An Argument for the Sake of Heaven

 An Argument for the Sake of Heaven

An Argument Against a Shift in the Christian Paradigm

An Argument for the Jewish People

An Argument for Discourse Among Christian Leaders and Scholars

A Plea for the Christian People

G. Hugo Eliason

8/12/2008

          © This is a copyrighted work. All Quotations must be properly notated.

Dedicated To

My loving wife Olga without whose support life would be impossible

Maggie and all the seekers and finders of Peace and Truth

And those of us who have irrevocably broken what should be cherished

And can now understand the need for forgiveness

From a Merciful and Loving God

What else do we have to do today but to go forward gratefully in His Hand?

Foreword

An Argument for the Sake of Heaven has to be larger than personal concerns. It can not be for the sake of Polemic or to gain advantage. It is for the sake of the King and the concerns of the Kingdom and has a basis since the days of Moses.

An Argument for the Sake of Heaven is valid only if it seeks to get to truth, whatever that may be. It’s appeal was recognized in the “Days of our Apostles” and if that is your appeal to authority, a true Argument for the Sake of Heaven can not be ignored or denied and must be answered.

It is my hope that my argument is found worthy.

Summation

The Abridged Premises build out the definitions of the arguments. It is always important in conversation to know precisely what is meant. That is the reason for the separation of the premises from the arguments [to keep it readable] and why the arguments refer back to the premises. Read this way it also speeds up the conversation.

Because it is an argument, it was written to be read through the arguments at the back of the book first.

The beginning chapters are necessarily Jewish in origin as it sets up pre-Christian era premises that carry through and are still valid today. Because of this the premises have been written so they can be picked up by the average reader [lack of background], in the middle of the abridged premises with more familiar subjects and be very understandable. The recurring use of phrases were included to this end to bridge terminology so once up to speed the reader can go back to what was  unfamiliar with some confidence. Because of the nature of the Argument I thought it best that these quotable early voices and those of the scholars should be heard in their own right. That is why it is written with regard to this in context.

The chapters describing [the Role of the Kohenet and Princess] bring into sharp focus the mechanisms for a Davidic Priesthood by describing the inheritance rights of the Kohenet and Princess as well as their husbands and progeny. This defines the Netzerim/Nazarene as a class not a sect and gives precedence to a halachically correct Melchi-Zaddiq. It also emphasizes their imprint and impact on the Davidic Dynasty. Many examples of this status are shown from the time of David through the first century.

The chapters [False Messiah through the Religion(s) of the Netzerim] clarify the times and political relationships of the various classes to each other and the Romans. The role and nature of period government is also explored and defined with regard to establishing the nature of the relationships and interconnections.

This section parses between the various groups of Netzerim and defines their relationship to each other. More importantly it starts to build out through reliable witnesses the import and true impact of the Netzerim and the Nazarene historically and define them further. The connections of the Davidic King/ Priest are further cemented by highlighting their unique status having priority over the High Priest in religious [sacerdotal] affairs.

These chapters also detail the Davidic Regal/ Priesthood through the first century with regard to the different family lines, differing philosophies, with respect to historic Palestine, and starts to build the Roman perspective that would dominate the next centuries.

The chapters [the Nazarenes in the Intertestamental Period- the Apostle Paul from Messiah to Christ] show the earlier and first century messianic thought inside the cooperative relationships of the Sanhedrin and the Nazarene Sages, and king/priests. It also establishes the baseline through period witnesses regarding the trial of Jesus. This section also provides a clarification of the misunderstood Yeshu the Notzerim. The cooperative nature of the period writings in the exploration of Messiah [Eternal Messiah/Eternal, Supernal Torah, Miltha, and Divine Logos] is expanded on.

The chapters [James the Just-Essenes, Zealots, Idumeans, Siccari, Ebionites and Priests-the Other Netzarim] start by defining the political role of the Netzer, defining the political responsibilities the Nazarene King had and their legitimacy inspite of occupation. It moves on to show their overall scope in their own day using archealogical finds from the pre-Destruction era as far away as China. The Roman position is defined as seeing their rise being the single greatest threat to the continued survival of the Empire.

The chapters give historical precedent to the location of the Nazarenes, as well as other Netzerim, and how they maintained the Religion of Israel. These sections give the role of the Nazrene in the Temple and why.

The chapters [The Death of James- the Roman Perspective] detail the happenings around the Destruction from a political point of view. The weight of tradition is held up to actual history. Answers to why the apparent and sudden rush of Messianism is offered as well as the results. These chapters can be viewed as showing beginnings of the earliest Dominionist Philosophies.

The chapters [The Religion of Israel, Judaism and the Nazarenes at Yavne-Rome 90’s through 117] show the initial continuation of a cooperative government [executive (King/Priest) and Legislative and Judicial (Sanhedrin)] as well as a provable plurality. Further they show the suddenness of the break (ban) and why. This section concludes with showing the responsible parties and based on historic beliefs outlines their motivations and points to their methodologies. The conclusion of this section shows the fruit of early Dominionism and the resulting perspective of Nazarenes, Tannaim, and Rome.

The chapters [The New Christian Paradigm-Raising Lazarus] explore the deep changes resulting in what are now Roman Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. The effects of history shown in the previous chapters on both religions is documented, as well as the appeals to authority for the Paradigm Shifts and their effects on their respective constituencies both Jewish and Christian.

The chapters [114-117 the War- the Conclusion] document the resolution to the Berachot ha Minim and the following use of the Ban and the Roman Christian rejection of the Nazarene as authoritive and why. The chapters show that the appeal to authority from Jews and Christians remain static as the “New Paradigms” take legitimate rule.

The later chapters show the attempt by Hadrian to combine both religions into one is shown. The import and effects of Roman Censors on both Religions is documented as well as their [complete] separations from their past.  This section shows how the various classes were reduced to “sects,” and why.

Contents

Foreword. 3

Summation. 3

Contents. 5

Abridged Premises. 8

The Effects of Regal and Kohen Inter-Marriage through the 1st Century. 8

Rights of Inheritance Sacerdotal and Regal 8

The Role and import of the Kohenet in 1st century Judaism.. 9

The Role and import of the Davidic Princess in 1st century Judaism.. 13

The Role and Import of the Princess and the Kohenet on Princes and Priests. 16

The Role and Import of the Princess and the Kohenet on Kings and Chief Priests. 18

False Messiah. 21

The Rise of Sectarianism.. 24

Civil Affairs. 26

What is a Jewish King. 33

The Historic Netzerim.. 37

How were they Legitimate Rulers from Herod’s death through the bar Kochba era?. 38

Kings and Priests. 38

Who is a Jewish King?. 40

The Religion(s) of the Netzerim.. 42

Nazarenes in the Intertestimental Period. 46

The relationship to the other classes. 47

The Trial of the Jewish King Jesus. 49

Yeshu the Netzerim.. 54

Who Tried and killed the Jewish Netzer Jesus?. 57

Who were The Jews. 57

The Next Forty Years. 58

Enter the Nazarenes. 59

Pharisee Sages and the Nazarene. 60

The Throne. 63

Torah Organic/Eternal Torah/Divine Logos. 64

The Apostle Paul from Messiah to Christ. 65

James the Just. 66

Nazarenes in the Temple. 70

Nazarene Leadership. 71

Nazarenes and Society. 71

What is his “exceeding great justice?”. 71

The Nazarenes and the Gentiles. 73

Gentiles and the Law.. 75

Didache. 75

Jew and Gentile. 76

“Go Ye into all the World”. 77

Kerala, India. 78

Bartholomew/ Netanel bar Ptolomi 79

Schools. 80

Language. 81

Earlier dating of Western Missionaries. 81

“The Great Church of the East”. 82

Rome the 40s through the 90s CE. 82

Essenes, Zealots, Idumeans, Siccari, Ebionites and Priests – the other Netzerim.. 85

The Death of James. 86

The Real War of 66-70. 86

Where were the Nazarenes?. 87

Pella. 89

Ebionites. 90

The Last Pharisee. 91

Bar Giora. 92

The Roman Perspective. 92

The Religion of Israel, Judaism and the Nazarenes at Yavne. 94

The Berachot ha Minim and the Halachot ha Minim and its Good Reason. 95

Who were the Renegades, Slanderers, and Heretics. 97

A New Paradigm.. 98

Taking Dominion. 100

The King is Dead- The Legacy of Thebothis the Notzerim.. 102

Rome 90s Through 117. 105

The New Christian Paradigm.. 106

The New Jewish Paradigm.. 108

Eliezer the Heretic. 111

110-117. 114

The Resolution to the Berachot ha Minim.. 114

Raising Lazarus. 117

114-117 the War. 120

Why Bar Koseba?. 121

The war of 132. 122

The Christian “Minim”. 122

Growth of the Early Church. 124

Roman Censors. 126

Mephibosheth. 127

Conclusion. 128

Arguments for the Sake of Heaven. 129

Arguments against a Shift in the Christian Paradigm.. 129

An Argument to your Appeal to Authority to install a new Christian Paradigm.. 130

An Argument against the Church Imperial [Dominionism] from history. 131

An Argument against “Christian Armies”or Hammers of G-d. 135

An Argument against Rick Joyners proposed Civil War. 137

Arguments against Reconstructionist/Talmudic Christianity adoption of 613 mitzvahs. 139

An Argument against Super-supersessionalism.. 141

An argument against Talmudic Christianity [seers heavenly halls]. 142

An Argument for the sake of Children [child witches, disobedient children]. 143

616. 145

An Argument for the Jewish People. 147

An Argument for Discourse among Christian Scholars and Leaders. 148

A Plea for the Christian People. 149

Conclusion to Arguments for the Sake of Heaven-Paradoxical Nominalism.. 150

Bibliography. 152

Abridged Premises

The Abridged Premises sections that follow can be considered as simply the support information for the arguments. Written as a compilation of the work of great scholars both Jewish and Christian, the premises show the mechanisms of the Davidic Priesthood, and its relation to the period. There was no need to be comprehensive in the events of history, so much has been written, but the flow of the entire period from the run up to the Destruction until the early fathers of both Christianity and Judaism, the effects of the earlier periods on them, and the effects of the Romans on both through the period has to my knowledge never been shown as a whole, only in small sections.

The need for the separation of the abridged premises from the arguments is if included would have made them unwieldy at best. The premises are abridged for this reason also. Over 20,000 pages of research went into them and if the histories were fleshed out the work would have been an unreadable length. That is the reason for the comprehensive bibliography at the end.

Start with the Arguments in the rear first, starting on page 129, they refer to the premises systematically. The purpose and easiest reading is through the arguments first, although written with the natural flow of a book.

The Effects of Regal and Kohen Inter-Marriage through the 1st Century

“By juxtaposing the largely parallel laws of king and high priest, the Tosefta essentially couples them in the same normative category. This is further reinforced by the Tosefta’s commanding respect for both the high priest (in tSan 4.1) and the king (in tSan4.2), in contrast with the Mishnah which privileges such respect only for the king. Finally, tSan 4.10 seems to stipulate a novel rule that a king’s wife must be from a priestly family…”[1]  

Rights of Inheritance Sacerdotal and Regal

The rights of Titular inheritance during the early periods of the first and second Temples fell along the following models.

Parent to child

Father to son/daughter- This bears no need of explanation and with all sects was favorable

Levirate Marriage Priest-   Deuteronomy 25:5-10

Sacerdotal/Regalà

Sadducee interpretation(Chief-Priest and Regal)- They followed a traditional practice of their own in granting the daughter the same right of inheritance as the son’s daughter in case the son was dead (Meg. Ta’an. v.; Tos. Yad. ii. 20; B. B. viii. 1, 115b).[2]

This practice allowed that if there was no son the inheritance or Titular inheritance would pass through the daughter. In the case of a Kohenet, the title was hers but she could not perform the function of a Kohen Gadol. Instead this was done through an agent (husband). I will show this interpretation was widely accepted and in widespread use through the time of the Tannaim reformation. Further detail is found in the role of the Kohenet.

Adoption- Although adoption sounds obvious there was different forms of it. The most obvious the adoption of a child which gave the child the same rights as any other children.

The Sacerdotal/ Regal model cause dynastic shifts and elevated many to positions that were otherwise unobtainable. In the sacerdotal application of the marriage the marriage of Joshua b Gamla to Martha Boethus shows lineage adoption by marriage- With this type of inheritance the Kohenet being the clear example conferred her genealogy/lineage to the husband who acted as an agent. Joshua ben Gamla‘s ancestry after marriage was counted in the family line of Boethus, and Kohen lineage preserving the line of Aaron.

The Role and import of the Kohenet in 1st century Judaism

“The proselyte went to Rabbi Joshua, who sought to appease him, saying;”Bread includes spiritual food, and raiment includes the Tallit of the learned doctors. And, when a proselyte was not only rich in material possessions but also in spiritual wealth, the High Priest himself was happy to have him marry his daughter, and he might even see his grandson officiate as the High Priest.”

Bereshit Rabbah, 70.

The role the Kohenet played in 1st century culture is only now coming to light as various studies are now being done. The importance to just genealogical work is profound. The Kohenet who because of gender can not assume the role of Kohen Gadol(High Priest), apparently did not lose the inheritance of the title or role and it could be passed on laterallyby proxy or agent, and/or into the next generation by her shown by the following examples.

 “While the opinion of the Yere’im is open to speculation, we find two explicit opinions of Tosafot regarding this issue.  The gemara tells that Rav Kahana accepted a turban as payment for pidyon ha-ben (Kiddushin 8a).  Tosafot note that Rav Kahana was not a kohen but was married to a kohenet.  How, then, did he receive the turban as pidyon ha-ben?  One answer suggested by Tosafot is that there were two different people named Rav Kahana, and the Rav who received the turban was indeed a kohen.  But Tosafot then suggest a different answer, namely, that Rav Kahana acted as an agent for his wife, who was a kohenet, and received the turban on her behalf.  This explanation is based on two novel assumptions: that a kohenet can accept pidyon ha-ben, and that she may even appoint a shaliach (agent) to receive it on her behalf.[3]

Shown in this example Rav Kahana acted as an agent for his wife , the Kohenet, and hence is shown as High Priest in his receiving the turban. The most interesting point is that it shows hereditary rights coming through the Kohenet to her non- Kohen husband. It goes further in saying that because of clouds over some of the genealogies it is marriage to a Kohenet that lends legitimacy to the Kohen.  At this point in history only a Torah Scholar or Kohen could marry a Kohenet (Pesachim 49a)[4]. The concept of Rav Kahana acting as agent is a vital proof of the Kohenet retaining her titular inheritance and being able to transfer it both in her progeny and to a caretaker or agent. The earlier Halacha (temple period)restricted kohenet marriage to a Kohen (High Priest), or a King.  Any other marriage was a misalliance because it denigrated the dignity of the office. “R’ Yehoshua (Hannaniah) Became sick after marrying a Kohenet, and said that the Kehunah had rejected him: Pesachim 49a,” meaning the Kehunah (High Priest) had the right to reject lateral transfer of his lineage. “R’ Yehoshua was from then known as Yehoshua ben Levi, “Bar Livai [Son of Levi]” by R’ Chanina: Shabbat 156a[5].”Rejection by the Kohenets father (Kehunah) meant that hereditary right stepped down from Aaron to Levi in this case. The right itself still intact but diffused to the greater family (Levi) and loss of the High Priest status.

 In the Tosefta in the fifth chapter of Sotah R. Joshua said, ‘Thus did R. Judah b. Petiri expounded’. In the chapter six R. Judah also quotes b. Petiri. R. Joshua was the head of the Court of Rabban Gamliel, as we see in the chapter Meruba.[6] R. Haninah ben Gamliel said : But our father-in-law was the high priest! If Rabban Gamliel of Yavne was his father, how could he have had a father-in-law who was a high priest, for he lived after the Destruction! One can say that this does not refer to his actual father-in-law, but the father-in-law of his fathers, and this is logical, for he did not say “my father-in-law,” but “our father-in-law.” [7]

With the assumption of the positition of “Head of the Court” which is the duty of the High Priest R. Joshua (Hannania) assumed the dignity of a High Priest as the agent of his Kohenet wife and the “Dignity could not be lost.

Thus even though his “new” name suggests that he is rejected by her Kohen Gadol father, he assumes a position that is relegated to that of the High Priest.

The example  of  Joshua ben Gamla is the most noted. [8] The Kohenet could only marry into another High Priest family or royalty. Otherwise it would be considered a misalliance because of the dignity of office. Before his assumption to the Priesthood he was the Nasi or Prince of the Sanhedrin[9]. “Before I accepted this office, if anyone had suggested it to me, I would have tied him up in front of a lion. But now that I have this office, if anyone were to ask me to step down, I would pour a pitcher of boiling water on him! I learned this from Saul; before he became king he hid from the honor, but afterwards, when David wanted to take it away from him, Saul tried to kill him.”   He is also remembered as the father of public schools, establishing schools in every city[10].

Joshua ben Gamla’s name is also interchangeable in all writing concerning him with Rabbi Joshua ben Gamliel.  It is curious how the Sages of Israel determined how he would be remembered. “That man will be remembered well, by the name of Yehoshua Ben Gamla, because if not for him the Torah would have been forgotten by Bnei Yisrael[11]”  A priest, even a High Priest could not make Halachic rulings.The High Priest as noted earlier is “head of the court” or trial court.  It is not that this was his name but is the name he would be remembered by. The semantic suggests he was known by another name.

His marriage and subsequent ascension to the position of High Priest caused his familial association to be changed and associated with Simon Boethus. The exception the Sages took was not a class difference but the bribery involved on the part of Martha bat Boethus. It must be noted that Joshua ben Gamla took on the family tie and lineage of Boethus through his wife as his lineage is now counted as that of Boethus which can only be accounted for as an adoption.

Marriage to a Kohenet then becomes a most desirable union. Looking at the example of R. Yehoshua given the status of the Kohenet he must have been “close to the royalty”.  If the husband could accept the turban, even as an agent wearing it once he could not lose the dignity.

If these cases were anomalous they would still be eye catching. When the histories and genealogies are compared what looks like a few exceptions start to take form as the rule. The other consideration and a major one is we know that the King appointed the High Priest, what if the King having the proper lineage through birth or marriage could appoint himself in a Sagan or replacement High Priest role? Could or would the High Priest say no?

The Davidic King takes on the role of Davidic/ High Priest for the Sacrifice. King Uzziah was the son of King Amaziah who in turn was the grandson of King Joash who married Jehodda (Kohenet/Princess), the daughter of Jehoiada I High Priest and Jehosheba, a Davidic princess.[12] King Uzziah married Jerushah daughter of Zadok II, High Priest.[13]

KV2 Chronicles 26:17  “And Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him fourscore priests of the LORD, that were valiant men:18  And they withstood Uzziah the king, and said unto him, It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the priests the sons of Aaron, that are consecrated to burn incense: go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thine honour from the LORD God.19  Then Uzziah was wroth, and had a censer in his hand to burn incense: and while he was wroth with the priests, the leprosy even rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the LORD, from beside the incense altar.20  And Azariah the chief priest, and all the priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he was leprous in his forehead, and they thrust him out from thence; yea, himself hasted also to go out, because the LORD had smitten him.21  And Uzziah the king was a leper unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a several house, being a leper; for he was cut off from the house of the LORD: and Jotham his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land.”

King Uzziah did what was right in the sight of the L-rd except this one thing. His only justification is his marriage to the Kohenet Jerusha and presuming the ability to act as her agent.[14] As with the case of R. Yehoshua ben Levi the Chief Priest rejected him. But having done service as a Kohen Gadol he is also listed in the High Priests list because the honor could not be lost. His lineage as a High Priest is ascribed to Azariah. This also mirrors the lineage ascription of Joshua b. Gamla. Because of this justification, his wife being a Kohenet who could not lose her inheritance had lent the dignity by proxy or agency to the kingdom. Uzziah’s son Jotham who never served the Temple[15] is also listed as a High Priest is listed with a compatible tenure as the son of the High Priest Joel.

“The difference concerning the right of inheritance by the daughter as against the son’s daughter, which the Sadducees granted and the Pharisees denied (Yad. iv. 7; Meg. Ta’an. v.;Tosef., Yad. ii. 20; Yer. B. B. vii. 16a) seems to rest on differing practices among the various classes of people; the same is true with regard to the difference as to the master’s responsibility for damage done by a slave or a beast (Yad. iv. 7; B. . viii. 4; but see Geiger, l.c. pp. 143-144)”.[16]

The application of the High Priests family name to the King isn’t an invented devise but the recording this way shows the proper genealogical ties of the agent to the legitimate Kohen family. Because the King supersedes the High Priest in stature, his genealogy to David and thus the dignity of the kingdom is maintained in the royal lists.  The function of the “Davidic Priest” is presumably holidays or Holy Days. Since the “Dignity” cannot be lost once it is assumed, the “familial lineage” would be passed into the next generation.  With regard to Jotham initially it is his Kohenet mother who gives him this lineage. The study of the Davidic royal’s lineage and that of the priests where they intertwine is the study of dual lineage.

What may be an even earlier precedent is in the levirate marriage of Boaz to Ruth. [See footnote 30.] It is a model of levirate marriage with regard to mechanism excepting two things; Naomi is from Boaz family which is ante-Davidic, and not her husbands. The child Obed should have been delineated to her son and not Boaz. Obed the father of Jesse, the father of David is also a son of Joseph through the line of Ephraim, tying [King] David to Joseph forever. This also insinuates the murkiness of [King] David’s lineage, being descended from Moab which is expanded on in Midrash Ruth Rabba(see section Pharisee Sages and the Netzerim).

The Role and import of the Davidic Princess in 1st century Judaism

The dynastic role a Princess can play is cemented in the example of the Princess Tamar. “With the death of Zedekiah the son of King Jehoiakim who had married his cousin Tamar, the curse of Jeremiah was fulfilled. This was her second marriage; she was the daughter of the late crown-prince, Johanan. The king adopted the sons of Tamar by a previous marriage since they too were of the “royal seed.” The adoption and subsequent ascension of Sheatiel as crown prince transferred the line of rule from the primary line to a secondary line descended from Nathan.  [17]

This shows the ramifications of adoption[18]. The Titular inheritance changed. From this point it went from Sheatiel to Zerubabal through whom all the descent lines are counted. The lines before Tamar are princely lines with no claim to the throne. With the subsequent adoption of her children these lines of Nathan are now counted as the lines through Solomon.

Further examples of this can be shown with regard to regal claim. Aristobulus claimed legitimacy as the 1st King/Priest of the Maccabee Dynasty through marriage to Alexandra Salome. She was the daughter of Jose/Joseph a Davidic.  Alexander Janneus claimed legitimacy the same way through marriage to the same Queen.

“In 104 BCE, John Hyrcanus bequeathed rule to his wife and died. Their son, Aristobulus, was High Priest, and Aristobulus had his mother thrown into prison and starved to death, and he became both king and high priest. Aristobulus had one brother assassinated and his other brothers jailed. Then, after less than a year as king, Aristobulus died, and his widow released his brothers from jail and married the eldest of them: Jonathan. (She was thirty-seven, he twenty-two) Jonathan became king and high priest and was named Alexander Janneus”[19].

Tobità  EliasàSimeon ha Zaddiqà Antigoneà ZaredahàJoazaràJose/JosephàAlexandra Salome (husband/agent- Aristobolus, Alexander Janneus/1st, 2nd Maccabee/Hasmonean King/Priest)[20]

By juxtaposing the largely parallel laws of king and high priest, the Tosefta essentially couples them in the same normative category. This is further reinforced by the Tosefta’s commanding respect for both the high priest (in tSan 4.1) and the king (in tSan4.2), in contrast with the Mishnah which privileges such respect only for the king. Finally, tSan 4.10 seems to stipulate a novel rule that a king’s wife must be from a priestly family…[21]

The role of Princess loses none of the Regal Dignity as shown by the latter reign of Alexandra Salome and what gave legitimacy to the Hasmonean rule was the marriage to Alexandra Salome. Her ancestry was what made the Hasmoneans, Kings. Her marriage to Alexander Janneus can not be construed as leverite because levirate marriage is forbidden to the royals. The other consideration is the laws pertaining to Kings, as a princess and then Queen she retained the positional dignity and “None may judge the King except G-d”. This point will be expanded upon later but shows the Royal position above most Halacha.

Until that point they were Kohens. This is essentially the reversal of the Joshua ben Gamla – Martha Boethus marriage, instead of the priesthood; it’s the kingdom, with the “king” as an agent accepting the diadem. At the time there were no restrictions on the separation of the Kingdom from the Priesthood. This didn’t happen till the time of the Tannaim.

The status of Simeon the Tzaddiq in this light is very interesting in that he is shown as both Ethnarch and High Priest. 1Maccabees 15:1-21 “And king Antiochus, the son of Demetrius, sent letters from the isles of the sea to Simon, the priest, and prince of the nation of the Jews, and to all the people: 2 And the contents were these: King Antiochus to Simon, the high priest, and to the nation of the Jews, greeting.”

“There are those who claim that Simeon the Righteous were also called Iddo ben Joshua, the High Priest, but the book of Joseph ben Gurion does not support it. [Samuel Sholem says: I read in the great book of ben Gurion, that the High Priest who was at the time of Alexander was called Iddo the priest, see there In the opinion of our rabbis, of blessed memory, he Simeon the Righteous was the High Priest during the time of Alexander, the King of Greece who killed Darius]”… “Simeon the Righteous was a High Priest in Ezra’s days. Perhaps he was a prefect deputy High Priest, or the head of a priestly family and not the High Priest. A red heifer is accepted as such even on the authority of a regular priest and is given his name, as was the case with the heifer selected by Eleazar the deputy High Priest and called after Moses our master, may he have peace.” [22]

If Iddo was the High Priest how then could Simeon the Righteous be High Priest and offer the Sacrifice? The entire Priestly system had a redundancy to it. The 2nd High Priest was called a Sagan. If the High Priest became defiled the Sagan would perform the duties up to and including the Atonement. To be a High Priest one of the qualifications was to have been a Sagan. Once the Sagan had performed the duties, the honor of the office prevented him from returning to a secondary position because he was at least temporarily a High Priest, so he was retired. He could no longer perform duties of a regular Priest as this was now beneath his dignity. He could however reassume the duties of High Priest if needed but this again would be temporary as there would an appointed High Priest. This is done consistently throughout the 2nd Temple period.

There are also examples especially in the 1st century CE of the High Priest position being done by others than the High Priest or Sagan.  The Priesthood had become so corrupted that the Sagan would not perform his duty as it disqualified him from the permanent position. These High Priests served but are not included in the lists.[23]  Consequently not all who served in the Temple are known.

Simeon the Tzaddiq is also listed in the Davidic genealogies as a descendent of Zerubabel through the Tobaide line[24], a regal prince, therefore a rightful ethnarch.  Hananiahà  (Co Ruler) TobitàEliasàSimeon ha Zaddiq

The Role and Import of the Princess and the Kohenet on Princes and Priests

The sitting King and inline claimants are prohibited from participating on the judiciary (Sanhedrin).[25] Princes were descended from David’s other sons. Kings were also for the purposes of serving the Sanhedrin considered if his place as a claimant in ascendency was so far removed he could never serve as king.  An example is that of the Resh Galuta. In Babylon the kings of the Diaspora could not serve on the Sanhedrin, but since they could not be considered for kings in Israel proper they could serve on the Sanhedrins.  An example is R. Netanel the Babylonian, son in law to Simeon II son of Gamliel II. Hillel’s family line through most of the 1st century was tertiary in regal status. This line gained regal prominence on the run up to and after the second Jewish war with the Romans. Because of their lineage the House of Hillel were legitimate princes over the Sanhedrin. The lineage of Hillel, a son of David through Shephatiah is also credited through Solomon[26] through Zerubabal. The Royal line Hillel Ha Zaken was elevated from non-regal to regal with the marriage of Shelomith a daughter of Zerubabel by his 3rd wife to Elnathan, Governor of Judea.[27] I include this as adoption because the inheritance of lineage came through the wife.[28] The legitimate Governor had to have descent accounted to Solomon. As there were legitimate sons, the basis of a levirate marriage to preserve the family name and portion is unnecessary.  It only follows suite that if all the legitimate genealogies to Solomon now were strictly through Zerubabel then it is the marriage to Shelomith that gives Elnathan legitimacy. There could be no King due to the occupation; the position at the time was reduced to being called Governor.

Familial adoption was not limited to the highest echelon. The practice seems to have been an accepted one among the ruling classes including the Pharisees and the priests.

“Regarding R. Simeon b. Netanel (the Priest) who was fearful of sin, I have not seen much to expand upon. He was the son-in-law of Rabban Gamliel the Elder and it is enough to mention that he was blessed to be among the five disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai who were foretold about the World-to-Come”.[29]

 “R’ Chiyya pointed out R’ Shimon bar Rebbe’s deep voice, as a blemish for a Levite; R’ Shimon complained to Rebbe, who pointed out R’ Chiyya’s own speech impediment, substituting “Hey” for “Chet”: Megillah 24

Simeon ben Gamliel’s identity is the same as Simeon ben Netanel the Priest, son in law to Gamliel ha Zaken. It shows the commonality of the practice I describe as familial adoption by marriage[30] and again the importance of the transmission of the Torah to the family of Hillel and the Sages. With the amount of precedents shown the possibility seems more than reasonable. This is an area that begs for further exploration. In light of the Pharisaic Sages of that period they were denoted by their dedication to Torah. It was more valuable than familial ties. The stated relationships between Sage and student were that of father and son. It in most cases superseded all other ties. Although vulgar the easiest example would be a businessman who leaves his company to a son in law because of his business acumen instead of his son who lacks adeptness to assure continued provision for his family including his son in succeeding generations. The princes seem to follow suite with the kings with regard to marriage. To maintain their status they would have had to marry appropriately.

Familial adoption by marriage can be shown as being advantageous under most circumstances to all parties until the late 1st century.  “Whoever comes and says I am descended from the House of the Hasmoneans is a slave”. [31] With this ruling by the Tannaim Sages the legitimacy of the Hasmoneans were determined. The ruling was to ban marriages to the Hasomoneans and legitimize their and Herods further claim to the Throne of David. This also points to the Hasmoneans being seen as legitimate and as a desirable union until that point. Otherwise there would be no reason for Halacha.

 “Shemaiah and Avtalion received the Law[32] from them; one was the Prince, the other the Head of the Court. Our master Hananel wrote ‘How did it come about that they appointed a Prince over the House of David, for Jose ben Joezer was a Prince and also a Priest’[33]. Although regarding Simeon and Antigonus no Head of Court is mentioned, there always was a Head of Court; just they did not list their names. This was the custom in Israel, and thus was said at the end of Moed Katan concerning Saul – that he was the Prince, while Jonathan was the Head of the Court.” This if credible shows an even earlier model with the sitting king as prince of the Sanhedrin and the sitting prince in what was afterward the responsibility of the High Priest, which is Head of court.

The Role and Import of the Princess and the Kohenet on Kings and Chief Priests

If Simeon ha Tzaddiq is shown clearly in this model as a typology then it must be determined if he was truly anomalous or part of the rule. The Melchi-Tzaddiq is the arch-typical Messianic figure. The Davidic-King-Priest is the anomaly that has to cross lineage.  The following examples show such figures in Israel’s history setting precedent before Simon ha Tzaddiq who was a (Netzer) King-Priest. The reason he is not listed as a king but as an Ethnarch or Prince is because of the occupation of Israel at this period. The degree of intermarrying between the priesthood with the royal line would have provided him with the lineage for both positions whether by descent or marriage and it wasn’t considered unseemly until the priesthood under the Hasmoneans took the throne of David.

The justification they used by marriage may not be suitable because the chief priest is still inferior to the king/regal prince in some respects. The lists of priests and kings need to be viewed in their historic context. Although not complete they show an inarguable pattern of king/priests through the history of Israel. Either these kings retained priestly lineage from previous generation (kohenet/princess inheritance)), or their current wives were kohenets or regal princess (agents). Zechariah 6:9-13 NIV “The word of the LORD came to me: ‘Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: “Here is the man whose name is the Branch and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.

2 Samuel 8:18 “And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief rulers.”[Priests]

 “Haughty men these priests are, saying which woman is fit to be married by us, since our father is high priest, our uncles princes and rulers, and we presiding officers at the Temple”—these words, put into the mouth of Nadab and Abihu (Tan., Aḥare Mot, ed. Buber, 7; Pesiḳ. 172b

Although written in completely different time frames and circumstances the “chief rulers” of the Temple are halachically priests. The mechanism of agency by marriage or kohenet inheritance can be the only justifier in the application of the sons of David in the priests’ position. With the application of marriage law with regard to kings and priests it even this early is justifiably inevitable that the indications of a Davidic/Priesthood is legitimate and present even this early.

High Priest                                                            King

Joash (c. 925 BCE)                                                  (Joash) Jeush[34] His mother was Mahalath, daughter of Jerimoth (Meraoith) son of Zerihiah, son of Uzzi.

Jehoshaphat (c. 870-845 BCE)                           Jehoshaphat (872-848 BCE)

Azariah (Uzziah) (c. 765-750 BCE — 2 Chr 26:17)         Uzziah (767-750 BCE)

King Uzziah was the son of King Amaziah who in turn was the grandson of King Joash who married Jehodda (Kohenet/Princess), the daughter of Jehoiada I High Priest and Jehosheba, a Davidic princess.[35] King Uzziah married Jerushah daughter of Zadok II, High Priest.[36].

Jotham, son of Azariah (c. 750-735 BCE)         Jotham, son of Uzziah (750-734 BCE) KJV2 Chronicles 27:1 “ Jotham was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Jerushah, the daughter of ZadokII.  And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Uzziah did: howbeit he entered not into the temple of the LORD.”

Shallum I son of Zadok II                                        Shallum (usurper of throne for 6 months)[37]

Shallum II                                                                Jehoahaz (Shallum) son of King Josiah, married Zebudah daughter of Pedaiah High Priest (c.825 BCE)

Joseph ben Tobiah (prince Tobaids)[38]                  Joseph ben Tobiah (nephew of High Priest Onias II)

Onias ben Tobiah (prince Onaids)                     Onias ben Tobiah (nephew of High Priest Onias II)

Neither Joseph or Onias sons of Tobias served the Temple at Jerusalem but had the lineage of a Kohenet mother. Their schism split Israel into two parts each with a separate Nasi and functioning Priesthood. Simon of Perea, He rods slave was the last heir of this the main line.[39]

Simeon ha Tzaddiq                                              (Prince) Simeon the Just

Jose ben Josher  [40]                                                 (prince) Jose ben Josher

Resh Galuta

High Priest                                                                                  Exhilarch

Schania II son of Shemaya II (38th Exhilarch) High Priest First Synagogue at Babylon[41]

Hasmonean

High Priest                                                                                    King

Hyrcannus                                                                        Hyrcannus (Prince)

“…To these evils were added the dissensions that arose between the seven sons of Joseph by his first marriage and Hyrcanus, his son by his second wife, which dissensions divided Judea into two hostile camps…”[42]

John Hyrcannus                                                                               John Hyrcannus (prince)

Aristobulus                                                                       Aristobulus (Alexandra Salome)

Alexander Janneus                                                          Alexander Janneus (Alexandra Salome) “It is found in the chapter Haomer in Kidushin: Jannaeus, who was called Hyrcanus, killed the sages who came to find him unfit to serve as High Priest, for he wished to be both High Priest and King, and he got heretical ideas regarding the Oral Law”[43].

The last of the Hasmoneans that had this lineage but only served as high priest was prince Aristobulus brother of Marriame I.

The Davidics of the first century were by genealogy mostly Kings/Priests. The Davidic/ Priesthood lineage, for lack of a better term stirred messianic fervor.  These as shown clearly in their generations going into and through the first century are what were referred to as the Netzerim. The term itself is characterized as a status not a sect. This categorization of the Davidic/Priesthood or King/Priest is what has caused endless confusion because of small references to “the Netzerim or Nazarene” before the first century. I will take up the proper proofs in the appropriate chapter. As a side note with the royal appellation now tied to the priesthood they also had religious priority. The Kohen High Priest remains second in dignity to the lineage of a Davidic/King/Kohen/Priest. With this in mind the direction of the country and the “Temple cult” in a perfect world are under the direction of the Netzer. The Halacha is not. This premise can be checked against the effects of the different sitting kings on the Jewish Religion, and practices in the Temple prior to the first century.

The high priests and kings stood on par as national leaders.[44] The concept is shown easiest in available marriage choices for either office.  The difference lay in the accountability to the Sanhedrin. The regal king’s duties included choosing the Sanhedrin members, as well as the high priest. The high priest served on the Sanhedrin the regal prince/king could not. [45]The high priest was accountable to the Halacha and the king in many cases was above it as an exception.[46]After Herod took the throne the practice of the king choosing the high priest continued. The corruption had become so rampant that the office was sold to the highest bidder. With the installation of Simeon b. Boethus he old-guard Sadducees as a party was effectively shut out of the hope of reign with the closing of the Hasmonean dynasty.

With regard to the role of the Kohenet and Princess through the first century it’s not a matter of what impact these women had, as shown it was quite extensive. The list I compiled as stated are not complete. It becomes unnecessary to the point being made. The pattern is clear enough to deduce that it was halachally correct in the different periods.

False Messiah

A Prince who waived his honor may do so, but the King may not waive his honor.[47]

One of the underlying meanings of this is if a prince wished to abdicate he could but a Davidic King could not, to do so would be to sin against the Great Judge who had put the king in his place.

“…in a Deuteronomy Rabbah Passage, which has strong echoes in ySanhedrin: Our Rabbis have taught us: Why may not a king be judged? R. Jerimiah said: Because of King David it is written, ‘Let my judgment come forth from Thy presence (Ps 17.2)’ Hence no human being may judge the king, only God…”[48](Sanhedrin 2.1-2 The high priest may judge and be judged, testify and be testified against, perform halizah, and have halizah performed to his wife…The king may neither judge nor be judged, testify nor be testified against, perform halizah nor have halizah performed to his wife…”)[49]

When viewed against the history of the 1st century the pattern that emerges is one of the sons of David pressing Divine Right. When the opportunity or reason presented itself they were bound by their bloodline to pursue it. When Herod died Simon of Perea’s only opportunity presented itself and he acted by grabbing the diadem.  Since the line of David in many respects stood above the Law (regal immunity), the results were the only indicator of the Divine Blessing or Displeasure. With the imminent failure of the main line of descent in Simon of Perea (he had no heirs), the Sanhedrin legitimized Abiudite line and the Rhesaite line among others. All the Claimant lines including the Pelatiahite, then pressed for supremacy throughout the 1st and into the 2nd century CE.  The common delineator was all remaining lines were descended through Zerubabel and his foreign wives or secondary or tertiary lines.[50] As Judaism became more and more variegated the different lines or sub-lines congealed on the differing parties. Each” sect “had oppositional regal lines and priestly lines striving for dominance. With legitimization of the family lines the number of possible claimants started multiplying throughout the century. These however took a back burner position as long as there was a clear cut claimant that had priority. If the first war with the Romans is looked at from this perspective the lack of clear regal priority and the ruthless ambition was the major cause of the infighting that defeated Jerusalem.

The constituency of the royalty was the crosscut of their society, at all levels. While the law is clear that “the king’s road has no limit[51]” the backing of the different levels and structures of government would certainly go further than without them.  The strongest backing of a king and the main line of his support was from the everyday people, or am haretz. According to the Law Pertaining to the Kings, the king is reminded every time he addresses his people of his responsibility to his Judge, “My brethren and my people”.  The people are reminded of their responsibility to the king in their response. This is why the Davidic King and not the Priesthood or the Sanhedrin is charged with being the attendant or “shepherd of the flock of G-d”.

How is this applicable beyond theory in the first century before 70 Ce, with the House of Herod seated? “A King may not deny his honor”. They were halachically bound to assert authority when the opportunity arose. The Davidics who were quiet until the legitimization of secondary lines started the assent to authority as soon as the occasion rose. Every time an insurrection was created to fight Herod by an anti-king, aspirant or messianic the numbers given by the Romans attest to the response of the people of the land. The Sanhedrin can not interject directly into the aspirations of a Royal.

The claimant must find their own way, barring the legitimization of lineage.    “A Prince who waived his honor may do so, but the King may not waive his honor.” If the opportunity arose the Davidic king was bound to assert his right. This was the double edge to the sword in the legitimization of what was until then secondary and tertiary lines of David in Zerubabul. It brought the lines of Nathan and then Shaphatiah, through Tamar into contention.[52] This also set up what could be construed as one half of the Melchi-Tzaddiq equation. Before Tamar[53] these lines had no claim and no history or direct lineage to the throne. Because of Tamar and then the ruling of the Sanhedrin after Tamar they (line of Nathan) became the legitimate heirs for over one hundred years. The multitude of contenders many with hereditary lines to both regal inheritance and Kohen inheritance caused what was until then turf wars over rights of jurisdiction to devolve into sectarianism as the century wore on. Each contender gravitated toward a power base which fell on very few lines consisting of the Pharisaic and its subsets, Sadducee / (Herodian/Boethusian) and its subsets or the am-heretz or everyday people.

It was the backing of a particular claimant that was sectarian. The claimants were known and distinctive. The Legislative and Judiciary which was the different level Sanhedrins  again were bound halachicly to not interfere with the assertion of the Divine right of kings and only commented on it after the fact.  “…The king may neither judge nor be judged[54]…” It is also to be strongly noted that not all of the regal contenders saw themselves or their roles as Messianic. This distinction is important in the difference between a Messianic claimant and a regal claimant through the century.

Before the legitimization of the other lines it can be noted that the Davidics are for the most part quiet. Hezekiah the Zealot was a captain in Herod the Greats army. Gaining “right of rule” with the legitimization of his family line, Hezekiah started a rebellion and so it goes on in that part of the century. The Zealot cry for freedom is also for Davidic right of rule. The equivocation of false messiah and anti-christ in the Christian world is at best misleading. False messiah is one with messianic aspirations (a Davidic) who did not complete the task. The word has no evil connotation other than one of presumptuousness. An example would be in a time of injustice the “halachically correct Davidic” who could not walk away from his responsibilities (a king cannot deny his honor) had to rise up and address it. For a “Davidic” the messianic hope is intrinsically tied to his lineage. If under the banner of “the restoration of Israel” (and all that entails), the restoration of justice and Torah, and or the lifting of the “tent of David” he fails, he is a false messiah.

The Rise of Sectarianism[55]

A lot has been written on the timing and causes of the sectarianism that tore Israel apart in the second and first century BCE, through the first century and into the second CE. This can also be traced back to the destruction of the first Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the rise of the Synagogue in Babylon and the break in the Temple cult. With the rebuilding of the Temple, reassertion of the priestly priority combined with their soon fascination with Hellenism it became a matter of time before conflict came. The prophets started speaking out against the association of the Temple cult with righteousness. The priests no longer wanted to be bothered with teaching the Torah. With Alexander there came the building of the oppositional Temple on Mt Gerezim. With Epiphanies (who called himself the revelation of God) they had survived Judaism being forbidden in their own country. To own a Torah scroll was to have a death warrant. The period saw the rise of the Sadducees as a power; Hellenism was ascendant and it was marked by the lewdness of the Gymnasium built within sight of the Temple and a forced or at best coerced plurality of ideas of culture, including worship and religion. This may well mark the rise[56] of the Essenes[57], because at this time frame, for eight years there is a break in the line of the Priests. The High Priests name was blotted out. Quite possibly the hyper-messianism of the Essenes resulted as their departure from the ranks of the Sadducees and the Jerusalem Priesthood. It also saw the rebuilding of the Temple at Heliopolis replacing the destroyed Temple at Elephantine. It was only because of Queen Salome Alexandra/Shlomzion whose brother a regal prince Simeon ben Shetah as well as nasi[58] of the Sanhedrin that the Pharisees regained the Sanhedrin and survived at all. With the massacres by Alexander Janneus the Pharisees never forgot the results of sectarianism.

Civil Affairs

The Kohen Gadol-“He is the new Adam,

Wearing the garments that Adam lost on leaving Eden, doing what Adam failed

To do in the temple-as-restored-Eden. He represents, or embodies, the people

Of God, Israel (who are, in turn, the true humanity); wearing on his breast piece

And lapels the names of the twelve tribes of Israel (Exod. 28.9-21). He brings

Humanity and Israel to God. He also brings the cosmos, the created world, to

God since this is represented by his garments in their various parts. This idea is

Widely attested in post-biblical literature, and can already be discerned in the

Mind of P, the author responsible for the final form of the bulk of the Pentateuch.

Secondly, the high priest brings the one creator God to Israel and to

The created world. He embodies God’s Glory, wearing ‘the garment(s) of Glory’.

 On the stage of the cultic microcosm he is the creator, and divine

Warrior surrounded by clouds of incense (Exod. 40.27, 34; 1 Kgs 8.10; 2 Chron.

5.11; Lev. 16.12-13; cf. Lev. 9.22-24), carrying fiery coals, dressed in garb that

(According to Josephus, B.J. 5.231; Ant. 3.184) symbolizes thunder and lightning,

His garments sprinkled with the blood of God’s victories (Exod. 29.19-21; cf.

esp. Isa. 63.1-6, but also Deut. 33.2-3; Judg. 4–5; Ps. 68.8-9, 18).17 He is divine

Wisdom’s Avatar.18 According to a brief and tantalizing passage in Josephus he

Is, in effect, called Yahweh, ‘the most honored of revered names’ (B.J. 4.163-

64). Israel’s cult was aniconic, we have been told. But this view is mistaken since,

At least for one dominant strand of biblical thought, the high priest is the true

idol, the image (tselem, Gen. 1.26-27), of the one creator God.19 and as the

‘statue’ of the living God he is rightly the recipient of cultic devotion; of worship.

20 All this, it must be stressed, is true of the high priestly office (that is ritually

Prescribed for particular times, a particular place, to specific garments and

Liturgical acts).”[59]

 

 “SOME OF THESE WERE THE POLITICAL GOVERNORS OF THE PEOPLE UNDER THE REIGN OF HEROD, AND UNDER THE REIGN OF ARCHELAUS HIS SON, ALTHOUGH, AFTER THEIR DEATH, THE GOVERNMENT BECAME AN ARISTOCRACY, AND THE HIGH-PRIESTS WERE INTRUSTED WITH A DOMINION OVER THE NATION”[60].

With the death of Herod and the banishment of Archelaus to Lyons in Gaul in 6CE (early church movement) there was no Roman recognised“King” in Palestine. The highest sitting national officials were High Priests and their deputies.[61]  Through the century this was the family Boethus. With the intermarrying of Herod/Boethus the evidence points toward their hope of a revived “Hasmonean” style rule.  As long as there was no king, even a tetrarch was lower in national affairs. They made foreign policy, set up trade agreements and outposts, even building embassies for the export of Judaism. The idea that the Hasmoneans were seen as royalty through the first century until the Tannaim is also alluded to Flavius Josephus’s apparent command position and pride in his descent through what would be a secondary line at best. Another point hinting at their ambition is the fascination with all things Greek. This was the language of kings not priests[62].

Herod in his time had made Israel a regional power to the extent that he worked on extending his territory to become a Trans- Palestinian/Arabia. These Sadducees (epicureans) as national leaders were deeply involved with foreign trade. The Silk Road ended in Antioch and there was already an ongoing trade with China worked through the Parthian Empire. The Sadducee Priest started wearing silk gloves they were determined not to soil in their duties as an example.  Rome had a garrison guarding the warehouses in Kerala[63], India. Israel had a trade mission there[64].

The High Priest was involved extensively in the export of Judaism by building Temples in foreign lands that also served as its embassies. During this period for example outside of Jerusalem, in Israel there was also the Samaritan Temple which was connected to the Jerusalem Priesthood. In Africa was the Temple at Heliopolis, Egypt. In Arabia there was quite possibly the Temple at Mecca[65], given the extent of the Sadducee population at the rise of Islam. Each Temple was staffed with a functioning Priesthood. Each Temple was under the jurisdiction of the High Priest at Jerusalem, and sent revenue there. The historical spread of Judaism is attested to in history and the rise of other Jewish nations recorded such as Adiebene, at different intervals the Parthian Empire, and there was a Jewish Arabia. It was here at Mecca that the declining Sadducee Priesthood met their inglorious fate six hundred years later by falling into paganism and idolatry.

As an example of their wealth, when King Herod Agrippa needed a loan of two hundred thousand pieces of silver Alexander the priest loaned it to him.[66] The barbarous nature of the Sadducee is recorded sufficiently in the Talmud and Josephus as they related among themselves and Israel.

Another example of how they gained wealth, as their greed and theft spilled over and started consuming the people in general is remarked on in Taaniyot 4:8 (69a)” For the members of the town council of Jerusalem used to sit in the middle of the city and when they saw people coming up to Jerusalem used to say: For we heard that you wanted to become a leader and member of the council. And he would reply: No, this is not my desire. And they would then say: For we have heard that you wish to sell your fields. And he would reply: No, that is not my desire. And his (=council members) friend would say: What do you want from him? Write (a false bill of sale) and I will sign it…[67] It was this level of depravity that drove the Pharisees doctrines of replacing the Temple cult by establishing its purity in the daily living of the people to replace the defiled cult.

Internally they controlled the centerpiece of national Israel, the Temple cult and all its trappings. The Temple of Herod was in its day a world wonder. It was the largest Temple in the world in. This included the markets which although primarily for the Temple offerings were also for foreign goods gained in trade from as far away as India and China. This was the time when the proverb “Like Priest, like people, like people, like government “was first spoken. The Sadducee had a common belief that the Temple cult had precedence in defining Judaism and the direction of the nation. The cult and its practices and not personal or communal righteousness were what defined the Covenant.  Thus their inheritance of the priesthood was their assurance of righteousness and bulwarked their leadership. Wealth was favor, favor was granted by God. This makes it believable when Josephus relates of mid and lower course priests robbing and literally pillaging the weaker priests and the “statements of woe” of R. bar Abba are put into context. If wealth and position are the show of Righteousness then the only way to gain more is to get more, the ends justifying the means and the successful are forgiven.  This belief and practice was one more thing that was antithetical to the Pharisee, whose belief was modest living.

“If we refer to the transition from the first Temple to the second as a paradigm shift, the shift was subtle. Torah was still the written Torah. Drawing close was still the offering of animals. Religious authority continued to be the Priests… If there was a shift, it was that spiritual authority broadened from the hands of the few Major Prophets to a school of minor Prophets. In the last centuries of the second Temple, religious practice and the priesthood became corrupt. People voted with their feet, deserting the Temple, developing a proto-rabbinate, along with a proto-synagogue and proto-prayer…” [68]

These were the rulers of the people[ the Am Heretz], national Palestine. The commonness of lineage, differing levels of poverty, and ignorance of the am-haretz or person of the land was seen as defiling. The average person was no more than income generation and in the Temple cult view they owed their continued existence to the workings of the cult and were no more than prey. As with the maintenance of herds if records are kept it is more than possible to foresee future gain. There are X- numbers in the population, which equals so much in offerings, tithes, and sold sacrifices. The High Priest owned the market which sold the animals. As the first century wore on the pursuit of wealth became the end-all. The sacrifices became secondary and less important to the priests. This is in part what the Pharisees, Essenes, and then the Nazarenes[69] were reacting to.[70]The Pharisee to the corruption of Torah, the Essene to the defiling of the Temple, and purity, and the Nazarene to the treatment of the “flock of G-d” the common or am haretz.

Although the Pharisees had driven the “Old-Guard” Sadducee from the Halachic Court, with the resurgence of power the Boethusian Priests tried to regain Halachic authority.

 “For the Boethusians would write laws in a book, so that when a person should ask, they show him [the answer] in the book. The Sages said to them: Has it not been said already [in Scripture]: “… for in accordance with these words I make with you a covenant and with Israel” [Exod 34:27]; “in accordance with the Torah that they shall teach you, etc.” [Deut 17:11], implying that it is forbidden to write [these laws] in a book? In the first part of this passage, the sages reject the Boethusian claim that, besides the Torah, other writings were given at Sinai. The Boethusians write halakhot in a book, a person asks, and they show him what is written in a book. In other words, even though it is they who have written this book, they point to this tome that they themselves wrote as possessing Sinaitic authority.[71]

In this regard they believed in an oral tradition differing from the Pharisee Sages as well as the “Sola Scriptura Old-Guard Sadducee”[72]. Josephus’ discussion of the Sadducees students railing on each other like barbarians must have disgusted the Pharisee who worked by consensus. [73]  And thus they were Sadducees. The Sadducee “sect” was actually a class because its defining nature based in a narcissistic and or epicurean lifestyle.

There were baseline differences between the Sadducee and the Boethusian, which would constitute differing groups of Sadducees. The Boethusian theology was closer to that of the Pharisee. The Sadducees were in the priesthood but not all priests were Sadducees. The old-guard Sadducee started declining with the assent of the Boethusian in Israel. The corruption of the priesthood went to the point that for the last ten years the Pharisees no longer allowed the Sadducee in the Temple (to perform their duties). With Herod as king and the Hasmoneans dispossessed the old-guard (Hasmonean) Sadducee no longer had the power of the kingdom behind them. They could no longer marry into the royalty and gain position as the Hasmoneans had done, Herods marrying into the family Boethus and the newly legitimate Davidic lines made that clear. Herods act of giving the Priesthood to Simeon Boethus and subsequent marriage cemented this as fact and strikes a fine line between the Boethusian and old Hasmonean Sadducee.

The High Priest was also responsible for the Judicial (Trial) Courts. The popularity of the Pharisees with the people as according to Josephus was in part due to the protection they provided from the Sadducee Trial Sanhedrin. The literalist view of “an eye for an eye” under all conditions[74] became reparation instead.

The Halachic Sanhedrins (Beit Din) on the lower end were the town and village councils, local courts, and the synagogues. They decided the local ordinances, aggadah, and applied the halachic rulings from the higher courts or Sanhedrin. They decided everything from what we would consider zoning laws, laws of agriculture, and what could be bought or sold and when according to the Halacha. They had taken over the duty of teaching Torah from the priests who could no longer be trusted.

As the Temple Cult become more and more corrupted the Halachic Sanhedrin moved further along to take the laws of ritual purity relating to the Temple cult and bring them into the everyday homes of the Jewish people. The work itself was completed with the Tanna in the next period. The everyday acts and occurrences becoming sanctified. An example would be the evening meal seen as consecrated as an offering of a Sacrifice. This was and is the goal of the Rabbinate and could only be done through a people whose lives were dedicated to Torah and purity.

“To join the Pharisees two vows were required to tithe what he ate, what he sold, and what he bought, and not to be a guest with an Am ha-arets, the other in regard to Levitical purity not to sell to an ‘Am ha-arets’ any fluid or dry substance (nutriment or fruit), not to buy from him any such fluid, not to be a guest with him, not to entertain him as a guest in his own clothes (on account of their possible impurity).”[75] Most apparent is the disdain for the “person of the land”. This included the farmers, craftsmen, merchants, and builders. If you were not accepted into their schools you were am ha retz, common and defiling. You could not be trusted to keep the laws they were writing, and you could not possibly have a regard for the Torah.

To protect the law they set a hedge around it. This included who would be allowed to join and gain status in the various Sanhedrins.

“How can one become wise who guides the plow, who thrills in wielding the goad like a lance, who guides the ox and urges on the bullock and whose concern is for cattle?..So with every engraver and designer who, laboring night and day fashions carved seals…So too with the smith sitting by the anvil…so with the potter witting at his feet..All these are skilled with their hands, each one an expert in his work; without them no city could be lived in…but they are not sought out for the council of the people, nor are they prominent in the assembly. They do not sit on the judge’s bench, nor can they understand law and justice. They cannot expound the instruction of wisdom, nor are they found among the rulers.[76]Ben Sira 38:25-33”   Philosophically this is the Pharisee.  Traditionally within groups there are leaders and followers. With the Pharisees it was different levels of leadership from lower to higher. The Pharisee s recognized hypocrisy as being problematic in their ranks and in a blessing berates and reproves five of seven different types of Pharisees.[77] These were the Pharisees Jesus spoke about.

The Pharisees had no interest in swelling numbers and did not think of themselves as a sect, they were the princes (leaders) of Israel. At this time their Schools of Torah were closed to the general public and only admitted according to their consideration worthy students who would grow into the leadership Israel needed for tomorrow.  If they were a sect at their peak their numbers were about six thousand. The Sadducees were double that. The Nazarenes (Netzerim) were much larger than both. If they (the Pharisees) were a sect their influence would be small comparatively. Today if a comparison were to be made it would be all levels of Government (Legislative] at the local, state, and level), business leadership, and charities functioning as a group. In his article Koler’s description of fraternity is much more telling.  As a cross section they represent a tiny minority of the population. For a cross section they also represent the nexus of authority among the people.

Shown in the previous chapters the Chief Priest was responsible to the Halacha of the Sanhedrin (Beit Din). In Yoma 19b it shows that the Sadducee High Priest had to offer the Atonement not according to his custom but following the ruling of the Pharisees, the reference would be to a decision of the Nasi and Sanhedrin to which the High Priest was a part of and halachicly beholden. It also shows that there was a change in the Halachic Law concerning this at some point because there was a previous tradition the Sadducee wished to follow.  A common mistake is to take the halachic decisions of the Tannaim, Amorim, and later Rabbis and superimpose their decisions on the previous period.  Even today halachicly, if a previous law is to be changed the precedent must come from the same period and later Sages may not be referenced. Their Law was what took Israel out of the Temple Cult period and made it thrive and survive without it.

Briefly we have covered the Priesthood and the Trial Sanhedrin, Pharisees halachic Sanhedrin in relation to the people and the priesthood. The other consideration to be made is their relation to the Davidic Royalty and Herod.

What is a Jewish King

The Jewish King is first and foremost a Despot in the classical sense of the word. He has few limitations and is beholden only to G-d. This isn’t an inherent trust in a “king” per say but one in the King of the king of Israel.

“The Mishnah states, “Who is meant by ruler? A king, for it is stated in Scriptures, any of all the things which the Lord his God hath commanded (Lev 4.22), a ruler above whom there is none but the Lord his God.”[78]

As shown in the previous chapters the “King” was separated from the Sanhedrin on the model of the Babylonian Exhilarch, as well as Halacha. The king/ royal in-line claimant could not serve on the Sanhedrin. The Prince of the Sanhedrin was not the king as shown by However, at the end of the Moed Katan there is reference to a Sage who performed the rites of Halizah on the right, the Head of the Court to the left and the Prince on either side. Rashi explains that there is a preference to rending on the left, on that day the sage was also doing it on the right. The sage of a city is one who is asked for his ruling, but the Head of the Court[79] is better.[80]”The king as noted earlier may not perform halizah.”

The king was above most of the Halacha shown earlier as the king may not be judged except by God.[81] The king’s duty shown through the exhilarch was to pick the membership of the Sanhedrin but he could not interfere with their duties or priorities. Curiously the King of the Diaspora is forbidden to become King of Israel proper. The Sanhedrin also could not interfere with the kings/ in-line claimant priority because of what would be considered Divine right.

This separation of powers is shown in the fact that it was the king (executive power) that called an army in Israel and not the legislative and judicial of the Sanhedrin. As many of the claimants that could build armies invariably are halachicly the sons of David. The King cannot start an offensive war without the permission of the Sanhedrin. The regal claimant on the other hand could not interfere with the workings of the Sanhedrin which was functionally the legislative and judiciary.

Why would the Sanhedrin give any type of support to Herod and what kind of support did the Sanhedrin give? Under the Hasmoneans the policy of expansionism provided problems for the sages. They developed a policy of forced conversion which the Sages abhorred, as well as proselytizing of neighboring Semitic peoples.[82]

With regard to Herod the legitimization of the secondary and tertiary lines of David was a double edged sword. In doing so they ensured the lines of David would continue, but lent legitimacy to Herods[83] reign. In the period of his marriage to Doris, the Davidic lines start to become very active in pursuit of their inheritance of the kingdom.

In the history of Israel the effects of Regal and Sacerdotal marriage can be shown in the results of Jeremiahs curse on the seed of Jehoiakim, and the mingling of the Davidic regal and chief priest lines through the second Temple period. These types of marriages can be shown as the arguments for ascension to position as well as the justifiers for keeping it. If Herod’s marriages are viewed in this context a pattern emerges to legitimize his family as both Regal Davidic (Justus) and High Priest (Tzaddiq). Although this should be case by case, if viewed in reference to his marriage to Marriamme II bat Boethus , Simeon ben Boethus is made High Priest so his family would have the standing to be acceptable in marriage to  the king, Herod the Great. If all his marriages are viewed in this light which is reasonable, then each of his wives families had import or it would have been called a misalliance.

Conversely if Herod in his day had not gained some form of halachic standing as a Jewish king it would also be seen as a misalliance. In an article by Jona Lendering[84], Herod is seen as a king of Israel in contention with the Babylonian exhilarch, not content to be the king of Palestine but wanting to be “King of the Jews “worldwide. This is given as an explanation for his construction projects and Jewish philanthropy outside his kingdom. The establishment of Simeon Boethus as High Priest is another step on this path. The Diaspora population in Egypt was large, and by the removal of the Jerusalem High Priest and installation of one from the Temple at Heliopolis.[85] He could appeal to the Diaspora, eventually as their king with their Priest. With marriage into this family he could further establish his legitimacy.

“It is mentioned in the book of Ben Gurion, that Menahem[86] was a great sage, like a prophet. He made many prophecies, and he prophesied to Herod, when Herod was still young, that Herod would reign. After Herod began to reign, he sent for Menahem. Menahem told him that he Herod would reign for over thirty years. He actually reigned for 36 years. The King enriched him.”[87] In her article entitled  ”Intermarriage in the Herodian Family as a Paradigm for Intermarriage in the Second Century” Tal Ilan shows that intermarriage in that period were widespread at least among the nobility and possibly throughout Judaism. The argument professor Ilan presents shows clearly that Herod was by and large considered Jewish. She also presents the realistic argument of his detractors and concludes that their motivation by and large were political considerations. Second the Matrilineal Principle[88] wasn’t fully developed until the second century with the Tannaim.[89]Herod’s ethnic identity would be from his father a proselyte.

To show the oppositional view to this, in his article From Maccabean Warriors to Hasmonean Kings to Roman Slaves Reb Chaim Ha Qoton tells us “at Succos when king Agrippa was doing the reading and reached Deuteronomy 17:15, he began to weep because as a descendant of Hasmonean slaves, he knew he was not considered a proper Jew. “The Talmud (Sotah 41b) says that at this moment the Jews were obligated to be completely destroyed for false flattery. Although Herod was his father, his mother was Jewish (Tosafos ad loc. explains: a Jewish king is required to have both a Jewish mother and father to be legitimate, thus Agrippa’s kingship lacked halachik legitimacy.)” This ruling was made in the time of the Tannaim and according to the article possibly as late as Judah ha Nasi. With respect to the dating of the ruling the consideration historically must be viewed in light of the children of Zorubabels foreign wives who gained legitimacy around the time of Hillel ha Zaken.

The Mishna according to David Flattos article referencing Gafni’s “The Hasmoneans” speaks of a Davidic Dynasty as an ideal, and recognizes the legitimacy of alternate descent[90] by praising Agrippa. The critical point for the writers of the Mishnah[91] is that they are not also priests.

Another consideration to be made is what laws was a king’s lineage judged by during the Temple period? With the marriage to Doris, Herod has achieved at the very least Davidic legitimacy by proxy or agency. In the example given, Tamar’s children are given regal legitimacy through Jehoiakim, take the Diadem and the line of David is forever moved to the lines of Nathan through Sheatiel and then Zerubabal. The Mishnah sets the high priest and king apart even in standard application of mourning and levirate marriage.[92] With the marriage to Mariamme II, Herod is given both status as a king (agency by marriage to a princess), and the beginning of legitimate ties to the lower aristocracy of the Kohen Gadol (agent of the Kohenet inheritance).

It needs to be understood that although in part speculative it shows the lengths the usurper Herod the Great went to legitimize his place and his heirs, as eventual legitimate Jewish Davidic Claimants and Aaronic Priests.  Herod considered himself to be Jewish, the son of a proselyte, and the rightful Jewish king.  With that in view it is not a far jump to Herod seeing the Messiah of David coming out from his family through their marriages to David and Aaron. The final product of this can be shown to be Simon bar Gjora (called the Idumean) , Herods  anti-messiah.

In the sections on inheritance of the Kohenet and Davidic princess I presented a methodology that shows the historical justifier for these types of ascensions through marriage. First let’s take a look at Herod’s marriages.

[93]Doris, married c.47, sent away 37; recalled 14, sent away 7/6. Abiudite line, Davidic princess, àDaughter of Panter>Simeon IVàShetah

The Abiudite line and the Rhesaite line were legitimized by the Sanhedrin approximately the same time period of Herod’s marriage to Doris, descended from Shazrezzar, eldest son of Zerubabel from his 1st wife. The Abiudite line had precedence for most of the 1st century CE and into the 2nd. Included in this line are most of the Messianic claimants for the 1st century. The other prominent line which took precedence in the latter 1st century was the Rhesaite line.

2.            An unknown niece: married 37.

3.            An unknown cousin: married c.34/33

4.            Mariamme II, The daughter of the High Priest named Simon Boethus, married 29/28, divorced 7/6. One of the sons of this union was Herod Boethus. This shows the significance of the union to the High Priest with the addition of the Priestly name to that of the then ruler.

5.            A Samaritan woman named Malthace: married 28 died 5/4, who is speculatively, a daughter of the High Priest of the Samaritans.[94]  Sanballat, Governor of Samaria married his daughter into the Jerusalem Priesthood so all his descendents were related to Priests from the Jerusalem Priesthood.[95] This again points to inheritance through a Kohenet or the lineage would be lost in a couple generations.

6.            Cleopatra a citizen of Jerusalem married 28. Probably one of the most speculated women of the period. If this marriage follows the same pattern and there is no reason to think otherwise, she would be either royal or priestly. Given that Simeon Boethus is a known Hellenist and from Alexandria, Egypt it is initially plausible that this is another daughter. With a drought of evidence it is unverifiable. [96]

7.            Pallas: married 16.

8.            Phaedra: married 16.

9.            Elpis: married 16.

“Indeed, Herod greatly respected Hillel the Elder, for they supported his rule. It is written there that Shammai was the disciple of Hillel. Maybe this was the case in the time of Menahem, but afterwards Shammai was a colleague of Hillel. Shammai the Elder also prophesied that Herod would be king.”[97]“Herod did not raise his hand against Hillel and Shammai and Menahem and their factions, as he respected them.”[98]

The Historic Netzerim

“The first century use of the term and its translations are surprising. “In the well-known section of Annales 15.44, Tacitus refers unmistakably to “Christiani.” “This fragment will enable us to demonstrate who the Christiani really were, and, as we shall see, they were not Christians. Here as elsewhere in this paper I am using “Christians” (as opposed to “Christiani”), “Christianity,” and “the Church” to refer to the Pauline version only. “The metaphor stirps (branch, descendants) used to describe the Christiani in fragment 2, (2) and (3) Nazōrai s and Nazarēnos (Nazorean), describing in Greek the New Testament sect associated with the Christianoi of Acts 11.26. The connecting link among, as well as the common source for, the three words listed above appears to be the Hebrew netser (branch, descendants – apparently influenced by Isa 11.1), which both translates into stirps and transliterates into Nazōraios/Nazarēnos.”[99]

The distinguishing feature is that they are “shoots of David”. By this definition we know the Netzerim are all inline claimants to the throne of David. The “Christianoi” during the first century is the Latin translation of “the shoot of David”. Viewed this way it is not a reference to a movement, particularly not a gentile movement but the reference to the Davidic Kings or claimants. Not all were inline claimants, the lines moved away from their families. Not all were messianic; some were in a very strict sense Nationalists.

 How were they Legitimate Rulers from Herod’s death through the bar Kochba era?

The Exhilarchy in Babylon and Bagdad was not always recognized by the sitting government. This did not stop the recognition of the Exhilarch as “King of the Diaspora”. If they were not halachically legitimate then none of the “Laws of the Kings” could be applicable. Seated or not if they are halachically legitimate then all the Law, rights, and privileges and responsibilities belong to them. The application applied to Palestine is the same only amplified. With the Roman occupation of Israel it seems to follow the same suite. There is recognition of the Netzer which is positional in regard to privilege.

Kings and Priests

“And he will raise up for them a Teacher of Righteousness to lead them in the way of their hearts.” The Messiah is referred to here by the name ‘the Branch’: “And he will teach righteousness in the last

days”. Of him it is said that God will “make his Holy Spirit known to them through his Messiah, and he will be the Truth.” Reference is made four times to the “Messiah of Aaron and Israel”. The

“Messiah of Aaron” means his priestly role, and the “Messiah of Israel” his kingly status.[100]

Up to this point I have shown the mechanisms and implications of marriage between the king and the priest. I have shown the application in history with regard to the genealogies and the combined family lineages of David and Aaron. As noted by Eric Laupot Isaiah 60:21 the Netzer also represents the righteousness of Israel. Traditionally this is the role of the High Priest.

Zechariah 6:9-13 NIV “The word of the LORD came to me: ‘Take silver and gold from the exiles Heldai, Tobijah, and Jedaiah, who arrived from Babylon. Go the same day to the house of Josiah son of Zephaniah. Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest, Joshua son of Jehozadak. Tell him this is what the LORD Almighty says: “Here is the man whose name is the Branch (Netzer) and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the LORD. It is he who will build the temple of the LORD, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.

These verses give the status of the Netzer. He is the Righteous King or Davidic King/Priest, the Melchi-Tzaddiq. The term Netzer or King/Priest is the stature of those in both the Kings and Priests lists. The Netzerim are not delineated to any one particular group except as defined by lineage. He is the harmony between the Throne of the King and the Throne of the Priest.

It is unfortunate that the later use of the term Netzerim, because of a lack of understanding as early as the second century by early converts to Christianity was what turned it as well as the Pharisee and Sadducee into just religious sects. The status itself is defined by the combined genealogies of the king and the high priest. Because of the inheritance of [the Princess and the Kohenet] there were kings and priests without lineage [its meaning is they had no direct tie [or parental lineage to the throne] but were inline claimants nonetheless by inheritance]. They had no direct tie to the Altar but were high priests. In essence king/priests without descent but as shown in the previous chapters Halachically legitimate-the Melchi-Zaddiq.

Drawing from the Tacticus quotes from Eric Laupots article further define the Netzerim and strikes a difference between them and the Christians as well as the” Jews”, and their religion and that of the “Jews”.

.“These Christiani are also distinguished in frag. 2 from those who were presumably, from the Roman perspective at least, more normative Jews: the Christiani and “the Jews,” though on the same side against the Romans, are depicted as having religious beliefs that are conflicting.  According to frag. 2 then the Christiani were major participants in the war and Titus burned the Temple primarily to destroy them by crippling Judaism – thus destroying the Christiani’s base of operations in Israel.”[101]

Accordingly this shows the import and magnitude of the power base of the Netzerim, at least from a Roman perspective at the time of the Temple demise.  If the Netzerim are cut off Judaism is crippled. Who were the Jews in the Tacticus fragment?

The Religion of Israel through this time is based in the Temple Cult. The normative leader at least visibly is the Pontificate or High Priest. “Accordingly the numbers of the high-priests, from the days of Herod [The Great] until the day when Titus took the temple and the city, and burnt them, were in all twenty-eight; the time also that belonged to them was a hundred and seven years. SOME OF THESE WERE THE POLITICAL GOVERNORS OF THE PEOPLE UNDER THE REIGN OF HEROD, AND UNDER THE REIGN OF ARCHELAUS HIS SON, ALTHOUGH, AFTER THEIR DEATH, THE GOVERNMENT BECAME AN ARISTOCRACY, AND THE HIGH-PRIESTS WERE INTRUSTED WITH A DOMINION OVER THE NATION”[102].

The “Jews” are the Roman appointed leaders of the nation, the Governors, which Josephus identifies as the Priesthood and Sadducees.

The Judaism of the Netzerim/Kings depended on which King, as shown at the end of the period. For example the Judaism of Simon bar Giora was different than that of John of Gisgala.

From this we can establish that the Netzerim were the Kings of Israel and the families and people associated with them both Desposynic and non-desposynic. The later persecutions of the Romans of the Christians/Christiani were to destroy what they considered a competing major threat, the Jewish Messiah King/Priest who would rise up and rule the world.

The “Jews” (Herod/Boethus), were enjoying resurgence in power. Most papers I’ve seen stop short after stating that the Priests had to follow the Pharisee or Halachic model in their duties. If all the information is viewed, in reality they did not care. The Priesthood was becoming a springboard to bigger things. They not only decided Palestine’s international policy with regard to trade, and they controlled the trade.  Realistically they are only a few marriages away from the emergence of a new “Boethusian/Herodian Palestine”. If that did not pan out they already controlled the National Religion via the Temple Cult and had Roman backed Governance.

The emergence and prominence of the Davidic Netzerim threatened all of this. The Netzerim/Christianoi halachically had precedence even over a High Priest. This is easily shown when one came and taught in the Temple Courtyard.  Bustenai-“This is a tradition in our family since the time we lost our throne that when we stand in the presence of a king we neither speak, nor laugh, nor lift a hand without permission.”[103] This referred to the Laws pertaining to the Kings which the High Priest was also obligated to. This reinforced the status of the Netzerim publicly as superior to the High Priest. When the Netzer (inline Davidic King/Priest) sat teaching or speaking in the courtyard, the High Priest had to stand silently and listen as long as he spoke. Throughout the century this friction increased. Ironically it was the Nationalistic High Priest who ultimately led the march to war.

Who is a Jewish King?

“BUT OUR LORD DAVID THE KING HATH MADE SOLOMON KING”.[104]

In Ma’on in the south of Judaea, several hours’ distance from Hebron, R. Johanan b. Zakkai saw a Jewish king pick up grains of barley from the dung of horses (Mekhil. on Ex. 19, 1,61 a);

Both quotes speak of non seated kings being king. The later Tanna spoke of royal descent as no more than an accident of birth, but in the above statement acknowledge in-line descent. The legitimization of the secondary lines of David opened up large lines of potential claimants. In the early part of the century first claimant status was orderly and in the last part of the century chaotic. The following charts show by family the available claimants in the first century.

Of consequence is that all by descent are Netzerim. The names listed in bold print are Nazarene.

The reason the Sages called their Judaism “the Kings Judaism” is shown in the following genealogies spanning the entire first century by family lines. The genealogical lines are from the Davidic Dynasty Ancient Ancestors to Modern Descendents Article by David Hughes.

Abiudite line Mathan

Abiudite line – Mathan (first son)

1.Jacob Nasià Joseph, Ptolas, Cleopas

JosephàJacob (James), Jose, Simon, Jude

  1. A.      JacobàJudas Justus,JohnàBenjamin, Jose MaràJames, Abris
  2. B.      JoseàJosue, Jasna
  3. C.      SimonàZakkai
  4. D.      Jude of GalilleeààJames, Zoker

2.Ptolas

3.CleopasàJames the MinoràEvaristus 5th Bishop Rome,Simeon, Joseph barSabbas(Rome), Jude Labbeus

Abuidite line –Mathan  (second son)

2.Hezekiah the Zealotà

Judas the Zealotà Had 7 sons

1.Jacob, àUri, Eleazar, Hur

2.SimonàEleazaràAndrew Lukas

àHyrcannusàEliezer b. Hyrcannus

àKosebaàSimon bar Koseba

3.Menahemà HannaniahàEleazar

4.JairàMenahem, Eleazar the Zealot, Simon,

5. LeviàJohn of Gisgala, Simon, Jude

6. SaphathàJesus(Joshua)

7. SosasàJacob

Abiudite line Mathan (Third son)

3. Judas of Gamala

  • AbbasàJesus BarAbbas
  • Joseph of GamalaàJesus bar Joseph of GamalaàJesus Justus of Rome–>Joseph bar JesusàJohnàAnicetus,Jude
  • TholomiàNatanel Bar Tholomi (Bartholomew)
  • Kathla
  • Adnan

Rhesaite line

Zerubabel ( through 2nd foreign wife) àMathat NasiàJacob Nasià

1. Joseph of Arimathea

2. Heli (wife Hanna/Anne Daughter of High Priest Jeshua III)à

Mariam Rhesaite Princess/Kohenet[1]àJesus the Nazarene,

3. Gjor (wife (Idumean) Herodian/Boethusà Simon bar Gjora

 

Pelatiahite Line

Zorubabelà Grandson Pelatiah(foreign wife)à àAnthronges the Shepherd ->

Theudas Married Josephs sister ->Miriam

1. JamesBishopofAntiochà

Evotis,

2.Mathias,

3. ThebouthisàJesus, 4.AndronicusàAristubolus, 5.Addai

Given the weight of the numbers of the netzers, it is no wonder that when the Sages of Israel labeled their religion as the Kings Judaism. Until his death these Netzers were under James the Just in Jerusalem. Many of these kings and their families went out to the nations and spread the doctrines of Jesus the Netzer.  They and their families became known as the Desposyni.

The Religion(s) of the Netzerim

It would be easier to describe the sun without light than to describe the Netzer outside of “Davidic Judaism.” Regardless of their variegated views and their actions, righteousness and integrity or lack thereof, they are driven to move their nation and the world into the Messianic age.

As shown the Religion of the Netzer or Davidic Priest/King is based in the Temple at Jerusalem. By both Lineage and Law they have priority. Through time some were Diarchic which is shown in most of the Jewish war era coins. Some are Republican, shown in the example of John of Gisgala. All are true believers in Messianism though not all are Messianic in aspiration.

The religion(s) of the Netzerim were based on careful adherence to Torah, their justification is the Writings (historical Justification of their position(s)), and their aspiration and National and World view are the Prophesy (aspirations for Israel and the world). The writings concerning Messiah reflect all the variegations that made up the religion of Israel. But of note is that comparatively the writings are consistent across Messianism.

The typology of Messiah into the first century fell on different lines of expectation including Messiah the military leader: [105]Messiah as Sage,[106] Messiah the prophet like Moses, [107]Messiah the Priest, [108]

and Messiah Melchizadek: [109]I have included the Qumran pieces because I believe they show an older tradition from the priesthood up till the ascent of the Sadducee under Alexander Janneus.

Combined with these views of Messiah was the prophesy of the seventy seven generations;    “And to Michael the Lord said: ‘[…] Bind them for seventy generations underneath the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment is concluded.’ [1 Enoch 10.4-6, 11-12; “[110]Enoch being from the seventh generation of man and history was now seventy generations from him, the Messianic expectation was high in Israel. The expectation of a world ruler coming out of Jerusalem was famous in the known world, to the point that the Romans had copies of the Sibylline Oracles. This in itself increased the local tensions into and through the second half of the century. With the legitimization of the Davidic lines there was no shortage of contenders.

That they were Temple cult based is unequivocal. The study of Ezekiel’s “Throne” and “Temple (Heavenly Halls)” was in earnest in this time frame. The Books of Enoch and specifically III Enoch, and the Testaments of the Patriarchs, the apocalyptic writings such as the Apocalypse of Abraham provided substantial information.

The Sages of the period were involved in a high degree of speculative theology. What would Messiah be? With the study of the Throne and the Temple also came the study of the Organic Torah as the harbinger and means of Salvation. This they posed elegantly.

While the Sanhedrin provided both the hedge of the Torah and the laws, it could only be the Sons of David that pulled the people together and lifted them up to Torah. Even with all the variegations there were no separate Judaisms. There was only the Religion of Israel. Groups like the Essenes may have pulled back from involvement in their society, but even in their oppositional view they are part of the whole.

Their (Netzerim) views are not necessarily anti-Pharisee, or Sanhedrin. It is the role of the Beit Din to establish the framework of law that a righteous Israel would live by. The Netzer Jesus upheld this. By all reckoning the certification of the Righteousness fell to the Priest in that the Atonement was or wasn’t accepted. The direction of the country and the faith was in the hand of the “Davidic King”. The “am ha retz” for the “king” are the “Flock of G-d”. In all the writings it is the highest position in the land that upholds the lowest. That is why the constituency of the king is the” people of the land”.  The Nazarenes in their writings make this position adamantly clear. To this end their view on respect of persons (position) or any kind of hypocrisy is also clear and they regard it as a sin of Sodom. This is even evident in the Didache 2.5Your word shall not be false or empty but fulfilled by action. 2.6 You shall not be covetous, nor a swindler, nor a hypocrite, nor ill-tempered, nor proud. You shall not plot evil against your neighbor. 2.7 You shall not hate anyone. But some you shall reprove, and for some you shall pray.”

Significantly Hypocrisy is first given by definition and then named. My reasoning in using the Nazarene view as the generic Netzerim view for at least the first half of the first century is that they had predominance. It was their view that defined that part of the century.

The current Temple Cult had failed. They (Netzerim) were the proper Priesthood, which was supported by the Beit Din. The level of righteousness in Israel was viewed as Ezekiel foretold by all.

Some of the premises and central characteristics of Nazarenes sociology/theology are found in:

Ezekiel 16:49  Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

Psalms 82:3 Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

Simon bar Giora later shows an attempt at this by proclaiming “Freedom for the slaves and rewards for the free.”One ramification of this is the lifting in status of the am haretz.

Ezekiel 34:8  As I live, saith the Lord GOD, surely because my flock became a prey, and my flock became meat to every beast of the field, because there was no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock;[111]

Ezekiel 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.

Ezekiel 37:24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.

It was their responsibility as Kings and Priests to bring legitimate rule: To bring back the legitimate Temple Cult and wait for Ezekiel’s (Messiahs) Temple.  Overlaid on this is the reality of Roman occupation.

The Temple of their day was the largest cultic Temple in the world. They spoke of the Temples destruction before it was finished. They taught on Ezekiel’s or the messianic Temple that will follow.

Nazarenes in the Intertestimental Period

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.[112]’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself[113].’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments[114].” Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.  Ye have heard that it hath been said; Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so?  Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect[115].”

This was the summation of the teaching of this Netzer for the lives of His followers. In the first century they were the primary unseated Abiudite and Rhesite regal lines, had intermarried, directly related to the Priesthood, and dynastically related to the families of Joseph ben Jacob and Mary bat Heli. Their leaders in the first century period became known as the Desposyni, and were surnamed Kyriakos toward the end of the period. Among themselves their followers were known as the “Way”, a reference to the “Two Ways” teaching.[116] Given the information so far it would be impossible for a Netzerim to be unknown or obscure in Israel in that time frame. With regard to their constituency it would be comprised mostly of the people (am heretz) of Israel. These Nazarenes also garnered followers from the Temple Cult, the house of Herod, and the Pharisees. They are likened to the Pharisees and often confused as having been a part of that group because of similarities in their teaching and cooperative efforts. Other period groups such as the Zealots, Siccari, or Essenes are sometimes confused or incorporated with these Nazarenes because they were started by other Netzarim/Christianoi (by lineage Davidic/king/priests).

The differing priorities of the Netzerim, Pharisees, and Sadducees would have put them in congruence and at odds on different junctures. For example “Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not”.[117].

“The Sadducees had some reason for to taunt, that the Pharisees would by and by subject the globe of the sun itself to their purifications,’[k Jer. Chag.79 d; Tos. Chag iii] the more so that their assertions were sometimes conjoined with Epicurean maxims, betokening a very different state of mind, such as, ‘Make haste to eat and drink, for the world there is non pleasure in Hades. [1 Erub. 54 a.]”[118]

Care must be taken when applying Halacha to the Temple period. The post Temple period saw sweeping changes in the law and religion of Judaism as it could no longer be Temple cult based. The Tanna changed Judaism into a mobile religion that could be carried anywhere for a people in Diaspora. Many of the pre-70ce law were no longer applicable and no longer remembered for that reason.

With care however it is possible to deduce law that carried over from seeing the application. An example is the following:

When the king is present, all the people stand, and he keeps seated. (And none may sit in the temple courtyard except the kings of the house of David.) And all the people maintain silence when he speaks. He used to address them: “My brethren and my people,” as it is written:  HEAR YE, MY BRETHREN AND MY PEOPLE: while they address him: “Our lord and our master,” as it is written:  BUT OUR LORD DAVID THE KING HATH MADE SOLOMON KING.[119]

“At that time Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest Me as you would against a robber? Every day I used to sit in the temple teaching and you did not seize Me.”[120]

The relationship to the other classes

A word of warning; there is a great propensity to try to “Christianize” or even “Judaize” everything and every person we can. It is both ill advised and unreasonable to make assumptions like this. In a very real sense it takes “the Real People” involved in historically provable events and makes them one dimensional, caricature of themselves and actually negates their import.  The general view that the different “sects” ignored each other, the government structures, the religious structures, the actual people that lived there, as well as the occupation, and other foreign influences is naive at best, polemic at worst.

The reconstruction or reformation of Judaism by the Taanaim resulted in an entirely different paradigm for the religious and societal structures. In short there was no longer a Temple and since the Temple Cult was what the Religion of Israel centered on, replacement structure was necessary. Many of the older practices, laws, and traditions were not just unnecessary but became untenable. Because they had to be discarded they were simply forgotten. Much of the documentation and support for the older practices was destroyed with the Temple.

The reason we have lost much of this information in part is due to the rapidity of events, and unfortunately much that has been rediscovered is not widely known because of great and careful scholarship. An example would be inviting a great scholar into your home and he goes into your closet and examines your left shoe. A great scholar could spend a career investigating the shoe, and we would know everything about the shoe but not the closet, other contents or the general house. If we take one hundred scholars, at first we would know there was a right shoe, then a closet and its contents, how they relate to each other. Finally we would see that there was a house. Great Scholarship is precise.

From Christian Scholars this is why we hear about Johannine communities, Mathean communities and so on. The further time progressed away from the events the more evidence is rediscovered and the more knowledge we’ve gained. The entirety of this paper is simply the collation and compilation of hundreds of pieces of the work done by others, good and great scholars and historians the world over. It is my hope that I’ve handled their work justly.

“In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (A.D. 135-200) purged the Mishnah, part of the

Talmud, of many references to Christianity and those who adhered to it. But not everything was

edited out. In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson

wrote: “There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching…the

Messianists… (were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the

Pharisees during the (first) two centuries.”[121]

 

In the chapter on the Religion of Israel I will show the different works that the Sanhedrin Sages (Pharisees) and the Nazarenes collaborated on including Midrash and Eschatology. The historic Nazarenes will be shown to have good relations with the Pharisees right up until their split. Contrary to the discussion in current papers I’ve seen, I’ll show the split was sudden and decisive as well as why.

If the Sanhedrins adherence to the Halachot can be trusted then the government would have to be legitimate also. The Herodians were reduced to tetrarchs. This gives good standing to the arguments of both Eric Laupot concerning a cooperative government and Michael Rodkinson in saying that the Nazarenes and Sanhedrin worked closely. The natural executive would be the first Davidic claimant.

The power of the Kings came from heredity. “He may force a way through (private property) and none may check him; the king’s road has no limit.”[122]  The Jewish King is essentially a Despot.  “Hence no human being may judge the king, only God…”[123]

The Trial of the Jewish King Jesus

The import of the trial of Jesus and its ramifications are necessary to show a progressive history developing into the time of the Tannaim. It must be notated that the Tanna were not Pharisees even though they inherited their work. They were much more powerful and decided the destiny of their people.

Luke 13:31KJV The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.

 Mark 10:33  Saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: MT16:21

As recorded in the Gospels Jesus is warned by the Pharisees of the building plot to kill him. The Gospels point to Herod and the High Priest in collaboration on this point. As shown earlier the intermarriage relationships would have made this an obvious effort.

With his entry into Jerusalem[124] seated on the ass His messianic claim would be unmistakable. The cry of “Hosanna” and “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the L-rd” are how Israel even today will welcome her King and Messiah.[125] The Herod/Boethusian faction was already started. Herod would not have a simple Davidic usurp what would rightfully be theirs. Careful cultivation can be checked against the Herodian marriages up to this point to produce a Herodian/Davidic/Priest-King.

Mathew21:12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, 13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.”

Jesus actions are that of a Priest/Prophet zealous to uphold the Name in contrast to the Sadducee, who as shown earlier was more interested in the Temple income than the Temple Service. This opened up an opportunity for the Sadducee to arrest the Netzer (King/Prophet) who was acting as Priest. It must be remembered that the High Priest of that day served at the pleasure of who had the throne. If this “rustic” Netzer succeeded the precedent could be there to cut into income, credibility, and force a reassignment of the position to a different family. The other consideration was the Romans who would not have any patience with a challenge to Caesars rule. The High Priest owned the markets at the Temple; the income generation with the local population was large. The income generation with pilgrims was enormous.

After he was in the custody of the High Priest[126]the illegal trial took place. What was the apparent illegality? If the Trial Sanhedrin could try a capital crime in the middle of the night, without all necessary members which would include Pharisees, outside of the chamber of hewn stone, compel self incrimination and false witness, and abuse the accused legally the trial would still be illegal. Why?

“…in a Deuteronomy Rabbah Passage, which has strong echoes in ySanhedrin: Our Rabbis have taught us: Why may not a king be judged? R. Jerimiah said: Because of King David it is written, ‘Let my judgment come forth from Thy presence (Ps 17.2)Hence no human being may judge the king, only God…”[127](Sanhedrin 2.1-2 The high priest may judge and be judged, testify and be testified against, perform halizah, and have halizah performed to his wife…The king may neither judge nor be judged[128], testify nor be testified against, perform halizah nor have halizah performed to his wife…”)[129]

The precedents for the “Laws of the Kings” can be traced clearly to Saul 1st King of Israel. The King can not be tried. The King cannot be witnessed against. The last straw for the Priests was His actions in the Temple. This was clearly the jurisdiction of a High Priest alone. A priest or High Priest can be tried and can be witnessed against.

 Sanhedrin 43a there is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged Yeshu (a) on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), “Yeshu (a) is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him.” When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover.
Ulla (an Amorim) commented: “Do you think that he belongs among those for whom redeeming evidence is sought? Rather, he was a seducer [of whom] the All-merciful has said: ‘Show them no pity… and do not shield them.’ (Deut 13.8b NRSV) In Yeshu (a)’s case, however, an exception was made because he was close to those who held [political/religious] authority[130].”

R. Zemach in his Aruch, under letter “hey” explains that “hamesaper komi” is one who talks in the language of royalty, using curses. They did not permit the house of Rabban Gamliel to talk in that language if not out of respect for the kingship. This does not seem correct for there in the gemara it says that they permitted Rabban Gamliel to speak about Greek wisdom because they were close to the royalty, and it does not mention “komi,” except by Avtolmos b. Reuben, when it is dealing with the ways of the Emorites, as it says”[131] The import of the phrase “close to the royalty” is that it is the same phrase used in the preceding paragraph.. The only argument is whether the house of Hillel was considered at that moment to be royal claimants or princes. They became recognized as being in line claimants after the first war. [132]

 

There was no one who could legally testify for or against Him. The Pharisees would have found the precedent mind boggling. The Priesthood had made a direct assault against the King (son of David). It went against the halachot, the rule of the Sanhedrin, the very concept of Messiah.

The Pharisees were excluded from the trial. The proof of this is the unanimous vote needed for conviction. No Pharisee could stand so bald-faced against the Halacha and tradition. If Nicodemus (Nicodemion ben Gurion) or Joseph of Arimathea had been present the unanimous vote needed would not have been possible. Only one dissent was needed for acquittal.

The preceding account from Sanhedrin 43a has been read only through polemic. This is one of the earlier writings of the Tannaim which is after 70 Ce. The bottom comments are from Amorim which are even later. The importance of the early Tannaim will be covered in the appropriate chapter later. The writing itself reflects the Pharisee memory of the Sadducee trial of Jesus. The Pharisee had already effectively run the Priesthood out of the Beit Din Sanhedrin where the Halochot was deduced and written.   If taken at face value against the Gospel accounts it relates the witness against Sadducee impropriety. The halachic relationship between the Sanhedrin and the King has been discussed in enough detail.  

The five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah are non-answers Jesus gave the High Priest. If the answers are taken at face value or for the sake of the early Sages, as characteristics of the conversation , they then become clearer and in agreement with the Gospel accounts.

Our Rabbis taught: [Yahshua] had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. When Matthai was brought [before the court] he said to them [the judges], Shall Matthai be executed? Is it not written, Matthai [when] shall I come and appear before God [Psalm 42:3, an “Instructive” Psalm]? Thereupon they retorted: Yes, Matthai shall be executed, since it is written, When Matthai [when] shall [he] die and his name perish [Psalm 41:5]. When Nakai was brought in he said to them: Shall Nakai be executed? It is not written, Naki [the innocent] and the righteous slay thou not [Exodus 23:7]? Yes, was the answer, Nakai shall be executed, since it is written, In secret places does Naki [the innocent] slay [Psalm 10:8]. When Nezer was brought in, he said: Shall Nezer be executed? Is it not written, And Nezer [a twig] shall grow forth out of his roots [Isaiah 11:1]. Yes, they said, Nezer shall be executed, since it is written, But thou art cast forth away from the grave like Nezer [an abhorred offshoot] [Isaiah 14:19]. When Buni was brought in, he said: Shall Buni be executed? Is it not written, Beni [my son], my first born [Exodus 4:22]? Yes, they said, Buni shall be executed, since it is written, Behold I will slay Bine-ka [thy son] thy first born [Exodus 4:23]. And when Todah was brought in, he said to them: Shall Todah be executed? Is it not written, A psalm for Todah [thanksgiving] [Psalm 100:1]? Yes, they answered, Todah shall be executed, since it is written, whoso offereth the sacrifice of Todah [thanksgiving] honoureth me [Psalm 50:23] [Talmud, Sanhedrin 43a]. [133]

Matthai – My judge is G-d (I am the King) or where is my Righteous Judge. Only G-d may Judge the king. This can be shown in a later trial of Eliezer b Hyrcannus the priest who was put under the ban for being a Netzerim. His only answer or non-answer to the judge was “I will trust my Righteous Judge” showing his lineage also as Davidic.

Nakai – Innocent in heart and hand

Nezer-Netzer Priest/King Shoot of David

Buni- I am the First-Born

Todah- Thanksgiving to G-d

Luke 22:66  And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him into their council, saying,67  Art thou the Christ? Tell us. And he said unto them, If I tell you, ye will not believe:68  And if I also ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.69  Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.70  Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God[134]? And he said unto them, ye say that I am.71 And they said, what need we any further witness? For we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Had He answered any other way it would have been a denial of His lineage and right.

“According to the Sadducees punishment [d Decreed in Deut. Xix. 21] Against false witnesses was only to be executed if the innocent person, condemned on their testimony, had actually suffered punishment, while the Pharisees held that this was to be done if the sentence had been actually pronounced, although not carried out.[e Makk. I 6].”[135]  The strategic use of perjury can legitimately be shown by the Sadducee. In the section describing them it would be how they gave their social practices a veneer of legitimacy.  The perjurer would not be liable if his testimony did not result in a directly in a verdict.

The Trial Sanhedrin at this time did have the authority of capital punishment,[136] however not the authority to pronounce it on a King. The limits of a trial Sanhedrin were painfully obvious. They could not convict a King. Herod the Tetrarch (quartermaster) could not convict a King that committed no sedition or crime. They could not convict based on good works that were recorded in the Gospels and the Talmud such as healing the sick or teaching Torah, or righteousness in the Temple.

Luke 23:1  And the whole multitude of them arose, and led him unto Pilate.2  And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.3  And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

Herod could not, the Temple could not but Rome could and would. The oracles and prophesies were common knowledge in Rome. There could be no challenge to Caesar. There had to be peace in Palestine.  If this Gospel account is read within its Semitic framework, Jesus is giving the only answers a Jewish King could. Pilate’s concern would be centered on whether he was a seditious ringleader or not. Roman persecution of the sons of David had not yet begun. When he brings out Jesus bar Abbas, speculatively it is for the contrast, to gage the mood of the people and Priests. BarAbbas, grandson of Judas of Gamala[137] and a Zealot Siccarri leader (inferred through the charges against him), a Netzerim by lineage, was imprisoned for murder and sedition.

 “About the same time there lived Jesus, a wise man for he was a performer of marvelous feats and a teacher of such men who received the truth with pleasure.  He attracted many Jews and many Greeks.  He was the Christ.  When Pilate sentenced him to even die on the cross, having been urged to do so by the noblest of our c itizens; but those who loved him at the first did not give up their affection for him.  And the tribe of the Christians, who are named after him, have not disappeared to this day”. Flavius Josephus 17.3.3 This term “the noblest of our citizens” is already explained by Josephus comprised of the “new aristocracy” of Priests and Sadducees.

Yeshu the Netzerim

“The truth is that he was born in the year AM 3678, and in the year 299 after the Temple was built he was arrested, and he was 36 years old in the third year of Aristobolus son of Jannaeus. That is why the Sages of Israel wrote in a dispute with the Christians, that there is no reference in the Talmud to the Nazarene to whom they refer. We know about him from Sabbath, Sotah, Sanhedrin, and from his disciples.”- Sefer Yohassin

“However, Simeon ben Shetach was a very pious man. Once there were two false witnesses against his son and he was sentenced to death. The witnesses retracted and admitted it was out of hatred for the father that they bore false witness, because he killed the witches. Nevertheless, his pious son told him to carry out the sentence rather than overturn a Torah ruling for him (see Sanhedrin in the JT). Rashi explains in the chapter Nigmar Hadin, that he and he alone did not pervert the justice for the king. Gabriel the archangel came for his sake and hit the members of the Sanhedrin on the ground (see chapter Kohen Gadol). .. He hanged eighty women witches on one day in his great wisdom.”[138]

 

“The Sanhedrin must know witchcraft in order to decide for what witchery the witch must be killed. Rashi explains in the chapter Haomed: if the accused is a sorcerer, and he will make the light, such that he does not have control over it, they Sanhedrin will do witchcraft and kill him.”[139]

Jesus ben (Perichiah) was a “Netzerim” or priest/king. He was the son of Perichiah, grandson to Simon Shetah.

The Hasmonean Alexander Jannaeus is on the throne of Israel. The accusation of Sanhedrin 43a states “He was close to the Royalty”. The list of possible oppositional-claimants must come through the family of his wife ShlomZion. This leaves the immediate family of Simon ben Shetah. He (Jesus) is the only Netzer who is recorded as being tried and executed for witchcraft in this period. It is clear he was “Called the “son of Simon ben Shetah “a very pious man.”

Jesus ben (Perichiah) was accused of witchcraft. “Once there were two false witnesses against his son and he was sentenced to death.”He “Came out of Egypt” with magic.  The witnesses retracted and admitted it was out of hatred for the father that they bore false witness, because he killed the witches.”

In Egypt it would be natural for him to be drawn to the Diaspora population in Heliopolis, at the Temple his relative Onias had built. As a Netzer, King/Priest, he had legitimate access to the inner most part of the Temple. As a Netzerim he may have served as High Priest as an honor for an occasion. What is clear is he “is associated “with entering the “Holy of Holies” and stealing the “Name”, doing “magic” and perverting Israel.

“The Sanhedrin must know witchcraft in order to decide for what witchery the witch must be killed.”

 “They Sanhedrin will do witchcraft and kill him“

 “Nevertheless, his pious son told him to carry out the sentence rather than overturn a Torah ruling for him (see Sanhedrin in the JT). Rashi explains in the chapter Nigmar Hadin, that “he and he alone” did not pervert the justice for the king. The Hasmoneans are on the Throne through his aunt ShlomZion, rule has moved away from his direct family and they are “kings and princes of the Sanhedrin. He is still regarded as a “king”. The trial of a “king” is still therefore illegal.

If he did not “pervert justice” who did?

“Gabriel the archangel came “for his sake “and hit the members of the Sanhedrin on the ground (see chapter Kohen Gadol).”

Alexander Jannaeus slaughtered the Pharisees for calling into question “his genealogy”.  The early old-guard Sadducee supported Yeshu or let his name be Joshua or Jesus. Is this the reason Jannaeus supported the Sadducee? Is the reformation of Simon ben Shetah the reason Jannaeus told ShlomZion to back the Pharisee?

I wish I could take credit for this but a rereading of Sefer Yohassin will show otherwise.

Rabbi Abraham Zaccuto did know. If his writing on this is grouped as a cluster it becomes clearer, then apparent. He is listed as the first of “three” who received the law in the time of zuggot or “pairs”.

This oddity stands out because in his generation it was no longer “pairs” or two, who were recipients of the Oral Law.

“At the end of Menachoth we find that Joshua ben Perahiah would not have wished to rise to greatness, or to descend, having ascended. Anyway, Joshua ben Perahiah lived for many years, and came to Jerusalem from Alexandria around the year 296 after the Temple was built, which is the year AM 3704. They Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite and Mattathias ben Johanan are the 26th recipients of the Oral Law.”[140]

Following this lineage according to the Davidic Dynasty article by David Hughes he was the son of Perichiah and the father of Sarah/ Doris the first wife of Herod the Great[141].

Sanhedrin 43a may well be the record of the false accusation against the son/grandson of Simon ben Shetah. It is a deduction based on the timing and history of the period’s events.

 “Sanhedrin 43a there is a tradition (in a Barraitha): They hanged Yeshu (a) on the Sabbath of the Passover. But for forty days before that a herald went in front of him (crying), “Yeshu (a) is to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and seduced Israel and lead them away from God. Anyone who can provide evidence on his behalf should come forward to defend him.” When, however, nothing favorable about him was found, he was hanged on the Sabbath of the Passover.
Ulla (an Amorim) commented: “Do you think that he belongs among those for whom redeeming evidence is sought? Rather, he was a seducer [of whom] the All-merciful has said: ‘Show them no pity… and do not shield them.’ (Deut 13.8b NRSV) In Yeshu (a)’s case, however, an exception was made because he was close to those who held [political/religious] authority[142].”

He was “close to authority because he was born to a king and a priest, a Netzerim.

Who Tried and killed the Jewish Netzer Jesus?

What would be the Pharisaic interpretation of the events? The Trial Sanhedrin had gone diametrically against the Halacha and the tradition. A King had been tried by an inferior. The High Priest had failed to follow even remotely what would be a façade of legitimacy. The High Priest had turned over a King to the Romans for crucifixion, the death of a cursed one.

If the Trial Sanhedrin had the power of capital punishment until this time the Romans certainly would not have taken it away without reason. Speculatively the Pharisees would see this as an attempt to revive the Hasmonean days when they lost power and were persecuted almost to extinction. The High Priest had overstepped his authority to the point where there was no choice but to severely rein him in. I believe they did this halachacally. “More than forty years before the Temple was destroyed, capital cases were removed [from the authority of the Beth Din]” [Talmud, Sanhedrin 18a].

The High Priest, recognized as the highest sitting national leader would not have taken this censure lightly. “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin was banished (from the Chamber of Hewn Stone) and sat in the market (on the Temple Mount)” (Shabbat  15a). I believe this to be the Halachic Sanhedrin. The markets would have been for the sale of the sacrificial animals, and quite possibly with the Sadducee foreign trade goods. The banishment to the markets possibly points as a reminder by the High Priest to the Pharisee of who was actually in charge.

Regardless of which combination of period or close to period writings are studied it is still a Trial Court (High Priest) held at night.

Who were The Jews

It is the understanding of the words “the Jews” that crops up in history and tradition that has caused so much unnecessary suffering.  These issues cropped up in the next period, the time of the Tanna; the Religion of Israel becomes known as Judaism, and the advent of Roman Christianity; it was the birthing and development of Roman Catholicism.  The struggle of both traditions to maintain historical ties to even the recent past within the Roman Empire became in some respects insurmountable. I will discuss these issues further in their respective chapters.

If the word “Jews” is referenced as it is in the writings, it is the “New Aristocracy” which again is the High Priests and priests. There were priests on the Halachic Sanhedrin also; the point of confusion is defining the Boethusian who believed in the afterlife and Messiah, in a nominal sense.

The Pharisees and what became Rabbinic Judaism stood diametrically opposed to the “Jews”. The “curse” that the High Priest invoked was fulfilled according to Josephus in that the surviving Priests were killed by Titus.

I have lost the reference but the Jewish Sages also state that the “sons and daughters of Hanan and Camithus/Cantheras (Ananias and Caiaphas)” joined with the Nazarenes. At first blush it may seem like odd polemic, but Kings marry Kohenets, and the Apostles can truly be accused of practicing what they preached, forgiveness and loving your enemies. The Book of Acts 6:7 bolsters and shows proof of this also.

The Next Forty Years

From this point onward until 70 Ce the conditions that forwarded sectarianism advanced. Matthew 27:51 “And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;”

“Forty years before the Temple was destroyed the gates of the Holy Place opened by themselves, until Rabbi Yohannan B. Zakkai rebuked them [the gates] saying, Hekel, Hekel, why alarmist thou us?  We know that thou art destined to be destroyed . . .” Yoma 39b

“Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure.” Histories, 5:13 Cornelius Tacticus

KJVActs 2:1 and when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.2 and suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.

 “Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the western light went out, the crimson thread remained crimson, and the lot for the Lord always came up in the left hand. They would close the gates of the Temple by night and get up in the morning and find them wide open” (Jacob Neusner, The Yerushalmi, p.156-157). From the 30’s until 70 Ce this was the backdrop playing out in the nation’s life.

The question becomes how would the Halachic Sanhedrin view all this? How would the common people? The Atonement is no longer accepted. The Temple is too corrupted to continue. With Roman Hellenism came also all the problems of a cosmopolitan city, as the century progressed instead of a city of worship at its now world famous Temple there was prostitution, murder, robberies, and all the plagues of the gentile cities. By mid century the Sadducee is no longer allowed in the Temple. For the last ten years the Atonement is made through prayer, as it is done today.

The am haretz or common people would be horrified. The Priesthood that was supposed to “represent them” before G-d was robbing them instead. The Romans were ruthless in suppressing anything construed as a challenge to their authority which usually meant more of them died. The only representation they had was the Halachic Sanhedrin who had no power to help and was not all that sympathetic to their plight. This left them looking for and dreaming of Messiah the King who would save them. They were directly the Kings constituency. The problem was they had no sitting King.

After the completion of the Temple, much of the population that had relocated for its construction could no longer find work. Poverty was rampant, added to this a few years of famine causing growing unrest. The Siccari went into the crowds at the festivals and murdered their opponents with long knives, and then melted back into the fleeing crowds making their escape. The Zealots cry for freedom, inciting Roman suppression.

Enter the Nazarenes

From this point for clarity I will refer to this particular group as Nazarenes to differentiate between them and the other Netzerim groups that sprang up through the time of the barKochba war. This needs to be done because by the end of the century there would be no less than nine different and varied groups claiming the leadership of a Netzer, and trying to authenticate themselves as the heir of the Netzer Jesus who Pilate crucified. There were also groups of Netzerim that had nothing to do with these Nazarenes and pushed their own agenda for Israel forward. The term Netzerim Judaism or the Kings Judaism must always be referenced to the specific king/priest or claimant.

Christians in their zeal for the greater theonomic principle and economy forget that much of what is written concerning Messiah is also Nationalistic. The raising of the tent of David, the shoot of David, the restoration of Israel, the building of the Temple and so on…

Put into perspective within the period the Nazarenes and the rest of the Netzerim represented the hope of Israel to this end. Put succinctly you could not raise the tent of David if there was no heir. As heir apparent James bore these hopes on his shoulders.

“But James, the brother of the L-rd, who, as there were many of his name, was surnamed the Just by all, from the days of our L-rd until now, received the government of the assembly with the emissaries.” EusHistories 2.23

Pharisee Sages and the Nazarene

“In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson

Wrote: “There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching…the

Messianists… (Were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the

Pharisees during the (first) two centuries.”[143]

The following highlights areas of the combined work of the Pharisee and Nazarene in Torah. It shows the Religion of the Kings in perspective to the Pharisee in its period. Although our respective traditions tell of no such traditions; history, the writings themselves show otherwise. As shown earlier, Netzerim Judaism must be put into context with the specific Netzer who asserted priority. When searched out none of the concepts and doctrines is new. Jewish Sages (specifically Pharisees) had studied and written extensively on them before, and they were there for the Nazarenes to cite and use and amplify.

The following shows a small section of Pharisaic writing and its articulation in the New Testament. By the time the Apostles made use of them some of the writings had been extant for hundreds of years and were used by the Pharisees. Their existence and use to and through the period attest to their assumed orthodoxy.

Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: I Thess. 2: 16 / Levi, 6, 10; Rom. 12: 19 of Gad, 6, 10; Rom. 12: 21 of Benjamin, 6, 3; II Cor.7:10 of Gad, 5, 7; and Ephes. v. 6 of Naphtali, 3, 1. Matt.3:16, 17/Levi 5:21, 22

Book of Enoch/ Jude

4 Maccabees

Merkabah/ Hekalot/Ezekiel, Isaiah, Daniel, Gospel of John 1, Revelation of John, Christology of Paul, Theology of Paul

Cosmology, eschatology, forgiveness, love even for enemies, chastity of thought, propitiation and expiation are shown  to be principally the same principally the same as the Pharisee.

The doctrine and writing of the Nazarenes put in this context is the assertion of Priority; the assumption of the role of the Priest/King (Zechariah 6:9-13), its articulation and insertion into cultic and national life.

The Nazarene Sages of the Sanhedrin long ignored by Christianity are men of the caliber of R.Eliezer b. Hyrcannus; they are memorialized for their work before and after the Destruction.

“Every place in the Mishna where it says simply R. Joshua, it means R. Joshua b. Hananiah, and likewise regarding his colleague, where it says simply R. Eliezer, it means R. Eliezer b. Horkenus, for these two alone taught much Torah to Israel, and had many disciples. He was in Pekiin. Go after R. Joshua to Pekiin, and go after R. Eliezer to Lydda. For such sages as the three remaining disciples of R. Johanan ben Zakkai we have not found who were such sharp thinkers, and who multiplied Torah in Israel.”[144]

R. Eliezer was a Netzerim by genealogy, and a Nazarene. His history which should be important to both Jews and Christians will be detailed in a later chapter. R. Eliezer wasn’t alone which is evidenced by the Rabbis put under the “Ban” at Yavne. What should be noted about Yavne is that under Johannan b. Zakkai, Yavne was originally inclusive like the Sanhedrin before it and not a representation of one school.

The Sages and Nazarene Sages explored the nature and being of Messiah together in this time frame. Midrash Ruth Rabba, Midrash Lamentations Rabbah, Midrash Genesis Rabbah name a few with R. Eliezer and Elisha Ben Abuyah  to name a few .

“This section is related to Ruth 2:14

And at mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here and eat some bread,

And dip your morsel in the wine.” So she sat beside the reapers,

And he passed to her parched grain; and she ate until she was

Satisfied, and she had some left over.”[145]

This exploration of messiah given in the footnotes is both remarkable and eloquent in its exegesis. When the other Midrash is taken into account it shows a profound amount of cooperation between the Pharisee Sages and the Nazarenes in the articulation of Nazarene Judaism.

In the time of the first Temple, the nature of drawing close to God was the offering of animals. Torah was the Torah, the five books of Moses. Religious authority and spiritual authority were invested in separate bodies: religious authority in the Priests (kohanim) and spiritual authority in the early Prophets… If we refer to the transition from the first Temple to the second as a paradigm shift, the shift was subtle. Torah was still the written Torah. Drawing close was still the offering of animals. Religious authority continued to be the Priests. If there was a shift, it was that spiritual authority broadened from the hands of the few Major Prophets to a school of minor Prophets. In the last centuries of the second Temple, religious practice and the priesthood became corrupt. People voted with their feet, deserting the Temple, developing a proto-rabbinate, along with a proto-synagogue and proto-prayer. When the second Temple fell, the foundations of the rabbinate, synagogue, and prayer were already established. This was to be a paradigm shift of major proportions, involving the very essence of Torah, religious practice, and authority.”[146]

Much of Christianity tends to think that our New Testament is comprised of stand-alone documents that are radically different from the “Judaism of the day”, that the Apostles received a revelation so different from its contemporary setting they were relegated to the outskirts of society, and the Religion of Israel. Part and parcel of this is the propensity to lift the early fathers out of their culture, responsibilities, the orthodoxy of their day, and paint them with blue eyes and blonde hair.

The source material is the same, the streams of thought similar and same. Messiah is the Messiah.

If the entirety of Torah [written] and Tannakh and history are looked at it is the simple progression of history on these lines.

A few clarifications are in order before proceeding.

First and foremost the following section shows the flow of history and that is its import.

Second; it was pointed out to me by a friend and mentor that there can be no truly impartial views especially where faith is concerned. I am an orthodox Christian and my views are skewed to this end.

Third; some of the concepts and material were used in the later development of Jewish mystical thought and Kabbala.

Judaism; Use and reference of the term for the Temple Period are for familiarity only. I am fairly convinced the term was not coined until after the Temple Destruction.

The Throne

A strong cautionary note; The early articulation of the Merkabah and Hechalot by the Nazarenes was not and cannot be equated with the later work of the Tannaim. The “Merkabah riders” and assents into the “Heavenly Halls” are strictly rabbinic works and explorations.

The Nazarene perspective is one of delineating the Eternal Torah or Eternal Word as the Being on the Throne as the Vision of the Presence. Their view of “The Name “or Shekinah Presence, which resides in the Holy of Holies as being the Holy Spirit of G-d.

“We know that in the period of the Second Temple an esoteric doctrine was already taught in Pharisaic circles. The first chapter of Genesis, the story of Creation (Maasch Bereshith), and the first chapter of Ezekiel, the vision of God’s throne-chariot (the ‘Merkabah’), were the favorite subjects of discussion and interpretation which it was apparently considered inadvisable to make public. Originally these discussions were restricted to the elucidation and exposition of the respective Biblical passages. Thus St. Jerome in one of his letters mentions a Jewish tradition which forbids the study of the beginning and the end of the Book of Ezekiel before the completion of the thirtieth year. It seems probable; however, that speculation did not remain restricted to commentaries on the Biblical text. The hayoth, the ‘living creatures’, and other objects of Ezekiel’s vision were conceived as angels who form an angelologic hierarchy at the Celestial Court.”
– Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941/1961) p. 42

It is the articulation of Throne and the Kabod (Divine Face or Appearance) in Ezekiel that is the basis of the Nazarene Christology. There is the vision of the Throne and of the Unseeable. KJV Ezekiel 1:26 “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 27 And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. 28 As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.”

The resemblance to the Throne of the Revelation of John 4 is striking. Nazarene and subsequently Christian thought and writings are permeated with this strain of thought.

The Nazarenes articulated in their writings “the appearance of a man” and the appearance of the likeness of the “Glory of the LORD” as being the “Divine Logos” or “Miltha”[147]or Eternal Torah.

In the former and latter train of thought Messiah’s origin is before is before creation Rabbi Judah, stated:“These times were over long ago”. As regards to his origin, he was to be “before the stars and zodiacs”.[148]

Torah Organic/Eternal Torah/Divine Logos

In Jewish mythos, Torah is a truly supernal entity. It is one of the seven primordial things that pre-date creation. God used the celestial Torah as a blueprint for ordering His universe. According to Midrash Konen, God drew three drops of water and three drops of fire from the supernal Torah kept in heaven and from them God made the world (2:24). The Medieval German Pietists identified Torah as “the footstool of God,” conflating it with God’s Glory and the Shekhina. Torah is, in these terms, is nothing less than the physical manifestation of divinity, a kind of “God In-scripted,” as it was? To be constantly engaged in its study is the highest form of worship known to Judaism”.[149]

To flesh this out a little more this is the teaching of the Taanaim and later Sages. The question was asked Rabbi Akiva “what was before creation?” The initial response was not to talk discuss “before-times”, and the exploration of this began in earnest for the Tanna. Their conclusions in part are stated above. Additionally, the Organic, Supernal, or “Living Torah” was created two-thousand years before the beginning. This is the tradition of Rabbinic Judaism.

That said a paraphrase of a reference to older traditions (pre-70) is the following;

Before the beginning was G-d,

The First Emanation from G-d was the Torah,

By the Torah all thing that were made were made…

Another tradition is that the “Task of the Torah is the Salvation of mankind”.

The Eternal Torah as an emanation could take form and did as it was handed to Moses.

This all came from the discerning work of Sages and Nazarene. What is the proof? In the former and latter train of thought Messiah’s origin is before is before creation Rabbi Judah, stated:“These times were over long ago”. As regards to his origin, he was to be “before the stars and zodiacs”.[150]

KJVJohn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

It was this Torah that had been tasked with the salvation of man, and in Rabbinic writings complained that man did not live long enough to understand, which references Isaiah “Who has believed our report?”

If the Torah/Word of G-d was an emanation of G-d, it was a part of G-d, therefore G-d. G-d is unified and cannot be separated. The inverse is if the emanation can take form to which the Sages agree, they, the Nazarenes maintained that it had.

Across the spectrum of Jewish thought this is evident.

“I shall be reckoned with the angels, my dwelling is in the holy council. Who […] and who has been despised like me? And who has been rejected of men like me? And who compares to me in enduring evil? No teaching compares to my teaching. For I sit […] in heaven. Who is like me among the angels? Who could cut off my words? And who could measure the flow of my lips? Who can associate with me and thus compare with my judgment? I am the beloved of the King, a companion of the holy ones and none can accompany me. And to my glory none can compare, for I […]. Neither with gold I will crown myself, nor with refined gold […] “[4Q431 and 4Q427 fr.7] Livius

Compared to the reckoning of “Wisdom” in Proverbs, and across the writings of the Sages, and Nazarene writings the “Spirit of Messiah” is equated with that of the Organic or Living Torah.

The Apostle Paul from Messiah to Christ

“The analysis has further confirmed the view that the Apostle Paul was well acquainted with Jewish mysticism. Already Paul’s personal history appears to link him to some kind of visionary tradition. In his Christological descriptions Paul relies heavily on enthronement discourse. He describes the resurrected Christ as the enthroned Messiah in his Christology.” He exploits kerygmatic or confessional statements that have been built on Psalm 110. Pauline materials thus confirm the picture that we have gained regarding the relation between merkabah mysticism and early Christology.”[151]

Paul’s frequent allusions to the “Throne-Chariot” and his allusion to the ‘’Heavenly Halls” put him squarely in the school of Gamaliel where these discussions were taking place. His elevation of Messiah to the Throne of Ezekiel, and therefore as eternal also corresponds with the Sages as they reference the “Spirit of Messiah”.

The Christology of Paul cannot be separated from the rest of the writings. The description of the Divine Logos of the Gospel of John is the Torah as living, The Torah as Eternal, the Torah in creation, The Torah as salvation, and the Torah on the Throne (Ezekiel I).

If the overview of Messiah in Midrash Ruth Rabba, Midrash Genesis Rabba, Midrash Lamentations Rabba, and so on is taken with exposition of the Throne Chariot and Temple (Heavenly Halls), the Christological view of the Apostle Paul finds its comparison. Paul’s writings put him centered in the middle of the Jewish theological conversation during the last of the Temple Period.

James the Just

 “The dramatic account of James by Hegesippus is an overdrawn picture from the middle of the second century, colored by Judaizing traits… He turns James into a Jewish priest and Nazarite saint…, But the Biblical James is Pharisaic and legalistic, rather than Essenic and ascetic. (Schaff, Ch. Hist. I. P. 268 footnote 493).”

In general this is the picture we get of James. Much has already been written about James and many legends attributed to him as fantastic. He is written about as the first Bishop of Jerusalem, an ascetic.

“He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh. No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the bath.”

“When he consoles others, he stands in the row with the Sagan and the former high-priest on his right and the mourner on his left. He may not be seen naked, nor when he is having his hair cut, nor when he is in the bath–as it is written: 3 AND HE THAT IS THE HIGH-PRIEST AMONG HIS BRETHREN, etc., so that his brethren the priests treat him with honour. But if he wishes others to wash with him, he has such authority.”[152]

I put forth that the concept of Bishop in relation to James is an entirely later Christian concept. This was done in order to frame a reference that was entirely outside their experience. The Christian gentile churches were overseen by Episcapos, or bishops that were elected, set under the authority of the Apostles.

The argument that James was just bishop of Jerusalem when followed out seems entirely circular. If the foreign assemblies (churches) were under bishops who were under the Apostles, and the Apostles belonged to the assembly at Jerusalem, then it simply follows that the churches of the Apostles are ultimately still under the domain of this “Bishop”. If the Apostles worked under their own authority then they did not belong to the assembly at Jerusalem.

The larger problems with James the Just occur when he is viewed outside a Semitic context. The early church most of which had never been to Israel were part of the greater Roman Hellenized culture of their day. The council of Acts 15 is clear that the Gentile converts were not Jews.

If Jesus the Nazarene was the Netzer claimant, (King/Priest) then it would only follow suite that the mantle would fall to the next in line for succession which was apparently James the Just.  Shown earlier according to Tacticus the Netzerim were headquartered in the Temple. If the High Priest has rule over the Temple it should be an easy thing to at least have them removed. Under Roman rule he is the highest political as well as religious authority in Palestine. As noted by Eric Laupot the evidence is there to show the building of a coalition government before the war.[153]

His firstborn was James, surnamed “Oblias,” meaning “wall,” and also surnamed “Just,” who was a Nazarite, which means a holy man. He was the first to receive the bishop’s chair, the first to whom the Lord entrusted with his throne upon earth.-The Panarion 78- 6.8

His notation that the militants who played an important part performed a “successful coup de tat” coincides with the death of James and the Priests drive to war. [154]What this means is that the government  until this point was following the structures of Halacha. This also is a good argument for dynastic succession found in the Desposynic/ Kyriakos.   If the term Nazarene is understood as being titular as I believe I’ve shown clearly, the “legends” of James the Just can be put in a logical perspective. The first proof I offer and will base the rest of my assumption on is found in the “Laws of the Kings”.

When the king is present, all the people stand, and he keeps seated. (And none may sit in the temple courtyard except the kings of the house of David.) And all the people maintain silence when he speaks. He used to address them: “My brethren and my people,” as it is written: 1 HEAR YE, MY BRETHREN AND MY PEOPLE: while they address him: “Our lord and our master[155],” as it is written: 2 BUT OUR LORD DAVID THE KING HATH MADE SOLOMON KING.[156]

KJV Acts 15:13 and after they had held their peace, James answered, saying Men and brethren hearken unto me:

Acts 15:19 “Wherefore my sentence is…”tSan4.6[157]

Put in context with the day it was spoken in front of the Apostles, Pharisees, and “an assembly” these are amazing statements. If a man pretends to be a king what does the Law say pertaining to this? If he is putting on airs, even in a theological sense nothing he has to say has meaning from this point on, it is presumptuousness, and arrogance.

Another example but from the opposite pole is found with the later exhilarch Bustenai. When in front of Kalif Umar he stood the whole day without moving. An insect landed on his forehead and bit him to the point of drawing blood and he never moved. When asked by the Khalif why he did not drive the insect away he replied” This is a tradition in our family since the time we lost our throne that when we stand in the presence of a king we neither speak, nor laugh, nor lift a hand without permission.”[158]

Put in perspective with his day, James was the unseated Davidic/King/Priest or Netzer.  Where were they located? KJVActs 2:46 “And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple…”

Why were they located in the Temple?  With their genealogy these Davidic/Priests were unique and as shown earlier had precedence as Priests because of the unquestionable authority of the Davidic “right of rule”. The “Jews “which were the source of their persecution have already been shown to be the Boethusian Sadducee Priests. It is the Trial Sanhedrin run by the priests headed by the High Priest.

KJVActs 5:27  “And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them” KJVActs 5:34  “Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;…”

If what we know about Gamliel Ha Zaken is taken into account the position of the Halachic Sanhedrin can be gleaned. Gamliel is the Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin is operated by the consensus of the scholars involved. If Gamliel had gone against this he would not be remembered so favorably. The position of the Sanhedrin is still clear, a king may not be judged, and the Judge of a king is G.-d.

KJV Acts 5:39 “But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God”. In this based on the direction and application of this premise I see a quiet and powerful reminder to the High Priest and Trial Sanhedrin from the Beit Din (Halachic Sanhedrin) to not go against the Halacha concerning the kings. Knowing this we don’t have to “Christianize Gamliel” to understand why he would naturally do what would be considered his responsibility. Both the Halachic and Trial or Court Sanhedrins met in the Hall of Hewn Stone at this time. If it was the Pharisees who provided protection from the Sadducee priests it is reasonable to assume they provided a defense as well as Halachic relief.

With these few clarifications much of what has been written about James, falls into place. It also establishes the relationship between the Beit Din or Halachic Sanhedrin and the Nazarenes which is neutral to positive. This as shown earlier is the proper relationship between the two structures of government. The presence of Pharisees at the Acts 15 council is no longer a mystery. They and my conjecture is that they were too far from first claimant status to be considered for the Throne was legitimately in the Halachic Sanhedrin.  Another would be that the King (first or Legitimate Claimant),who could not serve on the Sanhedrin did have some form of representation as with the Babylonian Exhilarch having the ability to choose members as seats on the Great Council became available, but maintaining Halachic restrictions from interfering with their work. The proofs will be given in the chapters on the Tannaim period.

The early appellation “Mar” (Lord) that was used in the earliest Semitic churches, and is still used today denoting their Bishops falls into place. “Mar” translated from “Estrangelo Edessa” is how a king is addressed. This also points to a dynastic jurisdiction. This also reflects the required response found in the Law of the Kings “My lord and Master”. The earliest eastern (Semitic) congregations were led by Desposynic Netzers and as they spread non Desposynic Netzers.

It is my opinion with regard to the “tone” of the various histories and writings that the Nazarenes never had any intention of expansionism with regard to a “physical kingdom”. In all the writings concerning the Desposyni their “physical kingdom” is always defined by Jewish population. With the advent of “foreign congregations” came the term and position of “Bishop”. If the Scripture is taken seriously then submission to Government is part of that. With this in mind the idea of these Jewish Kings usurping the authority of Foreign Governments is at odds with all of their teaching and writing. The foreign congregations are to submit to local government understanding they are under the Greater Theonomy which is the economy of the Living G-d.

An example pointing at this is the later address to Pope Sylvestri. With regard to “money” being sent to Jerusalem it is only from Jewish congregants that they have an interest. This does not support “two house theory” but points to the Jews being foreigners in the non-Jewish congregations with regard to citizenship. A further example of this type of practice is the “tax” given to the Resh Galuta, and also the Rabbinic Patriarch at Jerusalem. Further clarification is given in the chapter dealing with the early Roman Church.

Thus far I have shown that there was no invention of a “Nazarene Priesthood”. From the chapters dealing with the inheritance of the Kohenet and Princess till this one the mechanisms involved have been detailed. I have laid out the mechanisms and put a scriptural basis to the peculiar standing of the term Netzerim. I have shown that this status has a long history within Israel and its Religion. That not all Netzerim were necessarily Nazarene is shown in Eric Laupots’ articles.

This opens up new ground in the study of the early writings. The accounts concerning Jesus as Priest can be clarified easier.  In short the “harmony between the two Thrones has been established”.

Nazarenes in the Temple

Even a quick review of the period documents show the Nazarenes are headquartered in the Temple. If theirs was a departure from the period religion of Israel this would not be so. The Beit Din through this period is actively defiling the High Priest to forward their laws of Purity.  At the beginning of my premise I’ve shown that through the period the High Priest performing the ritual was not always the tenured High Priest or Sagan. These “others “carried the Dignity of the High Priest but are not on the lists. See footnote 19. With the status of the Netzer defined it is no leap that the Beit Din would approve the King/Priest Performing the Sacrifice and the Atonement. The teaching of the Nazarenes of “Love your enemies” would also promote Roman backing locally. These “kings” were anti-sedition, and with the apparently large following they had with the common people would promote local stability.

 “He alone was permitted to enter[159] into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments. And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.”

We are all familiar with this odd statement from Hegessipus. Even with the mechanisms shown it stands out. James was a Jewish King/Priest, a Netzer. How could he offer the Atonement? Why would he offer the Atonement? For the last ten years of the Temples history it is recorded that there was no “sacrifice”. James offered the Atonement of prayer. He prayed for his nation as well as the 70 nations.

Epiphanus: Panarion 29:4:2-4
But we find as well that he is of David’s stock through being Joseph’s son, that he was a Nazarite (for he was Joseph’s firstborn and consecrated), and we have found furthermore that he exercised the priesthood according to the priestly order of old. Thus it was permitted him once a year to enter the holy of holies, as the law ordered the high priests according to what is written. So say many of the historians before me of him, Eusebius, Clement, and others. He was also allowed to wear the plate on his head, as the aforementioned trustworthy men have related in their accounts .

Panarion 78:13:5
To James alone was it allowed to enter once a year into the holy of holies, because he was a Nazarite and connected to the priesthood. “

Nazarene Leadership

Following James leadership went to the Twelve, then to the 70. Who were the seventy?

“(Hegesippus)He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trojan Caesar.”[160]

Under the chapter heading “who is a king” in bold print by family are most of the known family of Jesus who were Netzerim by birth and are known leaders in the early congregations.[161]

These leaders first the Twelve and the seventy went though Israel spreading the doctrine of the Nazarene Jesus. How large was their following in Israel? As many as would hear a king speak. The book of Acts records 3000 joined them after Simon bar Jona spoke at Pentecost.

Nazarenes and Society

With regard to what seems to be an apparent disconnect with his society, his stark pietism and the Essene comparison, it would go against the known writing concerning him and the early congregation. The following example in Eusibus;

“Because of his exceeding great justice he was call the Just, and Oblias which signifies in the Greek ‘Bulwark of the People and Justice’. When this is looked at in comparison to the Book of James, the Book of Acts, and all the Writings of Paul what emerges is someone who is very engaged in the local community, nation, Diaspora, and actively with the foreign converts.

What is his “exceeding great justice?”

KJV James 1:27 pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction[162], and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” The Nazarenes are remembered for healing the sick and caring for the poor. The New Testament records Paul sending gifts back to Jerusalem[163] to ease the suffering as mentioned earlier caused by unemployment and bad crop years. The constituency of “a King” is the common people.

“And is there not here an argument a fortiori?  Since, even of the king of Israel who is entirely engrossed with the needs of the community, it is said: AND IT SHALL BE WITH HIM AND HE SHALL READ THEREIN ALL THE DAYS OF HIS LIFE, still more should the rule apply to the rest of the children of men.”[164]

This shows James the Just doing the expected work of the King of Israel.  In the first war this can be shown in Simon bar Gioras proclamation “liberty for slaves and rewards for the free”, which for the kings and messianic is the common theme. The rule of James the Just is marked by the continuation of the status change of the “common man” who is until this point the ignored and down trodden “simple Israel”. Of consequence is that even the most liberal viewpoint that of the Great Hillel is harsh toward them.  Hillel: “There is no uneducated person who fears sin and no “Am HaAretz” is God-fearing.”[(Avot chapter 2). B. Ketuboth] Don’t live in the neighborhood of “Am HaAretz.”[165]

The contrast shown in the Nazarene writings is summed up in  KJV James 2:8  If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:9  But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. ”[166]

This was a major point of departure with the Sages as shown in the statement by Hillel. It must be noted that the intent of the Sages was noble, to lift the people up. The limits of the Beit Din were legislation and teaching in the Synagogues. It should also be noted that earlier mentioned types of Pharisee which are not flattering were compiled by the Sages as a warning. As awkward as it sounds providing the “Fence around the Torah” which was their main thrust separated them from those that the Torah was provided for.

The question then becomes how far and how wide was the Nazarene constituency. Christian tradition tells us that the Jerusalem congregation was small, history and the writings of the Sages say otherwise. It was taught: Rabbi Tarfon said, I wonder whether there is in this generation anyone who accepts reproof, for if one says to him: Remove the mote from between your eyes, he would answer: Remove the beam from between your eyes!”(B. Arachin16b)

Ezekiel 34:12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

Ezekiel 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

Ezekiel 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Ezekiel 34:10  Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

If these verses are viewed against the Book of James it shows engagement in society. Why these verses? The theology of the Nazarenes as stated earlier is the realization of the “Kingdom”.  James did not see himself as Messiah but as the Steward Heir. James was the recognized “King/Priest or Netzer. This accounts for the tenuous peace preceding his death and the rush of “Messianism” and multitude of “Kings” directly after. Further discussion is in the chapter on the run up to the “War”. The largest hindrance to the study of the persona of James is the written “histories” contrast sharply to our traditions. The reasons for this are shown in the roman chapters.

The Nazarenes and the Gentiles

“At the early “Christian” graveyard on the Mount of Olives contains ossuaries with inscriptions such as “Here are the bones of the younger Judah, a proselyte [to Christianity] from Tyre.”

Above the inscription, on the same coffin, the Greek letters Chi and Rho were unmistakably

Inscribed together, written as a monogram. According to Prof. Jack Finnegan of the Pacific School

of Religion, Berkeley, who also studied the inscription, this particular monogram was used

frequently in Antioch (44AD) and Rome in the first century and was a well known designation

for those who were among the first non-Jewish Christians (Acts 11:26).

One of the first-century coffins found on the Mt. of Olives is inscribed with crosses and the

unique name “Shappira” – a name which is not found in any other first-century writings

except for the Book of Acts (5:1).

The monogram was written – according to the inscription – on the coffin of a non-Jew, a

“Proselyte” – that is a pagan who converted to Judaism and Christianity and was later buried in

Jerusalem.”[167]

KJVActs 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.19 Wherefore my sentence[168] is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day.

As stated in the Book of Acts the Nazarenes were starting to fulfill their purpose in the greater economy of G-d. This was the bringing in of the Gentiles into the greater Theonomy. The Jewish Sages of this age also made a distinction in the status of a Torah seeking gentile; he had the status of a sage.

That no Gentile was allowed to join the Nazarenes at Jerusalem is pointed because of their location at the Temple.

Acts 21:20  And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Acts 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

Acts 21:28 Crying out, Men of Israel, help: This is the man, that teacheth all men every where against the people, and the law, and this place: and further brought Greeks also into the temple, and hath polluted this holy place.

29 (For they had seen before with him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)

All the writings from this period as well as post destruction agree that the Nazarenes were in the Temple proper and thus amplifying James’ role as a Jewish King/Priest, a Nazarene who took his responsibilities seriously.

Gentiles and the Law

Acts 21:24  Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.25  As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.”

In verse 25 it says unequivocally that Christians (gentiles) are not beholden to the Mosaic Law. It also refers to the letter sent out in Acts 15. Professor Alan Garrow has written an article “The Gospel of Mathews Dependence on the Didache” which he arguably proves to contain the letter from the Council of Acts: 15 written around 50 CE, making it the earliest Christian Document. Given the import of such a statement a little of its history and controversy are worth mentioning.

Didache

James 2:8 “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well.”

The Didache testifies of itself that it is the “Teaching of the Apostles to the Gentiles”. This document is mentioned as being a part of some of the older Canons including the Ethiopian.  It is also written about as being what was given to a new convert prior to conversion as what they agreed to live to gain fellowship or “join the church”. When I first read it, the requirements seemed so foreign that I spent some time with it, trying to make sense of it. It is simply the teaching by the Apostles on what it means to live the “Royal Law.”

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

Matthew 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. What is difficult or foreign about this? Here is an excerpt: 1.1 There are two ways, one of life, the other of death, and there is a great difference between the two ways. 1.2 Now the way of life is this: first, you shall love the God who made you; second, your neighbour as yourself, and everything that you would not have done to you, do not do to another.

“The teaching that flows from these words is this: Bless those that curse you and pray for your enemies, fast for those that persecute you. For what merit is there if you love those that love you? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? But love those who hate you and you will not have any enemy. 1.4 Avoid the fleshly and bodily passions. If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also, and you will be perfect. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two. If someone takes your coat, give him your shirt also. If someone takes away from you what is yours, do not ask for it back, since you cannot. 1.5a To everyone asking of you give, and do not ask for it back, for the Father wishes that gifts be given to all from his own bounty….2.1 The second commandment of the teaching means: 2.2 You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery. You shall not corrupt children. You shall not fornicate. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use sorcery. You shall not murder a child by abortion or by killing it once it is born…4.7 You shall not hesitate to give, nor grumble when giving, for you will know the good paymaster of your reward. 4.8 You shall not turn the needy away; but you shall hold everything in common with your brother, and not say that anything is your own, for if you share in what is immortal, how much more in mortal things?”[169]

One argument against the documents authenticity relates it to being a manual for” backwater country churches.”Another argument is that the document while being historical and showing aspects and requirements of the first century “Church” is too Jewish to be useful, or pertain to churches today.

When I was sure enough of its authenticity I sat in shock and wondered if the first century “church” would recognize me as a congregant.  How many times does Jesus say “If you love Me keep My commandments? Is that our first commitment? Documents like Didache are not Scripture. Didache can be looked at as a 1st century commentary on Jesus words in Mathew

Jew and Gentile

Was there a distinction made between Jerusalem and the Gentile[170] ecclesia after all? At the beginning of the section is mentioned the ossuary of a “proselyte”.  Christianity has never used the word. The use of the word proselytizing was from an outside view looking in.

Above in Acts 15:17 the Apostle Peter cites “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. “ The Netzer James agrees but concludes at the same time “Christians are not Jews”, in chapter 21:20 …”glorify the L-rd that many thousands of Jews that believe are zealous toward the law ““…but the gentiles observe no such thing.”

The Nazarenes as agreed upon in all writings are centered in the Temple Courtyard. This is where a King or a Netzer would sit and teach. No Gentile is allowed in the courtyard as evidenced by the accusation against the Apostle Paul, as well as the Plaque.

If the premise I’ve built thus far is taken into account why would we surmise that the King/Priests of Israel or their progeny would drop their responsibilities, and inheritance in Palestine to go to “Church”? Further along in the history I will detail how this happened, but the gist of it is they did not insist on our becoming Jews, but we did insist that they became Gentile.

 

“For their whole church (i.e. Jerusalem) consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.”

 (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 5:2)

 “Go Ye into all the World”

“The brightest and most brilliant of all teachings,

The teaching of the Luminous Religion [Christianity], Took root deep and firm in our Land of Tang,

With the translation of the Scriptures

And the building of monasteries”-Nestorian Monument

From the Chinese historical annals, a quotation from 91 B.C.

“When the first embassy was sent from China to An-Shi (Parthia), the king of An-Shi ordered 20,000 cavalry to meet them on the eastern frontier…. After the Chinese embassy had returned they sent forth an embassy to follow the Chinese embassy to come and see the extent and greatness of the Chinese Empire. They offered to the Chinese court large birds’ eggs, “and jugglers from Li-kan [171]

 

“In Jerome’s commentary 347-420 (on Isaiah 9.1-4).”The Nazarenes whose opinion I have set forth above try to explain this passage in the following way: When Christ came and this preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied, through the Gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the Gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the Gospel.”[172]

At this point in history this would seem a little optimistic. It is statements like this that have cut the credibility of the Nazarenes. By this time they had been relegated to a “sect” but the statement has import. If at that time this “Gospel” had been preached throughout the known world and with the mention of the Apostle Paul they are prescribing this as a first century phenomenon, then it is a feat we have not been able to finish again in the following two thousand years. If it had not then they can not be considered reliable witnesses.

In an article Tombstone Carvings from AD 86: Did Christianity Reach China in the First Century?
Wei-Fan Wang, Retired Professor, Nanjing Theological Seminary dated 02-20-03

Professor Wei-Fan Wang details dated carvings depicting the Creation and Fall, the Temptation of Eve, the Passover Lamb over the Gate, the Nativity Scene of Jesus the Nazarene among others some dating to 50CE. The work itself on this project is still just beginning but it shows the earliest missionary journeys via the Silk Road to China.[173] This predates the efforts by the “Great Church of the East” by almost 500 years.

The larger point is that the Nazarenes at that point in their conversations with Jerome were not bragging but rejoicing. This also places them in Japan and the Philippines at a much earlier date. It should also be noted that it is multiple sites that the artifacts are found indicating a large early population.

With this in mind and the progressive nature of movements the assumption that “the Preaching” and establishment of communities across Asia [Parthia, India, Indochina…] was also complete or well underway.

Kerala, India

India’s trade with the Mediterranean world is abundantly testified by western classical writers on India such as Strabo (63 BC-24 AD), Pliny (AD 23-79), Ptolemy (AD 100-160) and the author of Periplus of the Erythrean Sea… Secondly, there was a route through the Persian Gulf. It connected the mouth of Indus to the mouth of the Euphrates and thence up the river to the point where roads branched off to Antioch and the Laventine ports. The third route was from India to the Red Sea and from there by road to the Nile and to Alexandria.[174]

Bartholomew/ Netanel bar Ptolomi

Judas of GamalaàPtolomiàNetanel bar Ptolomi[175]

“There are other facts which seem to indicate a northern locus for St. Thomas’s work. Bardaisan in his Book of Fate (AD 196) speaks of Parthian Christians living among pagans, which might be a result of the destruction of the Indian Parthian Empire by Kushan invaders about AD 50. There are also said to be Christian tribes still living in north India, but holding their faith a secret from all others. For example, at Tatta in Sind (the ancient port of Pattiala at the mouth of Indus), there is a fakir community which calls itself by an Aramaic name, something like ‘Bartolmai’, and claims to have been descended from St. Thomas’s converts and to have books and relics to prove it. Unfortunately no outsider has ever beep allowed to see this alleged proof. (LW. Brown, op.cit, p.47.) The information about the Bartolmai tribe is given by R. A. Trotter in a paper presented at a conference in Sind in 1947.)”[176]

Their descendents the Nasrani of India are often viewed the same way. Combining Jewish symbolism, Syriac liturgy, and western Christianity they are unique in the world.

Eusebius the church historian of the early church (early fourth century) in his Ecclesiastical history mentions that Pantaneus, the first known head of the catechetical school in Alexandria, visited India about AD 180.

[Pantaneus] displayed such zeal for the divine word that he was appointed as a herald of the Gospel of Christ to the nations of the east and was sent as far as India. … It is reported that among the persons there who knew Christ, he found the Gospel according to St. Matthew, which had anticipated his own arrival. For Bartholomew, one of the apostles, had preached to them and left with them the writing of Matthew in the Hebrew language which they had preserved till that time. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5:10.)

Even at 180 CE the Eastern Churches were viewed with an almost anthropological fascination. They were not “brothers in religion” per say, but something else and needed conversion.  It should be noted that the reference to the first Catechetical School in Alexandria shows the rise and spread of the Second Christian Tradition as it asserts authority.

Schools

Antioch, Adiebene, Edessa[177], Alexandria, and Nisiblis were all centers of Schools set up by the Apostolate.

Edessa-AnthrongesàTheudasàAddai[178]

About the Addai tradition in Edessa, S.H. Moffett significantly observes: The Addai traditions were as persistent in the early church of Mesopotamia as the Thomas traditions were in India By the end of the fourth century Addai was commonly accepted by Syrian writers both Eastern and Western as the founder of their church. The fact that so strong a centre as Edessa was content with one of the lesser known seventy rather than one of the original Twelve supports the view that the historicity of Addai’s mission was too well known to be easily set aside. (Moffett, op.cit., 50)

Edessa holds many small keys to early apostolic history, the redaction of “Canticles” by” Mar Yaakov” for example. With the early dating of the document its author can be speculatively deduced from the small number of potential candidates following the genealogy written by David Hughes. Among these are James the Just, James the son of Jude (brother of James the Just), or James the grandson of Jude.

“…She despatched a messenger to Him, and begged of Him to enter into friendship with her.  By the righteous king she made intercession to Him that He would depart from the Jewish people and towards the other peoples direct His burden.

From among all kings one wise king did the daughter of the peoples find.  Ambassador she made him.  To her Lord she sent by him:  Come Thou unto me; I will forget in Thee all idols and carved images.

The harlot heard the report of Him from afar, as she was standing in the street, going astray with idols, playing the wench with carved images.  She loved, she much desired Him, when He was far away, and begged Him to admit her into His chamber…

…Black was I in sins, but I am comely:  for I have repented and turned me.  I have put away in baptism that hateful hue, for He hath washed me in His innocent blood who is the Saviour of all creatures.

Here end the Extracts from the Canticle on Edessa.” Memiors of Edessa

The next few paragraphs should be read carefully and not read into to much. The Roman s conquered Edessa around 110CE and this is the first mention of a “Bishop”. Heggesipus related that the important “Bishoprics” were Desposynic.  If Mar Yaakov is translated it is “Lord James”, the early appellation reserved for royalty.  The redaction of “Canticles” by Rabbi Akiva helps with the dating also. Rabbi Akiva studied for over twenty years under and with Rabbi Eliezer “the Nazarene” who he considered his spiritual “father”.

This is not implying Rabbi Akiva was a Neterim, Christian or any such like. Rabbi Eliezer was remembered as one of three of the disciples of Yohannan ben Zakkai who multiplied Torah in Israel. Rabbi Akiva would have sought to preserve R. Eliezers ‘teachings, and as his disciple would be more than well acquainted with the Nazarene teachings and writings.

The teachings were up until the point of departure, orthodox. Rabbi Akiva maintained their orthodoxy by redaction.

Language

At Edessa was the early development of “A Christian Language” called Estrangelo Edessa. It was written with its own characters or in Hebrew characters or letters. Essentially it was Aramaic with vowel points and was developed so none of the words of Jesus would be lost or misconstrued. The events between 70-135CE precluded its western adoption and the language moved eastward and is still used liturgically by churches descended from the Church of the East, such as the Syriac churches and the Nasrani of India which attests to their antiquity.

Earlier dating of Western Missionaries

If the earliest Eastern Apostolic and Desposynic movement is given consideration, the western movements earlier dating (which invariably makes use of Christian Mythos) can and should be given consideration.  If Archaleus son of Herod was deported to Lyons, Gaul then there must have been an early Jewish colony, with that consideration the legends involving “Joseph of Aramithea at Glastonbury may have some basis in fact.

“Included with this are letters between the leader of the synagogue of Toledo, Spain and the synagogue of Jerusalem in which the president writes that a number of Jews are about to proceed from Jerusalem to Toledo who should not be received at Toledo, “or if ye receive any one let that one be James the son of Zebedee and none other; he is a good man.”[179]

Had they not been established in China early enough to die before the “Destruction” no credence should be given.

Why aren’t these accounts included in our histories? As will be shown in the chapters on Rome by the mid 50’s a different tradition was developing. This tradition emphasized the greater Theonomy and out of necessity began the reduction of the Desposynic role in that economy.

“The Great Church of the East”

“The story of the Church of the East’s mission to Asia is one that needs to be told to today’s church. It is

The story of a dedicated missionary effort and the ever expanding witness of Christians from Antioch to

Peking, nearly 6,000 miles by foot, until multitudes of Christians lived from the 30th to the 120th longitude in medieval times. That the gospel of Christ’s kingdom did confront the masses of Asia long ago, when the world’s population was the densest there and civilization the most advanced, is today little appreciated by western Christians. How it fared in that confrontation is almost totally unknown.”[180]

The Great “Church of the East” was the second wave of missionary effort eastward. By the year 1300 in its declining years, it is estimated that it was more than twice the size of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches combined. Missionaries were being sent from exotic cultures such as Afghanistan and Tibet into China. The Nestorian Monument of 781 CE is titled “Chinese Monument of the History of the Luminous Religion (Christianity) of Ta Chin (Syria). Its spread moved westward again in waves including the Kerait tribe under Ghengis Khan. While the Western Churches struggled with illiterate masses in Europe the Church of the East in its Asian expansion spoke the Gospel to Asia’s Universities.

Rome the 40s through the 90s CE

If the spread of the Gospel in Rome had been propagated by a “just couple of fishermen” then it would not have been given the notice to spread as far as fast through the echelons of Roman society. Some of the early converts to the “Kings Judaism” were accepted and welcomed into the noblest households of Rome including Caesars.

Herod the Greats half-brother and steward Chuza and his wife Joanna, the household of Aristobolus, the address of “Acts” to Theophilus which is bolstered by the mention of Joanna niece of Theophilus ben Boethus again in Luke 24. The Great Apostle Paul ties himself into this family also and this tie may be the reason for his “Roman Citizenship”.

The Romans were well aware of the Prophesies of the Sibllynes and consulting them knew of the prophesy that Josephus related to Titus and Yohannan Ben Zakkai related to Vespasian, just as Herod the Great was aware of the prophesies of the birth of Messiah.

 “Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too …”

As shown earlier Tacticus’ Christianoi are not Christian, they are the Jewish Netzerim. “…Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind…”

This “hatred included not frequenting the temples, sacred brothels, etc… that are normal for Roman life. This “class “is hated because they are kings of the Jews and priests. The Romans fear them because of mass “proselytizing”. ..”Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. … Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. … “Tacticus Annals 15.44

The early Roman Church saw the Netzerim being tried for Sedition, and they saw the Nazarenes being burnt as more than likely a reference to Jesus saying on being the light of the world.

The blame Nero tried to associate with the Netzers in the “Great Fire” is possibly given in the above statement on “nightly illumination. How would the Romans view a people who had as large or larger populations in countries like Egypt and Parthia as they did in their homeland?

For the Roman, “Christianoi” communities were springing up everywhere. By this time the Mediterranean countries had large populations, India was being established. The aforementioned letter from the Spanish synagogue to Jerusalem was written. There were early populations in Parthia, and it is possible that the earliest colonies as far as China were established.

Always starting with the established Jewish Diasporic communities it then spread through the indigenous populations which is why it was equated with a disease or virus. It was at the furthest and nearest reaches of the Empire.

The Romans were watching the sibylline oracles unfold. An “Empire” was being built on all the” Worlds Empires.”Tacticus’ accusation of “hating mankind” can be put in perspective. They were monotheists so therefore hated all the “Worlds’ Religions.” They were modest and therefore hated the world’s debauchery, especially in the name of religion. They admitted anyone into their “kingdom” whereas being born in Rome was no guarantee of Roman citizenship. It was earned.

The early spread of “Davidic Judaism” can be attributed to what is behind one statement “HEAR YE MY BRETHREN AND MY PEOPLE”. Regardless of their state, their bloodlines gave them entry at the highest levels of societies in and out of Israel. Instead these “kings and priests” went first through Israel and then the world telling the populations about another King and Priest inviting them to join the Kingdom and greater theonomy of Davidic Israel.

“HEAR YE MY BRETHREN AND MY PEOPLE” was all the Romans needed to hear to charge sedition against the “Empire”. The early propagation of the new “superstitio” was in mass conversion. This is the dread in the writings of historians like Tacticus and the odd respect for the G-d of Israel.

If it is remembered that from the Roman perspective Tacticus on Titus’ reasoning for destroying the Temple) the “War of 68-70” was about the destruction of the Netzerim (Shoots or sons of David who were intrinsically tied to the Temple, who according to Zechariah 6:9-13 are the harmony of the Kingdom and the Priesthood) and the Priesthood.  Again not all Netzerim were Nazarenes.

Questions like what was the Roman church, who were principally “roman”, hearing in 47-49, in the build up to the war of 67-70? What did they hear concerning the Netzerim/Nazarenes during the war of 117, or 132? The evidence shows an apparent disconnect, which was due in at least part the bans on Jews in Rome at different periods, and to Roman travel restrictions on Israel during what became a long period of war both with Palestine proper and the principle  Diaspora.

Why was this the case? As an example Dominitan whose immediate predecessors had destroyed Palestine, Jerusalem, and the Temple had named inadvertently as his successors   “Jews” (followers of the Jewish Netzerim). The enemy was not only in his own household, they were now of his own household.

By nationality and customs the church membership are Roman. The Pontiff Maximus is still Caesar. As such there were no “Roman” religions outside his stamp of approval. Their membership includes members form all strata of society, including the Imperial Household. They are more educated and have been productive citizens of Rome. To put this in perspective they are citizens of the only “Super Power” they know. Every other culture wants their power and lifestyle.  They receive trade goods from all over the world literally. All roads lead to their Capital. They have been blessed by the God they have come to know.

To extrapolate a little, during the first war the Roman church would have heard how the Netzerim had burned their food supplies and starved the people,[181]Fought amongst each other instead of the enemy, killed those trying to flee(Josephus), and so on. Things like this would have been the news on the home front. With the Death of James the Just, the “inline” inheritance was unclear enough that many made an attempt to usurp it.

If the magnitude of the accounts from the nineties when the Gentile Christian faith was illegal is understood then its early spread through Rome can be put in perspective.

“Finally he put to death his own cousin Flavius Clemens, suddenly and on a very slight suspicion, almost before the end of his consulship; and yet Flavius was a man of most contemptible laziness and Domitian had besides openly named his sons, who were then very young, as his successors, changing their former names and calling the one Vespasian and the other Domitian. And it was by this deed in particular that he hastened his own destruction. “Suetonius, the Lives of the Caesars the Life of Domitian

At this time the road leading from Sinuessa to Puteoli was paved with stone. And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor’s. 2 The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. 3 Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria. But Glabrio, who had been Trajan’s colleague in the consulship, was put to death, having been accused of the same crimes as most of the others, and, in particular, of fighting as a gladiator with wild beasts. Indeed, his prowess in the arena was the chief cause of the emperor’s anger against him, an anger prompted by jealousy. For in Glabrio’s consulship Domitian had summoned him to his Alban estate to attend the festival called the Juvenalia and had imposed on him the task of killing a large lion; and Glabrio not only had escaped all injury but had dispatched the lion with most accurate aim. “–Cassio Dio Book of Epitome 67.4

The ban on Jews in Rome also corresponds with “The Decree of the Apostolic Council of 49CE with regard to timing. This may be the one thing that ensured the survival of the “Church of Rome” at this juncture. After 49 CE the constantly fledgling church (the constant martyrdom of leadership) moved away from practices that were intrinsically Jewish by nature and started adopting what would be correct or comfortable cultural, sociological and religious practice for citizens of Rome. The “Church Universal” at this time was not homogenous in practice or culture. The cultural variants were as diversified as they are today, by region, and country.

Essenes, Zealots, Idumeans, Siccari, Ebionites and Priests – the other Netzerim

The Romans interest in the Netzerim was clearly political. Referencing Mr. Laupots’ article on “Christianoi Rule during the War” the Netzerim interests are clearly defined as being the dismantling of the Roman Empire and an independent Israel, which stood against Roman interests.” In 41 the Emperors letter to the Alexandrians comparing the Nazarenes to a disease that had already spread throughout the reaches of the Empire.” Roman view and the letter of 41 do not parse between family lines. We know historically this letter referred to the active Netzerim which for this time frame was the Desposynic Nazarene.

Where the article doesn’t go far enough is the parsing of the “Netzerim”. For the Romans during the war there would be no distinction. They were “kings and priests”. The different Davidic families and evolved sectarian lines would have different goals, views on their religion, and on Roman rule.

All the scholarship trying to tie the Nazarenes into the Essenes, Zealots/Siccari, and the Pharisees is unfounded and lazy. Just an overview of how these groups defined themselves precluded membership. For example, the Essene ascetism and withdrawal from society on many levels is diametrically opposed to the practice of the Nazarene written by all accounts including the polemic. The vows of the Pharisees precluded membership. The strict Nationalism of the Zealots and the pragmatic “at all costs” methods of their sub-group the Siccari precluded membership.

The leaders of each of these factions were Netzerim. For the faction itself to have legitimacy the leaders were Davidic claimants. In first century Palestine, by genealogy and agency, birth or marriage, all were by inheritance legitimate Kings and Priests. As mentioned previously this also accounts for the dual lineage claimed by Josephus.

“A Prince who waived his honor may do so, but the King may not waive his honor.”[182]

The Death of James

“This younger Ananus, who as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who were very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity (to exercise his authority).  Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrim of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, whose name was James, and some others. (or some of his companions;) and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned; but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they dislike what was done.” (Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, IX, 1)

This event directly preceded the actions that took place. The histories are already written. Mr. Laupots’ assertion of a “coup” on the existing cooperative government shows merit because of these events. If during the war the leaders are viewed according to their sectarian following the lines become clearer. First taken into account is the relative youth of “the kings”. Palestine is already sparked and on a war footing with Rome. A new “regal king” could not be an old man, according to the Law.

With the murder of James the family lines of ascension to the Throne become cloudy and each faction claims “THE RIGHT”.  What is never questioned and should be in the direct run up to the war is that even with “the prophesies”, oracles and so on, how could the various “Netzerim” hope to win a war against the Romans who were close to peaking in military might?

The Real War of 66-70

The answers are as simple as to why the Romans determined to stamp out the Religion of the Nazarene Netzer. According to Tacticus it spread like a virus across civilization.

How did this effect the “striving Netzerim during the war?”

If the “king is dead what is the inheritance of the next king?”

Shown by the Roman historians they were losing the Empire to “Jewish kings/priests”. Shown by history the following of the grouping called the “Nazarenes” are spread throughout the known world. The existing following in just peasantry outnumbered the Roman legions. Foreign kings and nobles as well as Rome’s were among their following, including the household of Caesar. This is also attested to in the history of Rome’s fall. What was the “Religion of the Barbarians?”

The components of the “REAL WAR” come sharply into relief.

According to known history, everywhere there was a Jewish population the religion of the Nazarene was spread settlements were in Provence, Gaul(France), Spain, Britain, Germany (Some of Herods bodyguards were from the Germanic tribes), throughout the Mediterranean region, Anatolia, Africa (Egypt, Ethiopia, Libya), and the Parthian Empire.

As shown in the work of Professor Wei-Fan Wang this was already as far as China prior to the destruction of the Temple.  It is only a small step to Northeast Asia, Japan and the Philippines.

This is the major threat posed by the Netzerim leading up to and after the war, Though they spoke of the greater Theonomy and its realization at the return of “their King” its worldwide spread would be construed as the setting up of “a one world kingdom”, in effect the realization of the Sibylline Oracles, and related prophesies and the end of Rome.

The “Real War” is the Civil War that would determine “World “dominance by the various Netzerim factions. Once that was determined the Romans could be dealt with.

With the history of Rome in Palestine the knowledge of what would happen with failure was sure. The cost would be great and therefore the “spoils” of victory had to be greater. When the “heir apparent” was determined there was a world to be gained as stated by Tacticus and Suetonius.

Where were the Nazarenes?

The “Son of Clopas”  “…was known as “a certain aged man from among the Elders… who frequented the Holy of Holies.”[183]It is apparent The Kingdom was never invested in an old man. Simeon’s age at this time would be eighty years. With the election of Simeon the son of Clopas in the run up to the war a division of power is established that divested the Desposyni of the throne.  Most of the Desposynic families are outside Palestine (The Desposynic families were Apostolic). “: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trajan Caesar.”[184]

If the ages of the contenders are looked at they range from early twenties (Simon bar Giora and John of Gisgala) to late twenties (Flavius Josephus).  By law the only input the Sanhedrin could have was establishing legitimacy of genealogy for right of rule. Under the laws of the kings “A Prince who waived his honor may do so, but the King may not waive his honor.”

A regal “King” was the one that established priority, which in this case was vanquishing his opponents or oppositional claimants. A king seated or unseated was charged with the defense of the country and charged with raising his army. HEAR YE, MY BRETHREN AND MY PEOPLE: while they address him: “Our lord and our master”.

It is here that there is a divergence of history and tradition. Eusibus tells us that the Nazarene leadership moved to Pella with the advent of the war. Christian tradition states that no “Christian” died in the war.

Jewish tradition states that the Nazarenes who were numerous in Palestine gave up their strength and numbers in the war.

The question becomes the reconciliation of the divergent facts and tradition. It has been established that the “Christianoi” of the war are the Netzerim. It is established that there were divergent groups of Netzerim and the Nazarenes were only one of them. It was the genealogy and lineage of the “Davidic King Priest” which is the qualification for the class status through the aforementioned mechanisms of inheritance, marriage, and adoption.

With this in mind genealogical legitimacy of this period and after Yavne can be compared side by side but are not the same thing. The history shows otherwise. In the person of Flavius Josephus we find a strain of Netzerim. He comes from a family of priests and is descended from the secondary Hasmonean line. The Hasmoneans gained Davidic legitimacy through marriage to Shlom Zion. If it is remembered that the final ruling on the legitimacy of the Hasmoneans and the family Herod did not take place until the creation of Rabbinic Judaism with the Tannaim and the reason was to discredit what was otherwise “legitimate “marriage ties to royalty to bar what was considered a mistake from happening again, a seated foreigner king marrying into the family Davidic.

Further proof is the emergence of Simon bar Giora from the Temple ruins dressed in both “Purple and Linen” signifying his position as “The Melchi-Tzaddiq” terrifying the Romans. The difference in the “religion of the Jews” (High Priests) and that of the Netzerim was the assumption and priority of the Davidic Priest over the traditional role of Kohen Gadol.

The first war in this light was a great “Civil War”. Proof is in the factions fighting each other and not their enemy. Further proof is made when the makeup of the armies can be shown on all sides to be largely “Jewish”.[185]

Pella

If the Nazarenes were told to “flee” and knew of the Temples coming destruction why were they at Jerusalem? And how were they there? “A Prince who waived his honor may do so, but the King may not waive his honor.”

The wide ranging effects of this law should be clear. The legitimate king could not waive his responsibilities. Those that did were branded “cowards”. Knowing that the Great Temple was to be destroyed and sitting idly by as the Structure that held the “Name” was gutted and ravaged by pagans was two separate issues.  Allowing the ascension to priority of a different Netzerim was unthinkable.

“The property of those put to death by the court goes to their heirs, while that of those put to death by the king belongs to the king. But the majority holds that the property of those put to death by the king goes to their heirs. R. Jehuda said to them, It is written: BEHOLD HE (AHAB) IS IN THE VINEYARD OF NABOTH WHITHER HE IS GONE DOWN TO POSSESS IT.  They replied: Since he was the son of his father’s brother,  it was right for him to inherit. Said R. Jehuda, But had Naboth no sons? They replied: Did not the king kill both him and his sons? as it is written: SURELY I HAVE SEEN YESTERDAY THE BLOOD OF NABOTH, AND THE BLOOD OF HIS SONS, SAITH THE LORD; AND I WILL REQUITE THEE IN THIS PLAT, SAITH THE LORD”.[186]

James had been murdered. Simeon was too old to take the regal throne.  Most of the Apostles were martyred. What was at stake was the next successful Netzerim king would inherit the kingdom by default. The King is dead, long live the King. This can be divided down to be Palestine proper, and the “greater Israel” which was accomplished with the ingathering of the “Gentile WORLD” to G-d of Israel. That was already accomplished according to the historians and histories shown, Roman and Christian. The next king should he succeed would impact world history.

Who was the “Nazarene” claimant? This can be extrapolated by the genealogies and consideration of Nazarene belief.

According to the Davidic Dynasty article by David Hughes the genealogical lines are as follows.

Simon bar GioraßGior (wife Herodian) ßJacob Nasi (Rhesaite line- follows genealogy of Mary, daughter of Heli)

John of GisgalaßLevißJudas the ZealotßHezekiah the Zealot (Abiudite line)

MenahemßJairß Judas the ZealotßHezekiah the Zealot

For a Nazarene to be “King” he could not;

Make a new Messianic claim- There is no need to source references for this one. The entirety of beliefs is based on Jesus as Messiah

Desire war with Rome-The Nazarene following by this time occupied from the top of the Roman power structure to the furthest limits of the Empire and beyond. The doctrinal writings which can be dated to this time frame, including the Book of James, and Didache speak of peace and acts of kindness, praying for your enemies. If the Apostles were on an active war footing in the run up to the war it would have been more prudent to bring in the “Greater Israel” who are under their authority and build an army than to have them pray for the Romans who were now actively persecuting them with the other Netzerim.

Wish to be separated from the Temple- This is evidenced by their continued presence there from “Pentecost” to the Destruction. Even Jesus who foretold its destruction taught there daily and stood up for the Honor of G-ds Name and cast out the money changers.

Go against the Sanhedrin defined by the Peace Party-Although it was outside their responsibility[187], the Halachic Sanhedrin took it upon them to try to diffuse the situation. The responsibility of “Treaties “fell to the current Trial Sanhedrin headed by the High Priest who incidentally was fanning the fires of war. Hence there was a need for the elders to specifically call themselves the “Peace Party”.

The “Peace Party” led by Simeon b. Gamaliel Nasi of the Sanhedrin and Joshua b. Gamaliel the priest and former Nasi of the Sanhedrin represented the only legitimate hope of stopping the hostilities. Joshua who had been Nasi and High Priest added the credibility of the stamp of the priesthood to the proposed negotiations. Simeon was the credibility of the Jewish Senate or Sanhedrin. The closing of the city gates to keep out the warring claimants was to try to keep the situation diffused.

According to the writings of Josephus there was one contender who until his home city was attacked was too passive to be a general. According to the period coinage his was also the only one that did not broadcast “messianic aspirations”. To further this according to the Davidic Dynasty article his first cousins are Desposynic.

This was John of Gisgala, who according to Josephus was a lifelong friend of Simeon bar Netanel (Gamaliel), who was the son of Gamaliel, Nasi of the Sanhedrin, and leader of the Peace Party. Even in his polemic against both John and Simeon Josephus describes their relationship as both close and cooperative.

Ebionites

With the capture of Jerusalem and the Temples destruction there was a lot of infighting among the Nazarenes for primacy. The establishment of the throne inheritance cemented on direct Desposynic lines, rivalry and infighting among the Netzerim already ignited, and the Ebionites and their sub-sects rose up and tried to gain prominence first stealthily and then forcibly[188]. It should be noted that they didn’t rise up out of nowhere. These groups came with built-in constituencies. They were “Bishops”, king/priests, and related to the family of Jesus the Nazarene. As such they were responsible for the teaching of Torah and Doctrine in their region.[189]

Part of Ebonite doctrine was full conversion to “Judaism”. They were the “Judaizers” of the New Testament writings. Once this was accomplished the proselytes were also citizens of the physical kingdom of Israel and reckoned among its citizens with the responsibilities that entailed. A shadow of this is reflected in Malachi Martins Desposynic meeting with Pope Sylvestri. One of the conditions was the money from the foreign Jewish congregants be sent to Jerusalem. This same principle is in the tax levied to the Diaspora to support the Exhilarch and the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

The Diaspora community had just come through a period (thirty years prior) between dynasties where there was no Exhilarch. With this in mind it becomes a question again of priority. A King in Israel had that.  They were by extension promoting a continuation of the previous war.

The Last Pharisee

Josephus accusation that John of Gisgala was attempting to negotiate with the Romans had basis in fact because he supported the position of the Sanhedrin Vis a Vis the “Peace Party”. The import of John of Gisgala staying in the Temple while the Peace Party tried negotiating with his rival Simeon bar Giora shows the level of cooperation between this Nazarene King  and the Sanhedrin. According to an article by Jona Lendering at Livius Johns’ form of rule was Republican which meant that the Sanhedrin would continue to play its important role and the relationship between the Sanhedrin and the Nazarene king would remain strong and cooperative as different functions of government.

With the murders of Simeon b. Gamaliel and Joshua b. Gamaliel the hope of a negotiated peace faded fast. Yohannan b. Zakkai inherited the mantle of Nasi in this impossible situation. If peace could be made it would take time. It would have to start inside the walls. Jerusalem itself was considered almost impenetrable. This hope was shattered when his nephew Abba Sakkara[190]burnt the food stores.  According to Lou Ginsberg’s article when Yohannan b. Zakkai called Abba Sakkara into account, his nephew threatened him with death.

The mission had failed. There was no turning back the course of events. Yohannan b. Zakkai is sometimes disparaged for not attempting to save the city and hence the people after he left. If Tacticus and Suetonius are taken into account had he attempted that it would have been a total loss.

Bar Giora

The oppositional aspirant Simeon b. Giora started making his war with the seated king, John of Gisgala. Bar Giora had shown there would be no negotiation with the Sanhedrin. He would claim his prize which was the birth of a “messianic age”. This “Idumean” could only be a claimant with a genealogy to David. The backing of the Zealots and Siccari are more than ample proof because of their charter beliefs. Idumean as a reference can be presumed to be a tie to the House of Herod and by extension the house of Boethus. His clothing when captured and the awe it inspired shows his tie to the Netzerim. He was clothed in the linen of “the Priesthood” and the “purple of the Royals”. Coupled with Josephus’ own account of his genealogy and that of the Nazarene Desposyni this also shows “Netzerim “as a class reference was predominant for the period.

The Roman Perspective

The period saw the Roman Churches rise to primacy under Clement. The Roman congregants would have been hearing the horror stories of the first war and had access to all the accounts of it. With the destruction of the Netzerim broadcast in Rome the seat of Authority for the “Religion” would be in question. Further than this the damage caused by the Ebionites and their attempt to destroy all of their Davidic “rivals” including those in the Sanhedrin in Dominitans’ persecution of the Davidics’ and especially the other Desposyni would have been seen as horrific.

The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians seems to reflect the attempt of the Ebionites striving for power.

The periods of isolation of Rome from Palestine during this period would have incubated their traditions separately. In this period Rome had not yet peaked as a power and was still on the ascent. With conversion from other state religions came the absorption of positions and titles that were culturally recognizable.  Schools of Catechism were opened. Even through the bans and persecution Rome had maintained a small Desposynic population that was protected as much as possible.

The Roman Christians maintained a religion of a people whose politic was at enmity with Rome. From the Roman perspective the purveyors of this religion were constantly declaring war and rebelling against the Empire.

The Roman Christians were maintaining their status as both Roman citizens and Christians. The coup of the first war and then that of the Ebionites coupled with the decimation of the Jerusalem population left a power vacuum that needed to be filled. The “Bishop” Simeon was wrestling with the growing Ebonite factions and the Ecclesia was in disarray. Most of the Nazarene/Desposynic leadership had left Palestine before the war according to Hegessipus “taking the presidency of the local Ecclesia” throughout the empire and beyond it.

In his address of Clements Epistle to the Corinthians Mr. Laupot sets the stage for the reduction of the Nazarenes from “King/Priests to a sect and finally a heretical sect.

“Owing to the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities which have befallen us, we consider that our attention has been somewhat delayed in turning to the questions disputed among you, beloved, and especially the abominable [or bloody: see LSJ, s.v.} and unholy; compare to Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians, {et pars.}, above at notes 51 and 52] sedition, alien and foreign to God’s chosen [i.e. Pauline Christians], which a few [ see sect. 4 above on the weak post-Destruction strength of the Nazorean sect]rash and stubborn people have sparked [lit., “set on fire, “compare the parallels to this in note 48 above] to a frenzy that your name[191] [Christianoi], venerable and famous and worthy as it is of all men’s love, has been much slandered…1Clem. 4.16 goes on to compare the Nazoreans with Cain and the Pauline Christians with Abel-two sects shared the same name…therefore, in sense brothers”.[192]

If the “Presidencies of the various Ekklesia” did fall on Desposynic lines who was Clement addressing? According to the Davidic Dynasty article Jesus Justus took the surname “Justus[193]” and the Diadem at Corinth.

Within twenty years the Nazarenes are looked at almost anthropologically. What must be noted during Clements reign was the protection of “Netzerim “at Rome. The next Bishop Evaristus is descended from a family of Bethlehem.

“And the same year Domitian slew, along with many others, Flavius Clemens the consul, although he was a cousin and had to wife Flavia Domitilla, who was also a relative of the emperor’s. 2 The charge brought against them both was that of atheism, a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned. Some of these were put to death, and the rest were at least deprived of their property. 3 Domitilla was merely banished to Pandateria.[194]

If the religion could be stripped of possible political ties to a “kingdom” it could be tolerated. Part of the doctrine and much of the apologetics is based on the concept that “Christians” are model citizens of their countries and the Empire proper.

As noted earlier, Romans Christians considered themselves good citizens of Rome. If extrapolated on then they would consider Roman policy “just” and not be in support of any rebellious entity. They held positions and the weight of authority that precludes any other view across the spectrum of society. Over time the “Jewish version of their religion” would become increasingly unfamiliar because of the wars, and travel bans. The “Christian faith” would acclimate to Gentile social customs and terminologies that after even a short period precluded recognition as anything except both stemmed from the same root. If looked at from Justin Martyr to Epiphanus, the early and latter view is one that they could no longer be trusted as being Christian.

The Faith itself rapidly threw off its Jewish identity.

The Religion of Israel, Judaism and the Nazarenes at Yavne

“When the second Temple fell, the foundations of the rabbinate, synagogue, and prayer were already established. This was to be a paradigm shift of major proportions, involving the very essence of Torah, religious practice, and authority            …                By the time of Akiva in the second century it was well established that Moses had received two Torahs at Sinai, one in writing, the other to be passed down orally. The transmission of Torah described in Mishnah Avot — from Moses, to Joshua, to the Judges, to the Prophets, to the men of the Great Assembly, and on to the Rabbis — was this oral Torah, not the written Torah. The oral Torah was standardized by Judah Ha Nasi at the beginning of the third century, and then expanded by the academies in Babylon and Palestine into a Talmud of 63 tractates.

                Prayer replaced animal offerings as the means of drawing close to God. The flexible forms of prayer described in Talmud Berachot were articulated into precise words with the passage of generations.

The spiritual authority, which at one time had been invested in the single person of Moses, had broadened with the passage of generations to the hands of a few Prophets in the first Temple period, to a school of Prophets during the time of the second Temple, to still larger academies of tanna-im in Yavneh (formulating the Mishnah) and amora-im in Babylon and Jerusalem (formulating the Talmud). Religious authority was invested in the ordained Rabbis, those who had mastered the Talmud and been ordained by previous generations of Rabbis.[195]

The school at Yavne at its inception can be shown to be a pluralistic continuation of the pre-war theological schools and Halachic Sanhedrin under Johanan ben Zakkai. In his rule the Great Sages of the last Pharisee Council included Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcannus the Nazarene, Rabbi Elisha b. Abuyah the Nazarene, among others and their disciples. Rabbi Eliezer is included with Rabbi Joshua b. Levi as the greatest teachers of Torah in their generation.

“Every place in the Mishna where it says simply R. Joshua, it means R. Joshua b. Hananiah, and likewise regarding his colleague, where it says simply R. Eliezer, it means R. Eliezer b. Horkenus, for these two alone taught much Torah to Israel, and had many disciples. He was in Pekiin. Go after R. Joshua to Pekiin, and go after R. Eliezer to Lydda. For such sages as the three remaining disciples of R. Johanan ben Zakkai we have not found who were such sharp thinkers, and who multiplied Torah in Israel.”[196]

 

“In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson

wrote: “There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching…the

Messianists… (were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the

Pharisees during the (first) two centuries.”[197]

Nazarene thought at early Yavne can be shown in a couple of ways. Our master Hananel wrote as to why they didn’t appoint R. Eliezer, but instead appointed R. Eleazar b. Azariah to be the prince. R. Eleazar b. Azariah was his disciple, but he R. Eliezer was very old, and it is written in the chapter (ehad dinei mamonoth) that one doesn’t appoint an old man to the Sanhedrin, or a eunuch or someone who has no sons, or a cruel person.”[198] After the retirement of Johanan b. Zakkai, R. Eliezer the “priest” would have been appointed “prince “if he were younger. It also establishes his credentials with regard to lineage to David as this was a requirement.

 “What concerns Ben Zakkai, according to Heilprin, in his “Seder Hadoroth,” and other authorities, Johanan b. Zakkai died 72 years A. C., that is, about forty years after the death of Jesus, at which time the followers of the latter had already begun to dispute with their Jewish colleagues. We also find a disciple of Johanan b. Zakkai whom he very much respected, very friendly to, and pleased with, Jacob of the village Sachnon, who was one of the first disciples of Jesus. Hence our conjecture”.[199]

Had this been noted about any one else the statement would have no import. At the inception of the school at Yavne this shows no refined or notable differences in Theology and bolsters inclusion and cooperation. If the greatest Sages of the Tanna counted their honor from how close they were to discipleship under Johanan ben Zakkai, and his [orthodoxy] can not be put to question, the great leader would also not subject himself to, nor set precedent for respect to anyone with [heretical] views on Torah.

 The Berachot ha Minim and the Halachot ha Minim and its Good Reason

Our Rabbis taught: Simeon ha-Pakuli arranged the eighteen benedictions in order before Rabban Gamaliel in Jabneh.

Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages: “Can any one among you

frame a benediction relating to the Minim?” Samuel the Lesser[200]

arose and composed it. (b.Berakot 29a)

The Birakat haMinim found at the Cairo Genizah reads:

For the renegades let there be no hope,

and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days,

and the Nazarenes and the Minim perish as in a moment

and be blotted out from the book of life

and with the righteous may they not be inscribed.

Blessed are you, O L-rd, who humbles the arrogant.[201]

The Birkat ha Minim as it reads today;

And for slanderers let there be no hope,

and let all wickedness perish as in a moment;

let all thine enemies be speedily cut off,

and the dominion of arrogance do you uproot and crush,

cast down and humble speedily in our days.

Blessed are you, O L-rd, who breakest the enemies

and humbles the arrogant

What had transpired? There is no mention in the 12th Blessing of Theology or doctrine. It was after the first war and is set at Yavne.

The Nazarenes had inarguably tried to turn the Nasi of the Sanhedrin, Gamaliel II over to the Romans who were actively seeking all Davidics to stamp out the possibility of future rebellion. Throughout the century the Pharisees via the Sanhedrin had defended and promoted the Nazarenes. It was and is an unthinkable sin for a Jew to turn over another Jew to “Foreign injustice”.  This even more so as it was legitimate Davidic (Netzerim) and legitimate Davidic (House of Hillel).

This is seen in the first line of the Blessing and clarified in its redaction. For the renegades let there be no hope /And for slanderers let there be no hope.

The second line makes clear what the National position or status of the renegades was. ..”and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days”, which corresponds to the fourth line of the redaction; “and the dominion of arrogance do you uproot and crush…”

The third line identifies “the arrogant kings” and that they had dominion until that point and the last line of the redaction brands them as enemies.

What had transpired? If the Nazarenes had done this the only purpose would be to consolidate power. This would go against all their teaching and all we know about them. This would make them inconsequential and in fact based on their own writings perverse.

“And after James the Just had suffered martyrdom, as had the Lord also and on the same account, again Symeon the son of Clopas, descended from the Lord’s uncle, is made bishop, his election being promoted by all as being a kinsman of the Lord.

Therefore was the Church called a virgin, for she was not as yet corrupted by worthless teaching Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth. He too was connected with the seven sects which existed among the people, like Simon, from whom come the Simoniani; and Cleobius, from whom come the Cleobiani; and Doritheus, from whom come the Dorithiani; and Gorthaeus, from whom come the Gortheani; Masbothaeus, from whom come the Masbothaei. From these men also come the Menandrianists, and the Marcionists, and the Carpocratians, and the Valentinians, and the Basilidians, and the Saturnilians. Each of these leaders in his own private and distinct capacity brought in his own private opinion. From these have come false Christ’s, false prophets, false apostles-men who have split up the one Church into parts through their corrupting doctrines, uttered in disparagement of God and of His Christ”….[202]

Who were the Renegades, Slanderers, and Heretics

Psalm of Solomon1 “I cried unto the Lord when I was in distress [ ], Unto God when sinners assailed. 2 Suddenly the alarm of war was heard before me; (I said), He will hearken to me, for I am full of righteousness. 3 I thought in my heart that I was full of righteousness, because I was well off and had become rich in children. 4 Their wealth spread to the whole earth, and their glory unto the end of the earth. 5 They were exalted unto the stars; they said they would never fall. 6 But they became insolent in their prosperity, And they were without understanding, 7 Their sins were in secret, And even I had no knowledge (of them). 8 Their transgressions (went) beyond those of the heathen before them; they utterly polluted the holy things of the Lord”

Some of these heretics, forsooth, laid information against Symeon the son of Clopas, as being of the family of David, and a Christian. And on these charges he suffered martyrdom when he was 120 years old, in the reign of Trajan Caesar, when Atticus was consular legate in Syria. And it so happened, says the same writer, that, while inquiry was then being made for those belonging to the royal tribe of the Jews, the accusers themselves were convicted of belonging to it.

The Nazarenes in their writings never refer to the Pharisees as “heretics”, always hypocrites.

Who is this Thebulis? In the chart of the Netzerim he is the son of Theudas, the Son of Anthronges whose wife is Miriam the Sister of Joseph the Carpenter. He is a Netzerim and originator of the seven heresies starting with the Ebionites. The following shows that the Sages were familiar with him and bolsters the Netzerim as the King/Priests because he is an inline claimant who thought he should be “King”.

“Titus allowed these to retire to Gofna; there, he said, they should stay till his hands would be free from the war, when he would restore to them their property. Among the numerous deserters was the priest Jesus, son of Thebuthi (VI, 8, 3), who surrendered many costly vessels of the Temple, as well as the curtains and the robe of the high priest.”[203]

Why is he among the cowards? “A prince may waive his honor, but a king may not waive his honor”. His son Jesus, because of his lineage was charged with the defense of the nation as were all the Royals. Thebuthi (Thebothis) could only strive for reign being from a king’s lineage, his son could only be a priest as a Netzerim. He was what became known as a “Bishop” to the Christians.

The Sages would only see a Netzer, an “inline claimant” who had legitimacy and enough prominence to be the oppositional leader (King/Priest); his son is remembered as a Kohen. Although this next point is speculative it will be worth following out. The name “Thebothis” is entirely too close to the High Priest family of Simon Boethus not to see a tentative connection. In David Hughes “Davidic Dynasty” on pg 216  àMathanàJacob(killed by Herod, wife taken), (wife,Cleopatra of Jerusalem)àJoseph, Clopas(male form of Cleopatra),Ptolas, (daughter)Miriam wife of Theudas(son of Anthronges)àThebothis. Miriam is listed as the eldest of the siblings. The use of Egyptian names for the second and third sons of Jacob point toward a tentative connection to Cleopatra and the lineage to the Diaspora Temple in Egypt.

Thebothis and his faction, according to Jewish writing tried to bribe the Romans with the High Priests appliances, and consolidate power by turning over the other Davidics, according to Nazarene writing, which included the Nasi of the Sanhedrin. It was only the decision of the living Apostles to back Simeon, the son of Clopas that thwarted Thebutis’ ambition, and then only to a degree.  With the installation of Simeon it was clarified that the throne would fall only on Desposynic lines, and particularly to the family they surnamed Kyriakos. These were the inline relatives of Jesus the Netzer. It must be noted that their opinion included the son of Clopas.

A New Paradigm

What was the source of Thebutis obvious influence and appeal to authority?

“My Brethren and My People Hear Ye Me”. Thebutis’ heresy divided quickly into their own sectarian lines as listed by Heggesipus. He is listed as the originator of the Ebionites. He is also a Netzerim (King/Priest). As long as there was an unequivocal priority in leadership (James), Thebothis could only state his opinion (of consequence would be the “judaizing sects” the Apostles complained about, which fall easily into Ebonite theology).

What was the source of his power?

And all the people maintain silence when he speaks. He used to address them: “My brethren and my people,” …“while they address him: “Our lord and our master”… Who is a King?”But our Lord David the King hath made Solomon King”.

Of note and deserves special attention is the fact that Thebothis, like Simeon the son of Clopas is a First cousin of Jesus the Netzer.

Only a King/Priest could institute a New Paradigm.  The first century precedent was through the Netzerim and the Apostles[204] shown in the “Throne/Chariot and Temple theology, and the ingathering of the Gentiles.  In this time frame as addressed by the 12th Blessing it is the Netzerim who are in rule, “and may the arrogant kingdom soon be rooted out in our days”, “and the dominion of arrogance do you uproot and crush…”  Thebothis first began by stealth. After the “War” there was no longer a need to proceed this way.

The rule of Thebouthis if realized would have fallen in the time of the Tanna. “If in his perfect world” if it had been realized the populations of the world that were now followers of the Netzer would have come under the Halachic authority of the Tannaim. Why would they balk at this?

“Besides, the disciples of Jesus (see App. No. 6), who then believed in his Messiahship, but not in his divinity, began secretly to undermine the Talmud, which laid more stress on external ceremonies than they deemed necessary, and endeavored with all their might to weaken its influence among the populace, but R. Johanan b. Zakkai and the Sanhedrin in Jamnia, with Rabban Gamaliel, the son of the slain Simeon, at their head, restored the Talmud to its prestige, and took pains to raise up others in the places of the murdered sages.[205]

There is no doubt that the statement of theology is Ebonite in origin.

The forced proselytizing of a foreign nation was something the Sanhedrin already had experience with and it resulted in the “son of a Proselyte being legitimatized as king. What would that look like on the scale of the known world? Although hypothetical the point is made. There would be no national Israel or true bloodlines of Abraham within a few generations just by the sheer weight of populations.

Acts 15:1-2“But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”
If Ebonite theology is taken into account relating to Thebothis, then if they gained Dominion and clear Precedence all adherents would have to proselytize to the “normative religion of Israel” which after 70 became the Temple cult sans-Temple at first.

Taking Dominion

Mishna Sota 9.15:

“The young shall shame the elders

and the elders will stand up before the inferiors

‘The sons dishonor the father,

the daughter rise against her mother

the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

a man’s enemies will be men of his own house’ (Micah 7:6).

This generation’s face is like a dog’s face:

The son is not ashamed before the father,

And on whom can we rely?

On {G-d}! – Rabbi Eliezer the Great

Thebothis beliefs and justification were the Messiah Netzer Jesus had not brought in a one world or Messianic kingdom he was an incomplete Messiah. Modern Ebionism teaches that when Jesus was praying in the garden his expectation was that twelve legions of angels would be sent, and therefore Jesus who is ultimately Messiah needed the help of a self-stylized Messiah Militant to accomplish the work. It is through them [Ebionites] that the fulfillment of the writings would be accomplished. If the revolt within the Nazarenes was successful, and he established priority, then:

The entire world of the Christianoi would be brought under National Israel through the acceptance of circumcision and the Mosaic Law.

Being accepted as proselytes and Diasporic citizens that would be beholden to a seated king as shown by “And all the people maintain silence when he speaks. He used to address them: “My brethren and my people,” …“while they address him: “Our lord and our master”…

The “Armies of G-d” could be built, the enemies of G-d [Romans, Pagans, and Idolaters] destroyed. As shown from the previous chapters, the pre-Destruction and post destruction “Christian “ populations were large and extensive enough for the Romans to consider the Netzerim their number one threat in the world. This was as Rome was close to peaking in military prowess.

“We are a people of yesterday,” says Tertullian in his Apology, “and yet we have

Filled every place belonging to you—cities, islands, castles, towns, assemblies, your very camp,

Your tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum! We leave you your temples only. We can count your armies; our numbers in a single province will be greater.”

This was spoken a relatively short time later.

The entire world could be brought under the “messianic kingdom.”

After this Jesus would come, “He shall come in glory and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.”

The above speculation is based on Ebionites action and belief. There are still various Ebionite followings today and they consider themselves the only “true remnant.”  Ironically in Israel and within Orthodox Judaism there exist small groups with Ebionite beliefs who are considered kosher because of the way they regard Jesus the Netzer, and their adherence to Rabbinic Judaism.

If this is put in contrast with the answers of the grandsons of Jude to Domitian when accused of being “sons of David”,” Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.” We can see the mainline chiliastic Nazarene view of the appearance of the “Kingdom of Messiah”. This kingdom will be realized only with the appearance of Messiah.

Since the Romans sought the “Shoots of David” and the heirs of David, the Romans could be used to do the work of consolidation of power by attrition.

If the genealogical lines of these initial “heresies” are followed the ones that originated in Israel will have their start with a relative of Jesus the Netzer. It is noted that each try to derive their authority as “His true teaching. The claims of the Tubingen School [206]have some merit based on the genealogy.

Further is Eusibus’ statement; Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.”They were called Ebionites for their poor theology.

The King is Dead- The Legacy of Thebothis the Notzerim

Through the help of Thebuti/Thebothis, the Romans were able to round up many of Davidic stock for sedition. The Netzerim/Nazarene (King/Priests) of Palestine could therefore not be trusted and had to be dealt with.

The ban of the Netzerim was the effective ban on the Royalty. Most of the direct inline Royals on the run up to and after the first war were Netzerim. The ban was on the Kings, the Sons of David. This is shown “in only a Torah Scholar or Kohen could marry a Kohenet” (Pesachim 49a). This change of Law effectively ended the “Dual Lineage” of the King/Priest (Netzer).

“Rav Kahana claimed that his marriage to a Kohenet caused his exile [, as only a Torah Scholar or Kohen should marry a Kohenet]: Pesachim 49a. His exile was forced by fear of rebellions and the king: Pesachim 49a”

Within a few generations of marriage the “Kingdom” would have no king/priests. This was further bolstered by the ruling that a “king cannot be priest”. I have lost the source but the Desposyni commented on this by saying “We could be “Kings or Priests” which was construed as bragging.

“But all these are indications of a tendency existing. How wide it must have spread, appears

from the fact that the ban had to be pronounced on all who studied ‘Greek wisdom.[207]‘ One of the

Greatest Rabbis, Elisha ben Abujah, seems to have been actually led to apostasy by such studies.

True, he appears as the ‘Acher’, the ‘other’, in Talmudic writings, whom it was not proper even to

name. But he was not yet an apostate from the Synagogue when those ‘Greek songs’ ever flowed

from his lips; and it was in the very Beth-ha-Midrash, or theological academy, that a multitude of

Siphrey Minim (heretical books) flew from his breast, where they had lain concealed. [aJer.Chag. ii. 1; comp. Chag. 15.]”[208]

Because Greek was the “language of the Kings” those associated with the “kings” or Netzers would also speak and write Greek, as well as Aramaic. The restriction of the language meant the restriction on what was read or the books that were disseminated.  The restriction on the books meant automatic excommunication to anyone possessing them.

The Romans were never interested in genocide or the destruction of Palestine. They would not put up with sedition, rebellion, or the possibility of either. This can be seen with the offers of letting the Great Temple be rebuilt in 100 CE by Trajan, 118 Ce by Hadrian,321 the Edict of Milan, 362 by Julian the Apostate, and 443 Eudokia (wife of Theodosius II).[209]

The best way forward after Thebothis was the ban. After the Ban the relationship between Palestine and Rome significantly improves between the wars as shown above.  With no threat there was no need of persecution.

For the Christians and even the “Christianoi”/Nazarenes there was the same treatment for a long period. As long as there was no aspiring king there could be peace.

Heggesipus-“There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were…[210]

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.

Thereupon Domitian passed no condemnation upon them …”

The Christian reaction to Thebothis I believe is set forth in Clements Epistle to the Corinthians.

“Owing to the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities which have befallen us, we consider that our attention has been somewhat delayed in turning to the questions disputed among you, beloved, and especially the abominable [or bloody: see LSJ, s.v.} and unholy; compare to Claudius’ letter to the Alexandrians, {et pars.}, above at notes 51 and 52] sedition, alien and foreign to God’s chosen [i.e. Pauline Christians], which a few [ see sect. 4 above on the weak post-Destruction strength of the Nazoreans sect]rash and stubborn people have sparked [lit., “set on fire, “compare the parallels to this in note 48 above] to a frenzy that your name[211] [Christianoi], venerable and famous and worthy as it is of all men’s love, has been much slandered…1Clem. 4.16 goes on to compare the Nazoreans with Cain and the Pauline Christians with Abel-two sects shared the same name…therefore, in sense brothers”.[212]

The question at once is whose name is “venerable and famous and worthy as it is of all men’s love, has been much slandered?” It is speculation but the timing of the Epistle and the treachery of Thebothis are too close to ignore. Because of Thebothis, the Empire was being searched for all the sons of David, including the Nazarenes.  If he is referencing the [Christianoi] as “your name”, he is not referencing the Church proper. A good conclusion is a reference to Desposynic leadership [Kyriakos], and hence his emphasis.

It was during the time of Dominitan that Flavius Clemens gave his life to save the Netzerim. If it is noted that the next Bishop of Rome is the Desposyni, Evaristus, who would have had to have already been in Rome due to the ban on Jews, we can extrapolate that there was a population of Christianoi even at this time. If they were found to not be aspiring to the “throne” they were less or more treated like the grandsons of Jude were.

Thebothis[213] showed the Jews once again that a king was capable of [high treachery] in a relationship that had been mutually supportive and then for no reason destructive. The Christians had learned that among the Desposynic families were both holy men and profane men that ruled by less than noble motives and that even they could produce “the evil man.” Thebothis on that level is representative of a figure of anti-christ.

As stated earlier, in light of the Desposynic rule in Palestine leading up to the war, and for anyone to start a breakaway “sect” they also would have to have had rule. Their authority would have to rival the Apostles, therefore be Netzerim/Nazarene. The comparison would be if they were worthy successors to their near relative Jesus the Netzer.

Thebothis proved so destructive to both parties, for the Christians the move away from the Nazarenes was dramatically quick and would be complete by the end of the war of 117.

According to Eric Laupots article,[214]the Romans used the National identity of the Church of [Rome] to counterbalance the Netzerim. The propaganda especially in light of Thebothis treachery sparked the harsh reactions seen in Clements Epistle to the Corinthians. The seditious would simply be touted in Rome as “Christianoi”. It would not be hard to imagine the Roman Churches loyalties being questioned and tested constantly. From the bans on Jews at Rome it would be easy to imagine they are less steeped and moored in the Palestinian customs and had developed their own as well as taken on the familiar ones from the religions they had come out of.

The two great Apostles Peter and Paul had martyred there and they had no shortage of the venerated. The culturally Roman version of this “superstitio” had developed more familiar aspects to it. It was ultimately under the control of the Pontiff Maximus [Caesar] and infrequent purges kept it introverted to a degree. By allowing it a controlled progression and repressing the Nazarenes[215] at the same time, Rome very quickly changed the nature of the Church from intrinsically Jewish to Roman in custom.

With these purges it is quite conceivable that generations of Desposynic children grew up in Rome and throughout the Empire under the care of Roman citizens[Church], because their parents had martyred [Netzerim/Nazarene]. With the purges and travel bans they would have limited contact with the Palestinian culture, and would be brought up in Christian homes, schools, and customs. Palestine sat in a virtual isolation for over 60 years.

Why was Thebothis not simply replaced if he was dangerous? Thebulis it was who, displeased because he was not made bishop, first began to corrupt her by stealth.”He was a Desposynic king/priest who had enough priority to be considered for leadership after James his cousin.

Thebothis impact on both Judaism and Christianity is unmistakable. For that brief moment that he strived for priority “A Prince who waived his honor may do so, but the King may not waive his honor”, he impacted the relations of Rome and Palestine, Rome and the Netzerim, the Netzerim and their people, and set the future course of the Nazarene and the Church.  This evil man, virtually unknown, set the course of relations between Christians and Jews and what would become Judaism and the Church for his time and until now.

Rome 90s Through 117

Ode 4-“1 No man, O my God, changeth thy holy place; 2 And it is not (possible) that he should change it and put it in another place: because he hath no power over it: 3 For thy sanctuary thou hast designed before thou didst make (other) places: 4 That which is the elder shall not be altered by those that are younger than itself. 5 Thou hast given thy heart, O Lord, to thy believers: never wilt thou fail, nor be without fruits: 6 for one hour of thy Faith is days and years. 7 For who is there put on thy grace, and be hurt? 8 For thy seal is known: and thy creatures know it: and thy (heavenly) hosts possess it: and the elect archangels are clad with it. 9 Thou hast given us thy fellowship: it was not that thou wast in need of us: but that we are in need of thee: 10 Distill thy dews upon us and open thy rich fountains that pour forth to us milk and honey: 11 For there is no repentance with thee that thou shouldest repent of anything that thou hast promised: 12 And the end was revealed before thee: for what thou gavest, thou gavest freely: 13 So that thou mayest not draw them back and take them again: 14 For all was revealed before thee as God, and ordered from the beginning before thee: and thou, O God, hast made all things. Hallelujah”

One of the most important events in Rabbi Gamaliel II ‘s life was his journey to Rome with Rabbis Eliezer, Joshua b. Hananiah and Akiba in Dominitans’ reign. This journeys impact is shown in the many traces it left in rabbinic writing and tradition[216].  Rabbinic Judaism and Roman Christianity met for the first time and debated their priority, identity, and right to exist.  Of special note is that Gamaliel II met with “Confessors” (a new office or position not mentioned before) of the Roman Church, who argued from Hosea v. 6 that God had forsaken Israel. If Tacticus is read this was the Roman view in the run up to, during and after the “War”.

The Christian shift away from its Jewish roots and into Roman culture was this far along. The Tannatic Rabbis appeal of authority was the claim of a continuation and a break at the same time. If in the Christian writings “the Jews” [Leaders] had crucified the King Jesus and these were the clear leaders…In the Roman Christian view separated from Jerusalem by insurrections and war, they were “the Jews”[217].

With regard to b.Shabbat 116a-b story of Ima Shalom and Gamaliel II before the Christian Judge, who would Gamaliel II recognize with sufficient authority to be a Judge. Sanhedrin 4.6[218]

The “case” itself involved inheritance of a woman and the “judge” took the older Mosaic position with regard to this quoting Mathew 5:17. This “judge” would have to have had a background in the Religion of Israel and is citing the pre-Destruction Palestinian model. That being said, the Roman Christians background would not be sufficient because they rejected all things Jewish just by culture and citizenship. At this time Evaristus was the Bishop of Rome.

The New Christian Paradigm

(Hegesippus)He writes as follows: They came, then, and took the presidency of every church, as witnesses for Christ, and as being of the kindred of the Lord. And, after profound peace had been established in every church, they remained down to the reign of Trojan Caesar.[219]

CleopasàJames the MinoràEvaristus 5th Bishop of Rome[220]

Pope Evaristus[221]  is the first list able Desposynic Bishop of Rome. His priority came at a time when that of Jerusalem was failing with the persecutions of Dominitan and the attempted purging of rivals by the Thebothis faction. From this Pope onward the base of authority shifted from Jerusalem to Rome. This Desposynic Bishop had inherited the mantle from Jerusalem which was destroyed.

The position of the Desposyni declined sharply after his tenure with the base of authority remaining in Rome as the imperial capital.

The beginning of the consolidation of authority for Rome began under the Bishop Evaristus. From then on the Bishops can rightfully be called early Christian Popes. The next Pope Alexander I, a Roman, 106-115 introduced the “blessing of Christian homes” with salt and water to ward off evil.

The next Pope Sixtus I, 117-126 ruled during the “War of 117”which was a war of atrocities between the Jews and the Romans in the Diaspora. This war instead of being localized in Palestine threatened to envelope the Empire.  It must be noted that the Jews as a population made up roughly 10% of the Empire. The Jews ruled and led by the Netzer Andrew Lucas (other Netzer”) destroyed every Roman Temple and Shrine while destroying entire populations[222]. The Romans retaliated in kind.

Because of this war the Romans under Trajan and then Hadrian had extreme policies against anything even Jewish in nature, including worship of the “non conforming Jewish God of the Nazarene superstitio”. Christianoi/Netzerim/Nazarenes were being hunted down, tortured and killed, along with any and all sympathizers.

Sixtus I was a Roman by birth. Because of the persecutions he conformed the Church to Roman customs even further by being the first Pope to observe the Paschal on Easter, ordering the Roman Christians which are the western churches to do the same. He received strong opposition to this according to Irenaeus. He passed three ordinances:

None but priests were allowed to touch the Sacred Vessels.

Bishops that have been summoned to Rome shall not be received back to their Diocese without the presentation of apostolic letters

After the Preface in the Mass the priest shall recite the Sanctus with the people[223]

During his predecessors as well as his time the Romans were also mounting a war with the Parthian Empire. With the persecution of the Nazarenes under way, the Nazarenes for the most part move to the fringes of the Empire and beyond. This period (100-117à) reflects the large scale advent of “western Christian Bishops” for the first time, shown in Adiebene with the war and subsequent ascension of Pkidha, circa 104 to 114 CE as the Nazarenes were forced out by the Romans or were killed.

Of note although later is Pope Anicetus “a Roman”, 157-168. His dialogue with Polycarp is commonly known enough to not require sourcing. In the Davidic Dynasty article by David Hughes he is listed this way: Joseph of GamalaàJesus Justus of Rome–>Joseph bar JesusàJohnàAnicetus 11th Bishop of Rome.

If judged correctly his appeal to authority is Desposynic and correct. My appeal to Mr. Hughes’ work isn’t an apparent agreement in direction but it’s acceptance as a reference among the Jewish Davidics searching their ancestry and its agreement with history referenced with good documentation.

What is of note is that this Pope cemented the decision of a previous Pope in debate with a revered Church father. Although his reasoning may not be known it may be as simple as survival of the Roman Church through the persecutions in Rome. This also further established Rome’s Primacy in the Church and the Roman tradition in the Western Churches irrevocably from that point on.

The New Jewish Paradigm

“When the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah to Israel, He gave it to them in the form of wheat to produce from it fine flour, and in the form of flax to produce from it a garment. (Tanna Debei Eliyahu Zuta, ed. Ish-Shalom, parasha 2)”[224]

In several instances I have made a distinction between the Temple period and post-Temple period. It is in the post-Temple period or Tannaitic period that “Judaism” or Rabbinic Judaism became the Orthodoxy. The import is the Tanna’s definition of “what is Judaism”, and “What is a Jew”, and most importantly “what is Torah?”

“… When the Torah was given to Israel, its laws were given over to the Torah Sages, who’s thinking, provided that it is aimed at the Torah’s reasons and secrets, establishes the reality of the Torah and the reality of the universe which is dependent upon it. Thus, it differs from the other branches of wisdom, for those who investigate them do not establish the reality of those branches of wisdom, but rather uncover it. For their thinking and decisions will never change reality. This is not the case regarding Torah, for the reality of ritual impurity and purity, forbidden and permitted things, obligation and exemption, are set in accordance with the decisions of the Torah Sages. (Rabbi Joseph Bloch, Shi’urei Da’at, I, p. 21)[1] “[225]

Judaism from their day forward is not the Mosaic Law or Ritual, the Temple Cult, the legislative work of the previous Sanhedrin (Pharisees), or the judicial precedent of the Trial Sanhedrin (Priests/Boethusian). It is not their recent history or previous history but it is how the Tanna viewed it and defined it[226].

These Tannaim were tasked with a monumental work. First was the survival of their Faith. Second was the survival of the people. Third was how not to repeat the mistakes of the past that had cost them countless lives, the destruction of much of the previous generations work, their country and capital, and the Temple.

It also marks the beginning of the loss of National Identity and the beginning of a National Unity that until this point had not existed.  Their appeal to authority and Identity was now wrapped up and summated in the story of the Oven of Aknai;

It is not in Heaven.” What does “it is not in Heaven” mean? Rabbi Yirmiya said: That the Torah was already given on Mount Sinai, and we do not pay attention to a heavenly voice, for You already wrote in the Torah at Mount Sinai: “After the majority to incline.” (Bava Metzia 59b)[227]

Bava Metzia 59b can and should be seen as a delineation point of Rabbinic Judaism.  The appeal to authority of the new paradigm is Mount Sinai, the advent and authority of the Sanhedrin of Moses, their inheritance of Moses Seat.

The comparisons of Rabbi Akiba to Moses the Law Giver are appropriate and accurate in this context.[228] The ever developing Oral Tradition found precedence under Akiba for this reason. The expression of the new formulation or paradigm was in it’s explorations of Torah. Much of its “history” is allegoric in nature, and has to be viewed through their exegetal method, as shown in the “Oven of Aknai” incident of R. Eliezer. The import is the direction they would take, and the authority they had to do so. This was the ultimate reason that the “fences of the Torah” were established, and why they remain unyielding.

“When the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah to Israel, He gave it to them in the form of wheat to produce from it fine flour, and in the form of flax to produce from it a garment. (Tanna Debei Eliyahu Zuta, ed. Ish-Shalom, parasha 2

While the [Written Torah] of Moses was engraved and unchanging, the Torah of the Sages [Tanna] was constantly evolving.[229] The study of the Holy Writ was no longer about deducing intent and meaning as it had been with the Pharisee. It was now the creation of reality and worlds[230]. When the Oral Tradition was put in written form it was only natural for it to take precedence. With its rapid growth and sheer volume this Torah, very quickly became a lifetime study on its own.

“Had the Torah been given in the form of clear decisions, the world would have been unable to exist. What is the meaning of: “And the Lord said to Moshe”? [Moshe] said to Him: “Master of the universe, tell me the Halakha!” [God] said to him: “‘After the majority to incline’ – if there are more who favor acquittal, he is acquitted; if there are more who favor conviction, he is convicted. This is in order that the Torah be explained in forty-nine ways favoring ritual impurity and forty-nine ways favoring ritual purity.” (Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 4:2[231])

The Tanna and the later generations took the ideal of the Pharisee and completed it by taking what was an uneducated agricultural based people and nation and educating them in succeeding generations in Talmud, sciences, and arts. A people who were not considered part of their own society became intrinsically valuable to every other society they entered as doctors, bankers, merchants, craftsmen, writers, and various positions of governance. If this is looked at compared to the poor level or non existent educational systems of the western world at this time it is easy to see why they were so successful. The accomplishment of this was very quick and very painful.

Part of this was the parting of ways from the Netzerim the, kings,  and specifically Nazarenes who as shown were intrinsically tied to the Mosaic Law, Temple, Temple cult, recent history, and the preceding view of previous history which included what is regarded as Pharisaic writings. The Nazarenes did not recognize the Torah of the Sages as authoritative but viewed it as a continuation of the traditions of the Pharisee that was subject to the earlier pre- destruction proofs. This view is bolstered by the early Halachic decisions being based in reference to Mosaic Law in the name of the at the time junior Sage Akiba.

The older traditions and readings were no longer relevant and were in many cases regarded as harmful. These traditions as stated before were left out of what became the tradition of Judaism.

The question that needs to be asked is “How long something is remembered when it is no longer taught or spoken about?”

For Christians living in the Tannaitic period the changes were similar and for the same reasons. Because of the tumult of the period a separate tradition began very early and became the dominant one. The separation of Christianity from its intrinsically Jewish past was also very quick and very painful, and was the only means of survival for the upstart faith.

We are very fortunate however that the Rabbis did preserve a record of cooperation which is in line with the Gospel accounts, the histories; even in polemic, when collated put a perspective on the period. The hard part is reconciling distinct traditions which were started as continuations of the end of older tradition but do no longer record it.

 Eliezer the Heretic

“It was said: On that day all objects which R. Eliezer had declared clean were brought and burnt in fire. Then they took a vote and excommunicated him.  Said they, ‘Who shall go and inform him?’ ‘I will go,’ answered R. Akiba, ‘lest an unsuitable person go and inform him, and thus destroy the whole world. What did R. Akiba do? He donned black garments and wrapped himself in black, and sat at a distance of four cubits from him. ‘Akiba,’ said R. Eliezer to him, ‘what has particularly happened to-day?’  ‘Master,’ he replied, ‘it appears to me that thy companions hold aloof from thee.’ Thereupon he too rent his garments, put off his shoes, removed [his seat] and sat on the earth, whilst tears streamed from his eyes.”[232]

This resolution to the “Oven of Aknai” is amazingly poignant. Rabbi Akiba has just informed R. Eliezer of the ban[233] and that the will of the Sages was that this “Judaism” would move away from the pre- Destruction Religion of Israel and its beliefs, as well as him and those like him.[234] . The Sages of Yavne which had represented a cross-section of pre-Destruction variegations under Johannan b. Zakkai would now submit to the exegetal philosophy of the Tannaim. R. Eliezer the Nazarene, who was until this point a lead scholar, was now heretic to the faith.

It is written also that Eliezer submitted to their conclusion instead of taking the weight of his position and status and arguing it out. Had he done this it is possible that the schism caused by his action may have destroyed the school at Yavne.

The rulings and teachings of R. Eliezer the Nazarene survive in Judaism because of the intercession of his colleague R. Joshua “One does not reply to the Lion after his death.”

His lineage according to the Davidic Dynasty article by David Hughes;

Eliezer b. HyrcannusßHyrcannusßJudas the ZealotßHezekiah the Zealot

He is by genealogy a Netzerim (king/priest) which is why he was called “the priest” and other than age would have been Nasi of the Sanhedrin (he was of kings descent but was too far out of succession for the throne.) According to the Sages he held to the teaching and beliefs of the Nazarenes. This is also reflected in the teachings of his disciples[235] in their redactions after him. He was also known as a man of miracles which corresponds with what the Sages say about the Nazarenes.

“He was mentioned in the chapter Seder Taaniyot and in the chapter Chelek in Sanhedrin that he was very learned in miracles and that he was frail and blind because of the incident of the pauper etc. This man was so called because he would always say, ‘This too (gam zu) is for the good.’ Therefore his disciple, R. Akiba, learned from him, for he would say, ‘All the works of heaven are for the good’ (see end of Berachoth).”[236]

Being a leading scholar when Gamaliel went to Rome and was debating the [Confessors], he went with him. As a Nazarene what would his viewpoint be? The [Church] of Rome had survived many persecutions, and during its periods of isolation from the Nazarenes had developed its own tradition. The waves of Anti-Semitism at Rome during the wars and going forward had made this a necessity.

“‘This too (gam zu) is for the good[237].’ Therefore his disciple, R. Akiba, learned from him, for he would say, ‘All the works of heaven are for the good’ (see end of Berachoth).”[238]

A very bold line needs to be drawn here at this point. R. Eliezer by the loosest interpretation cannot be considered a “Christian[239]”. R. Eliezer was from the last pre-ban generation of Nazarenes.

Because of the work and life of R. Eliezer and the other excommunicants a large volume of the pre- Destruction-beliefs of Davidic Judaism survived within Rabbinic Judaism until this day.

Every <place> in the Mishna <where it says> simply R. Joshua, it means R. Joshua b. Hananiah, and likewise <regarding> his colleague, <where it says> simply R. Eliezer, it means R. Eliezer b. Horkenus, for these two alone taught much Torah to Israel, and had many disciples. He was in Pekiin. Go after R. Joshua to Pekiin, and go after R. Eliezer to Lydda. For such sages as the three remaining disciples of R. Johanan ben Zakkai we have not found, who were such sharp thinkers, and who multiplied Torah in Israel[240]

110-117

Before 110 two of the great schools of the Nazarenes existed at Edessa and Nisiblis.[241]For the Nazarenes 110 CE was a pivotal year. Trajan made his justification for war with the Parthian Empire. Parthia was also the seat of the Exhilarch. Adiabene was a buffer kingdom between the Roman and Parthian Empires and always stood on the brink of destruction depending on which empire was stronger. The Parthians installed their own puppet king in 110 and the war was started.

Trajan holds his position in history as one of the greatest emperors of Rome. It is said that the Romans wished their future emperors to be “luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan,” taking these two emperors as models for future rulers.

In 113 AD, Trajan began his campaign against Parthia and conquered Armenia. He then took the cities of Nisiblis and Butane in September 115 AD. Crossing the Tigris, he took Ctesiphon, the most important capital of the Parthian Empire. The Parthian King fled and the city fell.  He was largely unopposed on the field by the Parthians, who were weakened by civil war that continued during Trajan’s war.

Trajan learned that the cities in the north revolted. Nisibis was recaptured and Edessa was crushed. Then, Trajan installed the nephew of the Parthian King on the throne of Ctesiphon. However, Trajan’s campaign turned for the worse. Armenia revolted from Roman rule and Trajan lost much of his conquest. Trajan died in 117 AD.

Before 110 CE Adiebene was known to be a Jewish nation, two of the great schools of the Nazarenes existed at Edessa and Nisiblis. With Trajan’s war everything Jewish was destroyed. Some of the period writings have survived in a collection known as “The Memoirs of Edessa.” The developed [Christian Language] Edessa Estrangelo survived on a small scale locally and throughout the Asiatic movement of the [Church]. [242]

The Resolution to the Berachot ha Minim

“His wife was Imma Shalom (Mother Peace) [Shlom Zion], the sister of Rabban Gamliel the Prince. His father was very wealthy. This is known in the Talmud and in the Mishna. He was the first who is mentioned by name alone. He was the teacher of R. Akiba, who bled when he (Eliezer) died. Similarly in chapter nine of Semachoth, R. Akiba would strike upon his heart because of sorrow and the blood would flow. When the vow (anathema) was nullified, R. Akiba said, ‘My teacher, my teacher, the chariot of Israel and its riders’.”[243]

Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcannus lived the rest of his life under the ban. After Gamaliel death, (comp. M. Ḳ. 27a; Yer. M. Ḳ. 83a), the first place among the scholars fell to Joshua, since Eliezer b. Hyrcannus was under a ban. Joshua wished to do away with a regulation of Gamaliel, but met with opposition on the part of the council (‘Er. 41a).[244]No one who participated in its formulation or implementation could halachically have a part in the lifting of it.

“Also in the end of chapter Arba Mithoth it says that at the time of R. Eliezer’s death even R. Akiba, his disciple, sat on a distance of four cubits, as he was excommunicated (see BM chapter Hazahav). When he died, R. Joshua said, ‘The ban is lifted. The ban is lifted’. This is also the version of Rashi, but another version says, ‘The vow is nullified’. All his days he never forgot a thing, and was like a cemented cistern that does not lose a drop. He never said anything but what he had heard. His soul expired in purity while he was ruling whether pure or impure. He said ‘Pure’ and died and then R. Joshua said, ‘The vow is nullified. The vow is nullified.’ … Our master Nissim opines that a ban of excommunication is called a vow. It seems that after his (R. Eliezer’s) death, they lifted the ban, and this is odd. He died on the eve of the Sabbath at twilight, and on the night after the Sabbath, they took him from Caesarea to Lydda to bury him. Then R. Akiba eulogized him, ‘My teacher, my teacher, the chariot of Israel and its riders’. “

Why was this odd?  Eliezer B. Hyrcannus was excommunicated [put under the Ban] because he was a Nazarene. “The Oven of Aknai” was shown to be a [dream].

After Gamaliel death (comp. M. Ḳ. 27a; Yer. M. Ḳ. 83a), the first place among the scholars fell to Joshua, since Eliezer b. Hyrcannus was under a ban.”[245]

With the lifting of the Ban on R. Eliezer was the lifting of the ban on the other Netzerim. It is the simple application of the principle of [Equal Weights and Measures]. This is why it seemed odd to R. Zucato. Why would the Sages do this?

“After Gamaliel’s death (comp. M. Ḳ. 27a; Yer. M. Ḳ. 83a), the first place among the scholars fell to Joshua, since Eliezer b. Hyrcannus was under a ban. Joshua wished to do away with a regulation of Gamaliel’s, but met with opposition on the part of the council (‘Er. 41a). Joshua stood by the death-bed of his colleague Eliezer b. Hyrcannus and called to him: “O master, thou art of more value to Israel than God’s gift of the rain; since the rain gives life in this world only, whereas thou givest life both in this world and in the world to come” (Mek., Yitro, Baḥodesh, 10; Sifre, Deut. 32; comp. Sanh. 101a). When, after Eliezer’s death, the other law scholars, Eleazar b. Azariah, Ṭarfon, and Akiba, contested some of his opinions, Joshua said to them: “One should not oppose a lion after he is dead” (Giṭ. 83a; Yer. Giṭ. 50a). Eleazar, also, seems to have died some time before Joshua.”[246]

Much of the Nazarene families had been pushed out of Palestine because of the wars and the Roman persecutions. The Desposynic faction of the Netzerim was now comparatively small and weak within the region in this time frame. The threat posed by Thebothis was over as the faction itself was decimated and non-threatening.

The timing of the lifting of the ban was when the Jews (in the Diaspora, at the request of the Exhilarch) needed kings again to build armies. Realistically the two events can be seen as separate, the [new] Netzerim just a natural outflow of the bans resolution.

Although the concept may seem new, it is bolstered by the genealogies of the new kings. For example; Andrew LucasßSimonßJudas the ZealotßHezekiah the Zealot-Davidic Dynasty, David Hughes

This however was not done without stipulations:

The earlier Halacha (temple period) restricted Kohenet marriage to a Kohen (High Priest), or a King.  Any other marriage was a misalliance because it denigrated the dignity of the office. R. Kahana claimed that his marriage to a Kohenet caused his exile [, as only a Torah Scholar or Kohen should marry a Kohenet]: Pesachim 49a
His exile was forced by fear of rebellions and the king: Pesachim 49a

Since the “King” could no longer marry a Kohenet this negated the possibility of Zechariah 6:13 “… and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit on his throne. And he will be a priest on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two.” Technically within a very few generations, there would no longer exist a “Netzerim” as the Halachic mechanism of marriage and agency was removed.

The Law that a “King could not be Priest” again bolstered this position and there exists the possibility of a Diarchy.  This possibility is also shown in the Coins of Bar Koseva.

The impact of Rabbi Eliezer B. Hyrcannus on Rabbinic Judaism is tremendous. R.  Eliezer submitted to the authority of the Nasi unequivocally when they placed him under the ban. With his age, his position, and Davidic [Nazarene] Judaism it is not a stretch to see him as one of the [Pharisees] on James the Justs Council.

The import of this is that “if” he was a great scholar, if he had the genealogy of a king and priest, if he was considered for the position of Nasi, if he was considered pious, and most importantly if he was a Nazarene then this also shows the reason for their quick demise in history.

As a Nazarene [Jew] he saw Israel move away from its [kings] and their pre-Destruction faith.  He saw the development of the new paradigm of [Judaism]. As a Nazarene he saw Rome [Church] move away from the Nazarenes, he saw the development of [Roman] Christianity with its latent and overt anti-Semitism brought on by years of war. He saw the persecutions of the Desposynic family from within and without. He saw evil rise up within the ranks of this family that threatened the destruction of everyone.

“…because he would always say, ‘This too (gam zu) is for the good.’ Therefore his disciple, R. Akiba, learned from him, for he would say, ‘All the works of heaven are for the good’ (see end of Berachoth).”[247]

This is why “One should not oppose a lion after he is dead” (Giṭ. 83a; Yer. Giṭ. 50a.”[248]

Raising Lazarus

Speculating on the identity of an individual that lived millennia ago based on the occurrence of a name, and location alone seems to have become a popular pastime with the pseudo-scholarate, to the chagrin of scholars who have spent lifetimes researching these subjects. It never seems to account for the natural inflow and out flow of the given population with regard to a given or known history.

Having said this we can turn our attention to “Dominus Flavit”, the “Christian Cemetery”. The ossuary that has stirred the most controversy is that of “”Simon bar Jonah[249]”.

“On December 23, 1950, Pope Pius XII announced to the world that the ancient grave and relics of St. Peter had been located in the “Red Wall” below the high altar of St. Peters Basilica. He confirmed the authenticity of the relics with these words: “New investigations, most patient and accurate, were subsequently carried out with the results that we, comforted by the judgment of qualified, prudent and competent people, believe are positive. The relics of Saint Peter have been identified in a way we believe convincing.[250]

Within a few years the discoveries of the ossuary by Father Bellarmino Bagetti would be public embroiling a controversy that has dragged on. The problem is the name written on the ossuary was written in charcoal, and is in fact the only ossuary to survive that was not engraved in stone. The argument put forth by Stephen Pfann from the University of the Holy Land that the name on the ossuary is “bar Zillai” not “bar Jonah” has a credible amount of merit, and is equally exciting.

The naming of the Cemetery at Dominus Flevitt as a “Christian” cemetery is misleading. As noted earlier there were no “Christians” at Jerusalem due to their [Christianoi/Nazarene] association with the Temple. It is at Dominus Flevitt that a foreign term [proselyte] shows up[251]. In the next paragraph Professor Pfann gives the history of the [bar Zillai] family. What is notable in bold is the upholding of the “right of inheritance of the Kohenet” and that David told Solomon to provide for this family in perpetuity. The history of the Davidic family precludes this and it is “a nice sentiment”. The notable thing is that the family “bar Zillai” if buried here may be showing a tie to the presumed Davidic family with priority, the Nazarene.

“During the reign of King David, in the midst of his turmoil with Absalom, a rich Gileadite by the name of Barzillai came to David’s aid. He provided David and his weakened troops with food and supplies, allowing David’s troops to gain the upper hand and defeat the army of Absalom (2 Sam 17:27–29). David, deeply indebted to Barzillai, invited the aged man to take up residence near his palace in Jerusalem so he could be looked after in an honorable way. However, Barzillai asked the king to convey his offer to a younger member of his family, Chimcham by name, and David complied (2 Sam 19:31–40). David directed Solomon to make sure that the family would continue to be provided for in perpetuity (1 Kgs 2:7). Later, a member of one of the priestly families married one of the descendents of this family, one of the “daughters of Barzillai,” and adopted (or was ascribed) the name for his family. After the return from exile in Babylon, the Barzillai priestly family was denied their right to be inscribed in the priestly register because of the current issue over ethnic mixture (Ezra 2:61-63 = Neh 7:63-65).6[6] However, the priestly (and likely non-priestly) descendents bearing the Barzillai name continued to live in Jerusalem[252].

The tradition of the return of Jesus first on the Mount of Olives was common in the first century. That there are more than one hundred ossuaries in the cemetery attests to this belief.

“As Prof. Finnegan wrote: “[In these tombs], there are signs that can be [considered] Christian, and

names that are frequent or prominent in the New Testament… It surely comes within the realm of

possibility that at least this area in particular is a burial place of families, some of whose members had become [the very first] Christians.[253]“As noted in the article some of the names referenced only occur in the New Testament.

What is missing generally from all such articles is the parsing of Tacticus. The Christianoi are the Netzerim or in this case Nazarene. They are not Christian and especially in the sense we use the word.

As an example:“For their whole church (i.e. Jerusalem) consisted then of believing Hebrews who continued from the days of the apostles until the siege which took place at this time; in which siege the Jews, having again rebelled against the Romans, were conquered after severe battles.”

(Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Book III, Chapter 5:2)

James again speaks for this [Ekklesia] in Acts 15:17 the Apostle Peter cites “And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. “ The Netzer James agrees but concludes at the same time “Christians are not Jews”, in chapter 21:20 …”glorify the L-rd that many thousands of Jews that believe are zealous toward the law ““…but the gentiles observe no such thing.”

“The first catacomb found near Bethany was investigated by renowned French archaeologist

Charles Clermont-Ganneau as he investigated the tomb, he found inscriptions, including the names of “Eleazar”(=”Lazarus”), “Martha” and “Mary” on three different coffins.”[254]

Ms. Gilman has made the identification based on location [near Bethany], dating, and the occurrence of the name of Martha and Mary (Miriam) who are the sisters of “Lazarus”. The strong suite to an initial identification is that combined, arguments can be made for the point also because of the exclusivity of the cemetery.

KJV John 11:4 “When Jesus heard that, he said, this sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby”. KJV John 11:36 Then said the Jews, Behold how he loved him! 37 And some of them said, Could not this man, which opened the eyes of the blind, have caused that even this man should not have died? KJV John 11:31  The Jews then which were with her in the house, and comforted her, when they saw Mary, that she rose up hastily and went out, followed her, saying, She goeth unto the grave to weep there.”

Lazarus according to the New Testament, if the status of his “funerary gathering” is taken into account is well known among the Pharisees and priests.  With what has been shown with regard to gaining entry into the fraternity of the Pharisee, Lazarus would have had to have been a prince, a priest, a netzer, or a Pharisee. There is simply no other explanation for the memberships of the Sanhedrins to take notice. First and obvious is Lazarus’ prominence in his culture. The [Jews] or leaders, or Government is comforting the family. Second the phrase” but for the glory of God”, needs to be paid attention to.

Singly the most interesting of the ossuaries –“As Claremont-Ganneau continued to investigate the catacomb, he found additional inscriptions including the name “Yeshua” (=”Jesus”) commemoratively inscribed on several ossuaries. One coffin, also bearing cross marks on it, was inscribed with the name “Shlom-Zion” followed by the designation “daughter of Simon the Priest.”[255]

Why should this provoke any interest?

The daughter of Simeon b. Gamaliel is [Imma Shalom/Mother Peace] Shlom-Zion, sister to Gamaliel II. The daughter of Simeon b. Netanel the priest is Shlom Zion. Shown earlier because of “Adoptive Marriages” this scenario was the norm and not the exception within the upper classes.

“Regarding R. Simeon b. Netanel (the Priest) who was fearful of sin, I have not seen much to expand upon. He was the son-in-law of Rabban Gamliel the Elder and it is enough to mention that he was blessed to be among the five disciples of Rabban Johanan ben Zakkai who were foretold about the World-to-Come”.[256]

 “R’ Chiyya pointed out R’ Shimon bar Rebbe’s deep voice, as a blemish for a Levite; R’ Shimon complained to Rebbe, who pointed out R’ Chiyya’s own speech impediment, substituting “Hey” for “Chet”: Megillah 24”

If the preceding Rabbinical accounts can be taken seriously it is by itself a good case for Identifing Imma Shalom. What this shows is that Eliezer b. Hyrcannus/ Lazarus [Nahum(Menahem) of Gamzu] has been at least initially identified based on:

Dating of cemetery

Exclusivity of cemetery

Eliezer, Martha, and Mary in same cemetery

Location of cemetery in proximity to Bethany

Wife of Eliezer b. Hyrcannus’ [Imma Shalom] remains are in this cemetery.

How can this be furthered? If the ossuary has been found for Ima Shalom, a base-line can be established genetically providing there is a sample remaining against known descendents of Gamliel ha Zaken.

This also shows without a doubt that the cemetery is [Jewish], not Christian.

What is the import of this? “ , but for the glory of God”, “…because he would always say, ‘This too (gam zu) is for the good.’ Therefore his disciple, R. Akiba, learned from him, for he would say, ‘All the works of heaven are for the good’ (see end of Berachoth).”[257]

Because of his status and import Eliezer b. Hyrcannus had been raised from the dead a second time, this time by his colleagues. Through the resurrection of this [Lazarus] the [Nazarene], the Desposyni  had regained status. It was the simple applications of Equal Weights and Measures. With this Halachic ruling is shown that the Religion of the Davidic Priest/Kings, Netzerim, Nazarene, and Christianoi is shown to be Jewish in nature and standing and not “Christian”. This can be weighed with the War of 132. Had they not had status again they would not, could not rise to make a stand with “king “bar Koseva in that war. They were kings.

Later under Judah the Prince it was the relentless use of the “ban” individually that sealed their fate with the people. If the writings are combed, R. Judah used the ban as a tool to rid Israel of all he considered anti-Talmudic, and a challenge to authority.

“In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic scholar Michael L. Rodkinson wrote: “There were passages in the Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching…the Messianists… (were) many and considerable persons and in close alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the (first) two centuries.”[258]

114-117 the War

“The Parthian government was terrified and began to make plans to retreat beyond the Tigris River. The Babylonian Exhilarch Shlomo ben Hunya (r 90-120CE) realizing that he had no ability to retreat and understanding the threat to the Jewish nation, and its sympathizers, of Roman rule in this region. First, he raised a Jewish militia to harass the Roman troops, boosting moral and rallying the Parthian forces. Second, he called for revolt in Jewish areas already under Roman rule. From 115-117 CE, the Jews revolted[259].”

As mentioned earlier this was a war of atrocities and attrition. The Jews of Cyprus annihilated the Islands population to the extent that afterward “No Jew was allowed to step on Cyprian soil under penalty of death”. This included even shipwreck.  Rome responded in kind. The Netzerim and their Jewish populations had again risen up and committed atrocities. Indiscriminate murder of men, women, and children, torture and atrocities marked this war.  It is at this time frame when the Romans regained control of areas that the large scale emergence of [Christian] Bishops make their appearance and take priority under the auspices of Sixtus I and the Church at Rome.

The Roman Church would again only hear how the Jewish king/priests[260] had committed atrocities, not who they were or their relation to the Nazarenes.  Coupled with the circulation of the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians and other letters like it, the disconnect to the Nazarenes was in this time frame complete. As mentioned earlier Sixtus I ruled Bishops that have been summoned to Rome shall not be received back to their Diocese without the presentation of apostolic letters. In every area that Rome regained control they destroyed and replaced all things Jewish with all things Roman.

 “In recognition of services thus rendered by the Jews of Babylonia, and by the Davidic house especially, the Parthian kings elevated the “princes of the Exile”, who till then had been little more than mere collectors of revenue, to the dignity of real princes.”[261]

 

“Because of his harassment of the Roman troops and the Babylonian revolt the Romans started preparing to take the Exhilarch [Resh Galuta] in Parthia. Rabbi Akiva journeyed from Israel to Nehardea and Gazaka to meet with the Exhilarch and others to make preparations for another revolt. Adiabene quietly began sending arms and supplies to Israel. In 131 CE, Bar Kokba raised the banner of revolt in a well planned attack on Rome in coordination with Parthia.”[262]

Why Bar Koseba?

What redeeming value did he have?

Barchoba grew up under the ban. Shown in his genealogy below he is by birth a Netzerim [familial association]. His choice of a “priest” on his coins shows the possibility of the establishment of a Diarchic Government. It bolsters an early dating for the 12th Blessing as he respects the stipulation of separation of kingdom and priesthood. Having grown up under the ban [deduced by family association] he would be naturally untrusting to the Sages. Because of the actions of Thebothis, he would hate the Nazarene because of the disgrace brought on by one of their own. Barchoba’s [High Priest] shows an appeal to the old paradigm [Precedence of King and Priest] and not that of the current Yavne authority.  Bar Koseba did not submit to Tannaim which is reflected in their opinion of him.

Simon bar KosebaßKoseva ßJudas the ZealotßHezekiah the Zealot

HyrcannusßJudas the ZealotßHezekiah the Zealot[263]

Simon bar Koseba was the near relation of R. Akiba’s teacher Eliezer b. Hyrcannus. The other possibilities for kings in Palestine in this time were Desposynic. It may well be that R. Akiba sought to do one more act of loving kindness to his mentor and teacher. R. Akiba himself did not study Torah until he was in mid-life.

The war of 132

“The Jews of Cyprus were annihilated. Hadrian reversed himself and decreed that the Jewish Temple may not be rebuilt and forbid circumcision of Jews and other Jewish practices throughout the empire. “Because of his harassment of the Roman troops and the Babylonian revolt the Romans started preparing to take the Exhilarch [Resh Galuta] in Parthia. Rabbi Akiva journeyed from Israel to Nehardea and Gazaka to meet with the Exilarch and others to make preparations for another revolt. Adiabene quietly began sending arms and supplies to Israel. In 131 CE, Bar Kokba raised the banner of revolt in a well planned attack on Rome in coordination with Parthia.”[264]

The Church [Rome] at this time was getting reports from Justin Martyr who saw the persecutions of Bar Koseva against the Nazarenes. He also saw how this time they left the battle with the insistence that bar Koseva was [messiah]. Jerusalem was destroyed and the next Bishop of the new Roman City Aelia Capitolina was Marcus.

The Christian “Minim”

‘Have you news of my boy Jack?’
Not this tide.
‘When d’you think that he’ll come back?’
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

‘Has any one else had word of him?’
Not this tide.
For what is sunk will hardly swim,
Not with this wind blowing, and this tide.

‘Oh, dear, what comfort can I find?’
None this tide,
Nor any tide,
Except he did not shame his kind –
Not even with that wind blowing, and that tide.

Then hold your head up all the more,
This tide,
And every tide;
Because he was the son you bore,
And gave to that wind blowing and that tide!- Rudyard Kipling

The Epistle of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus Governor of Asia

“To Minucius Fundanus, I have received an epistle, written to me by Serennius Granianus, a most illustrious man, whom you have succeeded. It does not seem right to me that the matter should be passed by without examination, lest the men be harassed and opportunity be given to the informers for practicing villainy. If, therefore, the inhabitants of the province can clearly sustain this petition against the Christians so as to give answer in a court of law, let them pursue this course alone, but let them not have resort to men’s petitions and outcries. For it is far more proper, if any one wishes to make an accusation, that you should examine into it. If any one therefore accuses them and shows that they are doing anything contrary to the laws, do you pass judgment according to the heinousness of the crime. But, by Hercules! if any one bring an accusation through mere calumny, decide in regard to his criminality, and see to it that you inflict punishment.”

“Pope Telesphorus was the seventh Roman bishopEusebius (Hist. eccl., IV, vii, xiv) places the beginning of his pontificate in the twelfth of Hadrian’s reign (128-129), his death in the first year of the reign of Antoninus Pius (138-139). These statements, however, should be compared with Lightfoot, “The Apostolic Fathers”, I (London, 1899), 201 sq., section on “Early Roman Successions”, and Harnack, “Geschlichte der alchristl. Literatur”, pt. II, “Die Chronologie”, I (Leipzing, 1879), 70 sq. In the fragment of the letter of Irenæus of Lyons to Pope Victor concerning the celebration of Easter (Eusebius, “Hist. eccl.,” V, xxiv), Telesphorus is mentioned as one of the Roman bishops who always celebrated Easter on Sunday, without, however, abandoning church fellowship with those communities that did not follow this custom.[265] Pope Hyginus a Greek was the eighth circa 138-142.

As noted earlier by 117 CE the Roman [Church] had been broken away from the Nazarenes due to Palestinian isolation and the Wars. Rome [Caesar] throughout the era was replacing the Desposyni by persecuting them, and at the same time favoring or forwarding the Church [Rome]. Without the [King/Priest], the “superstitio” promoted good citizenship, and loyalties. By the year 140 the Church [Rome] had enjoyed 35 years of Roman(Popes) rule. The Pontificate in this timeframe remained with Roman and Greek citizens.

Even by 135 Rome did not parse much of a difference between the [Roman] Church and the [new] Judaism considering them different sides of the same Religion.

“Thus the efforts of Hadrian (circa 117-138) met with no success, so that at last he said to himself: “Great is the sheep that stands among seventy wolves.” He saw the Talmud still existing, bringing to naught his plan for converting the Jews, uniting Israel into one people, and establishing it still more firmly as a national and a religious whole”.[266]

In this time frame Aquila of Pontus, by some Jewish traditions a relative of Caesar, came to Palestine to convert to Judaism. It is noteworthy that his conversion was with the Nazarene.[267]

What conversion did Hadrian have in mind for the “Jews”? Yavne was established and flourishing. Although there were still different schools, such as R. Ishmaels, it was still the “new paradigm” of Judaism. The Roman interest in the Desposyni and the rest of the Netzerim was to stamp them out. Conversion was not back to the old paradigm [pre-Destruction].  Conversion of the Jews to the Roman version would at least minimize insurrection.

Growth of the Early Church

“We are a people of yesterday, and yet we have filled every place belonging to you—cities, islands, castles, towns, assemblies, your very camp, your tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum! We leave you your temples only. We can count your armies; our numbers in a single province will be greater[268].”

-Tertullian

As noted earlier the Romans did not have to particularly support or approve of the [Roman] Church. They were Roman; they would not revolt, or create insurrection. After clearing an area of Christianoi/Nazarenes and all they had to do was let the church into it and let it be itself. The western leadership was authentic and therefore accepted and ultimately the populations were pacified.

Pope Sixtus had changed the Paschal to Easter and declared “no Bishop summoned to Rome should be received back without apostolic letters”.  The replacement of the Desposynic Bishops was being accomplished.

Aquila’s stay with the Nazarenes was short lived. He was warned twice about practicing Numerology, when he declined to stop they excommunicated him. Aquila then went on to study under Rabbi Akiba.

“But a wise Greek, a convert of Judaism, Aquila the Proselyte, who received the doctrines of the Talmud from the disciples of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and also from R. Aqiba, translated the Bible into Greek. This version was not acceptable to the Jewish believers in Jesus (Messianists)–who must already at that period have constituted a large sect–because their construction of many passages in the Messianic spirit was flatly disregarded by the new translation;…”[269]   …

Until this point, for centuries the LXX version was the translation used which was “messianic” in nature. This was the version used by the kings. In an obtuse way it may testify to the validity of the claim of Aquila’s relationship with Caesars house because his version is diametrically opposed to the Davidic Judaism of the Nazarene.  The easiest verse to show this in is Isaiah 7:14.[270]

Judaism gained favor rapidly in Rome. By the time of Jerome the shift of the paradigm was essentially forgotten and was seen as a continuation of what always was the Religion of Israel to the degree that “The author’s effort was not slavishly to reproduce the original, but to make an elegant and idiomatic Greek translation, and in this he succeeded very well, being excellently versed in both languages, though he sometimes sacrificed the exact sense of the Hebrew, and occasionally altered it under the influence of dogmatic prepossessions. The version is spoken very highly of by Jerome[271], and was used freely by him in the composition of the Vulgate. For further particulars in regard to Symmachus’ version, see the Dict. of Christ. Biog. III. p. 19 sq.”

This shows an early hearty progression in the traditions of Talmud.

“…nor to the Romans, because all expressions seeming to imply the materiality of the Deity were translated in a figurative sense–as for example, “the hand of the Lord”; “the glory of the Lord,” which the statue-worshipping Romans could not endure with equanimity, and further because by this translation the nature and doctrines of the Talmud became known to many nations, who found no evil in it. In our opinion the version of Aquila was the sole cause of the dispatch of censors[272] from Rome to revise the Talmud, and these censors avowed that its teaching was true.[273]

The [Roman] censors were there to make sure their was nothing intrinsically anti-Roman about Judaism. How many decades had the Roman [Church] endured this?

“Whether apocryphal or fact (or, as is most likely, a complex mixture of the two), midrashic and talmudic sources tell the story of the visit of two Roman jurists to the academy of Rabban Gamliel at Yavneh. The Romans were sent by their government to investigate “the nature of Israel’s Torah.” The jurists studied “mishnah, midrash, halachot, and haggadot,” and, at the hour of parting declared: “All the Torah is pleasing and praiseworthy, except for one thing – that you say: ‘What has been stolen from a Gentile is permitted, while what has been stolen from a Jew is forbidden.” The story concludes, in its earliest version, with the promise of the Romans not to report the discriminatory rule to the Roman government.[274]


Roman Censors

The censors were former Roman proconsuls and senators and with regard to religion making sure that it was not anti-Roman, or anti- Empire. The impact of this function of Government on all religions in the Empire was profound. They were the propagandists [or hearts and minds] of their day. While destroying the Davidic Throne, they forwarded the Throne of Heaven[which would come “at the end of time”]. In the course of destroying the Nazarenes they allowed some of the Desposyni to be maintained at Rome. [275] The next Pope Pius I decreed the Jewish converts should be [admitted and baptized]. Its meaning is the congregations of the Nazarene Jews whose [Bishops] were being replaced at the instigation of the Censor. This was at the time of Justin.[276]

The next Pope bolsters this in his genealogy. Pope Anicetus is best remembered by the Paschal controversy with Polycarp. It was this Pope who cemented the [new] Paradigm.

Joseph of GamalaàJesus bar Joseph of GamalaàJesus Justus of Rome–>Joseph bar JesusàJohnàAnicetus[277]

Justus as an appellation shows right of rule. Pope Anicetus is from a Nazarene family. He in his day was a legitimate heir apparent with regard to the Nazarene Throne. He was also a Roman by birth and upbringing [Jesus Justus of Rome]. Having been brought up there he would have been acutely aware of the [Roman] accusations against his family. Having been brought up a Roman Christian he would naturally forward his faith. Knowing who he was, [the Semitic] Church would still respond “my lord and my master’. On that count it was his birthright.

As mentioned earlier Hadrian’s attempt to bring the [new] Judaism in under the auspices of the [Roman Church] version of Christianoi was rebuffed and the Sages suffered for it.  Both religions were affected by the Censors more than our traditions show.

Mephibosheth

From the mid second century the Nazarene/Christianoi/Priest/King was regarded with an almost anthropological appeal and zeal. For the emerging Christian Church they had set our baseline doctrines, written our Holy Scripture, and showed a large, ununified world that like Israel, we also could worship the Creator G-d.

Within eighty years of receiving the Gospel of Peace the church no longer recognized the messengers. From this point in time the Nazarene “sect” remained small, to escape the Desposynic purges many moved to the further points of the Empire and beyond.

From this timeframe on the Desposyni became the most hunted family on the face of the earth for several hundred years to come.

Justin Martyr.“But if some, even now, wish to live in the observance of the institutions given by Moses, and yet believe in this Jesus who was crucified, recognizing Him to be the Christ of God, and that it is given to Him to be absolute Judge of all, and that His is the everlasting kingdom, can they also be saved? “he inquired of me.” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 46:1)”And Trypho again inquired, “But if some one, knowing that this is so, after he recognizes that this man is Christ, and has believed in and obeys Him, wishes, however, to observe these [institutions], will he be saved? “….I said, “In my opinion, Trypho, such an one will be saved, if he does not strive in every way to persuade other men,-I mean those Gentiles who have been circumcised from error by Christ, to observe the same things as himself, telling them that they will not be saved unless they do so” (Dialogue, 47.1)

Epiphanius (370), mentioned two conflicting sects of similar names in his Panarion (xxix. 7) as existing in Syria, Decapolis (Pella, and Basanitis (Cocabe). According to Epiphanius the Nazuraioi dated their settlement in Pella from the time of the flight of the Jews from Jerusalem, immediately before its destruction in year 135. He calls the Nazuraioi “complete Jews” and characterizes them as neither more nor less than Jews pure and simple before adding that they considered themselves to be living in Jeremiah’s “new covenant” (Jer.31:31-34) as well as the original. They believed in the resurrection, and in The One God, The Father and his son the Messiah. He cannot say whether their Christological views were identical with those of Cerinthus and his followers, or whether they differed at all from his own but is evident that they can not have accepted the “High” Christology adopted by the church and were closer to having a “Low” Christology.

In the 4th century Jerome also refers to Nazuraioi as those “…who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.” In his Epistle 79, to Augustine, he said that though they believed in Christ the Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rose again, “desiring to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither the one nor the other”. He said they used the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, but, while adhering as far as possible to the Mosaic economy as regarded circumcision, Sabbaths, foods and the like, they did not refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul or the rights of Gentile Christians (See Jerome’s Commentary on Isaiah, ix. I). These facts agree with Epiphanius’ distinction of them from the Ebionites who did refuse to recognize the apostolicity of Paul, though Jerome himself confuses them with Filaster’s Nazorei in Galaatides.

Conclusion

From whatever direction this history is pursued within the bibliography I am confident the results will not vary. My goal has been simply to provide enough [proofs] to give what should be a required progression and stability to the material and still keep it abridged enough to be readable. This is the reason for an exhaustive bibliography so it may be fleshed out and furthered.

If we step further on the timeline to the fourth century the fruit of the late first and second centuries becomes clear. Rome going through a period of intense persecution records a period of four years with no Bishop. The next two Popes were excommunicants for giving the Roman government the [Books] of the Faith.

From here with every new Council from which we get the Great Creeds we get the Canons attached with them. Marrying a “Jew” becomes punishable by death. Who is the “Jew”? These were the Nazarenes. The Canons regarding these issues should be looked at by every Christian. The basis of our doctrinal anti-Semitism is an inherited hatred for descendants of the families of related to our Christ.

After the acceptance of the Canons with the Creeds, Christianity now not only refused them the right to celebrate the Resurrection of their kin on its original feast day, but it became a crime to celebrate it with them.

This is not a Roman Catholic issue but a Christian one. If we claim Christ and are based in Western Religious beliefs we are the children of the early Roman Church. We can not go back and amend history. What we can do is be sure of our commitment. Do we love our Christ? If we do we will know and keep His commandments. If we don’t there is no excuse and we only have ourselves to blame. That is His Law.

Arguments for the Sake of Heaven

Arguments against a Shift in the Christian Paradigm

An open letter to; National Evangelical Association, World Council of Churches, Baptist Convention Apostles, Bishops, Prophets, Pastors, and Leaders associated with the New Calvinist Reformation, Apostolic /Prophetic Movement, the New Ecumenism, The Emergent Church Movement, Kingdom Now Movement, Patriot Christian Movement, New Life Church, Colorado…

Cc:, C. Peter Wagner,  Gary North, Jay Rogers, Bill Hybels, Herb Titus, James Dobson, Doug Giles, et al

Distinguished Leaders,

You are and have been the leaders in the various Churches for this generation. As such I offer respect and admiration for the work you have done in the Name of our God and King. Rest assured I would not waste the time to give you a Scriptural lesson. These Arguments are about answering questions. Much of the available information concerning your combined Movement is in the form of Polemic and therefore may well be skewed to that end. These arguments are the arguments that good Scholars, Historians, and Theologians can not and will not make.

You are fathers of the faith for this generation and my appeal is for the lambs of the flock. I understand the frustration because of length of our sojourning well also. I also understand that where we are today at this prespice overlooking a new horizion is the cumulative result of the work of the fathers of every previous generation and that should not be taken lightly. In this regard with some of the collective work of your combined movement I have seen the lambs disparaged too many times not to wonder about it. That is the reasoning behind the need for an argument.  They have gone only where they have been led. No less, no further. Are the issues you seek to address with the sheep or the quality of the fodder?

Gary North claims that “the ideas of the Reconstructionists have penetrated into Protestant circles that for the most part are unaware of the original source of the theological ideas that are beginning to transform them.” North describes the “three major legs of the Reconstructionist movement” as “the Presbyterian oriented educators, the Baptist school headmasters and pastors, and the charismatic telecommunications system[278].”

It is statements like this that first caught my attention. With regard to your proposed [Theonomy], all truly religious people would find the concept of Theonomy enthralling.  In the hands of man has proven unviable throughout history.

Because of its appeal to authority, an Argument for the Sake of Heaven must meet certain strictures. If it fails to do so it is a work of vanity. Its sincerity is also its weight.

An Argument for the Sake of Heaven has to be larger than personal concerns. It can not be for the sake of Polemic or to gain advantage. It is for the sake of the King and the concerns of the Kingdom and has a basis since the days of Moses.

An Argument for the Sake of Heaven is valid only if it seeks to get to truth, whatever that may be. It’s appeal was recognized in the “Days of our Apostles” and if that is your appeal to authority, a true Argument for the Sake of Heaven can not be ignored or denied and must be answered.”

It is Apostle Wagners Appeal to Authority that opened up this as the method to be used.

The argument for a paradigm shift appealing to the authority of the last Reformation is negated by the same proponents of the concept by promotion of the new ecumcenicism slated for 2020 at the same time. It can not be a paradigm shift if the differences arising can be ignored today.

The authority of the man of God is not infallibility. It is that the man of God will always strive to lead the flock of God closer to God. The man of God is not self serving. The man of God will steer the flock off dangerous ground. The man of God will not seek to bruise or hurt the flock of God.

Who am I to write such a thing?

Nobody, I am a simple farmer with a high school education that’s all. I haven’t done anything great and make no claims to do so. Im a tradesman tattooed with the wellplaced scars of a rambunctious youth and a harsh and unforgiving trade. So again I make no pretense to greatness.

As a token then if you have perused the abridged premise you will have noticed that the “Priesthood of Jesus” is now opened like a flower, with all the necessary mechanisms detailed. The multitude of works from your collegues Christian and Jewish throughout the centuries was what made this possible. It was the most difficult thing to try to keep control of its volume with the amount of available information. I have looked at many of the tangents and found them breathtaking but not pertinant to the argument so I left them out. Good Scholars should finish this type of thing.

Arguments

An Argument to your Appeal to Authority to install a new Christian Paradigm

If the argument for appeal is to the authority of the former Apostles it is at best incomplete because with the paradigm shift of their day, their appeal to authority was always to the Netzer [See chapters- The Role and Import of Kohenet and Princess on princes, priests, High Priests, Kings, The Historic Netzerim, Kings and Priests for definition (what is a Netzer, Netzerim, Nazarene]. See [chapter The Historic Netzerim, What is a Jewish King, Who is a Jewish King, Nazarene Leadership] showing who their historic appeal of authority was addressed.

The First King/Priest did indeed infuse his court with powers, and they did in fact infuse these said powers of rule to his [steward heir] James the Just [see chaptersJames the Just, Nazarene leadership]. This view is bolstered in the oppositional view [chapters –A New Paradigm-Thebothis’ appeal is greater than the Apostles because of [birthright].

This is the paradigm they set when they chose the Desposyni as ultimate steward rulers over the Ekklesia. [See The New Christian Paradigm]The rule of Evaristus is what gave Rome [Church] its priority. This also can be checked within the period. Roman priorty was then cemented in the rule of Pope Anicetus [see chapter Roman Censors]. [See chapter The New Jewish Paradigm]- The compliance of R. Eliezer to the Tanna’s ban was what gave it authority. If a [king] is for all intensive purposes above the Law, pressing the point he could have rejected it.

The major Heresies of the period can if the will is there, be checked against the genealogy of the founder/leader and the same pattern will continue for the Semitic ones. Manichism-Mani was descended from Desposynic bloodlines, and claimed authority as a bloodright.[279]

If an Argument of appeal to authority is referenced in the Great Reformation, it [the Reformaton] did not constitute a New [major] Paradigm and therefore is not Authoritative [church doctrine is within 95% agreeance with Catholicism]. The Reformation was not meant to be a point of departure. The Catholic Church derives some of its authority of position from the fact the the holy days, and holidays, and traditional views of the Protestant reformation are in fact Catholic inventions. In truth No form of Western Christianity can be severed from its Roman origin and claim authenticity. We are the children of the early Roman Church.[See chapters Rome the 40s through the ninties, the Christian Minim, Mephibosheth]

If our Christianity is viewed as complete when it was given to us [perfect teaching, perfect doctrine, Perfect Grace] what then is a basis of authority to change by magnitude any of that[refer to Gary Norths statement above]? If this “New wine in a new wine skin” is truly just that, are we to be Christian anymore or something more? Or something else?

An Argument against the Church Imperial [Dominionism] from history

Jay Grimstead Founder of COR: “Jesus asked His disciples to pray: “Our Father who art in heaven hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” What we know is that Jesus could not have meant, “None of this is supposed to happen for 2000 years until I come. You are supposed to pray this prayer for 2000 years but expect none of it to happen until I come!” Nobody in their right theological mind would claim that that is what He meant. We know that He had to mean that very year. That century, they were supposed to try to start getting the Roman Empire become a realm where God’s name was honored, His will was done and His kingdom was coming. They pulled it off almost by accident. They actually did it! They came a long direction from being a persecuted minority under a one world government where they were killing them to actually running the Roman Empire.”

Mr. Grimstead seems to be talking about the rise of the Roman Catholic Church in particular according to tradition. I ask that this view be weighed against the actual history.

The argument against an [Imperial] Church is an argument from history. It is the reason the Nazarenes [early Apostles, Desposynic Rule] failed [with regard to its longevity], and our tradition does not record them outside their writings which are our Holy Writings. If the histories [which are in a hundred pieces] are collated and then looked at [see chapters Go ye into all the World- the Real War 66-70, Rome 90s through 117], the extent of “the Kingdom” was realistically “World-wide” before the Destruction. If the real implications of “the war” are considered [see chapterthe Real War of 66-70, section “If the King is Dead what is the inheritance of the next king?] It shows the almost limitless population of the world-wide Ekklesia.

The only  Desposynic attempt to consolidate the Ekklesia came through Thebothis [see chapters A New Paradigm, Taking Dominion, The King is Dead].

If they were vested with all earthly authority [Desposynic-Steward King/Priests, Apostles-Messengers of “the King”] why did they not just consolidate it? As the later [early] Church found according to Tertullian-

 “We are a people of yesterday, and yet we have filled every place belonging to you—cities, islands, castles, towns, assemblies, your very camp,

Your tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum! We leave you your temples only. We can count your armies; our numbers in a single province will be greater.”

It wasn’t that they had grown that much in one hundred years, it was that they were already a large population. [280]

Point by point here is a brief look at the Nazarene Leaders that could have taken World Dominion.

James the Just- Saw temporal rule over Israel/Palestine [see chapters What is his exceeding Great Justice, Nazarenes in the Temple, the Nazarenes and the Gentile]. They exerted rule over the Gentile Ekklesia only to the extent that they raised leaders and keeping care with the concerns of the kingdom of Heaven. There was no proselytizing to Judaism, [see chapters the Nazarenes and the Gentiles, Gentiles and the Law, Jew and Gentile] which would have brought the Church under temporal [rule of a kingdom] and with it the responsiblitity to defend the Throne. There was no forced proselytizing [see chapter’s civil affairs, Taking Dominion]. There was no forced conversion to a new faith. ]. Exerting [Authority] is as simple as “Hear ye my brethren and my people…”[See chapters Civil Affairs, What is a Jewish King, Who is a Jewish King, the Trial of the Jewish King Jesus, James the Just, the New Paradigm, Taking Dominion]. The only possible response at that level is “my Lord and my Master…”

As simplistic as it sounds The brother of our Christ had the authority, liscense, and means to make Dominion happen and yet, these things did not happen.

Simeon the son of Clopas- Although too old to be a [war time] king, he had the authority to rally the Ekklesia for aid. He had the responsibility to defend Israel. Our Tradition is adamant NO CHRISTIAN PERISHED IN THE DESTRUCTION. Exerting [Authority] is as simple as “Hear ye my brethren and my people…” [See chapters Civil Affairs, What is a Jewish King, Who is a Jewish King, the Trial of the Jewish King Jesus, James the Just, the New Paradigm, Taking Dominion]. The only possible response at that level is “my Lord and my Master…”

With the shown “World-wide” population of the Ekklesia, Rome literally could have been crushed.

Eliezer b. Hyrcannus/LazarusHe was put under the 12th Blessing under the new paradigm of Judaism [ban on Netzerim/ Nazarenes, King/Priests].  Before this he was considered for Nasi, the highest attainable position in Judaism. He imprinted the Judaism of today with Davidic Judaism, so much so if separated Judaism would be something different.

Eliezer or Lazarus [see chapter Raising Lazarus] could have taken the crown of Nasi using the example of his aged predecessor Johanan b. Zakkai. Had he what would Judaism be today? Except among the Jews [see chapter Who were the Jews] before the Destruction, Nazarene Judaism had predominance in Palestine [see Chapter Civil affairs, How were they legitimate rulers, Kings and Priests, Who is a Jewish King]. ]. Exerting [Authority] is as simple as “Hear ye my brethren and my people…” [See chapters Civil Affairs, What is a Jewish King, Who is a Jewish King, the Trial of the Jewish King Jesus, James the Just, the New Paradigm, Taking Dominion]. The only possible response at that level is “my Lord and my Master…”

This again did not happen.

Pope Evaristus/Pope Anicetus Both of the rules of these Pontiffs consolidated power to the Roman Church [see chapters the New Christian Paradigm and Roman Censors] but their histories show a marked respect for “local rule” which was a hallmark of Desposynic rule. They did not consolidate power to themselves even as it was going on by others through this period. What is to be understood is that one Pope was pre-ban, the other Post-ban [see chapters the Resolution to the Berchot ha Minim, and Raising Lazarus]. Each was a “legitimate” heir to the Kingdom of David [King- see chapter the Resolution to the Berchot ha Minim- stipulations]. This consolidation is hallmarked by Gentile rule and homogenization [it was what they understood].

Bear in mind that they are Desposynic,[281]in Rome and under the supervision of Roman Censors[see chapter Roman Censors].  Hadrian is pushing for this “union of the faith” [see chapter the Christian Minim, Growth of the Early Chruch]. Exerting [Authority] is as simple as “Hear ye my brethren and my people…” [See chapters Civil Affairs, What is a Jewish King, Who is a Jewish King, the Trial of the Jewish King Jesus, James the Just, the New Paradigm, Taking Dominion]. The only possible response at that level is “my Lord and my Master…”

This again did not happen.

The new prevailing wisdom runs counter to this paradigm and the examples of history by those who wrote our Scripture. The following quotes need to be supplied with context, or are we to be the new facism?

“The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant–baptism and Holy Communion–must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. “Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 87.

“The Church of today has fallen prey to the heresy of Democracy.” R.L. Rushdoony, The Institutes for Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ Craig Press, 1973) pg 747

“All who are content with a humanistic law system and do not strive to replace it with Biblical law are guilty of idolatry. They have forsaken the covenant of their God, and they are asking us to serve other gods. They are thus idolaters, and are, in our generation, when our world is idolatrous and our states also, to be objects of missionary activity. They must be called out of their idolatry into the service of the living God.

Christian” man is thus doubly a sinner when he is antinomian and despises God’s law: he has denied the law in Adam, and now, with consummate profanity, he denies it in the name of Christ. He thus doubly denies the everlasting covenant, and doubly transgresses the laws. “. J. Rushdoony, Law and Society: Volume II of the Institutes of Biblical Law (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1982), pp. 468, 316.

“They have a choice: Either submit to His government and law, accepting His non-negotiable terms of surrender and peace, or be smashed to bits by the rod of His anger. “David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1984), p. 63.

“Israel was attacked by Amalek. According to Deuteronomy 25:17, Amalek “feared not God.” Amalek’s attack on Israel, according to the “Midrashic lore,” was an obscene defiance of God and a contempt for God. Where men attack God’s people, there we often have a covert or overt attack on God. Unable to strike directly at God, they strike at God’s people. There is thus continual warfare between Amalek and Israel, between God’s people and God’s enemies. The outcome must be the blotting out of God’s enemies.

Thus, fourth, the covenant people must wage war against the enemies of God, because this war is unto death. The deliberate, refined, and obscene violence of the anti-God forces permits no quarter.

Fifth, this warfare must continue until the Amalekites of the world are blotted out, until God’s law-order prevails and His justice reigns .”R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 318.

If the Apostles and their direct descendents had both the Authority and the Ability to make Christendom or Dominionism reality why didn’t they?  If they had such a sizable Ekklesia why didn’t they strike back militarily?

The closest approximation to your Movements appeal to Authority and goals seems to be;

The ORATION OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS-And thus our emperor, like the radiant sun, illuminates the most distant subjects of his empire through the presence of the Cæsars, as with the far piercing rays of his own brightness. To us who occupy the eastern regions he has given a son worthy of himself; a second and a third respectively to other departments of his empire, to be, as it were, brilliant reflectors of the light which proceeds from himself. Once more, having harnessed, as it were, under the self-same yoke the four most noble Cæsars  as horses in the imperial chariot, he sits on high and directs their course by the reins of holy harmony and concord; and, himself every where present, and observant of every event, thus traverses every region of the world. 5. Lastly, invested as he is with a semblance of heavenly sovereignty, he directs his gaze above, and frames his earthly government according to the pattern of that Divine original, feeling strength in its conformity to the monarchy of God. And this conformity is granted by the universal Sovereign to man alone of the creatures of this earth: for he only is the author of sovereign power, who decrees that all should be subject to the rule of one.

6. And surely monarchy far transcends every other constitution and form of government: for

that democratic equality of power, which is its opposite, may rather be described as anarchy and

disorder”[282]

This is the first example of a true Christian Dominionism and an attempt to justify a form of Christian Theonomy.

What about the Apostolic view? That of the Desposyni?

The answer is the same that led to heir ultimate [Greatness] “In Jeromes commentary (347-420) (on Isaiah 9.1-4).”The Nazarenes whose opinion I have set forth above try to explain this passage in the following way: When Christ came and this preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied, through the Gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the Gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the Gospel.”

The answer is the same that led to their ultimate destruction. They believed what they taught. “Not by Might, nor by Power, but by My Spirit…” Paraphrased “Not by Arms [Armies] or by Kingdoms [Governments] but My Spirit…” So the Nazarene could say “…because he would always say, ‘This too (gam zu) is for the good.’”

The forwarding or continuation of this is …

An Argument against “Christian Armies”or Hammers of G-d

In history there have actually been many who have taken theposition of Christian Imperialism. I am relating this of course to your Joels Army.  If and this is if the position of some of your writing is taken literally i.e. the “superhuman nature of your [many membered man] it needs much clarification.

“Tommy Hicks had a prophecy where he claimed to have seen in a vision on July 25, 1961, that there would be a great anointed miracle army about to burst on the scene, healing multitudes and invulnerable to bullets and death. This unstoppable army would be miraculously transported from place to place. This is clearly Manifest Sons of God teaching. Hick’s is making a rare occurrence with Philip a normal miracle for the Church. How does one get out of such a vision that has had not been fulfilled over the course of 40 years? The excuse is: It’s dependent on us, if it has not happened we are just not ready. The whole impetus of this movement is dependent on man and the Church to over come and enforce Christ’s rule on the world. And to call Him back when they are ready.”

Bill Hamon says: “At that time the sons of God will be fully manifested on the earth. Widespread spiritual warfare will result with the Sons of God doing battle with Satan and company, the non-Christian nations of this world will also be defeated. Once the earth has been subdued, Jesus will come back to earth and be given the Kingdom that has been won for Him by this “manchild company.” (Prophets and the Prophetic Movement Bill Hamon).The Manifested Sons of God doctrine teaches that these immortal sons will be sinless, having partaken of the divine nature. They will have every right to be called gods and will be called gods.”

Francis Frangipane: “All spiritual warfare is waged over one essential question: who will control reality on earth – heaven or hell? … We must see that our prayers, attitudes and agreement with God as an integral Part of establishing the reality of the kingdom of God on earth!” (Mainstream. Spring 1994, p. 10.)

“The Church is the feet of Jesus. God promised Jesus ‘I will train your feet, and use them to tread down and crush your enemies.” (Francis Frangipane, Charisma magazine July 1993)”

“Jack Deere speaks of an invincible army. He says, “…they won’t be able to kill this army.” John Wimber also stated, “those in this army will have the ‘kind of anointing … his kind of power … anyone who wants to harm them must die”.

All of these quotes were taken from “Let Us Reason Ministries” inc. Clustered together they certainly add teeth to “spiritual warfare”.

If the last argument has any bearing, it negates the entirety of this concept in itself.

Historically however it is not without precedent. When the Vandals attacked Greece they destroyed all the Iconography (they were Arian Christian) and hence we have the word vandalism.

The Knights Templar and the Crusaders remembered nobly in their skirmishes with Salaadin, are remembered today by both Jews and Muslims alike as the ones who turned the city of Jerusalems sewer piping to dump on and in Mount MariYah. “The Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, reporting when ‘Umar reached the old ruined gates of the Temple, he was horrified to see the filth and excrement, “which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the steps of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the gate opened”. He claimed that they called Anastasis al-Qumamah, “the Dungheap,” in retaliation for the policy of the Christians on the Temple Mount[283].” Although not known by most Christians when we bring up the Temple in “mixed” company it is one of the first things that comes to their  mind.

“Genghis Khan had called himself”The Scourge of God,” believing, as his great seal declared him to be, “The power of God on Earth; the Emperor of Mankind.” In spite of his frightful behavior towards his fellow men, he constantly affirmed that he believed in one God whose will he was carrying out. His yasa or code of laws regulating Mongol life began with the statement: “It is ordered to believe that there is only one God, creator of heaven and earth, who alone gives life and death, riches and poverty as pleasures Him-and who has over everything an absolute power.”

The influence of the Christianity of the Keraits, Genghis’ strongest tribe, is without a doubt apparent in this statement with its witness to the sovereign God of creation and providence. The next rule of the yasa shows his sense of religious toleration, a mark of all the Khans. “Leaders of a religion, preachers, monks, persons who are dedicated to religious practice, the criers of mosques, physicians and undertakers are to be freed from public taxes and charges.[284]

Ghengis Khan sent 20,000 calvary to attack Russia. They were engaged by an army 80,000 strong and crushed them. The feat has no equal in military history. This Khan was only stopped by the request of Pope Leo who it seems he respected.

In short Christian Armies have not fared well throughout history. The largest use has traditionally been “Christian to Christian” hostilities. This is also what you seem to be proposing. Have we learned nothing in two thousand years? I ask you if God rains on the just and unjust alike [He sends His Blessings on all], and” He so loved the world He sent His only Begotten Son” for us, whom did not the Apostle say were at enmity with God?

If we propose Imperialism and impose our own “Sharia” i.e. every knee will bow [or else], do we honor God? We were not born Christian, we are born-again. The imposition of martial force negates the validity of the new birth from that point on. Is coercion to be viewed as conversion? [see chapter Civil Affairs].

An Argument against Rick Joyners proposed Civil War

“In all revolutions there are noisy and dangerous times as THE OLD ORDER Is replaced by the now … after the dust settles. WE CAN PROCEED TO BUILD the beautiful kingdom that the Lord has purposed from the foundations of the World” – Vinson Synan, one of the leaders of A.D. 2000 (FULNESS, Jan – Feb. 1990. Vinson Synan. p. 24.)

“The impending civil war in the church will parallel the American Civil War in many ways. The great spiritual issues that must be settled in the church are a counterpart to the political problems that America faced before the Civil War. Until the first battle of the American Civil War, no one on either side expected it to last more than a few months, and at best cost no more than a few hundred casualties. The ultimate cost in lives, property and damage to the soul of the nation was a profound shock to everyone on both sides. Likewise, the kind of conflict that the church is headed for will be unimaginable to almost everyone before it happens, which will work to cause a serious lack of preparation. This in itself will be a primary factor that seriously prolongs the conflict.”This quote is pulled from its context. The article Civil War in the Church by Rick Joyner from the Morning Star Prophetic Bulletin May 1996 can be read on its own.

The authority of the man of God is not infallibility. It is that the man of God will always strive to lead the flock of God closer to God. The man of God is not self serving. The man of God will steer the flock off dangerous ground. The man of God will not seek to bruise or hurt the flock of God.

It is my understanding of Mr. Joyners writing to catalyse a “war” without even laying a grievence that I find disheartening. The flock has only gone where they have been led.

When I enter a Pastors office the first thing I’m drawn to is his library. More often than not these days, I see books on business, leadership, church building, rather than theology, history, or soteriology. If the “words in red” are no longer taught other than a as segue value how can the flock take them seriously? Instead of the Great War or civil war would it be better to teach this to the people and watch the response?

When Mr. Joyners “prophesy” is brought to pass, I ask what about the flock? How many among you now are there not understanding that they are [in new wine skins]? How many are with you that are simply there to worship?

The authority of the man of God is not infallibility. It is that the man of God will always strive to lead the flock of God closer to God. The man of God is not self serving. The man of God will steer the flock off dangerous ground. The man of God will not seek to bruise or hurt the flock of God.

First the Church, then the State, then the World?

An argument against breaking future laws to set up situations to get them passed

If a Congress knows it needs to get unpopular laws passed and in doing so over a period of time breaks the laws it knows it will pass, promotes situations in which its constituency gets hurt to the point of dissolving families and ruining financial futures, again with the ultimate aim of getting laws passed what are we to say about them? Under a system of restitution or retribution what would the law say?

The authority of the man of God is not infallibility. It is that the man of God will always strive to lead the flock of God closer to God. The man of God is not self serving. The man of God will steer the flock off dangerous ground. The man of God will not seek to bruise or hurt the flock of God.

Christianity as it stands for those of us who do try and fail also says forgiveness. In our prayer is …”forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors…” In our Lords teaching is “…only as we forgive”…

Mr. North In much of your literature you seem too keen to stone people. When you succeed you will have a quasi Jewish nation. According to your 1st commandment “…no other God before Me…”Anyone who worships other than the Christian God is guilty of idolatry, anyone who worships differently, heresy.

As I said I understand the enthrallment with the idea of a theonomy, it is an amazing concept.

Mr. North in the urgency to get this moving didn’t you stop and wonder about all those families who listened to you just before the millennium? It never occurred to you to temper that information? Im a farmer and generally we can get by for six or eight months with what’s in the freezer. But I have friends and came across other familes that could not and tried to be ready because they did trust you sir. One family spent $30000. That was the cost based on the best information available. That price as well as the disintegration of the family was the cost. I’m told thousands are out there just like them. Will you give them recourse to restitution or retribution? Or is forgiveness better?

Arguments against Reconstructionist/Talmudic Christianity adoption of 613 mitzvahs

The Laws that Mr. Rushdoony, Mr. North,Mr. Rogers and the Reconstruction/Dominionist movement seek to forward are in their words “the Jewish Law minus of course ceremonial law.” This corpus would include civil and penal law based on the 613 Jewish laws [mitzvah]. The penal law would carry either provisions for restitution or execution through the courts as deterrence and therefore would alleviate the need for an extensive penal system.  I am grateful that the combined writing on this subject has remained simplistic and easy to understand positionally.

Are the Laws of God good? Yes. Should a Christian seek to live within this framework? Absolutely. The problem does not lie there [see chapter Didache]. The 613 Mitzvot are not the Mosaic Law and should not be forwarded as such.[see chapter the New Jewish Paradigm] The corpus of Jewish Law pre-Destruction and post-Destructon are entirely different and each dealt with a different reality of “what is the Religion and identity of Israel”. [See chapters Civil Affairs, Pharisees and Nazarenes, New Jewish Paradigm]

Should a Christian seek to live under the framework of the Jewish law? [See chapters Gentiles and the Law, Didache, Jew and Gentile]The answer is a resounding no. Had this document [Didache] come back into vogue and was in use the conversation would be mute as there would be no perceived need. As far as a legal corpus for civil use, in application and I am speaking with regard to the Mosaic Law, and its limitation by God was to Jews as a covenant people as shown above. If this were not so then there would be no record of foreigners in Scripture and secular writing during the height of the Davidic Dynasty. These foreigners were not coerced to convert to Judaism and many sojourned in Israel. That type of coercion was what led to the rule of Herod. [See chapter Civil Affairs].

. The earlier Nazarene /Apostolic view have been given. The large point of separation was the change in paradigm. The later Nazarene [Desposynic] view is shown in there own words written by Jerome:

These Nazarenes lived in the framework of the pre-Destructon paradigm. According to Jerome (on Isaiah 8.14): “The Nazarenes, who accept Christ in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old law, explain the two houses as the two families,  as being  Shammai and Hillel,

 (On Isaiah 8.20-21). “For the rest the Nazarenes explain the passage in this way: when the Scribes and Pharisees tell you to listen to them, men who do everything for the love of the belly and who hiss during their incantations in the way of magicians in order to deceive you, you must answer them like this…”

The Mosaic base of the Nazarene would not grasp the new paradigm [see New Jewish Paradigm]. The concept of “When the Holy One, blessed be He, gave the Torah to Israel, He gave it to them in the form of wheat to produce from it fine flour, and in the form of flax to produce from it a garment. (Tanna Debei Eliyahu Zuta, ed. Ish-Shalom, parasha 2)”[285]The halachot of the Tanna could be viewed as an act of creation. For the Nazarene based in Mosaic Law this went too far. There were other schools that thought this also [refer to the Claims of Authoriity and R. Ishmael by Cana Werman].

This again brings us back to the Didache [the oldest Christian Document and commentary on the Royal Law and how they translate into life]. If even conceptually I have shown that it would be wrong to coerce a Christian to live under Jewish Law, how much more so an unbeliever? An unbeliever has no frame of reference to a Righteous God, how much less a perception never mind an ability to try to live to such a standard that “would please a Living God”. The coercion of a belief in God written in civil and penal code, is it a little close to blasphemy by itself?

With regard to the affinity with Civil Halacha today “As divine law, it is incumbent upon legal institutions to enforce it. True, this goal is in tension with the more idealized construction of the law presented in the Bible, which presents all forms of power and its exercise as the domain of God. But the Halacha achieves an organic unity between this idea and the view that it is a divine imperative to preserve social order and enforce the normative law. For this reason, Jewish law did not lack for nearly two millennia coercive institutions. Even leaving aside unconventional coercive institutions, such as divine accountability, a biblical and rabbinic thematic, excommunication, literally, expul sion from the community -a form of legal death -; accusations of heresy; as well as the pressure to conform that a community organized around the shared responsibility of its members invites, prior to the post-Enlightenment destruction of semi-autonomousJ ewish communities, and the consequent contraction of the realm of halacha to a faithful remnant, rabbinic courts and their governmental substitutes were able to, and did, wield a variety of coercive measures, including physical punishment.[286]
The conclusion being that as difficult as it can be when a society is in agreeance on the subject [Judaism] a society that is not in agreeance will find it impossible.

Methodology

“Another convincing example of a grass-roots change agent reporting on substantial progress toward transformation is Eddie Long of Atlanta, whom I quoted previously. Here is Long’s report:Today I can honestly say that metropolitan Atlanta would miss [New Birth Missionary Baptist Church] very much if something caused us to move away or shut down. The New Birth congregation finances and operates vital support programs in the city and pumps large sums of money and thousands of volunteer hours into key areas such as youth offender intervention programs, public school programs, and support and outreach programs for homeless women and children. We are involved in every aspect of life, and we are making a major impact in the Atlanta metropolitan areas.

This, in turn, is causing us to gain major footholds in the city infrastructure, . . . the criminal court system, public high schools, the Georgia State Senate, the United States Senate, and even into the White House itself. . . . When you are a politician in a major metropolitan area, it isn’t wise to dismiss or ignore a highly unified, committed, and motivated group of voters exceeding twenty-two thousand people representing almost every voting precinct in your city.”[287]

Christians should have a hearty public voice. We should be involved in the public discourse but are we to use acts of service as a means to an end? This according to the writings of Gary North is the only way for your movement to proceed, and gain ground.

An Argument against Super-supersessionalism

The arguments of the fathers stopped at the Hyper-Hiprocriticalism they saw as Talmud based Judaism. Interestingly they always stopped short of even breathing the word Heresy. The article “The Economic Condition of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple by Adolph Buchler (London, 1912) Jews College, London, and publication no. 4” shows very clearly the basis for their premise with this regard. The Tanna had no regard for the every day person. 

This history given in our tradition and the history in my premise show unequivocally, we are not Jews. Our Scripture states that “when the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled focus goes back to the Jews.’

“One of the tasks of Christians is to replace Judaism with Christianity. According to David Chilton:

“The god of Judaism is the devil. The Jew will not be recognized by God as one of His chosen people until he abandons his demonic religion and returns to the faith of his fathers–the faith which embraces Jesus Christ and His Gospel.”

David Chilton, “The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation”, Dominion Press, Ft. Worth, TX (1984), P. 127

“Thus, fourth, the covenant people must wage war against the enemies of God, because this war is unto death. The deliberate, refined, and obscene violence of the anti-God forces permits no quarter.

Fifth, this warfare must continue until the Amalekites of the world are blotted out, until God’s law-order prevails and His justice reigns .”R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), p. 318.

Statements such as this require qualification from your movement. The adding of different strains of “Messianc Judaism” is not and does not constitute a replacement Judaism. Are we to take whole groups of Christians and Jews and try criminally for heresy and idolatry? Both offenses in the restitution and retribution schematic are death penalty offenses?

An argument against Talmudic Christianity [seers heavenly halls]

I will not get into the infallibility of your prophets. If this indeed is a “new wine in a new wineskin” and you are stepping away, it is not for those of us in the old to judge. Scripturally it is the prophets who judge prophets.

But this much we have from the Didache 11.3 “Concerning apostles [and prophets, according to the directions in the gospel, act in this way.] 11.4 let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. 11.5 He shall stay only one day, or, if need be, another day too. If he stays three days, he is a false prophet. 11.6 When the apostle leaves, let him receive nothing but enough bread to see him through until he finds lodging. If he asks for money he is a false prophet. [11.7 … and every prophet speaking in the Spirit neither test nor judge; every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. 11.8 But not every one speaking in the Spirit is a prophet, but only those whose behaviour is as the Lord’s, by their actions you can discern the false prophet from the prophet. 11.9 Every prophet calling for a table of food in the Spirit will not eat of it. If he does he is a false prophet.] [11.10 And every prophet teaching the truth who does not do what he teaches is a false prophet. 11.11 But every prophet tested and found true who lives ‘the mystery of the church in the world’ and does not teach others to do the same – do not judge him. His judgment is with God. For the prophets of old also lived/acted in this way.]

 [11.12 If any prophet, speaking in the Spirit says, ‘Give me money’, or anything else, do not listen to him. On the other hand, if he calls you to give it to someone who is in need, do not judge him. 12.1 Let everyone who comes in the name of the Lord be received, after that, when you have tested him, you will know what he is like – for you will have right and left perception. 12.2a if the one who comes is a traveller, help him as much as you can, 12.2b but he shall not stay with you more than two or three days if this is necessary. 12.3 But if he wants to settle with you, and he is a craftsman, let him work and so eat. 12.4 If he has no craft, see to it in your own understanding that no one lives among you in idleness because he is a Christian. 12.5 If he is unwilling to do this, he is trading on Christ. Be on your guard against such people.]”

Some of the practices of the emerging church faction and various others in your movements are simply the forwarding of a Talmudic mysticism. This mysticism I describe as Talmudic for this reason. Christian “assents into the heavenly halls” only has a counterpart in Merkabah and Hechalot literature of the Rabbis. [See chapters Pharisee Sages and the Nazarenes, the Throne]. For the Nazarene and the Pharisee it was expositional work. For the Tanna it became experiential mysticism. For the Jews the forwarding of the Noahide Religion has apparently had some success, as these practices gain acceptance.

Jerome’s commentary (on Isaiah 8.20-21). “For the rest the Nazarenes explain the passage in this way: when the Scribes and Pharisees tell you to listen to them, men who do everything for the love of the belly and who hiss during their incantations in the way of magicians in order to deceive you, you must answer them like this…” With regard to the mysticism of the Tanna the view of the Desposyni was less than enthusiastic.

If we go back to early writings Didache3.4 My child, do not be a soothsayer, for this leads to idolatry; nor an enchanter, nor an astrologer, nor a magician; do not be willing to even look at such things, for all these breed idolatry.

If your movement claims an eventual holiness that a person with sin in their lives will drop dead in front of one of “your many membered man”Apostles, how much more an invasion is it if one of your mystics claims to be able to show a “common” [am ha retz]Christian how to ascend to the [Heavenly Halls] at will? Should the respect shown to the minister be greater than God?

With regard to the collective and collected sayings of your prophets, this [fresh] fire in your writings seems to be gaining the authority in sinc with the Talmud of Judaism. Does your [Christianity] maintain a new oral tradition? Is this comparable to Tanna Debei Eliyahu Zuta, ed. Ish-Shalom, parasha 2? What is its authority comparative to?

An Argument for the sake of Children [child witches, disobedient children]

 There was an article by Tracy McVeigh in Esit Eket, dated Sunday December 9, 2007 entitled Children are targets of Nigerian Witch Hunt. The article printed in the Guardian Unlimited, the Observer World section  details in the reporters own words how Evangelical pastors are helping to create a terrible new campaign of violence against young Nigerians. Children and babies branded as evil are being abused, abandoned and even murdered while the preachers make money out of the fear of their parents and their communities.” The article goes on to say that children [3-8 years old] are failing the “churches” test for witchcraft because they may have dreamed of [having]food, a party[3-8 years old] and a sibling was in the dream.

What concern is this? The article goes on But an exploitative situation has now grown into something much more sinister as preachers are turning their attentions to children – naming them as witches. In a maddened state of terror, parents and whole villages turn on the child. They are burnt, poisoned, slashed, chained to trees, buried alive or simply beaten and chased off into the bush.

Why is this your concern? ” Such names as New Testament Assembly, Church of God Mission, Mount Zion Gospel, Glory of God, Brotherhood of the Cross, Redeemed, Apostalistic. Behind the smartly painted doors pastors make a living by ‘deliverances’ – exorcisms – for people beset by witchcraft, something seen to cause anything from divorce, disease, accidents or job losses”.

” Some parents scrape together sums needed to pay for a deliverance – sometimes as much as three or four months’ salary for the average working man – although the pastor will explain that the witch might return and a second deliverance will be needed. Even if the parent wants to keep the child, their neighbours may attack it in the street. This is not just a few cases. This is becoming commonplace.”

Apostle Wagner, they [the perpetrators of these things] unapolegetically make their claim to authority in both the Evangelical Movement, and in you.

In fairness both to you and Evangelicalism, having had people under me I know that under even the best of conditions “even the king of beasts can’t control all the animals of the forest”. I’ve been in situations where people have strayed outside the lines because of [unbridled enthusiasm?].

Part of The New Reformed Movement [Calvinism] is to set us under Jewish Civil Law; I will only deal with one here. “A disobedient child will be put to death.” According to Gary North these types of executions will be done by stoning because “stones are cheap” Mr. North, Mr. Rogers is this what you envision?

“The question about incorrigible children is a common one. The so-called “harshness” of this punishment is often posed to refute the idea of theonomy as the basis for civil law. However, I know that this law and its punishment under the Old Covenant were just because God is just. Therefore, I ask, what has changed under the New Covenant so that the law and its punishment are now unjust? Has God changed? No! Has the Law changed? Jesus said: Not one jot! Therefore I ask: Why not now? Perhaps the problem is with us and not with the law?

However, I will attempt to explain this. We are talking about incorrigibility here. Cursing one’s parents does not mean simply swearing. What is implied here is far more serious. Incorrigibility would be required to be proven before the local civil elders before the child could be executed. It would need to be demonstrated that the child is out of control and will not obey his parents even when the most serious punishment — death — is threatened.

In the United States of America, in this century, there were laws on the books in some states that said that a thief could be put to death for repeat offenses. This goes beyond what the Bible prescribes, but we see the same principle at work — capital punishment for incorrigibility

Rebellion against one’s parents is listed together with the most heinous crimes in Romans. In this case, if he persisted in his rebellion against God, it would be the responsibility of the civil elders to deal with him. Isn’t it likely that such a rebel would ultimately be put on trial for some other capital offense and be put to death”- What is Theonomy an article by Jay Rogers.

Can we make a legitimate stand against [inutero] abortion and then deem them unworthy of life when they are three, or five, or nine?

The [Law] pertaining to a Disobedient Child is the reciprocal to “Honor your father and mother” and the promise of longevity that goes with it. This necessitates that the [child] is “of age” or mature i.e. [a GROWN UP], contrary to your reading on it.

I have read in your movement’s writings that the [new] Leadership will come out of places like Nigeria. Is this what we are to expect? If not sir, where is the outrage at this?

This is why an argument needs to be made on behalf of the children. If this is not your position you can see why it requires clarification?

616

The gematia equivalent of 616 is the Fullness [of Torah, of Life, of Time, of Blessing] Overflowing

An Argument against Reconstructions Economics

I have only read some of Mr. Norths work on Christian Economics. Behind this is his appeal to move away from our current Republican form of Government. The writing is volumous and I make no pretenses about my ineptness on the subject but his ecomony and government are textured heavily with Platos’ “Democracy” just the same. Greek Democracy was set up so the rich landowners who had the time could take part in civil affairs while the working poor could not. Because the two classes had such radically different views on what was “necessary or good” it worked to the benefit of the rich. I may be wrong but is this your view of the great “Christian Society”? A type of feudalism? It really requires qualification and clarification. If part of our mission as Christians is to help the poor, are we to create more of them?

Gary North-“At the other end of the curve, the poor man who steals is eventually caught and sold into bondage under a successful person. His victim receives payment; he receives training; his buyer receives a stream of labor services. If the servant is successful and buys his way out of bondage, he re-enters society as a disciplined man, and presumably a self-disciplined man. He begins to accumulate wealth.”[288]

With the combined resources of your various branches it is easy to assume you have the purchasing power of a small country.  The gift acquisition of Hydrogen Tech rights also goes along way by magnitude toward bolstering that in the future. I personally would wish to be proven wrong, but your intent to break away from normative Christianity seems too clear. This argument is not about making you stay, but to pause and think. The history, unkown to you until now will stand careful scrutiny. I have taken a lot of care to present in most cases and at the very least understand the opposing [opposite] view.

Does your Historic precedent for a New Paradigm stand up to History now that it has been presented? This is not a rewrite of history but the First Run. This period has never been covered in more than small sections before this. Everything else will be its redaction from this point onward.

I ask again what about the People who are among you? In your writings there is already a pattern toward sloughing them off. You are Christian leaders, is it not a responsiblility to God to see them off in that fashion and not hurt them? Would keeping them longer be sin and theft if you will discard them anyway?

These are the genuine concerns of my argument.

Mr. Wagner, to couch it in language you do understand; In your honesty you now know you lack the Unicorn. Only the mountains know where to find them and the ones that speak do lie or are evil. You cannot afford the stable or the fodder as their appetites are larger than yours. I ask that you rethink this.

You are fathers of the Faith for this generation, if this is the direction you are intent on, then I am mournful. The authority of the man of God is not infallibility. It is that the man of God will always strive to lead the flock of God closer to God. The man of God is not self serving. The man of God will steer the flock off dangerous ground. The man of God will not seek to bruise or hurt the flock of God.

 

Regards and Blessing,

G. Hugo Eliason

An Argument for the Jewish People

An Open Letter to Chief Rabbis, Rabbis and Scholars

Distinguished Rabbis,

I ask that you look at the last argument as extreme polemic at friends and defend them. I want you to look at the information and mount a defense because many of these have arms of ministry that are Christian Zionist and friendly to Israel. I am a Christian and Rabbis I don’t lie when I say I want to be proven wrong.  I challenge you not to believe me and look.  Start by reading the following articles;

Michelle Goldberg’s Study of the Rise of Christian Nationalism, and Its Adherents’ Strategy to Use the Courts to Further Their Agenda Friday Aug. 25, 2006 by John W. Dean [former Counsel to the President]
An Evangelical Coup in the Military -Tikkun Magazine Michael L. Weinstein is Founder and President of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation. He was Assistant General Counsel in the Reagan White House and later served as General Counsel for H. Ross Perot.

Rabbi James Rudin writes in The Baptising of America: The Religious Rights Plans for the Rest of Us ”

I may again be wrong but it would seem that at the more mystical end, a clear bent toward Talmud mysticisim, and experiential Kabbalah.[a Noahide Christian hybrid? ].

I am not a defender of Judaism at least at last glance. I will always forward the Evangel. I am also of the opinion that the combining of our Faiths is a bad thing. We are Christian. We follow the King. In that vein I am grateful for ministries like Jews for Judaism. I do understand acts of kindness when I read them.

On the same note I am not accustomed to kicking multiple millions of people across the toes. This is something I can’t and don’t take lightly. If as the above articles suggest we are headed into a dark time, if the contexts of the writings of this movement have been kept, where does that put you? If the context hasn’t been kept defend them. They are spread across the breadth of Evangelicalism today.

As things stand soon I will take no ones word for granted that they are among the believers but will test them according to Scripture “What is the fruit of their lives? Is it peacable? “

Shalom

G. Hugo Eliason

An Argument for Discourse among Christian Scholars and Leaders

An Open Letter to Scholars, Theologians, Bishops, Pastors, and Leaders

Distinguished Leaders,

It is unfortunate that much of the time you are called on to speak it is to refute a “Davinci something or other” that is already labled fictional. This combined movement by their own reckoning in the year 2008 is approximately 38,000,000. Strong. They represent a cross section of the faith from Pentacostals, Charismatics, to Presbyterians and Baptists.

The legitimate complaints they have and see concerning our direction as a people is real for most of us and reforms are necessary, but what reforms?

You are the fathers of the faith for this generation whether or not you feel worthy or not or like it or not and need to address them. Historically when a fracture this size has happened persecutions from one side then both occur as both sides need to reestablish legitimacy. If you kid yourselves that we are too enlightened truly look at some of the literature of history.

Look at the first argument, if those things are so, or even most of them “shall we go quietly into this goodnight?”My concern isn’t for the [Faith]. God Himself will protect that. It is for the people. When the division in leadership grows so large it is the sheep that get sacrificed.

Distinguished leaders, the time is come for a collective and relevant conversation with these brothers and sisters, your peers and collegues. It is evident they are motivated from a love for our God and King. That is clear from their writings also.

As a collective voice, if they are intent on leaving us you may be able to help them. [see  chapter-New Jewish Paridigm, Eliezer the Heretic] Leaving polemic out of the conversation, it may be only for a time.[289]

If they are intent on going this way, and it does look so, it will be fast. Waiting for the opportune moment to speak with each other or them will only take the moment and make it irrelevant.

It is with a sincere concern that I have written this.

Respectfully

G. Hugo Eliason

A Plea for the Christian People

An Open Letter to Christians

Brothers and Sisters,

We have come to a day when if my understanding is correct, we will [stone] each other and our children for [justice]?? As common Christians we do as our leader’s judge as long as it is right in the sight of God. As common Christians we are this day’s am-haretz [refer to chapter on civil affairs]. The good news is that we are directly the constituency of the King.

As such we need to remain faithful to the King first.[refer to chapters Enter the Nazarenes, Pharisee Sages and the Netzerim Gentiles and the Law, Jews and Gentiles, Nazarenes and Society..,]. The idea here is if you don’t know the King how can you love Him?

We will as Christians be judged [my opinion] on one great Heresy. If you love Him did you keep His Commandments? If we don’t know even what He said how can we love Him?

That is also why I recommend the Didache. It is a concise explanation of how the Royal Commandments translate into real life. It can be read as a commentary with the Gospel of Mathew. When Professor Allen Garrow did his work on Didache as the first Christian Document one point showing authenticity that he missed was in the rite of Baptism. He parced it correctly in that the original says to “Baptise under running water” [a river for instance]. The reason for this and as a proof of authenticity is that under the [Laws of the Kings], a King can only be “Baptised” in running or moving water [stream, river].

If you are happy within your fellowship, stay there.  We are all responsible to our King for maintaining His Faith here in the sense that “If we know to do good and do not it is sin for us.”That is the only motivation behind this. That we are heading into turbulent times goes without saying, but we have been there before.  At least four times in history those of our Faith have come to the same kind of place being the Kings constituency. Every time was dark times, every time hurt, and yet here we are today.

Every one of us as the common Christian has a responsibility to know for ourselves what our King said and that we live it. [Refer to chapter James the Just]. Our response to His “Hear me my brethren and my people” is always “my Lord and my Master”.

If we are living this we don’t need movements, or revivals or or 8 steps to anything, but to love each other and our enemies as is commanded. We are Christian.

Love and Blessings and Best Regards,

G. Hugo Eliason


Conclusion to Arguments for the Sake of Heaven

If the histories shown are considered in an unbiased fashion, its voice coming from all parties, the conclusion of history is that there can be no good precedent for Dominionist Philosophy within Christianity and still maintain Orthodoxy. If we are Christians, are we to use Imprecatory prayer [Cursing in the Name of God]?

Or as “James 3:10 Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not so to be.”

It is again very obvious that their motivation is out of a love for God. If they have made themselves misunderstood, they should be given room to clear up the misunderstanding.

If they have been understood correctly and in context I ask simply when is it Godly or right to do evil in the name of righteousness?  If only a few of the statements of intent of this movement are true, which are acceptable?

A common point of agreement among the different strains of this movement is that [sodomy (sodomites)] must be removed from the land. I ask simply how this is defined. What is the legal definition to be used?

If the “Sayings of the Fathers” [Avot] is noted, there is a proverb dating 50 or so years before the birth of Jesus. Paraphrased it asks the question; What is a Sodomite?

The average person says what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours

Meaning: I won’t steal from you and you won’t steal from me. I may help you protect what is yours if you will help me. From this we can derive a just society.

A fool says whats mine is yours, and whats yours is mine.

Meaning; I can take anything of yours and you can take anything of mine. This statement neglects the apparent inequity among people and possessions

An evil person says whats mine is mine and whats yours is mine

Meaning; I may never need whats yours but if I do I will take it.

The righteous person says whats mine is yours and whats yours is yours

Meaning; My God is my provision and He wants me to share His provision with all.

The Sodomite says whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours

Meaning; don’t ask for help when you are in need unless there is a benefit to me. Don’t ask to borrow what is mine unless there is profit in it for me.

KJVEzekiel 16:49  “Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.”

As Christians we make no excuse for sin and must confront it. This is true. We must be involved in our societies. The above example wasn’t chosen arbitrarily. Whose definition do we use to define a [Sodomite].  The popular definition of a “pervert or a homosexual”[the prevalence of which in Rabbinic writing is a sign of how well or poorly the covenant people are addressing Gods definition] is not the same as defined in Scripture. Across the Bible and through the New Testament Gods definition remains static and doesn’t change.

The choices in front of us affect every future generation. Should they be made by default? It is the reponsiblity of all of us that our consciences remain clear in accordance with the Scripture, and our King. It is never about what we are comfortable with. If we are to remain true to our Confession then the impetus is on us to question what we don’t understand in the light of Scripture.

The above example may seem extreme but followed out holds true. The import is holding this against the things that are more familiar and everyday.

If we do public service [feeding the poor, social service, out reach services, helping the homeless, etc…] for the sake of “ causing us to gain major footholds in the city infrastructure, . . . the criminal court system, public high schools, the Georgia State Senate, the United States Senate, and even into the White House itself. . . . When you are a politician in a major metropolitan area, it isn’t wise to dismiss or ignore a highly unified, committed, and motivated group of voters[290]

Have we become Pharisees and as such already reaped our reward?

Are we are willing to kill little children for the sake of God as is being done and written about by News Agencies in Second and Third World Countries?

Are we willing to take the hands of the poor and needy and tie them in bondage?

Mr. Norths and Mr. Rogers Justice System- weighed against John 8:7 “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her”.

Was she not caught in Adultery? Mr. North, Mr. Rogers there was One there without sin and He did not pick up the first stone. Even the Pharisees had enough sense to leave after He spoke.

Under this Reconstructionist System will He recognize us? Or will He simply say “I never knew you”.

Bibliography

Adiabene,Jewish Kingdom of Mesopotamia by Jonah Gabriel Lissner

Title: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus

URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html

Author(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)

Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Title: History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity.

A.D. 100-325

URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.html

Author(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)

Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library

First Published: 1882

Title: ANF08. The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementia,

Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents,

Remains of the First Age

URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.html

Author(s): Schaff, Philip

Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Aspects of the Sabbath in the Late Second Temple Period,

University of Stellanbosch, Ila Lizorkin2006

Jewish History, Jewish Religion – The Weight of Three Thousand Years by Professor Israel Shahak

Josephus and Justus of Tiberias A Contribution to the History of the Jewish Revolt Heinrich Luther from Schkeitbar United Friedrichs University, Halle-Wittenberg

Title: NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, & Rufinus: Historical

Writings

URL: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf203.html

Author(s): Schaff, Philip (1819-1893)

Publisher: Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library

APOSTOLIC HISTORY OUTLINE

Acts 2:38 Doctrine Through The Ages by Rev. MARVIN M. ARNOLD, D.D., Th.D. INTRODUCTION by Rev. Norman Zeno, M.A. DEDICATION

Balaam: A Light to the Gentiles?Dr. Glenn Carnagey, CTSJ 4:4 (October 1998) p. 18

The Japanese Jesus trail – By Duncan Bartlett , BBC News, Japan Published: 2006/09/09

Lessons from Inter-Communal Conflict During the Second Temple Period –Joshua Schwartz

China’s Christian History by Charles Horner Copyright (c) 1997 First Things (August/September 1997).

A CHRONOLOGY OFBIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY by Dr. R.C. Wetzel

BY FOOT TO CHINA Mission of The Church of the East, to 1400 By John M. L. Young Chairman Japan Presbyterian Mission Missionary of Mission to the World of the Presbyterian Church in America

LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH By Alfred Edersheim 1883 Volume 1

NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church

History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine by Eusebius Pamphilius

Lessons from Inter-Communal Conflict During the Second Temple Period  Joshua Schwartz

Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service Jonathan P. Roth San Jose State University November 23, 2004 San Antonio TX

The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE compared with Islamic conquest of 638CE. Its Messianic nature and the role of the Jewish Exilarch By Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz

A DICTIONARY of EARLY CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY And Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies EDITED BY HENRY WACE, D.D. & WILLIAM C. PIERCY, M.A. HENDRICKSON PUBLISHERS

Julian the Apostate, Against the Galileans: remains of the 3 books, excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum (1923) pp.319-433 AGAINST THE GALILAEANS[Translated by Wilmer Cave WRIGHT, PH.D.]Book I

 

LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAH

By Alfred Edersheim 1883

Volume 1

Notes on the Septuagint

by R. Grant Jones, Ph.D.

July 2000

How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about it-J.P. Moreland Department of Philosphy Talbot School of Theology

HALLEY’S COMET AND THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM IN 70 C.E.- John RAMSEY

East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia by T.V. Philip

Sepphoris and Galilee in Josephus, Vita

James F. Strange Distinguished University Professor of Religious Studies University of South Florida Tampa, Florida 33620

On Claims of Authority and Writing

Cana Werman

The Claim of Authority and the Qumran Community  Cana Werman

The Claim of Authority by the Sages Cana Werman

The Claims of Authority and R. Ishmael Cana Werman

WHO WAS A PHARISEE? by Joseph Sievers Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome

 

Flavius Josephus and His Testimony Concerning the Historical Jesus

Marian Hillar-Center for Philosophy and Socinian Studies

The Economic Condition of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple by Adolph Buchler (London, 1912) Jews College, London, publication no. 4.

THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF JERUSALEM ON CHRISTIANITY

J. Julius Scott, Jr.  Wheaton College Graduate School  Wheaton, IL 60l87

The Histories Book 5 by Publius Cornelius Tacitus

The Temple – Its Ministry and Services as they were at the time of Christ by Alfred Edersheim (1825-1889)         

Intermarriage in the Herodian Family as a Paradigm for Intermarriage in Second Temple Judaism-Tal Ilan

Shelamzion in Qumran- New Insights Tal Ilan Rothburg School

Tabory, R. B. (n.d.). Giving Pidyon to a Woman or a Minor.

History of the Hebrews Second Commonwealth with Special Reference to its Literature, Culture, and the Origin of Rabbinism and Christianity by Issac M. Wise, President of the Hebrew Union College 1880

The Temple on Mount Gerazim- Israeli Antiquities Authority Y. Magen

Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene

Stephen Goranson  August 2005 copyright

Post-biblical history of the Jews, from the close of the Old Testament till the year 70 C.E. By Morris Jacob Raphall

Judaism and Hellenism: The Encounter by Clare Goldfarb

History of the Daughters A Compendium of the Epoch c.1935 b.c./b.c.e., to 44 a.d./c.e. As Reported by Primary Ancient Ecclesiastical and Secular Writers, being: Jerodotus, Xenophon, Apocrypha Scribers, Josephus and , New Testament Scribers, supplemented by Classical Greek and Roman Historians –2004 Tosca Lenci

MESSIANIC HOPES AND MESSIANIC FIGURES IN LATE ANTIQUITY Craig A. Evans Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, NS

The Midrash of the Messiah

The Messiah and His Meal in Midrash Ruth Chapters V, VII and VIII

and its roots and reflections in corresponding Jewish literature

by Risto Santala

4 Maccabees

Jesus as Priest: An Examination of the Claim that the Concept of

Jesus as Priest may be Found in the New Testament

Outside the Epistle to the Hebrews*

John W. Baigent

Sacral Kingship―The Old Testament

Background*

Arthur E. Cundall

James the Just in History and Tradition:

Perspectives of Past and Present Scholarship

(Part I)

MATTI MYLLYKOSK I-Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, Finland

JAMES THE RELATIVE OF JESUS
AND THE EXPECTATION OF AN
ESCHATOLOGICAL PRIEST(1)
J. Julius Scott, Jr

The Relatives of Jesus Richard Bauckham

JAMES THE RELATIVE OF JESUS
AND THE EXPECTATION OF AN
ESCHATOLOGICAL PRIEST(1
)J. Julius Scott, Jr.

The Death of James, the Brother of Jesus

Donald Henry Little 1971 Rice University

THE APOSTOLIC ORIGINS OF THE ASSYRIAN CHURCH OF THE EAST Cor-bishop David Royel, S.T.L.

The Identity of the Historical Jesus:TACITUS’ FRAGMENT 2: THE ANTI-ROMAN MOVEMENT OF THE CHRISTIANI AND THE NAZOREANS Eric Laupot-University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa Published in Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 3 (2000) 233-47

The Christiani’s Rule Over Israel During the Jewish War: Tacticus’ Fragment 2 and Histories 5.13, Suetonius Vespasian 4.5 and the Coins of the Jewish War Eric Laupot

The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity- Studies in Christian-Jewish Relations Volume 1, Issue 1 2005 Article 28

Isaiah 53 in Ancient and Modern Jewish Interpretation-Andrew Bartelt

The Law of Christ and the Law of Moses: Reflections on a Recent Trend in Interpretation

TODD A . WILSON College Church in Wheaton Wheaton, Illinois, USA TWilson@college-church

The Nazoraean Sect and its Independence from Christianity- Douglas Lockhart

The Modern Reduction of the Gospel Contributed by Charles Martin Sylvania Christian

LEARNING THE BASICS: A PRIMER GUIDE TO ANSWERING THE MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

ABOUT THE PESHITTA ARAMAIC NEW TESTAMENT By Andrew Gabriel Roth

BLESSED ARE THE MEEK FOR THEY SHALL INHERIT THE EARTH F. Manns

Davidic Dynasty Ancient Ancestors to Modern Descendents-David Hughes

The High Priests List –David Hughes

The Words of Jesus in Light of Post Biblical Jewish Writings and the Arimaic Language by Gustav Dalman

 

 

UNDERSTANDING ACTS 15 By Robert Clanton

Paul and Judaism:The Apostle in the Context of Recent Interpretation JAMES W. AAGESON Concordia College Moorhead, Minnesota

Bursting the Bonds? A Jewish-Christian Dialogue on Jesus and Paul Leonard Swidler, Lewis John Eron, Gerard Sloyan, Lester Dean Faith Meets Faith Series

Paul and Judaism © Mark D. Nanos March 28, 2004 Central States SBL, St. Louis, March 28-29, 2004

Rethinking the “Paul and Judaism” Paradigm © Mark D. Nanos2005

THE NEW PERSPECTIVE ON PAUL: AN APPRAISAL TWO DECADES ON Don Garlington

Re-Reading Paul A fresh look at his attitude to Torah and to Judaism Further Guidelines for Christian Clergy and Teachers in their use of the New Testament with reference to the New Testament’s presentation of Jews and Judaism The Council of Christians and Jews(Victoria)IncPaul’s Christology of Divine Identity © Richard Bauckham‘TWO POWERS’ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM James McGrath (Alliance Theological Seminary) with Jerry Truex (Tabor College)

Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism(Excerpt from: The Great Acquittal: Justification by Faith and Current Christian Thought, Ed. Gavin Reid, London: Collins, 1980, p.13ff. Reproduced by permission of the author.) by Tom Wright

Word for Word Translation of the Epistle to the Galatians from

the Ancient Aramaic Peshitta Text By Andrew Gabriel Roth (for Millennium 7000 Ministries)

Only to the Lost Sheep or To All the Nations: Social Location Constructing Elites and Marginals in the Matthean Gospel Elaine M. Wainwright

The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle

Was the New Testament Really Written in Greek? A Concise Compendium of the Many Internal and External Evidences of Aramaic Peshitta Primacy Compiled by Christopher Lancaster Foreword by Andrew Gabriel Roth

AWRKHA L’KHAYA THE PATH TO LIFE: UNDERSTANDING THE 18 GREATEST MISTAKES IN NEW TESTAMENT INTERPRETATION Gabriel Andrew Roth

From Maccabean Warriors to Hasmonean Kings to Roman Slaves  Reb Chaim HaQoton

BABYLONIAN TALMUD Book 5 (Vols. IX and X) Tracts Aboth, Derech Eretz-Rabba, Eretz-Zuta, and Baba Kama (First Gate)SECTION NEZIKIN (JURISPRUDENCE).SYNOPSIS OF SUBJECTS OF TRACT ABOTH (FATHERS OF THE SYNAGOGUE). translated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON [1918]

What is Midrash Torah? SECLUSION AND EXCLUSION: RHETORIC OF SEPARATION IN QUMRAN AND TANNAITIC LITERATURE ADIEL SCHREMER Bar Ilan University

Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance Center of Theological Inquiry

MISHKAN  Issue No. 11, 1989  Two Covenant Theology

MISHKAN Issue No. 35, 2001  Reconciliation

MISHKAN Issue No. 20, 1994 Apostle Paul / Rav Shaul

National Jewish Scholars Project Do Christians and Jews Worship the Same God?DRAFT February,2001 Philip A. Cunningham and Jan Katzew

‘Shattering the Idols: The struggle for Holiness in a Secular Age’
Jewish Action – The Magazine of the Orthodox Union: FALL 5762 Volume 62, No. 1

Crises and Reaction: Roots of Diversity in Intertestamental Judaism(1) J. Julius Scott, Jr., © 1990; rev 1991  Department of Biblical and Theological Studies Wheaton College Graduate School  Wheaton, IL 60187, U.S.A.

THE GUARDIAN (EPITROPOÇ) OF A WOMAN IN THE DOCUMENTS FROM THE

JUDAEAN DESERT– HANNAH M. COTTONaus: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 118 (1997) 267–273

© Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH, Bonn

Women in Lukes Gospel Edith Ashley

What is a High Priest? by Rabbi Naftali Silberberg

CHRISTIANITY: A JEWISH PERSPECTIVE by Rabbi Moshe Reiss

Legal Differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees By F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake Novum Testamentum

    THE LAWS CONCERNING MASHIACH Chapters 11 & 12 of Hilchos Melachim from the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam Published by: Sichos In English

The Jewish Encyclopedia 1903

THE TRADITIONS OF ELEAZAR BEN AZARIAH By Tzvee Zahavy

Jesus Christ In The Talmud, Midrash, And The Zohar  BY GUSTAV DALMAN

RABBINIC LITERATURE AS A HISTORICAL SOURCE FOR THE STUDY OF THE GOSPELSʼ BACKGROUND F. Manns

Biblical Interpretations From the Sages Torah Drashot

RITES OF PASSAGE: RABBINIC AND PRIESTLY MODELS By Rabbi Louis A. Rieser

What is Midrash? Moshe Shulman

The Economic Condition of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple by Adolph Buchler (London, 1912) Jews College, London, publication no. 4.

The Frumkin/Nevies/Bender Family Tree

 

Mothers of Israel: Why the Rabbis Adopted a Matrilineal Principle Susan Sorek St. David’s College, University

ofWales, Lampeter

The Mamzer Jesus and His Birth

By Bruce Chilton Bernard Iddings Bell Professor of Religion Bard College October 2005

SEFER YOHASSIN Or BOOK OF LINEAGE Rabbi Abraham Ben Samuel Zacuto Translated by Israel Shamir AD1999-AM5759

Sourcebook of References in Jewish Classical Sources Which Shed Light on the Gospel Accounts R. Parrish

YOHANAN BEN ZAKKAI, AMICUS CAESARIS:* A JEWISH HERO IN RABBINIC EYES AMRAM TROPPER

Notes on the Study of Merkabah Mysticism and Hekhalot Literature in English with an appendix on Jewish Magic Don Karr

Barkai Family Genealogy.

Loeb Family Genealogy  http://www.loebtree.com

Hebraic Literature Translations from THE TALMUD, MIDRASHIM and KABBALA Tudor Publishing Co. New York 1943 Project Guttenburg

What is Early Jewish and Christian Mysticism? APRIL D. DeCONICK

DidacheThe Teaching of the Lord, by the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles, Allen Garrow

 

 

 

 


[1]  David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07

[2] Jewish Encyclopedia Sadducee

[3] Tabory, Rav Binyamin Giving Pidyon Ha-Ben to a Woman or a Minor

[4] Rav Pappa credited his marriage to a kohenet as the source of his wealth Pesachim 49a This intimates a non kohen acting as an agent for his kohenet wife.  Pesachim 111b Claimed that his marriage to a Kohenet caused his exile[, as only a Torah Scholar or Kohen should marry a Kohenet]: Pesachim 49a
His exile was forced by fear of rebellions and the king: Pesachim 49a

[5] Mordechai Torczyner Webshas Article

[6][6] Sefer Yohassin R. Abraham Zacuto pg 77

[7] Sefer Yohassin pg 95

[8] (Soncino)Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Yebamoth Folio 6 MISHNAH. [A PRIEST WHO] BETROTHED A WIDOW, AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED HIGH PRIEST, MAY CONSUMMATE THE MARRIAGE. IT ONCE HAPPENED WITH JOSHUA B. GAMALA THAT HE BETROTHED MARTHA THE DAUGHTER OF BOETHUS, AND THE KING APPOINTED HIM HIGH PRIEST, AND HE, NEVERTHELESS, CONSUMMATED THE MARRIAGE.

IF ONE AWAITING THE DECISION OF THE LEVIR  BECAME SUBJECT TO A COMMON PRIEST WHO WAS SUBSEQUENTLY APPOINTED HIGH PRIEST, [THE LATTER], THOUGH HE ALREADY ADDRESSED TO HER A MA’AMAR, MUST NOT CONSUMMATE THE MARRIAGE.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Whence is it deduced that [a priest] who betrothed a widow and was afterwards appointed High Priest may consummate the marriage? It is specifically stated in Scripture, Shall he take to wife.  If so, [the same law should apply to] a yebamah awaiting the decision of the levir also! — A ‘wife’ but not a yebamah.

[9] (Talmud Menachot 98)

[10] THE EDUCATION CORNER: Ben Gamla by  Rabbi Amichai Gordin

[11] Bava Batra21a He also ruled that two schools could be established in the same place.

[12] Barkai family Genealogy, generations seven and eight

[13] ibid

[14] Shiur #30: Parashat Bamidbar Giving Pidyon Ha-Ben to a Woman or Minor By Rav Binyamin Tabory-The Chatan Sofer, a grandson of the Chatam Sofer, recommended giving the pidyon to a kohen who is married to a kohenet. This would increase the probability of having a proper recipient, as it could either be the kohen or the kohenet (Responsa Chatan Sofer 25).The justification is that if the Kohen s lineage is not pure the Kohenet  wife provides legitimacy by agency.

[15] KJV2 Chronicles 27:1 “ Jotham was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. His mother  was Jerushah, the daughter of Zadok II  And he did that which was right in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father Uzziah did: howbeit he entered not into the temple of the LORD.”

[16] Koffman Koler Jewish Encyclopedia 1901-1906

[17] Loeb Family Tree Genealogy, http://www.loebtree.com Yikhus Letter in the possession of the Sans Hassidim (Zans Khassidim).

[18] It will be noted throughout that the Halacha through the different Temple periods and the time of the Tanna are different and should not be confused.

[19] 1998 by Frank E. Smitha  Article Judea and Civil War

[20] Davidic Dynasty, David Hughes

[21]David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07

[22]Rabbi Abraham Ben Samuel Zacuto SEFER YOHASSINorBOOK OF LINEAGE PG 11

[23]Jewish Encyclopedia Joseph(High Priest)By : Richard Gottheil   M. Seligsohn
1. Son of Ellem ( ) of Sepphoris; installed by Herod for one day (Yom Kippur) as a substitute for the high priest, who had become unclean (Tosef., Yoma i. 4; Yer. Yoma i. 1; Yer. Hor. iii. 3; Hor. 12b; et al.). Josephus, who tells the same story (“Ant.” xvii. 6, § 4), says that “Mattathias, son of Theophilus” (4 B.C.) was the name of the priest for whom he substituted. The Rabbis forbade him afterward to officiate, even as a common priest (Yoma 12b; Hor. 12b). 2. Son of Ḳimḥit (Ḳamḥit); he became a substitute for his brother Ishmael, or Simeon, when the latter had become unclean (Yoma 47a). Josephus (“Ant.” xx. 5, § 2), calling him “Joseph, son of Kamythus” (Kάμĩθος), speaks of him as having been removed from the high-priesthood by Herod II. 3. Son of Simeon Kabi (61-62 C.E.; Josephus, “Ant.” xx. 8, § 11); installed in the high-priesthood by Agrippa II. Grätz (“Gesch.” 4th ed., iii. 739) concludes that this Joseph was the son of Simeon Kamithus

[24] Davidic Dynasty-David Hughes

[25] [25]David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 5 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07

[26] LIFE AND TIMES OF JESUS THE MESSIAHBy Alfred Edersheim 1883Volume 1pg 100Curiously, the great Hillel was also said by some to have descended, through his father and mother, from the tribes ofJudah and Levi, all, however, asserting his Davidic origin (comp. Jer. Taan. iv. 2; Ber. R. 98 and33).

[27] Davidic Dynasty David Hughes  pg 40

[28] Rabbi Abraham Ben Samuel ZacutoSEFER YOHASSIN pg 27

In Sanhedrin, chapter Mamonoth, it is said that Zerubbabel is Nehemiah <son of> Hacaliah, and they say he is the ancestor of Hillel the Elder, the Prince of Israel. It does not seem so according to Ketuboth. It appears he was a descendant of Shephatiah son of Abital, King David’s wife. In JT, and in Genesis Rabbah, chapter ‘But God remembered Noah’, it is said that Hillel on his mother’s side was a descendent of Judah, and on his father’s side – of Benjamin, and Rabbi is his descendent.

[29] Sefer Yohassin pg 80

[30] In an article by Rabbi Moshe Reiss “Bible Commentator” he describes  the leverite marriage of Boaz and Ruth and a non leverite son Obed. Obed is clearly delineated in the genealogy of Boaz and therefore Judah and not Elimilech/Ephraim/Joseph which should be the case in the leverite marriage. As this “non-distinction”is made in Scripture especially concerning this most important lineage (that leading to David)  it may be shown in a speculative sense that David descended from Judah is also by familial association (adoptive) descended from Joseph and setting precedent for what became a widespread regnal and sacerdotal practice.

[31] Kiddushin 70b and Bava Basra 3b

[32] SEFER YOHASSIN pg 17

[33] Antiquities XVII. 6,4;13,1 High Priests List article pg 11, David Hughes

[34] Son of Rehoboam Generation 2 Barkai Genealogy

[35] Barkai family Genealogy, generations seven and eight

[36] ibid

[37] Davidic Dynasty pg 18

[38] Davidic Dynasty pg 36

[39] Jewish Encyclopedia Article Joseph ben Tobias By : Richard Gottheil   Isaac Broydé   “..The poor Jewish agriculturists, becoming suddenly rich, began to copy degenerate Greek customs. To these evils were added the dissensions that arose between the seven sons of Joseph by his first marriage and Hyrcanus, his son by his second wife, which dissensions divided Judea into two hostile camps—Oniades and Tobiades.”Bibliography: Josephus, Ant. xii. 4; Ewald, Gesch. v. 271; Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, i. 186; Grätz, Gesch. ii. 243 et seq.; Schürer, Gesch. i. 183, note 4; 195, note 28; Adolf Büchler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden, Vienna, 1899; Wellhausen

[40] Sefer YohassinJose b. Joezer established rules, see the first chapter of Sabbath. He was the pious of priests, see in the Mishna, chapter Ein Dorshin. It seems to me that in the Midrash of Psalms and in the Genesis Rabbah, chapter <starting> ‘When Isaac caught the smell of his clothes’ I read that Jose b. Joezer was killed in the Greek persecutions. Ioakim of Zerudoth, his sister’s son told him ‘Look at my horse’ and he <Jose> replied, ‘If this is His wish regarding transgressors, how much more so with regard to His adherents’. He <Ioakim> replied ‘Is there an adherent more devout that you?’ He <Jose> replied ‘If it is thus with regard to His adherents, how much more so with those who transgress His will?’ This entered the heart of Ioakim, and he killed himself with four deaths for his atonement and for full repentance. Jose b. Joezer dozed for a while, and saw his <Ioakim> deathbed floating in the air and he said, ‘For a moment this one preceded me to the Paradise etc’. English Translation of Sefer Yahassin Page 25 of 113

http://www.zacuto.com/sefer.htm 10/20/2004

[41] High Priests List- David Hughes

[42] Joseph ben Tobiah Article Jewish Encyclopedia By : Richard Gottheil   Isaac Broydé

[43] Sefer Yohassin pg 15

[44] David Flatto Its good to be the King pg1

[45] ibid

[46] Sanhedrin 2. 1-2

[47] SEFER YOHASSINPg 16

[48] David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07 pg 5

[49] ibid

[50] SEFER YOHASSINPg 41”For in the second Temple there was only Zerubabel”

[51] This is why later in the century in Jewish and Christian writings the word Despot or some form of it crops up from time to time. The direction of the nation was at the direction of the king. The direction of the religion,trade, alliances etc all at his direction.

[52] Loeb Family Genealogy- Daniel Loeb, http://www.loebtree.com/early.html , Davidic Dynasty- David Hughes,

[53] With her children being adopted the curse of Jehoakim was fulfilled, and nullified from that point on.

[54] Sanhedrin 2.1 1-2

[55] The rise of messianic expectation in the first century Typology of Messiah  from Livius Article by Jona Lendering http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html

The purpose of this chapter is not to discuss the identity of Messiah, but to show the many layered view of what Messiah would be leading up to and into the first century.  The typology of Messiah into the first century fell on different lines of expectation including Messiah the militaryleader: Why do all the nations rage and the peoples imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his Messiah.                  [Psalm 2.1-2] And he will destroy him and his army. […] And you will swallow up all the uncircumcised, and you will […] And they will be righteous, and he will ascend to the height […] one anointed with the oil of the kingdom of the […]  [4Q458, fr.2, col.2]

Messiah as sage: Taught by God, the Messiah will be a righteous king over the gentile nations. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all shall be holy and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.
He will not rely on horse and rider and bow, nor will he collect gold and silver for war. Nor will he build up hope in a multitude for a day of war. The Lord himself is his king, the hope of the one who has a strong hope in God.
He shall be compassionate to all the nations, who reverently stand before him. He will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever; he will bless the Lord’s people with wisdom and happiness.
And he himself will be free from sin, in order to rule a great people. He will expose officials and drive out sinners by the strength of his word. [Psalms of Solomon 17.32-36]

Messiah the prophet like Moses: Moses said: ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For that is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see His great fire any more, or we will die.” Deuteronomy 18.15-19

Messiah the Priest: He will gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness; and he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God. He will not tolerate unrighteousness even to pause among them, and any person who knows wickedness shall not live with them. For he shall know that they are all childeren of their God. He will distribute them upon the land, according to their tribes. The alien and the foreigner will no longer live near them

[Psalms of Solomon 17.26-28]

Messiah Melchizadek: And Melchizedek will avenge with the vengeance of the judgment of God […] from the hand of Belial and from the hand of all the spirits of his lot. And to his help are all the heavenly ones on high. He […] all sons of might and […] this.
This is the day of salvation about which God spoke through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah who said: How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace, who brings glad tidings of good, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: ‘Your heavenly one is king.’ [Isaiah 52.7]
Its interpretation is this. The mountains are the words of the prophets, those who [saw the things ordained and] prophesied to all those who mourn in Zion. And who brings good news: this is the Messiah of the spirit, of whom Daniel speaks: He who brings glad tidings of good, who proclaims salvation. That is what is written concerning him, when He speaks […] to comfort those who mourn in Zion to instruct them in all the ages of the world.  [11Q13 col.2, 13-20]

I have included the Qumran pieces because I believe they show an older tradition from the priesthood up till the ascent of the Sadducee under Alexander Janneus. Combined with these views of Messiah was the prophesy of the seventy seven generations;    “And to Michael the Lord said: ‘[…] Bind them for seventy generations underneath the rocks of the ground until the day of their judgment is concluded.’ [1 Enoch 10.4-6, 11-12; “[55]Enoch being from the seventh generation of man and history was now seventy generations from him, the Messianic expectation was high in Israel. The expectation of a world ruler coming out of Jerusalem was famous in the known world, to the point that the Romans had copies of the Sibylline Oracles. This in itself increased the local tensions. With the legitimization of the Davidic lines there was no shortage of contenders.

[56] Jannaeus, His Brother Absalom, and Judah the Essene Stephen Goranson August 2005 Goranson@duke.edu – Mr Goranson puts together a sharp and logical assertion for identifying the Wicked Priest and the Righteous Teacher of the Essenes. I include the Essenes as a breakaway from the Sadducee simply by taking their writing at face value, the approximate timing with known history of the period.

[57] Crises and Reaction: Roots of Diversity in Intertestamental Judaism(1) J. Julius Scott, Jr., © 1990; rev 1991 Department of Biblical and Theological Studies Wheaton College Graduate School

[58] Although by lineage a king, Simon is Nasi of the great Sanhedrin. This could be due possibly to the law restricting a king(even potential) from serving on the Sanhedrin was not yet written or because there was  no possibility of his ascension? The line had moved away from him.

[59] Jesus as the Priestly Messiah ::Part 1 Journal for the study of the Historical Jesus 2006;4;155DOI:1177/1476869006064873

[60] Josephus, Antiquities 20.10.1

[61]  “Haughty men these priests are, saying which woman is fit to be married by us, since our father is high priest, our uncles princes and rulers, and we presiding officers at the Temple”—these words, put into the mouth of Nadab and Abihu (Tan., Aḥare Mot, ed. Buber, 7; Pesiḳ. 172b;

[62] R. Zemach in his Aruch, under letter “hey” explains that “hamesaper komi” is one who talks in the language of royalty, using curses. They did not permit the house of Rabban Gamliel to talk in that language if not out of respect for the kingship. This does not seem correct for there in the gemara it says that they permitted Rabban Gamliel to speak about Greek wisdom because…” Sefer Yohassin pg.55

[63] Armed with an Arts and Humanities Research Board (AHRB) grant to investigate Indo-Roman trade, and with the guidance of David Peacock who heads Archaeology at the University of Southampton, Roberta Tomber worked with local archaeologists in Kerala where she identified the first fragments of Roman wine amphorae found on the south-west coast of India. The striking archaeological evidence suggests that the legendary seaport of Muziris, which was a bustling Indo-Roman trading center during the early historic period between the first century BC and the fifth century AD, could have been located at Pattanam, near Paravur on the south of the Periyar river delta. Archaeologist Confirms Ancient Indo-Roman Site in KeralaFrancis C. Assisi

[64] By Foot to China, Mission of the Church of the East to 1400 by John M L Young

[65] The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 CE compared with the Islamic Conquest of 638 Ben Abrahmson and Joseph Katz

[66]Jesus Before the Sanhedrim  By Julius Magath Of the North Georgia Conference, Professor of Emory College, Author of The French Verb , Eighth Edition, Oxford, Georgia Julius Magath, Publisher1911 Acts 4:6, Jos. Antiquities 18, 6.3:20, 5.2 Petri Wesselinii, Diatribe de Judaeorum Archontibus, Trajecti ad Rhenum, pg 69-71

[67] Lessons from inter-Communal Conflict During the Second Temple Period. Joshua Schwartz pg 5

[68] Religious and Spiritual Authority in the New Jewish Paradigm Written for the Ohalah Conference, January 2008  -Mitchell Chefitz

[69] The reaction of Jesus the Nazarene as recorded can be seen in the Gospels.

[70] “What a plague is the family of Simon Boethus; cursed be their lances! What a plague is the family of Ananos; cursed be their hissing of vipers! What a plague is the family of Cantharus; cursed be their pens! What a plague is the family of Ismael ben Phabi; cursed be their fists! They are high priests themselves, their sons are treasurers, their sons-in-law are commanders [captains], and their servants strike people with staves [Talmud, Pesahim 57].”

[71] On Claims of Authority and Writing of the Boethusians Article Cana Werman

[72] “It is quite true that, in opposition to Sadducean views as to the non-existence of another world and the resurrection, the Pharisees altered the former Temple-formula into “Blessed be God from world to world” (from generation to generation; or, “world without end”), to show that after the present there was another life of blessing and punishment, of joy and sorrow. But the Talmud expressly states that the real principle of the Sadducees was not, that there was no resurrection, but only that it could not be proved from the Torah, or Law. From this there was, of course, but a short step to the entire denial of the doctrine; and no doubt it was taken by the vast majority of the party. But here also it was again their principle of strict literality, which underlay even the most extreme of their errors.” Sketches of Je wish Social Life by Alfred Edersheim 1876 Chapter 15 “May it not be that the simple but significant alteration of a letter had, after a not uncommon fashion, originated with their opponents, as if they would have said: “You are ‘zaddikim?’ Nay, rather, ‘zaddukim'” from the Aramaean word “zadu” (wasting or desolation)—, you are not upholders but destroyers of righteousness?”

“The statement that they rejected the Oral Torah of the Pharisees does not negate that they had traditions of their own, which were written down in a book of jurisprudence known as the Book of Decrees. The existence of this penal code is known from a rabbinical source, the Megilla Ta’anit, a calendar like text that states that the Book of Decrees was revoked on the fourth of Tammuz.”

[73] Sketches of Je wish Social Life by Alfred Edersheim 1876 Chapter 15 “May it not be that the simple but significant alteration of a letter had, after a not uncommon fashion, originated with their opponents, as if they would have said: “You are ‘zaddikim?’ Nay, rather, ‘zaddukim'” from the Aramaean word “zadu” (wasting or desolation)—, you are not upholders but destroyers of righteousness?”

[74] These extreme “sola scriptura” views left no room for mercy in the courts for the people were it not for the Pharisee Sanhedrin.

[75] Ibid

[76] Ibid  pg 3

[77] An ancient baraita enumerates seven classes of Pharisees, of which five consist of either eccentric fools or hypocrites: (1) “the shoulder Pharisee,” who wears, as it were, his good actions. ostentatiously upon his shoulder; (2) “the wait-a-little Pharisee,” who ever says, “Wait a little, until I have performed the good act awaiting me”; (3), “the bruised Pharisee,” who in order to avoid looking at a woman runs against the wall so as to bruise himself and bleed; (4) “the pestle Pharisee,” who walks with head down like the pestle in the mortar; (5) “the ever-reckoning Pharisee,” who says, “Let me know what good I may do to counteract my neglect”; (6) “the God-fearing Pharisee,” after the manner of Job; (7) “the God-loving Pharisee,” after the manner of Abraham (Yer. Ber. ix. 14b; Soṭah 22b; Ab. R. N., text A, xxxvii.; text B, xlv. [ed. Schechter, pp. 55, 62]; the explanations in both Talmuds vary greatly; see Chwolson, “Das Letzte-Passahmahl,” p. 116). R. Joshua b. Hananiah, at the beginning of the second century, calls eccentric Pharisees “destroyers of the world” (Soṭah iii. 4); and the term “Pharisaic plagues” is frequently used by the leaders of the time (Yer. Soṭah iii. 19a). Jewish Enclyclopedia Koffman Koler  (It should be noted also that by the second century it was the Tanna not the Pharisee deciding the direction of Israel.

[78]  David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 15 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07

[79] The Head of the Court at the high end is the High Priest. At the lower levels i.e. towns and villages it is the priests.

[80] SEFER YOHASSIN THE COMPLETE BOOK OF LINEAGE pg 14

[81] David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07 pg 3, Sanhedrin 2.4

[82] The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE compared with Islamic conquest of 638CE pg 4 Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz. Abrahamson and Katz go further to say that the Babylonian Exilarch tried to establish a Babylonian Priesthood through marriage to John Hyrcannus and eventually a Temple at Babylon was considered.

[83] Intermarriage in the Herodian Family as a Paradigm for Intermarriage in Second Temple Judaism Tal Ilan pg 11 “If we doubt Herods Judaism we should doubt the Judaism of all converts at the time”

[84] Livius

[85] Oppositional Temple built by Onias II

[86] Menahem was an Essene

[87] SEFER YOHASSIN THE COMPLETE BOOK OF LINEAGE pg 18

[88] On a speculative note the “Matrilineal Principle” seems to follow suite with that of Kohenet and Princess inheritance with regard to status.

[89] Mothers of Israel: Why the Rabbis Adopted a matrilineal Principle, Susan Sorek

[90] [90]   David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 25 foot note 90 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07

“Another interesting phenomenon worth noting about the Mishnah is that even as it supports a dyarchy it does not seem to insist that the king can only come from the Davidic dynasty. Thus, the Mishnah speaks generically of the king, even as it seems to consider King David as an emblematic king. Likewise, in praising kings such as Agrippa, the Mishnah implies that it recognizes kings from alternative descent as well. Importantly, Agrippa is more Herodian than Hasmonean. See Trifon, “Qeta” (king Munbaz presents a similar situation). The critical point may be that even non-Davidic kings are legitimate, as long as they are not priests. Ironically, what emerges then is that a king of problematic heritage has preference over a priest in that he is not occupying two distinct chairs. Accordingly, the problem with the Hasmoneans may not be in their usurping the monarchy from the Davidic dynasty (a sentiment which is usually emphasized as stemming from the Patriarchate’s Davidic descent—see bShab 56a), but rather in their forming a priestly monarchy. See yHor 3.2 and Nahmanides on Gen 49.10”.

[91] “Gafni, “The Hasmoneans,” p. 261, importantly notes that the scholarly inquiry has not been conducted in a sufficiently nuanced manner. Thus, he notes that scholars have not differentiated between different strands in rabbinic writings. I am suggesting making exactly such a distinction.”

[92]  David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 4 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07

[93] Information on Herods wives from the Davidic Dynasty,Article, David Hughes unless otherwise specified.

[94] Sefer Yohassin pg 12Then Israel was split into two. Half of the people followed Simeon the Righteous and his disciple Antigonus and their school in accordance with the traditions received from Ezra and from the prophets, and <the other> half followed Sanballat and his sons-in-law who offered peace-offerings and burnt-offerings outside of the House of the Lord <in Jerusalem>. They invented statutes out of their own heart, and in this temple served as priest the son-in-law of Sanballat, Manasseh son of Joshua, son of Jehozadak the High Priest. Then Zaddok and Boethus, the pupils of Antigonus assumed leadership, and this was the beginning of the heresy. They went during the time of Antigonus their teacher, to the temple of the Mount of Gerizim and became the leaders. This temple stood for about two hundred years, for it was built forty years after the Second Temple was built.

[95] Israeli Antiquities Authority, Article –The Temple on Mt Gerazim Y AMagen

[96] See Davidic Dynasty, David Hughes section 20.4 possible former wife of Simeon Boethus.

[97] ibid

[98] ibid

[99] The Identity of the Historical Jesus:TACITUS’ FRAGMENT 2: THE ANTI-ROMAN MOVEMENT OF THE CHRISTIANI AND THE NAZOREANS ,Eric Laupot University of Alabama, TuscaloosaPublished in Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 3 (2000) 233-47

[100] Risto Santala “ Midrash Messiah, The Messiah and His Meal in Midrash Ruth V, VII, VIII”.pg153

[101] The Identity of the Historical Jesus:TACITUS’ FRAGMENT 2: THE ANTI-ROMAN MOVEMENT OF THE CHRISTIANI AND THE NAZOREANS ,Eric Laupot University of Alabama, TuscaloosaPublished in Vigiliae Christianae 54, no. 3 (2000) 233-47

[102] Josephus, Antiquities 20.10.1

[103] The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 CE compared with the Islamic Conquest of 638 Ben Abrahmson and Joseph Katzpg 33

[104] Tractate Sanhedrin, Herbert Danby tr. [1919], at sacred-texts.com M. II. 2.4- The Duties and Restrictions relating to the King.

[105] Why do all the nations rage and the peoples imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his Messiah.                  [Psalm 2.1-2] And he will destroy him and his army. […] And you will swallow up all the uncircumcised, and you will […] And they will be righteous, and he will ascend to the height […] one anointed with the oil of the kingdom of the […]  [4Q458, fr.2, col.2]

[106] Taught by God, the Messiah will be a righteous king over the gentile nations. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days, for all shall be holy and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.
He will not rely on horse and rider and bow, nor will he collect gold and silver for war. Nor will he build up hope in a multitude for a day of war. The Lord himself is his king, the hope of the one who has a strong hope in God.
He shall be compassionate to all the nations, who reverently stand before him. He will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever; he will bless the Lord’s people with wisdom and happiness.
And he himself will be free from sin, in order to rule a great people. He will expose officials and drive out sinners by the strength of his word. [Psalms of Solomon 17.32-36]

[107] Moses said: ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him. For that is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see His great fire any more, or we will die.” Deuteronomy 18.15-19

[108] He will gather a holy people whom he will lead in righteousness; and he will judge the tribes of the people that have been made holy by the Lord their God. He will not tolerate unrighteousness even to pause among them, and any person who knows wickedness shall not live with them. For he shall know that they are all childeren of their God. He will distribute them upon the land, according to their tribes. The alien and the foreigner will no longer live near them [Psalms of Solomon 17.26-28]

[109] And Melchizedek will avenge with the vengeance of the judgment of God […] from the hand of Belial and from the hand of all the spirits of his lot. And to his help are all the heavenly ones on high. He […] all sons of might and […] this.
This is the day of salvation about which God spoke through the mouth of the prophet Isaiah who said: How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace, who brings glad tidings of good, who proclaims salvation, who says to Zion: ‘Your heavenly one is king.’ [Isaiah 52.7]
Its interpretation is this. The mountains are the words of the prophets, those who [saw the things ordained and] prophesied to all those who mourn in Zion. And who brings good news: this is the Messiah of the spirit, of whom Daniel speaks: He who brings glad tidings of good, who proclaims salvation. That is what is written concerning him, when He speaks […] to comfort those who mourn in Zion to instruct them in all the ages of the world.  [11Q13 col.2, 13-20]

[110] Typology of Messiah  from Livius Article by Jona Lendering http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messiah00.html

[111] Ezekiel 34:12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.

Ezekiel 34:2 Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel, prophesy, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD unto the shepherds; Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! should not the shepherds feed the flocks?

Ezekiel 34:3 Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill them that are fed: but ye feed not the flock.

Ezekiel 34:10  Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against the shepherds; and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to cease from feeding the flock; neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any more; for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat for them.

[112] Deuteronomy 6:4-5 Shema Israel the Unity of God

[113] Leviticus 19:18

[114] Mathew 22:37-40

[115] Mathew 5:42-48

[116] Way of Life and Way of Death Teachings reference NT Didache etc

[117] ASV 1901 Mathew 23:1-2

[118] Kaufmann Koler, Jewish Encyclopedia 1901-1906

[119] Tractate Sanhedrin, Herbert Danby tr. [1919], at sacred-texts.com M. II. 2.4- The Duties and Restrictions relating to the King.

[120] NASB MT 26:55

[121] Gabriel Roth A RUACH QADIM EXCERPT:PART h: EXPLORING NEW TESTAMENT TRANSMISSION TRENDS

[122] MSanhedrin2.4

[123] ibid

[124] KJV Luke 19:41  And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,

[125] Matthew 21:4  All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying,5  Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.6  And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them,7  And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.8  And a very great multitude spread their garments in the way; others cut down branches from the trees, and strawed them in the way.9  And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.10  And when he was come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?11  And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee.

[126] Matthew 26:55 In that same hour said Jesus to the multitudes, Are ye come out as against a thief with swords and staves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.56 But all this was done, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled. Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled.57  ¶And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.58  But Peter followed him afar off unto the high priest’s palace, and went in, and sat with the servants, to see the end.59  Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;60  But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses,61  And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in three days.62  And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?63  But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.Matthew 26:64  Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.65  Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.66  What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.67  Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,68  Saying, Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, Who is he that smote thee?

[127] David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07 pg 5

[128]Jewish Virtual Library -a Division of The American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise “A king must not judge,” etc. Said R. Joseph:This is concerning the kings of Israel; but the kings of the house of David are judged and judge. As it is written [Jer. xxi. 12]: “O house of David, thus said the Lord: Exercise justice on every morning.” We see that they did judge; and if they were not to be judged, how could they judge?–as is said above by Resh Lakish. And what is the reason it is prohibited to the kings of Israel? Because an unfortunate thing happened as follows: The slave of King Janai murdered a person; and Simeon b. Cheta’h said to the sages: Notwithstanding that he is the slave of the king, he must be tried. They sent to the king: Your slave has killed a man. And Janai sent his slave to them to be tried. However, they sent to him: You also must appear before the court. As it is written [Ex. xxi. 29]: “Warning has been given to its owner”–which means the owner of the ox must appear at the time the ox is tried. He then came and took a seat. Said Simeon b. Cheta’h: King Janai, arise, so that the witnesses shall testify while you stand; yet not for us do you rise, but for Him who said a word, and the world was created.As it reads [Deut. xix. 17]: “Stand before the Lord.” And the king answered: It must not be as you say, but as the majority of your colleagues shall decide. Simeon then turned to his right, but his colleagues cast their eyes upon the floor without any answer; and the same did his colleagues at his left. Simeon then exclaimed: You are all troubled in mind (disconcerted)! May the One who rules minds take revenge upon you. Gabriel came then and smote them to the floor, that they died. And at that time it was enacted that a king should neither judge nor be judged, neither be a witness nor be witnessed against.

[129] David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07 pg 5

[130] Whenever this phrase is used it is in conjunction with a Nasi, a King or Netzer(Priest/King) as is the case referenced to R, Gamaliel II

[131] Sefer Yohassin pg 55

[132] This is seen in that the families Hillel ruled over the Sanhedrin as Princes, and are not remembered in any of the wars as generals/kings. Simeon b. Gamliel, one of the originators of the Peace Party is shown in the first war with the Romans as the consummate leader (Nasi) of the Sanhedrin.

[133] (11) Immediately the wise men perceived this, they rose up against him, and seized him. (12) They say unto him, What is thy name? He saith unto them, Mathai. They say unto him, How establishest thou this? He saith unto them, When (mathai) shall I come and appear before God? They say unto him, When (mathai) shall he die, and his name perish? (13) Again they say unto him, What is thy name? He saith, Naki. They say unto him, How establishest thou this? He saith, Innocent (n’ki) of hands, and pure of heart. They say unto him, The innocent (nakeh) he will not clear. (14) Again they say unto him, What is thy name? He saith, Buni. They say, How establishest thou this? He saith, My son (b’ni) my firstborn, even Israel. They say, Concerning thee it was said, Behold, I will slay thy son (binchah), even thy firstborn. (15) And they say again, What is thy name? He saith, Netser. They say, How establishest thou this? He saith, A branch (netser) shall spring forth from his roots. They say unto him, Thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch (netser).And in like manner, much more, AS HE STATED IN HIS BEHALF MANY OTHER NAMES. Toldoth Yeshua Chapter 4, verses 11-15

[134] The interpretation of the question is two-fold; the first in Christian theology is obvious. The second had historical and legal ramifications. Traditionally all the regnal sons of David were called “sons of G-d” KJV 1 Chronicles 28:6 And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father.

[135] Kaufman Koler The Jewish Encyclopedia 1901-1906

[136] John 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

[137] Davidic Dynasty, David Hughes pg 242

[138] Sefer Yohassin-The Book of Lineage

[139] ibid

[140] Sefer Yohassin R. Abraham Zacuto

[141] Davidic Dynasty by David Hughes pg 291

[142] Whenever this phrase is used it is in conjunction with a Nasi, a King or Netzer(Priest/King) as is the case referenced to R, Gamaliel II

[143] Gabriel Roth A RUACH QADIM EXCERPT:PART h: EXPLORING NEW TESTAMENT TRANSMISSION TRENDS

[144] Sefer Yohassin

[145] Risto Santala “Midrash Messiah, The Messiah and His Meal in Midrash Ruth V, VII, VIII”.-R. Jonathan interpreted this verse in six ways…

It relates to David. COME HERE you who are near to the

kingdom, and the word here can only relate to

kingdom in the verse, That You have brought me here (II Sam. VII,

18). AND EAT OF THE BREAD, it refers to the bread of

kingdom. AND DIP YOUR PIECE OF BREAD IN THE

VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, O Lord, rebuke me

not in Thine anger (Ps. VI, 2). AND SHE SAT BESIDE THE

REAPERS BECAUSE the kingdom, (royalty, kingship),

was taken from him for a time. As R. Huna said: All these six

months that David was in flight from Absalom are not included in

his reign because he atoned for his sins with a she-goat, like an

ordinary person. AND THEY REACHED HER

PARCHED CORN which intimates that he was restored to the

kingdom, as it is said, Now know I that the Lord saveth His

Anointed (Ps. XX, 7). AND SHE DID EAT, AND WAS

SATISFIED, AND LEFT THEREOF: this indicates that he would

eat in this world, and in the Messianic age, and in the World to

Come….

…fifth interpretation  makes it refer to

the King Messiah. COME HERE you who are near to the kingdom. AND EAT OF THE BREAD refers to the bread of kingdom ; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE

VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded

Because of our transgressions (Isa. LIII, 5). AND SHE SAT

BESIDE THE REAPERS, for he will be deprived of his kingdom

for a time, as it is said, For I will gather all

nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken

(Zech. XIV, 2). AND THEY REACHED HER PARCHED CORN,

means that he will be restored to his kingdom, as it is said, And he

shall smite the land with the rod of his mouth (Isa. XI, 4). R.

Berekiah said in the name of R. Levi: The future Redeemer will be

like the the former Redeemer. Just as the former Redeemer

revealed himself, returned and was later hidden from them; and how

long was he hidden? Three months, as it is said, And they met

Moses and Aaron (Ex. V, 20), so the future Redeemer will be

revealed to them, and then be hidden from them.

[146] Religious and Spiritual Authority in the New Jewish Paradigm Written for the Ohalah Conference, January 2008  -Mitchell Chefitz

[147] Younan Tanslation Peshitta  Gospel of John

[148]  Risto Santala “ Midrash Messiah, The Messiah and His Meal in Midrash Ruth V, VII, VIII”.pg163

[149] Torah -by Rabbi Geoffrey W. Dennis, Encyclopedia Mythica

[150]  Risto Santala “ Midrash Messiah, The Messiah and His Meal in Midrash Ruth V, VII, VIII”.pg163

[151] Messiah and Throne Jewish Merkabah Mysticism and Early Christian Exaltation Discourse Timo Eskolapg 379

[152] Tractate Sanhedrin, Herbert Danby tr. [1919], at sacred-texts.com The Laws pertaing to the High Priest

[153] The Christianis Rule over Israel During the Jewish War:Fragment Two and Histories5.13, Suetonious Vespasian 4.5, and the Coins of the  Jewish War pg8

[154] Antiquities Book XX.9.1

[155] This address is seen all through the Gospels. It is how the Pharisees and the people address Jesus the Nasarene.

[156] Tractate Sanhedrin, Herbert Danby tr. [1919], at sacred-texts.com M. II. 2.4- The Duties and Restrictions relating to the King.

[157] [157] David Flatto  Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07-footnote 24 “BSan 18b seems to harmonize this pronouncement with the Mishnah (see the commentaries ad loc.) But this is not the simple sense of the Tosefta, which seems to bring the monarchy and judiciary closer together.  See also tSan 4.10 which cites a prohibition on appointing kings in the diaspora, a law that the Bavli associates with the Sanhedrin (see bSan 14a).

It should be noted that tSan 2.15 does recognize a difference between the king and high priest in their capacity to join the Sanhedrin. In addition, tSan 4.6 seems to describe royal punishments that are distinct from those meted out by the judiciary, although it debates whether the legal consequences differ in terms of inheritance.  This last source raises an important issue that I do not address fully in this paper—the distinction between the king leading or participating in the general legal system, as opposed to the king leading his own royal judiciary (similar to the parallel legal regimes that were operative in medieval England, see John Baker, An Introduction to British Legal History (London, Boston: Butterworths, 1990).  For the purposes of my analysis, either form of judicial activity by the king would be sufficient to assign to him a role of judicial responsibility.”

[158] The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 CE compared with the Islamic Conquest of 638 Ben Abrahmson and Joseph Katzpg 33

[159] David Flatto Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07-footnote 37The particular comparison here is especially noteworthy, as the king’s role at Hakhel is equated with the high priest’s function on Yom Kippur, presumably the religious pinnacle for the Jewish people.  At the same time, the importance of assigning the king a leading role in the Temple in conjunction with the unique Temple celebrations of Sukkot is also significant.  On the centrality of the Temple during Sukkot see Jeffrey Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995).

[160] A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I–VII. UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. AND HENRY WACE, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON. VOLUME I EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS: CHURCH HISTORY LIFE OF CONSTANTINE ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE. T&T CLARK EDINBURGH WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY,GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

[161] Courtesy of Davidic Dynasty, David Hughes

[162] Galatians 2:10

[163] Romans 15:26  For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem

[164] Tractate Sanhedrin, Herbert Danby tr. [1919], at sacred-texts.com M. II. 2.4- The Duties and Restrictions relating to the King

[165] In B. Talmud Peshachim, One should not give witness in court in their behalf.
One should not receive their witness in court.One should not tell them a secret.
One should not appoint them as caretakers of orphans or charity boxes.
One should not walk with them along the road (accompany them in travel).
One should not give them back their loss. (If they have lost something and you find it you have no obligation to return it to them even if you know to whom it belongs if he is from “Am HaAretz.”)
Am HaAretz” are vermin and their wives are creeping things.
One should not eat meat prepared by “Am HaAretz.”
It is permitted to destroy (tear up) “Am HaAretz” like a fish.

[166] KJVJames 2:1  My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.

2  For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment;

3  And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

4  Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?

[167] Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians by Jean Gilman

[168] David Flatto Its Good to be the King the Monarchs role in the Mishnah’s Political and Legal System pg 7 Hauser Global Law School Working Paper 01/07-.Ft note 24 In addition, tSan 4.6 seems to describe royal punishments that are distinct from those meted out by the judiciary, although it debates whether the legal consequences differ in terms of inheritance.  This last source raises an important issue that I do not address fully in this paper—the distinction between the king leading or participating in the general legal system, as opposed to the king leading his own royal judiciary (similar to the parallel legal regimes that were operative in medieval England,

[169] Excerpts from Alan Garrows Didache Highlighting the First Christian Document

[170] Paul, Torah and Judaism-Robert Anderson May 1999 International Council of Christians and Jews  “Paul rejects the imposition of Torah upon Gentiles for two basic reasons. In the first place, as already mentioned, that imposition destroyed Gentile identity in a way contrary to God’s will as explained to Abraham. Secondly, and this is a more contentious point, he believed that as an instrument of moral regulation it could not stand up to the ingrained power of sin in human beings. Paul’s analysis, chiefly in chapters five to seven of Romans (see 5:20; 6:14-15; 7:5,7-25; also 3:20; 4:15; Gal 3:19-24; 1 Cor 15:56) of the nexus between law and sin, is where he gives greatest offence, seemingly intolerable offence, to Jews and Judaism… Paul makes it abundantly clear, if due attention is given his words, that the problem lay not in the law itself, which he insists remains “holy and righteous and good” (Rom 7:12; cf. Gal 3:21), but in the indwelling power of sinfulness in unredeemed human nature… the law indeed was in the heart of the people, but (in conjunction) with the evil impulse; so what was good departed and the evil remained (3:21-22; cf. 4:30-32). So, for instance, when Paul speaks in Rom 8:2 of “the law of sin and death” from which “the law of the Spirit of life has set me free”, he is in no way identifying the Law of Moses with sin and death

[171] East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia by T.V. Philip pg 13…“During the first two centuries A D., Petra or Rekem, was the great emporium of Indian (and, we may add, Chinese)commodities, where merchants from all parts of the world met for the purpose of traffic…. Under the auspices of Rome, Petra rose, along with her dependencies, to an incredible opulence…. This prosperity was entirely dependent upon the caravan trade, which at this entrepot changed carriage, and passed from the hands of the southern to those of the northern merchants.”

[172] Pritz

[173] Wei-Fan Wang, Retired Professor, Nanjing Theological Seminary These speculations are the results of my initial research, made possible with the help of the Xuzhou Han Carving Arts Museum, and the assistance of the church in Xuzhou.  It is important to note that Xuzhou is not the only place where Han stone carvings have been found.  Several locations in Henan and Shandong provinces have sizable collections of these excavated stone carvings.  As if these very stones are “crying out” for our attention, they deserve our serious study and research.  The task will take years, requiring rigor and discipline. Eastern Han was the first period in history when many religions were introduced to China.  In the Western Han period, Zhang Qian had explored the west and went on the Silk Road to “Da Qin which is today’s Syria.  It is not difficult to trace the footsteps of the Gospel by way of the Silk Road to Eastern Han, from Jerusalem, Samaria and Syria, through what is today Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Xinjiang, Dunhuang to reach Changan (Xi’an).  The ancient Christians had braved the long and arduous journey to reach our land.  Therefore with gratitude we say:  How beautiful are the feet of those who brought good tidings. The article can be viewed at http://www.christianityinchina.org/Common/Admin/showNews_auto.jsp?Nid=304&Charset=big5

[174] East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia by T.V. Philip

[175] Davidic Dynasty article –David Hughes

[176] East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia by T.V. Philip

[177] Has St. Peter returned to Jerusalem? The final resting place of Simon Peter and the Family of Barzillai By Stephen Pfann. Ph.D. –University of the Holy Land

However, in the end, the script is apparently derived from what eventually evolved to become the Pamyrene and Syriac scripts of the late Roman and Byzantine periods. The inscriptions that share these characteristics evidently is a form of the Seleucid script which survived the fall of the Seleucid empire in an independent vestigial until the second century C.E. All inscriptions written in this scripts have survived in stone on monumental inscriptions. The best known example of Seleucid Aramaic script in Jerusalem is that of Queen Helen of Adiabene.” This statement seems to point to the early development of Edessa Estrangelo.

[178] In his Davidic Dynasty Article David Hughes has as the wife of Agbar of Osroene Salome sister of Jesus the King. Although uncomfortable it doesn’t stretch credulity. Royalty married royalty and Edessa was another Jewish Commonwealth.

[179] ” History of the Jews of Spain” by Don Adolfo de Castro -translated by the Rev. Edward D. Kirwan, M.A., Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge

[180] East of the Euphrates: Early Christianity in Asia by T.V. Philip pg4

[181] Gittim 56a Abba Saccra

[182] SEFER YOHASSINPg 16

[183] ’  Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, The Pentecost Revolution, The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel, AD 36-66, Macdonald and Janes’s, St. Giles, 49/50 Poland Street, London, W.I., 1974, p 234

[184] A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I–VII. UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. AND HENRY WACE, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON. VOLUME I EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS: CHURCH HISTORY LIFE OF CONSTANTINE ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE. T&T CLARK EDINBURGH WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY,GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

[185] Jewish Military Forces in the Roman Service Jonathan P. Roth San Jose State University November 23, 2004 SanAntonio TX

[186] Tractate Sanhedrin, Herbert Danby tr. [1919], at sacred-texts.com M. II. 2.4- The Duties and Restrictions relating to the King

[187] Treaties are the responsiblity of the High Priest and the Trial Sanhedrin [Foreign Policy]

[188] CCEL ANF08 Christian Ethereal Classics Heggesipus

[189] A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I–VII. UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. AND HENRY WACE, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON. VOLUME I EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS: CHURCH HISTORY LIFE OF CONSTANTINE ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE. T&T CLARK EDINBURGH WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY,GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

[190] Jewish Encyclopedia article Abba Saccara by Lou Ginsberg-endnote Bibliography: Rapoport, ‘Erek Millin, pp. 1-2, 257; Derenbourg, Essai, p. 280; Lam. R., ed. Buber, p. 66. All three hold that “Abba Saccara” of the Bab. Talmud is a misinterpretation of the Palestinian “Rosh Kisrin” or “Rosh Sikrin” (Head of the Sicarii). But Abba can not be used in this sense in Aramaic. Besides, the Bab. Talmud itself renders “Rosh Sikrin” with “Resh Baryone.”L. G

[191] “your name” may also be a reference to the surname “Kyriakos” the Desposynic surname

[192] Eric Laupot, “The Christiani’s Rule over Israel during the Jewish War: Tacitus’ Fragment 2 and Histories 5.13, Suetonius Vespasian 4.5, and the Coins of the Jewish War,”pg 26

[193] The surname “Justus” when followed seems more of an appellation for titular rule among the Desposyni.

[194] Cassio Dio Book of Epitome 67.4

[195] Religious and Spiritual Authority in the New Jewish Paradigm Written for the Ohalah Conference, January 2008  -Mitchell Chefitz

[196] ibid

[197] Gabriel Roth A RUACH QADIM EXCERPT:PART h: EXPLORING NEW TESTAMENT TRANSMISSION TRENDS

[198] Sefer Yohassin Rabbi Abraham Zacuto

[199] The Babylonian Talmudtranslated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON Book 10 (Vols. I and II) [1918] The History of the Talmud Appendice VI.

[200] Then another time they were in session in Yabneh and heard a bat qol saying, “There is among you a man who is worthy to receive the Holy Spirit, but the generation is unworthy of such an honor.” They all set their eyes upon Samuel the Small. At the time of his death what did they say? “Woe for the humble man, woe for the pious man, the disciple of Hillel the Elder.”

(t.Sota 13:3–4) The Gospel of Mathew Intoduction pg 115Notes by Tim Hegg

[201] Psalms Of Solomon 12. Against the tongue of transgressors.

12 1 O Lord, deliver my soul from (the) lawless and wicked man, From the tongue that is lawless and slanderous, and speaketh lies and deceit. 2 Manifoldly twisted (?) are the words of the tongue of the wicked man, Even as among a people a fire that burneth up their beauty. 3 So he delights to fill houses with a lying tongue, To cut down the trees of gladness which setteth on fire transgressors, 4 To involve households in warfare by means of slanderous lips. (4) May God remove far from the innocent the lips of transgressors by (bringing them to) want And may the bones of slanderers be scattered (far) away from them that fear the Lord! 5 In flaming fire perish the slanderous tongue (far) away from the pious! 6 (5) May the Lord preserve the quiet soul that hateth the unrighteous; And may the Lord establish the man that followeth peace at home. 7 (6) The salvation of the Lord be upon Israel His servant for ever; And let the sinners perish together at the presence of the Lord; But let the Lord’s pious ones inherit the promises of the Lord.

[202] CCEL ANF08 Christian Ethereal Classics Heggesipus

[203] The Economic Condition of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple by Adolph Buchler (London, 1912) Jews College, London, publication no. 4.

[204] We can define them as “The Messengers sent by the King”.  Accordingly this is why the Orthodox definition of these Apostles are those that saw Jesus theNetzer.

[205] The Babylonian Talmudtranslated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON Book 10 (Vols. I and II) [1918] The History of the Talmud CHAPTER II

[206] A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I–VII. UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. AND HENRY WACE, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON. VOLUME I EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS: CHURCH HISTORY LIFE OF CONSTANTINE ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE. T&T CLARK EDINBURGH WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY,GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN footnote 907

[207] Sefer Yohassin pg 55 R. Zemach in his Aruch, under letter “hey” explains that “hamesaper komi” is one who talks in the language of royalty, using curses. They did not permit the house of Rabban Gamliel to talk in that language if not out of respect for the kingship. This does not seem correct for there in the gemara it says that they permitted Rabban Gamliel to speak about Greek wisdom because they were close to the royalty, and it does not mention “komi,” except by Avtolmos b. Reuben, when it is dealing with the ways of the Emorites, as it says”

[208] The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah Volume I pg 14, Alfred Edersheim

[209] The Persian Conquest of Jerusalem in 614 CE compared with the Islamic Conquest of 638 Ben Abrahmson and Joseph Katz

[210] The Economic Condition of Judaea after the Destruction of the Second Temple by Adolph Buchler (London, 1912) Jews College, London, publication no. 4. footnote 89Although the amount differs the Rabbis record the same event.

[211] “your name” may also be a reference to the surname “Kyriakos” the Desposynic surname. This is all the more likely because the “took the presidency of every Church. If the early Greek Bishops of Rome are looked at they may very tentatively be from this family.

[212] Eric Laupot, “The Christiani’s Rule over Israel during the Jewish War: Tacitus’ Fragment 2 and Histories 5.13, Suetonius Vespasian 4.5, and the Coins of the Jewish War,”pg 26

[213] According to Eusebius “I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of very limited understanding.”This statement may not be as odd as it seems at first. First he commends Papias and then states he has “limited understanding”. A few sections earlier he defines the Ebionites as having “limited understanding” because their theology was bad. Speculatively he is calling Papias and Ebionite by definition only.

[214] Eric Laupot, “The Christiani’s Rule over Israel during the Jewish War: Tacitus’ Fragment 2 and Histories 5.13, Suetonius Vespasian 4.5, and the Coins of the Jewish War,”

[215] From the 90’s forward there is a systematic replacement of the Nazarene leaders which really stepped up around 110.

[216] Ag. Tan. i. 84

[217] The shift in meaning of the word was occurring. The “Jews” would soon not reference the leadership, but the entire people.

[218] The “king” seemingly had his own judiciary.

[219] A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. SECOND SERIES TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH WITH PROLEGOMENA AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. VOLUMES I–VII. UNDER THE EDITORIAL SUPERVISION OF PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK. AND HENRY WACE, D.D., PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON. VOLUME I EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS: CHURCH HISTORY LIFE OF CONSTANTINE ORATION IN PRAISE OF CONSTANTINE. T&T CLARK EDINBURGH WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY,GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN

[220] Davidic Dynasty- David Hughes

[221] Catholic Encyclopedia Pope St. Evaristus- Pope St. EvaristusDate of birth unknown; died about 107. In the Liberian Catalogue his name is given as Aristus. In papal catalogues of the second century used by Irenaeus and Hippolytus, he appears as the fourth successor of St. Peter, immediately after St Clement. The same lists allow him eight years of reign, covering the end of the first and the beginning of the second century (from about 98 or 99 to about 106 or 107). The earliest historical sources offer no authentic data about him. In his “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius says merely that he succeeded Clement in the episcopate of the Roman Church which fact was already known from St. Irenæus. This order of succession is undoubtedly correct. The “Liber Pontificalis” says that Evaristus came of a Hellenic family, and was the son of a Bethlehem Jew. It also attributes to him the allotment of definite churches as tituli to the Roman presbyters, and the division of the city into seven diaconias or deaconries; in this statement, however, the “Liber Pontificalis” arbitrarily refers to the time of Evaristus a later institution of the Roman Church.

[222] The causes of the war will be discussed in the appropriate chapter, notable though is a post ban Netzerim.

[223] Ott, M. (1912). Pope St. Sixtus I. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved July 31, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14031b.htm

[224]       PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA   By Rav Chaim Navon   LECTURE #14: Torah Study – Creation or Revelation

[225] PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA   By Rav Chaim Navon   LECTURE #14: Torah Study – Creation or Revelation

[226]  PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA   By Rav Chaim Navon   LECTURE #14: Torah Study – Creation or Revelation     “ I go one step further. I maintain that, with respect to the Oral Law, the concept of “truth” is meaningless. The Torah student is not required to strive for the absolute “truth” that is concealed in God’s hidden places. The Torah serves as raw material for human creation, and man must develop the Torah in the direction that seems right to him:”

[227] Bava Metzia 59b –“It all happened when a disciple in the house of study dozed off and dreamed a visionary dream. The entire story was just a dream. They didn’t want to disclose it was a dream, so their opponents wouldn’t say ‘they tell dreams that are false’, and mislead people.” The inclusion of the explanation was for the sake of the memory of R. Eliezer.

[228]Rabbi Akiva’s Optimism-by Meir Soloveichik  How the Jewish People managed to persevere throughout the arduous centuries of exile.  Menahot 29b “R. Judah said the name of Rav: When Moses ascended on high he found the Holy One engaged in affixing coronets to the letters. Said Moses, “Lord of the Universe, who stays thy hand?” He answered, “There will arise a man, many generations from now, Akiva ben Joseph by name, who will extract from every tittle heaps and heaps of laws.” Said Moses, “Lord of the Universe, permit me to see him.” He replied, “Turn around.” Moses went and sat down behind eight rows [of R. Akiva’s students] and listened to the discourses on the law. Unable to follow their arguments, he was ill at ease; but when, coming to a certain subject, the students said to the master, “How do you know this?” And the latter replied, “It is a law given to Moses at Sinai.” He regained his composure. Thereupon he returned to the Holy One and said, “Lord of the Universe, you have such a man, and yet you give the Tora through me?” He replied, “Be silent, for that is what occurred to me.”

[229] Yerushalmi, Sanhedrin 4:2 – is the basis of the work of the Sages ie the Torah could not be given clearly for the sake of existence. PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA   By Rav Chaim Navon   LECTURE #14: Torah Study – Creation or Revelation

[230]    “… When the Torah was given to Israel, its laws were given over to the Torah Sages, whose thinking, provided that it is aimed at the Torah’s reasons and secrets, establishes the reality of the Torah and the reality of the universe which is dependent upon it. Thus, it differs from the other branches of wisdom, for those who investigate them do not establish the reality of those branches of wisdom, but rather uncover it. For their thinking and decisions will never change reality. This is not the case regarding Torah, for the reality of ritual impurity and purity, forbidden and permitted things, obligation and exemption, are set in accordance with the decisions of the Torah Sages. (Rabbi Joseph Bloch, Shi’urei Da’at, I, p. 21)[1]”

[231] PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA   By Rav Chaim Navon   LECTURE #14: Torah Study – Creation or Revelation

[232] Babylonian Talmud Bava Metzia 59a

[233] 7. M. Ned. 9:2

And R. Eliezer said further, “They may let a person out of his vow on account of some new situation [arising after he makes the vow] . . .”[For example:] If one said, `This building is forbidden to me,’ and it [subsequently] became a synagogue and he said, `Had I known that it would become a synagogue I never would have sworn [off its benefit].'” R. Eliezer permits [them to let him out of his vow in such a case] and the

sages forbid. The synagogue is incidental to the main point of the unit, how changing circumstances affect a vow. For one Yavnean rabbi the obligation to attend a synagogue was a usual, necessary activity. A person would regret making a vow that would bar him from going into a synagogue building. According to Eliezer, one could

therefore be released from a vow that prevented him from attending a synagogue. Studies in Judaism Studies in Jewish Prayer Tzvee Zahavy

[234] This event is after the treachery of Thebothis and is marked by the 12th blessing. The dream of a talmidim(student) is shown as the reason [argument]. R. Eliezer was excommunicated because he held to pre-destruction beliefs. This is demonstrated by the Sages referring to him as a “Nazarene”. At this point the varigations that had made up the religion of Israel were all cut off. Everything from this point on was done by the concensus of the Rabbis.

[235] Every <place> in the Mishna <where it says> simply R. Joshua, it means R. Joshua b. Hananiah, and likewise <regarding> his colleague, <where it says> simply R. Eliezer, it means R. Eliezer b. Horkenus, for these two alone taught much Torah to Israel, and had many disciples. He was in Pekiin. Go after R. Joshua to Pekiin, and go after R. Eliezer to Lydda. For such sages as the three remaining disciples of R. Johanan ben Zakkai we have not found, who were such sharp thinkers, and who multiplied Torah in Israel-Sefer Yohassin

[236] Sefer Yohassin-R. Abraham Zacuto

[237] Nahum of Gamzu is mentioned as being the teacher of R. Akiba for 22 years, and in BR?? (Genesis Rabbah?),

portion 23. In Chronicles, there is a man from the villages of Gamzu. Our master Nissim Gaon commented that it was because he said of every misfortune, ‘This too is for the good.’ Sefer Yohassin pg 57

[238] Sefer Yohassin-R. Abraham Zacuto

[239] KJV Acts 21:20  And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him, Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe; and they are all zealous of the law:

Acts 21:25  As touching the Gentiles which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from fornication.

[240] ibid

[241]Adiabene,Jewish Kingdom of Mesopotamia by Jonah Gabriel Lissner

[242]Adiabene,Jewish Kingdom of Mesopotamia by Jonah Gabriel Lissner

[243] Sefer Yohassin R. Abraham Zacuto

[244] [244] Jewish Encyclopedia- Article by Solomon Schecter, Wilhelm Bacher Joshua b. Hananiah

[245] Jewish Encyclopedia- Article by Solomon Schecter, Wilhelm Bacher Joshua b. Hananiah

[246] Jewish Encyclopedia- Article by Solomon Schecter, Wilhelm Bacher Joshua b. Hananiah

[247] Sefer Yohassin-R. Abraham Zacuto

[248] Jewish Encyclopedia- Article by Solomon Schecter, Wilhelm Bacher Joshua b. Hananiah

[249]  Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians by Jean Gilman[staff writer for the Jerusalem Christian Review]

[250] Has St. Peter returned to Jerusalem? The final resting place of Simon Peter and the Family of Barzillai By Stephen Pfann. Ph.D. –University of the Holy Land

[251] Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians by Jean Gilman

[252] Has St. Peter returned to Jerusalem? The final resting place of Simon Peter and the Family of Barzillai By Stephen Pfann. Ph.D. –University of the Holy Land

[253] Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians by Jean Gilman

[254] Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians by Jean Gilman

[255] ibid

[256] Sefer Yohassin pg 80

[257] Sefer Yohassin-R. Abraham Zacuto

[258] Gabriel Roth A RUACH QADIM EXCERPT:PART h: EXPLORING NEW TESTAMENT TRANSMISSION TRENDS

[259] The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE compared with Islamic conquest of 638CE. Its Messianic nature and the role of the Jewish Exilarch-By Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz

[260] Andrew LucasßSimonßJudas the ZealotßHezikiah the Zealot-Davidic Dynasties David Hughes

[261] The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE compared with Islamic conquest of 638CE. Its Messianic nature and the role of the Jewish Exilarch-By Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz

[262] ibid

[263] Davidic Dynasty- David Hughes

[264] ibid

[265] Kirsch, J.P. (1912). Pope St. Telesphorus. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 5, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14477b.htm

[266] The Babylonian Talmudtranslated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON Book 10 (Vols. I and II) [1918] The History of the Talmud CHAPTER III.

[267] Why? Though greatly diminished and losing their following by isolation, and attrition, they were seen as authoritative.

[268] This statement of warning was a far cry from “for the glory of God”, “…because he would always say, ‘This too (gam zu) is for the good.”

[269] The Babylonian Talmudtranslated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON Book 10 (Vols. I and II) [1918] The History of the Talmud CHAPTER II

[270] Theodotus (so Suidas s.v. κνίζων), author of the Greek version of theO.T. which followed, as those of Aquila and Symmachus preceded, that of the LXX in Origen’s columnar arrangements of the versions. Of his personality even less is known than of either of the other two translators. The earliest author to mention him is Irenaeus, in a passage which, by reason of its higher antiquity and authority, must be our standard to test the accounts of later writers, who probably derived their accounts partly from it. Irenaeus (III. xxi. 1, p. 215), referring to the word “virgin” παρθένος) in Is. vii. 14, affirms that the passage is to be read “not as certain of those who now venture to misinterpret the Scripture, ‘Behold, the damsel (νεᾶνις) shall be with child and shall bear a son’; as Theodotion of Ephesus interpreted it and Aquila of Pontus, both Jewish proselytes; following whom the Ebionites pretend that he was begotten of Joseph.” Eusebius cites this (H. E. v. 8), adding nothing to it. A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D. Henry Wace, with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies

[271] If the earlier Tannatic works are looked at they show agreement with LXX. This is not a point to parce beyond pointing to a change in tradition. This new tradition required a change in how the Torah was read, and New Targum.

[272] Symmachus is said by Eusebius, in the next chapter, to have been an Ebionite; and Jerome agrees with him (Comment. in Hab., lib. II. c. 3), though the testimony of the latter is weakened by the fact that he wrongly makes Theodotion also an Ebionite(see next note). It has been claimed that Symmachus was a Jew, not a Christian; but Eusebius’ direct statement is too strong to be set aside, footnote1887[272]

[273]  The Babylonian Talmudtranslated by MICHAEL L. RODKINSON Book 10 (Vols. I and II) [1918] The History of the Talmud CHAPTER II

[274] The Emergence of Jewish Law inPostmodernist Legal Theory by Suzanne Last Stone Copy right 1994 by Suzanne Last Stone

[275] A Dictionary of Saintly Women by Agnes Dunbar Volume I 1904- If the histories are combed the Names Ciriacas and Dominica come to the Roman Christian forefront until the late 290’s c.e. Many of the martyrs are Ciriacas[Roman form Kyriakos], but still survive this long.[ Ciriacas at the Baths, St. Cecelia, the legend of St. Lawrence, the Catacumbas etc…]

[276] Kirsch, J.P. (1911). Pope St. Pius I. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 8, 2008 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12126b.htm

[277] Davidic Dynasty-David Hughes

[278] Public Eye Article by Fredric Clarkson

[279] Davidic Dynasty- David Hughes

[280] This “great leader apostisized” under the next “Desposynic” paradigm by Mani.

[281] Davidic Dynasties- David Hughes

[282] … Chapter 4.4.”… Let, then, our emperor, on the testimony of truth itself, be declared alone worthy of the title; who is dear to the Supreme Sovereign himself; who alone is free, nay, who is truly lord: above the

thirst of wealth, superior to sexual desire; victorious even over natural pleasures; controlling, not

controlled by, anger and passion.3514 He is indeed an emperor, and bears a title corresponding to his

deeds; a Victor in truth, who has gained the victory over those passions which overmaster the rest

of men: whose character is formed after the Divine original of the Supreme Sovereign, and whose

mind reflects, as in a mirror, the radiance of his virtues. Hence is our emperor perfect in discretion,

in goodness, in justice, in courage, in piety, in devotion to God: he truly and only is a philosopher,

since he knows himself, and is fully aware that supplies of every blessing are showered on him

from a source quite external to himself, even from heaven itself. Declaring the august title of

supreme authority by the splendor of his vesture, he alone worthily wears that imperial purple which

so well becomes him. Chapter 8.8. Where is the giant race whose arms were turned against heaven itself; the hissings of those serpents whose tongues were pointed with impious words against the Almighty King? These

adversaries of the Lord of all, confident in the aid of a multitude of gods, advanced to the attack

with a powerful array of military force, preceded by certain images of the dead, and lifeless statues,

as their defense. On the other side our emperor, secure in the armor of godliness, opposed to the

numbers of the enemy the salutary and life-giving Sign, as at the same time a terror to the foe, and

a protection against every harm; and returned victorious at once over the enemy and the demons

whom they served. And then, with thanksgiving and praise, the tokens of a grateful spirit, to the

Author of his victory, he proclaimed this triumphant Sign, by monuments as well as words, to all

mankind, erecting it as a mighty trophy against every enemy in the midst of the imperial city, and

expressly enjoining on all to acknowledge this imperishable symbol of salvation as the safeguardof the power of Rome and of the empire of the world.”

[283] The Persian conquest of Jerusalem in 614CE compared with Islamic conquest of 638CE. Its Messianic nature and the role of the Jewish Exilarch By Ben Abrahamson and Joseph Katz

[284] BY FOOT TO CHINA Mission of The Church of the East, to 1400 By John M. L. Young Chairman Japan Presbyterian Mission Missionary of Mission to the World of the Presbyterian Church in America

[285]       PHILOSOPHY OF HALAKHA   By Rav Chaim Navon   LECTURE #14: Torah Study – Creation or Revelation

[286] The Emergence of Jewish Law inPostmodernist Legal Theory by Suzanne Last Stone Copy right 1994 by Suzanne Last Stone

[287] Dr. C. Peter Wagner Article “Lets take Dominion Now” The Measure for Success

“If we agree that we need to move with God for taking over a certain city, how will we know if and when we have succeeded? I think that a biblically rooted measure for success would be the birth of a new creation: “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). If this is what the Bible expects of individuals who are transformed, why should we expect less of a city? If individuals can be born again, why can’t cities, made up of many individuals, be born again?

…By using the term “sociologically verifiable transformation,” I am not trying to insist that professional academia be brought into the picture, although it wouldn’t be a bad idea. No, the Crónica Semanal cover story was done by a competent investigative journalist.”

[288] Gary North, “The Covenantal Wealth of Nations,” from Biblical Economics Today, Vol. XXI, No. 2, February/March 1999.

[289] According to the Davidic Dynasty Article by David Hughes- the descendents of Thebothis were among the princes that approached Pope Sylvestri

[290] Dr. C. Peter Wagner Article “Lets take Dominion Now” The Measure for Success

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s