»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«
The People Of Israel
Oct 29th, 2010 by Ariel

Tsvi Jekhorin Misinai is an Israeli researcher, author, historian, computer scientist and entrepreneur. A former pioneer of the Israeli software industry, he now spends most of his time researching and documenting the common Hebrew roots shared by world Jewry and the Palestinians (including Arab citizens of Israel) Tsvi Misinai was born in Jerusalem, British Mandate of Palestine, in 1946 to Ashkenazi Jewish parents. He graduated in Physics from the Haifa Technion in 1968. He was the first Israeli to receive the Rothschild Award for industrial development in the field of software in 1992.
Misinai is the founder of Sapiens International Corporation and served as its president until 1994. He embedded the principal of Positive Thinking in computers and invented the Rule Based Object Oriented technology for developing data processing applications, the development of which he started in the Weizmann Institute of Science in 1972. He self-identifies as a secular Jew and currently resides in Rehovot.

Misinai first heard about the “Hebrew origins of Palestinians” theory from his father, Kha’yim Avraham, a German Jew who served in the Royal Artillery in the Second World War. His interest was rekindled after the 1991 Gulf War, when there was talk about a new order in the Middle East. After the failure of the Oslo Accords that led to the commencement of the Al-Aqsa Intifada in 2000, he abandoned his career as a Computer scientist and devoted his entire life to investigating the Jewish roots of Palestinians. He now spends his entire time tracking down Palestinians who acknowledge their Jewish heritage, and lobbying ministers, ambassadors, religious leaders and activists in both communities.

Misinai, and his team of Arabs and Jews, have embarked on a mission of trying to bring peace to Israel through a unique and controversial project called “The Engagement”.Hebrew origin

Tsvi Misinai claims that the majority of the Palestinian people including those with Israeli citizenship or residency, known variously as Arab citizens of Israel, Arab Israelis, Israeli Arabs, including the Bedouin Arabs of Israel are descendants of the ancient Hebrews, as most of the world’s Jewish ethnic divisions are. Furthermore, he claims that at least half of them are quietly aware of this fact.

According to Misinai, unlike the ancestors of the modern day Jews who were city dwellers to a large extent, the Hebrew ancestors of the Palestinians were rural dwellers, and were allowed to remain in the land of Israel to work the land and supply Rome with grain and olive oil.

Misinai states the topic of Hebrew origin was spoken of openly by Palestinians until relatively recent history, much as the Egyptians or Lebanese are aware of their origin in the ancient Egyptians and Phoenicians respectively, even if the topic arouses the passions of those wishing to stress or de-emphasize it. As with other “Arabs”, the origin of Palestinians also became a relegated issue over time, but for them, the additional emergence of Zionism in the early 19th century presented a competing national interest not similarly encountered by other “Arabs” (although Arab nationalism would serve as a counter-force vis-à-vis Zionism). Thus, the topic of origin became admonished. Then, the establishment of modern Israel by world Jewry (having transpired to the detriment of the Palestinians) transformed the topic of Hebrew origin into a blemish of liability, ultimately becoming the object of outright hostility.

Conversions and acculturation: Arabization, Musta’arabi Jews, and Crypto-Judaism; As a result of remaining in the Land of Israel, the Palestinians partially converted to Christianity during the Byzantine era. Later, with the coming of Islam, they were Islamized through a combination of mainly forced conversions, but also nominal conversions (that is, conversions for forms sake to derive benefits as Muslims, and avoid tributes owed by non-Muslims, in Muslim ruled lands) and others yet out of genuine theological conviction.

Conversion to Islam occurred progressively throughout the successive periods of foreign elite minority rule over Palestine, both on an individual basis and en masse, starting with the conversions during the various dynasties of Arabian Muslim rulers from the initial Muslim conquest of Palestine. Following these came rule by Muslim non-Arab dynasties such as the Ayyubids (Kurdish Muslim), Mameluks (Turkic Muslim) and finally the Ottomans (Turkish Muslim). This continuous phase of elite minority foreign Islamic rule over a local indigenous (now largely Muslim) mass was only briefly interrupted by the elite minority foreign Christian rule by the European Crusaders, which lasted from 1096 until their expulsion by the Mameluks in 1291.

Misinai states that of this gradual process of conversions (often accompanied by Arabization), the majority were forcibly converted during the Fatimid era under the reign of Caliph al-Hakim who was crowned at the age of 11, and reigned from the years 996 to 1021. Due to his young age, in practice, it was his ministers who wielded the actual power behind the throne for some time. They gave the young Caliph power to influence religious matters only, and appointed him as Imam. In 1009, the extremists among his ministers gained the upper hand and brought upon a series of decrees against Christians and Jews.
In 1012, the al-Hakem Edict was issued, under which all Jews and Christians in Palestine were ordered to either convert to Islam or leave. This led to the majority of non-Hebrew origin Christians (i.e., foreign Christians) to leave Palestine, while over 90% of Jews, Samaritans (also of Hebrew origin) and Hebrew-origin Christians converted and became Muslims. They would also become Musta’arabim (Arabized), acculturated into Arab language, custom and culture.

Later, when the edict was finally repealed in 1044 during the reign of Caliph Al-Mustansir of Cairo, only 27 percent of the Jewish converts to Islam returned to Judaism openly, although they too would remain Musta’arabi (culturally and linguistically Arab). The remainder continued to live as Muslim crypto-Jews in order to continue enjoying the economic advantages of Muslims, such as exemption from paying jizya and kharaj, the ability to sell their agricultural products to the foreign authorities, or gain employment in the government machinery. Many younger persons of Hebrew-origin (Jewish, Christian or Samaritan) saw it simultaneously possible to lead dual lives, incorporating their prior faith while being outwardly Muslim, and accruing material benefits. Later, with the advent of Mameluk rule, Judaism had reached a breaking point in Palestine.

Tsvi Misinai validates his theory of the Hebrew origin of Palestinians on the basis of various findings in terms of historic-demographic, historic-geographic, national-territorial, genetic, behavioral-religious, nomenclature and linguistics, and Palestinian cultural and oral traditions. In his book “Brother shall not lift sword against brother”, he details numerous testimonies of their Jewish ancestry by Palestinians and Bedouins, and cites the anthropological studies conducted by Israel Belkind, one of the organizers of the Bilu movement, David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (both the first Prime Minister and the second prime minister of Israel, respectively).
Misinai also cites the following three genetic studies as lending credence to his theory. Among the genetic studies referred to by him include recent genetic studies conducted by Professor Ariella Oppenheim of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem on the male Y chromosome which revealed that the present day Jews and Palestinians represent modern descendants of a core population that lived in the area now constituting the state of Israel and the Palestinian territories, since prehistoric times.

In 2001, the Human Immunology magazine published a genetic study conducted by Prof. Antonio Arnez-Vilna, a Spanish researcher from the University of Complutense in Madrid, who discovered that the immune systems of the Jews and the Palestinians are extremely close to one another in a way that almost absolutely demonstrates a similar genetic identity. Furthermore, a 2002 test by Tel Aviv University researchers, determined that only two groups in the world – Ashkenazi Jews and Palestinians were genetically susceptible to an inherited deafness syndrome.

Tsvi Misinai separates the Palestinian people into three main groups; the “Descendants of Israel”, “Brethren of Israel” and “Palestinians of miscellaneous origins”. He states that until recently, there had been very few inter-marriages between these groups, as Palestinians usually tended to marry within their own clans or related clans.

Descendants of Israel: The “Descendants of Israel”, he claims, comprise descendants of the ancient biblical Hebrews which are native to the land west of the Jordan River (the West Bank, Gaza strip and Israel proper). They are more specifically descended from the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Judah, as opposed to the Samaritans who are mainly descended from the inhabitants of the Kingdom of Israel.

Misinai claims that the Descendants of Israel had ceased to call themselves Musta’arbim, when the Brethren of Israel returned to their homeland during the 18th and 19th centuries. Despite this, stories about the Jewish origins of the family were passed on among the Descendants of Israel, and a few Jewish customs were preserved. Both groups began seeing themselves as one people, although endogamous marriages with their own clans ensured the purity of their blood lines until very recently.

The Samaritans are distinguished among Descendants of Israel, given that their ancient history serves as an analogous precursor to the present situation that Tsvi Misinai argues exists between world Jewry and the Palestinians — that upon their returns from exile and re-establishments of Israel, world Jewry misidentified as foreigners the descendants of those Israelites who had stayed behind, first in antiquity misidentifying the Samaritans as foreigners, and today in modern times misidentifying the Palestinians (Arabized Hebrews of the Muslim and Christian faiths) as foreigners.

The Samaritans are Descendants of Israel, being descended from farmers among the Israelite Tribes, part of whom were never exiled by the Assyrians or the Babylonians during the period of the destruction of the First Jewish Commonwealth. Their maternal lineages, however, derive from the Small Nations (those who came from Cuthah and others) who were exiled to Samaria by the Assyrians and intermixed with their paternal Israelite ancestors. The alien minority who remained in the land, adopted the Israelite religion (Samaritanism, the sister Israelite religion to Judaism) in the course of time, after the destruction of the First Temple. A portion of the Samaritans exiled by the Assyrians, were later repatriated by the prophet Jeremiah in the days of the Judean king Josiah.

The Babylonians, who followed the Assyrians as the dominant entity in the Fertile Crescent, exiled many Samaritans but skipped over a significant part of the Samaritan population. By the time they arrived in Samaria, the Babylonians found many alien elements in the land of Israel. Consequently, they did not undertake a thorough ethnic cleansing expulsion from Samaria, since the Assyrians had led many areas to be viewed as places whose indigenous population had already been replaced by aliens and needed no further expulsion.

Later, when the exiled Israelites (now known as Jews) returned from the Babylonian exile under prophets Ezra and Nehemiah, they misidentified the Israelites who had stayed behind (now known as Samaritans) as foreigners. The reason for the misidentification was because the deportations had led the exiled Israelites and the Israelites who remained behind to develop in different ways. The Babylonian captivity had a number of serious effects on the exiled Israelites (Jews), their religion (Judaism) and their culture. Included among the most obvious of these changes was replacing the original Paleo-Hebrew alphabet (see also Samaritan script) with what is in fact a stylized form of the Aramaic alphabet (now commonly called the “Hebrew alphabet” because it is the normative form in which Hebrew is written due to Jewish numeric superiority), changes in the fundamental practices and customs of the Jewish religion, the culmination of Biblical prophecy (in the Jewish prophet Ezekiel), the compilation of not only of the Talmud and Halakha (Jewish religious law, absent in Samaritanism) but also the incorporation of Nevi’im (Prohpets) and Ketuvim (Writings) as a part of the cannon together with the Torah (in Samaritanism, only the Torah is canonical, see Samaritan Torah), and the emergence of scribes and sages as Jewish leaders (see Ezra and the Pharisees).

These resulting differences in religious practices between returnees and those who remained in Israel led to a schism in the Israelites, and whenceforth the creation of separate Samaritan and Jewish entities. Over the centuries, Judaism and world Jewry have come to the acceptance that the Samaritans are indeed descendants of Israelites.

The Islamic conquest of Palestine in the first half of the 7th century, and the subsequent Arab rule, marked the beginning of the phase of decline and erosion of Samaritan identity, even more detrimentally than the extreme toll on Jewish identity. The passing of the aforementioned al-Hakem Edict in 1021, along with another notable forced conversion to Islam imposed at the hands of the rebel Ibn Firasa, decreased their numbers significantly, such that they decreased from more than a million in Roman times to just 712 people today.

For those who maintained a Samaritan identity and religious association into modern times, they too, like their Palestinian counterparts who had additionally adopted Christianity and later Islam, were nevertheless thoroughly Arabized in language and culture. After the establishment of modern Israel, Samaritans living in what became the State of Israel replaced Palestinian Arabic with modern Hebrew as their day to day language (although Samaritan Hebrew had always been maintained as the liturgical language, along with liturgical Samaritan Aramaic and liturgical Samaritan Arabic).

The “Brethren of Israel”, which is originally native to the land east of the Jordan River (the East Bank, that is, modern-day Jordan) comprise the descendants of the brother nations of the Hebrews, i.e., the ancient Edomites, Ammonites and Moabites who variously converted to Judaism and moved to Israel before the Roman invasion, and were later forcibly converted together with the “Descendants of Israel” first to Christianity and then Islam.

Misinai states that the history of the Brethren of Israel are mostly intertwined with those of the Descendants of Israel. The Moabites, the Ammonites and the Edomites were forcibly converted to Judaism and made an extension of the Israelite nation during the course of King David’s conquests. Despite this, their kings were allowed to continue to directly hold the reins of power, and they were not incorporated into any of the Israelite tribes. In the case of the Edomites, their fierce opposition to Israelite occupation led King David to order the killing of all male Edomites. Thus, the women in Edom had no alternative but to marry members of the Israelite garrison and other Israelites. As a result, the bloodlines of Edomites from that point onwards were partially Hebrew.

After the destruction of the First Jewish Commonwealth by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar, a considerable part of the Edomites and Moabites were exiled together with the Israelites. The majority of the Ammonites were exiled and those who remained were assimilated into the Moabite communities. The kinship between the Brethren of Israel, and the Israelites continued throughout the period of the Second Commonwealth and henceforth.

However, after the destruction of the First Commonwealth and the absence of the hegemony of an Israelite regime, the Moabites and Edomites discarded their affiliation to the people of Israel and left Judaism en masse. To bring them back into the fold, the Hasmonean leaders decided to re-convert them a second time. The mass Judaization campaign was started by John Hyrcanus with the conversion of the Moabites and was ended by Alexander Jannaeus who completed the conversion of the Moabites and also the Edomites after he added their territory to his Kingdom. For the next 1,600 years, these Brethren of Israel continued to be an inseparable part of the People of Israel. The Edomites and Moabites (along with the Samaritans) participated in the First Jewish–Roman War and inflicted more damage on their enemies, relative to their small numbers, than the Jews.

Since the Edomites and Moabites ancestral lands were located east of the Jordan River, this made them more close to Arabia and more removed from the Jewish people. As a result, they were more susceptible to conversions to Islam, and hence, subsequently became Musta’arbim. When devastating famines broke out at the beginning of the 16th century, many among these Brethren of Israel emigrated to Persia. As a result of juggling different religious identities to avoid persecution, they eventually forgot their Jewish and Musta’arbi origins and became radicalized, and started considering themselves to be Arabs.

Later, as things improved in the 18th and 19th century, many of those who left returned from Persia, Yemen and Sudan, shifting residences between present day Jordan and Israel, with the former mountain dwellers returning to their ancient homes, and the Edomites, Moabites, etc., settling in the plains. It is these “Brethren of Israel”, Misinai contends, who constitute most of the Palestinian population east of the Jordan river and the Palestinian refugees (both within the Palestinian territories and outside), while the majority of Palestinians who did not flee and remain in Israel proper, West Bank and Gaza area, are “Descendants of Israel”.

Misinai traces the beginning of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a Palestinian “Arab” identity to the simultaneous immigration of the Jews from various places and Brethren of Israel (from the east), to the land west of the Jordan river from 1840 to 1947. He states that by 1914 the Brethren of Israel became a very large group among Palestinians there and would remain so, until they were mostly expelled during the Palestinian exodus in 1948. He argues that that these people have now returned to their ancestral homeland east of the Jordan river, and possess no right to the land of Israel.

Misinai states it is this group that are the most anti-semitic and most active in terrorist activities in the intifada, with their objectives being to return to the lands they abandoned in 1948. He claims that the leadership of the Palestinian militant organizations such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, Fatah al-Islam, Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, etc., are primarily internally supported by over 1,300,000 Brethren of Israel, who all reside west of the Jordan river. The victims of such terrorist acts tend to be the People of Israel, the Descendants of Israel and a small number of others.

According to Misinai, the Brethren of Israel are the smartest group among the Palestinian people and make up the majority of the Palestinian leadership. He states that the early leadership of the various Palestinian nationalist organizations such as Fatah, PLO, PFLP, etc., came primarily from among the Brethren of Israel refugees in the 1948 exodus. While he acknowledges that the Brethren of Israel have suffered more than any other Palestinian, he blames the Brethren of Israel leadership of perpetuating the problem for more than 50 years in order to gain camp followers both among those of their brethren who continue to suffer and among the Arabs and others who feel sorry for them.

In addition to these two main components, there also include a significantly small percentage of Arabs, descendants of the soldiers who served in the occupying Roman army after the destruction of the Second Temple and even some survivors of the ancient Canaanite and Philistine who are idol worshipers that live in Gaza and in the village of Jisr az-Zarka, near Haifa.

A minuscule percentage of Palestinians are also descendants of 500 European Crusaders who stayed behind in Palestine and converted to Islam. These Crusaders, he indicates, are the source of the smatterings of blond haired and blue-eyed Palestinians one witnesses today.
The various entities among the neighboring small nations of gentiles, such as the Philistines, Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, Hivites and Perizzites inhabited the remainder of the historical region of Canaan, from which the Hebrews under Joshua had driven them off and carved out a nation for themselves called Israel. These nations were all eventually vanquished by King David and made a part of the Kingdom of Israel.

A large number were later exiled by King Nebuchadnezzar in the course of the destruction of the Kingdom of Judah and the Babylonian exile. A mass Judaization process in Israel in the course of the Hasmonean Period left only a handful of Philistines, Canaanites and other members of the Small Nations.

Since conversion was not imposed on remnants of these Small Nations who had been Hellenized, they continued to worship Greek deities. They were forced to nominally accept Christianity during the Byzantine period, and later finally expelled by Caliph Al-Hakim during the Fatimid rule, together with the majority of the Christian descendants of the Roman Army and almost all the Christian Arabs.

A few hundred, however, remained and their descendants constitute the small numbers of idol worshippers who live in Israel in modern times. These include a few Canaanites that reside in the village of Jisr az-Zarqa near Caesarea, a few thousand Philistines and Canaanites in Gaza, and descendants of the Phoenicians in the form of Maronite Catholics (primarily the refugees from Ikrit and Kafr Bir’im)

Misinai also claims that the Druze of Israel, Syria and Lebanon have mostly Jewish descent, although mixed with the Arabs, Midianites and Egyptians. He further states that there were Jewish villages that became part of the Druze community, mostly to avoid being forced to convert to Islam, such as the residents of the villages of Abu Snein and Yarcha.

Proportion of Hebrew-descended Palestinians

Tsvi Misinai claims that nearly 90% of the Palestinian people living in Israel proper and the occupied territories are of Hebrew descent (with the percentage among the population of the Gaza Strip being higher than 90%), but a greatly reduced percentage among Palestinian refugees living outside those areas.

In his book “Brother shall not lift his sword against Brother”, Misinai puts forward the following statistics pertaining to the proportion of the “Descendants of Israel” and the “Brethren of Israel” populations among the Palestinians and Arab Israelis, as of December 2007. It is detailed as four main areas (Judea and Samaria, Gaza strip, East Jerusalem and Israel proper) and are as follows:

In Judea and Samaria – not counting East Jerusalem, the number of permanent residents was 956,000, of which over 580,000 (61%) were Descendants of Israel. Another 27% were 259,000 Brethren of Israel (of whom were 158,000 descendants of the Edomites and 101,000 descendants of the Moabites). The remainder included 43,000 Arabs (4.5 percent), 44,000 descendants of the Roman Army, 24,000 Christians from Distant Places and 6,000 Kurds.[31]
In the Gaza strip, there were 891,000 permanent residents, including Bedouin. Out of the non-Bedouin, 275,000 were Descendants of Israel, 520,000 were Brethren of Israel (approximately 270,000 descendants of the Moabites and approximately 250,000 descendants of the Edomites), 43,000 descendants of the Roman Army, 4,000 Arabs who live in the Jabali’ya refugee camp; 3,400 Canaanites and 2,700 Philistines all living in Gaza city, and 3,000 Druze that live in the Dir al-Balakh refugee camp. Among the Descendants of Israel in the Gaza Strip, 30,000 are descendants of the Samaritans and 245,000 (27.5%) are descendants of authentic Jews. The population of the Gaza Strip also includes 40,000 Bedouin. The internal distribution of the Gaza Bedouin is 18,000 descendents of Moabites, 14,000 descendants of Edomites and 8,000 Descendents of Israel.

In addition to the Bedouin, the total number of the Descendants of Israel is 283,000 (32 percent), of the Brethren of Israel is 552,000 (62 percent, 288,000 or 32 percent descendants of Moabites and 264,000 or 30 percent descendants of Edomites).
Of the 200,000 non-Jewish residents of East Jerusalem, 82,000 are Descendants of the People of Israel, out of which 2,000 are descendants of Samaritans living in the Samaritan neighborhood, A-Sumera or Al-Abid. Out of this group, 7,000 are Christians. Some 48,000 are descendants of Kurds who came during the reign of Saladin. Over 32,000 are Brethren of Israel (24,000 descendants of the Moabites and 8,000 descendants of the Edomites). Some 27,000 are of Arab origin, and constitute the main concentration of population of Arab origin among Israeli citizens today. This includes 9,000 members of the veteran Arab settlers, and 14,000 descendants of the Arab Army living in the Mount of Olives neighborhood. There are also another 11,000 inhabitants who are recognized as non-Arab citizens: 5,000 Armenians and 6,000 non-Arab Christians from various distant locations.

Within Israel proper, 642,000 (45.5%) out of 1,413,000 non-Jewish residents within the Green Line (not counting East Jerusalem) are Descendants of the People of Israel.

Some 457,000 are Brethren of Israel in the State of Israel (and another 32,000 in Jerusalem), or 36 percent of all the Palestinians there (489,000 or 34.5 percent, including Jerusalem).
A further breakdown of this figure shows that the descendants of the Edomites number 166,000, and constitute 13 percent (of the Palestinians in the State of Israel, or 174,000 or 12.5 percent, with Jerusalem).
The descendants of the Moabites number 291,000, and constitute 23 percent (315,000 or 22 percent with Jerusalem).
The sum total of veteran inhabitants who are neither Palestinian nor Jewish is 140,000 and includes 121,000 Druze and 19,000 foreigners from Distant Places.

The descendants of the Roman Army number 150,000, or 12 percent (10.5 percent with Jerusalem).
The rest, some 16,000, or 1.25 percent, are Arabs, (43,000 or 3 percent with Jerusalem).
The number of Palestinians within the Green Line is 1,273,000. Among the Palestinians (i.e., those without Israeli citizenship) within the Green Line (not including East Jerusalem) the percentage who are Descendants of the People of Israel is close to 50.5 percent.

Views on Palestinian identity and the Arab Israeli conflict: Tsvi Misinai denies the existence of a separate Palestinian people as a historical identity and dismisses it as an utter fabrication. He views the Palestinian nationality as a modern socio-political construct propped up by imperialist Arab Baathist regimes, as a means of claiming rights to the land of Israel and fight the Jews. He also blames them for accentuating hostilities between the Jews and Palestinians.

In his book, Misinai asserts that the Palestinian people are a part and parcel of the people of Israel, and that no other party, including an Arab one, possesses the right to compete with the rights of the People of Israel over western Eretz Yisrael and their historical kinship with most Palestinians.

Misinai claims that the Palestinian national identity is not developed, for most Palestinians think of it in religious terms, not territorial. He states that their identity today is only Islamic and that there is a need for them to obtain a modern identity, which is Israeli. He asserts that this modern identity can never be Palestinian, as the country never had such an historical identity and as most Palestinians are themselves the progeny of the ancient Hebrews. Misinai labels the name “Palestine” as two huge bluffs, both a semantic bluff of the name Palestine and a genetic bluff as Palestine indicates that the modern day Palestinians are scions of the Philistines.

Misinai puts forward widespread ignorance about the true Jewish identity of the Palestinians or attempts to hide it, coupled with terrorism, as the root causes in escalating the conflict. He asserts that this is what prevents their liberation and preserves their enslavement within an occupation by a false Arab identity.

Misinai claims that even though, many Palestinians are aware of their Jewish origins, they rarely speak about this, and their vast majority does nothing to change their status. Those living under a Palestinian terror regime are deterred from speaking on this subject openly, for fear of being harmed.

Many Palestinian parents who aware of their Jewish origins usually don’t tell their children. Furthermore, families suspected of Jewish origins are forced to prove their loyalty as Arabs by aiding terrorists and giving their children patriotic names names such as Jihad. Such behavior deters Jews from establishing ties with such families. Even among Israeli Arabs there is a fear of discussion, primarily due to conventions on both sides and particularly the disbelief they would encounter among Jews. They fear that if they try and promote their claim, the Jews will think they are trying to improve their inferior status under false pretenses.

He believes that both his findings and the genetic evidence gathered by Ariella Oppenheim and others render the Israeli-Palestinian conflict redundant, as it proves that that the whole of Israel and the occupied territories belong to both the so-called “recognized Jews” and “unrecognized Jews”.

Misinai also believes that given the option, most Palestinians would support a one-state solution. He also claims that most Palestinians do not hate Jews and are interested in peace with Israel. He claims that many are opposed to the Jewish presence in the Palestinian territories, because the issue has been hijacked by groups – the leadership of the Arab world, and Palestinians (both the Brethren of Israel and the Descendants of Israel) who have forgotten their Jewish origins.

The primary sin of Zionism, according to Misinai, is the suppression of the historic truth about the Jewish origins of the majority of Palestinians, and ignoring his findings and its ramifications. He asserts that most of the Palestinians who together with the Jews possess historical rights to Israel have become hostages of descendants of foreigners in their own homeland who control their lives, force terrorism upon them and control the cash designated for Palestinians.

Misinai also states that the number of refugees has been deliberately blown out of proportions and that there are far fewer refugees than is widely believed. To this, he attributes the Palestinians’ taking advantage of UNRWA’s largesse, which gives out free food and aid without asking questions and deliberate gross inflation in the number of refugees by Palestinians themselves.

“The Engagement”: A solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: In contrast to the two commonly discussed solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — a two state solution (i.e., two states for two people) vs. a one state solution (i.e., a binational state, one state for two peoples) — Misinai believes that the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a third option: a “one state solution for one people.” This “one state” integrates Israel proper with the West Bank and Gaza Strip as one territorial unit, while the “one people” consists of both groups being bound and re-defined as one united Israeli-Hebrew nation.

To this end, he argues it is imperative that the majority of Palestinians reclaim their ethnic Hebrew heritage, although he states that this does not mean reverting to Judaism (neither de-Islamization for Palestinian Muslims, nor de-Christianization for Palestinian Christians, etc.), nor does it mean cultural de-Arabization.

Instead, it means the adoption of a national consciousness that acknowledges a common Hebrew origin that embraces all those of such a descent, no matter what their current religion, be they Jewish, Muslim, Christian, or Samaritan, and no matter what their culture.

Indeed, already, among the different Jewish ethnic divisions, each has its own traditional community language and distinct traditional culture. It is the amalgam of this diversity that forms Jewish Israeli culture. Likewise, the “Jewish” Israeli culture would continue with this process, but will add the Palestinians’ history, culture and religious diversity, and integrate them as aspects of the Hebrew national consciousness.

In order to do so, he believes that the whole concept of Jewishness as the defining factor in Zionism must be re-framed in terms of ethnicity, as opposed to simply religious. Misinai concedes that “The Engagement” might seem like a surreal project, but so too did Zionism initially. “The Engagement”, he admits, is a process that requires participation by both sides and mutual acknowledgement of the “other” as a part of oneself.

Uni-lateral Engagement: As a prelude to creating conditions to make the re-integration of the majority of Palestinians with the Jews possible, Misinai advocates a “Uni-lateral Engagement” in which autonomy is granted for the Palestinian territories and the present Palestinian leaderships are removed.

He states that Israeli operations in Palestinian areas must be designed not only to ensure the safety of Israeli citizens, but also to liberate the Palestinians from the yoke of the Palestinian leaderships whom he accuses of subjugating them and making their lives wretched, feeding them lies, and leading them from one Nakba catastrophe to another, causing untold damage to the entire region and igniting terrorism around the globe. Their entire terror apparatus must be dismantled, and they must be replaced by a new Palestinian leadership devoted to peace. Should any peace loving Palestinian leadership fail to appear, Israel must enforce its own authority upon all factions in the Palestinian population.

Misinai states that the re-engagement will take one of two forms: Residents without citizenship, or Re-engagement with the People of Israel. The process will be carried out on a family-by-family basis, and in certain instances on an individual basis. In the first stage, which will be carried out gradually among all the Palestinian population, each and every Palestinian (except those suspected of terrorist activity) will have three choices:

Loyal Residency: An oath of allegiance to the State, and declaration of waiver of citizenship rights for oneself (if the individual declines to opt for the second course of action that follows). This is equivalent to the American green card, but where additionally, one’s status is passed to children on the basis of jus sanguinis (by contrast, children of American non-citizens born on US soil are automatically citizens due to jus soli, whatever the status of the parents).

Children of individuals (who are Descendant of Israel) who chose this first option may circumvent status of “loyal residency” passed on by their parents if they themselves opt for the second course of action that follows. This choice is available only for those Palestinians who do not wish to rejoin the People of Israel, or who are not Descendants of Israel.
Re-engagement with the People of Israel: The expressed desire and willingness to rejoin the People of Israel via an oath of allegiance to the State of Israel and its people, the People of Israel, and declaration that one does not belong to the Arab nation.
Emigration: Emigration and purchase of the émigrés’ house by the State at a fair price (in order not to cause injury to émigrés due to fluctuations in market prices, likely to be depressed by an exodus and surplus of real estate). This choice is available for those Palestinians who, if eligible for the first, or both the first and second options, want neither.
In the event of either of the first two options, neither de-Christianization nor de-Islamization, nor cultural de-Arabization are components of The Engagement. Furthermore, if an individual person wanted to revert to Judaism, this is strictly a personal matter which would be done through the relevant religious channels, which The Engagement process is not a part of in any form.

The Engagement is of a national re-unificationist nature. Most importantly, it is thus far the first that is specifically religiously pluralistic (that is, it acknowledges the People of Israel are today of many faiths), an aspect that lends to its very controversy.

Citizenship sought by members of world Jewry would continue to be dealt with by the requirements and specifications of the Law of Return. Persons who are neither Jews nor Palestinians, and are seeking residency or citizenship, would follow naturalization processes and requirements separate from both the Law of Return and The Engagement.

Requirements: Under the scheme while each new member would not be required to convert to Judaism, they would, however, be required to gain mastery of the following:

  • The Hebrew language (including reading and writing).
  • The culture of the People of Israel.
  • The history of the People of Israel, including the forced conversion of their ancestors.
  • The history of Eretz-Israel.
  • The Bible.
  • Jewish religious tradition.

The scope of knowledge or proficiencies required would be equal to that of most secular Jews, and would ensure that the act of re-engagement would have sufficient quality and depth. The scope of knowledge would actually be far greater than that required in conventional conversion to Judaism, and would not exclusively focus on matters of faith and ritual. This is in order to provide a cognitive counterweight to the hostile education and incitement that

Palestinians have been subjected to in the past in regard to Israel. Moreover, it will serve to enhance the level of education of participants to enable them to successfully integrate into Israeli society without being marginalized or becoming second-class citizens. Such education, outlined in Option Two above, will continue for a number of years and will be accomplished in a framework similar to the Hebrew language ulpans (intense six month ‘total immersion’ crash-courses designed to inculcate basic mastery of Hebrew by new immigrants in Israel). The children of such Palestinians will be enrolled in the Israeli school system, compulsory education just as their Israeli counterparts.

The other requirements of enrollees in the scheme are as follows:

  • Declare their renunciation of their association to the Arab Nation. This, Misinai asserts, does not mean dis-association from Arab culture.
  • Take a short bath in a Mikveh to remove influence of potential intermarriage with people other than the people of Israel during the generations.
  • This, Misinai states, has a purely national meaning and does not impose any religious undertaking on the person taking it.
  • Take an oath of allegiance to the People of Israel and the State of Israel.
  • Palestinians who complete the process of re-joining the People of Israel and are not yet Israeli citizens will receive Israeli citizenship.
  • All re-joining Palestinians will be registered with either an Israeli or a Jewish nationality according to their choice.
  • Those who choose the first path (loyal residency only) will have the option to choose an Arab Islamic (or Christian) education school track, with an abridged Israeli curriculum.
  • The children of those who choose the second path (re-engagement) will be required to enroll in the regular Israeli school system.
  • Only those who complete Israel education and belong to the second option (the re-engagement path) can progress to the third step – service in the IDF, taking an oath of allegiance to the Jewish People.

At the beginning, the IDF will establish special units for this population (similar to separate minority units of Bedouin, Druze and Circassians in the formative years of the IDF). Palestinians who are above draft age will undergo abridged military service (current policy for older new Jewish immigrants), then be integrated into the IDF reserve system.

 Only Palestinians who will serve in the IDF will be eligible for Israeli citizenship (except for those with serious health issues or those are too old who receive exemptions).

Only the army will have the prerogative to decide which candidates for military service should do civil service in place of military service. Citizenship will carry eligibility for certain civil rights including the right to vote for the Knesset and benefits such as receipt of better social benefits for veterans including higher children’s allowances.

 A citizen who betrays the state will lose his citizenship and be harshly punished. Similarly, a loyal resident who will abridge his oath of allegiance will lose his or her Residency rights and be deported, in particularly serious cases, after offenders complete their sentence.

Only those considered to be Descendants of Israel would benefit from the scheme. Tsvi Misinai states that only a small minority of the Palestinian who are presently outside of the Land of Israel (i.e., the refugees or diaspora) have significant rights over Western Eretz-Yisrael.

That right belongs to the original Descendants of the People of Israel (i.e., the Jews, a majority of Palestinians presently in the Land of Israel, and a minority of Palestinians presently outside the Land of Israel), and to the Descendants of the Roman Army (whose historic rights in Eretz-Israel are, however, much lesser than those of the Descendants of Israel).

The majority of the Descendants of the Roman Army are presently in Jordan, and despite their long-standing seniority rights in Israel, they must remain there, as most emigrated to Jordan of their own free will after the Six day war of 1967. The only exception to this is specific cases of family reunion.

On the other hand, Brethren of Israel, being native to the land east of the Jordan river, only those who are presently in the Land of Israel will be eligible for “loyal residency”, unless they opt for emigration. Those Brethren of Israel who are presently outside of the Land of Israel (a majority among Palestinian refugees) will not be eligible for “loyal residency”, nor a right of return to the Land of Israel. They possess a right of return to Jordan.

This is because they are not ethnically Jews, and their historic Jewish identity came about by forced conversions to Judaism, as is the case with Islam. Furthermore, their rights to Israel goes back only 170 years, and is superseded by those of the Jews and Descendants of Israel, who have a historic connection to the land, spanning several thousand years.

Tsvi Misinai’s theory does have it’s supporters among some Palestinians, including Suleiman al-Hamri, a Fatah official from Bethlehem, and former Palestinian Authority minister Ziyad Abu Ziyad, who asked Misinai to prepare Arabic language versions of his thesis and the Engagement booklet. He has also gained support among some Jews, including at least one Israeli Government minister who so far has remained unidentified.

Among Bedouins, a key vocal supporter of Misinai’s theory has been Sheikh Salem al-Huzeil, the head of the “Our State” Movement and a prominent leader of the Al-Huzeil tribe from Rahat. In October 2009, with the aim of furthering Jewish and Bedouin ties, Al-Huzeil organized a meeting with Misinai and the religious- Zionist “Hit’habrut” (Joining Together) Movement, in which he maintained that that most his tribal ancestors were Jewish prior to their forced conversion during the Muslim conquest approximately 1,300 years ago.

The Sheikh’s act, however, was not without any repercussions. In the immediate month following the meeting, the Sheikh was the recipient of numerous death threats from Bedouins enraged at his efforts to maintain friendly relations with the Jewish community and to demonstrate for the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. Posters were distributed calling for the death of Sheikh al-Huzeil. Moreover, several members of his family suffered severe burns after rival Bedouins set his house on fire in Rahat.

Additionally, some Haredi Jewish settler leaders have also welcomed the idea with great enthusiasm, since they believe that once the entire biblical land of Israel is populated with Jews, a new era of peace on Earth will be ushered in. Rabbi Dov Stein, secretary and one of the seven-member leadership council of the current nascent Sanhedrin (a Jewish religious council of 200 rabbis modelled on the biblical Sanhedrin rulers of Jerusalem), also supports the Hebrew origin of most Palestinians.

Stein, however, as an Orthodox Jew, differs with Misinai on its implications, since he sees Jewish nationhood as primarily defined by religious affiliation to Judaism, even where one may not necessarily be of Hebrew ancestral origin, and not defined by Hebrew ancestral origin. Stein asserts that it’s because the Jews uphold the Torah that they have the right to Israel. Therefore, in order to be accepted, Stein argues that the Palestinians must give up Islam and embrace Judaism as a prerequisite for re-joining the Jewish people.

Among Israeli academics and intellectuals, Tsvi Misinai has received the avid support of Mordechai Nisan, a professor and scholar of Middle East Studies from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Nisan was also asked by the Sanhedrin to serve as it’s professional consultant on this issue, while Elon Yarden, an attorney who has written a series of books about the land of Israel and it’s inhabitants, has also reached the same conclusion as Misinai.

Among the Druze, Druze MK Ayoob Kara of the Likud party agrees with Misinai’s claim that the Druze are actually descended from Jews who were forced to convert to Islam. Kara has even gone as far as saying that he can bring forward genetic evidence to prove it.

Criticism: Misinai’s thesis and work has also garnered controversy, both at home and abroad, among some Palestinians and Jews alike, with the criticisms mostly coming from the Palestinian side.

One Palestinian intellectual, Ismail Al-Shindi, professor of Islamic Jurisprudence at Al-Quds Open University denied that Jews ever maintained a sizable population in the land of Palestine, or that they were forcibly converted by the Ottomans, and he even went as far as to accuse Misinai of “falsifying” history to Hebraize Palestinians.

Another Palestinian, Kamel Katalo, professor of Sociology at Al-Khalil University in Hebron, has stated that he has read Tsvi Misinai’s booklet and come to the conclusion that Misinai makes strident generalizations and reaches spurious and completely erroneous conclusions based on questionable premises, pointing out that there is no such thing as a “Jewish gene”. His most notable Arab Israeli critic is the former Balad MK, Azmi Bishara, who dismissed his thesis as yet another Jewish plot to remove the Palestinians from their land. Tsvi Misinai has accused both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities of being indifferent to his findings.

New Age – Messianic Christian Sects
Mar 13th, 2010 by James

New Age Movements: A surge of New Age Christian religious sects are popping up all over the globe and competing to convert uneducated to join them as they pursue missionizing in their membership drive. In another context ordinary people may even assume that a new sect of Jews are missionizing for Christian members to leave the historical churchs and join the members of Messianic Judaism.  Another purpose of this agenda is  to give their New Age Messianic Christian sect some form of credibility or make it believable if they have a few questionable Jews amongst them as a scapegoat for using the term Judaism in their campaigns.

Clearly, the majority of their new members are comprised of Ex practicing Christians who are leaving the historical  churchs or left the historical organized Christian religions in droves, new age thinkers of no religious background and numerous others have left Islam to join their more lenient New Age messianic way of life.

Some New Age Messianic members have even gone to the extreme of legal name changes from non Jewish names to a Hebrew name. And various leaders of these sects have assigned themselves a title of “rabbi” which is another form of fake identity and misrepresentation of authentic rabbinical scholars. Common sense tells us that the title Rabbi is reserved for scholars/sages of Judaism and not by some fly by night character who is clueless of the  Hebrew Torah and language it is written in. Nor have the Messianic Christian leaders calling themselves a rabbi, ever attended an authentic Jewish Yeshiva.

People who have attended these messianic gatherings allege these New Age Chrisitian messianic movements are using selective concepts from scripture which they imply is to establish their “new” Canon  and which is alien to authentic Torah or even Christian doctrine. In so doing these New Age Messianic sects are altering the Abrahamic Commandment – Genesis 12:3 and by the same token altering the eternal word of the Torah.

There are people who from observations of some sects and their  services conclude the leaders misinterpret scripture and in some cases go to the extreme of defaming other religions and biblical text. In addition, without a doubt they have an agenda that is anti-Israel and totally anti Judaism which exists amongst these sects, as they launch a propaganda campaign for Israel’s demise from the map.  Allegations have arisen that some “Messianic” leaders have been known to assist certain terrorist regimes in armament smuggling while vacationing in the Holy Land or Middle East.

The wiser Christians and non religious affiliations who walked out of these Messianic Christian services proclaim there are many “wow’s” – in these messianic services  including the manipulation of the Torah and Christian doctrine. Forgive them for they don’t know what they are doing or do they?

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, several small yet competing new religious movements, such as the Ebionite Community and others, have emerged claiming to be revivalists of the views and practices of early Christian sects, although their idiosyncratic claims to authenticity cannot be verified.

The counter-missionary group - Jews for Judaism mentions the historical Ebionites in their literature in order to argue that “Messianic Judaism”, as promoted by missionary groups such as Jews for Jesus, is Pauline Christianity misrepresenting itself as Judaism. Some Messianic groups have expressed concern over leaders in Israel that deny Jesus’ divinity and the possible collapse of the Messianic movement due to a resurgence of Ebionitism. In a recent polemic, a Messianic leader asked whether Christians should imitate the Torah-observance of “neo-Ebionites”. Outreach Judaism is another organization that provides the truth to seekers of it.

These New Age movements that have surfaced use various missionizing terminology among English speaking communities, usually for the following reasons:

  • To reject modern Christianity, as having been led astray from “normative” theology by Paul of Tarsus.
  • To lay claim to a Torah-based structure of belief in which some Mosaic book sections are rejected and some are more emphasized in a “non-normative” way. 
  • There has been a history of sexual, physical and mental abuse  carried out by Christian clergy on children, adults and aboriginal peoples
  • Because of a belief that the term was used to describe Gentile believers in Jesus in earliest times, even though they believe they are in unity with the modern Christian faith.
  • And the whole concept is probably financially lucrative for the CEO’s of these organizations.
    ————————————-

Following are examples of New Age or Messianic concepts and thinking;

The Ebionites: The term Ebionites derives from the Hebrew Evionim, meaning “the Poor Ones”, which has parallels in the Psalms and the self-given term of pious Jewish circles.

The term “the poor” was at first a common designation for all Christians – a reference to their material as well their voluntary poverty. Following schisms within the early Church, the graecized Hebrew term “Ebionite” was applied exclusively to Christians separated from the developing Pauline Christianity, and later in the fourth century a specific group of Christians or to a Christian sect distinct from the Nazarenes. All the while, the designation “the Poor” in other languages was still used in its original, more general sense.  Origen says “for Ebion signifies “poor” among the Jews, and those Christians who have received Jesus as Christ are called by the name of Ebionites.” Tertullian inaccurately derived the name from a fictional heresiarch called Ebion.

Without authenticated archaeological evidence, attempts to reconstruct their history have been based on textual references, mainly the writings of the Church Fathers. They said that the Ebionites used an altered Gospel according to the Hebrews [1]. The earliest reference to a group that might fit the description of the Ebionites appears in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho (c. 140). Justin distinguishes between Christians who observe the Law of Moses but does not require its observance upon others, and those who believe the Mosaic Law to be obligatory on all. Irenaeus (c. 180) was probably the first to use the term “Ebionites” to describe a heretical judaizing sect, which he regarded as stubbornly clinging to the Law. Origen (c. 212) remarks that the name derives from the Hebrew word “evyon,” meaning “poor.” Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century gives the most complete but also questionable account in his heresiology called Panarion, denouncing eighty heretical sects, among them the Ebionites. Epiphanius mostly gives general descriptions of their religious beliefs and includes quotations from their gospels, which have not survived. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, the Ebionite movement may have arisen about the time of the destruction of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem (AD 70).

Others have argued that the Ebionites were more faithful to the authentic teachings of Jesus and constituted the mainstream of the Jerusalem church before being gradually marginalized by the followers of Paul of Tarsus.

The actual number of groups described as Ebionites is difficult to ascertain, as the contradictory patristic accounts in their attempt to distinguish various sects, sometimes confuse them with each other. Other groups mentioned are the Carpocratians, the Cerinthians, the Elcesaites, the Nazarenes, the Nazoraeans, and the Sampsaeans, most of whom were Christian sects who held gnostic or other views rejected by the Ebionites. Epiphanius, however, mentions that a group of Ebionites came to embrace some of these views despite keeping their name.

As the Ebionites are first mentioned as such in the 2nd century, their earlier history and their relation to the first Jerusalem church remains obscure and a matter of contention. Many scholars link the origin of the Ebionites with the First Jewish-Roman War. Prior to this, they are considered to be part of the Jerusalem church led by the Apostle Peter and later by Jesus’ brother, or cousin, James. Eusebius relates a tradition, probably based on Aristo of Pella, that the early Christians left Jerusalem just prior to the war and fled to Pella beyond the Jordan River. They were led by Simeon of Jerusalem (d. 107) and during the Second Jewish-Roman War, they were persecuted by the Jewish followers of Bar Kochba for refusing to recognize his messianic claims.

According to these scholars, it was beyond the Jordan, that the Nazarenes/Ebionites were first recognized as a distinct group when some Christians receded farther from mainstream Christianity, and approximated more and more closely to Rabbinical Judaism, resulting in a “degeneration” into an exclusively messianic sect. Some from these groups later opened themselves to either Gnostic (and possibly Essene) or syncretic influences, such as the book of Elchasai. The latter influence places some Ebionites in the context of the gnostic movements widespread in Syria and the lands to the east.

After the end of the First Jewish-Roman War, the importance of the Jerusalem church began to fade. Christianity became dispersed throughout the diaspora in the Levant, where it was slowly eclipsed by gentile Christianity, which then spread throughout the Roman Empire without competition from “judaizing” Christian groups. Once the Jerusalem church, still headed by Jesus’ relatives, was eliminated during the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, the Ebionites gradually lost influence and followers. Their decline was due to marginalization and “persecution” by other sects. Following the defeat of the rebellion and the expulsion of all Jews from Judea, Jerusalem became the Gentile city of Aelia Capitolina. Many of the

Christians residing at Pella renounced their Jewish practices at this time and joined to the mainstream Christian messianic church. Those who remained at Pella and continued in obedience to the Law were deemed heretics. In 375, Epiphanius records the settlement of Ebionites on Cyprus, but by the mid-5th century, Theodoret of Cyrrhus reported that they were no longer present in the region

Some scholars allege that the Ebionites survived much longer and identify them with a sect encountered by the historian Abd al-Jabbar around the year 1000. Another possible reference to surviving Ebionite communities in northwestern Arabia, specifically the cities of Tayma and Tilmas, around the 11th century, appears in Sefer Ha’masaot, the “Book of the Travels” of Rabbi Benjamin of Tudela, a rabbi from Spain.

A 12th century Muslim historian Muhammad al-Shahrastani mentions people living in nearby Medina and Hejaz who accepted Jesus as a prophetic figure and followed traditional Judaism, rejecting mainstream Christian views.

Some scholars assume that they contributed to the development of the Islamic view of Jesus due to exchanges of Ebionite remnants with the first Muslims. However, Muslim theologians and those who accept their narratives of early Islam maintain that the Islamic view of Jesus was revealed in the Quran well before any significant Muslim encounter with Christians such as the Migration to Abyssinia.

Judaic and Gnostic Ebionitism: Most patristic sources portray the Ebionites as traditional ascetic Jews, who zealously followed the Law of Moses, revered Jerusalem as the holiest city, and restricted table fellowship only to Gentiles who converted to Judaism. They celebrated a commemorative meal annually, on or around Passover, with unleavened bread and water only, in contrast to the daily Christian Eucharist.

Epiphanius of Salamis is the only Church Father who describes Ebionites as departing from traditional Jewish principles of faith and practice; specifically by engaging in excessive ritual bathing, possessing an angelology which claimed that the Christ is a great archangel who was incarnated in Jesus and adopted as the son of God, opposing animal sacrifice, denying parts or most of the Law, and practicing religious vegetarianism.

The reliability of Epiphanius’ account of the Ebionites is questioned by some scholars. For example, the heterodox views and practices ascribed to some Ebionites originated in Gnostic Christianity and are characteristics of the Elcesaite sect, which Epiphanius mistakenly attributed to the Ebionites.

Regarding the Ebionites specifically, a number of scholars have different theories on how the Ebionites may have developed from an Essene messianic sect. Hans-Joachim Schoeps argues that the conversion of some Essenes to Christianity after the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE may be the source of some Ebionites adopting Essene views and practices; while some conclude that the Essenes did not become Christians but still had an influence on the Ebionites.

Jesus: The majority of Church Fathers agree that the Ebionites rejected many of the central Christian views of Jesus such as the pre-existence, divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, and physical resurrection of Jesus. The Ebionites are described as emphasizing the oneness of God and the humanity of Jesus as the biological son of both Mary and Joseph, who by virtue of his righteousness, was chosen by God to be the messianic “prophet like Moses” (foretold in Deuteronomy 18:14–22) when he was anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism.

Of the books of the New Testament, the Ebionites are said to have accepted only a Aramaic version of the Gospel of Matthew, referred to as the Gospel of the Hebrews, as additional scripture to the Hebrew Bible. This version of Matthew, Irenaeus reports, omitted the first two chapters (on the nativity of Jesus), and started with the baptism of Jesus by John.

The Ebionites believed that all Gentiles must observe the commandments in the Law of Moses, in order to become righteous and seek communion with God, but these commandments must be understood in the light of Jesus’ expounding of the Law, revealed during his sermon on the mount, and other evangelical counsels. The Ebionites may have held a form of “inaugurated eschatology” positing that the ministry of Jesus had ushered in the Messianic Age so that the kingdom of God might be understood as present in an incipient fashion, while at the same time awaiting consummation in the future age.

James versus Paul: James, the brother, or cousin, of Jesus, was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles, established many churches and founded a Christian theology (Pauline Christianity). At the Council of Jerusalem (c 49), Paul argued to abrogate Mosaic observances for his non-Jewish converts.

When Paul recounted the events to the Galatians (Galatians 2:9-10), he referred only to the remembrance of the poor rather than conveying the four points of the council (Acts 15:19-21). The nature of the laws for the Gentiles described by James is contested (Council of Jerusalem).

The issue of the observance of Mosaic law by Gentile converts remained unresolved (Acts 21:21), with Paul agreeing to James’ request to lead a group of Greeks in carrying out Nazarite vows in order to for Paul to prove his adherence to the law. James reiterated (Acts 21:25) the four points of the earlier council, saying that Gentiles were not required to perform the Nazarite vows. The uproar that followed ended with Paul being rescued from the people of Jerusalem by Roman centurions (Acts 21:30-35).

Some scholars allege that the Ebionites regarded James, brother, or cousin of Jesus, the first bishop of Jerusalem, the rightful leader of the Church rather than Peter. James Tabor argues that the Ebionites claimed a unique dynastic apostolic succession for the relatives of Jesus.

They opposed the Apostle Paul, who claimed that gentiles/Christians did not have to be circumcised or otherwise follow the Law of Moses, and named him an apostate.

Epiphanius relates that some Ebionites alleged that Paul was a Greek who converted to Judaism in order to marry the daughter of a high priest of Israel but apostasized when she rejected him.

Few writings of the Ebionites have survived, and these are in uncertain form. The Recognitions of Clement and the Clementine Homilies, two 3rd century Christian works, are regarded by general scholarly consensus as largely or entirely Christian in origin and reflect Christian beliefs. The exact relationship between the Ebionites and these writings is debated, but Epiphanius’s description of some Ebionites in Panarion 30 bears a striking similarity to the ideas in the Recognitions and Homilies. Scholar Glenn Alan Koch speculates that Epiphanius likely relied upon a version of the Homilies as a source document.

The Catholic Encyclopedia classifies the Ebionite writings into four groups:

  • The Gospel of the Ebionites: According to Irenaeus, the Ebionites used only the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius of Caesarea mentions a Gospel of the Hebrews, often identified as the slightly modified Aramaic original of Matthew, written with Hebrew letters. Such a work was known to Hegesippus, Origen and to Clement of Alexandria. Epiphanius of Salamis attributes this gospel to Nazarenes, and claims that Ebionites only possessed an incomplete, falsified, and truncated copy. The question remains whether Epiphanius was able to accurately distinguish between Nazarenes and Ebionites.
  • Apocrypha of the New Testament: The Circuits of Peter and Acts of the Apostles, including the work usually titled the Ascents of James. The first-named books are substantially contained in the Homilies of Clement under the title of Clement’s Compendium of Peter’s itinerary sermons, and also in the Recognitions attributed to Clement. They form an early Christian didactic fiction to express Christian views, i.e. the primacy of James the Just, their connection with the episcopal see of Rome, and their antagonism to Simon Magus, as well as gnostic doctrines. Scholar Robert E. Van Voorst opines of the Ascents of James (R 1.33–71), “There is, in fact, no section of the Clementine literature about whose origin in Jewish Christianity one may be more certain”. Despite this assertion, he expresses reservations that the material is genuinely Ebionite in origin.
  • The Works of Symmachus the Ebionite: Symmachus produced a translation of the Hebrew Bible into Koine Greek, which was used by Jerome and is still extant in fragments, and Hypomnemata written to counter the canonical Gospel of Matthew. The latter work, which is totally lost is probably identical with De distinctione præceptorum mentioned by Ebed Jesu (Assemani, Bibl. Or., III, 1).
  • The Book of Elchesai claimed to have been written about 100 CE and brought to Rome in c. 217 CE by Alcibiades of Apamea. Ebionites deemed those who accepted its gnostic doctrines apostates.

Some also speculate that the core of the Gospel of Barnabas, beneath a polemical medieval Muslim overlay, may have been based upon an Ebionite or gnostic document. The existence and origin of this source continues to be debated by scholars.

The mainstream Christian view of the Ebionites is based on the polemical views of the Church Fathers who portrayed them as heretics for rejecting many of the central Christian views of Jesus, and allegedly having an improper fixation on the Law of Moses at the expense of the grace of God. In this view, the Ebionites may have been the descendants of a Christian sect within the early Jerusalem church which broke away from its mainstream theology.

The mainstream view of the Ebionites is that they were heretics due to their refusal to see Jesus as a false prophet and failed the Messiah claimant but also for wanting to include their gospel into the canon of the Hebrew Bible.

Mainstream Islam charges mainstream Christianity with having corrupted the Bible. Some in the Muslim community believe that the Ebionites (as opposed to Christians they encountered) were faithful to the original teachings of Jesus with shared views about Jesus’ humanity, though the Islamic view of Jesus conflicts with the Ebionites’ views regarding the virgin birth and the crucifixion.

Some scholars (secular or from mainstream Christianity) are acknowledging the recent emphasis on the Jewishness of Jesus and his earliest followers, and commenting on how they reconciled the Jewish Jesus with the Christ of faith. On the other hand, some Christian apologists have criticized the quest for the historical Jesus as having resulted in a “revival of the Ebionite heresy

——————————

The Nazarenes: The Nazarenes were converts of the Apostles who fled Jerusalem because of Jesus’ warning of its coming siege. The “Canons of the Church of Alexandria” (2nd-3rd century AD) uses the term “Nazarene” to refer to non-Jewish believers. They fled to Pella, Peraea (which is northeast of Jerusalem), and eventually spread outwards to Beroea and Bashanitis, where they permanently settled. There, they and the other disciples took the name “Jessaeans” and began distinguishing themselves from them. They took this name either because of Jesse, the father of David, to fulfill Psalm 132:11, or from the name of Jesus himself. Once the term Christian was applied to the followers of Jesus at Antioch, the Nazoreans dropped the name Jessaean and Christian, and retook the name Nazarene.

In contemporary Israeli Hebrew, the term “Notzri” is likely to be derived from or related to “Nazarene” and is the general word for “Christian”.

In all Arab countries Christians are called “Nasara” Plural of Nasrani. The term “Nasara” is used many times in the Qur’an when referring to Christians, which may be a corruption of the word Nazarene.

It may also be mentioned that the Quran clearly alludes to the fact that the word Nasaara has its origin in the Arabic word Nasr which means to bring victory. This is made clear in Surat Al Saff (the 61st chapter of the Quran) when Jesus is quoted as saying, “Who are my ansaar (victors) to Allah. The disciples said we are the ansaar (victors) of Allah.” And so they called themselves Nasaara because of that. This would suggest that the origin of the word does not relate to the place of Nazareth but to the concept of giving victory to God.

According to the standard reference for Koine Greek, the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Nazoraios (plural: Nazoraioi) is translated into English as:”Nazoraean,

Nazarene, quite predominantly a designation of Jesus, in Matthew, John, Acts and Luke 18:37, while Mark as (“coming from Nazareth”). Of the two places where the later form occurs in Luke, the one, Luke 4:34, apparently comes from Mark (1:24), the other, 24:19, perhaps from a special Greek source.

Matthew says expressly 2:23 that Jesus was so called because he grew up in Nazareth. In addition, the other NT writers who call Jesus Nazoraios know Nazareth as his home. But linguistically the transition (Nazareth) is difficult and it is meant something different before it was connected with Nazareth. According to Acts 24:5 the Christians were so called “Nazirites”

In all, the following derivations have been suggested:

  • The place-name Nazara (which later became Nazareth), as in the Greek form Iesous Nazarenos. This is the traditional interpretation within mainstream Christianity, and it still seems the obvious interpretation to many modern Christians. Matthew 2:23 reads that “and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene”" (NIV) (Greek is Nazoraios).
  • The word nazur means separate in Aramaic. The word is related to Nazir. There are a number of references to Nazirites/Nazarites in the Old Testament and New Testament. A Nazarite was an Israelite who had taken special vows of dedication to Yahweh whereby he abstained for a specified period of time from using alcohol and grape products, cutting his hair, and approaching corpses. At the end of the period he was required to immerse himself in water.
  • Thus the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-15) by his relative John the Baptist could have been done “to fulfil all righteousness” at the ending of a nazirite vow. However, following his baptism, the gospels give no reason to suppose Jesus took another Nazirite vow until The Last Supper, (see Mark 14:25).
  • Luke 1:15 describes John the Baptist as a Nazarite from birth. James the Just was described as a Nazarite in Epiphanius of Salamis’ Panarion 29.4.1. In Acts 21:23-26 Paul of Tarsus is advised to accompany four men having “a vow on them” (a Nazarite vow) to Herod’s Temple and to purify himself in order that it might appear that “that you yourself also walk orderly”.
    This event was the reason why in Acts 24:5-18 Paul was accused of being a “ringleader of the sect of the
  • Nazarenes” (and further verifies that the term Nazarene was connected to the term Nazarite). However, Epiphanius specifically rejects the connection between the terms Nazarene and Nazarite.
  • The word nazara, “truth”, another gnostic concept popularized through the Gospel of Philip: “The apostles that came before us called him Jesus Nazarene the Christ …”Nazara” is the “Truth”. Therefore ‘Nazarenos’ is “The One of the Truth” …” (Gospel of Philip, 47)
  • Other Greek terminology coined Jesus Nazarene the Christ (Greek is Nazoraios) as Ju-Zeus as a god incarnate of the Greek and Roman gods of Jupiter and Zeus [plural: Nazoraioi] meaning two gods in one. Hence the later Christian concept of a god within a god or son of god.

Alongside the traditional explanations above, two more recent explanations have been suggested:

  • The word nosri which means “one who keeps (guard over)” or “one who observes” the same name used by spiritual leaders (Yeshu Ha-Notzri) of a pre-Christian gnostic sect which evolved into the Mandaean religion (as in Jeremiah 31:5-6). This explanation had become popular among Protestants towards the end of the 20th century. However, the Greek letter (zeta) is always used in Koine transliterations of (zayin) but never (tsade) which is always represented by a (sigma) instead.
  • The Greek transliteration (Nazareinos, from which the English “Nazarene” derived) of Neitzër which is the Hebrew term meaning “offshoot(s)”, especially from the branches of an olive tree (instead referring to a wicker in Modern Hebrew). which appears in Isaiah chapters 11.1 and 60.21. This derivation is popular among some of the late 20th century’s Messianic Jewish groups.
  • But again, the same problem arises with the Greek letter (zeta) being the Koine transliteration of (zayin) but never (tsade) (always represented by a (sigma) instead).
    Even though they had distinguished themselves as Christians they were not accepted by the Jews because of their belief in Jesus as a god. Jerome and Epiphanius both wrote how the Nazarene sect existed in their day, the late fourth century. However, little is known how their sect disappeared.
  • In the 4th century Jerome also refers to Nazarenes as those “…who accept Messiah in such a way that they do not cease to observe the old Law.” In his Epistle 79, to Augustine, he said: “What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called ‘Nasarenes’; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither.”

Jerome viewed a distinction between Nazarenes and Ebionites, a different Christian sect, but does not comment on whether Nazarenes considered themselves to be “Christian” or not or how they viewed themselves as fitting into the descriptions he uses. His criticism of the Nazarenes is noticeably more direct and critical than that of Epiphanius.

The following creed is that of a church at Constantinople at the same period: “I renounce all customs, rites, legalisms, unleavened breads & sacrifices of lambs of the Hebrews, and all other feasts of the Hebrews, sacrifices, prayers, aspersions, purifications, sanctifications and propitiations and fasts, and new moons, and Sabbaths, and superstitions, and hymns and chants and observances and Synagogues, and the food and drink of the Hebrews; in one word, I renounce everything Jewish, every law, rite and custom and if afterwards I shall wish to deny and return to Jewish superstition, or shall be found eating with the Jews, or feasting with them, or secretly conversing and condemning the Christian religion instead of openly confuting them and condemning their vain faith, then let the trembling of Gehazi cleave to me, as well as the legal punishments to which I acknowledge myself liable. And may I be anathema in the world to come, and may my soul be set down with Satan and the devils.”

“Nazarenes” are referenced past the fourth century AD as well. Jacobus de Voragine (1230–1298) described James as a “Nazarene” in The Golden Legend, vol 7. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) quotes Augustine of Hippo who was given an apocryphal book called Hieremias by a “Hebrew of the Nazarene Sect” in Catena Aurea – Gospel of Matthew, chapter 27. So this terminology seems to have remained at least through the 13th century in European discussions.

The Church of the Nazarene, emphasizes Christian activism in the Arminian tradition of John Wesley, and which is accepted as a mainstream Christian (Protestant) denomination that was born out of the Holiness Movement of the early 20th Century. The Church of the Nazarene took their name in order to associate itself with the humbleness of Christ’s town of origin, as they seek to reach the “humble” in society. Various branches of the Apostolic Christian Church also use the term “Nazarene” or “Nazarean” in their name.

———————————————–

The Sacred Name Movement (SNM) is a movement in Christianity that seeks to conform Christianity to its Hebrew Roots in practice. The best known distinction of the SNM is its belief in the use of a proper name for the God of Israel (YHVH/Yahweh) based upon the Tetragrammaton and the use of the Hebrew name of Jesus (Yashua). SNM believers also generally keep many of the Old Testament laws and ceremonies such as the Torah festivals and keeping kosher food laws. However, not every ‘Sacred Name’ Group adheres to Old Testament festivals, dietary laws and other mitzvot.
The term “sacred name” is not exclusive to this movement but is a general theological term in Christianity – a translation of the Latin nomen sacrum – as well as being paralleled by concepts in many religions such as the Māori concept of a tapu name for a person or god.

The Sacred Name Movement arose in the early 20th century out of the Adventist movement. C. O. Dodd, a member of the Church of God (Seventh Day Adventists), began keeping the Jewish festivals (including Passover) in 1928 and adopted sacred name doctrines in the late 1930s. Dodd began publishing The Faith magazine starting in 1937 to promote his views. It is currently freely distributed by the Assembly of Yahweh, the oldest of any still existing Sacred Name Assembly. Renowned scholar of American religions J. Gordon Melton wrote of the magazine, “No single force in spreading the Sacred Name movement was as important as The Faith magazine.”

The Movement started with the formation of the Assembly of Yahweh in Holt, Michigan, USA in the early 1930s. The leaders of this group claim that a founding member was visited by two angels who explained that The Messiah’s Name is properly Yahshua. This occurred around the time that interest in the subject was keen.The Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel, PA, was begun by Jacob O. Meyer, after ordination by members of the Assembly of Yahweh. Over time, The Bethel organization became independent of the Michigan group, and expanded their national outreach.

An evangelist and prominent Minister in the Assemblies of Yahweh Donald Mansager split from the Assemblies of Yahweh and formed Yahweh’s Assembly in Messiah in 1980. Mansager left that organization in dispute over the handling of an adultery scandal, involving a prominent minister in that group. He then formed Yahweh’s New Covenant Assembly in 1985. The name was changed to Yahweh’s Assembly in Yahshua after an internal split in 2006. Alan Mansager and his father parted ways as Alan disagreed with his father on the scriptural qualifications for ordaining ministers. Alan formed Yahweh’s Restoration Ministry.

Robert Wirl split from the Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel, and formed Yahweh’s Philadelphia Truth Congregation in 2002. It can be argued that all the above groups are a “Sacred Name group”, as they all have ties to the original “Assembly of Yahweh” and have almost identical doctrines. Because there is no formal enrollment to be a “Sacred Name group,” the term is loosely defined. Many people include groups that use variations of “Yahweh” and “Yahshua”, but teach very different doctrines than the above groups, to be “in the movement”.

There are countless groups with no established ties to the Assembly of Yahweh, Holt Michigan. One of the better-known includes The Assembly of Yahweh 7th Day in Cisco, TX, which developed their liturgy under their own leadership. They have extensive dealings with the mainstream Sacred Name groups listed above, exemplified by the fact that they host the Unity Conference every year. Their doctrines differ from mainstream Sacred Name doctrines such as using the vernal equinox to calculate their calendar, rejecting the pre-existence of Yashua (commonly called Jesus) and differing views on the application of Sabbath rest.

The Assemblies of Yahweh, Bethel, PA, and the House of Yahweh each maintain an exclusive flavor to their fellowship patterns, and have distanced themselves from the mainstream of the movement. It is rare for a member of either of these two organizations to personally have dealings with Sacred Namers on the outside. The Assemblies of Yahweh (Bethel) still has many beliefs and practices in common with the Movement, while the House of Yahweh has evolved a liturgy and a doctrinal system that is considered unorthodox.

Angelo Traina, a disciple of Dodd, undertook the writing of a Sacred Name edition of the Bible, publishing the Holy Name New Testament in 1950 (see Tetragrammaton in the New Testament) and the Holy Name Bible in 1962, both based upon the King James Version but replacing “God” with “Elohim”, “LORD” with “Yahweh” and “Jesus” with “Yahshua”. A distinction of the Sacred Name Movement has been the use of such Sacred name Bibles, others having been produced since Traina’s.

————————

Azmi Bishara: There is No “Palestinian” Nation. Never Was!
Nov 27th, 2009 by Rasheed

A video circulating on the internet exposed former Arab Member of Knesset Azmi Bishara denying the existence of a “Palestinian” nation. The video was recorded years prior to Bishara entering Israel’s parliament in 1996 as head of the Arab Balad party. Bishara, who resigned from the Knesset and fled the country in 2007 when Israeli Security Services were ready to arrest him on charges of treason and espionage, is shown in the video reiterating his Arab nationalist position that there is no such thing as a “Palestinian” people.

Translation: “Well, I don’t think there is a Palestinian nation at all. I think there is an Arab nation. I always thought so and I did not change my mind. I do not think there is a Palestinian nation, I think its a colonialist invention – Palestinian nation. When were there any Palestinians? Where did it come from? I think there is an Arab nation. I never turned to be a Palestinian nationalist, despite of my decisive struggle against the occupation. I think that until the end of the 19th century, Palestine was the south of Greater Syria.”

People should investigate the basic claims of the Middle East conflict before expressing strong opinions. “History did not start in 1967. The modern day Hebrews, have over a 4,000 year old history and an uninterrupted presence in their homeland for over 3,300 years. The Palestinian nation was invented in the 1960s by Yassir Arafat and Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu in an attempt to erase Jewish history and steal the Jewish Holy Land. The term ‘Palestine’ was initially a foreign colonialist concept invented by the Romans who massacred, exiled and enslaved the Jewish people. It is not an authentic Arab identity.

»  Substance: WP   »  Props: Template