Tag: Genesis Page 1 of 4

Yet The Dogs Eat of the Crumbs 

Which Fall from Their Masters’ Table

Roy Blizzard © 2012

In the New Testament in Matthew 15:21-28 is a simple, but to most people a strange story, that has given rise to all sorts of erroneous Christian and Atheist theology. We find here devils, pagans, dismissing disciples and a seemingly apathetic Messiah who insults the suffering. This is a story tailor made for scoffers and atheists who think all the Jesus stories are bunk. However, when one takes a closer look at this story in the Hebrew, all these seemingly odd features evaporate in a burst of clarity.

21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. 22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. 27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

First of all, we have to look at the place where Jesus is. Tyre and Sidon. The house of Canaan. The descendents of Noah who were given over to the worship of evil. (see my article on a rethinking of the Tower of Babel Story) So it comes as no surprise here that someone in Canaan would have a demon. What the first big question for us is why would a nice pagan Canaanite woman who worships devils want Jesus to cast one out of her daughter? Why indeed?

Secondly, the Canaanite woman cries out to Jesus as Master (not Lord as commonly translated) and Son of David. Both of these are monikers given to Jesus, but for differing reasons. Master was only allowed as an address to those who were acknowledged Torah scholars and Masters in Jewish literature. Son of David was only used as an address to a Jew who was thought to be a person of Godliness and Power, so much so that God would do bidding for him, as God was supposed to do for the Messiah.

The disciples do not perceive her to be anything but a typical pagan Canaanite woman so they tell her to go away and ask Jesus to do the same because she is not Jewish. Jesus however, always searching, poses his responses in such a manner as to get at the heart of the issue. Here is where this story typically breaks down totally for most readers.

Jesus answers that he is only sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Well, who are these lost sheep? The Canaanite woman then begs Jesus for help and then Jesus totally insults her by calling her a dog. Or does he? What is going on here? Was she a literal dog that had to grovel and eat from the floor? Would it surprise you to learn that she was actually a Jewish proselyte?

How do I know this to be fact you ask? Well, from a curious passage found in the Talmud in Berakoth 52b which quote the Zuggot (think Torah scholars Hillel and Shammai) which were contemporaries of Jesus.

“BETH SHAMMAI SAYS THAT THE FLOOR IS SWEPT etc. Our Rabbis taught: Beth Shammai says: The floor is swept and then they wash their hands. For should you say that the hands are washed first, the result might be to spoil the food. (Beth Shammai does not hold that the washing of the hands comes first.) What is the reason? — On account of the crumbs [of bread]. Beth Hillel, however, says that if he the attendant is a scholar, he removes the crumbs which are as large as an olive and leaves those which are smaller than an olive. This supports the dictum of R. Johanan; for R. Johanan said: It is permissible to destroy willfully crumbs [of bread] smaller than an olive. What is the ground of their difference? — Beth Hillel holds that it is not permissible to employ an attendant who is an ‘am ha-arez [common man], while Beth Shammai hold that is is permissible to employ an attendant who is an ‘am ha-arez. R. Jose b. Hanina said in the name of R. Huna: In all this chapter the halachah is as stated by Beth Hillel, save in this point where it is as stated by Beth Shammai. R. Oshaia, however, reverses the teaching and in this point also the halachah follows Beth Hillel.” [Lit., an ‘am ha-arez = ‘people of the land’, ‘country people’ or an illiterate or uncultured man; the name given in Rabbinic literature to people who through ignorance were careless in the observance of the laws of Levitical purity and of those relating to the priestly and Levitical gifts. In this sense they were the opposite to a haver]

“Who would not know the difference between crumbs of the size of an olive and those of smaller size. Probably a meal of haverim (v. Glos.) is referred to here [a Haver or ‘Fellow’, ‘associate’, opp. to ‘am ha-arez (q.v.); one scrupulous in the observance of the law, particularly in relation to ritual cleanness and the separation of the priestly and Levitical dues.” [so they would know the difference]

MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI SAY: ONE MAY REMOVE BONES AND [NUT]SHELLS FROM THE TABLE; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: ONE MUST TAKE AWAY THE WHOLE BOARD AND SHAKE IT. ONE MAY REMOVE FROM THE TABLE CRUMBS LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE AND THE PANICLES OF BEANS AND LENTILS, BECAUSE THEY ARE FOOD FOR ANIMALS. AS FOR A SPONGE, IF IT HAS A LEATHER HANDLE, ONE MAY WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT; IF NOT, ONE MAY NOT WIPE [THE BOARD] WITH IT. [THE SAGES MAINTAIN]: IN EITHER CASE IT MAY BE HANDLED ON THE SABBATH. AND IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO DEFILEMENT.

Here we see in these passages from the Talmud and Mishnah that what is happening in our story in Matthew is a complex Jewish parrying between Jesus and the Canaanite woman. Jesus perceives that she is not a pagan by her addresses to him and by her responses to his statements he knows she is a proselyte who has been studying the Law and she recognizes the Messiah of the Jews when she sees him.

He tells her that he only deals with the lost house of Israel. She proves she is a part of this by demonstrating her knowledge of Torah / Law. You see there were four types of individuals who were considered part of the house of Israel and who were allowed to be a part of the Kahal (the assembly) and enter into the Temple to worship before God, Priests, Levites, Israelites, and Proselytes. This is where she met Jesus. She was a proselyte.

Jesus’ statement, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” was not to be taken by us or her to be an insult. It was Jesus’ way of testing her status as a part of the Jewish nation and Jesus’ kingdom. Her response of this complex Jewish argument over crumbs on the table proves without a doubt that this woman had studied the Torah for a long time and was indeed a part of the Jewish nation and thereby deserved to be served by Jesus.

Jesus says to her, “…great is thy faithfulness…”. Not faith as is commonly translated and thought of in American theology. It was not her that was healing her daughter, it was the faith of Jesus that was healing her daughter, she was just existing within his existence and faith. Thereby what she desired was Jesus’ desire and it came into being. The Canaanite woman’s daughter found Shalom, or Wholeness and Peacefulness that very day. No Canaanite demon could exist within Jesus’ existence, so it had to leave.

What was sad was the fact that here was a woman who had been studying the word of God but had not had any of these Biblical Scholars help her daughter. They evidently had no power to do so. This sounds like the church today doesn’t it.

We should take care to be not like the disciples (students) who are not able to perceive the real needs of those around us as we are too busy or too preoccupied to have an answer to those who ask and thereby deprive them of the blessings and existence of God.

Roy Blizzard III (C) 2019

In Acts 13:9 we read a seemingly innocent verse stating that Saul is now Paul; or do we? Here is what verse 9 says:

“Then Saul, (who is also called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him.”

Here is the Greek, “ ⁹ σαυλος δε ο και παυλος…” 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament

It is interesting to note that this is the last verse in the New Testament where we see the name Saul used for Paul. After this point all we read is the Greek word Paulos substituted for the Hebrew name Saul. However, is this correct? Did Jesus change his name to Paul? I have never seen any reference to it. The change is often mistakenly linked to Saul’s experience on the Damascus Road, when the Lord Jesus commissioned him to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 9:1–19). However, at the time of Saul’s “conversion”, Jesus still addressed him as “Saul.” Later, Jesus told Ananias to find “Saul” in Damascus and restore his sight. Acts 9 goes on to describe “Saul” as increasing in spiritual strength and understanding of Jesus as the Messiah. So, it was not Jesus who changed his name on the road to Damascus. If it wasn’t Jesus’ doing, how did the change from Saul to Paul happen, and when? Did Saul change his name to Paul? Nowhere in the text does Saul call himself Paul. Did he just use two names? No one seems to question why Saul, as a Jew, needed to have two names or why he would choose the secondary name Paul?

The name “Paul” has a meaning and it’s not the same meaning as the name “Saul” so it can’t be that he wanted to be known in Greek as he was known in Hebrew. Saul means “asked for” in Hebrew. Paul means “small” or “humble”. Two separate meanings totally unrelated to each other argue against the substitution of meaning theory.

Some people assume that Saul used a Roman name because he proclaimed that he would become “all things to all people,” a Jew to the Jews in order to win the Jews, weak to the weak in order to win the weak, etc., all for the sake of the gospel (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). This thinking assumes that there is something inherently wrong with Saul’s and Jesus’ Judaism and people would somehow not become saved if they thought Saul or Jesus was Jewish. So they think that by adopting a Roman – Pagan name this sleight of hand would allow Paul to approach the Gentiles to whom he was sent and speak to them as a fellow pagan so as thy could be saved. This may sound feasible except for the glaring fact he wore Jewish clothing and went to all the synagogues so everyone knew he was a Jew! It also has the problem in thinking that that the gospel is not acceptable to non-Jews unless it was packaged somehow special just for them. As far as I can tell the Gospel is good news to everyone regardless. People also make the leap to claim it was possible that Paul just gave up the use of his Hebrew name, Saul, because it had regal connotations and he chose to use a Roman name, Paul, meaning “little” or “small,” because he desired to became smaller in order to present Christ as greater and they try to peg this to John 3:30, but this is specifically talking about Jesus not Saul.

Saul was a zealous Jew but born in a region dominated by the Romans. He would have been given his Hebrew name at birth and would have been very proud to carry that name of the first King of Israel and so had no real need for another pagan name. In fact, he was so zealous in his Hebrew Jewishness that he was killing other Jews who believed in a messiah, Jesus, because he considered this belief a pagan concept. Even if Saul went to other regions of the diaspora and mingled with Romans, the Romans weren’t killing Jews with the name Saul just for grins and the name Paul wouldn’t have scored any brownie points with the Jews in the synagogues that he went to all the time, so realistically there is no need or desire for a zealous Jew to adopt a paganized name in order to “fit in” to either the Israeli Jewish community or the Hellenized Jewish community in the diaspora. All the disciples would have been familiar with his name Saul as well.

Another important fact we should consider is the family honor which was very important to the Jew and to take on a “pagan” name of Paul and ditch his Hebrew given name Saul could be construed as violating the fifth commandment to “honor thy father and thy mother”.

Paul quotes this very commandment in Ephesians 6:1-2, 1) “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.2) Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise.” He also quotes it in Colossians 3:20, “Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.” In Judaism, honoring one’s parents is compared to honoring God. One way to bring honor to one’s parents is to create a good name for one’s family, not to put them to shame. For Saul to change his God ordained Hebrew name to a pagan Greek name would be bringing shame upon his family. This he would not do.

We have to remember that today there is a habit of having a Hebrew given name and having a paganized name in general usage in the land in which you live in. This was not generally the case in the first century; you got what you got at birth. There were however, nicknames in use but these didn’t supersede the given name.

Therefore, if the preceding is correct, why does the text use the “name” Paul? Could it be that the text is wrong? It is a fact that there are many errors in the text both in English and in Greek so this is a distinct possibility. In my Diaglott (a Greek-English New Testament, published in 1940), they state that there is over 20,000 mistakes in the text, most are just minor grammatical boo boos. However, in my article entitled, “Maranatha? Challenging a Textual Error” on Hubpages.com, I demonstrate the fact that the translator, who was using a Hebrew text, had a poor knowledge of Hebrew and so he just ignored the unknown, to him, Hebrew words Maran Atha, so just transliterated it into Greek as Maranatha and thus into Latin and thus into English, still unknown and still was untranslated until I correctly showed what it should have been.

We also have the translation mistake in the New Testament at Matthew 16:18 where Jesus says, “You are Petros and on this petra I will build my church.” The Greek words πέτρος (petros) and πέτρα (petra) employed by Jesus in Matthew 16:18 make a nice wordplay but they only make sense when we realize that at Qumran “Petros” meant firstborn not stone. It had become a Hebrew idiom and made no sense in either Aramaic or Greek. “Matthew 16:18: The Petros-Petra wordplay – Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew?” by David Bivin in The Jerusalem Perspective.

Simon’s name “Peter” was thus born again from a mistaken belief of a translator. His given name was Simon Bar Jonah or Simon son of Jonah. In Matthew 16:17 Jesus actually addresses Simon “Peter” in his given name Bar Jonah. In Mark 3:16 it actually tells us in the Greek and Hebrew that “Peter” was a nickname that Jesus gave to Simon and in 3:17 Jesus nicknamed James and John as the “Sons of Thunder or Boanerges or The Sons of Anger”, in the English but I show in my article on Hubpages, The Sons of Thunder, Saints or Sinners that this too was mistranslated.

Judas is called Iscariot not because his last name is Iscariot but because he carried a Sicae. The Sicarii were a group of the Jewish Zealots prior to 70 CE. who carried sicae, or small daggers, concealed in their cloaks. So Judas was a man or Ish in Hebrew of the Sicarii, thus Ish-scari-ot.

Another nickname we find that came down to us as a Greek nickname but in fact was a Hebrew nickname was James the Just’s nickname Oblias – Ωβλιας. Oblias was the Greek translators attempt to Hellenize his nickname ובלה which would mean one who reflects on the Torah, a wise one who doubtless would be Just in his decisions and would be the wall for the people as his Faith would be unshakable and who would be able to Justify his People by showing them an example of faithfulness to the Word. “A Short Explanation of James’ Title Oblias or Ωβλιας in Greek and Hebrew” by Roy Blizzard III on Hubpages.com No one seemed to understand that this was a Hebrew word until I Postulated the answer so for the last 2,000 years his Hebrew nickname remained a mystery to those who were busy looking solely at the Greek text.

Once we can see that many of these New Testament men had Hebrew nicknames with very important meanings and Peter is a first century nickname meaning firstborn we can easily see where the later translators who were not familiar with the Hebrew idioms and nicknames have just been off to the races in renaming Simon to Peter and just forgetting about his actual name Simon Bar Jonah and forgetting all about what his nickname meant.

So coming once again to Paul, could it be we are dealing with another textual error carried from a Hebrew text into a Greek text? The word in question is Paulos in Greek. The text says that Saul is also called this “Paulos”. It doesn’t say he changed his name it just says he was also called this. So what would this mean? In English and in Hebrew it would usually mean, “He is also known as___X____” not a name but an idiom or nickname. So what is Paulos if it is an idiom or nickname and why is this word used ever after instead of his Hebrew name Saul?

As Dr. Greg Lanier points out, “Here’s the smoking gun: When Paul recalls his conversion, he specifically notes that Jesus was “saying to me in the Hebrew language, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?’” (Acts 26:14) Paul draws attention to how Jesus addressed him in his Hebrew name, and makes no mention that it is now abandoned.” *1

In New Testament studies Saul is known as the apostle to the Greeks because that’s where he went. Acts was written by Luke, a doctor and a student of Saul. Therefore it makes sense that Luke would be familiar with any idioms or nicknames related to Saul.

Since the Greek name Paulos doesn’t really hold any answers to our question let’s look at the Hebrew word or words that could possibly be confused with Paulos in Greek. In Hebrew there is a word Paalot that means worker but it isn’t a great fit and it would be hard for a translator to misinterpret it for Paulos. If you look at this word Paulos as I did with Maranatha you will see it could be as well a compound word. In fact, these two Hebrew words that have been forgotten are a powerful alternative.

This word transcribed as Paulos in Greek appears to be two words in Hebrew, the word for mouth or an opening such as a womb is Peh – פה It is also used idiomatically for the concept To Teach. The second word we see in Paulos is the word for a Greek – Hellas in Hebrew written as Elas – אלס. When these two Hebrew words are put together you would have the equivalent of Paulos in Greek but with the meaning of The womb of the Greek, or the opening or doorway of the Greek or even The Teacher of the Greek. Any of these three concepts fits with Jesus’ teachings on The Kingdom and the Doorway.

John 10:9 says’ “3) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. 4) Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?”

John 3:3-4 says, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 28:19-20 says, “19) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

If in fact Saul didn’t ever change his name and Jesus never changed it then we may need to reevaluate our thinking in many areas. Saul wasn’t some has been Jew who was suddenly ashamed of his Jewishness. Jesus wasn’t pressuring Saul to change his name to Paul because he needed to trick the pagans into accepting his gospel message. No, Saul remained a faithful Jew in name and deed until he was killed, as did all the disciples.

If Saul was nicknamed Peh Elas this is a hugely important proof that shows the early believers held Saul to be the person who opened the way for the Greeks to come into the Kingdom, birthed the Greeks into the Kingdom and taught them the ways of God.

No matter which of the three of the idiomatic concepts the first century Jews held for Saul, I think this issue of the possibility that an early translator made a mistake in transcribing Peh Elas – Paulos as a Greek name and then this erroneous “name” is henceforth carried throughout the rest of the New Testament instead of his actual God given name, Saul.

1. Lanier, G. May 3, 2017. “No, ‘Saul the Persecutor’ Did Not Become ‘Paul the Apostle’”.

An examination of the doctrine and facts taught in “The Ways of the Way” a book by Raymond Robert Fisher by Roy Blizzard III.

In writing this examination I have no real desire to chastise others, as it is a waste of my time to do so, but my real purpose is only to correct what I know to be error. Given this, here my findings as pertains to only the introduction. I have no time nor desire to write a 500 page treatise on all of the many errors found throughout this book so I’m only going to deal with his introductory part which is rife with error and it gets worse from there.

It begins that the title to this book is erroneous. The Ways of the Way is a poor English variation of the Hebrew and means nothing really. The first century followers of Jesus or Yeshua usually called themselves Maamin – believers, this coming from the root aleph, mem, nun, the root of Amen which means to be faithful. Mr. Fischer is translating the Hebrew word Ha Derek as “the way”. In Hebrew, HaDerek means footpath as opposed to a broad roadway. It comes from Isaiah 40 were it says,” in the wilderness make straight the footpath of our God. There is rich meaning in Hebrew to HaDerek, but none to “the way”. If I said The Way, a Jew would simply say, What Way? Up Down, etc. This is just an attempt to sensationalize something that was rarely used by Believers.

In the introduction on page 1, Mr. Fischer quotes Matthew 5:17-20 and then never explains why or what is the significance of the words Jesus spoke. He then goes on to say that the movement was formed 3 1/2 years after Jesus spoke the words on the Mount. He is wrong, Jesus was crucified at about 31 1/2 years old not 33 years old as there is an error in John and a misunderstanding of Judaism and its foreshadowing by Mr. Fischer that leads to this error.

Also what is the meaning of “all Nazarene”? Have they all been born in Nazareth, have they all taken a Nazarite oath, or do they all belong to the Nazarene denomination? Do they all consider themselves Notzri? There is no proof to this comment. Why does Mr. Fischer choose to use all these terms interchangeably when they obviously have different meanings and connotations. Nothing Jesus said was in any way unique except that he equated Himself to YHWH, and that was pretty unique. Jesus just re-explained or reinterpreted everything according to the Traditions He was raised in..

There is absolutely no proof of anyone in Jesus’ movement as being Essenes, or of them using anything out of the Essene doctrine that wasn’t already being used in normative Judaism already. Jesus and his disciples weren’t ascetic peoples who withdrew from society. They went out into the masses, exactly the opposite of the Essenes. Just because the Essenes believed in the Messiah didn’t make them any more of a candidate for Jesus’ movement than any other Jew as almost all Jews were looking for a Messiah. While many volumes of literature were housed at Qumran and some biblical and religious texts were written there as we found a scriptorium, to say that the Essenes wrote the four canonized gospels or any other part of the New Testament is pure speculation. We know the Essenes were finally run off by earthquakes and killed by the Romans at the time of the destruction of Masada so we can’t substantiate anything in the New Testament to them.

Which Jews dispersed from Mt. Zion and when? The Epistles were written to instruct the new believers in what? Judaism! So to say these were “Gentile” congregations is a misnomer. Paul was accepted by the disciples of Jesus and again there were no Essenic roots. Paul wasn’t a “militant” Pharisee; he was a “zealous” Pharisee. A big difference. He considered himself a zealous Pharisee after the vein of Phineas at Mount Sinai. It is wrong to quip that Paul is the creator of Christianity as Paul like Jesus preached nothing but normative Judaism. So, if that is what they both preached where then did Christianity as we know it come from?

Page 3 of the introduction, who is they who blended this new message. The disciples just preached what Jesus did and they didn’t start any “orthodoxy”, which is a later Christian term. The believer’s movement was found wholly within Judaism and was stolen away by the non-Jews outside of Israel as the Jewish leaders of the movement lost power to Byzantium and the Greek Church, then to Rome.

The Jewish believers were still around far longer than Mr. Fischer shows as in the fourth century. There are documents written by the Roman Catholic Church asking what to do with the Jewish believers in the Jordan area. Should they kill them as Jews or let them live as Christians? And this was in the 12th century A.D. What ever orthodoxy passed to what we see as the church into the second and third centuries is far removed from its Jewish beginnings.

Why does Mr. Fischer believe that only the “Christian Church” granted eternal life or spiritual education? The educational level of most Christians is somewhere between third to sixth grade and Jewish religious and spiritual education is graduate level. What denomination of the 30,000+ organizations is this eternal life granted through? Who has this perfect copy of the written word?

While the Didache is an early “Church” writing it exhibits many facets of the early Greek Church more so than of any early Jewish believers. Mr. Fischer is horribly wrong in his assessment about the power to stop the declining society etc. which lies within the church. No, it lies within Yeshua – Jesus. It wasn’t a quest for new church homes that gave rise to the Jewish Roots movement, it was a desire for truth as opposed to the B.S. of undereducated pastors and leaders.

I still haven’t figured out why any sane individual would like a “home church” unless they have a desire to be perpetually stupid, as few men or women in home churches are educated enough to lead one. While some people may be seeking a more first century worship experience maybe they don’t know why they think they need it versus any other worship experience. Maybe both experiences are wrong. Most people pick and choose what aspects they want to follow with no real sense of what or why anyway, but the real key is that an almost total failure of the church movement is what is driving this home movement. They’re looking for something not found in church.

While Messianic groups are growing in popularity, what is the problem in the quest of biblical knowledge being long and difficult? I’ve been studying for 44 years. And what is the surprise in finding Gentiles in the Messianic movement since the US is predominantly Gentile. The problem isn’t in who is in it, but why is it necessarily any better than what they left? And how are these two groups ever going to be like-minded with such poor education about what the text says? How is a home church more satisfying? They are usually more exclusional and controlled by undereducated men and women so how is it ever going to satisfy that which has been lost?

There was a difference in the first century as to why the believers met in homes daily and they weren’t in any way supplementary to the gathering of the entire congregation in the synagogue. They were a part of the ministry efforts of the congregation. The Motzi Shabbat wasn’t to “christen” anything, it was to be a joyful blood covenant celebratory meal and worship!

We don’t need a model of second or third century Greek practices or even the sometimes odd practices of the Jews during the times of Jesus. We need to seek an intimate relationship with Jesus and God which clearly supersede any worship experiences or rituals. While the early believers were somewhat schismatic, they lived all over within the Jewish community. In 90 A.D. there were estimated to be 50,000 believers within the Jerusalem area and they lived within the greater region until at least the 12th century.

The only model offered here in this book is Mr. Fischer’s model based on his opinion not Jesus’ guidance, and that which Mr. Fischer offers is only a clear way to absurdity. The real reason for his book is revealed on page 9, the establishment of more home churches-staffed with undereducated, poorly led, and powerless men and women. How can this have anything but a terrible impact on “the church”? While there are many fleeing the churches they sure won’t find what they’re looking for through this drivel. Mr. Fischer apparently doesn’t even know that the “upper room” meant a room in the Temple’s colonnaded porches not “The Cenacle” on Mount Zion, which is a converted mosque and underneath houses the so-called tomb of David which in reality was probably the tomb of Manasseh.

No “mother church” ever went forth from it, unless it was based on evil and spoke Arabic. As far as this concept of “triple water baptism” what would you expect from contemporary Catholic scholars except the pushing of the triple water baptism that come straight from the Greek Orthodox Eastern church and paganism not necessarily Judaism which only immersed once. In fact to be immersed three times would be a violation of everything that Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection stood for as Jesus wasn’t killed, buried or resurrected thrice. It only took once for Jesus to save not three times. Again, why do you want to base what you do on what only a few sub groups try to do?

While they may have sang many songs and Psalms etc., as the cantillation marks in the text clearly show, whether or not the Odes of Solomon or any other music was sung we don’t know for sure. Some groups probably did and some may not have, we just don’t know. Certainly, the farther the believers separated from Judaism and crept into Greek paganism the music probably became more important as the music inspired many in pagan worship.

I’m not sure Camelot or any setting like Camelot existed in the first century. Seems to me it was more like life in the gladiator lane. While those in the movement may have exhibited the Fruit of the Spirit, life wasn’t Camelot like, just ask Stephen. James, Peter, and Paul all had a huge theological foundation to show forth. They didn’t have to reformulate some new theology, as all theology of the first century believers was found within Judaism. In fact, James’ name “Oblias” signified in Hebrew one who grows old in the study of Torah. There is little evidence of the dispersion as early as 35 A.D. and if in 90 A.D. there could’ve been 50,000 believers in Jerusalem where is this dispersion and uprooting? They were simply doing what Jesus told them to do and that was to go and make students.

Why would an organized “church” happen before Jesus died? It makes absolutely no sense at all. You couldn’t even get a Jewish congregation until after the day of Pentecost! Founding a Church shortly after His Death, Burial, and Resurrection makes some sense but not before. Nothing Mr. Fischer lays out is compelling evidence for a Church in Hippos in Scripture or the archaeological record. While the people may have been astounded and bewildered it never says they converted or repented, necessary ingredients to follow Jesus. While the believers were first called Christians in Antioch, nowhere is it known to be the main center of “Gentile Christianity” as there really wasn’t anything known by this name until years later.

If there was a steady stream of believers going out from Israel it was due to them being sent out as Shlechim-Apostles, i.e. missionaries through the synagogue processes, not because they were fleeing anything, at least until after 235 A.D. You have to remember that these people were not participating in the rebellion against Rome, but the Romans just didn’t like the fact that they didn’t worship the Caesar, so they got it everywhere not just in Israel.” So why were they “fleeing” elsewhere where they were going to be persecuted just the same? This makes no sense.

While J.T. Milik may be a great Dead Sea Scrolls scholar his assumption about the close parallels to first century believers is nothing spectacular or revealing. These are all Jews and there are similarities abounding, but also dissimilarities. Just because Essenes go to Damascus doesn’t mean believers did. As I said before, the ascetic, loner Essenes and the believers who are mission minded don’t correlate and wouldn’t join together in Damascus or elsewhere for very long. This issue of asceticism goes to the heart of Catholic doctrine where John the Baptist was an Essenes, so Jesus must’ve been one too. Both in error.

Why was James’ death in A.D. 62 any more of a push to the Jews to leave than any other of the disciples deaths? Why should we be skeptical of the list of 14 ethnic Jews as leader of the believers in Jerusalem? The early believers may have had councils of leaders not just one at a time. This was not unusual within Judaism. But after the revolts in both 70 and 135 people still remained in the regions, they didn’t all move or vanish. Some probably did relocate to cities of the Decapolis as they were instructed so it wasn’t unusual to see believers in other areas. Since the believers were not prone to violence against Rome, it made no sense for them to rebel against the Romans as the zealots did and they weren’t about to endorse Akiva or Bar Kochba who Akiva had proclaimed the Messiah.

The curse upon the sectarians-Minim (a play on the believers name for themselves-Maamin) was a silent prayer and it failed to drive the Jews from the synagogues. Zachariah 6:12 & 13 means a shoot, that sprouts from the trunk or root not a branch, or it means something that shines forth from something else, such as the Davidic root. Shine forth actually makes more sense given the Genesis reference to light being King Messiah found in The Rabbinic Anthology.

Where in the world do we ever read that the first century believers longed for the rebuilding of the Temple except as found in the End Times Theology? This whole theory is flawed for any number of reasons, one of which has to do with the disciple John, when he died he was actively expecting the return of Jesus at any time, not the rebuilding of the Temple. What did he know that we didn’t?

Hadrian actually wanted to ban castration, which would’ve followed the Torah, but included circumcision which he equated with castration.

Why did the Gentile church rebel against the Jewish believers? Because they weren’t Jews and didn’t know enough about the very law they were trying to follow, be it written, oral, or the living and breathing embodiment of it in Jesus. What drove the first and second century Jewish believers away were many factors not just one, two, or three, but the overriding factor was the concept of a “dead gospel” outpouring into the masses. Lots of doctrine, but no spirit. Sound familiar?