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'anana, 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: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2006.04.27]This, NOT the Arabic "wadi," is the correct term for stream andor dry streambed often found in a valley.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]כפר נחום (kәphar Nakhum; Town or village of Nakhum), i.e. Nakhumville; Hellenized to "Capernaum."
[Updated: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2006.06.15]Biblically, a Nâvi is an individual who has focused his mind and nature to the point where he is able to receive the outpouring of the ruakh (spirit) of י--ה, and is evidenced by his clarity of understanding Torâh. (See Rambam, Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torâh 7.7; Khasam Sopheir, Even ha-Ezer section 40.)
Thus, the earlier prophets — foreseers — were called רואים (roim, seers; e.g. Shmueil Aleph 9.9). These are in contrast to nәviim who are proclaimers, of Torâh because they were Divinely granted deeper insight, which enabled them to provide spiritual and practical guidance to Israel. But רואים were not sent to be the leaders of Israel as were the nәviim. Thus, nәviim — expositors of Torâh — are embued with greater honor and authority than the earlier רואים.
In contrast, the term ha-Nâvi, which essentially means a preacher (Rashi, Shәmot 7.1), was commonly used for Jews who exhorted others to go in the Way of Torâh, and prayed for them in their time of need (Emet lә-Yaaqov, bә-Reishit 20.7). Obviously, they had to be wise and tzadiq, but such exponents of Torâh weren't, according to the Sages, necessarily Divinely inspired individuals.
Only in later years, when there was a need to send nәviim to admonish the Jewish people and provide national leadership, did ha-Nâvi acquire the general appellation of a prophet. (ArtScroll, Tәrei Asar, xix-xx). See also The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 11.9.1.
[Updated: 2006.04.30]While LXX usually renders this ευχομαι (eukhomai; [one] "praying" according to Vine's Expository Dictionary), if the nâzir-ευχομαι correspondence carried over originally into the NT as a consecrant, it was distorted by the later redactions (cf. wish, would or prayMa·avâr 26:29; 27:29 where, during the time of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh, nâzir would have been implied).
LXX also renders nâzir as Ναζειραιος (Nazeiraios), which is how it blurred into the totally unrelated, obviously gentile (unable to discern even between a nâzir and a Kohein ha-Jâdol) sect of Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios; Nazoraeans) in NT.
[Updated: 2006.06.25] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2007.07.12]In LXX, Hellenists comprehended no distinction between נפש and נשמה. The two are both rendered by ψυχως (psukhos; psyche) — which explains the confusion in subsequent translations.
Your נפש is an inherent part of you — your sapience, your awareness of yourself relative to י--ה, your free will. The purpose of life is to learn to subordinate the נפש to the נשמה, and to differentiate those who succeed in doing so from those who fail to do so. Like the נשמה, the נפש is also a part of you that continues, along with your רוח after shedding your body. (The body, being physical, is confined to this physical universe. Therefore, it cannot make the transition into the non-dimensional domain of hâ-olâm ha-bâ.)
[Updated: 2006.04.27]In LXX, Hellenists comprehended no distinction between נשמה and נפש. The two are both rendered by ψυχως (psukhos; psyche) — which explains the confusion in subsequent translations.
Your נשמה is you, your essence (conscience), the essential — life-giving — breath of your רוח (wind). Like the נפש, the נשמה is also a part of you that continues, along with your רוח, after shedding your body. (The body, being physical, is confined to this physical universe. Therefore, it cannot make the transition into the non-dimensional domain of hâ-olâm ha-bâ.)
[Updated: 2006.04.30](Firefox displays the Greek, Windows Explorer does not.)
Of 31 instances of "Nazareth" in the Greek source texts of the NT, only 12 properly refer to Ναζαρεθ (Nazareth) – Nâtzrat. Yet, of the remaining 19 instances, which properly refer to Nәtzarim – Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios; from which gentile sects derived 'Nazoraeans' or distorting Pâqid Ya·aqov ha-Tzadiq Ben-Dâvid to be a Nâzir) and Ναζαρηνος (Nazareinos, from which the English "Nazarene" derived), Christian versions typically render only 2 passages faithfully as "Nazarene" (Mt. 2:23 & "Acts" 24:5).
Ha-Neitzer is the title of historical Ribi Yәhoshua and the plural describes his original Jewish followers, including the first 12, who were specifically identified in NT by the name Nәtzarim (cf., for example Ma·avâr 24:5, but also the numerous additional instances in the earliest Greek below).
The original Hebrew term derives from the נצר "Neitzer" of Yәshayâhu 11.1 and 60.21.
Neitzer was de-Judaized (Hellenized) by the post-135 CE Christian NT redactors — unsupported by LXX — to Ναζαρηνος (nazareinos) and Anglicized to 'Nazarenes.'
The plural, Nәtzarim (referring to his followers), was de-Judaized (Hellenized) in the NT to Ναζωραιος (nazoraios) where it is clearly translated as "Nazarenes" in Ma·avâr 24:5 (as well as confused, elsewhere, with Nazoraeans / Nazirites).
See for yourself the many instances where this identical term — Ναζωραιος — in the earliest extant source documents deliberately avoids acknowledging the Nәtzarim in the gentile Roman Christian campaign to DISPLACE the original Nәtzarim: Mt. 2:23; 26:71; Mk. 10:47; Lu. 18:37; 24:19; Jn. 18:5, 7; 19:19; Ma·avâr 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8 and 26:9.
The Christian Displacement Theology is also evident in their redactions to LXX. In their campaign of Displacement Theology, the Hellenist Christians attempted to paint themselves as "gentile Nazirites" by perverting Nâzir and αγιος (agios; "holy") to Ναζωραιος. These post-135 CE Roman gentile Christian redactions are documented in Codex Alexandrius:
Through this documented redaction, Codex Alexandrius thus makes Ναζειραιοι (Nazeiraioi) distinct from Ναζιραιοι (Naziraioi; ; her Nәzirim). The then-apparent — but incorrect and misleading — similarity in the Greek between distinct Ναζειραιος (Nazeiraios; Nâzir) and Ναζωραιος (Nazoraios; Nәtzarim) is the only plausible basis for the frequent confusion between the terms — totally unrelated in Hebrew — נצרים (Nәtzarim; offshoots) and נזירים (Nәzirim; consecrated [ones; pl. masc. noun]). This is especially true of Christian misconceptions that our first Nәtzarim Paqid, Yaaqov Ben-David, was a "Nazirite." All evidence indicates that Paqid Yaaqov Ben-David wasn't a "Nazirite." He was, however, a Nәtzarim
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.07.06]The adjective and noun form is nilwëh (same Hebrew spelling), plural נלוים nilwim. When used as a noun, a nilwëh is an escort or accompanier. As an adjective, the term refers to an escort or accompanier nilwëh status.
Another cognate of לוה (lâwâh) is לוי (Leiwi), plural Lәwiyim, who escorted the Kohanim.
מלוה מלכה (mәlaweih malkâh; accompanying the Queen [Shabât]) are songs sung accompanying the conclusion of Shabât.
Lâwâh is likely the inspiration for the concept, advanced by Ribi Yәhoshua, of "grafting" the "wild branches" – geirim – onto the "olive tree," which is Yisrâ·eil. Of the five instances of לוה in MT that connote accompanying, joining or becoming attached, for which the rendering in LXX reflects the same meaning, three instances (bә-Midbar 18.2, 4 & Yәshayâhu 14.1) are rendered by προστιθημι (prostitheimi; to put or place onto) while the other two instances (Yәshayâhu 56.3, 6) are rendered by προσκειμαι (proskeimai; to lay or rest [something] on [something]). The NT term, ενκεντριζω (enkentrizo; graft onto) is not found in LXX. The term that defines this concept is clearly לוה, from which all three Hellenist (Greek) terms derived.
Lâwâh implies much more than simple "joining"; and is certainly the antithesis of being integrated, unchanged, into something. Lâwâh implies gradual, but active, assimilation into Israel; the abandonment of any elements of one's previous life and culture that conflict with Torâh, complemented by the replacing of the abandoned elements through undertaking the life practice and culture of Torâh and Israel, i.e. properly interfacing with the Jewish people (Israel) faithful to the example of Rut (1.16) — through the Jewish culture: the Hebrew language, Torâh, Jewish music, Jewish chanting of Tan"kh, etc.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.06.18] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.06.12]נָצְרִים (Nâtzrim) refers to the earliest Jewish proto-Christians groups in the Birkat ha-Minim, and subsequent gentile Christians; all of whom are distinguished from legitimate Judaism recognized by the Beit-Din ha-Jâdol by the sine qua non of having embraced selective observance of Torâh, i.e., at least partial rejection of Torâh (including Torâh she-bә·al peh). Thus, Notzrim are diametrically antithetical to the Nәtzarim.
Notice that, in Hebrew, though pronounced differently and deriving from an entirely unrelated root, the non-vowelized spelling of Notzrim can be spelled identically to Nәtzarim. This close resemblance enabled the נְצָרִים (Nәtzârim) and other Jews to recite, undetected by the Church, the Birkat ha-Minim against their antithesis – the נָצְרִים (Nâtzrim) / Notzrim, cf. minim. One may observe in, for example, the Alcalay Hebrew-English Dictionary, that נָצְרִי (Nâtzri); Christian) is different from נָצְרָתִי (Nâtzrâti; Nazarethan, person from the city of Nâtzrat). There is no evidence that Nәtzarim (offshoots) were ever called "Nâtzrâtim" (Nazarethans).
Despite the NT claim that J*esus was called a "Nazarene" because he was from "Nazareth" – this was clearly a similarity dependent upon the Hellenist Greek of the NT, already long divorced from the Hebrew, in order to be associated with "Nazareth" instead of the prophecy of Yәshayâhu 11:1.
Up through the 4th century C.E. there is no instance where Notzrim (or Nәtzarim either) were called Nâtzrâtim.
Christians were Greek-speaking Hellenists. After 135 C.E., they were predominated by gentiles with no knowledge of Hebrew. For them, both Hebrew terms were alien. They referred to themselves by the Greek term for "messianic": χριστιανος (Khristianos; Christian). To them, נוצרים appeared related (or identical) to נצרים (Nәtzarim), particularly since, whenever Jews wanted the Church confused, they could spell them identically and one could then tell only by context. However, the two terms derive from completely different stems and are unrelated except, perhaps, that "offshoots" from the root of an olive tree somewhat resemble sentry-guards around the mother tree.
The Notzrim had developed a completely Hellenistic and Romanized self-identification as the true Χριστιανος (Christianos; Christians) as opposed to Nәtzarim and other Jews – whom the Notzrim viewed as sons of Satan remaining under the law of sin and death and enemies of the Church.
Persecuted under the containment guards of the Church, the sophrim (scribes) encrypted a warning in the Torâh selection for the intermediate Shabat of Khag ha-Matzot by enlarging two letters, the first to call attention to a word and then the next to call attention to the associated meaning.
The first letter of Shәmot 34.7 is the נ in the word נצר (notzeir; containment-guard [of khesed])!!! The next enlarged letter, calling attention to the hidden meaning, is the ר (resh) in the word אחר (akheir; another-different) in the phrase "You shall not prostrate ourselves לאל אחר (lә-Eil akheir; to an Eil [Who is] another-different)."
That the encrypted warning is found in the pârâshâh during the year that is closest to the anniversary of the crucifixion is also a clear indication to the reader that Shәmot 34.7 stipulates that י--ה, not a man or man-g*o*d, is the נצר (Notzeir) and we "shall not prostrate ourselves to an Eil [Who is] another-different."
The earliest extant complete source texts of what the Christians call their "New Testament" are the Greek — Hellenized — codices א and β of the 4th-century. All historians, including Christian scholars, agree that there was no "New Testament" during the lifetime of Ribi Yәhoshua his original eyewitness followers, or even his Nәtzarim.
According to the earliest extant Christian Church historian (Eusebius), these original Jewish followers of the Pәrushi Ribi Yәhoshua ("Ribi," hello; only the perushim had Ribis and rabbis) rejected the Christian claimed "new testament" (EH III.xxvii.4-6)!!!
Christianity was born with the Hellenist-Roman expulsion of the 15th Nәtzarim Paqid from Yәrushalayim in 135 C.E. and his consequent displacement by the first gentile – (Hellenist-Roman) Christian – "bishop." While the occasional verse of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) may have been translated into Greek from ca. 64 C.E., large-scale translation by Hellenists into Greek and redaction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) and various letters, with the inherent Hellenization, began in earnest only subsequent to 135 C.E.
Even according to the most authoritative Christian scholars, e.g., The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, acknowledges:
"A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform… But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma" ("Text, NT," 2nd edition (Abingdon, 1962).
Of course Christians redacting the Jewish texts made Christian redactions to make the Jewish texts compatible with "the substance of Christian dogma." Duh.
Quoting again from The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
"It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally… Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons — even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma. [Thanks for reminding us that Christians made Christian redactions compatible with Christian dogma; ybd]). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the 'original reading' but in the 'true reading'"
(ibid.) — as perceived by the Roman Christian redactors, of course. (Emphasis added and quoted from Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN))
The Nәtzarim never changed their mind about it, maintaining that only the Jewish Tana"kh is Scripture and only their own The Nәtzarim Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) was a legitimate account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua.
The Nәtzarim haven't changed from this position, and won't change from this position.
Christian versions include the relatively modern King James Version (KJV) of 1611 C.E., published under the rule of a misojudaic King James of England, from which they produced TR of 1624 C.E., thereby creating a closed, circular text-source, from which all subsequent versions emanate.
Thus, for Jews, which includes the Nәtzarim, NT stands not for "New Testament" but for "Null Testament." (See also Tana"kh and OT.)
Accordingly, only quotes from The Nәtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) and Tana"kh are recognized by the Nәtzarim as authentically and authoritatively Judaic. Other works not recognized as authoritative by standard Judaic institutions are not recognized as authoritative by the Nәtzarim.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]A cognate is עליה (aliyâh; an ascending), pl. aliyot. עליה is used primarily to refer [a] ascending to read Torâh andor [b] immigrating to Israel.
[Updated: 2006.04.27]העולם הזה (hâ-olâm ha-zeh; "this age/world, world-age")
לעולם (lә-olâm), lit. "to the age / world," connotes, and is often specified as, העולם הבא (hâ-olâm ha-bâ; "the age/world to come")
Another use of this term is in the phrase לעולם ועד (lә-olâm va-ed; forever and ever [lit. "to the age/world and until"]).
[Updated: 2008.05.05]The first and seventh days of khag ha-Matzot are each a special Shabat, on which melakhah is prohibited.
Fifty days are counted from this waving of the Omer to Shavu·ot, the first six days of which coincide with the 2nd — 7th days of khag ha-Matzot.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2008.03.26] [Updated: 2006.04.27]In addition to the logical fallacy of petitio principii, this offensive assumption also depends upon another logical fallacy: ad ignorantiam (shifting the burden of proof). No responsible scholar denies that Jews recognized the authority of Torâh from the time of Har Sinai. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon anyone who alleges the polar change of rejecting Torâh. Such proof has never been offered because it never existed.
The Nәtzarim never changed their mind about it, maintaining that only the Jewish Tana"kh was Scripture and only their own The Nәtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityahu (NHM) was a legitimate account of the life and teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua.
Nәtzarim haven't changed, and won't change.
Thus, for Jews, including the Nәtzarim, OT stands not for "Old Testament" but for "Original Torah." (See also Tana"kh and NT.)
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]In Judaism, as in the Bible, these are called simply Day-one through Day-six and Shabbât. One soon realizes how pervasive paganism is in Christianity. (In pages, books and papers not yet updated, this may still be done using more asterisks between every letter, e.g. I*s*i*s, or with dashes, e.g. I-s-i-s).
A check of history books and encyclopedias in your local university or public library will confirm that while a number of countries have "administered" this area, no country has attained sovereignty over Israel. Except for the Jews, no country or people has any innate or inherited right to sovereignty. 'Palestinian' claims of sovereignty are a PR bubble empty of any basis. However, the 'Palestinians' claim of occupation is valid. There is an occupation by squatters who moved in after the Romans drove us from our native land. The Holy Land is Arab-occupied Israel!!!
Arabs initially refused to be called "Palestinians," insisting they were an inseparable part of one pan-Arab Nation.
Many readers may be shocked to learn that "Palestinians" in modern parlance at first didn't refer to Arabs at all. "Palestinians" initially described post-Holocaust Jews immigrating to the Holy Land. The Jerusalem Post, a Jewish newspaper, was formerly The Palestinian Post.
Neither is there any connection between local 'Palestinian' Arabs and the ancient Philistines or ancient "Palestine." Modern 'Palestinian' Arabs freely acknowledge they are Arabs. Yet, any reputable encyclopedia will confirm for you that the ancient Philistines weren't Arabs at all. In fact, the ancient Philistines were an Aegean people who existed before Avraham — before the first Arabs and Jews were even born!
Until 135 C.E., the name "Palestine" referred only to a portion of Syria and עזה (Azah; — Hellenized to 'Gaza'), not to Israel or Yәhudah. It wasn't until some time after 135 C.E. that Romans renamed Yәhudah to "Palestine" — in a deliberately misojudaic gesture. 'Palestine' as a name for Yәhudah or Israel never existed prior to the Roman renaming some time after 135 C.E.! Ever since, only the thoughtless, the ignorant and misojudaics call it 'Palestine.'
[Updated: 2007.01.29]Notice that for the first few centuries – until the 3rd century, documented below – there were only bishops – no "popes"!!!
The Hebrew derives from the verb פקד (pâqad; he supervised, oversaw – i.e., exacted accountability [Hosheia 1.4], held accountable, mustered, monitored or audited). This was understood in the Hellenist community as επισκεπτομαι (episkeptomai; judge critically, examine).
The fem. noun cognate, פקודה (pәqudâh), means overseeing, supervision, mustering or auditing.
The first 15 pәqidim are listed by the earliest extant Church historian, (EH loc. cit. and "Jerusalem," EJ 9:1405). More documentation and details are found in Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)
 Hadrian (117-138 C.E.) |
The earliest extant Church historian, Eusebius, documents (EH IV.v.3) that in 135 C.E. Hellenist proto-Christians, collaborating with the Hellenist Roman occupiers under Hadrian, forcibly ousted and expelled the 15th Nәtzârim Pâqid from Yәrushâlayim with the other Jews, displacing him with the first Roman gentile – Christian – bishop: Επισκοπος Μαρκος (Episkopos Markos; Bishop Markos) – thereby usurping the Nәtzârim paqid with the first gentile Christian "bishop." This marks the true birth of Christianity and the Church.
Until Hegesippus in the 3rd century, there were only bishops – no popes!!! Hegesippus himself documents that he fabricated the papal succession: εποιησαμην, (epoieisamein; "I made) the list of the succession…." This is the first aorist indicative middle singular of ποιεω (poieo, "I make" or "I do"). Even this is documented no earlier than the 4th century C.E., by Eusebius (EH IV.xxii.3). See also, inter alia, "Pius I," Smith & Wace, "A Dictionary of Christian Biography," IV.416 and Yirmәyâhu Bën-Dâvid, Who Are the Netzarim? Live-Link (WAN Live-Link)). Hegesippus then projected his fabrication of the 3rd century back to "S*imon P*eter."
Thus, the pope is documented to be false, an imposter pâqid – the 11th horn of the 4th beast of Dâniyeil 7.25 – with no connection to Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh . Everything the papacy has usurped, and all authority the pope falsely claims, depends on Displacement Theology and rightfully remains, and must be returned to, the domain of the Pâqid ha-Nәtzârim.
Note, too, that the Nәtzârim succession of Pәqidim is the chain of authority in Yәrushâlayim (not Rome) that was recognized by Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh — whom Christians claim was the first pope. (If Shimon "Keiphâ" Bar-Yonâh had defied the Beit-Din in Yәrushâlayim, which he didn't, then he would have been excised as an apostate — no longer legitimate — as Paul the Apostate was decades later.)
As Talmud (Horayot 3b) demonstrates from Biblical text, Halâkhâh from the first century and before holds that only in the land of Israel may Jews be legitimately referred to as a qahal (convocation, community). There were no more pәqidim, nor any legitimately identifiable group of Nәtzarim until 1983 when Yirmәyahu Ben-David was admitted by Orthodox rabbis as a Nәtzarim into the legitimate Jewish community where he thereby became the first, and only, identifiable Nәtzarim in the legitimate Jewish community since 135 C.E.
Halâkhâh requires that every community constitute a beit din. While normally comprising three Torâh-observant Jews recognized by Orthodox rabbis (who were called 'Pharisees' in the first century), Halâkhâh permits small communities to constitute a beit din with as few as one Torâh-observant Jew recognized by Orthodox rabbis.
Accordingly, as the only Nәtzarim in the legitimate Jewish community since 135 C.E., Halâkhâh required Yirmәyahu Ben-David to restore the Nәtzarim beit din to operation for the first time since 135 C.E. and shoulder the mantle of Paqid that had been vacated by the gentile ouster of Paqid Yәhudah in 135 C.E. Thus, Paqid Yirmәyahu became the 16th Paqid of the Nәtzarim, restoring the Nәtzarim as an identifiable group within the legitimate (Orthodox) Jewish community as they were in 135 C.E.
See also Dâniyeil's prophecies in The Nәtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) note 16.19.5; James Parkes, The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism (New York: A*th*e*n-eum, 1977) p. 93 and Bellarmino Bagatti, The Church from the Circumcision (Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1971), p. 9.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]The pârâshot Shâvua (or Sidrot) are successive weekly portions of Torâh, with associated Haphtârâh selections from the Nәviyim. Jews all over the world read the same pârâshâh on any given Shabât in every Beit ha-Kәnësët around the world.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.06.14]A Hellenist Turk Jew (from Tarsus, Turkey), Shâ·ul was, by his own testimony, raised in the tradition of Beit-Shamai (Ma·avâr 26.5), which predominated the Beit-Din ha-Jâdol until 20 C.E. Jerome alleged, probably to create a fictional proximity to Ribi Yәhoshua, that his family was originally from the Gâlil.
Shâ·ul later studied in Yәrushâlayim under Nâsi Ribi Jamliyeil – who taught the less-strict tradition of Beit-Hileil and, presumably, reoriented Shâ·ul to its less-strict interpretations. Apparently rebelling against the strict teachings of his upbringing, Shâ·ul found this an intellectually liberating enlightenment, which prepared him for his eventual "vision" that would manifest itself in his extreme swing from the strictness of his upbringing to an obsessive "vision" of Hellenism and assimilation in the tradition of Yәhoshua Bën-Shimon (II) Bën-Tzâdoq.
Paul's rabid obsession with Hellenism is evidenced:
Circa 36 C.E., "Rav Sha·ul" was in Yәrushâlayim where, as a loyal Hellenist Roman citizen, he had been persecuting the Nәtzârim. As he was leaving Yәrushâlayim on his return to Damascus, Syria, he was met by a prototype of Justin, who gave him a Hellenist "vision" of "J*esus" that was compatible with his Roman citizenship and inspired anew his Hellenist "enlightenment" (Ma·avâr 26.12ff). There is good reason to wonder, given the description in Ma·avâr 26.15ff, which Yәhoshua inspired Paul's Hellenism, Ribi Yәhoshua Bën-Dâvid, as claimed by Christians, the more likely rabid Hellenist paradigm, Yәhoshua Bën-Shimon (II) Bën-Tzâdoq – who was certainly the champion of Hellenism among the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim Kohanei hâ-Rësha or, even more likely, a hybrid image of the two that formed in Paul's mind and developed into the 4th-century Christian idol.
This prototype of Justin who met with Paul on the road to Damascus was almost certainly the Kohein hâ-Rësha – the same Sâtân (or his successor) who offered the same deal to Ribi Yәhoshua (The Nәtzarim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matityâhu (NHM) 4.8-11). However, whereas Ribi Yәhoshua refused the deal, Paul, offered the same "vision" on the road to Damascus, Syria, accepted it and the rest is history.
Before his "first mission" (to Cyprus) in 45 C.E., Paul's intractable insistence on his Hellenist "vision" eventually resulted in a breach and his kâreit, being expunged from the yukhasin (not merely the Nәtzârim), as documented by Eusebius (EH III.xxvii.4), described with typical Judaic elegance in the NT (Ma·avâr 15.38) as "having been 'delivered over to khën (graciousness) of י--ה by the brothers" (see notes in Appendix IV, Transition 15, Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' (ABNC)).
Until his kâreit, the point noted in Ma·avâr 13.9 (and described in Ma·avâr 15.38), he is referred to as Shâ·ul, while in Ma·avâr 13.9 he is last called by his Hebrew name, Shâ·ul, and first called by his Hellenist name, Paul – the apostate never again (except by himself in his own letters) referred to as Shâ·ul.
Christian beliefs about Paul's "martyrdom" range from execution by Romans for practicing Judaism ("proving" Paul's Christianity was Judaism) to murder by Jews for being a Christian. Both are driven by a need to corroborate Christianity rather than historical fact. It's no accident that Paul, a rabidly Hellenist Jew, was executed, in Rome, between 66-68 C.E. This is precisely the time that the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim, with whom Paul was intimately and inextricably tied, declared war on Rome (see Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim). Paul was killed by the Romans at this time because he was a Hellenist Jew, no different in any significant respect from the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim in Yәrushâlayim who had declared war on them. Paul's execution by the Romans had no more to do with his proto-Christian theology than the Roman killings of other Hellenist Jews, who had no connection to his theology, during this period as tensions mounted toward the destruction of Yәrushâlayim and the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini in 70 C.E. Because it was the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim who had attacked the Roman occupiers in Yәrushâlayim, the Romans focused their retaliation particularly on Hellenist Jews, like Paul; for a short time leaving non-Hellenist Jews outside of Yәhudâh in relative, though fearful, oppressed and short-lived, "peace."
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]
[Updated: 2006.04.27]The Pәrushi appeared in Judaism in the Maccabean period (B.C.E. 2nd century). These early rabbis were the first to establish local Batei ha-Kәnësët to encourage local prayer patterned after the liturgy of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh. One of the reasons that Ribi Yәhoshua incurred such wrath from the Hellenist pseudo-Tzәdoqim Kohanei hâ-Rësha is because Ribi Yәhoshua was becoming so successful in popularizing the practice of praying in Batei ha-Kәnësët among the masses, which was perceived as a religious, political and financial a threat to the pseudo-Tzәdoqim who, along with the Hellenist Romans, controlled the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini.
[Updated: 2006.04.27] [Updated: 2006.04.27]