What is a Nazarene ? What is a Christian ?

What is a Nazarene? What is a Christian? Old Nazareth Chapter 41, Part 1 Preview: After Yeshua (Jesus) was crucified, the people who claimed to be His followers were soon divided into two camps: “Nazarenes” and “Christians”. Both terms are found in the Bible. “Nazarenes” is what the Torah observant Jewish believers came to be called. This stems from the verse calling Yeshua a Nazarene (once). It seems apparent that the enemies of the faithful also popularized this application of the term Nazarene towards His disciples, tho the Bible doesn’t apply it to His followers! The name Nazarene is derived from the Hebrew word “netzer”, meaning BRANCH. Why BRANCH? On careful examination, these references usually refer to Yeshua the Nazarene Himself, during what is mistakenly called the “second coming”, (for example there were many previous “advents” when He came as the “Angel (Messenger) of the Lord”). It is evident that the BRANCH = the Netzer = the coming Nazarene, a happy accident? INDEX Jeremiah 23:5-8 The days are coming,’ says Yehovah, ‘when I’ll raise up for David a righteous Branch. He will be a King who rules wisely, and do what is fair and right thruout the land! 6 In his lifetime, Judah will be delivered, and Israel will live in safely. This is the name that He will be given, ‘Yehovah Our Righteousness!’ 7 That’s why the time will come,” says Yehovah, “When people will no longer say ‘As Yehovah lives, who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt.’” 8 Instead, they’ll say, ‘As surely as Yehovah lives, who brought about the ‘EXODUS’ of the descendants of the nation of Israel from the North Country, and from all the countries where He had banished them.’ Then they’ll live in their own land. —The Gabriel Bible This prophecy is covered in The Time After Jacob’s Trouble Many people think that all of the Branch references refer to Yeshua but this particular Branch fears Yehovah and is in awe of Him. This Branch will have the spirit of Yehovah rest on him (this is not the spirit resting on itself): Isaiah 11:1-6 Then a shoot will sprout from the stump of Jesse, and a BRANCH from his roots will take root. 2 The spirit of Yehovah, she will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yehovah. 3 He will be delighted with and in awe of Yehovah. He won’t judge by appearances, or make judgments based on hearsay. 4 He’ll judge the poor with righteousness, making decisions with equality for the poor of the earth. He’ll strike the earth with the scepter of His mouth, and with a breath from His lips He’ll destroy the wicked. 5 righteousness will be the belt around His waist, and faithfulness the belt around His hips. 6 Wolves will live with lambs, and leopards will lie down with young goats. Calves, young lions and fattened calves grazing together, and little children will lead them. This Branch will sprout onto the scene; sounds like an end time descendant of David. Jeremiah 33:12-21 “This is what Yehovah the Commander says: ‘This deserted land, a place without people or animals, in all its cities, will once again be a habitat where shepherds rest their flocks. 13 Flocks will once again pass under the hand of the ‘shepherds’ who count them” in the towns of the hill country, in the towns of the western lowlands, in the towns to the Negev, in the territory of Benjamin, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and in the towns of Judah’, says Yehovah. 14 ‘The time is coming,’ says Yehovah, ‘when I will fulfill the wonderful things that I promised to the nation of Israel and the nation of Judah. 15 In those days, and at that time, I will cause a righteous Branch to sprout for David. He’ll do what is fair and right in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be rescued, and Jerusalem will ‘rest’ securely, and this is what ‘Jerusalem’ will be called: Yehovah Our Righteousness. 17 This is what Yehovah says: David will never fail to have a son capable of [1] sitting on the throne of the ‘nation’ of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests will never fail to have a son in My presence capable of offering burnt offerings, and burnt grain offerings, and presenting ze’bakim [sacrifices] every day. 19 The Word of Yehovah came to Jeremiah, and said, 20 This is what Yehovah says: “If you can break My covenant with the day, and My covenant with the night, so that day and night won’t be at the usual times, 21 then My covenant with My servant David can also be broken, so that he won’t have a son to reign on his throne. That also goes for the Levitical priests, My ministers. [1] This doesn’t mean that David will always have a son sitting on his throne without any interruptions (Hosea 3:4). However historically the various tribes of Israel have usually had multiple kings/leaders simultaneously ruling. Take the US for example. Yet if Israel ever chose to begin obeying the Sabbath commandment there would immediately be kings from all the tribes gathering in Israel! (Jeremiah 17:21-27). It is just as apparent that Jerusalem will not always have a Temple for the Levitical priests,” v.12! Yet the tribal distinctions are intact even tho few people know where they are. I believe this prophecy to be contrasting Yehoshua of old to Yeshua the Messiah. Obviously the iniquity still needs to be purged from the land. Here the preincarnate Yeshua is telling Yeshua (Joshua) that He is going to bring in the Branch! Zechariah 3:1, 8-10 Then He showed me Yehoshua [Yeshua] the high priest standing before the Messenger of Yehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand side, to make accusations against him. ... 8 Listen to me, Yehoshua the high priest, you and your friends sitting with you. You are all symbolic of things to come. I’m going to bring in My servant, the Branch. 9 “Look at the jewel that I’ve set in front of Yehoshua, this one jewel has seven eyes. I’ll engrave an inscription on it”—this is the declaration of Yehovah, the ‘Warrior’ King. “I’ll remove the sins of this land in a single day.” 10 Yehovah the Commander announces, “When that day comes, each of you will invite your neighbors to sit under your vine and fig tree.” There is one more branch Scripture that is often lumped in with the preceeding ones, but it refers to “the man whose name is the Branch”. He’s sort of the John the Immerser for the BRANCH, which accounts for the name. The Yeshua who builds the coming temple will be human, and he will be killed. Zechariah 6:12-14 and tell him: This is what Yehovah, the ‘Warrior’ King says: Here is the man called the Branch. He’ll branch out of his place, and he’ll rebuild Yehovah’s Temple! 13 Yes, He’ll rebuild Yehovah’s Temple. He’ll receive royal honor. He’ll sit and rule from his throne and he’ll also serve as a priest from his throne, and there will be perfectly sound council between the two responsibilities. 14 The crowns will be given to Helem, and Tobijah, and Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, as a memorial in Yehovah’s Temple. Christian/s is mentioned three times in somewhat derogatory context in the Bible. The name Christianos, (khris-tee-an-os’) “Christian” was coined by the enemies of Greek speaking believers in the (so-called “Gentile”) regions. So “Christians” and “Nazarenes” in the Bible can be counted together on one hand. Interestingly, the Bible calls His people disciples 268 times, but never after Acts 21! Various terms are translated as “saints” all thru the Bible, with frequency, from Deuteronomy thru Revelation. Yet that word is derived from paganism. So I prefer to call the people of Elohim (God) what Yeshua called them—kadishea. In order to learn more about the distinctions that developed between Nazarenes and Christians after the book of Revelation was written, we must go to secular, Catholic and Jewish historical accounts because the Nazarenes, and any positive writings, were hunted down and burned with a vengeance. As long as the Assembly in Jerusalem was relatively stable there was a reservoir of truth available. Indeed Yeshua’s brother James was a very stabilizing influence. James made too much of an impression on the Jerusalem Assembly to ever be covered up. Christians claim him as one of their own, but with extreme difficulties. Some even claim that he was the first Pope, due to his exemplary leadership! Of course there are no Papal succession types of claims made in the literature of the first centuries. Catholicism bases their claim that Peter was the first Pope on the following verse: Matthew 16:18 Also, I tell you that you are Cephas, and it is on this rock that I’ll rebuild My assembly, and the gates of sheol won’t triumph over it. It really says, in essence, that Peter was a pebble standing next to the Rock of Gibraltar, in the scheme of things. After some of his stunts he apparently needed that. There were not going to be any Popes! Mark 10:42-44 Yeshua called them and said, “You know that those who are considered the rulers of the nations are tyrants and their great men have authority over them. 43 But it must NEVER be like that with you, because whoever wants to be great among you should be a servant, 44 and whoever who wants to be the most influential must become a servant to everyone. It was James who served Yehovah’s Assembly in the leadership role. Jerome also wrote about James: De Viris Illustribus, quoted Hegesippus’ account of James from the fifth book of his lost Commentaries. Note that James had been a Nazarite, a Nazarene and a priest: “After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or [ceremonially] bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.” —Jerome, Letters The record about James puts him in an altogether different light than might be expected. He was quite “Messianic”! “... Epiphanius’ sources plainly claim both that he had access to those parts of the temple restricted to the high priest and that he wore the headdress associated with that office. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions seem to equate James’ position in the Jerusalem church with that of the high priest in the Jewish community as they describe a dispute between “the chief of the priests” and “James, the chief of the ‘bishops’” [elders or guardians]. In fact the title and activities of James as “bishop” or “archbishop” (as in Recognitions 1:73) in some early Christian writings may imply an equation of this office in the Jewish Church with that of priest or high priest in Judaism. —link James was from the tribe of Judah, so he couldn’t have become a Levitical priest, but now the veil of the temple was destroyed and the Most Kadosh Place (“Holy of Holies”) had been opened so things were apparently somewhat different. “The best known description of James is that of Hegesippus as recorded in Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.23.1-18. He describes James as something of a Jewish ‘holy man,’ an ascetic whose piety was controlled by ceremonial concerns. He was frequently in the temple, where he prayed constantly for the people. Because of his “excessive righteousness he was called ‘the Just’.” During the Passover season, Hegesippus says, the scribes and Pharisees attempted to have James dissuade the people from following Jesus. But James bore positive testimony ‘concerning the Son of man’ and was thrown from the battlement of the temple, stoned and finally killed by a blow to the head.” —same link Here is how his martyrdom came about: According to a passage in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, (xx.9): “But 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 are 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. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: —(Antiquities 20,9) Dated 62 AD. link As he was being killed, he was praying: “Father, forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing”. So a study of this one man alone proves that the “Church” in Jerusalem was led by a man who doesn’t remotely fit the stereotype of a Christian! This is quite an excellent article on James the Just. Of course any time that you see commentary in historical sources about him having a throne in Jerusalem and hierarchical rulership over the people would be alterations of the facts. The Nazarenes were particularly vilified when they fled to Pella for true Divine protection at the last moment because they simply could not fight under a false Messiah: John 18:36 Yeshua answered, “My authority to rule does not originate from this world. If My royal power were from this world, My subordinates would fight to prevent My being handed over to the Jews, but My authority to rule isn’t here yet.” So now the parent Assembly went into hiding, and it appears that they remained there for a very long time. The world in general believes that Torah (Law) keeping “Messianic Jews”, or “Nazarenes” of any race, disappeared entirely. Indeed they have kept a very low profile for many centuries. Yet for anyone who would look for them, the history of Sabbath observant believers in Yeshua keeps showing up here and there, all over the face of the earth, particularly during the brief respites of freedom such as is present in our Israelite descended nations. To consider their historical records you could check out this other site. The Bar Kokhba revolt These were certainly dangerous times to be a Nazarene, but it gets much worse. Roman control remained quite oppressive and the next Roman invasion (132-135 AD), named after Bar Kokhba, hit even harder than the one in 70 AD. “The struggle lasted for three years before the revolt was brutally crushed in the summer of 135. After losing Jerusalem, Bar Kokhba and the remnants of his army withdrew to the fortress of Betar, which also subsequently came under siege. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the numbers slain were enormous, that the Romans “went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils” (Taanis 4:5). The Talmud also relates that for seventeen years the Romans didn’t allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar.” —End Bar Kokhba quotations There continued to be widespread contempt for the occupying Roman government and again the Jews decided to throw off the shackles of tyranny. They thought that it was time for heavenly intervention, so they actually appointed a Messiah! “The Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva (alternatively Akiba) convinced the Sanhedrin to support the impending revolt, and regarded the chosen commander Simon Bar Kokhba to be the Jewish Messiah, according to the Star Prophecy verse from Numbers 24:17: “There shall come a star out of Jacob” (“Bar Kokhba” means “son of a star” in the Aramaic language). “At the time Messianic Judaism was still a minor sect of Judaism, and most historians believe that it was this Messianic claim in favor of Bar Kokhba that alienated many Messianics (including Messianic Jews), who believed that the true messiah was Jesus, and sharply deepened the schism between Jews and Messianics. Any schism causes pain. Some pain is “only” emotional, some leaves scars, and some leaves a trail of blood. This quote from Hebrews, particularly the latter portion is a vivid description of the patriarchs, but also our Nazarene forefathers. Hebrews 11:32-40 Why should I say more? I don’t have enough time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David, Samuel, and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, brought about justice, obtained promises, and shut the mouths of lions. 34 They quenched the relentless forces of fires, escaped from the edge of swords, were healed of diseases, became valiant in battle, and overthrew the camps of enemies. 35 Women received their children by a resurrection from the dead. Others were put to death during torture, not even hoping to be rescued, so that they could secure a better resurrection. 36 Others endured being mocked and whipped, while others were chained and imprisoned. 37 Some were stoned, others were sawn in half, others were killed by the edge of swords, others roamed around clothed in sheep and goat skins. They were poor, oppressed and mistreated. 38 The world was not worthy of them, yet they wandered in deserts and mountains, or hid in caves and fissures in the earth. 39 None of these honorable witnesses received the promised blessings, 40 since YHVH had determined that it is better that they not be made perfect and complete beings without [ahead of] us. I suspect that “a better resurrection” means that will be given more prominent roles of serving in the Kingdom. Of those “who preserve the Commandments of Yehovah” (Revelation 14:12), a good number of them in America, have arisen from the tribe of Judah in my lifetime: The Messianic Judaism of today grew out of the Hebrew-Christian movement of the 19th century. Hebrew-Christian congregations began to emerge in England; the first of these was Beni Abraham, in London, which was founded by forty-one Hebrew-Christians. This led to a more general awareness of a type of Christianity with a Jewish background. In 1866, the Hebrew-Christian Alliance of Great Britain was organized, with branches also existing in several European countries and the United States. A similar group, The Hebrew Christian Alliance of America (HCAA), was organized in the U.S. in 1915. The International Hebrew-Christian Alliance (IHCA) was organized in 1925 (later becoming the International Messianic Jewish Alliance). Additional groups were formed during subsequent decades.” Now lets go back to the point in time when the Jerusalem Assembly lost its menorah, so to speak, and the Christians in Rome and Constantinople—people with hellenized backgrounds took center stage. The Nazarenes had to flee to Pella to save their lives: “DID JERUSALEM CHRISTIANS FLEE TO PELLA?” “The first clear reference comes from the fourth century church historian Eusebius. He says that as the Romans approached the city, ‘The people belonging to the church at Jerusalem had been ordered by an oracle revealed to approved men on the spot before the war broke out, to leave the city and dwell in a town of Peraea called Pella’ (EH III:5). The destruction of the city, Eusebius says, came only after the Jerusalem Christians had made their escape. A late first or early second century sarcophagus found beneath the floor of a church in the western part of Pella may be a relic of the Christians stay in the city. The mid-second century Christian apologist, Aristo, came from Pella. Later, Epiphanius (315-403) makes reference to the same tradition as Eusebius and says there were both orthodox and heretical Jewish Christians in the Pella and other Decapolis areas centuries later. From the third century onward the remains of churches are found all around the area, including a large church complex in Pella itself. These may give further evidence of an on going tradition of Christian presence in the area. “For when the city was about to be captured and sacked by the Romans, all the disciples were warned beforehand by an angel to remove from the city, doomed as it was to utter destruction. On migrating from it they settled at Pella, the town already indicated, across the Jordan. It is said to belong to Decapolis (de Mens. et Pond., 15).” This was a place of safety for a long time. Eventually tho, they fled to Europe: “Now this sect of Nazarenes exists in Beroea in Coele-Syria, and in Decapolis in the district of Pella, and in Kochaba of Basanitis-called Kohoraba in Hebrew. For thence it originated after the migration from Jerusalem of all the disciples who resided at Pella, Christ having instructed them to leave Jerusalem and retire from it on account of the impending siege. It was owing to this counsel that they went away, as I have said, to reside for a while at Pella” (Haer 29:7). Most of the early Christians, not being rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, were soon led into heresy. When the pagan Constantine “came out of the blue” and made his Christian-in-name-only religion the official religion of the Roman Empire, he drastically tipped the scales in favor of a hybrid pagan/Christianity. Charles Guignebert, professor of the history of Christianity at the University of Paris, wrote: “Contemplate the Christian Church at the beginning of the fourth century, therefore, and some difficulty will be experienced in recognizing in her the community of Apostolic times, or rather, we shall not be able to recognize it at all....” (The Early History of Christianity, Twayne, New York, 1927). The most easily recognized distinction between Christians and Nazarenes became the issue of the Sabbath. A great many quotes on this topic are found here. “On the venerable day of the Sun let the Magistrates and the people residing in the cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” Edict of Constantine 321 AD British historian Paul Johnson said of Constantine: “He himself appears to have been a sun-worshipper, one of a number of late-pagan cults which had observances in common with the Christians. Thus the followers of Isis adored a madonna nursing her holy child; the cult of Attis and Cybele celebrated a day of blood and fasting, followed by the Hilaria resurrection-feast, a day of joy, on 25 March; the elitist Mithraics, many of whom were senior army officers, ate a sacred meal. Constantine was almost certainly a Mithraic, and his triumphal arch, built after his ‘conversion’, testifies to the Sun-god, or ‘unconquered sun.’ “Many Christians did not make a clear distinction between this sun-cult and their own. They referred to Christ ‘driving his chariot across the sky’: they held their services on Sunday, knelt towards the East and had their nativity-feast on 25 December, the birthday of the sun at the winter solstice. During the later pagan revival under the Emperor Julian many Christians found it easy to apostasize because of this confusion; ... Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins....” Paul Johnson summed it up quite well: “How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accommodate this weird megalomaniac in its theocratic system? Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most from this unseemly marriage between Church and State? Or, to put it another way, did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?” (A History of Christianity, Atheneum, New York, 1976, pp. 67-69). In order to document the divergence between Nazarenes and Christians, we need to consider the records of the “Ante-Nicene fathers” (pre Constantinian writers, many of whom were actually Nazarenes). There is a website that catalogs almost all of these writings. While it is possible to see the parting of the ways between the ‘Torah (Law) keepers’ and the ‘Torah breakers’, the details have apparently been highly edited. The men themselves were very glorified in the edited texts but their ‘objections’ to the massive changes were minimized. Still, enough of the distinctions remain to easily see the difference between the so-called ‘primitive’ faithful and the ‘wolves inn sheep’s clothing orthodoxy’. While the early writings seem to be very short on doctrinal beliefs, and some conclude that they were ‘not writers’, that is probably due to how much was left on the cutting room floor. Here is an introductory quote from the site: “[a.d. 100-200.] The Apostolic Fathers are here understood as filling up the second century of our era. Irenæus, it is true, is rather of the sub-apostolic period; but, as the disciple of Polycarp, he ought not to be dissociated from that Father’s company. We thus find ourselves conducted, by this goodly fellowship of witnesses, from the times of the apostles to those of Tertullian, from the martyrs of the second persecution to those of the sixth. Those were times of heroism, not of words; an age, not of writers, but of soldiers; not of talkers, but of sufferers. Curiosity is baffled, but faith and love are fed by these scanty relics of primitive antiquity. Yet may we well be grateful for what we have. These writings come down to us as the earliest response of converted nations to the testimony of Jesus. They are primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament....” One of the earlier controversies occurred when the Christians wanted to phase out Passover and replace it with another celebration-Easter, to appease their Roman persecutors, and to deliberately distinguish themselves from the “primitive” Nazarenes. They knew that if they could pull that off it would set a very strong precedent for many more innovations. The authority of Christianity was transferred away from the word of Yehovah and replaced with syncretism (scripture hybridized with then popular pagan ideas). “There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers… The first Christians continued the observance of the Jewish [Elohim’s] festivals, though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed,” —Enyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, p.828). On the human level, the motivation for change was money. While Nazarenes didn’t even carry a spare coat to evangelize, Christians extracted great sums of money. On the spiritual level, Satan began turning wine into water-incrementally. “Neither the apostles, therefore nor the Gospels, have anywhere imposed ... Easter ... The Savior and His apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast [Easter].... And that the observance originated not by legislation [of the apostles], but as a custom the facts themselves indicate” (fourth century scholar, Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, chapter 22). “Notice what history tells us from the Catholic Church itself concerning this second century controversy: “The dioceses of all Asia, as from the older tradition [Passover], held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving Pasch [Passover] ... However, it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world [primarily the West, represented by Rome] to end it at this point [allegedly a non-biblical based fast ending on Easter Sunday], as they observed the practice, which from apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time.... Synods and assemblies of bishops [not Yeshua’s example] were held on this account and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree [superseding Christ’s personal example as recorded in the gospels] that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but, the Sunday [Easter] and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only. A letter of Saint Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus. Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp [bishop of Smyrna], who like the other Asiatic, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon [which is really Passover], whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he [Polycarp] claimed to have derived from St. John the apostle, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodecimen observance. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the holyday of the Jews.... Those who kept Easter [Passover] with the Jews were called Quartodecimans” —The Catholic Encyclopedia; [comments] from the link” Once they had changed an annual event—the Passover, it wasn’t long before they changed a weekly event—the Sabbath. This brazen act eliminated one of the very Ten Commandments and drove an irreconcilably wedge between the Sunday observant Christians and the Sabbatarian Nazarenes. Deuteronomy 28:9 Yehovah will establish you as His kadosh people, as He has sworn to you, if you obey Yehovah your Elohim’s Commandments and live by His ways. Psalm 119:115 Get away from me, you the evil people, I intend to preserve the Commandments of my Elohim. Revelation 14:12 ‘This calls for’ patient endurance by the kadishea, who preserve [obey, guard] the Commandments of YHVH AND the faith of Yeshua. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 They are false envoys, dishonest hirelings impersonating envoys of the Messiah. 14 It’s no wonder, because if Satan impersonates a Messenger of light, 15 it is no great surprise if his “deacons” impersonate servants of righteousness, whose end state is a consequence of their works. There is very little information about the Nazarenes from the ancient Jewish writings. Of course, everything that Yeshua (Jesus) taught was as hated in His Disciples as it had been in Him. But we can read what the “Early Christian Fathers” had to say about them. Nothing much has changed between the two camps—except for the enormous popularity of Christianity. Christianity and Judaism reject the original teachings of the Nazarenes, made plain in the Bible, to this very day. The fourth century Catholic Church ‘Father’ Jerome, described the Nazarenes as “those who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the Old Law” (Jerome; On. Is. 8: 14). Christians all believe that the Law (Torah) is “done away”, “nailed to the cross” (unless they are really Nazarenes without realizing what’s in a name). This is the most vital distinction between Christians and Nazarenes. Consequently, their translations generally disguise the term “lawlessness”. The term for this lawless view is called Antinomianism. Here is a simple definition: Antinomianism is derived from the Greek anti, meaning “against” and nomos, meaning the Law, (specifically the Torah). In general, antinomians teach that moral laws are relative in meaning and application, instead of fixed and universal. As a “Christian theological teaching”, antinomianism is used to refer to the idea that the Good News frees Christians from obedience to any laws, Scriptural, civil, or moral, so that salvation is attained solely thru faith and the gift of divine grace, rather than thru obedience to any laws. Of course when one sect says that another is Antinomian, it is generally said to discredit an opposing sect, based along man made rules rather than the Torah. The degree of acceptable anarchy depends on the persuasiveness of the various sects. For a much better understanding of this most critical of topics, please see: The Antinomians are Coming! The bottom line is that the “Old Testament” is far from irrelevant—it is our foundation, walls and pillars! When Christians do recognize the legitimacy of the word Torah, they never apply it to be the Hebrew Law—the Torah, rather it is assumed to mean civil law, ecclesiastical law, or some other law—anything but Yehovah’s Torah! The following verses often translaed as “iniquity” or “unrighteousness”. “Anamos” is translated as “iniquity” 12 times in the KJV and once as “unrighteousness”, of its fifteen usages. It’s really referring to Torah breakers. Matthew 7:23 Then I’ll tell them publicly, [see root words 3674 and 3056], “I never knew you. Get away from Me you Torah breakers”. Matthew 13:41 The Human Son will send His spirit messengers, and they’ll gather out of His Kingdom everyone who set snares, and all the Torah breakers [Gr. anomia], Matthew 23:28 Outwardly you certainly appear to people to be righteous men, but inwardly you are against the Torah [Gr. anomia]—fully committed con men! Matthew 24:12 Because of the plethora [Gr. plethuno] of Torah breakers, the love of many will decline. Romans 6:19 I am speaking to you in secular terms because of your weakness and carnality. As you once surrendered your bodies to impure motives without the Torah, so now present your bodies as servants of righteousness and dedication. 2 Corinthians 6:14 Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers. What does righteousness have in common with Torah breaking [Gr. anomos]. What association does light have with darkness? 2 Thessalonians 2:7 Mystic Torah breakers are already at work, but they are only being held back for now, until the one restraining them is taken out of the way. Hebrews 1:9 You’ve loved righteousness and hated Torah breaking, so Yehovah, your Aloha, has anointed you with the oil of joy far more than your fellow Israelites. 1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin is violating the Torah, because all sin is violating the Torah. Christians from a very early time in Rome totally rejected the Torah, the very Torah that essentially defines the Nazarenes. Jerome was such a spokesman for Christianity that his words can be taken as the official position of his camp. So what kind of a man was it who best described the great divide? Let’s look at what his supporters, the Catholics have to say about him: “St. Jerome, who was born Eusebius Hieronymous Sophronius, was the most learned of the Fathers of the Western Church. He was born about the year 342 at Stridonius, a small town at the head of the Adriatic, near the episcopal city of Aquileia. His father, a Christian, took care that his son was well instructed at home, then sent him to Rome, where the young man’s teachers were the famous pagan grammarian Donatus and Victorinus, a Christian rhetorician. Jerome’s native tongue was the Illyrian dialect, but at Rome he became fluent in Latin and Greek, and read the literatures of those languages with great pleasure. His aptitude for oratory was such that he may have considered law as a career. He acquired many worldly ideas, made little effort to check his pleasure-loving instincts, and lost much of the piety that had been instilled in him at home. Yet in spite of the pagan and hedonistic influences around him, Jerome was baptized by Pope Liberius in 360. He tells us that “it was my custom on Sundays to visit, with friends of my own age and tastes, the tombs of the martyrs and Apostles, going down into those subterranean galleries whose walls on both sides preserve the relics of the dead.” Here he enjoyed deciphering the inscriptions.” Jerome lived his life much like the Epicureans: “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” and “if it feels good do it”. Luke spoke out about the perennially popular philosophy—Lawlessness: Luke 12:19-21 Then I’ll say to myself, ‘I have accumulated enough goods to last for many years. I’ll take it easy, eat, drink, and be merry.’ 20 But YHVH told him, ‘You ignorant man! Tonight your life [psyche, Gr: psuche] will be demanded back. Now who will get all your things?’ 21 This is what awaits anyone who accumulates wealth for himself, but doesn’t have riches with YHVH.” Yet Jerome also attacked the Epicureans, but for entirely different reasons. He is virtually the sole historical writer about the person of the Epicurean philosopher and poet Lucretius who lived from about 95-54 BC. Lucretius was perhaps the first evolutionist, tho he was not an atheist. Lucretius attacked the pagan notion of an everburning hell fire, and that is where Jerome departed from the Epicureans! “Following Epicurus he [Lucretius] sets before himself the aim of finally crushing that fear of the gods and that fear of death resulting from it which he regards as the source of all the human ills. Incidentally he desires also to purify the heart from other violent passions which corrupt it and mar its peace. But the source even of these-the passions of ambition and avarice-he finds in the fear of death; and that fear he resolves into the fear of eternal punishment after death. “The selection of his subject and the order in which it is treated are determined by this motive. Although the title of the poem implies that it is a treatise on the “whole nature of things,” the aim of Lucretius is to treat only those branches of science which are necessary to clear the mind from the fear of the gods and the terrors of a future state. “But his arguments ... are real1y only valid against the limited and unworthy conceptions of divine agency involved in the ancient religions ... by his vital realization of all that is meant by the arbitrary infliction of eternal torment after death.” link Third century Christianity was OK with Lawlessness, so long as it didn’t interfere with “eternal torment after death”. It should come as no surprise that Jerome’s thoughts were framed by paganism. Jerome’s friend Epiphanius was his polar opposite, as far as character was concerned. Paradoxically, his character as relating to his fellow man was as pure as the Epicurean Lucretius, who didn’t live his life as his fellow Epicureans! Epiphanius in his monastery was the oracle of Palestine and the neighboring countries; and no one ever went from him who had not received great spiritual comfort by his holy advice. The reputation of his virtue made him known to distant countries; and about the year 367, he was chosen bishop of Salamis, then called Constantia, in Cyprus. But he still wore the monastic habit, and continued to govern his monastery in Palestine, which he visited from time to time. He sometimes relaxed his austerities in favor of hospitality, preferring charity to abstinence [as in a vow of poverty]. No one surpassed him in tenderness and charity to the poor.... The veneration which all men had for his sanctity, exempted him from the persecution of the Arian emperor Valens in 371; but he was almost the only Catholic bishop in that part of the empire who was entirely spared on that occasion.... The saint fell into some mistakes on certain occasions, which proceeded from zeal and simplicity, as Socrates observes. So how did the “Sainted Christian Father”, Epiphanius, describe the Nazarenes: “We shall now especially consider heretics who ... call themselves Nazarenes; they are mainly Jews and nothing else. They make use not only of the New Testament, but they also use in a way the Old Testament of the Jews; for they do not forbid the books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings ... so that they are approved of by the Jews, from whom the Nazarenes do not differ in anything, and they profess all the dogmas pertaining to the prescriptions of the Law and to the customs of the Jews, except they believe in Messiah.... They preach that there is but one God, and His Son Yeshua the Messiah. But they are very learned in the Hebrew language; for they, like the Jews, read the whole Law, then the Prophets.... They differ from the Jews because they believe in Messiah, and [differ] from the Christians in that they are to this day bound to the Jewish rites, such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies.” —link “They have the Good news according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written”. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29; translated from the Greek). “The Catholic writer Bonacursus in ‘Against the Heretics’, referred to the Nazarenes by saying: “Let those who are not yet acquainted with them, please note how perverse their belief and doctrine are. First, they teach that we should obey the Law of Moses according to the letter-the Sabbath, and circumcision, and the legal precepts still being in force. Furthermore, to increase their error, they condemn and reject all the Church Fathers, and the whole Roman Church.” While these comments are in fierce opposition to the Nazarenes, I believe them to be honest descriptions. There was no need to resort to lies and gross distortions, that were also made, these “accusations” were quite sufficient at the time. However there are some extremely wild modern allegations about the Nazarenes, contradicting the above in every point. A Scriptural name for Nazarenes is “the Way”. Paul affirmed that he, like Yeshua believed in the Torah. He added that “they” were calling this Nazarene Way a “sect”. (The KJV and others use “heresy” instead of “sect”. However, the Jews, for example would not have referred to themselves as “the [139, hairesis] of the Pharisees” or “the [hairesis] of the Sadducees”, if “heresy”, as it has come to mean in English, were the connotation. The word for heresy was quite acceptable among the Jews. However espousing one denomination or sect is the real “heresy” in the Greek! 2 Peter 2:1-3 There have been false prophets in the world, and there will also be false teachers among you who will introduce destructive heresies, denying the Master who bought them and bringing on themselves swift and eternal destruction. 2 Many will follow their wicked ways, and because of these deceivers, the Way of truth will be blasphemed [Gr. blasphemeo]. 3 In their greed and with carefully formed arguments, they’ll buy and sell you. Yet their condemnation that was determined in the distant past is still in force, and their utter destruction won’t be ‘caught’ sleeping. Matthew 7:15 Watch out for false [Gr. pseudo] prophets who come to you ‘disguised’ as sheep, but inwardly they are extortioning wolves. Acts 24:14-15 Yet I certainly acknowledge that in accordance with the Way that they refer to as a sect, I do serve the Aloha of my ancestors and believe everything written in the Torah and in the Prophets. 15 I have a hope in YHVH, as do they, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the righteous and the wicked. Google Search only search Everlasting Kingdom   Minor update June 21, 2014   Lon Martin’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Nazarene and Christian

What is a Nazarene? What is a Christian? Old Nazareth Chapter 41, Part 1 Preview: After Yeshua (Jesus) was crucified, the people who claimed to be His followers were soon divided into two camps: “Nazarenes” and “Christians”. Both terms are found in the Bible. “Nazarenes” is what the Torah observant Jewish believers came to be called. This stems from the verse calling Yeshua a Nazarene (once). It seems apparent that the enemies of the faithful also popularized this application of the term Nazarene towards His disciples, tho the Bible doesn’t apply it to His followers! The name Nazarene is derived from the Hebrew word “netzer”, meaning BRANCH. Why BRANCH? On careful examination, these references usually refer to Yeshua the Nazarene Himself, during what is mistakenly called the “second coming”, (for example there were many previous “advents” when He came as the “Angel (Messenger) of the Lord”). It is evident that the BRANCH = the Netzer = the coming Nazarene, a happy accident? INDEX Jeremiah 23:5-8 The days are coming,’ says Yehovah, ‘when I’ll raise up for David a righteous Branch. He will be a King who rules wisely, and do what is fair and right thruout the land! 6 In his lifetime, Judah will be delivered, and Israel will live in safely. This is the name that He will be given, ‘Yehovah Our Righteousness!’ 7 That’s why the time will come,” says Yehovah, “When people will no longer say ‘As Yehovah lives, who brought the Israelites out of the land of Egypt.’” 8 Instead, they’ll say, ‘As surely as Yehovah lives, who brought about the ‘EXODUS’ of the descendants of the nation of Israel from the North Country, and from all the countries where He had banished them.’ Then they’ll live in their own land. —The Gabriel Bible This prophecy is covered in The Time After Jacob’s Trouble Many people think that all of the Branch references refer to Yeshua but this particular Branch fears Yehovah and is in awe of Him. This Branch will have the spirit of Yehovah rest on him (this is not the spirit resting on itself): Isaiah 11:1-6 Then a shoot will sprout from the stump of Jesse, and a BRANCH from his roots will take root. 2 The spirit of Yehovah, she will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and power, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of Yehovah. 3 He will be delighted with and in awe of Yehovah. He won’t judge by appearances, or make judgments based on hearsay. 4 He’ll judge the poor with righteousness, making decisions with equality for the poor of the earth. He’ll strike the earth with the scepter of His mouth, and with a breath from His lips He’ll destroy the wicked. 5 righteousness will be the belt around His waist, and faithfulness the belt around His hips. 6 Wolves will live with lambs, and leopards will lie down with young goats. Calves, young lions and fattened calves grazing together, and little children will lead them. This Branch will sprout onto the scene; sounds like an end time descendant of David. Jeremiah 33:12-21 “This is what Yehovah the Commander says: ‘This deserted land, a place without people or animals, in all its cities, will once again be a habitat where shepherds rest their flocks. 13 Flocks will once again pass under the hand of the ‘shepherds’ who count them” in the towns of the hill country, in the towns of the western lowlands, in the towns to the Negev, in the territory of Benjamin, in the vicinity of Jerusalem, and in the towns of Judah’, says Yehovah. 14 ‘The time is coming,’ says Yehovah, ‘when I will fulfill the wonderful things that I promised to the nation of Israel and the nation of Judah. 15 In those days, and at that time, I will cause a righteous Branch to sprout for David. He’ll do what is fair and right in the land. 16 In those days Judah will be rescued, and Jerusalem will ‘rest’ securely, and this is what ‘Jerusalem’ will be called: Yehovah Our Righteousness. 17 This is what Yehovah says: David will never fail to have a son capable of [1] sitting on the throne of the ‘nation’ of Israel, 18 and the Levitical priests will never fail to have a son in My presence capable of offering burnt offerings, and burnt grain offerings, and presenting ze’bakim [sacrifices] every day. 19 The Word of Yehovah came to Jeremiah, and said, 20 This is what Yehovah says: “If you can break My covenant with the day, and My covenant with the night, so that day and night won’t be at the usual times, 21 then My covenant with My servant David can also be broken, so that he won’t have a son to reign on his throne. That also goes for the Levitical priests, My ministers. [1] This doesn’t mean that David will always have a son sitting on his throne without any interruptions (Hosea 3:4). However historically the various tribes of Israel have usually had multiple kings/leaders simultaneously ruling. Take the US for example. Yet if Israel ever chose to begin obeying the Sabbath commandment there would immediately be kings from all the tribes gathering in Israel! (Jeremiah 17:21-27). It is just as apparent that Jerusalem will not always have a Temple for the Levitical priests,” v.12! Yet the tribal distinctions are intact even tho few people know where they are. I believe this prophecy to be contrasting Yehoshua of old to Yeshua the Messiah. Obviously the iniquity still needs to be purged from the land. Here the preincarnate Yeshua is telling Yeshua (Joshua) that He is going to bring in the Branch! Zechariah 3:1, 8-10 Then He showed me Yehoshua [Yeshua] the high priest standing before the Messenger of Yehovah, and Satan standing at his right hand side, to make accusations against him. ... 8 Listen to me, Yehoshua the high priest, you and your friends sitting with you. You are all symbolic of things to come. I’m going to bring in My servant, the Branch. 9 “Look at the jewel that I’ve set in front of Yehoshua, this one jewel has seven eyes. I’ll engrave an inscription on it”—this is the declaration of Yehovah, the ‘Warrior’ King. “I’ll remove the sins of this land in a single day.” 10 Yehovah the Commander announces, “When that day comes, each of you will invite your neighbors to sit under your vine and fig tree.” There is one more branch Scripture that is often lumped in with the preceeding ones, but it refers to “the man whose name is the Branch”. He’s sort of the John the Immerser for the BRANCH, which accounts for the name. The Yeshua who builds the coming temple will be human, and he will be killed. Zechariah 6:12-14 and tell him: This is what Yehovah, the ‘Warrior’ King says: Here is the man called the Branch. He’ll branch out of his place, and he’ll rebuild Yehovah’s Temple! 13 Yes, He’ll rebuild Yehovah’s Temple. He’ll receive royal honor. He’ll sit and rule from his throne and he’ll also serve as a priest from his throne, and there will be perfectly sound council between the two responsibilities. 14 The crowns will be given to Helem, and Tobijah, and Jedaiah, and to Hen the son of Zephaniah, as a memorial in Yehovah’s Temple. Christian/s is mentioned three times in somewhat derogatory context in the Bible. The name Christianos, (khris-tee-an-os’) “Christian” was coined by the enemies of Greek speaking believers in the (so-called “Gentile”) regions. So “Christians” and “Nazarenes” in the Bible can be counted together on one hand. Interestingly, the Bible calls His people disciples 268 times, but never after Acts 21! Various terms are translated as “saints” all thru the Bible, with frequency, from Deuteronomy thru Revelation. Yet that word is derived from paganism. So I prefer to call the people of Elohim (God) what Yeshua called them—kadishea. In order to learn more about the distinctions that developed between Nazarenes and Christians after the book of Revelation was written, we must go to secular, Catholic and Jewish historical accounts because the Nazarenes, and any positive writings, were hunted down and burned with a vengeance. As long as the Assembly in Jerusalem was relatively stable there was a reservoir of truth available. Indeed Yeshua’s brother James was a very stabilizing influence. James made too much of an impression on the Jerusalem Assembly to ever be covered up. Christians claim him as one of their own, but with extreme difficulties. Some even claim that he was the first Pope, due to his exemplary leadership! Of course there are no Papal succession types of claims made in the literature of the first centuries. Catholicism bases their claim that Peter was the first Pope on the following verse: Matthew 16:18 Also, I tell you that you are Cephas, and it is on this rock that I’ll rebuild My assembly, and the gates of sheol won’t triumph over it. It really says, in essence, that Peter was a pebble standing next to the Rock of Gibraltar, in the scheme of things. After some of his stunts he apparently needed that. There were not going to be any Popes! Mark 10:42-44 Yeshua called them and said, “You know that those who are considered the rulers of the nations are tyrants and their great men have authority over them. 43 But it must NEVER be like that with you, because whoever wants to be great among you should be a servant, 44 and whoever who wants to be the most influential must become a servant to everyone. It was James who served Yehovah’s Assembly in the leadership role. Jerome also wrote about James: De Viris Illustribus, quoted Hegesippus’ account of James from the fifth book of his lost Commentaries. Note that James had been a Nazarite, a Nazarene and a priest: “After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother’s womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or [ceremonially] bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels’ knees.” —Jerome, Letters The record about James puts him in an altogether different light than might be expected. He was quite “Messianic”! “... Epiphanius’ sources plainly claim both that he had access to those parts of the temple restricted to the high priest and that he wore the headdress associated with that office. The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions seem to equate James’ position in the Jerusalem church with that of the high priest in the Jewish community as they describe a dispute between “the chief of the priests” and “James, the chief of the ‘bishops’” [elders or guardians]. In fact the title and activities of James as “bishop” or “archbishop” (as in Recognitions 1:73) in some early Christian writings may imply an equation of this office in the Jewish Church with that of priest or high priest in Judaism. —link James was from the tribe of Judah, so he couldn’t have become a Levitical priest, but now the veil of the temple was destroyed and the Most Kadosh Place (“Holy of Holies”) had been opened so things were apparently somewhat different. “The best known description of James is that of Hegesippus as recorded in Eusebius Hist. eccl. 3.23.1-18. He describes James as something of a Jewish ‘holy man,’ an ascetic whose piety was controlled by ceremonial concerns. He was frequently in the temple, where he prayed constantly for the people. Because of his “excessive righteousness he was called ‘the Just’.” During the Passover season, Hegesippus says, the scribes and Pharisees attempted to have James dissuade the people from following Jesus. But James bore positive testimony ‘concerning the Son of man’ and was thrown from the battlement of the temple, stoned and finally killed by a blow to the head.” —same link Here is how his martyrdom came about: According to a passage in Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities, (xx.9): “But 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 are 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. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: —(Antiquities 20,9) Dated 62 AD. link As he was being killed, he was praying: “Father, forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing”. So a study of this one man alone proves that the “Church” in Jerusalem was led by a man who doesn’t remotely fit the stereotype of a Christian! This is quite an excellent article on James the Just. Of course any time that you see commentary in historical sources about him having a throne in Jerusalem and hierarchical rulership over the people would be alterations of the facts. The Nazarenes were particularly vilified when they fled to Pella for true Divine protection at the last moment because they simply could not fight under a false Messiah: John 18:36 Yeshua answered, “My authority to rule does not originate from this world. If My royal power were from this world, My subordinates would fight to prevent My being handed over to the Jews, but My authority to rule isn’t here yet.” So now the parent Assembly went into hiding, and it appears that they remained there for a very long time. The world in general believes that Torah (Law) keeping “Messianic Jews”, or “Nazarenes” of any race, disappeared entirely. Indeed they have kept a very low profile for many centuries. Yet for anyone who would look for them, the history of Sabbath observant believers in Yeshua keeps showing up here and there, all over the face of the earth, particularly during the brief respites of freedom such as is present in our Israelite descended nations. To consider their historical records you could check out this other site. The Bar Kokhba revolt These were certainly dangerous times to be a Nazarene, but it gets much worse. Roman control remained quite oppressive and the next Roman invasion (132-135 AD), named after Bar Kokhba, hit even harder than the one in 70 AD. “The struggle lasted for three years before the revolt was brutally crushed in the summer of 135. After losing Jerusalem, Bar Kokhba and the remnants of his army withdrew to the fortress of Betar, which also subsequently came under siege. The Jerusalem Talmud relates that the numbers slain were enormous, that the Romans “went on killing until their horses were submerged in blood to their nostrils” (Taanis 4:5). The Talmud also relates that for seventeen years the Romans didn’t allow the Jews to bury their dead in Betar.” —End Bar Kokhba quotations There continued to be widespread contempt for the occupying Roman government and again the Jews decided to throw off the shackles of tyranny. They thought that it was time for heavenly intervention, so they actually appointed a Messiah! “The Jewish sage Rabbi Akiva (alternatively Akiba) convinced the Sanhedrin to support the impending revolt, and regarded the chosen commander Simon Bar Kokhba to be the Jewish Messiah, according to the Star Prophecy verse from Numbers 24:17: “There shall come a star out of Jacob” (“Bar Kokhba” means “son of a star” in the Aramaic language). “At the time Messianic Judaism was still a minor sect of Judaism, and most historians believe that it was this Messianic claim in favor of Bar Kokhba that alienated many Messianics (including Messianic Jews), who believed that the true messiah was Jesus, and sharply deepened the schism between Jews and Messianics. Any schism causes pain. Some pain is “only” emotional, some leaves scars, and some leaves a trail of blood. This quote from Hebrews, particularly the latter portion is a vivid description of the patriarchs, but also our Nazarene forefathers. Hebrews 11:32-40 Why should I say more? I don’t have enough time to tell of Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephtha, David, Samuel, and the prophets, 33 who by faith conquered kingdoms, brought about justice, obtained promises, and shut the mouths of lions. 34 They quenched the relentless forces of fires, escaped from the edge of swords, were healed of diseases, became valiant in battle, and overthrew the camps of enemies. 35 Women received their children by a resurrection from the dead. Others were put to death during torture, not even hoping to be rescued, so that they could secure a better resurrection. 36 Others endured being mocked and whipped, while others were chained and imprisoned. 37 Some were stoned, others were sawn in half, others were killed by the edge of swords, others roamed around clothed in sheep and goat skins. They were poor, oppressed and mistreated. 38 The world was not worthy of them, yet they wandered in deserts and mountains, or hid in caves and fissures in the earth. 39 None of these honorable witnesses received the promised blessings, 40 since YHVH had determined that it is better that they not be made perfect and complete beings without [ahead of] us. I suspect that “a better resurrection” means that will be given more prominent roles of serving in the Kingdom. Of those “who preserve the Commandments of Yehovah” (Revelation 14:12), a good number of them in America, have arisen from the tribe of Judah in my lifetime: The Messianic Judaism of today grew out of the Hebrew-Christian movement of the 19th century. Hebrew-Christian congregations began to emerge in England; the first of these was Beni Abraham, in London, which was founded by forty-one Hebrew-Christians. This led to a more general awareness of a type of Christianity with a Jewish background. In 1866, the Hebrew-Christian Alliance of Great Britain was organized, with branches also existing in several European countries and the United States. A similar group, The Hebrew Christian Alliance of America (HCAA), was organized in the U.S. in 1915. The International Hebrew-Christian Alliance (IHCA) was organized in 1925 (later becoming the International Messianic Jewish Alliance). Additional groups were formed during subsequent decades.” Now lets go back to the point in time when the Jerusalem Assembly lost its menorah, so to speak, and the Christians in Rome and Constantinople—people with hellenized backgrounds took center stage. The Nazarenes had to flee to Pella to save their lives: “DID JERUSALEM CHRISTIANS FLEE TO PELLA?” “The first clear reference comes from the fourth century church historian Eusebius. He says that as the Romans approached the city, ‘The people belonging to the church at Jerusalem had been ordered by an oracle revealed to approved men on the spot before the war broke out, to leave the city and dwell in a town of Peraea called Pella’ (EH III:5). The destruction of the city, Eusebius says, came only after the Jerusalem Christians had made their escape. A late first or early second century sarcophagus found beneath the floor of a church in the western part of Pella may be a relic of the Christians stay in the city. The mid-second century Christian apologist, Aristo, came from Pella. Later, Epiphanius (315-403) makes reference to the same tradition as Eusebius and says there were both orthodox and heretical Jewish Christians in the Pella and other Decapolis areas centuries later. From the third century onward the remains of churches are found all around the area, including a large church complex in Pella itself. These may give further evidence of an on going tradition of Christian presence in the area. “For when the city was about to be captured and sacked by the Romans, all the disciples were warned beforehand by an angel to remove from the city, doomed as it was to utter destruction. On migrating from it they settled at Pella, the town already indicated, across the Jordan. It is said to belong to Decapolis (de Mens. et Pond., 15).” This was a place of safety for a long time. Eventually tho, they fled to Europe: “Now this sect of Nazarenes exists in Beroea in Coele-Syria, and in Decapolis in the district of Pella, and in Kochaba of Basanitis-called Kohoraba in Hebrew. For thence it originated after the migration from Jerusalem of all the disciples who resided at Pella, Christ having instructed them to leave Jerusalem and retire from it on account of the impending siege. It was owing to this counsel that they went away, as I have said, to reside for a while at Pella” (Haer 29:7). Most of the early Christians, not being rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures, were soon led into heresy. When the pagan Constantine “came out of the blue” and made his Christian-in-name-only religion the official religion of the Roman Empire, he drastically tipped the scales in favor of a hybrid pagan/Christianity. Charles Guignebert, professor of the history of Christianity at the University of Paris, wrote: “Contemplate the Christian Church at the beginning of the fourth century, therefore, and some difficulty will be experienced in recognizing in her the community of Apostolic times, or rather, we shall not be able to recognize it at all....” (The Early History of Christianity, Twayne, New York, 1927). The most easily recognized distinction between Christians and Nazarenes became the issue of the Sabbath. A great many quotes on this topic are found here. “On the venerable day of the Sun let the Magistrates and the people residing in the cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” Edict of Constantine 321 AD British historian Paul Johnson said of Constantine: “He himself appears to have been a sun-worshipper, one of a number of late-pagan cults which had observances in common with the Christians. Thus the followers of Isis adored a madonna nursing her holy child; the cult of Attis and Cybele celebrated a day of blood and fasting, followed by the Hilaria resurrection-feast, a day of joy, on 25 March; the elitist Mithraics, many of whom were senior army officers, ate a sacred meal. Constantine was almost certainly a Mithraic, and his triumphal arch, built after his ‘conversion’, testifies to the Sun-god, or ‘unconquered sun.’ “Many Christians did not make a clear distinction between this sun-cult and their own. They referred to Christ ‘driving his chariot across the sky’: they held their services on Sunday, knelt towards the East and had their nativity-feast on 25 December, the birthday of the sun at the winter solstice. During the later pagan revival under the Emperor Julian many Christians found it easy to apostasize because of this confusion; ... Constantine never abandoned sun-worship and kept the sun on his coins....” Paul Johnson summed it up quite well: “How could the Christian Church, apparently quite willingly, accommodate this weird megalomaniac in its theocratic system? Was there a conscious bargain? Which side benefited most from this unseemly marriage between Church and State? Or, to put it another way, did the empire surrender to Christianity, or did Christianity prostitute itself to the empire?” (A History of Christianity, Atheneum, New York, 1976, pp. 67-69). In order to document the divergence between Nazarenes and Christians, we need to consider the records of the “Ante-Nicene fathers” (pre Constantinian writers, many of whom were actually Nazarenes). There is a website that catalogs almost all of these writings. While it is possible to see the parting of the ways between the ‘Torah (Law) keepers’ and the ‘Torah breakers’, the details have apparently been highly edited. The men themselves were very glorified in the edited texts but their ‘objections’ to the massive changes were minimized. Still, enough of the distinctions remain to easily see the difference between the so-called ‘primitive’ faithful and the ‘wolves inn sheep’s clothing orthodoxy’. While the early writings seem to be very short on doctrinal beliefs, and some conclude that they were ‘not writers’, that is probably due to how much was left on the cutting room floor. Here is an introductory quote from the site: “[a.d. 100-200.] The Apostolic Fathers are here understood as filling up the second century of our era. Irenæus, it is true, is rather of the sub-apostolic period; but, as the disciple of Polycarp, he ought not to be dissociated from that Father’s company. We thus find ourselves conducted, by this goodly fellowship of witnesses, from the times of the apostles to those of Tertullian, from the martyrs of the second persecution to those of the sixth. Those were times of heroism, not of words; an age, not of writers, but of soldiers; not of talkers, but of sufferers. Curiosity is baffled, but faith and love are fed by these scanty relics of primitive antiquity. Yet may we well be grateful for what we have. These writings come down to us as the earliest response of converted nations to the testimony of Jesus. They are primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament....” One of the earlier controversies occurred when the Christians wanted to phase out Passover and replace it with another celebration-Easter, to appease their Roman persecutors, and to deliberately distinguish themselves from the “primitive” Nazarenes. They knew that if they could pull that off it would set a very strong precedent for many more innovations. The authority of Christianity was transferred away from the word of Yehovah and replaced with syncretism (scripture hybridized with then popular pagan ideas). “There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers… The first Christians continued the observance of the Jewish [Elohim’s] festivals, though in a new spirit, as commemorations of events which those festivals had foreshadowed,” —Enyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edition, p.828). On the human level, the motivation for change was money. While Nazarenes didn’t even carry a spare coat to evangelize, Christians extracted great sums of money. On the spiritual level, Satan began turning wine into water-incrementally. “Neither the apostles, therefore nor the Gospels, have anywhere imposed ... Easter ... The Savior and His apostles have enjoined us by no law to keep this feast [Easter].... And that the observance originated not by legislation [of the apostles], but as a custom the facts themselves indicate” (fourth century scholar, Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History, chapter 22). “Notice what history tells us from the Catholic Church itself concerning this second century controversy: “The dioceses of all Asia, as from the older tradition [Passover], held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should always be observed as the feast of the life-giving Pasch [Passover] ... However, it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world [primarily the West, represented by Rome] to end it at this point [allegedly a non-biblical based fast ending on Easter Sunday], as they observed the practice, which from apostolic tradition has prevailed to the present time.... Synods and assemblies of bishops [not Yeshua’s example] were held on this account and all with one consent through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree [superseding Christ’s personal example as recorded in the gospels] that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other day but, the Sunday [Easter] and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on that day only. A letter of Saint Irenaeus is among the extracts just referred to, and this shows that the diversity of practice regarding Easter had existed at least from the time of Pope Sixtus. Further, Irenaeus states that St. Polycarp [bishop of Smyrna], who like the other Asiatic, kept Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon [which is really Passover], whatever day of the week that might be, following therein the tradition which he [Polycarp] claimed to have derived from St. John the apostle, but could not be persuaded by Pope Anicetus to relinquish his Quartodecimen observance. The question thus debated was therefore primarily whether Easter was to be kept on a Sunday, or whether Christians should observe the holyday of the Jews.... Those who kept Easter [Passover] with the Jews were called Quartodecimans” —The Catholic Encyclopedia; [comments] from the link” Once they had changed an annual event—the Passover, it wasn’t long before they changed a weekly event—the Sabbath. This brazen act eliminated one of the very Ten Commandments and drove an irreconcilably wedge between the Sunday observant Christians and the Sabbatarian Nazarenes. Deuteronomy 28:9 Yehovah will establish you as His kadosh people, as He has sworn to you, if you obey Yehovah your Elohim’s Commandments and live by His ways. Psalm 119:115 Get away from me, you the evil people, I intend to preserve the Commandments of my Elohim. Revelation 14:12 ‘This calls for’ patient endurance by the kadishea, who preserve [obey, guard] the Commandments of YHVH AND the faith of Yeshua. 2 Corinthians 11:13-15 They are false envoys, dishonest hirelings impersonating envoys of the Messiah. 14 It’s no wonder, because if Satan impersonates a Messenger of light, 15 it is no great surprise if his “deacons” impersonate servants of righteousness, whose end state is a consequence of their works. There is very little information about the Nazarenes from the ancient Jewish writings. Of course, everything that Yeshua (Jesus) taught was as hated in His Disciples as it had been in Him. But we can read what the “Early Christian Fathers” had to say about them. Nothing much has changed between the two camps—except for the enormous popularity of Christianity. Christianity and Judaism reject the original teachings of the Nazarenes, made plain in the Bible, to this very day. The fourth century Catholic Church ‘Father’ Jerome, described the Nazarenes as “those who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the Old Law” (Jerome; On. Is. 8: 14). Christians all believe that the Law (Torah) is “done away”, “nailed to the cross” (unless they are really Nazarenes without realizing what’s in a name). This is the most vital distinction between Christians and Nazarenes. Consequently, their translations generally disguise the term “lawlessness”. The term for this lawless view is called Antinomianism. Here is a simple definition: Antinomianism is derived from the Greek anti, meaning “against” and nomos, meaning the Law, (specifically the Torah). In general, antinomians teach that moral laws are relative in meaning and application, instead of fixed and universal. As a “Christian theological teaching”, antinomianism is used to refer to the idea that the Good News frees Christians from obedience to any laws, Scriptural, civil, or moral, so that salvation is attained solely thru faith and the gift of divine grace, rather than thru obedience to any laws. Of course when one sect says that another is Antinomian, it is generally said to discredit an opposing sect, based along man made rules rather than the Torah. The degree of acceptable anarchy depends on the persuasiveness of the various sects. For a much better understanding of this most critical of topics, please see: The Antinomians are Coming! The bottom line is that the “Old Testament” is far from irrelevant—it is our foundation, walls and pillars! When Christians do recognize the legitimacy of the word Torah, they never apply it to be the Hebrew Law—the Torah, rather it is assumed to mean civil law, ecclesiastical law, or some other law—anything but Yehovah’s Torah! The following verses often translaed as “iniquity” or “unrighteousness”. “Anamos” is translated as “iniquity” 12 times in the KJV and once as “unrighteousness”, of its fifteen usages. It’s really referring to Torah breakers. Matthew 7:23 Then I’ll tell them publicly, [see root words 3674 and 3056], “I never knew you. Get away from Me you Torah breakers”. Matthew 13:41 The Human Son will send His spirit messengers, and they’ll gather out of His Kingdom everyone who set snares, and all the Torah breakers [Gr. anomia], Matthew 23:28 Outwardly you certainly appear to people to be righteous men, but inwardly you are against the Torah [Gr. anomia]—fully committed con men! Matthew 24:12 Because of the plethora [Gr. plethuno] of Torah breakers, the love of many will decline. Romans 6:19 I am speaking to you in secular terms because of your weakness and carnality. As you once surrendered your bodies to impure motives without the Torah, so now present your bodies as servants of righteousness and dedication. 2 Corinthians 6:14 Don’t be unequally yoked with unbelievers. What does righteousness have in common with Torah breaking [Gr. anomos]. What association does light have with darkness? 2 Thessalonians 2:7 Mystic Torah breakers are already at work, but they are only being held back for now, until the one restraining them is taken out of the way. Hebrews 1:9 You’ve loved righteousness and hated Torah breaking, so Yehovah, your Aloha, has anointed you with the oil of joy far more than your fellow Israelites. 1 John 3:4 Everyone who practices sin is violating the Torah, because all sin is violating the Torah. Christians from a very early time in Rome totally rejected the Torah, the very Torah that essentially defines the Nazarenes. Jerome was such a spokesman for Christianity that his words can be taken as the official position of his camp. So what kind of a man was it who best described the great divide? Let’s look at what his supporters, the Catholics have to say about him: “St. Jerome, who was born Eusebius Hieronymous Sophronius, was the most learned of the Fathers of the Western Church. He was born about the year 342 at Stridonius, a small town at the head of the Adriatic, near the episcopal city of Aquileia. His father, a Christian, took care that his son was well instructed at home, then sent him to Rome, where the young man’s teachers were the famous pagan grammarian Donatus and Victorinus, a Christian rhetorician. Jerome’s native tongue was the Illyrian dialect, but at Rome he became fluent in Latin and Greek, and read the literatures of those languages with great pleasure. His aptitude for oratory was such that he may have considered law as a career. He acquired many worldly ideas, made little effort to check his pleasure-loving instincts, and lost much of the piety that had been instilled in him at home. Yet in spite of the pagan and hedonistic influences around him, Jerome was baptized by Pope Liberius in 360. He tells us that “it was my custom on Sundays to visit, with friends of my own age and tastes, the tombs of the martyrs and Apostles, going down into those subterranean galleries whose walls on both sides preserve the relics of the dead.” Here he enjoyed deciphering the inscriptions.” Jerome lived his life much like the Epicureans: “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” and “if it feels good do it”. Luke spoke out about the perennially popular philosophy—Lawlessness: Luke 12:19-21 Then I’ll say to myself, ‘I have accumulated enough goods to last for many years. I’ll take it easy, eat, drink, and be merry.’ 20 But YHVH told him, ‘You ignorant man! Tonight your life [psyche, Gr: psuche] will be demanded back. Now who will get all your things?’ 21 This is what awaits anyone who accumulates wealth for himself, but doesn’t have riches with YHVH.” Yet Jerome also attacked the Epicureans, but for entirely different reasons. He is virtually the sole historical writer about the person of the Epicurean philosopher and poet Lucretius who lived from about 95-54 BC. Lucretius was perhaps the first evolutionist, tho he was not an atheist. Lucretius attacked the pagan notion of an everburning hell fire, and that is where Jerome departed from the Epicureans! “Following Epicurus he [Lucretius] sets before himself the aim of finally crushing that fear of the gods and that fear of death resulting from it which he regards as the source of all the human ills. Incidentally he desires also to purify the heart from other violent passions which corrupt it and mar its peace. But the source even of these-the passions of ambition and avarice-he finds in the fear of death; and that fear he resolves into the fear of eternal punishment after death. “The selection of his subject and the order in which it is treated are determined by this motive. Although the title of the poem implies that it is a treatise on the “whole nature of things,” the aim of Lucretius is to treat only those branches of science which are necessary to clear the mind from the fear of the gods and the terrors of a future state. “But his arguments ... are real1y only valid against the limited and unworthy conceptions of divine agency involved in the ancient religions ... by his vital realization of all that is meant by the arbitrary infliction of eternal torment after death.” link Third century Christianity was OK with Lawlessness, so long as it didn’t interfere with “eternal torment after death”. It should come as no surprise that Jerome’s thoughts were framed by paganism. Jerome’s friend Epiphanius was his polar opposite, as far as character was concerned. Paradoxically, his character as relating to his fellow man was as pure as the Epicurean Lucretius, who didn’t live his life as his fellow Epicureans! Epiphanius in his monastery was the oracle of Palestine and the neighboring countries; and no one ever went from him who had not received great spiritual comfort by his holy advice. The reputation of his virtue made him known to distant countries; and about the year 367, he was chosen bishop of Salamis, then called Constantia, in Cyprus. But he still wore the monastic habit, and continued to govern his monastery in Palestine, which he visited from time to time. He sometimes relaxed his austerities in favor of hospitality, preferring charity to abstinence [as in a vow of poverty]. No one surpassed him in tenderness and charity to the poor.... The veneration which all men had for his sanctity, exempted him from the persecution of the Arian emperor Valens in 371; but he was almost the only Catholic bishop in that part of the empire who was entirely spared on that occasion.... The saint fell into some mistakes on certain occasions, which proceeded from zeal and simplicity, as Socrates observes. So how did the “Sainted Christian Father”, Epiphanius, describe the Nazarenes: “We shall now especially consider heretics who ... call themselves Nazarenes; they are mainly Jews and nothing else. They make use not only of the New Testament, but they also use in a way the Old Testament of the Jews; for they do not forbid the books of the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings ... so that they are approved of by the Jews, from whom the Nazarenes do not differ in anything, and they profess all the dogmas pertaining to the prescriptions of the Law and to the customs of the Jews, except they believe in Messiah.... They preach that there is but one God, and His Son Yeshua the Messiah. But they are very learned in the Hebrew language; for they, like the Jews, read the whole Law, then the Prophets.... They differ from the Jews because they believe in Messiah, and [differ] from the Christians in that they are to this day bound to the Jewish rites, such as circumcision, the Sabbath, and other ceremonies.” —link “They have the Good news according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew. For it is clear that they still preserve this, in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written”. (Epiphanius; Panarion 29; translated from the Greek). “The Catholic writer Bonacursus in ‘Against the Heretics’, referred to the Nazarenes by saying: “Let those who are not yet acquainted with them, please note how perverse their belief and doctrine are. First, they teach that we should obey the Law of Moses according to the letter-the Sabbath, and circumcision, and the legal precepts still being in force. Furthermore, to increase their error, they condemn and reject all the Church Fathers, and the whole Roman Church.” While these comments are in fierce opposition to the Nazarenes, I believe them to be honest descriptions. There was no need to resort to lies and gross distortions, that were also made, these “accusations” were quite sufficient at the time. However there are some extremely wild modern allegations about the Nazarenes, contradicting the above in every point. A Scriptural name for Nazarenes is “the Way”. Paul affirmed that he, like Yeshua believed in the Torah. He added that “they” were calling this Nazarene Way a “sect”. (The KJV and others use “heresy” instead of “sect”. However, the Jews, for example would not have referred to themselves as “the [139, hairesis] of the Pharisees” or “the [hairesis] of the Sadducees”, if “heresy”, as it has come to mean in English, were the connotation. The word for heresy was quite acceptable among the Jews. However espousing one denomination or sect is the real “heresy” in the Greek! 2 Peter 2:1-3 There have been false prophets in the world, and there will also be false teachers among you who will introduce destructive heresies, denying the Master who bought them and bringing on themselves swift and eternal destruction. 2 Many will follow their wicked ways, and because of these deceivers, the Way of truth will be blasphemed [Gr. blasphemeo]. 3 In their greed and with carefully formed arguments, they’ll buy and sell you. Yet their condemnation that was determined in the distant past is still in force, and their utter destruction won’t be ‘caught’ sleeping. Matthew 7:15 Watch out for false [Gr. pseudo] prophets who come to you ‘disguised’ as sheep, but inwardly they are extortioning wolves. Acts 24:14-15 Yet I certainly acknowledge that in accordance with the Way that they refer to as a sect, I do serve the Aloha of my ancestors and believe everything written in the Torah and in the Prophets. 15 I have a hope in YHVH, as do they, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the righteous and the wicked. Google Search only search Everlasting Kingdom   Minor update June 21, 2014   Lon Martin’s work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Constantine Wrote Matthew 28

Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible! Were You Baptized into Yeshua (Jesus) or a Trinity? Constantine Chapter 31, Part 1 Preview: Were you baptized contrary to the Bible? A Roman Emperor insisted that Trinitarian wording be inserted into the Latin Vulgate Bible as it was being written. This chapter explains how the fraudulent text crept into virtually every modern English version of the Bible, and has even eluded being discovered by churches that don’t believe that Elohim (God) is a Trinity. The question becomes: Does it matter whose name you were baptized into? What did Matthew actually write—“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” OR “So go and make disciples in every nation IN MY NAME”? Matthew 28:19 Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit—NKJV INDEX Nearly every modern version of the Bible is short the equivalent of a few pages of text, due to the error of many modern “scholars” who prefer the Alexandrian Texts over the Received Texts. However this chapter concerns the only fraudulent addition that I am aware of to escape the notice of J.P.Green, a foremost proponent of the Texts almost unanimously used for 1900 years. A similar fraudulent Trinitarian “verse” is the KJV’s well known 1 John 5:7. Translators take heed: Revelation 22:18-19 I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this small book: if anyone adds to them, YHVH will ADD to them the catastrophes [plagues] that are described in this small book. 19 If anyone takes words out of the book containing this prophecy, YHVH will TAKE AWAY their destiny from the Tree of Life and from the kadosh city described in this small book. —Gabriel Bible (Have you ever tried to fit into your eschatology how it is that these long dead text alterers will suffer the end time “calamities that are written about in this book”? This is addressed in Are the “Unsaved” Lost?: The Called, the Culled and the Excused). This chapter is based on a publication that was originally written in 1961 and titled “A Collection of the Evidence For and Against the Traditional Wording of the Baptismal Phrase in Matthew 28:19”. The author signed his work simply as A. Ploughman. Likely a pseudo name. He was a minister who lived in Birmingham, England. He had not encountered anything dealing with the authenticity of Matthew 28:19, during his 50 years of Biblical study except from out of print articles, books and encyclopedias. I might never have considered reviewing this information except for the fact that a trusted friend was quite zealous about the importance of the conclusions reached. In this chapter, only the secular historical quotations have been retained, as written from Ploughman’s research. Questioning the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 is not a matter of determining how easily it can or cannot be explained within the context of established doctrinal views. Rather, it is a matter of discovering the very thoughts of Yehovah (God), remembering that His truths, and not our traditions, are eternal. The information presented is extremely relevant to our faith. The amount of information supporting the conclusions presented may seem overwhelming, but for the serious seeker of truth, the search is well worth the effort. I hope that you will allow the facts contained in this chapter to stir you to action. If you discover that you have not been “immersed” (as I prefer to call it) or “baptized” into the name of the true Savior, and have knowingly accepted a substitute, what would Elohim (God) expect of you? (“Immerse is a translation, baptize is the essentially untranslated Greek word “baptizo”. Due to the number of quotations cited, I am consistently using the term “baptize” instead of “immerse” in this article. However, since about 1700 AD, people have assumed that “pouring” and “sprinkling” are forms of baptism. The use of the word immersion would circumvent such confusion.) However, it must be remembered that we have no known manuscripts of the The Testimony of Yeshua (New testament) that were written in the first, second or even the third centuries. There is a gap of over three hundred years between when Matthew wrote his account and our earliest manuscript copies. (It also took over three hundred years for the Catholic Church to evolve into what the “early church fathers” wanted it to become.) No single early manuscript is free from textual error. Some have unique errors—other manuscripts were copied extensively and have the same errors. Again, our aim is to examine all of the evidence and determine as closely as possible what the original words were. None of the Scriptures from Genesis thru Malachi make reference to a Trinitarian Elohim. Also from Mark thru Revelation, we don’t find any evidence for a Trinity. Only in Matthew do we find a relatively old “proof text” in support of a Trinity. The Encyclopedia Wikipedia has a very detailed account of the evolution of the Trinity. The latter portion of the article explains virtually every version of the Trinity that has arisen. I would think that reading this information would cause a Trinitarian to shudder! But I don’t believe that the Unitarian alternative beliefs extant are any better. I would recommend that you consider reading another article on this site concerning the true nature of Elohim: “I and My Father are ONE.” I can’t resist making one quick point of the many that could be cited. When Stephen was being martyred, who did he see? He saw the Father and the Son, but the kadosh (holy) spirit wasn’t standing with them, but Stephen was filled with it! (Acts 7:55) There you have it—Father, Son and kadosh spirit all mentioned in one verse. There is one other fraudulent “Trinitarian verse” found in the KJV that can be quickly eliminated from consideration, before we eliminate the only remaining “evidence”, because this “cherished verse” is certain to arise in conversation: 1 John 5:7-8 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. KJV I did an Internet search using only the above Biblical reference, and came up with an article explaining the relatively recent origin of this “fantasy text”. Here is one relative paragraph from an article aimed directly at the successors of the original deception. “This [altered] reading [in 1 John] is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and {with minor variations} 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note, which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.”—The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8—Daniel B. Wallace PhD I’ll not venture down this parallel avenue any further. We’ll now resume the same plot as it unfolded over a thousand years prior to the 1 John 5 chicanery: We must consider the possibility that all of the existing manuscripts may have one or more textual errors in common. According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory: “The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings. More on these changes will be addressed later. An unnamed writer said: “A great step forward is taken when we propose to give manuscripts weight, not according to their age, but according to the age of the text that they contain. By proving how honest a text is, rather than strictly how old it is, provides us with a text that has content that is truly ancient. When we verify that a text is older than the fourth century—that it was current in the third, or better still, the second century, we still cannot be sure that it has not been altered. We need to try to verify that the text is pure text. There is reason to believe that the very grossest errors that have ever deformed the text had already entered it in the second century. But what we want to determine is not merely an ancient text, but an accurate text Of course, “the grossest errors”, that this writer is referring to are the deliberate deceptions. Not surprisingly, some of these textual corruptions occurred simultaneously with the respective doctrinal changes as they were being introduced into the “primitive church”. I say “primitive church” with a bit of sarcasm because the term would seem to imply that “the church” has evolved into something much better now—when in fact today’s “church” is quite miserably mutated. Just as with the manuscripts, all extant Versions, containing the end of Matthew, also contain the triune name. But of course there is more to be considered than what is present in a document. You must also take into consideration what is absent. Again quoting from the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics: “In all extant versions the text is found in the traditional [Trinitarian] form—though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts, both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac Versions are defective at this point. F.C. Conybeare further elaborated: “In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew. So then, tho all early versions contain the traditional triune name in Matthew 28:19, the earliest of these Versions don’t contain the verse at all. And curiously, not due to omission, but due to removal! We can’t be positive of the motives as to why these pages were destroyed, but for the sake of our study we’re now compelled to consult the early historical writings. Excerpts of Early Catholic Writers Before we make references concerning these early writers, it should be emphatically stated that if the question under consideration were one of doctrine, the written records of these Catholic writers would be nearly irrelevant. Doctrine must be obtained from the pure Word of Elohim (God) alone, and not from Catholics, Jews, Christians or other sources. These self proclaimed “fathers” lived in an age of unrestrained heresy. Their testimony is valuable primarily because they provide an incidental and independent verification of Biblical Texts much older than our current complete manuscripts. “In the course of my reading I have been able to substantiate these doubts of the authenticity of the text of Matthew 28:19 by adducing patristic [L. pater: “father”] evidence against it, so weighty that in the future the most conservative of divines will shrink from resting on it any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened will discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the ‘Three Witnesses’. —F.C. Conybeare in the Hibbert Journal Could this bold statement be true? While not a single manuscript from the first three centuries is known to exist, we do have “eye witness” observations of at least two men who actually had access to manuscripts dating much earlier than our earliest. Others also quoted Matthew 28:19, whose written works have been preserved, dating to much earlier times than our best manuscript copies. We should examine who these men were, and what the circumstances were, and attempt to determine if these are reliable quotations of the original Texts. How did they quote Matthew 28:19? Did their comments imply an existing controversy surrounding the use of the Texts being quoted? Was a Trinity implied? These are questions that can be answered. In the pages ahead, we will consider evidence from the following men, either via quotations from their writings, or as commented on thru the writings of their contemporaries: 1) Eusebius of Caesurae, 2) The unknown author of De Rebaptismate, 3) Origen, 4) Clement of Alexandria, 5) Justin Martyr, 6) Macedonius, 7) Eunomius and 8) Aphraates. Our search thru their writings is not to establish any doctrine, but to find early witnesses to the verse in question. Eusebius of Caesurae The first witness will be Eusebius of Caesurae, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. He was born around 270 AD, and died around 340 AD. He lived in times of rampant doctrinal change, was a Trinitarian, and in later life assisted in the formation of the Nicene Creed. Regarding our inquiry into Matthew 28:19, Eusebius is our key witness. So to establish his veracity as a credible witness, let’s consider the following quotes: ““Eusebius of Caesurae, to whom we are indebted for the preservation of so many contemporary works of antiquity, many of which would have perished had he not collected and edited them.” Robert Roberts, in Good Company, vol. III, pg. 10 “Eusebius, the greatest Greek teacher of the Church and most learned theologian of his time ... worked untiringly for the acceptance of the pure Word of the New Testament as it came from the Apostles ... Eusebius ... relies throughout only upon ancient manuscripts, and always openly confesses the truth when he cannot find sufficient testimony. —E.K. in the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Aug, 1923 from Mosheim, in an editorial footnote. “Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Caesurae in Palestine, a man of vast reading and erudition, and one who has acquired immortal fame by his labors in ecclesiastical history, and in other branches of theological learning. Chapter 2, 9 ... Till about 40 years of age he lived in great intimacy with the martyr Pamphilus, a learned and devout man of Caesurae, and founder of an extensive library there, from which Eusebius derived his vast store of learning. —Dr. Wescott, in “General Survey,” page 108 “Eusebius, to whose zeal we owe most of what is known of the history of the New Testament. —Peake Bible Commentary, page 596 “The most important writer in the first quarter of the fourth century was Eusebius of Caesurae ... Eusebius was a man of little originality or independent judgment. But he was widely read in the Greek Christian literature of the second and third centuries, the bulk of which has now irretrievably perished, and subsequent ages owe a deep debt to his honest, if some-what confused, and at times not a little prejudiced, erudition. —Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature “Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as having been read by Eusebius. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose. Under the head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with the materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi) is well known.... The passages to which Gibbon refers do not bear out his imputation ...Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins ... in general terms, without entering into details ... but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. —Mosheim, again in an editorial note. “Eusebius was an impartial historian, and had access to the best helps for composing a correct history which his age afforded. —Mosheim “Of the patristic witnesses to the text of the New Testament as it stood in the Greek Manuscripts from about 300-340 AD, none is so important as Eusebius of Caesurae, for he lived in the greatest Christian Library of that age, that namely which Origen and Pamphilus had collected. It is no exaggeration to say from this single collection of manuscripts at Caesurae derives the larger part of the surviving ante-Nicene literature. In his Library, Eusebius must have habitually handled codices of the gospels older by two hundred years than the earliest of the great uncials that we have now in our libraries. —F.C. Conybeare, in the Hibbert Journal, October 1902. Considering the honesty, ability and opportunity of Eusebius as a witness to the “New Testament” text, let’s now move on to the his evidence concerning Matthew 28. The Evidence of Eusebius According to Ludwig Knupfer, the editor of the Christadelphian Monatshefte, Eusebius, among his many other writings compiled a file of corrupted variations of the Bible, and: “... the most serious of all the falsifications denounced by him, is without doubt the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19. His source material has been lost, as he later wrote: “... through events of war I have lost all of my files and other materials connected with the magazine. But various authorities mention a work entitled Discrepancies in the Gospels, and another work entitled The Concluding Sections of the Gospels. According to Conybeare: “Eusebius cites this text (Matt. 28:19) again and again in works written between 300 and 336, namely in his long commentaries on the Psalms, on Isaiah, his Demonstratio Evangelica, his Theophany ... in his famous history of the Church, and in his panegyric of the emperor Constantine. I have, after a moderate search in these works of Eusebius, found eighteen citations of Matthew 28:19, and always in the following form: ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you.’ Ploughman’s research uncovered all of these quotations except for one, that is in a catena published by Mai in a German magazine, the Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, edited by Dr. Erwin Preuschen in Darmstadt in 1901. Eusebius was not content merely to cite the verse in this form, but he more than once commented on it in such a way as to show how much he confirmed the wording “in My name”. Thus, in his Demonstratio Evangelica he wrote the following: “For he did not enjoin them “to make disciples of all the nations” simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition “in His name”. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, “God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of [Yeshua] Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, “Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations in my name.’—(col. 240, p. 136) Conybeare proceeded, in Hibbert Journal, 1902: “It is evident that this was the text found by Eusebius in the very ancient codices collected fifty to a hundred and fifty years before his birth by his great predecessors. Of any other form of text he had never heard and knew nothing until he had visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice. Then in two controversial works written in his extreme old age, and entitled, the one ‘Against Marcellus of Ancyra,’ and the other ‘About the Theology of the Church,’ he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nice was over, to his seer of Caesurae. In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote: “It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Yeshua—this long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading. Naturally, an objection was raised by Dr. Chase, Bishop of Ely, who argued that Eusebius indeed found the traditional Text in his manuscripts, but substituted the briefer wording in his works for fear of vulgarizing the “sacred” Trinitarian wording. Interestingly, a modern Bishop revived the very argument used 150 years earlier, in support of the forged text of 1 John 5:7-8: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. According to Porson (in a preface to his Letters): “Bengel ... allowed that the words (The Three Witnesses) were in no genuine manuscripts.... Surely then, the verse is spurious! No! This learned man finds a way of escape. He said, “The passage was of so sublime and mysterious a nature that the secret discipline of the Church withdrew it from the public books, till it was gradually lost.” Here is how Mark would describe that way of thinking: Mark 4:12 so they see clearly, but don’t discern, and when they hear they don’t understand, otherwise they might be converted and their sins sent away”. Conybeare continued, refuting the argument of the Bishop of Ely: “It is sufficient answer to point out that Eusebius’ argument, when he cites the text, involves the text “in My name”. For, he asks, “in whose name?” and answers that it was the name spoken of by Paul in his Epistle to the Philipptians 2:10. Finally, the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all the nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent. Now that we have considered the evidence of Eusebius, let’s also consider some other early writers. Other Early Writings “The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on ‘the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism’. —(The Author of De Rebaptismate, from Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352.) “In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words “the nations”; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, “in My name”, struck out. —Conybeare “In the pages of Clement of Alexandria a text somewhat similar to Matthew 28:19 is once cited, but from a Gnostic heretic named Theodotus, and not as from the canonical text, but as follows: ‘And to the Apostles he gives the command: Going around preach ye and baptize those who believe in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’—Excerta cap. 76, ed. Sylb. page 287, quote from Conybeare. “Justin [Martyr] ... quotes a saying of Christ ... as a proof of the necessity or regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the triune formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Matthew 28:19. —Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics “In Justin Martyr, who wrote between A.D. 130 and 140, there is a passage which has been regarded as a citation or echo of Matthew 28:19 by various scholars, e.g. Resch in his Ausser canonische Parallelstellen, who sees in it an abridgment of the ordinary text. The passage is in Justin’s dialog with Trypho 39, p. 258: ‘God hath not afflicted nor inflicts the judgment, as knowing of some that still even today are being made disciples in the name of his Christ, and are abandoning the path of error, who also do receive gifts each as they be worthy, being illuminated by the name of this Christ.’ “The objection hitherto to these words being recognized as a citation our of text was that they ignored the formula ‘baptizing them in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit.’ But the discovery of the Eusebian form of text removes the difficulty: and Justin is seen to have had the same text as early as the year 140, which Eusebius regularly found in his manuscripts from 300 to 340. —Conybeare (Hibbert Journal) “We may infer that the text was not quite fixed when Tertullian was writing, early in the third century. In the middle of that century Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the baptism even of the orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the baptisms even of the heretics were valid, if the name of Jesus alone was invoked. [This decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from excommunicating the entire Celtic Church for its remaining faithful to the old use of invoking in Jesus’ name]. In the last half of the fourth century, the text ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ was used as a battle cry by the orthodox against the adherents of Macedonius, who were called ‘pneumato-machi’ or ‘fighters against the Holy Spirit’, because they declined to include the Spirit in a Trinity of persons as co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father and Son. They also stoutly denied that any text in the New Testament authorized such a coordination of the Spirit with the Father and Son. Whence we infer that their texts agreed with that of Eusebius. —Conybeare (Hibbert Journal) “Exceptions are found which perhaps point to an old practice dying out. Cyprian (Ep. 73) and the ‘Apostolic Canons’ (no. 50) combat the shorter formula, thereby attesting to its use in certain quarters. The ordinance of the Apostolic Canon therefore runs: ‘If any bishop or presbyter fulfill not three baptisms of one initiation, but one baptism which is given (as) into the death of the Lord, let him be deposed’. “This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius (Socr. 5:24), ‘for they baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ.’ They accordingly used single immersion only. —Encyclopedia Biblia (Article on “Baptism”) “There is one other witness whose testimony we must consider. He is Aphraates ... who wrote between 337 and 345. He cites our text in a formal manner, as follows: ‘Make disciples of all the nations, and they shall believe in me’. The last words appear to be a gloss on the Eusebian reading ‘in My name’. But in any case, they preclude the textus receptus with its injunction to baptize in the triune name. Were the writing of Aphraates an isolated fact, we might regard it as a loose citation, but in the presence of the Eusebian and Justinian texts this is impossible. —Conybeare How the Manuscripts Were Changed The following quotations demonstrate how freely the scribes altered the manuscripts of the “New Testament”, in stark contrast to the scribes of the Hebrew Scriptures who copied the Scriptures with reverence and strict accuracy. These quotations also show the early heretical beginning of triune immersion at a time when the doctrine of the Trinity was being formulated, and how the Greek verses were changed to conform to the syncretized (pagan) practice. “In the case just examined (Matt. 28:19), it is to be noticed that not a single manuscript or ancient version has preserved to us the true reading. But that is not surprising, for as Dr. C.R. Gregory, one of the greatest of our textual critics, reminds us: ‘The Greek Manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.’ (Canon and Text of the N.T. 1907, pg. 424). “These facts speak for themselves. Our Greek texts, not only of the Gospels, but of the Epistles as well, have been revised and interpolated by orthodox copyists. We can trace their perversions of the text in a few cases, with the aid of patristic citations and ancient versions. But there must remain many passages which have been so corrected, but where we cannot today expose the fraud. It was necessary to emphasize this point, because Dr. Wescott and Hort used to [say] that there is no evidence of merely doctrinal changed having been made in the text of the New Testament. This is just the opposite of the truth, and such distinguished scholars as Alfred Loisy, J. Wellhausen, Eberhard Nestle, Adolf Harnack, to mention only four names, do not scruple to recognize the fact.” While this is perfectly true, nevertheless, “there are a number of reasons why we can feel confident about the general reliability of our translations.”—Peter Watkins, in an excellent article “Bridging the Gap” in The Christadelphian, January, 1962, pp. 4-8. “We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures ... by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption, made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or Arians. Whiston—in Second Letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, p.15. “While triune immersion was thus an all but universal practice, Eunomius (circa 360) appears to have been the first to introduce (again) simple immersion ‘unto the death of Christ.’ This practice was condemned on pain of degradation, by the Canon Apostolic 46 (al 50). But it comes before us again about a century later in Spain; but then, curiously enough, we find it regarded as a badge of orthodoxy in opposition to the practice of the Arians. These last kept to the use of triune immersion, but in such a way as to set forth their own doctrine of a gradation in the three Persons. —Smith’s Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (Article on Baptism) “In the ‘Two Ways’ of the Didache, the principal duties of the candidates for baptism and the method of administering it by triple immersion or infusion on the head are outlined. This triple immersion is also attested to by Tertullian (Adverses Prax 26).... The most elaborate form of the rite in modern Western usage is in the Roman Catholic Church. —Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church - pp. 125-126 “The threefold immersion is unquestionably very ancient in the Church .... Its object, of course, to honor the three Persons of the Holy Trinity in whose name it is conferred. —Catholic Encyclopedia, page 262 “If it be thought, as many critics think, that no manuscript represents more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the ‘Eusebian’ text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it. —Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Article on “Baptism” “The exclusive survival (of the traditional text of Matt. 28:19) in all manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, need not cause surprise.... But in any case, the conversion of Eusebius to the longer text after the council of Nice indicates that it was at that time being introduced as a Shibboleth of orthodoxy into all codices.... The question of the inclusion of the Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out, and a text so invaluable to the dominant party could not but make its way into every codex, irrespective of its textual affinities. —Conybeare, the Hibbert Journal “Athanasius ... met Flavian, the author of the Doxology, which has since been universal in Christendom: ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, etc.’ This was composed in opposition to the Arian Doxology: ‘Glory to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Spirit’. Robert Roberts, in “Good Company” (Vol. iii, page 49) Whiston, in his Second Letter Concerning the Primitive Doxologies, 1719, page 17, wrote: “The Eusebians ... sometimes named the very time when, the place where, and the person by whom they (the forms of doxology) were first introduced.... Thus Philoflorgius, a writer of that very age, assures us in ‘Photius’ Extracts’ that in A.D. 348 or thereabouts, Flavianus, Patriarch of Antioch, got a multitude of monks together, and did there first use this public doxology, ‘Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit’. And regarding the alteration of the Bible based on liturgical use, Hammond, in Textual Criticism Applied to the N.T. (1890) page 23 wrote: “There are two or three insertions in the New Testament which have been supposed to have their origin in ecclesiastical usage. The words in question, being familiarly known in a particular connection, were perhaps noted in the margin of some copy, and thence became incorporated by the next transcriber; or a transcriber’s own familiarity with the words may have led to his inserting them. This is the source to which Dr. Tregelles assigns the insertion of the doxology at the close of the Lord’s Prayer in Matthew 6, which is lacking in most of the best authorities. Perhaps also Acts 8:37, containing the baptismal profession of faith, which is entirely lacking in the best authorities, found its way into the Latin text in this manner. Considering the evidence of the manuscripts, the versions and now the early writings, you should by now have come to the conclusion that in the early centuries some copies of Matthew did not contain the modern triune wording. Regardless of the opinions or positions taken by many commentators, we must at the very least admit to this fact. In legal practice where copies of an original lost document vary, the “internal evidence” is used to resolve the discrepancy. That is, a comparison of the undisputed text with the text in question, in order to determine which of the variant wordings is more likely to be the original. With both variants in mind, we will now turn to the Bible itself for internal evidence. Internal Evidence 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Analyze everything and hold tightly onto anything beneficial. In this verse, the Greek word translated as “Analyze” is “dokimazo”. In our efforts to determine which reading of Matthew 28:19 is original, we will submit both renderings to ten “tests”. In doing so, we will be able to recognize the genuine, and expose the spurious. The Test of Context When examining the context, we find that today’s Trinitarian wording lacks logical syntax, that is, the true understanding of the verse is obscured by a failure of the varying concepts to harmonize. Yet i we read the following, the whole context fits together and the progression of the instructions is comprehensible: Matthew 28:18-20 Yeshua came near during the conversation and said, “All authority has been given to Me in Heaven and on earth. 19 So go and make disciples in every nation IN MY NAME. 20 Teach them to obey everything that I’ve commanded you, knowing that I’ll be with you always, right up until the very end of the age. Aw-main.” The Test of Frequency Is the phrase “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the kadosh spirit” used elsewhere in the Bible? Not once. Did Yeshua use the phrase “in My name” on other occasions? Yes, 17 times to be exact, examples are found in Matthew 18:20; Mark 9:37,39 and 41; Mark 16:17; John 14:14 and 26; John 15:16 and 16:23. The Test of Doctrine Is any doctrine or concept in the Bible based on an understanding of a threefold name, or on immersion in the threefold name? None whatsoever. Is any statement in the Bible based on the fact of immersion in the name of Yeshua? Absolutely! 1 Corinthians 1:13 Now was the Messiah divided? Or was Paul crucified for you? Or were you immersed in the name of Paul? These words, when carefully analyzed, suggest that the kadishea (saints) should to be immersed in the name of the One who was crucified for them. The Father, in His unfathomable love, gave us His only Son to die in our place; He being later raised to incorruptibility by the spirit of Yehovah. But it is Yeshua Himself who was crucified, and so it is into His name that we must be immersed in water to become kadishea. According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article XLIV: “There is but one way for a believer of ‘the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ’ to put Him on, or to be invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose.” “As for it’s significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ. It is the means of the believer’s identification with the Lord’s death. (Matthew 28:18-20)—God’s Way, pg. 190. Father didn’t die, nor the kadosh spirit. The Bible says, “buried with Him [Yeshua] in immersion,” NOT with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5) R. Roberts used this explanation: “According to triune immersion, it is not sufficient to be baptized into the Son. Thus Christ is displaced from His position as the connecting link, the door of entrance, the ‘new and living way.’ And thus there are three names under heaven whereby we must be saved, in opposition to the apostolic declaration, that ‘there is none other name (than the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth) under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.’ (Acts 4:12). —The Nature of Baptism, page 13): Of course this is the same reasoning offered by Paul. Were you baptized in the name of Paul? Or in the name of the Father, Son, and kadosh spirit, or in any other name that replaces Yeshua from His position as the Passover Lamb and the only name given to us for salvation? Based on the above understanding alone, we can ascertain the genuine text of Matthew 28:19, confirming the use of the phrase, “in My name”. The Test of Analogy Does any other verse make reference to immersion in the triune name? No. Does any other verse reference immersion in the name of Yeshua? Yes! The Father immersed the disciples with the gift of the kadosh spirit, a promise that came according to Yeshua—“in His name.” (John 14:26) This is because Yeshua is the “common denominator” (Literally: Name) in both water immersion and baptism of the kadosh spirit, as made apparent by the following verses: John 16:7 Yet I tell you the truth—it is to your advantage that I leave, because if I don’t leave, the redeemer won’t come to you, but if I go I’ll send “her” [see John 14, footnote 2] to you. John 14:26 But the Redeemer, the kadosh spirit, that the Father will send in My name will teach you everything. She will remind you of everything that I have told you. Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip as he brought the Good News of the Kingdom of YHVH in the name of our Master Yeshua Messiah, both men and women were immersed. Notice that they were immersed as a result of heralding the name of Yeshua, not the titles “Father, Son and kadosh spirit.” So by analogy, we should be immersed in Yeshua’s name, because invoking His Name is the catalyst of understanding that prepares us for the immersion of the spirit, that is also given in His name (Acts 2:38-39, 19:1-5, John 3:3-5). Now for Part 2 Lon Martin, lonwmartin@yahoo.com Google Search only search Everlasting Kingdom   Minor update April 1, 2014

#Pemerintah Israel Membuka Pintu Aliyah!

#Pemerintah Israel Membuka Pintu Aliyah! 

Pemerintah Israel sedang Mempersiapkan untuk Memenuhi Penggenenapan Ramalan Nabi Obaja!

Obaja  Pasal 1: 1-21 (khusus ayat 19) maka org-org tanah negeb akan memiliki gunung Esau, dan org-org Daerah Bukit akan memiliki tanah org Filistin .... Ayat 21 ..... maka Tuhanlah yg akan empunya kerajaan itu. Amin

Untuk pertama kalinya, pemerintah Israel telah meninggalkan komunitas Yahudi untuk menggenapi Ramalan Nabi Obaja.

Oleh: Aspenas Warkey Cohen

"Dia dimasukkan ke luar dan berkata:"

Lihatlah ke langit dan hitung bintang-bintang, jika Anda bisa menghitungnya. "Dan dia menambahkan," Beginilah keturunanmu. "Kejadian 15: 5 (The Israel Bible ™)

Dalam momen historis pertama, pemerintah Israel bergerak maju dengan rencana untuk berkomunikasi dengan orang-orang yang memiliki leluhur Yahudi.

Proyek itu hanya dapat dilakukan secara demografi Israel, tetapi juga menghasilkan dalam Obaja menunjukkan bahwa orang-orang ini akan mengisi wilayah Negev di Israel selatan, membuka jalan bagi Mesias Ben David.

Sebuah komite yang ditunjuk oleh Kementerian Urusan Diaspora Israel mempresentasikan laporan pada hari yang mengatakan ada sekitar 60 juta orang di seluruh dunia dengan afinitas yang tidak dikenal dengan Yudaisme atau Israel.

Panitia menemukan bahwa di antara mereka ada komunitas yang dapat dilakukan ke Israel dan berangkat ke Yudaisme.

Menyerukan solusi menyerukan untuk komunitas-komunitas ini dan konten yang terkait dengan Israel dan Yudaisme.

"Ini benar-benar inovatif dan akan mengubah hal-hal untuk Israel," Ashley Perry (Perez) mengatakan kepada Breaking Israel News.

"Ini adalah pertama kalinya dari pemerintah Israel mencari di dunia yang berbeda yang dan mereka yang berasal dari komunitas yang masuk atau keluar."

Perry adalah presiden Reconnectar, sebuah organisasi yang memungkinkan orang-orang keturunan untuk terhubung dengan cara yang mereka anggap paling nyaman.

Dia bekerja untuk orang-orang dari komunitas Yahudi Spanyol dan Portugis dan diajak oleh Komite Pemerintah untuk mereka membuat laporan mereka.

"Zionisme adalah gerakan sosial yang sangat penting pada abad ke-20 sebagai kumpulan orang-orang orang yang diasingkan, tetapi selanjutnya adalah untuk mencapai keturunan orang-orang dengan kekerasan," tambah Perry.

Mayoritas orang-orang ini adalah keturunan orang dari Semenanjung Iberia (Spanyol dan Portugal) yang dikenal sebagai "anousim (paksa)" yang diperlukan selama Inkuisisi Spanyol.

"Hampir semua orang Yahudi saat ini memiliki leluhur yang berubah secara paksa," kata Perry.

"Sebagian besar orang Yahudi tinggal di Spanyol dan Portugal selama masa Inkuisisi, tetapi bahkan bagi mereka yang tidak, hampir setiap negara di dunia pada satu waktu mengubah orang Yahudi dengan paksa."

"Orang-orang ini awalnya dihitung dalam ratusan ribu," lanjutnya.

"Leluhurmu sekarang dihitung di antara babak juta jika tidak lebih."

Perry mengatakan ada lebih dari 100 juta keturunan komunitas Yahudi Spanyol dan Portugis.

Dari jumlah ini, 14 juta entah bagaimana dengan Yudaisme dalam beberapa cara.

Dari survei dan penelitian yang dilakukan organisasinya, Perry percaya bahwa mungkin ada lebih dari satu juta orang yang tertarik untuk membuat aliyah (imigrasi ke Israel, secara online 'bangun'.)

Jika ini benar, ini cocok dengan ramalan. ditulis dalam Kitab Obaja.

Dan bahwa pasukan Israel yang diasingkan [akan memiliki] apa yang menjadi milik Fenisia ke Sarepta, sementara komunitas Yerusalem di pengasingan Sepharad (Spanyol) akan memiliki kota-kota di Negev. Obadiah 1:19

Nubuat ini diulang oleh Rabbi Yehuda ben Isaac Abarbanel, sebuah Alkitab Portugis dan komentator keuangan yang secara pribadi membahas Inkuisisi Spanyol kompilasi dilakukan dari Spanyol pada tahun 1492.

Dalam bukunya Maayanei Ha'Yeshua (sumber penebusan), sebuah komentar pada Kitab Daniel, Rabi Abrabarbanel menyatakan bahwa Inkuisisi adalah awal dari hevlei telah Mashiach (menyenangkan sakit bersalin Mesias).

Dia menulis bahwa kompilasi orang-orang Yahudi ini kembali ke Israel, itu akan menjadi tanda bahwa kedatangan Mesias Ben David akan segera terjadi .. Amin