: åÌîÀòËðÌÆä (u-mәun•ëh′; and {I m.s. am, you m.s. are, he m.s. is, it m.s. is} being made answerable [to someone or for something], is being caused to respond), by extension of tradition, {I m.s. am, you m.s. are, he m.s. is, it m.s. is} fasting or being afflicted.
Yәsha•yâh′u 53.7– bin•yân′ pa•al′ part. 1st pers. pl.: ðÇòÂðÆä (na•an•ëh′; we will answer, reply or respond—according to Abraham S. Halkin, 201 Hebrew Verbs, p. 260). However, the preceding pronoun, äåÌà (hu; he), makes it clear that it is to be understood as the niph•al′ past 3rd pers. m.s. ðÇòÂðÈä (na•an•âh′; {he, it m.s.} answered or {he, it m.s.} was answered—Halkin, loc. cit.), by extension, {he, it m.s.} fasted or was afflicted.
Thus, peering through the subsequent tradition, the principle shared theme underlying all of the verb's cognates is to answer for something or to someone, to respond or to reply—particularly by demonstrating sincerity and commitment through asceticism, especially fasting.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.07.19] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2007.07.25]When not otherwise specified, äÈàÈøÆõ (hâ-Â′ rëtz; the land) and áÈàÈøÆõ (bâ-Â′ rëtz; in the land) by convention refers to Yi•sәr•â•eil′ except when otherwise specified.
çåÌõ ìÈàÈøÆõ (khutz lâ-â′ rëtz; outside of the land) means abroad (relative to Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ; i.e., outside of Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ).
Liberal-left and elitist with a circulation of only about 65,000, hâ-Â′ rëtz is the smallest of Israel's "major three" independent Hebrew newspapers.
hâ-Â′ rëtz has an English on-line site where you can—and I implore you to—post your views at www.haaretz.com
[Updated: 2007.03.16]The model for the Nәtzâr•im′ virtual counterpart is the Kha•sid•im′ custom of attendance by all tal•mid•im′ Nәtzâr•im′ at the meal table, led by the Tza•diq′ (Pâ•qid′ or, among more modern, European Kha•sid•im′ , their rëbbe), who distributes food and drink to those sharing the meal. This is similar in many respects to the holy meal shared by the Essenes. In the virtual counterpart, Tor•âh′ is the food and the Ru′ akh ha-Qo′ dësh of fellowship is the îÇéÄí çÇéÌÄéí (maiy′ im khaiy′ im; running—literally "living"—water). The meal is liberally supplemented, as the Ru′ akh ha-Qo′ dësh leads, by the a capella singing of Tei•mân•im′ zәmir•ot′ spirituals (but not Yiddish songs, Yiddish being a product of German-European assimilation). The Tza•diq′ (the Pâ•qid′ or rebbe) personally blesses each attendee who partakes of the food and beverage he shares with them.
Like the Tei•mân•im′ , when gatherings are larger than a couple of families, women sit at a nearby separate table (no separating wall or curtain is necessary), where, with a bit of extra effort, they are able to communicate with the men when they wish. Like the Tei•mân•im′ at Ho•sha•nâ′ Rab•â′ , and unlike some other traditions, Nәtzâr•im′ encourage women to sing along.
During the Ër′ ëv Shab•ât′ meal, the Tza•diq′ may teach Dәvar Tor•âh′ , spiritual passages from the Mid•râsh′ , a point of Ha•lâkh•âh′ or Mәnor•at′ ha-Mâ•or′ (by Yi•tzәkhâq′ A•bu•hâv′ ), relate parables or history, or share Judaic perspective on current events or politics.
[Updated: 2007.09.02]Adj. (masc.) òÈøÅì (â•reil′ ), pl. òÂøÅìÄéí (a•reil•im′ ), uncircumcised.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.12.21] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]òÂöÆøÆú (a•tzër′ ët; constrainment, restrainment, detention, apprehension, stoppage)
òÉöÆø (o•tzër′ ; oppression in the form of constrainment, restrainment, detention, apprehension or stoppage; also, in modern Hebew, curfew).
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2010.07.13]Plural is òÂáÅøåÉú (a•veir•ot′).
òÂáÇøÀéÈï (a•var•yân′) is an overstepper, transgressor or trespasser of a boundary; viz., Tor•âh′ unless otherwise indicated by the context. Pl. is òÂáÇøÀéÈðÄéí (a•var•yân•im′). Compare and contrast with the adjective ôÌÀìÄéìÄé (pƏlil•iy′; criminal).
[Updated: 2006.05.16]òÆáÆã (ëv′ ëd; slave, servant, worker); pl. òÂáÈãÄéí (a•vâd•im′ ; slaves, servants, workers).
òÇáÀãÌÄé (a•vәd•i′ ; my slave, servant or worker)
[Updated: 2008.05.14] [Updated: 2006.05.17] [Updated: 2006.05.17] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2010.05.20] [Updated: 2006.04.27]I suggest another view: òÅæ àæ"ì (eiz az"l; the goat of az"l"). az"l is an acronym for àÂáåÉúÅéðåÌ æÄëÀøåÉðÈí ìÄáÀøÈëÈä (av•ot•ein′ nu zi•khәr•on•âm′ li-vәrâkh•âh′ ; our fathers of blessed memory). Thus, òÂæÈàæÅì would mean "the goat of our fathers, [the fathers] of blessed memory," aluding to the delegation as a qor•bân′ and subsequent release of the a•qeid•âh′ .
[Updated: 2006.04.27]Ba′ al ha-Bay′ it is master of the house), the husband and father. Ba′ altәru•âh′ (master blaster) is the one who blows the sho•phar′ . ba′ al tәshuv•âh′ (master responder), probably the most respected of all, is one who makes tәshuv•âh′ .
[Updated: 2006.04.27]The original and pristine faithful, rejecting a surge of Reform Sham′ i espousing Zo•har′ and Qa•bâl•âh′ in the 1600s, took the name Ba•lad•i′ —the "native" Tor•âh′ tradition of the Tei•mân•i′ .
ðÉñÇç áÂìÇàãÄé (No•sakh′ Ba•lad•i′ ; native version, lit. native taste).
[Updated: 2009.09.17] [Updated: 2008.08.09]"And he shall make words ìÀöÇã (lә-tzad; [as though] beside) the Most High…" I.e., the beast would allege that his own words issued from his place "beside the Most High." "And the holy ones of the Most High éÀáÇìÌÅà (yәvalei; he shall exhaust—from áÌÈìÈä); and he shall suppose to change æÄîÀðÄéí åÀãÈú; and they shall be given into his hand for a season and seasons and half a season" (see The 1993 Covenant).
The "Times of the Gentiles" (cf. The 1993 Covenant) began in this time window defined by the destruction of Yәru•shâ•lay′ im and the áÌÀìÈà of the Nәtzâr•im′ in 135 C.E.
The conclusion of this window, marked by the re-emergence of Israel as a nation, the recovery of Yәru•shâ•lay′ im and the re-emergence of the Nәtzâr•im′ , permits the calculation of the 3½ units used by Dâ•ni•eil′ . This equals 1948 (or 1967 or 1985, depending on one's interpretation) minus 135 (C.E.), yielding a difference of 1813, 1832, or 1850 years, respectively.
Dividing each of these by 3½ produces 518, 523, or 529 years, each, respectively, equalling 1 "Dâ•ni•eil′ 's year."
From this, one can easily calculate Dâ•ni•eil′ months, weeks, and days. Plugging these values back into the prophecies of Dâ•ni•eil′ yields interesting results.
Christians who are false prophets by the criteria of Dәvâr•im′ 13:2-6, most of whom can't even read Hebrew much less follow the Aramic of Dâ•ni•eil′ , point to Dâ•ni•eil′ 2:34-35 & 44 and Rev. 16:19. However, Dâ•ni•eil′ 7.25 and the NT book of Rev. 11:2, which describe (or comments on, in the case of Rev.) the same prophecy, are far more illuminating—"and think to change æÄîÀðÄéí åÀãÈú."
Dâ•ni•eil′ encoded, and so it was fulfilled, that this period would be closed by 1993 (cf. The 1993 Covenant for a discussion of the Nәviy•im′ concerning our times,
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.03.26] [Updated: 2006.04.27]áÌÇú ÷åÉì
Bat Qol; "daughter of a voice," a Hebrew idiom meaning "a voice out of the heavens."
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2007.03.07] [Updated: 2007.03.08] [Updated: 2010.02.21]With few exceptions, verbs are all found in one of seven bin•yân•im′:
| Transitive | Intransitive | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Active | Passive | Reflexive | |
| Simple | pa•al′ | niph•al′ | |
| Causative | hiph•il′ | huph•al′ | |
| Intensive | pi•eil′ | pu•al′ | hit•pâ•eil′ |
[Updated: 2008.05.14]áÌÄëÌåÌøÈä (bi•kur•âh′ ; early fruit (esp. fig)
áÌÀëåÉø (bә•khor′ ; male firstborn; pl. áÌÀëåÉøÄéí (bә•khor•im′ )
áÌÀëåÉøÈä (bә•khor•âh′ ; double-portion birthright of the firstborn male or firstborn daughter).
[Updated: 2010.06.04] 
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2010.05.16]bën-â•dâm′ ; person. While this phrase literally means "a son of â•dâm′ ," it is a Hebrew idiom very similar to áÌÆï-ðÉçÇ (Bën-No′ akh; a son of "Noah," colloquially a gentile), and means "a mortal person"—the exact antithesis of the preposterous divine connotations which Christians would ascribe to it.
Bën-No′ akh, see Bәn•ei′ -No′ akh
Bәn•ei′ -Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ; sons (by extension, children) of Israel.
Bәn•ei′ -Yi•tzәhâr′ ; sons (by extension, members) of pure [referring to olive-oil]; i.e., men anointed with pure olive-oil.
[Updated: 2008.03.17]!áÌÀøÈëåÉú åÀàÄçåÌìÄéí (Bәrâkh•ot′ wә-i•khul•im′ ; blessings (pl.) and [felicitous] wishes, i.e. congratulations).
The after-dinner Bәrâkh•âh′ is the principle Bәrâkh•âh′ of the meal.
There is also a prioritized set of bәrâkh•ot′ recited before eating various foods. (The Bәrâkh•âh′ recited over bread covers all foods. The Bәrâkh•âh′ recited over wine covers all foods except bread. The Bәrâkh•âh′ recited over grain-foods other than bread covers all foods except wine and bread. The Bәrâkh•âh′ over fruit of the trees covers not only fruit of the trees (recited over apples, peaches, pears, pecans, pistachios, apricots, plums, citrus and other tree fruits) but fruit of the ground as well. Lastly, the Bәrâkh•âh′ over the fruit of the ground (recited over such things as carrots, potatoes, peanuts, melons, tomatoes, and other vegetables; see ou examples). Particularly on Sә•ud•âh′ Shәlish•it′ , it's a tradition to eat these foods in "bottom up" (i.e., 1 to 6) order, thereby affording the opportunity to recite all of the bәrâkh•ot′ :
The mealtime bәrâkh•ot′ are only two of many opportunites for Yәhud•im′ (and geir•im′ ) to offer bәrâkh•ot′ .
If the place is in Ër′ ëtz Yi•sәr•â•eil′ , then the Bәrâkh•âh′ continues "îÅàÇøÀöÅðåÌ" (mei-artz•ei′ nu; from our land), otherwise it continues "îÄï äÇîÌÈ÷åÉí äÇæÌÆä" (min ha-mâ•qom′ ha-zëh′ ; from this place).
Finally, this Bәrâkh•âh′ concludes: ëÌÀùÑÅí ùÑÆòÈ÷ÇøÀúÌÈ îÄï äÇîÌÈ÷åÉí äÇæÌÆä, ëÌÈêÀ úÌÇòÀ÷åÉø îÄëÌÈì äÈàÂøÈöåÉú åÀúÈùÑÄéá ìÅá òåÉáÀãÅéäÆï ìÀòÈáÀãÈêÀ (kә-Sheim shë-â•qar′ tâ min ha-mâ•qom′ ha-zëh′ , kâkh ta•ә•qor′ mi-kol hâ-a•râtz•ot′ wә- tâ•shiv′ leiv ov•deiy′ hën lә-â•vәd•âkh′ ; like that You uproot [them] from this place, so you shall uproot [them] from every land and turn their heart and work to Your work).
After the treatment, recite: áÌÈøåÌêÀ øåÉôÅà çÇéÌÄéí (Bâ•rukh′ ro•phei′ khaiy′ im; Blessed is the Physician of life).
The passive present verb is bâ•rukh′ (he is blessed, he is being blessed), from the verb áÌÅøÇê (bei•rakh′ ; he blessed), which is, in turn, from the root áÌÈøÇê (bâ•rakh′ ; he kneeled). Thus, Bâ•rukh′ ha-Sheim′ means "Blessed be 'the Name'."
[Updated: 2006.04.27]Cognate øÄàùÑåÉï (rish•on′ ); first, from Rosh.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.10.17]A áÌÀøÄéú, then, is a çåÉæÆä, which entails
The áÌÀøÄéú of Har Sin•ai′ was an ancient Near East treaty between nations or multi-nation powers. Negotiating a áÌÀøÄéú between Yi•sәr•â•eil′ and the Almighty was a monumental departure from all other religions and "a point of departure for understanding [Tor•âh′ of Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ]. It now becomes clear that [Ël•oh•im′ ] as [më′ lëkh—more accurately, Suzerain] of [Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ] is not an idea born during the period of the monarchy, as scholars used to think, but, on the contary, is one of the most genuine and most ancient doctrines of [Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ]" (Ency. Jud., loc. cit.).
"The idea of a [áÌÀøÄéú] between a deity and a people is unknown from other religious and cultures. It seems that the [áÌÀøÄéú] idea was a special feature of the religion of Israel, the only one to demand exclusive loyalty and preclude the possibility of dual or multiple loyalties; so the stipulation in political treaties demanding exclusive fealty to one king corresponds strikingly with the religious belief in one single, exclusive deity."
"As the relationship between the suzerain and the vassal has to be based on a written document, i.e., a treaty, so the relationship between [Ël•oh•im′ ] and [Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ] had to be expressed in written form. It is not surprising, therefore, that the tablets of the [áÌÀøÄéú] played so important a role in the religion of [Yi•sәr•â•eil′ ]. As already noted, the tablets had to be deposited in the sanctuary at the feet of the deity, a procedure known from the Hittite treaties. Moreover, it appears that, as in the judicial sphere, the written document expresses the validity of the given relationship. When the [áÌÀøÄéú] is no longer in force the document must be destroyed. Thus the worship of the golden calf[mask], which signifies the breaking of the [áÌÀøÄéú], is followed by the breaking of the tablets by [Mosh•ëh′ ], the mediator of the [áÌÀøÄéú] (Shәm•ot′ 32). Indeed, the term for canceling a contract in Babylonian legal literature is ''to break the tablet'' (tuppam hepu). Following the judicial pattern, the renewal of the relationship must be effected by writing new tablets, which explains why new ones had to be written after the sin of the golden calf[mask], and why the ritual decologue was repeated in Shәm•ot′ 34.17-26 (cf. Shәm•ot′ 23.10-29). Renewal of the [áÌÀøÄéú] with a vassal—after a break in the relationship—by means of writing new tablets is an attested fact in Hittite political life" (Ency. Jud., 1019-20).
"The prophets, especially [Ho•shei′ a, Yi•rәmәyâh′ u and Yәkhëz•qeil′ ], expressed this idea of exclusive loyalty by speaking of the relationship between G*od and Israel as one of husband and wife, which in itself is also considered [a áÌÀøÄéú] (cf. above and especially [Yәkhëz•qeil′ ] 16.8)… Furthermore, the formula expressing the [áÌÀøÄéú] relationship between G*od and Israel, 'you will be My people and I will be your [Ël•oh•im′ ]' (wa-Yi•qәr•â′ ] 26.12; [Dәvâr•im′ ] 29.12, etc.), is a legal formula taken from the sphere of marriage, as attested in various legal documents from the Ancient Near East (cf. [Ho•shei′ a] 2.4). The relationship of the vassal to his suzerain or of the wife to her husband leaves no place for double loyalty, and they are therefore perfect metaphors for loyalty in a monotheistic religion" ("Covenant," Ency. Jud., 5.1021).
Countless words have been written about the áÌÀøÄéú. Yet, without recognition that a áÌÀøÄéú is a pact—a contract, one cannot understand how to become a legitimate party to the áÌÀøÄéú.
Without a basic understanding of the concept of a legal contract, none truly grasp its import. Lacking the fundamental understanding of the áÌÀøÄéú, one cannot recognize the terms, obligations, conditions, performances or consideratons of the contractual relationship with é--ä defined and imposed by the áÌÀøÄéú. Yet, the áÌÀøÄéú between Yi•sәr•â•eil′ with the Singularity is the core contribution of Tor•âh′ to the world and the core definition of any possible relationship between man and Singularity. Nothing is more important to understand than the áÌÀøÄéú.
As a kind of contract, a áÌÀøÄéú is only valid and in force when certain factual elements are present and satisfied:
Competence: There can be no contract without competency, which includes reasonably informed consent (loosely based on e-law.bc.ca).
Relative to the áÌÀøÄéú Tor•âh′ , if you are born a Jew then you in an "opt out" status while gentiles are in an "opt in" mode. What this means is that those born into the áÌÀøÄéú Tor•âh′ remain in the áÌÀøÄéú Tor•âh′ unless they breach it, by violating its terms—transgressing áÌÀøÄéú Tor•âh′ .
Gentiles, by contrast, are born a non-party to this áÌÀøÄéú and, therefore, must develop a working knowledge of the terms of this contract before they can make an informed—competent—consent. To become party to this áÌÀøÄéú, gentiles must agree to its terms, by performance, in order to "opt in" to the áÌÀøÄéú. Those who presume themselves in the áÌÀøÄéú Tor•âh′ are in immediate breach by not satisfying the terms of this áÌÀøÄéú that require obtaining recognition from the Biblically-ordained Beit-Din system.
Agreement: is essential to any contract.
Before there can be a contract, there must be a consensus ad idem: that is, there must be a meeting of the minds… [T]here must be an offer by one side and an acceptance of the offer by the person to whom the offer was made. Without both an offer and an acceptance, there can be no consensus ad idem or a meeting of the minds which is essential to form a contract… Acceptance is simply some indication by the person receiving the offer that the offer is accepted. The acceptance must be clear and absolute and without conditions attached… No conditions can be attached to the acceptance and the terms of the offer can not be changed. If conditions are attached or terms are changed, the parties are merely negotiating… there is no contract. You have made a counter offer…
There is no such thing as acceptance of part of the terms of a contract. In such case, there is simply no agreement and no contract (loosely based on e-law.bc.ca).
The terms of the áÌÀøÄéú is Tor•âh′ shë-bi•khәtâv′ complemented by Tor•âh′ shë-be•al′ pëh; in a nutshell: "the person must demonstrate his or her exclusive fealty to é--ä by doing his or her utmost to live according to the mi•tzәw•ot′ Tor•âh′ in exchange for é--ä providing ki•pur′ for shortcomings and a portion in hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′ ."
When an exchange of a promise for a promise or act has been made this is consideration, which makes the contract binding.
Consideration is some benefit or advantage to the person making the offer and a corresponding cost or prejudice to the person accepting the offer… It is left to the parties to determine whether or not the consideration is adequate; only the parties can judge whether or not it is a good bargain. The law only requires that there be sufficient consideration; something of value must be given. The consideration can not be something given or promised in the past. To be valid, the consideration must be a new promise or some fresh benefit exchanged for the offer.
The Divine side of consideration is provision of ki•pur′ and hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′ .
The human side of the consideration is our performance—doing our utmost to live according to Tor•âh′ (loosely based on e-law.bc.ca).
See also Dәvâr•im′ 11.26ff; 28.1-69; but especially Dәvâr•im′ 30.16 elucidated by Yәkhëz•qeil′ 13.19; 18.9,13,17,19,21-23,28; 33.11-13,15-16,19; 37.5-6,14; Khav•a•quq′ 2.4 (the tza•diq′ shall live by his ë•mun•âh′ ); Mi•shәl•ei′ Shәlom•oh′ 4.4; 7.2.
The bәrit Tor•âh′ / bәrit Har Sin•ai′ (Shәm•ot′ 24.1-11) is a unilateral contract: one in which there is a promise to pay or give other consideration in return for actual performance, tâ•mid′ validated by ha-Tâ•mid′ —a Holy (qâ•dosh′ ) Banquet, which entailed the prerequisite Holy (qâ•dosh′ ) sacrifice for its main course. (Since the destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ , this tâ•mid′ validation was transferred, without sacrifice, to the individual table of the Yәhud•i′ and geir; especially the Shul•khân′ Ër′ ëv Shab•ât′ and A•rikh•at′ ha-Shukhân′ .)
The Promise of consideration: a portion in hâ-o•lâm′ ha-bâ′ for actual performance: you to do your utmost to live according to My mi•tzәw•ot′ Tor•âh′ Duration of contract until your physical expiration date.
The Performance: doing your utmost to live according to My mi•tzәw•ot′ Tor•âh′ Duration of contract until your physical expiration date.
Like any contract, to be valid a áÌÀøÄéú, must set forth—and all parties must agree to and perform all terms, conditions, obligations, considerations and performances (referred to metonymically in the Bible as "æÆáÇç åÌîÄðÀçÈä") of all parties to the contract. Rejection, or failure to perform, any term of the contract breaks the contract. "Selective observance" is a non-starter.
"The high points of the sacrificial service were the two daily offerings constituting the úÌÈîÄéã, one at daybreak [æÆáÇç] and the other in the afternoon [îÄðÀçÈä], which began and concluded each day's sacrifices. All other individual and public sacrifices were brought in between them… The offering of individual sacrifices was completed by half past the eighth hour of daylight, and the sacrifice of the concluding afternoon úÌÈîÄéã then took place. It was slaughtered and offered up an hour later (Ma•sëk′ ët Pәsâkh•im′ 5.1)." (Sacrifice, Ency. Jud., 14.608-10).
Thus, æÆáÇç åÌîÄðÀçÈä is a metonym specifying the entirety—the "A-Z"—of the symbolic performance of a bәrit.
The term was later Hellenized / de-Judaized to "covenant" in order to dilute and divert attention from the Biblical terms and conditions of performance.
[Updated: 2008.03.17]Also inaccurately called the Damascus Covenant (written from a dungeon in Damascus, but not a covenant) and formerly known as "Fragments of a Zadoqite Document." CD was probably written about 25-30 years after MMT, as a follow-up, by the same author, Yәkhon•yâh′ Bën-Shim•on′ II Bën-Tzâ•doq′ (the last true Ko•hein′ ha-Jâ•dol′ , who, after his brother ousted him, became known as the Mor′ eih Tzë′ dëq), and to the same recipient—his rabidly apostatizing Hellenist brother, Yәho•shu′ a Bën-Shim•on′ II Bën-Tzâ•doq′ , the firstKo•hein′ hâ-Rësh′ a (in a resulting succession). (More details in our Kha•nukh•âh′ page.)
[Updated: 2007.07.12] [Updated: 2006.04.27]Dâ•ni•eil′ is included in the Kәtuv•im′ section of Ta•na"kh′ rather than among the Nәviy•im′ , as one would expect.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.07.06]Dâ•vâr′ and the plural participle, ãÀáÈøÄéí (Dәvâr•im′ , speakings, things or matters) are synonyms of àÈîÇø (â•mar′ ; say, tell) and its cognate participles. Both refer to the spoken word. To keep these two straight, we try to be consistent in rendering the first and its cognates as speak or speakings and the latter as say, tell, sayings or tellings.
Both of the above contrast with the verb ëÌÈúÇá (kâ•tav′ ; to write) and its cognates, ëÌÈúåÌá (kâ•tuv′ ; written), ëÌÀúËáÌÈä (kәtub•âh′ ; a writing, especially a marriage contract) and áÌÄëÀúÈá (bi-khәtav; in writing, usually rendered "written"; as in Tor•âh′ shë-bikh•tâv′ , written Tor•âh′ ). The generic term for "word," which carries no implication of whether spoken or written, is îÄìÌÈä (mil•âh′ ; "word").
[Updated: 2006.07.06]"Beloved," a cognate of "love," by comparison, more properly reflects àÈäåÌá (â•huv′ ; beloved-man) or the fem. àÂäåÌáÈä (a•huv•âh′ ; beloved-woman), from the verb àÈäÇá (â•hav′ ; he loved).
Thus, ãåÉãÄé (dod•i′ ), in ìÀëÈä ãåÉãÄé (Lәkh•a′ Dod•i′ ; Let's go, my bosom-buddy—not "come, my beloved"), means "my bosom buddy"—where both the verb and noun are masc. sing. Thus, Lәkh•a′ Dod•i′ negates the conventional Qa•bâl•âh′ explanation of going forth to greet the (feminine) Shab•ât′ . Rather, it corroborates the Biblical theme of Israel, the wife, going forth to greet her Husband, é--ä, on Shab•ât′ .
Beit Dâ•wid′ ; House of Dâ•wid′ .
[Updated: 2009.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]ãÀøÈùÑÈä (dәrâsh•âh′ ) is a discourse or sermon (synonym ùÑÄòåÌø (shi•ur′ ; lesson).
Another cognate from this verb is îÄãøÈùÑ.
"Regards (or greetings) to…" is …ãÀøÄéùÑÇú ùÑÈìåÉí ìÀ (dәrish•at′ shâ•lom′ lә…).
[Updated: 2006.06.18]Scholars suggest that before the religion of the Patriarchs was known as Judaism, it was simply called "the Way." This is based on the phrase in Shәm•ot′ 18:20: "…äÇãÌÆøÆêÀ éÅìÀëåÌ áÈäÌ" (…ha-dër′ ëkh, yei•lәkh•u′ bâh; …the Way—they shall walk in it).
éÅìÀëåÌ (yei•lәkh•u′ ; they will walk, go) is the fu. 3rd pers. masc. pl. pâ•al′ of äÈìÇê (hâ•lakh′ ; he walked, went), the shor′ ësh of äÂìÈëÈä (Ha•lâkh•âh′ ).
Corroborating this, if bә-Reish•it′ 6.9 meant simply “No′ akh " 'walked' with Ël•oh•im′ , the pâ•suq′ would have read äÈìÇê (hâ•lakh′ ; he walked). Instead, however, the pâ•suq′ reads äÄúäÇìÌÅê (hit•hâ•lakh′ ; he walked the walk, he walked around, he walked about or he walked himself). This reflexive form suggests a secondary meaning: “he developed Ha•lâkh•âh′ ”—synonymous with “making mi•shәpât′ .” This seems to corroborate the rational assessment that the compilation of Tor•âh′ is what ha-Sheim′ inspired within Mosh•ëh′ at Har Sin•ai′ , which was the culmination of generations of development within the family of Av•râ•hâm′ Âv•i′ nu, Yi•tzәkhâq′ Âv•i′ nu and Yi•sәr•â•eil′ . In this sense, see also bә-Reish•it′ 48.15.
dër′ ëkh Ha•lâkh•âh′ , therefore, seems to be the original name of the religion, which only came to be known as Judaism (Judean-ism or Jew-daism) when ãÆøÆê äÂìÈëÈä became known among the Goy•im′ as the religion of the Judeans (Jew-dians).
Also in this Hellenizing process, the Goy•im′ Hellenized éÀäåÌãÈä (Yәhud•âh′ ) to Judah / Judaea; and éÀäåÌãÄé (Yәhud•i′ ) to Jew—pl. éÀäåÌãÄéí (Yәhud•im′ ) to Jews.
Because the term "Judaism" is widely perverted in the modern era (Reform, Conservative, Christian, etc.), we urge a more accurate return to the original, Biblical, phrase(s).
[Updated: 2008.05.14] [Updated: 2006.05.25]éåÉí äÇãÌÄéï (Yom ha-Din; [the Great] Day of Adjudication), specified scores of times in Tor•âh′ and corroboroated by Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a (The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′ u (NHM) 12.17-21, quoting Yәsha•yâh′ u 42.1-4 and NHM 25.31-34 quoting Tzәphan•yâh′ 3.8b and Yәkhëz•qeil′ 34.1-2, 12 & 17) as the adjudication of mi•shәpât′ (documented in Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)) by the Beit Din (see below) beyond the heavens.
áÌÅéú ãÄéï / áé"ã
Beit Din; "House of Law." pl. áÌÈúÌÅé-ãÄéï (bât•ei′ -din; houses of law). Also Beit Din ha-Jâ•dol′ —the Supreme Court, which supervised the lesser bât•ei′ -din throughout Israel.
The Beit Din is the Judaic court, which traces back in an unbroken chain to Mosh•ëh′ at Har Sin•ai′ (Shәm•ot′ 18:19-26; and Dәvâr•im′ 16:18; 17:9-13). See also NHM note 27.1.2.
This was Hellenized to the Greek συνηδριον (suneidrion) and anglicized to "Sanhedrin")—completely divorcing it conceptually from the beit din court system established by Mosh•ëh′ in Pâ•râsh•at′ Yi•tәr•o′ (bә-Reish•it′ 18).
Modern court systems are still based on the three levels of the Bât•ei′ Din framework instituted by Mosh•ëh′ Rab•ei′ nu:
Josephus documented the corrupt practice of the Ko•han•ei′ hâ-Rësh′ a (Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoq•im′ ) to convene illegal Bât•ei′ -Din (Antiquities, xx, ix, 1).
While readers may be more familiar with the term "sanhedrin," this Hellenist term conceals the continuity of the Beit Din system of adjudicating Oral Law (as proven by 4Q MMT). Since the Pәrush•im′ achieved predominance in the Beit Din ha-Jâ•dol′ ca. 20 C.E., Oral Law has comprised Ha•lâkh•âh′ . This Tor•âh′ shë-bә•al pëh′ is documented in Ta•na"kh′ as khuq•im′ + mi•shәpât′ , an uninterrupted process dating from the time of Mosh•ëh′ at Har Sin•ai′ (see Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)).
In modern Yi•sәr•â•eil′ , we distinguish between religious courts—Bât•ei′ Din—and modern secular courts, called Bât•ei′ mi•shәpât′ . See also discussion in the "64 C.E.Proto-Christians" section of Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN) and note 5.22.3 in The Nәtzâr•im′ Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•tit•yâh′ u (NHM)
Inextricably related, ãÄéï (din; law) is also used with éåÉí (yom; day) in the sense of éåÉí äÇãÄéï (Yom ha-Din; Law Day or "the" Day of Law, often confused with its synonym, "Day of Judgment"—éåÉí äÇîÌÄùÑôÌÈè (Yom ha-Mi•shәpât′ ).
The original beit din court system included, as its highest court, the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′ (the Great House of Law; Hellenized / de-Judaized (Hellenized) to 'Great Sanhedrin').
Only the beit din could decide mi•shәpât′ —and obedience of the mi•shәpât•im′ is explicitly and unambiguously commanded in Tor•âh′ hundreds of times!!!
To wrest these passages from their contextual dependence on a legitimate beit din of Tor•âh′ -observant Jews, the Church translates mi•shәpât′ simply as "judgment"—giving the false, and deceiving, impression that anyone can make such "judgments"!!!
Beside the well known Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′ , the beit din system comprised, under the aegis of the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′ , Bât•ei′ -Din ha-Qâtân and, under the aegis of the Bât•ei′ -Din ha-Qâtân, Bât•ei′ -Din representing the various communities recognized as legitimate by the higher Bât•ei′ -Din. Both books of our Kha•vәr•ut′ â plus "Bet Din and Judges," EJ are MUST reads.
It is only with this Judaic phrase 'beit din' that the uninterrupted chain is obvious between the bât•ei′ -din established by Mosh•ëh′ , the Beit-Din ha-Jâ•dol′ which operated in the Beit-ha-Mi•qәdâsh′ with the many bât•ei′ -din under its supervision, and the bât•ei′ -din which continue to operate today in the legitimate Orthodox Jewish community.
Beware of deceivers operating outside of the legitimate Jewish community who self-proclaim themselves to be a beit din but have no connection to the legitimate Jewish community of any era, or to Israel. Setting up a so-called "beit din" to rival the historically authentic bât•ei′ -din is Replacement Theology!!!
Pâ•qid′ Yi•rәmәyâh′ u —Yi•rәmәyâh′ u Bën-Dâ•wid′ , the 16th Pâ•qid′ of the Nәtzâr•im′ ( Pâ•qid′ Ya•a•qov′ Bën-Dâ•wid′ , the brother of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a Bën-Dâ•wid′ , being the first)—is a member in good standing, on the board, of the Yemenite Orthodox synagogue in Ra•an•an′ â(h), Israel—Mo•rësh′ ët Âv•ot′ . The Nәtzâr•im′ are the only followers of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a on the planet, and the only beit din on the planet, determining and disseminating the teachings of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a as the Mâ•shi′ akh within the beit din system of the legitimate (Orthodox) Jewish community and Israel.
Thus, the Nәtzâr•im′ (as distinguished from the wannabe pretenders of Replacement Theology) are the only followers legitimately like historical Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a and the historical Nәtzâr•im′ ; and, it follows, the only legitimate followers of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a, and the only true bearers of the authentic teachings of Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a.
All other so-called followers of 'Christ' (by whatever name, including those who call themselves 'Netzarim' and/or 'Nazarenes' but are not) are deceptions of Replacement Theology syncretism ultimately deriving from the post-135 C.E. Roman pagan 'J*e*s*u*s'.
We verify all legitimate Nәtzâr•im′ upon request.
Related to the dramatic difference between a beit din and the fake Christian notion of an informal "judgment," former Christians often expect that a beit din operates informally like several social club members approving a new member.
A beit din, by contrast, is a formal court of law… with all of the formal legalities that entails: millennia of case law which have established rules of identification, standards of evidence, testimony of witnesses, etc.
You don't need to hire a lawyer to petition for recognition if and when the time comes, but you do want to approach the beit din understanding that you must respect both the legalities and the sho•phәt•im′ to at least the same degree that is expected by a civil court. Changing from a gentile to a geir to•shâv′ is a legal change under Tor•âh′ law—and that requires meeting legal criteria established by the historically legitimate Judaic community over the millennia.
Displacement Theology, is more accurate than Replacement Theology, further implying the usurpation of the earlier religion. (Eusebius documented that the Hellenist Romans usurped the Nәtzâr•im′ in 135 C.E. and 333 C.E.
Christianity is a Displacement Theology that inherently dangles from the premise that Christ's "grace" has displaced Tor•âh′ , that Christians have displaced 'natural Jews' to become the 'true, spiritual Jews' of 'true, spiritual Israel'; i.e. thereby displacing historical Israel and the Jews as the Biblically-recognized servants of é--ä. Christian Displacement Theology includes ALL doctrines that hold that "salvation" has been redirected to Christians or that Tor•âh′ -observant Jews without J*esus are lost.
Displacement theology is recognized by historians and other scholars as a cornerstone of misojudaism and the earliest, i.e. original, Christian faith and Church of 135 C.E.
Islam is a second-order Displacement Theology, inherently dangling even more tenuously—from the second displacement thread, which still dangles from the first displacement thread—claiming to displace both Christian AND Tor•âh′ doctrines.
[Updated: 2009.05.20]"[ãÇøÀãÌÇòÄéí] (a combination of ãåÉø ãÅòÈä, after the learning and intellectualism which characterize the movement, and the name of one of the four ancient sages, ãÇøÀãÌÇò, who is mentioned in [Mәlâkh•im′ Âl′ ëph] 5.11." ("Kafah," Ency. Jud., 10.670).
The three names listed in Mәlâkh•im′ Âl′ ëph 5.11, as well as their "father," are [a] named nowhere else and [b] all exhibit a charactonym (or charactonymous portmanteau):ãÇøÀãÌÇò as the portmanteau of ãåÉø ãÅòÈä, charactonymous of a generation of knowledge;
äÅéîÈï, charactonymous of äÄîÅï and its cognate äÈîåÉï;
ëÌÇìÀëÌåÉì, charactonymous of ëÌÇìÀëÌÈì (Mәlâkh•im′ Âl′ ëph 5.7);
and the father, îÈçåÉì, charactonymous of îÄçÉì
These should be understood as cryptonyms esoteric to the ãÇøÀãÌÇòÄéí implying (to the initiated) a knowledge surpassing that of the worldly popular and politically correct (äÅéîÈï) and Yo•seiph′ -like ancient (economic & provision) planning geniuses (ëÌÇìÀëÌåÉì)—from the profane (viz., goy•im′ ) population (îÈçåÉì).
Thus, the esoteric tradition of ãÇøÀãÌÇòÄéí is reflected in the ancient text of Mәlâkh•im′ Âl′ ëph, millennia before Rav Qapakh restored it in the 20th century (see "Teimanim" section in our History Museum). This ancient esoterica was later reflected in the symbology of the Talpiot Tomb (also paralleled in the Nәtzâr•im′ logo) and, much later, may have been the inspiration for îÈçåÉì imitations like the Knights Templar, Illuminati and Freemasons.
In the early 19th century, a tәshuv•âh′ movement arose among the most pristine—Ba•lad•i′ —sect of the Tei•mân•im′ as a backlash against the growing incursion of irrationalism (mysticism, magic & superstition) that had been rejected by their Tei•mân•im′ predecessors, as most famously espoused by their European rationalist connection 7 centuries earlier—Ram′ ba"m (1135-1204 C.E.).
Spirituality—realizing that é--ä exists in a non-dimensional realm beyond our dimensional universe—has always been a legitimate and desirable staple of Tor•âh′ , embodied in the ancient (but not the modern imitation) Kha•sid•im′ ; as a function of rational, logical and scientific reasoning, not the mysticism, magic, sorcery and superstitious a•vod•âh′ zâr•âh′ of the goy•im′ . Today, however, "Hasidim" has been corrupted to mean Qabâlists, whereas the proper meaning implies those who can relate to the non-dimensional "eternal kingdom" beyond our physical universe ("not of this world") through rational, logical and scientific reasoning—introduced to Jews and Judaism in the 1st century C.E. by Rib′ i Yәho•shu′ a, making him the ultimate spiritual Khâ•sid′ . (The Nәtzâr•im′ are also Kha•sid•im′ —spiritual, not Qabâlist.) Today, sadly, secular, agnostic, atheist and Christian physicists and cosmologists far excel above the Qabâlist "Hasidim."
Despite the condemnations of the Tei•mân•im′ and Ram′ ba"m, many of the assimilating European Jewish communities in Dark Ages Europe continued to be attracted to irrational mysticism, magic & superstition. In the late 1300s C.E.—less than a century after Ram′ ba"m's death—a Spanish rabbi, Moses b. Shem Tov de Leon, created the Zo•har′ , fraudulently claiming origins in an earlier Sage. The Zo•har′ subsequently became the basis of a new, rebranded, reinventing of irrationalism, mysticism, magic & superstition: Qa•bâl•âh′ . Like other forms of assimilation in a•vod•âh′ zâr•âh′ , Zo•har′ and Qa•bâl•âh′ has subsequently grown to infect large sections of the Jewish community across the world.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, the external world began to encroach into Yemen and, as a result, knowledge became increasingly available to the Yәhud•im′ Tei•mân•im′ . History clearly demonstrates that the Yәhud•im′ Tei•mân•im′ have always been inclined toward rational thought, logic and the scientific method—as corroborated, inter alia, by their affinity for Ramb"m′ , the European champion of rational thought, logic and the scientific method.
The Hakham Bashi (Turkish translation of "Chief Rabbi" and representative of the community to the Moslem authorities) and most outstanding Bal•ad•i′ —rationalist—rabbi, îÉàøÄé éÄçÀéÈä ÷ÈàôÅç, introduced arithmetic, natural science, history, geography, astronomy and sports as well as Hebrew, Arabic and the grammar of both languages—revitalizing the ancient, rationalist, understanding of Tor•âh′ . He combined the phrase ãåÉø ãÅòÇä and ãÇøÀãÇò to name his revitalization ãÇøÀãÇòÄéí.
In a redux of the centuries-old dispute between rationalism, famously espoused by Ramb"m′ , versus the irrational Qabâlists, the Qabâlists in Yemen, who clung obdurately to the perverse a•vod•âh′ zâr•âh′ of Qa•bâl•âh′ , managed to close down his schools. For this perverse obduracy, the Qabâlists of Yemen became known as the I•qәsh•im′ .
In reviving their predecessors' (and Ram′ ba"m's) rejection of irrationalism, the Dar•da′ im revived No•sakh′ Tei•mân•i′ , which scholars agree reflects the most pristine understanding of Tor•âh′ as it was practiced at Har Sin•ai′ .
The Nәtzâr•im′ identify most closely with the Dar•da′ im, who advocate a return to authentic No•sakh′ Tei•mân•i′ , a rejection of Qa•bâl•âh′ irrationalism (mysticism).
 1949.05 Operation 'Magic Carpet' (National Photo Collection) |
When the Tei•mân•im′ were brought to Israel in Operation 'Magic Carpet' in 1949.05, they were regarded by the patronizing Ash•kәnaz′ im as primitive natives. Upon arrival in Israel, their beards and pei•yot′ were forcibly shaved from them, many of their children taken from them (under the pretense of check-ups at the hospital) and spirited away from their "primitive native" parents to "have a better chance in life" by being raised by Ash•kәnaz′ im Jews in the United States (see Yәdi•ot′ A•khar•on•ot′ 2001.11.05, Ma•a•riv′ , hâ-Â′ rëtz and Jerusalem Post 2001.11.06, two articles in Jerusalem Post 2001.11.08).
Persecuted even more than the other Tei•mân•im′ , the Dar•da′ im were threatened with kâ•reit′ unless they embraced the Zo•har′ —which, like the Nәtzâr•im′ rejecting the NT in 333 C.E., the Dar•da′ im refused to do.
It is a mistake to assume that the Tei•mân•im′ followed Ram′ ba"m. Rather, Ram′ ba"m was highly respected by the Tei•mân•im′ because the teachings of Ram′ ba"m were the closest to the Tei•mân•im′ tradition—and particularly because Ram′ ba"m was the most powerful ally in opposing the Qa•bâl•âh′ -ists. There are, however, examples in which the Tei•mân•im′ followed their own traditions where they differed from Ram′ ba"m ("Rav al-Fasi On Tractate Khul•in′ ," by Mor′ i Gâ′ pheikh).
This Dar•da′ im protest movement, a subgroup of the Ba•lad•i′ sect, was based on the desire to restore the pre-Zo•har′ , pre-Qa•bâl•âh′ and pre-1600 pristineness of the Tei•mân•i′ tradition that traces back to Har Sin•ai′ .
The Nәtzâr•im′ make no secret of identifying with, and sharing the aims of, the Dar•da′ im.
[Updated: 2009.04.03] |
|
|
 980x1427.jpg){kind=link}