Home (Netzarim Logo)

Πελλα (Pella), Who Fled?

Seeing The Darkening Clouds Of War From Rome Reforming (After The 33 C.E. Crucifixion)

Ca. 62 C.E. – Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι "Get Outta Dodge" (Judea)

See also Πελλα in page 4 of "30-99 CE" in our History Museum
Paqid Yirmeyahu (Paqid 16, the Netzarim)
Pâ•qidꞋ  Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhu
Click to enlargeΠελλα (Pella) – one of the Decapolis, in present-day Jordan, 13km (8mi) SE of (then Scythopolis).

2005.08.09 – A close examination of the account of the appointment of , "" - Bën-Dâ•wid in 62 C.E. "seems to reveal the fact that the appointment was introduced by a notice of the departure of the [Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι gentile Christians] from [Yᵊru•shâ•layim]" to Πελλα during the tenure of Pâ•qid Ya•a•qov "ha-Tza•diq" Bën-Yo•seiph Bën-Dâ•wid.

Πελλα was the quickest and easiest Hellenist city to reach from Yᵊru•shâ•layim, following the main caravan trade route north up the Jordan River Valley; the quickest and easiest Hellenist Roman refuge city in the Decapolis for Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι gentiles "Gettin' Out of Dodge" (Judea) – putting distance between themselves and "the Jews" (Judeans, which included the Nᵊtzâr•im, thereafter referred to as "Judaizers") – before the impending Roman destruction.

Even Christian scholars acknowledge that Hegesippus' conspicuous objective in writing his account, against the backdrop of 70 C.E., when the Hellenist Romans crushed the Judeans and destroyed the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, and continued persecuting and inflaming hatred toward all Judeans ("Jews"), which included the Nᵊtzâr•im, was to construct – fabricate – a story that would "explain how the total destruction of the [gentile Hellenist Roman] Church was avoided—and that is fully done in the Πελλα story" (loc. cit.).

The Nᵊtzâr•im Never Left Yᵊru•shâ•layim!

However, the plot is even more complicated than that because Eusebius documented the uninterrupted line of Nᵊtzâr•im Pᵊqid•im remained in Yᵊru•shâ•layim – from the first, Pâ•qid, Pâ•qid Ya•a•qov "ha-Tza•diq" Bën-Yo•seiph Bën-Dâ•wid to the fifteenth Pâ•qid, Pâ•qid Yᵊhud•âh ha-Tza•diq, who was forcibly usurped by the first Roman (gentile Hellenist-Christian) ἐπίσκοπος (Μαρκος) in the aftermath of the Bar-Kōkh Rebellion in 135 C.E.

Except for occasional and sporadic persecution of perceived rival Jewish royalty by "King (of the Jews)" Herod, limited specifically to Royalty of Beit-Dâ•wid (and Pâ•qid Ya•a•qov "ha-Tza•diq" survived until 62 C.E.), the original Nᵊtzâr•im were no more threatened prior to 70 C.E. than any of the countless other Pᵊrush•im Jews in Yᵊru•shâ•layim.

Irreversible Split

Nᵊtzâr•im lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdil Hellenist Gentile Christian Church
Hegesippus' Account

By the time of Hegesippus, the gentile Hellenist Roman Christian Church's disconnection from Nᵊtzâr•im Jews required extensive imagineering to invent a fabricated splice. This was accomplished by claiming, with no basis whatsoever, three desertions of Yᵊru•shâ•layim / "migrations" to Πελλα, one of which, this contrivance claimed, was the gentile "faithful body" – the gentile Christian Church.,

Thus, Hegesippus and Eusebius are both forced, as if "by some some unseen reason," to distinguish three classes of desertions of Yᵊru•shâ•layim / migrations to Πελλα toward the end of Pâ•qid Ya•a•qov "ha-Tza•diq"'s tenure (i.e., before 62 C.E.) as the first Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid:

  1. Shᵊlikh•im (emissaries, corrupted to "apostles") – who, in fact, never left Yᵊru•shâ•layim,

  2. the "faithful body" of Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι gentile Roman Christian "disciples"

  3. Kindred of the Mâ•shiakh. – who, in fact, never left Yᵊru•shâ•layim.

Epiphanius' Account

Correspondingly, "Epiphanius has three short narratives of the flight. The first two occur in successive chapters of the Panarion, in the first of which he treats of the origin of the 'Nazoraeans,' and in the second, in similar fashion, of that of the Ἐβιωναῖοι (Haer. 29:7; 30:2)…"

'Nazoraean' is a corruption of the Hebrew Nᵊtzâr•im, which, The Nᵊtzâr•im Reconstruction of Hebrew Ma•ti•tᵊyâhu (NHM) 2:23 documents, derived from Yᵊsha•yâhu 11:1.

Inducing from the corrupted term, these non-Jewish Church historians, virtually ignorant concerning Judaism and Hebrew, confused entirely unrelated Hebrew terms—Neitzër and Nâ•zir—as 'Nazoraean,' thereby mis-attributing Nazirite traits to Ya•a•qov. This became so fanciful as to claim that this Bën-Dâ•wid (tribe of Yᵊhud•âh) was a Ko•hein ha-Jâ•dol—despite definitions and complete genealogical registries of the succession of ko•han•im, each of which genealogically excludes Bën-Dâ•wids who were all of the tribe of Yᵊhud•âh! Thus, 'Nazoraeans' were actually yet another heretical proto-Christian group imagining a Displacement Theology based upon a non-existent 'Nazirite high priesthood.'

Eusebius' Account

Using a slightly different classification system, Eusebius, nevertheless, makes the same sharp distinction between "apostles" and "disciples".

Referring to the "kindred of the Mâ•shiakh" combining with the "apostles" in the election of "" -both "electors" disenfranchised by the Hellenist Ἐβιωναῖοι newborn gentile Roman Christian Church, along with their newly elected leader, as Judaizers, "The second of the three classes of electors was distinguished from the general body of the faithful."

Herein is proven evident the Great Apostasy of the initial split-off of the Hellenist Roman gentile Christian Church — the very first body (or "second migration") of the 'faithful' Hellenist Roman gentile Christian Church, the Ἐβιωναῖοι — from the original Nᵊtzâr•im.

Gentile Christian Catholic historians (namely Hegesippus, Eusebius, and Epiphanius) all agree that by their description, 'the general body of the faithful,' they referred not to the original Nᵊtzâr•im Jews who were the original followers of historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua and were under "" - and his "electors"; but rather, to their own, subsequent, gentile Roman Hellenist proto-Catholic Christians — the 'Nazoraean' Ἐβιωναῖοι Christian Church of the apostasy who followed Thebuthis (see also Boethus; and perhaps Aristion and other heretics) to Πελλα. Corroborating this, Aristion remained in Πελλα, leading an apostate movement.

As fellow gentile Hellenist Romans, it is clear that, very early on, they began to coordinate and cooperate with the 7 Churches of "Apostle St. Paul" the Apostate's in Turkey, where they are first identified as "Christian," as well as their contingent in Rome – the nucleus and conception of the Roman Catholic Christian Church.

The gentile Christian 'Nazoraeans' (as contrasted with the Nᵊtzâr•im) and Ἐβιωναῖοι in Πελλα are clearly distinguished from the Shᵊlikh•im and kindred of Ribi Yᵊho•shua—the Nᵊtzâr•im under , "" -. It is these original Nᵊtzâr•im (Jews) who continued unchanged and in Yᵊru•shâ•layim under the entire 13 successor Jewish Pᵊqid•im (listed and documented from Eusebius in Who Are the Netzarim? (WAN), until the Nᵊtzâr•im—Jews—were displaced by the first gentile ἐπίσκοπος (Μαρκος) in 135 C.E. – precisely because they would not abandon, or accept selective observance of, the original Judaic / pro-, halakhic (Oral Law) teachings of historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua. Contrary to Christian doctrines that evolved in the gentile Christian Church by the 4th century C.E., the red lines constraining 1st-century teachings in the religious Jewish community in the Holy Land are described in Dead Sea Scroll (4Q) MMT.

135 C.E.

Gentile Christians Finalize Split From, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdil, Nᵊtzâr•im Jews
Alienation By Language No Less Problem For Them Than For You Gentile Hellenist Romans Forcibly Oust 15th ‭ ‬ - ((, Install 1st Gentile Christian Ἐπίσκοπος Μαρκος

Eusebius betrays this lack of connection (between the original Nᵊtzâr•im Jews who followed historical Ribi Yᵊho•shua and the subsequent Hellenized gentile Christians who displaced them) elsewhere as well. The Romans set about conquering the Nᵊtzâr•im in the same way they had conquered the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh, by buying-off, assimilating (Hellenizing) or forcibly absorbing its leadership.

62 C.E. – 135 C.E., Tear Drives And Enflames Miso-Judaism

The nascent gentile Roman Christians recognized that eliminating the Royalty of Beit-Dâ•wid was essential in order to justify displacing the Bën-Dâ•wid leaders of the Nᵊtzâr•im with gentiles. However, the nascent gentile Roman Christians didn't even begin to have the political clout to drive the eradication of the Royal Line of Beit-Dâ•wid and the yo•khas•in upon which their royal line depended, until after they were enabled to forcibly oust the 15th Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid in 135 C.E.

Jews Rooted In Yᵊru•shâ•layim, Hellenist Gentile Christians Oriented Toward Rome

Apostate spin-offs like the Ἐβιωναῖοι and the plethora of other gentile Hellenist syncretistic permutations of Ζεύς worship cum budding Christian movements (which historians now concede are well documented), lacking authentic Jewish roots, deserted Yᵊru•shâ•layim well before 70 C.E. By contrast, however, this would have been anathema to Nᵊtzâr•im Jews.

69 – 79 C.E.

Years After Crucifying Ribi Yᵊho•shua Bën-Yo•seiph Bën-Dâ•wid
Hellenist Rulers Still View Beit-Dâ•wid & Nᵊtzâr•im As Break-Away Royalty Threat
Vespasian Conspires With Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•im Ko•hein ha-Jâ•dol To Assassinate Nᵊtzâr•im Royal Leaders

Eusebius credits the assassinations of several of the Royal – Beit-Dâ•wid – leaders of the Nᵊtzâr•im to Vespasian even before he became emperor. Soon after the assassination of Pâ•qid Ya•a•qov "ha-Tza•diq" Bën-Yo•seiph Bën-Dâ•wid (brother of Ribi Yᵊho•shua Bën-Yo•seiph Bën-Dâ•wid) by the Tzᵊdoq•im Ko•hein ha-Jâ•dol in 62 C.E., following the capture of Yᵊru•shâ•layim and destruction of the Beit ha-Mi•qᵊdâsh in 70 C.E., Vespasian (emperor B.C.E. 6979) attempted to extirpate the Royal Line of Beit-Dâ•wid.

Hellenist Persecution of Nᵊtzâr•im, Not Persecution Of Christians!

Since the Nᵊtzâr•im Pᵊqid•im were primarily – in all likelihood exclusively – of the Royal Line of Beit-Dâ•wid, this eradication of Beit-Dâ•wid Royalty decimated the Nᵊtzâr•im leadership, and the Roman destruction of the yo•khas•in expunged future descendants of the Royal Line, thus eviscerating the Nᵊtzâr•im while leaving ordinary Pᵊrush•im Jews unaffiliated with Beit-Dâ•wid unaffected – and the Hellenist Tzᵊdoq•im ko•han•im collaborators with the Hellenist Roman occupiers retained religious control over the Jews.

81 – 96 C.E.

Domitian (81 – 96 C.E.) continued the campaign to extirpate Beit-Dâ•wid Royalty.

Domitian was "known primarily for his conflict with the Senate and the Roman aristocracy" ("Domitian," Encarta '95). "Especially in the last three years of his reign, Domitian terrorized the aristocracy, executing many of them for supposed acts of treason and confiscating their property to help pay for his increasing expenses" (ibid.). Like the Judaic idea of the messiah, Christians expropriated this campaign, billing it as a persecution of Roman "Christians" — "men distinguished at Rome by family and career" (Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. III.xvii.1). 5

Christianity Has No Jewish Roots – At All
Gentile Hellenist Roman Idolatry Syncretized Judaic Ideas – Producing Gentile Roman Christianity

It has been demonstrated above that the -derived Nᵊtzâr•im are then differentiated, and mutually exclusive, from the earliest, original Hellenist-derived (i.e., idolatrous) Christians. The two have always been mutually exclusive. Ergo, Christianity did not derive from Judaism in any fashion; nor has Christianity any roots in Judaism nor in . The two religions are intractably contradictory and antithetical, not only relative to the prohibition against supersession and Displacement Theology, but on the issue of non-selective observance of the indivisible whole as well – according to Oral Law in the 1st century C.E. (documented in Qum•rân Scroll 4Q MMT). Thus, the Nᵊtzâr•im stand, always entirely exclusive of syncretized Roman mythologies (idolatry) – the watershed chasm between Judaism versus Christianity. Recognizing this distinction – rigorously – will greatly reduce existing confusion surrounding the history of the period between 30 C.E. and 135 C.E.

Nᵊtzâr•im Jews In Judaic Yᵊru•shâ•layim vs Hellenist Christians In Hellenist Decapolis (Πελλα)

According to the 6th century C.E. Hellenist Roman Catholic Christian Roll eyes, Eutychius (Turkey, 512-582 C.E.), the Thebuthisan "disciples" – gentile Hellenist proto-Christians who fled to Πελλα before 62 C.E. to escape the looming Roman destruction of Yᵊru•shâ•layim in 70 C.E. – returned to Yᵊru•shâ•layim in the fourth year of the emperor Vespasian [i.e., 73 C.E.], and built [on Har Tzi•yon] their 'church'. 6

Contradicting Eutychius' account, the historical record shows that , "" - was appointed by the Shᵊlikh•im and kindred (Beit-Dâ•wid Royalty) of Ribi Yᵊho•shua in Yᵊru•shâ•layim. There is no evidence that the Shᵊlikh•im, kindred (Beit-Dâ•wid Royalty) of Ribi Yᵊho•shua, or their authentic (Jewish) followers—all Nᵊtzâr•imhad ever left Yᵊru•shâ•layim – and no evidence, other than this account by a 6th century Roman Catholic Christian in Istanbul, that the Hellenist gentile Roman Christians ever returned in any significant numbers to Yᵊru•shâ•layim. A fortiori, the building on Har Tzi•yon followed the Judaic pattern of a beit ha-kᵊnësët, not the Hellenist gentile Roman Christian basilica pattern of a Church.

Πελλα – Conclusion

A priori, we must conclude that the migration to Πελλα comprised the expelled heretical followers of the Thebuthisan apostasy — a significant gentile Hellenist Roman proto-Christian precursor of the Church (the true basis of the Christian Church that neither Hegesippus, Eusebius nor any other Christian historian could ever acknowledge) — including the Ἐβιωναῖοι and 'Nazoraeans,' of the fabricated return from Πελλα in the fourth year of Vespasian. Therefore, it is correct to state that the precursor proto-Christians / Nazoraeans / Ἐβιωναῖοι — of the apostasy of Thebuthis fled to Πελλα and returned not before 73 C.E. However, the weight of evidence implicates that it is an error to hold that the original Nᵊtzâr•im ever fled to Πελλα at all. Moreover, Euthychius inability to distinguish between Nᵊtzâr•im and Thebuthisans cannot be taken as evidence concerning which group built the beit ha-kᵊnësët on Har Tzi•yon. Since the Nᵊtzâr•im succession of Pᵊqid•im remained in authority until 135 CE, however, the weight of evidence demonstrates conclusively that it had to be the authentic Nᵊtzâr•im who built their beit ha-kᵊnësët on Har Tzi•yon. (It must be noted, however, that the "upper room" is a later addition, not the room in which Ribi Yᵊho•shua observed his last Pësakh Seidër.)

Displacement Theology: Concealed By Hegesippus

Lawlor notes, "It must be observed that just at this point, when he has indicated the moment of the introduction of heterodox teaching, Hegesippus' sketch of the history of the [Jewish / Nᵊtzâr•im Congregation] of [Yᵊru•shâ•layim], and consequently the argument founded upon it, seems to have come to an end. For though Eusebius gives a list of the [Pᵊqid•im] up to the reign of Hadrian, and tells us that they were short-lived, and later on adds a list of their successors, he tells us nothing else about the fortunes of the ['Congregation' – which?] 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-Kōkh Revolt and physical displacement of the Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid from Yᵊru•shâ•layim cum Aelia Capitolina] it became a Gentile community… It is scarcely conceivable that if Hegesippus had carried his history beyond the death of [ , "" - Bën-Dâ•wid that] Eusebius would not have used the material thus afforded." How suspect, that, singularly, the very period Christian historians refused to record is precisely that period they claim is the supposed magical transition from pro- Jews to lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdil anti- gentile proto-Christians of the miso-Judaic 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 displacing of the Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid in 135 C.E. That was the end of the story of the Nᵊtzâr•im. There was nothing else to tell. Hegesippus' history of the Nᵊtzâr•im was finished at that point. Instead, Hegesippus then turns his attention to fabricating his counterfeit image—arising in Rome (cf. Dân•iy•eil 7; see "The 1993 Covenant") instead of Yᵊru•shâ•layim. Fittingly, according to Eusebius, Hegesippus admits, "While in Rome, diadokhein epoieisamein" (I fabricated / constructed the [papal] succession). Even modern Church historians acknowledge that there is no documentation, and nothing reliable is known, of this fabricated and non-existent 'early papal succession.' 

The only reasonable implication from all of this is: in rebellion against the rightful Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid, the followers of Thebuthis separated from the Nᵊtzâr•im and left Yᵊru•shâ•layim for Πελλα. In separating from the Nᵊtzâr•im, these followers of the apostasy of Thebuthis thereby exposed the gash that had progressed to an unbridgeable chasm between the Nᵊtzâr•im of Ribi Yᵊho•shua and, lᵊ‑ha•vᵊdil, the Hellenist gentile Roman Christian nascent Church. It was these first gentile Hellenist Christians who, some time subsequent to 73 C.E., returned from Πελλα to oppose and vilify the Nᵊtzâr•im Jews as "Judaizers."

Consequent to the expulsion of all Jews from Yᵊru•shâ•layim in 135 C.E. (which included the Nᵊtzâr•im Jews—but not the gentile Hellenist Roman Christians), it was the gentile Hellenist Roman Christians of this nascent Church who usurped the last Nᵊtzâr•im Pâ•qid, displacing him with the first gentile ἐπίσκοπος (Μαρκος). Not until two more centuries after this usurpation of the Nᵊtzâr•im did Hegesippus fabricated the first "papal succession." Thus, the popes of the Roman Catholic Church (the origin of all Protestant Churches), usurped the divine authority that, because ‑‑ doesn't change, remains with the Nᵊtzâr•im Pᵊqid•im, Yi•sᵊr•â•eil and moderate Orthodox Jews.

Rainbow Rule © 1996-present by Paqid Yirmeyahu Ben-David,

Int'l flags

Go Top Home (Netzarim Logo) Go Back

Nᵊtzâr•im… Authentic