Azkenazim Jews

The Lie that Jews in Israel today are not real Jews

Out of all the false teachings doing the rounds today, probably the most farfetched is the notion that all Eastern European Jews, known as “Ashkenazim ,” (German Jews) who currently reside in Israel are not really Jews, but imposters descended from the Khazars, a semi-nomadic Turkic people. The belief is founded on the premise that following the conversion to Judaism of Khazarian royalty and aristocracy between the 8th and 9th century, a significant portion of the general populace followed suite leading to the emergence of a Jewish majority aided by flourishing Jewish communities that supposedly already held a majority in the population as early as 670. 
Racial studies conducted in late 19th century Europe frequently cited the above theory to assert that modern day Jews are not true descendants of Israel and thus their ancestral claims to the State of Israel were unfounded. As a side note, it’s worth mentioning that a convert who has truly joined himself to Israel becomes Israel regardless of his former racial heritage and therefore this whole argument (based on this Scriptural premise alone) is a completely muted point and just serves as a point of extreme ignorance on the part of a Messianic who agrees with such a wild and illogical claim. But the concept itself has no substance as the reader will see.

It was Ernest Renan, a racial theorist, who in 1883, first disputed the idea that the Jews constituted a unified racial entity in a biological sense, stating that the Jew were “limited by dogmatism and lacked a cosmopolitan conception of civilisation,” concluding that the Jews were “an incomplete race.” This type of attack on the Jew made his theory unpalatable for racialised anti-Semitists, but was absorbed by the anti-Zionist regime. American historian and anti-immigration advocate, Lothrop Stoddard perpetuated Renan’s theory in an article called the Pedigree of Judah in which he stated that Ashkenazi Jews were a mixed race, of which the Khazars were a dominating element. He and Renan based these assertions on variations on facial features and presumed accompanying character traits caused by the corrupting effects of intermarriage and other vagaries. The Anglo-Israelite movement, a group that believes all native born British folk are direct descendants of Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, leapt on these claims in the hopes of invalidating Jewish claims to the Holy Land.

Southern Methodist University professor, John O. Beaty came forward in 1951 with a book called The Iron Curtain over America in which he insisted that “Khazar Jews were attempting to subvert Western Christianity and establish communism throughout the world.” With the support of wealthy American millionaire J. Russell Maguire, the Khazar theory had become an entrenched belief amongst right wing Christian groups across America by the 1960s.
Another angle was covered by John Bagot Glubb, a British soldier, scholar, author and one-time commander of the Transjordan Arab Legion, who “claimed that Palestinians were more closely related to the ancient Judeans than were Jews.”

The foundation of the Khazars imposter belief is fairly well documented, and there is really no excuse for falling for this false teaching that’s doing the rounds in some Messianic communities. Even if it was true, which it isn’t, Sephardic Jews, Jews who occupied Spain and Islamic countries and Yemenite Jews, Jews from Ethiopia and Chochin, also make up a growing proportion of the population who currently reside in Israel, so they would be exempt from the Khazars imposter belief and ousting Jews based on this premise would not affect all the Jews anyway (if it was done with any fairness, heaven forbid). Added to this, Scripture as I have briefly mentioned, completely accepts the Jewish convert as having the same privileges as a native born Jew, so his clemency to the Land of Israel stands alongside an observant native born Jew with no less privileges. Scripture itself goes one step further by proclaiming that if the Almighty wanted to, He could raise up full-blooded descendants of Abraham from the stones of the ground. “And do not think you can say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ I tell you that out of these stones Elohim can raise up children for Abraham” (Matthew 3:9). So to save face, the subscribers to the Khazars imposter belief say that it’s all a conspiracy; they only posed as Jews, secretly denouncing it with the goal of taking possession of the Holy Land. So we are meant to believe that over the course of hundreds of years the Khazars, a race whose empire stretched from modern-day European Russia to northeastern Turkey, submerged their identity within a Jewish one just to one day claim the Holy Land? Seems like it would be much easier for them to just convert to Judaism with no agenda and become residence of the Holy Land anyway. 

While there were certainly Turkic people who converted to Judaism, it is a far cry to assume that they make up the entire population of Israel and that their conversion was on mass and done as a conspiracy to supplant an original people. This is pure science fiction and shows very clearly that there are no angles of attack on Jews that are too stupid for the enemy to muster. If you hear this theory floated in your general direction I encourage you to put it swiftly to the floor and leave.

Congregations that adhere to or even associate with other groups that adhere to any of these false teachings that I have enumerated here are like a cancer attacking its own body. Error can start slowly and on relatively small matters, but error swiftly escalates. Eventually there is the very real risk of eventually heading down a road of total error. The reason is that some small theological error inevitably multiplies itself with more theological error. This is like accepting a poorly built aspect to an otherwise good foundation, which compromises the rest of the foundation and eventually leads to the whole structure’s collapse. In the same way I have seen error slowly bankrupt a believer until he’s left with nothing. It is as though the Almighty repays an individual with a falsehood by giving him further falsehoods. One such example is disbelief in a certain book’s authenticity. For whatever reason, the Book of Hebrews might get tossed to the side and then before long another book is rejected, then another and another and before long the whole of the Netzarim Ketuvim is called into question. Sure, there are groups that also retain other false teachings that I have not listed, such as the Trinity and not wearing head coverings, but these ones are fairly obvious and usually get sorted out early in a Nazarenes development. “…avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the Torah, because these are unprofitable and useless” (Titus 3:9). “Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels” (2 Timothy 2:23).

PAUL and Apostle

In Defence of Sha’ul (A.K.A. The Apostle Paul)

Introduction

(Slide) The Apostle Paul is the second most misinterpreted and misrepresented individual in Scripture, behind none-other than Rebbe Yahshua Ben Yoseph HaNatzaret. Paul is misunderstood by the majority of people in every religious demographic that purports to follow the Bible, even in Messianic, Nazarene and Hebrew Root circles.

It’s high time that we put some definitive teachings out over the web that address some of the major criticisms and misconceptions of this extra-ordinarily motivated servant of HaShem. 

Sha’ul never changed his Hebrew name to the Greek name Paulos. He never came to establish the Church, a title, which means ‘Circe’ and denotes the religion of the Temple Cult of Circe who worshiped Circe, the daughter of the Sun-G-d Helios on the Venerable Day of the Sun. Their worship halls were set atop hills fitted with high steeples to catch the first rays of the sun and decorated with stained-glass image laden windows that are brought to life by the sun and bathe the worshippers in an array of beautiful colours. The word church evolved from Circe, to Kirke and then to Church and it means to bind something with a round object. This is where we get the term “circle.”

The Greek word ἐκκλησία ekklēsia often translated as “church” means “congregation of called out ones.” Throughout Scripture translators employ ecclesiastical language, that is language that relates exclusively to Christianity, which has been superimposed over normal language. “Kodesh,” which means “Set-Apart” becomes “Holy” and Malach, which means “messenger” becomes “angel,” and Sh’liach, which means “sent-one” becomes “Apostle.” These are words that have been superimposed for the purposes of punctuating a false religious setting.

Rejecting Sha’ul means rejecting nearly all of the testimonies of the Nazarene faith.

Believe it or not, there are many Christians and Messianics who reject the teachings of Sha’ul or who dismiss them as being worthy of being called Scripture. It is important to step back and look at what the rejection of this man and his teachings does in terms of what else it pulls into the vortex.  A rejecter of Sha’ul loses all the books of the Netzarim Ketuvim (The Nazarene Writings otherwise known as the “New Testament”) which are attributed to his authorship, such as Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the Book of Hebrews. Furthermore, the rejection of Sha’ul causes the loss of arguably the most central book of the Netzarim movement’s history, The Book of Acts, written by Rabbi Silus, who is commonly misunderstood to be the Gentile Luke. The Book of Acts is a follow-up letter to the Book of Luke, which was addressed like the Book of Luke to the current High Priest of Israel Ahabayahu, which means “A lover of Yahweh" (commonly given the Greek name Theophilus). So with the rejection of Sha’ul out go the Books of Luke and Acts.

2 Peter not only mentions Sha’ul, but defends his teachings in 2 Peter 3:15-16. And in 1 Peter we find direct references to several of Sha’ul’s letters such as in 1 Peter 2:2-5, which directly underscores the same thoughts found in 1 Corinthians 3. In 1 Peter, Kepha also mentions the name of his scribe: Silvanus (often translated Silas [Luke]). Silvanus is also mentioned in Sha’ul’s letters. So with the rejection of Sha’ul also comes the rejection of 1 & 2 Peter. That’s 18 books of the Netzarim Ketuvim (over half of it) gone!!! There’s only 27 seforim in the Netzarim Ketuvim.

Sha’ul is chronicled to have had the biggest impact on the Netzarim Movement, interacting with all the major players who were still living since the time of Yahshua. So the rejection of Sha’ul causes the student to either reject critical history of the movement’s foundation or to confess that all the heavy weights (Rabbi Ben Navi [Barnabas], Silas [Luke] and of course Ya’akov [James]) were despicably deceived by accepting Sha’ul into the fold and giving him authority to expand the frontiers of the faith. Ya’akov himself is found assigning verbal and written orders to Sha’ul, which he goes out to faithfully to execute.

Even before we begin to examine Sha’ul, we find that rejecting him and his teachings immediately removes a wide array of key books from the so-called New Testament. A rejection of Sha’ul instantly rejects history or the discernment of everyone who is anyone in the crucial formative years of the true faith.

The Difficult Writings of Sha’ul
For many people there are parts of Rabbi Sha’ul’s letters that contain some challenging teachings. When sufficient study is not applied to these grey areas a believer can unconsciously open the door to theological error. Occasionally I encounter some Nazarenes who have declared “no confidence” in Sha’ul’s writings as being “Yah-breathed” and it is in response to these encounters that I’m doing this lecture. My desire as I’m sure is also the desire of my heavenly Father, is that “the body” be equipped with a sharper understanding of this extraordinary Apostle’s teachings.  Rabbi Sha’ul was an extremely intelligent, driven and adaptable Pharisee. He was denied sleep, starved, beaten with rods, stoned, flogged, shipwrecked, imprisoned and threatened by bandits, his own countrymen, Gentiles and even fellow Netzarim. In the face of all this, his mind never loosened from the task at hand. From his first letter to his last, he remained a constant vessel for Elohim. The controversy surrounding some of his more intricate teachings should never be attributed to poor scholarship, but a lack of spiritual maturity in the reader.    

Even in Sha’ul’s day, some parts of his epistles were considered hard to understand, sometimes suffering from misinterpretations and even wilful manipulation. (Slide) 2 Peter 15b-16; “…even as our beloved brother Shaul…has written to you; As also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things; in which some things are hard to understand, which they that are unlearned and unstable twist, as they do also the other Keetvay HaKadosh (whole of the Scriptures), to their own destruction.” These unlearned and unstable people extracted so many different spins on Rabbi Sha’ul’s writings that it gradually gave birth to sectarianism within the faith. (Slide) 1 Corinthians 1:12-13; “For it has been declared to me about you, my Yisraelite brothers, by those who are of beit (house of) Chloe, that there are contentions and disputes among you. Now this I say, because some among you say, I am of Sha’ul; and I am of Apollos; and I am of Kepha (Peter); and I am of Moshiach. Is Moshiach divided? Was Shaul impaled for you? Or, were you immersed in the name of Shaul?”  Now centuries later, the climate described in these verses is still alive and well.

The extent of these theological divides finally dawned on me one Shabbat, when a young Mormon gentleman, who had just attended our service, asked me with Bible in hand, “What do you guys believe?” This question astounded me, because what other response would have been more acceptable than, “We believe the whole contents of the Scriptures”? Unfortunately, this is an all too frequent question asked between people who have accepted the religious teaching of movements who have amplified certain verses and avoided others.   

Most of the so-called Bible believing Christian world has gotten this man’s national identity, religious affiliation, teaching and even his very name completely and utterly wrong. Who was this man that the world unwittingly calls a midget?

Let’s start by examining his name. (Slide) The word Paul is a transliteration of the Latin word Paulos, from the Greek, paucus/pavlos meaning “little” or literally “midget.” The name Paul was applied to him as a slur. It was not attributed to him around the time of his conversion nor was it given to him by the Almighty. It emerged after he had started preaching Yahshua as the Moshiach. Notice the inclusion of the phrase “also was called” in the first place this name appears in Scripture: "Then Sha’ul, who also was called Paul…” (Acts 13:9a). Grammatically we can tell that the initial name used in the sentence means that the majority of people still called him Sha’ul, but others commenced calling him Paulos. Many of his Jewish peers would have been angered by his conversion and the Netzarim were almost certainly weary of him due to his former role as their chief persecutor. “I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering into prison both men and women” (Acts 22:3-4). Many people on both sides of the fence opposed him and the name “Little” or “midget” reflected this disdain. There is no record of Rabbi Sha’ul’s rejection of the name, perhaps preferring to regard himself as small (or humble) before Elohim. His real Hebrew name Sha’ul (Saul) means “desire” or “ask for” as in “ask for Elohim.” There is little doubt that those who respected him would have not only continued to address (him after his conversion) as Sha’ul, but as Rabbi Sha’ul. Good Scripture translations now available continue to refer to him has Sha’ul even after Acts 13 and in other books of the Brit Chadashah (New Testament).

The word Paulos wasn’t even considered a legitimate name for a person. It was a nickname at best and a slur at worst.

Studying His Letters

Of the twenty-one letters that make up the Brit Chadashah, Rabbi Sha'ul is attributed to having written fourteen of them. Thirteen books bear his name and the fourteenth book, Hebrews, is also attributed to him. Seven of the letters are accepted among Hebrew Scholars as if having been initially penned by Sha'ul's own hand. The others are thought to have been written by his closest talmidim (disciples) who, as was the custom among all Torah students, recorded many aspects of their teacher's life. Interestingly Sha'ul predominantly wrote to people who were already believers and who had a certain grasp of the Torah already.

Rabbi Sha’ul letters were compiled around the time of his second missionary journey. This is certainly true if we accept that he had to make contact with individual believers and communities before he wrote about them. His first letter was 1 Thessalonians, which is estimated to have been penned around 49 to 51CE and his oldest letter is 2 Timothy, written around 67CE. 1&2 Timothy are believed to be his final letters for a number of reasons. They contain reference to his extensive travels, key events that occurred after the book of Acts and also tell of his own impending martyrdom. The wide array of books thought to be written by Sha’ul are: 1 & 2 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Romans, Hebrews, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians, Titus and 1 & 2 Timothy.

Over the centuries countless volumes of material about Rabbi Sha’ul have amassed. Commentaries on his letters, biographical writings and articles that give deeper insights into his teachings and character have come from a myriad of Biblical, apocryphal and historical sources. With the amount of information that’s available one would think it impossible to be ignorant of what this man actually taught. But nothing can be further from the truth.

The Grace View 

There are two dominant views of Rabbi Sha’ul’s ministry. The first view is that he taught salvation comes by grace only (Ephesians 2:8-9) a supposedly knew interpretation of Judaism, in which human effort has little to no emphasis. This belief promotes diligent observance of Yahweh’s commandments as an attempt to acquire salvation by human effort. Furthermore, it encourages believers to have a lukewarm attitude toward obedience because all sin is supposedly covered by grace anyway. “The Paul taught grace” philosophy is also an anti-Torah teaching that is principally used to support replacement theology, which is a view that presents the “church” as a new and improved “spiritual” Israel. Advocates of this view consider commandment observance as legalism at best and Judaizing at worst, an act, considered by the church, as severing one’s connection to Messiah. This grace fixated obedient deficient teaching has been vigorously enforced by the Catholic Church either by way of the mailed fist (physical force) or the velvet glove (subtle manipulation). Early church father Marcion, later excommunicated by the Catholic Church, was the first to wrestled Rabbi Sha’ul’s letters completely away from truth by teaching that the Old Testament was superseded by the teachings of Jesus Christ and his only true Apostle - Paul. Marcion saw Christianity as being completely opposite to Judaism. He rejected the entire Old Testament and declared its G-d as a lesser entity than the Messiah of the New Testament. To sum up this is a completely untruthful and unacceptable view that is fundamentally anti-Semitic and presents a schizophrenic Creator.

The Heretical View

The second view is that Sha’ul was just a plain old heretic. In Judaism this is called “one who leads the nation astray.” The heretical view is usually held by Orthodox Judaism, although a Jew can hardly be blamed. Sha’ul is constantly represented by Christianity as a Torah-hating-grace-junkie who turned his back on the Jews and went to the Gentiles. Christianity to a greater or lesser extent teaches that Sha’ul actually became a Gentile after his conversion and subsequently went out to preach to Gentiles exclusively. He is described as having taught that flesh circumcision was done away with and that Torah observance was no longer a required mark of someone who possessed an upright relationship with the Creator.  This is despite Sha’ul’s declaration; (Slide) "What advantage then has the Yahudi (Jew)? Or, what profit is there in brit-milah (circumcision)? Much in every way!” (Romans 3:1) and his general view toward circumcision in; Romans 4:11; “And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of righteousness of the faith…” Sha’ul only addresses an objection against adult male circumcision and even then it was only objected to if an individual’s heart was not already circumcised (i.e. if that individual saw the act of circumcision as being solely contingent to his salvation.) Sha’ul didn’t want masses of converts attempting to mutilate themselves particularly the one’s who could not easily receive circumcision. Circumcision was never meant as an instant accompaniment to conversion. If it ever occurred, it was determined in the Creator’s time, not the individual’s. After all Circumcision of the heart was a Torah teaching not a so-called New Testament teaching (Deuteronomy 10:16).

The True View

The less well know view of Sha’ul is that he taught perfectly in line with the Torah and Messiah Yahshua’s words. Sure, most Christians will say that this is their view too, but upon questioning at length, you’ll eventually get the guts of the first view coated in the skin of this one. I remember debating with a Christian whilst I was still in church about the law. We were in the book of Romans when he read this verse out aloud: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law but under grace” (Romans 6:14). There he ceased his reading and awaited my response. I looked down and noticed the Bible he and I had, had a break between verses 14 and 15. Between this break was the heading, “From Slaves of Sin to Slaves of God.” This was unusual for two reasons. Firstly, the text broke in a section that wasn’t the commencement of a new chapter as is painfully common in many modern Bible translations. Second, the next verse Romans 6:15 read: What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! The layout appeared to give the impression that verse 14 was the conclusion of the topic, yet the teaching continues straight on through to 15 and beyond. I then proceeded to read verse 15 to my Christian friend’s total dismay.

Sha’ul’s Background

(Slide) Rabbi Sha'ul was born in Tarsus, a capital city of Asia Minor (Acts 22:3). He was "an Israelite of the tribe of Benjamin, circumcised on the eighth day" (Philippians 3:5). There is reference to him having a sister with her own son in Acts 23:16 as well as other relatives in Romans 16:7,11 & 12.

Sha'ul was a citizen of Rome (Acts 22:25 & Acts 27-28). Because Asia Minor was a province of Cilicia, a city declared free by Rome, all native born there were entitled to citizenship.

Education

Rabbi Sha'ul’s credentials were impeccable. He studied under the great Rabbi, Gamaliel. Acts 22:3; “I am verily a man which am a Yahudi (Jew), born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the Torah of the fathers, and was zealous toward Elohim, as you all are this day.”

(Slide) Rabbi Gamaliel was a very highly respected teacher of the Torah among the Jews. Acts 5:34; “Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the Torah, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space...”

He was a Pharisee, even after his conversion. Acts 23:6a; “Then Sha’ul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee…”

Who Were the Pharisees?
Pharisee means “separated” and was the title of a role that represented a major school of thought that was alive and well in Sha’ul’s day. Many of Messiah’s Yahshua’s teachings were in line with Pharisaic thought. Yahshua’s criticisms of certain Pharisees were principally levelled at hypocritical lifestyles, puffiness, and focus on man-made traditions over Torah observance.

Pharisaism emerged during the Babylonian captivity. The first clearly visible party appeared on the scene during the Maccabee Revolt against the Greeks.

Profession

Rabbi Sha'ul’s first appearance in Scripture is as a delighted overseer to the martyrdom of Stephanos (Stephen) (Acts 7:57).  Acts 8:1; “Sha’ul was there, giving approval to his death.” Stephanos whose Greek name means “crown,” was not the first martyr for the faith. The first martyr was Abel, the son of Adam. To say that Stephanos was the first “Christian” martyr assumes that every generation of martyred believers before Yahshua (even heathen converts) did not believe in a coming Messiah. 

Rabbi Sha’ul was a sworn enemy to all followers of the living Torah (Yahshua) and played a lead role in persecuting them. He was also a devout Yahudi (Jew) (Acts 23:6) because the tribe of Judah had long since absorbed all Benjamites into its fold. Rabbi Sha’ul was responsible for bringing believers in Yahshua to court, where many of them were subsequently condemned as heretics and stoned. (Slide) Acts 9:1-2; "Meanwhile, Sha'ul, still breathing murderous threats against the YHWH's talmidim (disciples) went to the Cohen Hagadol (High Priest) and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Dammesek, authorizing him to arrest any people he might find, whether men or women, who belonged to the way, and bring them back to Yerushalayim.

Acts 8:3 gives a good account of the vigorous manner in which he performed his duties. “But Sha'ul shamefully treated and laid waste the congregation continuously [with cruelty and violence]; entering house after house, he dragged out men and women and committed them to prison.”

Make no mistake; prior to his conversion, Rabbi Sha’ul was, to a believer in Yahshua, public enemy number one. But what happened?

________End of Part 1________

Struck Down and Made Blind

1 Corinthians 3:18b; “If any one among you considers himself wise in this age, let him first become a fool so he then may be truly wise.”

On his way to Damascus Sha’ul underwent an extraordinarily terrifying experience. Like something out of an X-Files episode, he was enveloped by a bright aerial anomaly that struck him to the ground. In UFO circles his experience would have been registered as a close encounter of the third kind, sub-type F. This means Sha’ul witnessed a close range aerial phenomenon that delivered a completely comprehendible "intelligent communication.” Acts 9:3-6; "He was on the road and nearing Dammesek, when suddenly a light from heaven flashed all around him. Falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him "Sha'ul! Sha'ul! Why do you keep persecuting me?" "Sir, who are you?" he asked. "I am Yahshua, and you are persecuting me?" But get up, and go into the city, and you will be told what you have to do."" There are three separate accounts of his conversion within the Scriptures.  They are:

• His description in Acts 9:1-20
• His account before the crowd in Yerushalaym (Acts 22:1-22)
• The testimony before King Agrippa II (Acts 26:1-24).

After Sha’ul’s encounter he was physically blinded. He remained in such a state for precisely three days, harking back to the duration of Jonah’s confinement in the belly of a great fish and the duration of Messiah Yahshua’s post crucifixion ministry in Sheol.

The Scriptural narrative of Sha’ul’s conversion unfolds like this: “… ‘Sha’ul, Sha’ul, why do you persecute me?’ And he said, ‘Who are you Adonai? And Adonai said, I am Yahshua HaMoshiach (YAH is my salvation) whom you persecute: it is hard for you to kick against the thorns.’ Trembling and astonished he said, ‘Adonai, what will you have me do?’ And YHWH said unto him, ‘Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.’”(Acts 9:4)

Torah Observant Both Before and After
One common mistake about Sha’ul is that he traded a life of Torah for a singular intellectual belief in the risen Messiah. At the time of Sha’ul’s ministry Yaakov HaTzaddik (James the righteous [Yahshua’s brother]), instructs him to assist with four men in the purification ritual of the Nazerite vow. He agrees to do this to show his fellow Jews of his devotion to Torah (Acts 21:20-24).  

James was recognised as the leader of the Nazarenes who were both Torah observant and accepted Yahshua as Messiah. Early Church Father Jerome attests to their devotion to Torah in his own writings. “(they are) those who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the Old Law" (Jerome; On. Is. 8:14).

Sha’ul’s only major transformation was that he came to accept Yahshua as the living inseparable manifestation of the living Torah. This caused his ministry to swing completely in favour of his former enemies. Prior to this he worked with inquisitional precision to see that the Torah was upheld whilst remaining ignorant of its identity in Yahshua. His insatiable energy for persecuting supposed heretics was redirected into appealing vigorously to his peers and converts. In each role, though one was completely off the mark, Torah served as the blue print for his actions.

After his experience Sha’ul was led completely helpless into Damascus by those who were with him and was visited by a believer in Yahshua called Ananias. Note carefully Rabbi Sha’ul’s description of Ananias in Acts 22:12; “…Ananias, a pious man according to the Torah…” Ananias heals Sha’ul’s blindness and began ministering to him. Acts 22:14-16; “Then he said, 'The Elohim of our fathers has appointed you to know His will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of His voice. For you will be a witness for Him to all people of what you have seen and heard. And now, why delay? Get up and be immersed, and wash away your sins by calling on His Name.”

The New Ministry of a Notsri Pharisee

Rabbi Sha’ul later departs to Arabia and commences preaching in support of the way that he formerly persecuted in local synagogues (Galatians 1:17). This causes trouble, which leads to him vacating the city by means of a basket lowered over a wall (Acts 9:23).

Rabbi Sha’ul supported himself during his travels by his own means (1 Corinthians 9:13-15). His principle form of income was derived from making Tallits (little tents) out of goat’s hair [aka prayer shawls (Acts 18:3)].

Three years from the time of his conversion, Rabbi Sha’ul goes to Jerusalem and meets Yaakov (James) and Kepha (Peter) (Galatians 1:13-24). He requests to join them, but is only accepted when another talmidim called Barnabas intercedes on his behalf. Because of Sha’ul’s reputation they were all understandably afraid of him (Acts 9:26-27). 

Trouble seemed to follow him as he is sent back to Tarsus after having disputes with various goyom (gentiles). Fourteen years after his conversion, Sha’ul returns to Jerusalem, where Barnabas eventually finds him and has him brought to Antioch (Act 11:26). Antioch had become a refuge for believers after the death of Stephenos. One could only imagine the level of apprehension among believers there when they heard that Sha’ul was coming.  It was here and at this time that followers were first called “cretins” (Christians).

Upon hearing of a famine in Judaea, Rabbi Sha’ul, Barnabas and another convert called Titus go there to render financial assistance from funds raised at Antioch.

Sha’ul testifies to have met a post resurrected Yahshua, after Kepha (Cephus), the twelve (talmidim) and five hundred. 1 Corinthians 15:8; “And last of all He was seen by me also, ignorant and imperfectly trained as I was.” Of the Yahshua’s original twelve talmidim he only met and took council with Ya'akov (James, Yahshua's brother) and Kepha (Peter).

Rabbi Sha'ul died in Rome during the time of Emperor Nero's persecution. He remains the most debated and disagreed upon individual in the Scriptures both among not only Jews and Christians, but among many rival Christian denominations as well. Some Christian sects even venerate Sha’ul’s teachings above the Torah and say they follow him as if his teachings differ in some way. 1 Corinthian 3:4-7; “Whenever someone says, "I belong to Sha’ul," and another, "I belong to Apollos," are you not merely human? What is Apollos, after all, and what is Sha’ul? Ministers through whom you became believers, just as the YHWH assigned each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but Elohim caused the growth. Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only Elohim, who causes the growth.”

Rabbi Sha’ul was a man of conviction who honoured the various degrees of knowledge that the Almighty imparted to him. There has been much written about him. Some writers have said he was a tortured man who committed a transgression in his youth and disciplined his evil inclination. Others say he was of very short physical stature. Whatever the case, the Scriptures attest that he was a content man regardless of circumstance. Philippians 4:10-13; I rejoice greatly in YHWH that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength.”

Who was Sha’ul? YHWH said, "… he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My Name before nations, sovereigns, and the children of Yisrael." (Acts 9:15)

Halloween is a Demonic Idolatory

HALLOWEEN IS PURELY DEMONIC & IDOLATRY, ITS AN ABOMINATION UNTO GOD

Celebration of the dead is demonic, JESUS CHRIST said why do you look for the Living among the dead? Its an abomination for the children of the Living God to celebrate the dead or worship them, HALLOWEEN IS EVIL

The Day of the Dead is a holiday celebrated in Mexico and by Latin Americans living in the United States and Canada. The holiday occurs in connection with the Catholic holidays that fall on November 1 and 2, All Saints’ Day and All Souls’ Day.

On the Day of the Dead, more accurately called the "cult of the dead,” friends and family members of those who have died gather together to pray for them and bring to their graves the deceased’s favorite foods, often including the traditional “sugar skulls” and the “bread of death.”

Private altars honoring the deceased are created, and homage is given to them. Origins of the holiday have been traced back thousands of years to an Aztec festival dedicated to a goddess called Mictecacihuatl.

Although many of those who celebrate the Day of the Dead call themselves Christians, there is nothing Christian about such practices. The celebration of the Day of the Dead by pagans is one thing, but for Christians to participate in or condone it is unbiblical, to say the least.

This answer in a spirit of gentleness and respect, praying that it may warn others and equip Christians, so that they may be able to reply to those without hope and without Christ in the world (Ephesians 2:12), when they ask us to give a reason for the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15).

The force that drives people to participate in this unholy event is the false idea that by means of its rituals, they can commune with their dear departed relatives, who are thought to participate in these ceremonies.

This is simply not true. Biblically, there is only one more “day” that the unrepentant dead may be certain of anticipating: the day when they will stand before God for final judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). When a soul passes into eternity, it either comes into the blessed presence of the Lord or goes on to await final judgment before being cast into eternal hell.

The Bible says that "it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). This simply and clearly means that, when a person dies, the body disintegrates to dust, but the soul remains conscious in the state it will inhabit for eternity, either damnation in hell or eternal glory with God.

In the Gospel of Luke, Jesus taught that God has established an unbridgeable chasm between those who are in heaven and those who are in torment (Luke 16:26). The Greek word translated “fixed” means “to establish or make firm.” Each soul who dies without Christ has lost all hope.

The unrepentant dead face an eternity of unspeakable suffering, eternal destruction away from the presence of God and the glory of His power. Jesus Himself said, "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25:46). Before they die, the unrepentant enjoy the common grace which God bestows on all people, the evil and the good. They experience the smells, tastes, and sounds of life; they may fall in love and experience other joys which are part of living.

But the moment they die without Christ, they are cut off from such common blessings forever. As the passage quoted above teaches, after death comes judgment. Besides the decomposition of the body that follows death (the physical body returns to its constitutive physical elements – “for you are dust, and to dust you shall return” [Genesis 3:19]), any further worldly enterprises end, and there can be no further engagement in the things of life (Ecclesiastes 9:10).

The dead have no wisdom to offer those who would consult them on the Day of the Dead, nor are they capable of hearing or responding to prayers offered to them.

On the Day of the Dead, each celebrant who invokes the souls of the departed engages in an abominable and utterly pointless sin (Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Only One is worthy and powerful enough to call the dead; He will call these to the resurrection of damnation (John 5: 28-29).

Those who have died in Christ are not really dead, since they go immediately into the presence of the Lord; the Bible says they “sleep.” Death is certainly grievous to those who have no hope, being without Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:13); however, we who know the Lord are encouraged by the knowledge that just as Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep.

For the Lord Jesus Himself “will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thessalonians 4:16-18). This is the real truth!

God’s Word warns us not to go to spirits and soothsayers in Isaiah 8:19: “Should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” Deuteronomy 18:10-11 tells us that those who consult the dead are “detestable” to the Lord.

The fact that United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has declared the Feast Day of the Dead Indian to be a “masterpiece of oral and intangible heritage of humanity” does not alter the fact that, according to biblical standards, Christians must have nothing to do with such myths (1 Timothy 4:7; cf. 1:4).

According to UNESCO, the various manifestations of the Day of the Dead are “important representations of the living heritage of America and the world”; however, with all due respect, we must declare the biblical reasons why this traditional commemoration is spiritually harmful and offensive. When any tradition or custom is contrary to God’s will as expressed in His Word, there can be no justification for honoring and preserving it. In fact, those who do are foolishly provoking God’s wrath (2 Chronicles 33:6).

As we have already seen, the Bible warns us not to consult with (or make inquiries of) the dead, as is often done on the Day of the Dead. Simply put, God’s people are to separate themselves from such sinful practices as are done on the Day of the Dead and so avoid the wrath to come on those who do them (Revelation 18:4).

The primary mission of the church is to reach out to every ethnic group and culture and make disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to observe all that Christ commanded (Matthew 28:19-20), until each member of Christ’s body is conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus (Galatians 4:19).

And while we would do well to follow the apostle’s example by becoming all things to all people, so that by all means we might save some, this does not mean we change the message (the gospel). Rather, we humble ourselves and trust that God will use His undiluted Word to bring the blessing of salvation to those outside the faith (1 Corinthians 9:22-23).

We do not indulge in creative alteration of the gospel to remove its confrontational aspects, but present it in its purity, although we know this will invariably offend some who may accuse the truthful evangelist of being intolerant. This is not surprising, for the gospel has always been a stumbling block to many.

The Day of the Dead stands in contrast to the gospel of the truth found in Scripture. As such, it should be avoided as it is yet another manifestation of the lies of Satan who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8).

Pastor Rubin Wilson

HALLOWEEN IS ABOMINATION UNTO GOD

Yeshua died on Thurusday, not Friday

FacebookTwitterInstagram

Jesus Died on a Thursday not a Friday

BIBLICAL EXPOSITIONS  MARCH 20, 2016

Later Christian tradition put Jesus’ last meal with his disciples on Thursday evening and his crucifixion on Friday. We now know that is one day off. Jesus’ last meal was Wednesday night, and he was crucified on Thursday, the 14^th of the Hebrew month Nisan. The Passover meal itself was eaten Thursday night, at sundown, as the 15^th of Nisan began. Jesus never ate that Passover meal. He had died at 3pm on Thursday afternoon.

Crucifixion Scene by Balage Balogh

The reason it matters is that getting the chronology straight that weekend enables us to understand the early tradition that Jesus was in the tomb “three days and three nights,” as well as the chronology of the “Last Supper” and the Passover and how the Sabbaths and festival days correlate together that year. This alternative chronology makes all our pieces fit from our various sources, including the Synoptic Gospels, John, and the Gospel of Peter.

The confusion arose because all the gospels say that there was a rush to get his body off the cross and buried before sundown because the “Sabbath” was near. Everyone assumed the reference to “the Sabbath” had to be Saturday—so the crucifixion must have been on a Friday. However, as Jews know, the day of Passover itself is also a “Sabbath” or rest day—no matter what weekday it falls on. In the year 30 AD Friday, the 15^th of the Jewish month Nisan was also a Sabbath—so two Sabbaths occurred back to back—Friday and Saturday. Matthew seems to know this as he says that the women who visited Jesus’ tomb came early Sunday morning “after the Sabbaths” (Matthew 28:1).¹

As is often the case, the gospel of John preserves a more accurate chronology of what went on. John specifies that the Wednesday night “last supper” was “before the festival of Passover.” He also notes that when Jesus’ accusers delivered him to be crucified on Thursday morning they would not enter Pilate’s courtyard because they would be defiled and would not be able to eat the Passover that evening (John 18:28). John knows that the Jews would be eating their tradition Seder meal Thursday evening.

Reading Mark, Matthew, and Luke one can get the impression that the “last supper” was the Passover meal. Some have even argued that Jesus might have eaten the Passover meal a day early—knowing ahead of time that he would be dead. But the fact is, Jesus ate no Passover meal in 30 AD. When the Passover meal began at sundown on Thursday Jesus was dead. He had been hastily put in a tomb until after the festival when proper and full Jewish burial rites could be carried out.

There are some hints outside of John’s gospel that such was the case. In Luke for example, Jesus tells his followers at that last meal: “I earnestly wanted to eat this Passover with you before I suffer but I won’t eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God” (Luke 22:14). A later copyist of the manuscript inserted the word “again” to make it say “I won’t eat it again,” since the tradition had developed that Jesus did observe Passover that night and changed its observance to the Christian Eucharist or Mass. Another indication that this is not a Passover meal is that all of our records report that Jesus shared “a loaf of bread” with his disciples, using the Greek word (artos) that refers to an ordinary loaf—not to the unleavened flat bread or matzos that Jews eat with their Passover meals. Also, when Paul refers to the “last supper” significantly he does not say “on the night of Passover,” but rather “on the night Jesus was betrayed,” and he also mentions the “loaf of bread” (1 Corinthians 11:23). If this meal had been the Passover Paul would have surely wanted to say that but he does not.  We also have a similar tradition in the Talmud which tells us, “They hung Yeshua the Nazarene on Erev Pesach”–which means on the “eve of Passover” (b. Sanhedrin 67a and 43a)

As late as Wednesday morning Jesus had still intended to eat the Passover on Thursday night. When he sent his two disciples into the city he instructed them to begin to make the preparations. His enemies had determined not to try to arrest him during the feast “lest there be a riot of the people” (Mark 14:2). That meant he was likely “safe” for the next week, since the “feast” included the seven days of Unleavened Bread that followed the Passover meal. Passover is the most family oriented festival in Jewish tradition. As head of his household Jesus would have gathered with his mother, his sisters, the women that had come with him from Galilee, perhaps some of his close supporters in Jerusalem, and his Council of Twelve. It is inconceivable that a Jewish head of a household would eat the Passover segregated from his family with twelve male disciples. This was no Passover meal. Something had gone terribly wrong so that all his Passover plans were changed.

Jesus had planned a meal Wednesday evening alone with his Council of Twelve in the upper room of the guest house on Mt Zion. The events of the past few days had brought things to a crisis and he knew the confrontation with the authorities was unavoidable. In the coming days he expected to be arrested, delivered to the Romans, and possibly crucified. He had intentionally chosen the time and the place—Passover in Jerusalem—to confront the powers that be. There was much of a private nature to discuss with those upon whom he most depended in the critical days ahead. He firmly believed that if he and his followers offered themselves up, placing their fate in God’s hands, that the Kingdom of God would manifest itself. He had intentionally fulfilled two of Zechariah’s prophecies—riding into the city as King on the foal, and symbolically removing the “traders” from the “house of God.”

At some point that day Jesus had learned that Judas Iscariot, one of his trusted Council of Twelve, had struck a deal with his enemies to have him arrested whenever there was an opportunity to get him alone, away from the crowds. How Jesus knew of the plot we are not told but during the meal he said openly “One of you who is eating with me will betray me” (Mark 14:18). His life seemed to be unfolding according to some scriptural plan. Had not David written in the Psalms, “Even my bosom friend, in whom I trusted, who ate of my bread, has lifted the heel against me” (Psalm 41:9). History has a strange way of repeating itself. Over a hundred years earlier, the Teacher of Righteousness who lead the Dead Sea Scroll community, had quoted that very Psalm when one of his inner “Council” had betrayed him.

When Judas realized the plan for the evening included a retreat for prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane after the meal, he abruptly left the group. This secluded spot, at the foot of the Mount of Olives, just across the Kidron Valley from the Old City, offered just the setting he had promised to deliver. Some have tried to interpret Judas’s motives in a positive light. Perhaps he quite sincerely wanted Jesus to declare himself King and take power, thinking the threat of an arrest might force his hand. We simply don’t know what might have been in his mind. The gospels are content simply to call him “the Betrayer” and his name is seldom mentioned without this description.

When Jesus was arrested his disciples “all forsook him and fled,” though a group of loyal women from Galilee, among them Mary Magdalene and his mother, apparently followed from afar. He was taken first to Annas, who sent him for a mock “trial” at the house of Caiaphas who was his son-in-law and titular High Priest. After being condemned for blasphemy he was taken to Pontius Pilate, the governor of Judea, who sent him to Herod Antipas who was in town for the Passover festival. Herod sent him back to Pilate and in the wee hours of Thursday morning Jesus was flogged and condemned to be crucified for sedition along with two others.

Jesus and the other two victims were put on their crosses by 9am Thursday. I have argued that the place of crucifixion was none other than the western slope of the Mt. of Olives directly before the Eastern or “Golden” Gate, see “Locating Golgotha.” Whether Jesus expected God would rescue him before things went that far is impossible to say. If he had identified himself with the Davidic figure who was to be “pierced” in Zechariah 12 it is entirely possible that he thought he was destined to be nailed to the cross—but then saved from death itself before it was too late.

What Jesus likely expected was a sudden, dramatic, and overwhelming manifestation of the Kingdom of God—perhaps a great earthquake that would destroy the Herodian Temple, with the sun darkened, the moon turning blood red, the dead being raised, and the appearance of legions of heavenly armies in the sky. During the previous week he had told his disciples who had been admiring the beauty of the massive stones of Herod’s Temple complex that the day would come when not one stone would be left on another (Mark 13:2). At his trial one of the charges had been, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands’” (Mark 14:58). As Jesus had told his disciples the night before at their last meal, “Now is the judgment of the world, now the ruler of the world will be driven out” (John 12:31). The Hebrew prophets had written vividly about the “Day of Yahweh,” when people would cast their gold and silver into the streets and hide in the caverns of the rocks from the “terror of Yahweh and the glory of his majesty when he rises to terrify the earth” (Isaiah 1:21). The kings of the earth were to be toppled and Satan himself be shut up in a pit (Isaiah 24:21). For Jesus the prophetic “third day” had arrived and the coming of “the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven” was imminent.

The gospels report that the chief priests and others who had supported them taunted the victims, aiming particular scorn at Jesus: “Let the King of Israel come down from the cross that we may believe!” Standing at a distance was Jesus’ mother, Mary, as well as Mary Magdalene and the other women who had followed him from Galilee on this last journey to Jerusalem. According to the gospel of John the “disciple whom Jesus loved” was also present with Jesus’ mother. Late in the day, when Jesus began to think he might die after all, he officially put his mother in the care of this disciple whom I have identified as his brother James—now to be the “eldest” of the family.

According to Mark Jesus was on the cross from the third to the ninth hour, which is 9am until 3pm (Mark 15:25, 33). Toward the end he began to sensed his life slipping away. He cried out with a loud voice in his native Aramaic tongue: Eloi, Eloi, Lama sabachthani? Those are the opening words of Psalm 22—My God, My God, why have you forsaken me? At that point he bowed his head and breathed his last. Other than the words of the Psalm he quoted we will never know what his last thoughts were. It might well be that as he grew weaker he was reciting that very Psalm. It is the prayer of a dying man, attributed to King David, who in the end is saved from terrible suffering and death. In fact, this is the Psalm that specifically refers to “piercing of the hands and feet” (verse 16). The Psalm ends with the hopeful declaration: “God did not hide his face from me but heard when I cried to him.” Up until the last minutes perhaps Jesus believed that God would intervene, save his life, and openly manifest his Kingdom.

Since the Jewish Passover meal or Seder was to be eaten just after sundown that evening, the high priests had asked the Romans to break the legs of the victims to hasten death. The gospel of John remarks, “They did not want the bodies to remain on the cross during the Sabbath, especially since that Sabbath was a high day” (John 19:31). When they came to Jesus he appeared to be completely lifeless. One of the soldiers thrust a spear into Jesus’ side just to be sure. He did not flinch. The King was dead.

This breakdown of the last week of Jesus’ life is based on astronomical calendar calculations not the modern Jewish calendar programs which is a “calculated” calendar not necessarily in line with astronomy in all cases. Here are screen shots of the New Moons in 30 CE as well as the month of Nisan:

Crucifixion of Jesus in 30 C.E. on Thursday, Nisan 14 (April 4th on the Gregorian Calendar)

A more detailed breakdown of the events of that week by Daniel Bruce is here:

Many who reject a Friday crucifixion opt for a Wednesday for Nisan 14th but this is not the correct date based on the New Moon of the first month of 30 CE as set by the Vernal Equinox, and thus the seasons for the barley harvest. ↩

8 0 

Related Articles

“Cold Case Christianity and the Resurrection of Jesus”–Read these Six Posts and You will Never View Things the Same

CHRISTIAN ORIGINS  SEPTEMBER 14, 2018

The Jesus Dynasty: Seven Main Ideas

APOCALYPTICISM  OCTOBER 21, 2018

Two Widely Held Assumptions About Early Christianity that Should Be Questioned

2ND TEMPLE JUDAISM  OCTOBER 7, 2018

The Messiah Before Jesus

2ND TEMPLE JUDAISM  SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

Morton Smith and A “Secret Gospel of Mark”

CHRISTIAN ORIGINS  SEPTEMBER 26, 2018

The Best Bible on the Market–My Bible Buying Days are Over

BIBLE  SEPTEMBER 19, 2018

“Cold Case Christianity and the Resurrection of Jesus”–Read these Six Posts and You will Never View Things the Same

CHRISTIAN ORIGINS  SEPTEMBER 14, 2018

The Jesus Dynasty: Seven Main Ideas

APOCALYPTICISM  OCTOBER 21, 2018

SSL Security You Can Trust

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email addresses are confidential.

Email Address

Most Popular

Two Widely Held Assumptions About Early Christianity that Should Be QuestionedWas Jesus a Carpenter?The Messiah Before JesusThe Jesus Dynasty: Seven Main IdeasSorting out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and SistersWho Was the Mysterious “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved?”The Top Seven Fateful Verses from the New Testament (1) “Jewish Bloodguilt”Did John the Baptist Eat Bugs, Beans, or Pancakes?The Surprising Ending of the Lost Gospel of Peter“Cold Case Christianity and the Resurrection of Jesus”–Read these Six Posts and You will Never ...

Index of Posts Dropdown Menu

Index of Posts Dropdown Menu  Select Category  2nd Temple Judaism  (60)  Apocalypticism  (44)  Archaeology  (61)  Bible  (17)  Biblical Expositions  (69)  Biblical News Stories  (1)  Book Review  (11)  Christian Origins  (158)  Culture  (5)  Dead Sea Scrolls  (11)  Death and Resurrection  (19)  Event  (23)  Family of Jesus  (41)  Festivals  (7)  Gallery  (1)  Gospel Research  (6)  Greco-Roman Culture  (11)  Hebrew Bible  (15)  Historical Jesus  (63)  History of Jerusalem  (10)  In Memoriam  (11)  James Brother of Jesus  (16)  James Ossuary  (10)  Jesus Discovery  (28)  Jesus Dynasty  (27)  Jesus Family  (14)  Jewish Burial  (2)  Jewish Christianity  (10)  John the Baptist  (16)  Judaism  (36)  Mary Magdalene  (15)  Mary Mother of Jesus  (21)  Messianism  (17)  News  (4)  Pantera  (11)  Paul  (20)  Personal  (4)  Philosophical  (5)  Religious Studies  (4)  Roman World  (7)  Science  (4)  Tabor’s Blog  (3)  Talpiot Jesus Family Tomb  (34)  Theology  (2)  Uncategorized  (14)  Waco  (6)  Worship  (1) 

Search Using Key Words

Search for:

Like Us on Social Media

Sign Up for TaborBlog Newsletter

This private Newsletter is sent periodically to subscribers with special news and updates from Dr. Tabor. Email addresses are confidential.

Sign Up Here

Email*

First Name

Last Name

 Email Marketing You Can Trust

Copyright @ 2017 James Tabor | Design by NoLimitProductions.ca |SmartBlog by ThemeForest

 Top

NAVIGATE

HOMEABOUT THIS BLOGABOUT DR. TABORACADEMICLINKSIN MEMORIAMMEDIAGALLERY

Ebionite and Nazarene

FacebookTwitterInstagram Ebionites & Nazarenes: Tracking the Original Followers of Jesus APOCALYPTICISM DECEMBER 29, 2015 The issue of the relationship of Jesus to the “Essenes,” as well as to the the Dead Sea Scrolls, whether Essene or otherwise, is central to our attempts to view Jesus in his historical contexts. In other words, we are essentially asking, in our historical Quest–“what kind of a Jew was Jesus?” We know that James the brother of Jesus assumed the leadership of the original Jerusalem-based Jewish followers of Jesus. Even Paul acknowledged the status of James and at least gave lip service to his authority. What this “Jesus” movement was called or just how it fit into the broader spectrum of Jewish groups and movements of the late 2nd Temple period is a complex issue. Josephus regularly reports three main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes,  (War 2: 119; Antiquities 13:171; 18:11). In one passage he mentions a “fourth” philosophy that he does not label but associates with Judas the Galilean, and treats as a kind of “subset” of the Pharisees (Antiquities 18:23). Elsewhere he seems to refer to this movement as the “Zealots,” which seems to be a rather loose designation for those who participated in the 1st Revolt against Rome (War 2:651; 7:268). He mentions John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, and Jesus himself (an a passage that has been heavily interpolated), but he never labels the group or movement/s to which they belonged. Like the group behind the sectarian writings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the earliest followers of Jesus, apparently, did not use a dominant self-identifying label but preferred a variety of descriptive terms. Paul’s letters are our earliest sources, dating to the 50s CE, and he never “names” his followers or the movement as a whole, but uses phrases like “the believers” or those “in Christ” (1 Thessalonians 1:7, 2:10; 1 Corinthians 14:22; Romans 16: 3, 7, 9; 1 Thessalonians 4:16). According to the book of Acts, which comes late in the 1st century, the followers of Jesus were called, or perhaps called themselves, “the Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22). The term “Christian” or “Christians” is mentioned twice, but presented as a newly minted designation, probably coming from outsiders, as the movement spread north to Antioch of Syria (Acts 11:26; 26:28). It is surely surprising for many to realize that the term “Christian” only occurs one other time in the entire New Testament, in one of our latest sources (1 Peter 4:16). This is, however, the name that apparently stuck as it shows up in our earliest Roman sources mentioning the movement, namely Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and Galen (see texts here.). It is a Greek name, not a Hebrew or Aramaic one, but unfortunately the English term veils what was likely the more original connotation of the term, which would translate roughly as something like “Messianist.” There is, however, a reference in the book of Acts to a Hebrew name for the Jesus movement that might have well been its earliest formal appellation. Paul, on trial before the Roman governer Felix, is referred to as being “the ring leader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). Whether this term was used by “outsiders” to label the group, or within the movement itself, is difficult to know. Associated with the term “Nazarenes” is a second Hebrew designation, namely Ebionites, that was also apparently used for the earliest mostly-Jewish followers of Jesus. This Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by “James the Just” (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. Non-Jews were certainly part of the mix but the dominant ethos of the group was an adherence to what Paul calls ioudaizein–to live according to Jewish law (Galatians 2:14). They were zealous for the Torah and continued to observe the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher. The non-Jews in their midst were apparently expected to follow some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15: 28-29). The term Ebionite (from Hebrew ‘Evyonim) means “Poor Ones” and was perhaps related to the teachings of Jesus: “Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God” based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. I am convinced that Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer (drawn from Isaiah 11:1) and means “a Branch”—so the Nazarenes were the “Branchites” or followers of the one they believed to be the Branch–that is the Davidic Messiah. It is often confused with a completely different word,  Nazirite or Nazir, that refers to individuals, male or female, not a group, who took on a special vow based on Numbers 6. The two terms can sound alike in English are spelled differently in Hebrew. If I were guessing I would think the designation Nazarene was likely used by outsiders for the group, whereas the term Ebionite was more likely used within the group as a self-description. It seems significant that the Dead Sea community also used this term Ebionite or “Poor Ones” to refer to their own movement (CD 19:9; 1QSb 5:21). This movement, that Josephus and others label as Essene (possibly from ‘Ossim, meaning “Doers of Torah”), who wrote or collected the Dead Sea Scrolls, pioneered certain aspects of this “Way” over 150 years before the birth of Jesus. They were a wilderness (out in the Arava, near the Dead Sea–based on Isaiah 40:3), baptizing (mikveh of repentance as entrance requirement into their fellowship), new covenant, messianic/apocalyptic group. They believed they were the final generation and would live to see the end and the coming of the Messiahs of Aaron and of Israel (the two anointed ones–priest and king). They saw themselves as the remnant core of God’s faithful people—preparing the Way for the return of YHVH’s Glory (Kavod) as set forth in Isaiah 40-66. They too referred to themselves as the Way, the Poor, the Saints, the New Covenanters, Children of Light, and so forth. Perhaps their most common designation was the Yachad–the brotherhood or community, and they referred to themselves as brother and sister. They were bitterly opposed to the corrupt Priests in Jerusalem, to the Herods, and even to the Pharisees whom they saw as compromising with that establishment to get power and influence from the Hellenistic/Roman powers. They had their own developed Halacha (interpretation of Torah), some aspects of which Jesus picks up (ideal of no divorce, not using oaths, etc.). They followed one they called the True Teacher (Teacher of Righteousness) whom most scholars believe lived in the 1st century BCE and was opposed and possibly killed by the Hasmonean King/Priests at the instigation of the Pharisees. John the Baptizer seems to arise out of this context and rekindle the apocalyptic fervor of the movement in the early decades of the first century CE. Jesus joined this movement and it remains our best insight into the conceptual world of an apocalyptic, messianic, movement of this period, akin to the Jesus movement. The variety of self-designations used by the John/Jesus/James movement, many of which had previously been used by the Essenes, is telling. Indeed, one might call the Jesus movement a further developed messianic “Essenism,” modified through the powerful, prophetic influence of Jesus as Teacher and the leadership of James his brother for nearly 40 years. Later, when Christianity developed in the 3rd and 4th centuries and gradually lost its Jewish roots and heritage, largely severing its homeland connections, the Gentile, Roman Catholic Church historians began to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes as two separate groups—and indeed, by the late 2nd century there might have been a split between these mostly Jewish followers of Jesus. The distinction these writers make (and remember, they universally despise these people and call them “Judaizers”), is that the Ebionites reject Paul and the doctrine of the Virgin Birth or “divinity” of Jesus, use only the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and are thus more extreme in their Judaism. They describe the Nazarenes more positively as those who accept Paul (with caution) and believe in some aspect of the divinity of Jesus, even possibly the virgin birth, but viewed him as “adopted” as Son of God at his baptism. What we have to keep in mind in reading these accounts from the Church fathers is that they are strongly prejudiced against any form of what they call “Judaizing” among Christians and they share the view that “Christianity” has replaced Judaism entirely overthrowing the Torah for both Gentile and Jew. I think it best today to use the collective term Ebionite/Nazarene in an attempt to capture the whole of this earliest movement, and it would be useful to revive the term Yachad as a collective designation for the community of the Hasidim/Saints.  Ebionite/Nazarene is a good historical designation to refer to those original, 1st century, mostly Jewish, followers of Jesus, gathered around James the brother of Jesus in Jerusalem, who were zealous for the Torah, but saw themselves as part of the New Covenant Way inaugurated by their “True Teacher” Jesus. James is a key and neglected figure in this whole picture (see essays on James). As the blood brother of Jesus, authority and rights of leadership were passed on to him. When he was brutally murdered in 62 CE by the High Priest Ananus (see Josephus, Antiquities 20.197ff), Simeon, a second brother [“cousin” according to Hegesippus] of Jesus took over the leadership of the Jerusalem based movement. Clearly we have the idea here of a blood-line dynasty, and according to the Gospel of Thomas, discovered in 1946 in upper Egypt, this dynastic succession was ordained by Jesus himself who tells his followers who ask him who will lead them when he leaves: “No matter where you are, you are to go to James the Just, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being” (Gospel of Thomas 12, and additional primary texts here). Indeed, when Simeon was crucified by the Emperor Trajan around 106 C.E., one Judas, perhaps an aged third brother of Jesus, or at least a close relative of the bloodline, took over the leadership of the community. As far as “beliefs” of the Ebionites, the documents of the New Testament, critically evaluated, are our best sources, including some of the fragmentary traditions still embedded in the book of Acts (7:37-53). There are fragments and quotations surviving from their Hebrew Gospel tradition (see see A. F. J. Klijn, Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, E. J. Brill, 1992), the so-called Pseudo-Clementine materials, as well as some of the traditions reflected in texts such as the “Hebrew Matthew” preserved by Ibn Shaprut, and now published in a critical edition by George Howard (The Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, Mercer University Press, 1995). Based on what we can reliably put together from these sources we can say the Ebionite or Nazarene movement could be distinguished by the following views: 1) Jesus as a human being with father and mother but designated a “Prophet like Moses,” or “the Anointed of the Spirit,” who will be revealed in power as the “Son of Man coming in the Clouds of heaven,” following his rejection and death (Acts 7:37; Luke 4:18-19; Mark 10:35-45; 13:26-27). 2) Disdain for eating meat and even the Temple slaughter of animals, preferring the ideals of the pre-Flood diet and what they took to be the original ideal of worship (see Genesis 9:1-5; Jeremiah 7:21-22; Isaiah 11:9; 66:1-4). This reflects a general interest in seeking the “Path” reflected in the pre-Sinai revelation, especially the time from Enoch to Noah. For example, divorce was shunned, as violating the Edenic ideal, even though technically it was later allowed by Moses (Mark 10:2-11). 3) Dedication to following the whole Torah, as applicable to Israel and to Gentiles, but through the “easy yoke” or the “Torah of liberty” of their Teacher Jesus, which emphasized the Spirit of the Biblical Prophets in a restoration of the “True Faith,” the Ancient Paths (Jeremiah 6:16; Matthew 11:28-30; James 2:8-13; Matthew 5:17-18; 9:13; 12:7), from which, by and large, they believed the establishment Jewish groups of 2nd Temple times had departed. 4) Rejection of the “doctrines and traditions” of men, which they believed had been added to the pure Torah of Moses, including scribal alterations of the texts of Scripture (Jeremiah 8:8). Generally, the movement came to have a very negative view of Paul as an “apostate from the Torah,” though it is possible that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries there were branches of the Nazarenes who were more tolerant of Paul as the “apostle to the Gentiles,” but who as Jews, nonetheless, insisted on Torah observance. For much more on the whole “underbelly” of the original Jesus movement led by James the brother of Jesus, its relationship with the Dead Sea Scroll sect, and the Ebionites and their subsequent history, see Robert Eisenman, James the Brother of Jesus (Penguin, 1998). There is a new abridged edition of this work as well here, but I recommend the original for serious students of early Christianity. On “Jewish Christianity” more generally, see H-J Schoeps, Jewish Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), out of print but still useful for students as a general introduction. For a modern interpretation of the Ebionite ideals, reflecting the peaceful ideas of vegetarianism and non-violence, see Keith Akers, The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Non-Violence in Early Christianity (Lantern Book, 2000). Finally, there is an active “Ebionite” movement today, that seeks to revive and reflect these ancient perspectives, see the web site: ebionite.org. 5 0 Related Articles Rethinking Flesh and Spirit CHRISTIAN ORIGINS AUGUST 9, 2018 The Jesus Dynasty: Seven Main Ideas APOCALYPTICISM OCTOBER 21, 2018 Two Widely Held Assumptions About Early Christianity that Should Be Questioned 2ND TEMPLE JUDAISM OCTOBER 7, 2018 The Messiah Before Jesus 2ND TEMPLE JUDAISM SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 Morton Smith and A “Secret Gospel of Mark” CHRISTIAN ORIGINS SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 “Cold Case Christianity and the Resurrection of Jesus”–Read these Six Posts and You will Never View Things the Same CHRISTIAN ORIGINS SEPTEMBER 14, 2018 Rethinking Flesh and Spirit CHRISTIAN ORIGINS AUGUST 9, 2018 The Jesus Dynasty: Seven Main Ideas APOCALYPTICISM OCTOBER 21, 2018 SSL Security You Can Trust Subscribe to Blog via Email Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Email addresses are confidential. Email Address Email Address SUBSCRIBE Most Popular Two Widely Held Assumptions About Early Christianity that Should Be Questioned Was Jesus a Carpenter? The Messiah Before Jesus Sorting out the Jesus Family: Mother, Fathers, Brothers and Sisters The Jesus Dynasty: Seven Main Ideas Who Was the Mysterious “Disciple Whom Jesus Loved?” Did John the Baptist Eat Bugs, Beans, or Pancakes? The Top Seven Fateful Verses from the New Testament (1) “Jewish Bloodguilt” The Surprising Ending of the Lost Gospel of Peter “Cold Case Christianity and the Resurrection of Jesus”–Read these Six Posts and You will Never ... Index of Posts Dropdown Menu Index of Posts Dropdown Menu Search Using Key Words Search for: Type and hit enter... Like Us on Social Media Sign Up for TaborBlog Newsletter This private Newsletter is sent periodically to subscribers with special news and updates from Dr. Tabor. Email addresses are confidential. Sign Up Here Email* First Name Last Name Submit Email Marketing You Can Trust Copyright @ 2017 James Tabor | Design by NoLimitProductions.ca |SmartBlog by ThemeForest Top NAVIGATE HOME ABOUT THIS BLOG ABOUT DR. TABOR ACADEMIC LINKS IN MEMORIAM MEDIA GALLERY

Nazareth and Life of JESUS

New FAQ About Intl Chat Donate Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus? Question: "Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus?" Answer: Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus? How can we know? What does the evidence say? These are questions that Christians are asked to answer more frequently by professed “skeptics” in our world today. It is curious that the first-century historicity of Jesus should be the subject of such contention, since this matter was effectively laid to rest long ago. There are several reasons often given for doubting the first-century historicity of Nazareth, and these reasons are largely built around arguments from silence. For one thing, Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings. Critics also contend that the biblical geography is in error, as there is no cliff near the synagogue to which Jesus was allegedly taken, as recounted in Luke 4:24–30. Generally speaking, arguments from silence are weak. We must ask just how much one would expect the contemporary writers to mention the town of Nazareth. Nazareth was a small and insignificant village, and Josephus had no real reason to mention it. The town’s insignificance is evident in the first chapter of John’s Gospel, when Nathaniel asks, “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” (John 1:46). Laying aside the problems with the argument from silence, we should also note that the claim that there is no first-century evidence for Nazareth is not entirely correct. In AD 70, at the end of the Jewish war with the Romans, the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed, and this meant that Jewish priests and their families had to be redeployed. An inscription was discovered in 1962 in Caesarea Maritima that documents that the priests of the order of Elkalir came to live in Nazareth. This has only been confirmed by later discoveries. For example, in 2009, the first Nazarene home to date from Jesus’ era was excavated by archaeologists. The house was a simple structure, consisting of two small rooms and a courtyard. The claim of incorrect geography carries a bit more weight than the argument from silence. The closest cliff to Nazareth to which Jesus might have been taken is roughly 2.5 miles away from the synagogue; however, there is no reason why Jesus could not have been taken that far. In conclusion, the claim that there is no historical evidence for the existence of the town of Nazareth in the first century stands refuted by the archaeological data, and many of the more informed atheist critics, even among those who deny the historicity of Jesus, have advised caution with using this argument. Recommended Resource: Josephus - The Complete Works More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free! Related Topics: Why did God command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac? Who was Ignatius of Antioch? Who are the various Herods mentioned in the Bible? Why is Jesus often referred to as Jesus of Nazareth? Who were the early church fathers? Return to: Questions about Apologetics Return to: GotQuestions.org Home Did Nazareth exist during the life of Jesus? Find Out How to... Spend Eternity with God Learn More Receive Forgiveness from God Learn More Navigation Statement of Faith The Gospel Crucial Questions Top 20 Random Article International Ask a Question Question of the Week What does the Bible say about the prosperity gospel? Preferred Bible Version: Save Subscribe to our Question of the Week Get our Questions of the Week delivered right to your inbox! Email Address Subscribe Statement of Faith The Gospel Crucial Questions Question of the Week Top 20 Questions Top 20 Articles Ask a Question Survey Random Page Citation Audio / MP3 Video Contact Us Serve With Us Promote Us Donate                © Copyright 2002-2018 Got Questions Ministries. All rights reserved. View our Site Map. Privacy Policy

Notsri or Branch

The Nazarene Creed
__________________________
Yahusha is the “Notsri” or “Branch”.  He was called Yahusha the Nazarene because that is what all followers of John the Baptist were called ( it was John who started the Sect of the Nazarenes as an offshoot of the Essenes).  John was prophesied to “make straight the The Way of (for) the Messiah” and teach the Messiah The Way of Salvation through Mikveh, Circumcision, and Offering.  So John was preparing The Way for the Branch, and those who followed John were called “Nazarenes” which means “followers of the Branch” and what they believed was called The Way.  John announced that he was not “the Branch”, and then declared Yahusha “the Branch”.  All the Nazarenes then followed Yahusha and John was murdered for being their leader.  A fate Yahusha then Sha’ul would face as Leaders of The Nazarenes.
So let us simply list the declarations made by The Nazarene or made of him by his followers.  Then I will demonstrate that each and every one of these declarations apply to all of the children of Yahuah.  This is literally the declaration of our birthright and it belongs to all of us!  It is The Nazarene Creed:
known by Yahuah before the foundation of the world
the son of man
came into being/born “according to the flesh”; begotten “according to the Spirit”
fulfilled the Righteous requirements of The Law
embody the fullness of deity in human form
the image of the Almighty God
gods
the son of God
eternal priest in the order of Zadok
King in the order of Melchizedek
one with the Father
set apart during earthly life by the Ruach
a Righteous Judge over the Nations
demonstrated The Way by our life example
brought a living sacrifice, a perfect Lamb on Passover
defeated The Law of Sin and Death, through resurrection
have the authority to forgive sin
That is The Nazarene Creed!  A coming Kingdom of Royal Priests!!!!!!!!!
All Nazarenes have this Birthright and should boldly declare that they are sons of Yahuah, just like Yahusha did.  Yahusha never claimed to be Yahuah, or even equal to Yahuah.  In fact, he said he could not even conceive of such blasphemy!  We all are to have the same “mind” in us, that was in Yahusha, who denied incarnation outright:
----- Philippians 2 -----
5 Let this mind be in you (that Yahuah alone is the ONLY true God John 17:3) which was also in Yahusha the Messiah, 6 who, being in the form (human image) of Yahuah (we are all made in the image of Yahuah Genesis 1:27), 6 who, although Yahusha existed in the (human) form (image) of Yahuah (his Father; as all sons are images of their fathers), did not regard equality with Yahuah a thing to be grasped (Yahusha could not even wrap his mind around such blasphemy; he thought it robbing Yahuah of His Glory), 7 but made himself of no reputation (although he was born King of Israel and the Jews were trying to make him the Messiah ben David i.e. Conquering King, and he had inherited a King’s Ransom from Daniel), he instead assumed the form (role) of the suffering servant (Messiah ben Joseph to fulfill The Heavenly Scroll and the Feast Cycle), and coming into being as human (according to the flesh i.e. born human outside of any Divine intervention Romans 1:1-6). 8 And being found in the likness of a man (just like we all are found in the likeness of a man 1 Cor. 15:29), He humbled himself (before Yahuah) and became obedient (to the will of Yahuah that he must first come as Messiah ben Joseph the suffering servant and purchase the life of his brothers John 15:13, and fulfill his adoption covenant with Yahuah made in Zachariah Chapter 3) to the point of death, even the death of the stake (as foretold in The Heavenly Scroll, where Yahusha is portrayed as crucified, a Lamb that is slaughtered). 9 Therefore (because Yahusha fulfilled the adoption covenant in Zachariah Chapter 3 and The Heavenly Scroll) Yahuah also has highly exalted Yahusha ( with the Glory he had before the wold was John 17:5 as foretold in The Heavenly Scroll that Leo the Lion of the Tribe of Judah defeats Daco the dragon, then reigns as King) and (Yahuah) has given Yahusha (upon resurrection) the name which is above every name (Melchizedek, which he inherited through human bloodlines Hebrews 1:4), 10 that at the name of Yahusha every knee should bow (in respect to authority as he is our King; not divine worship), of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess (Strongs #3670, homologeo, enters into a marriage covenant) that Yahusha the Messiah is our King, to the glory of Yahuah the Father (Hebrews 1:3 Yahusha is the Glory of Yahuah and that Glory was written into the stars on Day 4 Psalms 19). -----
So Yahusha denied even being able to contemplate this idea that “Yahuah IS Yahusha” and that is the mind that should be in each of us. All those who have this same “mind”, will be given the right to become children of Yahuah!
----- John 1:12  -----
Yet to all who did receive Yahusha as the Messiah, to those who believed in (the covenant that bears) his name, he gave the right to become children of Yahuah.
Rav Shaul