Home (Netzarim Logo)
Hadrian (117-138 C.E.)

(117-138 C.E.)

Sukah 7 (Hut, Booth or Exhibit #7)

Birth of Christianity

Displacement Theology (Chiristian & Muslim)
Misojudaic Perversions of Scripture

Christian Beliefs Inherited From Idolatry

c BCE 3100: Egyptian Mythology
Son Of God, Killed, In Netherworld, Resurrected From Dead

According to the ancient Egyptian religion, Hōrus (son of Ō•siris {later equated to sun-god , then Hellenist Helios and Roman Sol & Sun[god]day} and Isis {later equated to Hât-Hōr}) was murdered by Set, who butchered Hōrus and scattered his body parts in the Nile. Isis later found all of Hōrus body parts and, thus, resurrected Hōrus from the Nile (see also Egyptian Pharaonic Princess-cum-Isis finding Mōsh•ëh in the Nile).

These anthropomorphisms are forms of idolatry, which were strictly prohibited, punishable by death, in Tōr•âh.

c BCE 450: Hellenist Mythology
W. Turkey Hellenist Orpheus: Son of God
Inspired W. Turkey Hellenist Pauls Theophany c. 33 C.E.?

Orpheus was The Good Shepherd and a mythical musician-god that played the lyre. In some versions, Orpheus the son of sun-god Apollo (and, thus, the grandson of Ζεύς). According to the myth, he descended into the underworld (Hades) to resurrect his wife from the dead—co-opting the account of Ribi Yᵊho•shua 3 day & 3 nights in the underworld (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu note 12.40.2; also 1 Peter 4.6). Orpheus was also crucified according to this talisman.

Described by Strabo (BCE 64 c 24 CE), who also happened to be a Hellenist from what is today western Turkey — where Hellenist-convert Apostate Paul was also from. Hence, it is virtually certain that the new Hellenist-convert Apostate Paul became aware of the Orpheus myth; and the anthropomorphisms of a Son of God [namely, Apollo, later converged with Ζεύς]—the similarities gelling in his mind en route to Damascus! This isnt at all proof that Pᵊrūsh•i Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa was a myth; but rather offers the most likely inspiration for Pauls epiphany — to repackage the historical Pᵊrūsh•i Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa in a version attractive, marketable, to Hellenists—which the Apostate Paul subsequently spun into his Καινής Διαθήκης and seven original churches of Christianity in western Turkey, where the term Christian originated (Acts 11:19-26)!

c 135 C.E. — The Orpheos Bakkikos Crucifix Talisman
Orpheos Bakkikos talisman amulet and casting (Carotta)
Click to see magnified image
Click to enlargeOrpheos Bakkikos talisman drawing (A. Becker in F. Carotta, p.8). Talisman featured wax­ing moon (conflated with horns of a bull and Hât-Hōr), placing the crucified figure as the waxing moon dominating the 7 then-known planet-stars—​incorporated into Apostate Pauls original 7 churches of Christ­ianity and his Καινής Διαθήκης.

Initially misrepresented as proof that Christianity was based on a mythical Jesus and, as a result, according to Christians, had to be a fake. Carotta proves that all of the claims of fakery are specious. To be sure, the Orpheos Bakkikos Crucifix talisman doesnt imply that the historical Pᵊrūsh•i Ribi Yᵊhō•shūa was a myth, but rather that this likely inspired the Apostate Paul when he co-opted Hellenist Orphean beliefs to write his Καινής Διαθήκης, producing the Christian mythological fake, Jesus .

The talisman (inventory #4939) conveniently disappeared from the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum (formerly the Berlin Antiquarium, later the Berlin Bode Museum) during World War II. The museum had obtained the piece in 1869 from Eduard Gerhard: co-founder and secretary of the first international archaeological society; archaeologist at the Royal Museum of Berlin, member of the American Antiquarian Society, member of the Academy of Sciences, and a professor in Berlin University—hardly a counterfeiter! Christian theologians masquerading as historians and archeologists labeled the Orpheos Bakkikos Crucifix talisman a fake. If it had been a fake, however, it would have been safeguarded at all costs as proof of t—the fakery!

These anthropomorphisms are forms of idolatry, which were strictly prohibited, punishable by death, in Tōr•âh.

60-132 C.E.

"Black Hole" In History Where Christians Claim
✧    Nᵊtzâr•im⇒ Christian Transition
Is Supposed To Have Occurred

(See "30-99 C.E." & "100-199 C.E." Sections)

Only the Church could have kept the record of this period blank… Why???

Ηγησιππος Cuts Off His Account at 60 C.E.

Biblical Judaism / Second Temple Judaism, Historical Ribi Yehoshua, and his Netzarim followers ALWAYS mutually exclusive from Khristianoi; no point of convergence or transition (chart)
Click to enlargeJudaism-Christian Timeline

"It must be observed that just at this point [60 C.E., in Ηγησιππος' account of the flight of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Hellenist Christians to Pella see section 30-99 C.E.], when he has indicated the moment of the introduction of heterodox teaching, Ηγησιππος' sketch of the history of the [Jewish / Congregation] of [], and consequently the argument founded upon it, seems to have come to an end. For though Ευσεβιος gives a list of the [15 pᵊqid•im] up to the reign of Hadrian [117-138 C.E.; actually, until exactly 135 C.E.], and tells us that they were short-lived, and later on adds a list of their [gentile επισκοπος usurpers, see "Fabrication of Popes" section],

"he tells us nothing else about the fortunes of the [—Jewish—Congregation'] from the reign of Trajan [98 C.E.] to the end of the second century, except the fact that after the seige under Hadrian [135 C.E., consequent to the Bar-Kokh Revolt and physical displacement of the from cum Aelia Capitolina] it became a Gentile community… It is scarcely conceivable that if Ηγησιππος had carried his history beyond the death of [Shim•on Bën-Khëlëph Bën-Dâ•wid that] Ευσεβιος would not have used the material thus afforded." (The Nᵊtzârim Reconstruction of Hebrew Matitᵊyâhu (NHM, in English) note 24.15.6, citing H.J. Lawlor, "Eusebiana, Essays on the Hypomnemata of Hegesippus, ca. 120-180 C.E.," p. 64.)

Ηγησιππος' history of the was finished at that point. Instead, Ηγησιππος then turns his attention to his self-confessed ἐποιησάμην" by Ηγησιππος of the counterfeit image (see "Ieisous Name" and "Ieisous Face" sections in menu above)—arising in Rome, displacing (cf. see "Fabrication of Popes" section in menu above, Dân•iy•eil 7 and The 1993 Covenant Live-Link ).

Incorporating analyses of the Dead Sea Scrolls—which were secreted by the participants in the -, Jesuit Priest Fitzmyer notes, shed considerably more light on the -.

"The number of historical documents pertaining to the [pre-135 C.E.] second century [C.E.] in [] has always been small. It is consequently of interest to learn of new discoveries of original texts which come from that century and shed light on an otherwise obscure movement in the history of that part of the world. Though this movement has little direct bearing on Christianity, it is an important episode in the history of the Jewish people, for it is in effect the aftermath of the fateful destruction of [] by the Romans in [70 C.E.] and the beginning of their long separation from the Holy City… the details of the Second Revolt under -, which apparently rivaled the first in scope and duration, have been only very briefly recorded by contemporary writers. Hence any new information, no matter how meager, helps to fill out the picture." (Jesuit Priest Fitzmyer, p. 305)

How suspect, that the very period that Christian historians refused to record is precisely that period they claim is the supposed magical "Poof!" transition from Judaic pro- to misojudaic anti-Tor•âh ("antinomian") gentile Hellenist Roman Christians of the new Displacement Theology! And how peculiar that if such a transition had occurred, how thoroughly and meticulously these Christian historians would have documented it!

This termination of the account coincides with the inability of Christian writers to come up with any plausible gloss-over (much less serious explanation) for:

  1. the discontinuity between the , who had excised their founder, and their Hellenist beginnings in 60 C.E. coupled with

  2. their forcible displacing of the in 135 C.E.

Comparison: Documented Facts & Logic vs "Poof!" point!!!

Anyone who disputes these documented facts and logical reasoning must, first, present documented facts and logical reasoning to replace their current dependence on the foolishness of a "Poof!" point!!!

Arguments from those who cling to Christian traditions, which dangle from the "Poof!" point, are a conspicuously idolatrous extension to Hellenist mythology.

Rainbow Rule
In a Nutshell

Only after 135 C.E. and the Roman occupiers' eradication of the Davidic Royal yo•khas•in (genealogies) was the budding gentile Roman Hellenist Christian Church able to usurp the Pâ•qid and Beit Din, claiming supersession by their επισκοπος. In parallel, some time between 142-168 C.E. according to the earliest extant Church historian Ευσεβιος (Eccl. Hist., IV.xxii.3), Ηγησιππος began ἐποιησάμην their non-existent succession of popes.

Rainbow Rule

132 C.E.


It should set off alarm bells that a number of prominent historians, at least in some of their books, skirt around the - with almost no comment or even mention (inter alia, Louis H. Feldman, Solomon Zeitlin, Victor Tcherikover, et al.).

"Prevailing scholarly opinion, based upon [Qo•hëlët] 36.7, holds that [the ] prayer originated during the Syrian-Hellenistic oppression [B.C.E. 175-164] in the time of the [second -]" ("Birkat Ha-Minim," Meir Ydit, Encyclopedia Judaica).

Misdating the by a couple of centuries combined with failure to distinguish between and Χριστιανοι (documented in our 30-99 C.E. section) injected error, attempting to associate the in the sole paragraph that the late Oxford historian James Parkes devoted to the -.

Based on Justinus Martyr (ca. 150-163 C.E., First Apology, xxxi; Patrologia Graeco-Latina, VI,p. 375), Parkes and Jesuit Priest Fitzmyer both regurgitate Justin's claim that, during this period, "Then indeed they [Χριστιανοι] suffered severely for their refusal to accept [-], and to share in the defence of the city, and many were put to death" (Parkes, p. 93). What neither mentions, however, is that Justin identifies himself with the Χριστιανοι stating: "We alone are hated, even though we hold the same as the Greeks" (see also Justinus Martyr). There is no doubt, whatsoever, that Justin referred to Χριστιανοι "suffering severely," not .

Causes of the -

Two reasons "are seriously considered today" (Jesuit Priest Fitzmyer) as plausible causes of the -. A third must be added:

Gentile Roman Hellenism Impossible for
  1. Temple of Zeus on site of -: Hadrian erected a temple dedicated to the Hellenist god, Zeus (Hellenist Roman god, Jupiter) Capitolinus over the ruins of the -. There can be no question that, like all other , the were well documented as recognizing the holiness and sanctity of the -.

  2. Ban on Circumcision: Hadrian included circumcision in his wider ban on castration (not aimed at Jews specifically), a crime punishable by death. Like all other , the continued to uphold the most basic of .

  3. - Royalty: As we have shown in our 30-99 C.E. section, the continuing campaign to find and eliminate every yo•khas•in (genealogy) and living Royal descendant of -. The preferred, perhaps exclusively, - for their . Certainly, like the other , the upheld the messianic doctrine of the prophesied eternal reign by -. This was another contributing cause of the -.

Gentile Roman Hellenist Χριστιανοι Unaffected by Gentile Roman Hellenism

It's instructive to examine how each may have affected the Χριστιανοι contrasted with the .

  1. Temple of Zeus on site of -: some 75 years after Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer infused Hellenism producing the Χριστιανοι, they were far along syncretizing his Hellenized tritheism with their own Hellenist images—including the increasing convergence of their imaging of the Hellenized Ιησους into their native perception—idol—Zeus.

  2. Ban on Circumcision: Χριστιανοι didn't bother with circumcision. They were entirely unaffected by this ban.

  3. - Royalty: Convinced that their Hellenized, image-idol version, Ιησους, had provided "salvation" for gentiles, Χριστιανοι had no interest in any further successors of -.

Rainbow Rule
On Opposites Sides From Hellenist Roman Gentile Occupiers & Hellenist Roman Gentile Χριστιανοι Occupiers

Relative to each plausible cause of the conflict, Χριστιανοι were inclined toward their fellow Hellenist Romans (except for their worship of, and sacrificing to, Caesar) while the were inclined toward their fellow .

When we look back on (section) 30-66 C.E., we can easily see that the Hellenist Χριστιανοι wouldn't have been willing to fight on the side of the "Jews" — whom they were constantly striving to supersede and displace, "Jews" who rioted at them and stoned them as apostates—against their fellow gentile Roman Hellenists.

By contrast, the , who included -, ‭ ‬ -and the all viewed the Hellenist Χριστιανοι as the Hellenist, Roman occupier, foreigner enemy.

The only group of Jews identifying with Hellenist Romans were the Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι – criticized by and other as " "!!!

Rainbow Rule The Conflict Was Not

Given the facts above, it is logically impossible to continue maintaining the conventional Christian version that the aligned with any Gentile Roman Hellenists against their fellow -keeping .

Rainbow Rule The Conflict Was

Contrary to redacted Gentile Hellenist Roman Χριστιανοι accounts, the conflict was between pro-Caesar Hellenist Gentile Roman Occupiers against -keeping (including )!!!

Rainbow Rule Fledgling Caesar-worship rejecting Χριστιανοι Supported Neither

Consequently, persecutions of the Caesar-worship rejecting Χριστιανοι would have come from the pro-Caesar Roman Hellenists and continued from the and other , who regarded the Χριστιανοι as apostate collaborators with the Roman occupiers. Persecutions of , by contrast, were at the hands of the Hellenist Roman occupiers—increasingly abetted by the Χριστιανοι.

Rainbow Rule No Historical Break Between &

Accordingly, the premise that the - created a break between and is false—self-contradicting and self-disproving. The certainly fought shoulder-to-shoulder with their fellow- to liberate from the Hellenist Roman-occupiers!!!

It is also crystal clear that the Hellenist Χριστιανοι, most of whom were Roman foreigners – followers of those who had been stoned and rioted against by the since Στεφανος and Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer – would not have sided with the (including the ) against their fellow Hellenist Roman !!!

Χριστιανοι: Cannot Worship Caesar

Because these Hellenist Roman Χριστιανοι rejected Caesar-worship, neither could they side with the pro-rejected Caesar-worshiping Hellenist Roman Occupiers.

Universally Alienated Fledgling Hellenist Roman Χριστιανοι

Thus, the Hellenist Roman Χριστιανοι became increasingly desperate to differentiate and distance themselves from the and other enemies of their fellow Hellenist Roman ; thereby magnifying their increasing hostility toward the and other . The result made them increasingly more misojudaic as the chasm grew more hostile – finally, and for the first time anyone has done so, fully pinpointing the origin of Χριστιανοι misojudaism.

In the same stroke, however, their rebellion against Caesarrejecting Caesar-worship – also drew the ire and ignited the enmity of Caesar and the Roman Empire.

The ones who were crushed in the crossfire, viewed as an enemy by both sides, were the in-between, orphaned Caesar-worship rejecting Hellenist Roman Χριστιανοι.

The Lost: Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι

Having been deprived of the - when the Hellenist Romans turned it into a pagan temple of Zeus, subsequently defrocked, homeless and jobless, Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι seem lost to history by this time. Perhaps serendipitously, university genetic research has shown that, just at this time, a large immigration of unmarried male Jews from the Middle East begin to appear in Europe – today's Ash•kᵊnazim.

This raises an interesting question, so far not answered by the scientific research: did their unmarried state indicate that these were:

  1. the lost "Essenes," the pristine from Qum•rân who are thought to have been celibates?

  2. Or might these have been the suddenly uprooted Hellenist Σαδδουκαιοι?

  3. Or might they have been some mixture of these two?

135 C.E.

Roman Destruction and Expulsion of Jews
Roman Hellenists Dedicate Aelia Capitolina To City of Zeus

Following the destruction of the Hellenized "Second Temple" in 70 C.E., the Roman occupiers next, in response to the Bar-Kokh Rebellion of 135 C.E., destroyed the city of , which had, even back then, already been the Jews' Holy Capital for 1159 years (since B.C.E. 1024).

The Roman occupiers then expelled all Yᵊhud•im from – including our 15th Pâ•qid, a Yᵊhud•i named Yᵊhud•âh.

"Hadrian now resolved to launch a war of annihilation against the Tor•âh and to expunge the name of [] from the land… Desirous of blotting out, too, all reference to the Jews' [Judeans'] association with [Ërëtz ], Hadrian changed the name of Judea to 'Syria Palaestina,' by which it henceforth came to be known in non-Jewish literature." ("Israel," Ency. Jud., 9:248).

Describing these Roman Hellenist idolaters, the cradle and mother of Christianity and the Church, as misojudaic is fully justified. It's blatant ignorance, or unscholarly negligence, when anyone refers anachronistically to or Yᵊhud•âh as "Palestine" before 135 C.E.. After 135 C.E., it's merely misojudaic (not historically ignorant in addition) to refer to the Judaic Holy Land or our Holy Capital by the Hellenist pagan Roman name (as the ersatz "Palestinians" continue to do).

"Fate of the Jews was sealed"

"Not only were they defeated and massacred or enslaved, but an imperial edict added the crowning ignominy: they were forbidden access to 'Holy City'—an edict which had its consequences until the Six-Day War in 1967." (Jesuit Priest Fitzmyer, Joseph A., p. 351.

Ευσεβιος recorded (corrected to reverse the probable Hellenist redactions):

"…up to the siege of the Jews by Hadrian the successions of [] were fifteen in number. It is said that they were all Hebrews by origin who had nobly accepted the knowledge of [the Mâ•shiakh]… For their whole congregation at that time consisted of Hebrews who had continued [] from the [Shᵊlikh•im] down to the siege at the time when the Jews again rebelled from the Romans and were beaten in a great war. Since the Jewish [] then ceased, it is now necessary to give their names from the beginning. The first was… (see list at ; Eccl. Hist. IV, v.1-3).

"Hadrian then commanded that by a legal decree and ordinances the whole nation should be absolutely prevented from entering from thenceforth even the district round [], so that not even from a distance could it see its ancestral home. Thus, when the city came to be bereft of the nation of the Jews, and its ancient inhabitants had completely perished, it was colonized by foreigners, and the Roman city which afterwards arose changed its name, and in honour of the reigning emperor, Aelius Hadrian, was called Aelia [Capitolina]. The church, too, it it was composed of Gentiles, and after the Jewish the first who was appointed to minister to those there was [Μαρκος]." (Eccl. Hist., IV.vi.3-4).

In the vacuum left in Aelia Capitolina as a result of the Hellenist Roman banishing the , misojudaic Roman Χριστιανοι were enabled to install their first , Rome-oriented, misojudaic "επισκοπος" — Μαρκος.

Cover-Up Exposed

Here, and only here, is the otherwise missing cover up of the gentile Roman occupiers' ouster, usurpation, supersession and displacement theology from strict -observance of 1st-century and his original followers (demonstrated from Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT and Church historians) to the well documented antinomian Christianity of the 4th, and subsequent, centuries!

First "Pope" – in Jerusalem, not Rome

"After the defeat of the revolt, when the [] were formally prohibited from entering , for the first time [anywhere, including Rome] a Gentile [επισκοπος] was established in the city. As the choice of [armed overthrow under -] confirmed the refusal of the to accept [ideological winning of hearts and minds under ], so the [emergence] of a Gentile επισκοπος emphasized the [mutual exclusivity] from [] Judaism of the new religion" (Parkes' similar observation with corrected documented facts and terminology, emphasis added, exposing a popular false parallel {so…}; p. 93).

This false parallel is no different than arguing that "As the the choice of Ribi Hi•leil confirmed the refusal of to accept Ribi Sha•mai, so the presence of a Gentile επισκοπος emphasized the [mutual exclusivity] from [] Judaism of the new religionΧριστιανοι and the Roman gentiles' adapted native Hellenist idol-image, Ιησους.

In the latter example, it is more clearly seen that preference of one Ribi does not imply rejection or expulsion of the other. In fact, was a of Beit Hi•leil. Nor does this preference between two s, both of , have any implications – beyond their mutual rejection of an anti- new religion!!! – regarding rejecting a newHellenist – religion of επισκοπος, Χριστιανοι and Ιησους.

Post-135 C.E.

Apostasy Complete

Χριστιανοι "Authority" Transferred from "Aelia Capitolina" To Rome
Roman Hellenizing (Syncretizing & Redacting)
Even Christian Scholars of the World's Top Universities Agree

Now Rome-oriented for the first time, these post-135 C.E. misojudaic pagan gentiles were the first to proclaim their Romanized, de-Judaized, gentile-saving, divine man-g-o-d image — Ιησους (Jesus)! (See my Who Are The Nᵊtzarim? Live-Link (WAN).)

Further, the Roman occupiers dedicated the city to its Hellenist idols, primarily Greek Hellenist Zeus (aka Roman Hellenist Jupiter), and renamed the city "Aelia Capitolina"; also renaming Yᵊhud•âh (Judea) to "Palestine."

The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible acknowledged:

"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 Διαθηκη Καινη (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"

Of course Hellenist Roman Christians, redacting the Hebrew Judaic texts, made Hellenist Roman Christian redactions that perverted the Judaic texts remolding them to be compatible with "the substance of Hellenist Roman Christian dogma"!!! That's classical circular reasoning!

"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 Διαθηκη Καινη (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 [Hellenist Roman] Christian dogma." (ibid., emphasis added)

Thanks for reminding us that the thousands of Hellenist and native Roman Zeus-rooted theological redactions were, surprise, compatible with the Hellenist Roman Christian dogma they were developing and the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) they were accreting and writing during the 2nd-4th centuries C.E.

"It is because the books of the [Διαθηκη Καινη (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., emphasis added)

"True" according to the beliefs of the antinomian, i.e. misojudaic, Hellenist Roman Christian redactors, of course.

333 C.E.

The Church the

Finally, in 333 C.E., to consolidate the supremacy of their displacement theology, Church priest and historian Bellarmino Bagatti (p. 14) notes the account of Church father Eutychius that the nascent, original, Christian Church the , forcing every one either to abandon the – by celebrating Easter and not Pësakh and eating pork on the way out – or be killed! (Patrologia Graeca, 111.1012-13)

First Copies of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)

Only in the 4th century were the Church fathers finally able to overcome authority and complete their accretion and redactions of their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) until the 4th century. The earliest extant copies of the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) are the Codex Sinaiticus () and the Codex Vaticanus (β).

Codex SinaiticusCodex Vaticanus
Click to enlargeCodex SinaiticusClick to enlargeCodex Vaticanus
All Major Historians of World's Top Universities Concur
4th-Century Anti-Tor•âh Christianity
180° Opposite to
1st Century Pro-Tor•âh
Why? How? And How Does That Affect You As A Christian Today?

It's well established by historians like the late Oxford scholar James Parkes (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue, A Study in the Origins of Anti-Semitism) that post-135 C.E. Christianity — from which ALL Christianity today derived — was the polar opposite, in the most fundamental ways, to the 1st century historical and his original followers. WAN Live-Link Technology demonstrates from the historical record — from archaeological evidence to ancient Judaic documents (e.g. Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT) — that the 1st century historical Pharisee Jew, — and his Jewish followers consistently taught pro-Tor•âh Judaism, implacably contradicting a full 180° the anti-Tor•âh (antinomian) Hellenist Roman (gentile) Christian doctrines. This persisted until 333 CE, when the remaining vestiges of the were by the Church because they defiantly conflicted with the Roman gentile occupiers – the nascent Christian Church – by remaining Tor•âh observant (cf. WAN Live-Link Technology).

Church historian Ευσεβιος recorded that after suppressing the Bar-Kokh Revolt in 135 C.E.,

333 C.E. – The Church the

Finally, in 333 C.E., to consolidate the supremacy of their displacement theology, Church priest and historian Bellarmino Bagatti (p. 14) notes the account of Church father Eutychius that the nascent, original, Christian Church the , forcing every one either to abandon the – by celebrating Easter and not Pësakh and eating pork on the way out – or be killed! (Migne, Jacques P., 3rd century C.E. Patrologia Graeca, 111.1012-13)

All subsequent references are to Χριστιανοι and their Ιησους. Unsurprisingly, these were rejected and aggressively and passionately opposed by , including the .

As Χριστιανοι and their Ιησους ascended with Constantine in the early 4th century, the , being advocates of an eternal - king as their core theme and raison d'être, had been hunted down and by the Romans from 30 C.E. into the mid-2nd century. By the end of the 2nd century they were already a distant, dim and rapidly fading memory, having been forcibly usurped and displaced by the Χριστιανοι and their Ιησους 2 centuries before Constantine. In 135 C.E. the vanished from the historical record. All references subsequent to 135 C.E., by gentiles and Jews, refer to Χριστιανοι, the original Christian root defining all Christians today and who were passionately rejected by the Jews.


Ευσεβιος, the earliest, and primary, extant Church historian, found no Christian record at all of this critical so-called "transition" period.

We have filled in what accounts are extant during the historical "black hole" of 60-130 C.E. from Josephus, Roman historical records and historians of the world's top universities, high-lighting Roman actions and observations that related to these issues (see sections "30-99 C.E." and "100-199 C.E."). But during this critical period, Christians were too small and insignificant to attract much attention from the Romans or Josephus or, after Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer had been excised, the , uninterested in those who had been excised except as they represented a threat, referred to Christians only sparsely and cryptically – as the apostasy or the dragon.

Like Physicists Working Back To "Big Bang"
Proportion of To Χριστιανοι & Historical Awareness
PeriodΧριστιανοι (and Ιησους) (or )
Since 333 C.E. (Includes Ta•lᵊmud)ExclusivelyNone: eradicated by Church and expunged from historical record, 333 C.E.
Since 135 C.E.PredominantHunted & Killed by Σαδδουκαιοι & Romans; by contrast, Josephus recorded that defended against Σαδδουκαιοι & Romans
60-135 C.E."Black Hole"
Before 60 C.E.Non-existentExclusively
No Χριστιανοι (or Ιησους) Before 135 C.E.

There is no Christian record of Christianity between 60-135 C.E.

Before 60 C.E., there is only a record of the . From 60-135 C.E., the Christian Church (4th century and subsequent) permitted only a very sparse record – a "black hole" – of the to be preserved—parts that didn't contradict the Church's account (even purging the records of the Jewish community, burning scrolls, etc.).

After 135 C.E., there is only a record of Christianity—plus post-135 C.E. Christian redactions projected back into the 1st century, accounts that are betrayed by their intractable contradicting of and by the dating of the earliest extant manuscripts as post-135 C.E. recountings of Hellenist-to-Christian stories syncretized with Hellenist mythology.

This "black hole" is all the more astonishing because the entirety of Christian claims hang from the single strand of demonstrating their continuity from the original !

However, such continuity does not exist; and Christians have, for millennia, employed all manner of argumentation to distract attention from this "black hole" in which all Christian claims of supersession, Displacement Theology and legitimacy of their Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) are buried.

The Caesar-worship rejecting Syncretism: Ιησους

By 135 C.E., tiny groups of the Caesar-worship rejecting Χριστιανοι scattered throughout the Roman Empire, often having to keep as low a profile as they could to avoid execution by Caesar, had already developed multiple versions of a counterfeit replacement: a syncretism of their native Hellenist mythology blended with stories from Hellenist Jews.

The dragon's egg, conceived by Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer, was ready to hatch.

Birth of Christian Church:
Fountain of Misojudaism

Once hatched, however, the hatchling, a non-Jewish Hellenist counterfeit, lacked credibility to displace the original and authentic without first discrediting the earlier authentic and original . The earliest Christians undertook this with a vengeance that would have repercussions for millennia.

Ευσεβιος, himself implicitly admitting that he didn't know the differences between an "Ebionite" and a "Nazarene," documented the origin of the Church's misojudaism, in chaotic confusion, trying to distinguish between Jewish "Ebionites" and "Nazarenes":

"The evil Demon, unable to wrest them from god's plan in Christ, ensnared them in a different way. The first householders named these Ebionites because they had poor and humble praise concerning Christ" (Ευσεβιος, Ecclesiastical History, III, xxvii, 1).

[Referring to ]

"They held him to be a plain and ordinary man who had achieved [justness] merely by the progress of his character and had been born naturally from Mary and her husband. They insisted on the complete observation of the [Tor•âh & Ha•lâkh•âh], and did not think that they would be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a life in accordance with it.

[Referring to Ëv•yon•im]

"But there were others besides these who have the same name. These escaped the absurd folly of the first mentioned, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a Virgin and the Holy Spirit, but nevertheless agreed with them in not confessing his pre-existence as god, being the λογος and Wisdom.

[Referring to ]

"Thus they shared in the impiety of the former class, especially in that they were equally zealous to insist on the literal observance of [Tor•âh & Ha•lâkh•âh]. They thought that the letters of the [Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer] ought to be wholly rejected and called him an apostate from [Tor•âh & Ha•lâkh•âh]. They used only the Gospel called according to the Hebrews and made little account of the rest.

[Referring to Ëv•yon•im]

Like the former they used to observe Sabbath and the rest of the Jewish ceremonial, but on [Sun(god)days] celebrated rites like ours in commemoration of the Savior's resurrection. Wherefore from these practices they have obtained their name, for the name of Ebionites indicates the poverty of their intelligence, for this name means 'poor' in Hebrew." (Ευσεβιος, Eccl. Hist., III, xxvii, 1-6).

These excoriations of the would echo against Jews generally for millennia.


The eminent Oxford historian, James Parkes, demonstrated in his book (The Conflict of the Church and the Synagogue), that, in 135 C.E., when the Romans expelled the leadership from "Aelia Capitolina" (and subsequently from the rest of Israel "Palestine" through the 4th and 5th centuries C.E.), idolatrous Hellenist Roman gentiles—including a small minority of Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer's Caesar-worship rejecting Hellenist Christians—filled the vacuum left by the exiled and absent and Beit-Din.

No longer prevented by the , Hellenist gentile Christians began to freely syncretize their own pagan and polytheistic belief system, displacing Judaism of the , thus creating their own apostate counterfeit, based on stories learned from Hellenist-Jews, converging their native, Hellenist, polytheistic chief god, their idol Zeus Jupiter, with their Hellenizing image of a tritheistic chief god Jesus—converged in the same idol, the face of which was an enhanced sculpture of Alexander the Great.

The diametric and intractable differences between historical, Judaic, Ribi Yᵊhoshua and the apostate Roman image are myriad and discussed throughout the ' Quarter,' especially in the pages of this Museum of history.

After 2 Millennia, Finally Hope

For the first time since 135 CE, mainstream Orthodox Jews and genuine followers of Ribi Yᵊho•shua do wind up on the same team, sharing the same goals and learning to cooperate to further the truth — the historically-authentic teachings, of Ribi Yᵊho•shua of Nâ•tzᵊr•at.

These, and countless similar life-changing experiences for both Jews and Christians, are being accomplished by restoring historical accuracy, documentation and honesty to the Judeo-Christian Dialogue.

Hebrew Matthew

Uncovering the genuine historical Pharisee Jew who was Ribi Yᵊho•shua, and his authentic teachings, requires identifying the authentic record, the earliest extant source documents that chronicle his life and true teachings. Only the earliest extant source documents help filter out subsequent — well-documented and extensive — redactions of the Roman gentile Hellenist pagans.

The earliest extant Church historian, Ευσεβιος, was describing the original followers of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, the Jews, when he declared that the "only" account they accepted of the life and authentic teachings of Ribi Yᵊho•shua was "their own Hebrew Matthew" (later Hellenized by non-Jews to the Greek "Gospel of St. Matthew").

The original, Jewish, followers of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, the , never accepted the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT). Indeed, the Διαθηκη Καινη (NT) didn't even exist in their time (up through 135 CE). Moreover, the Jews regarded only the Ta•na"kh as Scripture.

Source Manuscripts for Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhu

Beginning in 5th Century C.E.
  1. Extant Hebrew source texts begin in the 5th century C.E. with occasional citations from Ta•lᵊmud. (Earliest source mss. are date only from the 14th century (incurring serious questions concerning which perceptions guided the transmitters), whereas the tradition extends back into the 1st century and earlier.)

  2. The source mss. trail of Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhu continues with Nestor (9th century C.E.),

  3. Ya•a•qov Bën-Ru•vein's Mi•lᵊkhâm•ot ha-Sheim (1170 C.E.),

  4. Ms. Or. Rome #53 (12th century C.E.),

  5. Seiphër Yo•seiph ha-Mᵊqan•ei (13th century C.E.),

  6. Seiphër Ni•tzakh•on Yâ•shân (13th century C.E.), and

  7. The Ëvën Bo•khan (1380 C.E., cf. George Howard, The Gospel of Matthew according to a Primitive Hebrew Text, Macon: Mercer Univ. Press, 1987).

Following a well-established trend in this Hebrew tradition, the subsequent Munster of 1537 C.E. and du Tillet of 1555 C.E., translated from the Greek (George Howard, "Was the Gospel of Matthew Originally Written in Hebrew?," Bible Review, Winter 1986, p. 19), virtually complete the evolution toward agreement with Church doctrines and the 1611 King James Διαθηκη Καινη (NT), popularly thought to derive from the "original" Greek (the Textus Receptus (TR) of 1624. (Check the dates – yep, they're correct.)

Since Ëvën Bo•khan is the earliest extant complete Hebrew source for Ma•titᵊyâhu, the subsequent Munster and du Tillet represent only further corruption and (variant) Christianization of the Hebrew tradition subsequent to the Ëvën Bo•khan.

Judaic documents providing the perspective within which Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhu must be interpreted are discussed in WAN Live-Link Technology.

As NHM repeatedly shows, TR sometimes diverges from all of the ancient source mss. and was basically rendered from the King James English published, also under King James, 13 years earlier - only 2 years after the 1609 expulsion of the last remnants of Jews from England. KJ/V and TR are the antithesis of unbiased and reliable texts from which to reconstruct the original Hebrew – yet, these are the "sources" for the perverse Hebrew translation of KJ/V called the "B'rit Hadashah".

A compendium of more than 25 years research, we publish "our own" Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhu, reconstructed from the earliest extant Hebrew (listed above) and Greek (א & β) source documents with extensive Judaic explanations: NHM.

Evidence from Hebrew Ma•titᵊyâhu

not Παύλος the Apostate Hellenizer or his Διαθηκη Καινη (NT)

"Pope" means "father." Read NHM 23.9:

"You are not to call anyone upon the earth Father so-and-so, because you have One Father of the heavens."

explicitly proscribed a "pope"!!! But the Displacement Theology of the Hellenist Romans, who had just vanquished the Jews in war, destroyed our Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, expelled us from , burned our scrolls and yo•khas•in and usurped our expelled Jewish Pâ•qid and Beit Din. This original Christian Church then went on to pervert our teachings 180° – prohibiting circumcision and forbidding us to learn or teach – all upon pain of death!!! Who cannot distinguish this as something diametrically different from what – the Dead Sea Scrolls finally proved – the that the "hated Jews who denied the divinity of Ιησους, who thereby remained "under the law of sin and death" (Rom 8.2), "sons of Satan" (Jn 8.44) and enemies of the Church who should be killed (Lu 19.27) had practiced and taught for millennia. Who cannot see the glaring contradictions?

Atonement In the Biblical 'New Covenant' Live-Link (ABNC): With Israel
Not Displacement Theology

The entire history of ki•pur relative to the bᵊrit•ot with made this newly born Church of gentile Hellenist Roman Christians dependent upon their Roman bishops' ability to represent to their Christian followers the false security that Roman gentiles had displaced Jews as the people of God and the "covenant".

Gentiles' claims to atonement rested, and continue to rest, solely upon this displacement of Jews by gentiles. Only through displacement do gentiles have any claim of obtaining atonement. In other words, Christians' salvation depends entirely on the Christian claim of Displacement Theology: claimed transferral from -keeping Jews to anti- (antinomian) gentiles.

For further information, see ABNC Live-Link Technology), which demonstrates how non-Jews can obtain the ki•pur promised to by -- by abandoning Christianity; not through "believing in the Messiah" like Christianity, but by coming to live and practice according to Ha•lâkh•âhnon-selectively.

The implications are both enormous and shocking. Observing , non-selectively and according to Ha•lâkh•âh, to the best of one's ability is a prerequisite to 'salvation.' By contrast, identifying the Mâ•shiakh is nowhere stipulated as a precondition to ki•pur.

The urgency of following as the Mâ•shiakh lies in facilitating the transition for Jews and gentiles who have recognized the Mâ•shiakh to now begin to follow him, for the first time, in non-selective -observance according to Ha•lâkh•âh, not in 'saving' Jews – the only ones who already have ki•pur!

The Dragon Exposed

Dân•iy•eil described a "Fourth Dragon," widely interpreted to refer to Rome and Hellenism, which would be very different from the mammalian "beasts" before it (see Dân•iy•eil 7.7-8; 12.3 and WAN Live-Link Technology).

As prophesied, from its conception ca. 46-47 C.E., Christianity developed as an oviparous offspring of the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire. The Church's incubation as an independent Hellenist egg culminated in 135 C.E., whereupon its mother, the gentile Hellenist Roman Empire, fed it predigested and regurgitated Roman Hellenism – including Hellenism's characteristic extensive syncretism, until Christianity hatched as the gentile Hellenist Roman Christian Church in 333 C.E. – the same year the Christian Church the .

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,
Rainbow Rule
Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic