Against Nicaea

Against Nicaea

This study explores the rationale behind the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., the immediate and subsequent consequences and its influences upon Anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism:

Anti-Semitism is not the hatred of Jews and all things Jewish, it is far, far more sinister than that. It is the satanic doctrine of the total extermination and eradication of the Jewish people. There are two periods in history that clearly support this statement.

The first can be seen from the Garden of Eden up to Gulgolta and the Crucifixion of the Master Yahusha. “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise His heel.” (Gen. 3:15). Thus did haSatan determine to destroy the Seed of Khavah in order to survive.

“‘If you do well, will it not be lifted up? If you do not do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is for you, but you are to rule over it’. Qayin said to Hebel, his brother, ‘Let us go into the field.’ It happened, when they were in the field, that Qayin rose up against Hevel, his brother, and killed him.” (Gen. 4:7, 8). HaSatan must have thought that its scheme had succeeded in eliminating the Seed of Khavah, when it possessed Qayin and killed the only other seed, Hebel. It was when Shem was born that haSatan needed to replace Shem (anti-Shem), as it would be through him that destruction would come to haSatan.

Throughout the subsequent history, haSatan raised up the Assyrians, Babylonians, Medes, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans as a means to annihilate the Jewish people. All were unsuccessful, although the Hellenistic occupation would cause the greatest danger in its assimilation of Jews, and adoption of the Greek culture and translation of the Tanakh, the Septuagint.

The second period would be from the Crucifixon to the Messiah’s Second Coming. HaSatan’s original scheme was foiled and “which none of the rulers of this world has known. For had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (1 Cor. 2:8).

-1-

“Therefore rejoice, heavens, and you who dwell in them. Woe to the earth and to the sea, because the devil has gone down to you, having great wrath, knowing that it has but a short time.” (Rev. 12:12). HaSatan knows that it will only be when the Nation of Israel cry out, as a people, ‘Barukh haba b`shem Yahuah’ blessed is He who comes in the name of Yahuah. This final plea for salvation is the trigger by which the Messiah returns to reclaim His world from haSatan, ushering in its destruction. The rationale behind HaSatan’s post-Crucifixion scheme is that if it can stop the Jewish people from crying out, its reign would continue.

HaSatan raised up nations to oppress the Jewish people and to destroy them. However, having learnt from the pre-Crucifixion failure, other methods must also be used. One such method is to lead the people away from Yahuah and into idolatry, “for they called the people to the sacrifices of their gods; and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods. Yisra`el joined himself to Ba`al-Pe`or: and the anger of Yahuah was kindled against Yisra`el.” (Num. 25:2,3).

The second method was to assimilate the Jews into the surrounding nations into which they had been taken. This was made possible by the various outbreaks of persecution, forcing many Jews to renounce their faith. Still, a remnant remained so haSatan endeavoured to destroy these, but will never be able to complete. By isolating the people from local assistance, helped to ensure more compliance with its schemes.

Nicaea:

If one were to add a chapter condemning the horrors of the Holocaust and the Final Solution, would it make Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf acceptable?

The obvious answer would be, of course not.

Why would that be?

  1. The context;
  2. The ideology;
  3. The author;
  4. The contents of the book;
  5. The consequences.

These five all make the book what it is: a satanic and evil book.

So it is with the Nicene Creed.

1. The context

It is generally considered that the message to each church assembly in Rev. 2:1-3:22 has a typical prophetic word for the time of writing and a future fulfilment. In the letters to the assemblies, Yochanan addressed the immediate situation but also the assemblies were characteristic of each type of assembly throughout the Church Age.

-2-

Each future assembly would have a particular problem highlighted in the letters, but there are all aspects of the letters apparent in varying degrees at all Church Periods.

The assembly at Smyrna (Rev. 2:8-11), also known as the Persecuted Assembly, was typical of assemblies from Diocletian in 170 C.E. to Constantine in 312 C.E. The early Church Leaders were moving away from the teachings of the Tanakh and the Jewishness of the style of worship. In this period, it can be seen that the ‘Christian’ Church wanted to disassociate itself from any connection with the Jews who were seen as being anti-Rome and Caesar (Larkin p. 21).

Prior to the Nicene Creed being formulated, several affirmations of beliefs were available from which to draw.

The Apostles’ Creed:

The Apostles’ Creed was an early affirmation of the truths held by early Believers. It was considered to have beenwritten by the Twelve Apostles, with each contributing a line apiece. There is no written evidence of this prior to 341 C.E. Nevertheless, it may have been in oral existence from the earliest of times (logos.com).

The Apostles’ Creed was based upon an earlier Old Roman Symbol or Creed, whereby Believers were asked several questions prior to being baptised, and the Old Roman Symbol being their required answers. It was also an aide memoire in propagating the Good News within a culture of illiterate people.

This ‘rule of faith’ was a guide line for Believers of which the writer of the Book of Hebrews may well have been referencing (Heb. 5:11-6:12) in the mid-6th. decade of the 1st. Century C.E.

However, there have been many amendments throughout history reflecting the doctrines and beliefs of differing denominations. 

The homologia:

“Having then a great High Priest, who has passed through the heavens, Yahusha, the Son of Yahuah, let us hold tightly to our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but One who has been in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy, and may find grace for help in time of need.” (Heb. 4:14-16).

ὁμολογίας #G3671 ho-mo-lo-gee-as – confession, profession. This is derived from ὁμοῦ #G3674 ho-moo – together, persons assembled together and λόγος #G3056 lo-gos – word, declaration, instruction, reasoning, relating. It was the Logos that the Apostle Yochanan declared, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with `Elohiym, and the Word was `Elohiym.” (John 1:1).

-3-

The Resurrection was (and still to this day is) vigorously opposed by detractors and enemies of the Messiah Yahusha, but the following post-resurrection, otherwise inexplicable fact, cannot be disputed.

The Good News was preached – the Homologia, that is the earliest message that was agreed upon by all Believers, began to be promulgated immediately after the Resurrection. This High Christology was centred around the three beliefs of the Deity, Death and Resurrection of the Master Yahusha.

The Book of Hebrews was probably written in the mid- to late 60’s C.E. to an audience of Jewish Believers in the Messiah. The period was during the build-up of tension between the Roman authorities and Jews in general, primarily in Rome, but also throughout the Diaspora. The growing wave of persecution of Jews (Anti-Semitism) was making life increasingly difficult for both, what today would be considered, Orthodox Jews and Messianic Jews.

However, Orthodox Jews had a well-established and widely distributed network of support, throughout the Roman Empire. Due to their belief in the Messiah Yahusha, Messianic Jews were not only ostracized but were openly persecuted by Orthodox Judaism, such that, “Sha`ul was consenting to his (Stephanon’s) death. A great persecution arose against the assembly which was in Yerushalayim in that day. They were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Y`hudah and Shomron, except for the Apostles… But Sha`ul ravaged the assembly, entering into every house, and dragged both men and women off to prison. Therefore, those who were scattered abroad went around preaching the word (homologia).” (Acts 8:1-4 parentheses mine).

No such network was available to the small, but increasing number of Messianic Jews. Those Gentiles who came to faith in the Messiah Yahusha, were considered to be part of this heretical sect of Jews. They would be under similar pressures from the Roman authorities and their families and communities, as were the Messianic Jews.

“His parents said these things because they feared the Yehudim; for the Yehudim had already agreed that if any man would confess Him as the Messiah, he would be put out of the synagogue.” (John 9:22). When the Master Yahusha cured the man born blind, this was the ultimate witness of the Messiahship of Yahusha. To a 21st. Century church-goer, this does not seem drastic. However, to a 1st, Century Jew, to be shunned in this matter was to declare him as be an apostate and as such deemed to be dead. Family would go into mourning and the community prohibited to give any form of assistance, trade or work, very much as they would do to a leper.

It was to these people that the Writer of the Book of Hebrews declared “…let us hold tightly…” κρατῶμεν kra-toh-men from κρατέω #G2902 kra-teh-oh – to seize, grasp, take continual hold of as death holds a person. The image behind this is one of a drowning person desperately holding onto a floating log. All Believers are called to hold tight their confession of faith, as though their very lives depended upon it. Indeed, when the Book of Hebrews was written, this was the case. Nevertheless, many would pay the ultimate price, rather than renounce their faith in the Homologia. It is by holding fast to the profession, Believers have been given boldness to proclaim the Homologia by grace.

-4-

The Homologia was an agreement between parties or the affirmation of a fact (Kittel p. 687). It was to make a legally binding statement or to bear first-hand witness to an event. This is what Yochanan stated, “That which was from the beginning, that which we have heard, that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we saw, and our hands touched, concerning the Word of life (and the life was revealed, and we have seen, and testify, and declare to you the life, the eternal life, which was with the Father, and was revealed to us); that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us. Yes, and our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son, Yahusha the Messiah.” (1 John 1:1-3). During the latter part of the 1st. Century C.E., many first-hand witnesses of the ministry of the Master Yahusha were still alive to attest to the fact. The nature of the witnesses, overwhelmingly Jewish, gave an Hebraic character to the Homologia.However, as these passed away, the Homologia became more open to criticism.

The Tanakh in its original Hebrew language, leaves very little open to interpretation. However, when it was translated into Greek around the time of the commencement of the Hellenistic commentary of Torah, usually referred to as the Septuagint (LXX) in the 3rd. and 2nd. Centuries B.C.E., this no longer applied. For example, over 6,800 times the name Yahuah (YHWH) was translated into the Greek by the word κύριος #G2962 koo-ree-os – lord, master, husband.

Although ba`al was a general term meaning lord, owner or master, similar to the term adon, it became synonymous with the fertility deity in the Kana`ani pantheon, also known as Lord of the Rain and Dew. Ba`al was known to be worshipped in the later New Kingdom around 1400-1070 B.C.E., having been imported from the Babylonian deity, Bel-Marduk. This deity later became known as the Greek Belos, identified with Zeus (Baal Britannica).

Flavius Josephus describes a conversation between King Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt and the writer of what is considered as the pseudepigraphical Letter of Aristeas, prior to seeking Jewish scribes from Yerushalayim to translate the Torah. The writer tells the king that the Jewish God, who laid down the Torah, was the same god that the Greeks worshipped and called Zeus (Josephus(1) p. 487 [23]).

The Didache:

διδαχή #G1322 di-da-khay – teaching. This was an early ethical and liturgical document available to Believers, written or compiled by an unknown author some time between the mid-1st. Century and mid-2nd. Century. The full title was The Teaching of the Lord Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations and was written in Greek. It closely follows the Master Yahusha’s earthly teachings as found in the Good News Narratives, especially that of Matthew, that itself is based upon the Tanakh.

-5-

תּוֹרָה #H8451 toh-rah – teaching, instruction. By comparing didache with Torah, it would seem very strange when the Didache was generally exalted in Gentile circles, whilst Torah was denigrated.

Due to the very close relationship between Mattiyahu’s Narrative and the Didache, it has been suggested that the Narrative borrows much of its material from the Didache (alangarrow.com).

However, there is some uncertainty as to the date of writing Book of Matthew. Some suggest a date as early as mid-third decade of the 1st. Century C.E. (Henry quoting Whitby p. 1611) whilst others as late as 75 C.E. (Allen p. lxxx). However, an early date is unlikely as some parts of the Mattityahu Narrative echoes the Homologia, the accepted consensus of opinion regarding the profession of faith arising shortly after the Resurrection but developed over a period of time and distribution throughout the Roman Empire. A date after the sacking of Yerushalayim and destruction of the Second Temple also seems improbable as there is no mention of rising tension, Temple destruction nor the aftermath persecution. Therefore, I would suggest a date close to 60 C.E.

This date would be near the very earliest estimation of the compiling of the Didache. Therefore, it would be more probable that the Didache was compiled at a later date and used material from the some or all of the four Good News Narratives and possibly the Apostles’ Creed and the Homologia.

The document laid out ethical and liturgical guides lines for how Messianic Jews were to associate with Gentiles. It was a very Hebraic document, calling the Master Yahusha the Servant of Yahuah echoing the prophet Yesha`yahu (Isa. 42:1-9; 49:1-9; 50:4-11; 52:13-53:12). Nevertheless, this was considered as being of low Christology and this view was further strengthened by the absence of any reference to the Crucifixion or the Resurrection (bartehrman.com/…didache).

The very Hebraic nature of the Homologia and the Didache was at odds with the general tone of the First Council of Nicaea, at the time of the schism between Jewish Believers of the Tanakh and Gentile Believers of the Septuagint (LXX) .

Vocabulary:

Another area of contention arose due to the Hellenisation of vocabulary of Believers. The Hebraic vocabulary was one of action, grounded upon many centuries of study and debate that was based upon the Hebraic Tanakh. However, upon the spread of the Good News into a Greco-Roman world, the vocabulary was one of abstract thought based upon the Hellenistic Septuagint (LXX).

One such idea was that of the substance of `Elohiym (Hodge, Vol.I, p. 453).

ὑπόστασις #G5287 hoo-pah-sta-tis – something that is a foundation and firm, in actual existence, a person, substance from ὑπό hoo-pah #G5259 – under, in, by and ἵστημι #G2476 his-tay-mee – to stand in the presence, to establish a thing and cause it to stand firm.

-6-

οὐσία #G3776 oo-see-ah – property, possessions, estate, substance from ὤν #G5607 own – being, which is.

A great many unproductive man-hours were taken up by the early Church leaders debating of what substance was `Elohiym made. The so-called ‘intellectual elite’ argued on those matters of little soteriological consequence. Unlike Jewish leaders who argued about wisdom and halakhah, the outworking of Torah as a means to an end, the Hellenistic leaders were in pursuit of knowledge as an end of itself.

The uncertainty arose because both words were used interchangeably with some considering there was a single ὑπόστασις hoo-pah-sta-tis/οὐσία oo-see-ah in the Yah-head meaning Person, whilst others stated that there were three οὐσία oo-see-ah/ ὑπόστασις hoo-pah-sta-tis. Such clarification was beyond the colleges to agree and so became a major issue to be settled.

2. The ideology

Many of the leading figures in the early Church were to become known as the Early Church Fathers. However, the Master Yahusha warns, “Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matt. 23:9). Obviously, this is not referring to the biological father nor to a father by adoption. The passage is about exalting a person who claims authority, and as such, the term Leader is most appropriate.

Ignatius of Antioch – c. 50-109 C.E:

Born in Antioch, Syria, he is often claimed as defining early ‘Christianity’. His teachings stressed the Resurrection with little to be said regarding the life and ministry of the Master Yahusha (Bibliowicz p.167). As such, it is said that Ignatius was instrumental in the de-Judaizing of the Master Yahusha. He condemned the observance of Shabbat as denying the sacrifice of the Master Yahusha, not being able to recognise that the Master Yahusha was the Master of Shabbat (Mark 2:28).

He emphasised that Judaism (loudaismos) was the over-reliance upon the study of Scripture, as opposed to the Jewish culture, Torah observance. This view was juxtaposed with his definition of ‘Christianity’ (Christianismos), being of an oral character as that revealed by the Master Yahusha and transmitted to Believers. This may well have been the Homologia in some form. Ignatius states that this oral view regarding the Crucifixion and Resurrection cannot be found in the Tanakh.

Justin Martyr – c. 100-165 C.E.:

A converted pagan who taught against Greek philosophy and Judaism, wrote an attack on Judaism entitled Dialogue with Trypho. In this document, Justin Martyr debates the Jew, Trypho, about the merits of ‘Christianity’. In the fictitious encounter, Justin portrays himself as the stronger debater whilst Trypho is conveniently a much weaker opponent (jewishvirtuallibrary.org).

-7-

Further disparaging comments refer the Jews as having crucified the Master Yahusha and persecute ‘Christians’ and so Justin states that God declares them to be a reprobate nation. For this crime, God punishes them by the defeat to the Romans in 70 C.E. and 135 C.E. with Ignatius rejoicing in the destruction of Yerushalayim and the Temple.

Tertullian c. 155-220 C.E.:

Tertullian lived in Carthage in, what is now North Africa wherein was a Jewish synagogue. He would, therefore, have been cognizant of Jewish laws regarding circumcision, diet and fasting, Feasts, Festivals and Shabbatot, and idolatry. Some commentators consider Tertullian was speaking of actual Jews of his acquaintance whilst others to a stylized, stereo-typical, Biblical Jew (thetorah.com). However, Tertullian’s use of the term Hebrews or Yisra`elites as opposed to simply Jews would suggest the latter.

For example, Tertullian taught that circumcision no longer applied to all Believers, Jew and Gentile, even though it was proscribed for Gentiles in the Roman Empire to undergo the rite. This is clearly in contradiction of the Tanakh that states, “‘I will make my Covenant between me and you, and will multiply you exceedingly.’ Abram fell on his face. `Elohiym talked with him, saying, ‘As for me, behold, my Covenant is with you. You will be the father of a multitude of nations. Neither will your name any more be called Abram, but your name will be Abraham; for the father of a multitude of nations have I made you… I will establish my Covenant between me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations for an everlasting Covenant, to be `Elohiym to you and to your seed after you. I will give to you, and to your seed after you, the land where you are traveling, all the land of Kana`an, for an everlasting possession. I will be their `Elohiym.’ `Elohiym said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you will keep my Covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations. He who is eight days old will be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he who is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of your seed.’” (Gen 17:2-12).

Tertullian acknowledged that circumcision was unnecessary in order to follow `Elohiym, as Abram was doing so before the ritual. However, when Tertullian considered it a temporary rite, it remained unclear whether he was referring to Jews up to the Resurrection. Every time the name of Abraham was mentioned, it was signifying the Covenantal name given at circumcision.

Likewise, the keeping of the 7th. Day and High Shabbatot were of a temporary nature, as with all the laws, having been cancelled. Tertullian argued whether Yahuah was commanding a temporary Shabbat or an eternal Shabbat. His miscomprehension of the Tanakh clearly shows his lack of understanding that all ‘temporary’ 7th. Day and High Shabbatot were but types of the eternal Shabbat to be ushered in in the Millennial Kingdom by the return of the Messiah Yahusha.

Although Tertullian rightly condemned the observance of pagan festivals such as Saturnalia, Matronalia, Calends, Mid-winter. Nevertheless, he conflated these pagan festivals with the Yahuah-given mo`edim or appointments required by Yahuah. Tertullian regarded all pagan and Biblical Feasts as both idolatry and blasphemous (thetorah.com).

-8-

In dismissing all of the Torah, Tertullian however stressed that ‘Christians’ were the true followers of the Tanakh of which the Jews were incapable of understanding. Nevertheless, Tertullian was careful not to cause a permanent schism between the Messianic Jewish Believers and Gentile ‘Christians’. Roman law forbade the introduction of any new religion, stressing the common heritage of the Tanakh. He believed that due to their lack of understanding of the Tanakh, and thus refusing to accept the Messiah Yahusha, Yahuah replaced all Jews with the ‘Christian Church’. His nascent Replacement Theology or supersessionism stated that Yahuah’s grace had been removed in line with Ya’akob being accepted by Yahuah whilst Esau was rejected; the older (Jew) being in subordination to the younger (Church).

In this replacement, Tertullian taught that ‘Christians’ must extricate themselves from the Jews who were increasingly being subjected to persecution as a despised nation.

Origen of Alexandria c. 185-254 C.E.:

Origen was considered as the most influential theologian of the early Church (Origen Britannica). Thought to have been born in Alexandria, he taught in the Catechetical School of Alexandria, the city of which was a major seat of learning, both secular and religious and the origin of the Septuagint (LXX). However, he promulgated the Platonic/Philo philosophy of the Son being a created Being from eternity past (Hodge Vol.I p. 451).

The Father was designated ὁ θεὸς – ho Theosreferring the Father as the One and only true God; who God is.

The Son was designated θεὸς – Theos referring to the divine nature of the Son; what He is.

Origen taught that the Son was subordinate to the Father, distinct in personality, of different essence, and created in accordance with the Father’s will (Hodge Vol.I p. 452). This error was passed down to his followers/students, notably Dionysus of Alexandria. In turn, Dionysus passed this philosophy down to Arius.

Arius c. 250-336 C.E.:

Born c. 260 C.E. in Alexandria, Egypt, Arius denied the full divinity of the Master Yahusha, the Son of Yahuah, the first to be so created by the Father before all else in Creation and so could not be eternal and of the same substance as the Father. This resulted in the phrase ‘There was a time when the Son was not’ (bibleanalysis.org). This was in line with the established, but certainly not a small minority, view of the substance of the Tri-une Yah-head.Throughout the 2nd. and 3rd. Centuries C.E., it was common practise for theologians to discuss back and forth such controversies in order to clearly define ‘Christian’ doctrine.

-9-

Shabbat:

Up to the middle of the 2nd. Century C.E., ‘Christianity’ was considered as an heretical offshoot from mainstream Judaism, and Believers were protected under Roman Law as were all Jews and other religions. However, from after the Bar Kokhba Revolt in 135 C.E., Rome embarked on a systematic persecution of Jews.

The overtly Jewish practices of Shabbat observance, circumcision and dietary laws made it very difficult for Jews to assimilate into the Greco-Roman world. Therefore, some ‘Christian’ leaders considered it politically expedient to work around these difficulties in order to avoid ‘Christians’ falling under the same pogroms.

In 321 C.E., Emperor Constantine decreed that the weekly day of rest within the Roman Empire was to be in celebration of the sun god’s, Sol’s day. All people, except farmers must obey this law.

It was into this religious world of unending debates, that Emperor Constantine summoned to meet in 325 C.E. the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in Nicomedia, Western Turkey.

3. The authors

The two main instigators of the Council of Nicaea were Emperor Constantine I, otherwise known as Constantine the Great, and his close religious advisor, Eusebius of Caesarea.

Constantine I:

Born c. 280 C.E. in what is now Serbia, to a Roman Army officer father and a Greek mother. When his father was elevated to the rank of Caesar (Deputy Emperor), Constantine was sent to the court of Senior Emperor Diocletian in Nicomedia, in Turkey. As part of Diocletian’s entourage, Constantine travelled through Yisra`el where he first met Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. Although and active member of Diocletian’s court, there is no evidence that he was part of the savage persecution of Believers, that was such a prominent aspect of Diocletian’s reign.

Constantine’s father was proclaimed as co-Emperor with Galenius and fought alongside his father in Britain, where his father died at Eboracum (York) in 306 C.E. Being in the farthest and most isolated part of the Roman Empire, Constantine was passed over by Rome in the succession of his father. Nevertheless, the army in Britain proclaimed him as Emperor. He took this army back to Italy where the following years were strewn throughout with civil war against Emperor Maxtentius.

Constantine was considered a devout follower of the very popular god, Sol Invictus (Unconquerable Sun). This god was symbolized by the god’s head crowned with sun-rays, an image later transferred onto ‘Jesus’. The god originated in Eastern sun-worship and had representation in most of the religions within the Empire, notably Apollo and Mithras. By the time of Constantine’s birth, this god had been syncretized into a single supreme deity by Emperor Aurelian, thus unifying and amalgamating various practices, rituals and rites of many of the Empire’s religions (roman-empire.net.). Aurelian used the image and cult of Sol Invictus to validate and strengthen his role, claiming divine causation and protection of his reign by the god (romanempirehistory.com).

-10-

The god was thought to have been the creator of light and was reborn at the mid-winter solstice on 25th. December, in today’s calendar.    

Prior to the decisive Battle of Milvian Bridge in late 312 C.E., it is claimed by Lactanius that Constantine saw the Greek symbol Chi-Rho in a vision, referring to ‘Christ’. Eusebius, some time after Constantine’s death, alleged that the Chi-Rho symbol was accompanied by the phrase ‘In this sign, conquer’. Constantine ordered the symbol to be painted on his soldiers shields and used it on a banner, leading into the battle (Britannica.com/…/milvian-bridge).

At Maxtentius’ death and Constantine’s victory, Constantine was proclaimed as Emperor of the Western Empire. As a result, it was declared Constantine converted to ‘Christianity’ and throughout his reign asserted divine causation and protection of his reign by the ‘Christ’ (britannica.com/…/constantine).

The role of the Emperor was to ensure that peace and prosperity flourished all through the Empire. It was, therefore, politically expedient for all nations, races, cultures and religions to live, if not in peace, at least not in enmity with one another. To this end, at the Edict of Milan in 313 C.E. Constantine rescinded all previous decrees regarding the persecution of Believers and to pursue religious tolerance.

The Imperial Cult, initiated at the death of Julius Caesar in 44 B.C.E., deified the previous Caesar upon his death. However, over time, this included the current, living Caesar, especially accepted within the Greek speaking cultures of the Empire (eu.record-courier.com). The annual sacrificing of a pinch of incense was all that was required to prove loyalty to Caesar. However, an oath had to be sworn, ‘Caesar is lord’, Caesar is the son of (a) god’ or ‘Caesar is the Saviour of the world’ generally was too much for a Believer to say, resulting in persecution, ostracizing or death.  This oath was more a politico-religious statement meant to unify all the citizens and all the different nations but was never meant to be the exclusive religion and religious tolerance was promoted throughout the Empire. There is no extant record of Constantine annulling, rescinding or abolishing such oaths of fealty to him or his successors. He declared himself as Pontifex Maximus, the combined secular and spiritual leader and was directly called by God to reconcile all the differing factions within the Church.

Constantine is most famous for the First Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., when, in association with ‘Christian’ Bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea, he summoned the most notable theologians to address contemporary religious problems such as Arianism, the role of Bishops, the establishment of the day upon which ‘Easter’ must be celebrated and the weekly day of rest.

In 337 C.E. in line with most privileged persons at the time, he was only baptised on his death bed, to ensure full forgiveness of sins, with no possibility of relapse (grokipedia.com).

-11-

Eusebius of Caesarea:

 c.260/265 – 339 C.E. born in probably Caesarea Maritima. He is considered as one of the most influential of the Early Church Leaders and came to be known as the ‘Father of Church History’ due to his detail writings of ecclesiastical history. His main areas of teachings were on early church growth, philology, doctrinal controversies and Trinitarian and Christological theology. He was greatly impacted himself by the philosophical leanings of Origen.

His work on the Trinity had the Father being pre-existent whereas the Son was begotten. He considered both as being fully God, but the Son being subordinate to the Father.

Although not a part of Emperor Constantine’s court, Eusebius was considered as a major influence due to his alleged close relationship with the Emperor, both men tending to highly value and praise one another. This is highlighted in Eusebius’ work ‘In Praise of Constantine’ wherein his political theology is voiced and he closely aligns Constantine with the Biblical Logos, the Son of Yahuah (saet.ac.uk).

Eusebius wrote that the Hebrews pre-dated Mt. Sinai and termed post-Mt. Sinai Yisra`elites as Jews, although he does, at times interchange these terms. As such, ‘Christianity’ pre-dated Judaism, the former being based upon Patriarchal history while the latter was based upon the Mosaic Law. He thus concludes that the Jews and Judaism deviated from the truth that was ‘Christianity’ (saet.ac.uk).

Eusebius’ work, ‘Demonstratio Evangelica’ accuses the Jews of serious exegetical errors, describing the Jews as being heretical, urging that such should be avoided. This had the effect of establishing Constantine’s anti-Jewish thoughts and subsequent legislation (jewishportal.com).

Eusebius further argued falsely, by distorting Josephus’ writings, that the Jews portrayed in Josephus’ Jewish Wars were constantly at fault, actively seeking to destroy Pax Romana. Eusebius described the Jews as being violent, hostile and in total opposition to Roman culture and norms. This, he contrasted with the view that ‘Christians’ were always law-abiding citizens. Thus, this was to shape his politico-religious stance that the future belonged to these obedient ‘Christians’, whilst the archaic Jews belonged to the past. This would clearly fit the definition of ‘Replacement Theology’ (durham-repository.worktribe.com).

He was one of the major characters of the First Council of Nicaea, although his See was of little importance when compared to the major Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Nevertheless, it is he that is most associated with the Council, bringing to bear his politico-religious philosophy.

4. Contents  

The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea:

This Council was called in 325 C.E. at the behest of Emperor Constantine I. Although it was not the first, nor largest, assembly of bishops, it was the first to be summoned under the auspices of the Emperor. In light of the increasing hostility between various religious factions, Constantine was advised to convene the Council, in order to unify the Church.

-12-

The location of Nicaea was close to the imperial city of Nicromedia in modern Turkey, accessible to the majority of bishops, but most conveniently, the summer dwelling of the Emperor.

Constantine sent emissaries throughout the Roman Empire and some further afield in Persia, summoning them to attend. Overwhelmingly from the Eastern Church, some 220 plus bishops attended as numbers vary between historic accounts (churchhistory101.com).

The attendees were divided along three main theological lines:

Arians: This small section, under the leadership of Arius, stated that the Son was created based Prov. 8:22, but taken from the Septuagint translation of the Tanakh. The Son was not co-eternal, co-equal nor consubstantial (of the same substance) with the Father. Although the Son was not God, He was deserving of divine worship.

Semi-Arians: This was another small faction, following the teachings of Origen. The Son was subordinate and inferior to the Father in rank, substance and nature. The Son was the Creator and His first creation was that of Ruakh HaQodesh, the pre-eminent creature made by the Son.

Orthodoxy: The largest faction and some of the more influential members had persuaded Constantine that Arius was wrong (Hodge Vol.I p. 454). Those attending bishops, not wanting to disagree with the Emperor, who had convened the Council, considered it expedient to vote accordingly. They were what would now be considered as Trinitarian with the Father and Son being both only God, distinct in person yet one.

Controversies:

The three main areas of contention were: in the confusion and terminology surrounding the substance of the Trinity; to condemn Arianism and other heretical errors and to compile and propagate a unified statement of doctrine that would satisfy both the Scriptural evidence and the convictions of the vast majority of Believers (Hodge Vol.I p. 453). In this last view, it must be remembered that it was not looking to the population of Believers as a whole, but to the intelligentsia who taught and led the uneducated masses. The Council was required to state the exact nature of the Son, being both human and divine

However, several other matters were under consideration that would have long-lasting implications for the Church:

Authority structure: This laid down the juridical rights of the Sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, giving them primacy over all the other bishops in matters of doctrine. Alongside this ruling, the Council adopted the laws and regulations regarding the role and selection of the clergy.

-13-

Easter: In line with the de-Judaising character of the Council, instead of Pesakh being celebrated as one of Yahuah’s feast days, as required by Scripture and the subsequent HaBikkurim/Resurrection Day, it was required that a specific fixing of the Resurrection Day to always be on a ‘Sol’s’ day, the first day of the week. This was to standardize not only ‘Easter’ but consolidated the observance of ‘Lent’ (bartehrman.com/…nicaea..). This date had to be independent of any Jewish (Scriptural) reference (catholicnewsworld.com).

Noticeable is the comment of Constantine, ‘It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul … Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way.’ (Hoegger quoting Eusebius).

“Be careful to do all things that I have said to you; and do not invoke the name of other gods, neither let them be heard out of your mouth.” (Exod. 23:13). ‘Christians’ refer to the day upon which the Master Yahusha was raised up from the dead as ‘Easter’. This is a pagan day of worship devoted to the fertility goddess Ester (Teutonic) or Eostre (Anglo-Saxon) (Roth quoting Venn. Bead p.789). These are derived from the Kana`ani goddess Ishtar/Astarte that is a moon/fertility goddess. Like all demonic entities, they are perversions of Yahuah’s word. In this case, the rising of the moon and its associated fertility rites are a corruption of the New Birth experienced by all Believers upon salvation.

The Nicene Creed:

The Creed was written at Nicaea in 325 C.E. and amended at the First Council at Constantinople, also known as the Second Ecumenical Council, in 381 C.E. (zondervanacademic.com). The Arian controversy was still prevalent and further affirmation was required from the First Council and to further affirm that HaRuakh was also God.

It was never meant to show how the Father, the Son and HaRuakh worked, but their relationship with one another.

It was couched in very general terms, and in this arises various issues regarding ambiguity of meaning.

It is the intention to compare the First Council creed, the Second Council creed (neverthirsty.org) and the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem’ ‘A Jerusalem Affirmation of the Nicene Faith’ (icej.org), and comments upon the various statements.

The following is to be noted:

First Council creed: aAbBcC

Second Council creed: aAbBcC

ICEJ creed: aAbBcC

Comment: aAbBcC

-14-

We believe in one God, the father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

One God may refer to some or all of the following, given that Constantine was syncretizing all religions. Zeus, Sol Invictus and Emperor Constantine were all considered as Father and almighty.

He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacobⁱ, the Lord God of Israelⁱⁱ

“`Elohiym said moreover to Moshe, ‘You shall tell the children of Yisra`el this, ‘Yahuah, the `Elohiym of your fathers, the `Elohiym of Abraham, the `Elohiym of Yitzchak, and the `Elohiym of Ya`akob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.” (Exod. 3:15). This name was not just for the pre-Sinai Yisra`elites, but for all who call upon the name of the `Elohiym of Abraham, the `Elohiym of Yitzchak, and the `Elohiym of Ya`akob, throughout all ages.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, the only begotten of the Father before all worlds, light from light, Very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

Light from light is a Greek and Roman designation of Apollo, the son of Zeus. The designation of lord is used in the pseudepigraphical Letter of Aristeas to mean the Giver of Torah (Yahuah), Zeus and Ba`al.

He is the One of whom Moses, the Prophets and all the Hebrew Scriptures bear witnessⁱᵛ.

For us and for our salvation, to the Jew first and also to the Gentileᵛ, He came down from heaven; by the Holy Spirit He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary and was made truly man.

He is the Son of Abraham and of David according to the fleshᵛⁱ, a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of His people Israel ᵛⁱⁱ.

 who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; and suffered and was buried; and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father;

as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root and Offspring of Davidᵛⁱⁱⁱ.

and he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life; who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets.  And one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church,

-15-

in which Jew and Gentile are reconciled as one new man in Christⁱˣ, and in which the nations, having been grafted into the cultivated olive tree by faith, share in the covenants and promises given through Israelˣ.

I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins;

This statement is totally contrary to Scripture. If it had said ‘I believe in one baptism in acknowledgement of the remission of sins;’ is fully acceptable. However, the plain reading, and so meaning, can only refer to the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins, and of baptism only.

Although it has been said that the early creeds did not state blood-atonement, it sees strange then that the only mention of any remission is by baptism only. This is why Emperor Constantine left it until his death bed in order to be baptised, being taught by the bishops that this was the ONLY way sins could be forgiven.

and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.  Amen.

i Exodus 3:16; Matthew 22:32; Acts 3:13

ii Exodus 24:10; Psalm 68:8; Luke 1:68; Acts 13:17

iii Psalm 2:2; Daniel 9:25-26; Micah 5:2; John 1:41, 4:25; Romans 9:4-5, 15:8

iv Deuteronomy 18:15; Psalm 2:7; Daniel 7:13-14; Luke 1:68-70, 24:25-27; Romans 1:1-3

v Romans 1:16

vi Matthew 1:1-17, 22:42; Luke 1:32; Romans 1:1-3; 2 Timothy 2:8

vii Isaiah 49:6; Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47

viii Revelation 5:5, 22:16

ix Ephesians 2:15

x Romans 11:16-24; Ephesians 2:19-20

6. Consequences

One major outcome of the Council was the confirmation of the weekly day of rest being changed from the day of the celebration of the rest of `Elohiym from Creation (Biblical Shabbat)to the day of the celebration of the god, Sol. This was the first of Yahuah’s mo`edim or appointed times that was abrogated in favour of pagan worship. This is still the case today, but has had comparatively less significant influence.

Another issue that was resolved, although it was never in question, was the fixing of the day to celebrate the Resurrection, and, as such, the (incorrect) fixing of the day of the Crucifixion, Pesakh, Khag Matazah and HaBikkurim. By establishing that Resurrection Day must always fall on Sol’s Day, abolished the second of Yahuah’s mo`edim, changing Pesakh from the Biblical fourteenth day of the first month to some arbitrary day. In designating this Biblical feast as ‘Easter’, again is indicative of the primacy placed upon idolatry and its accompanying pagan feasts.

Another result of the fixing of ‘Easter’ and the incorrect exegesis of Scripture was in the establishing of Pentecost. This was finalized as fifty days after ‘Easter’, again ensuring that Sol Invictus was celebrated on its

-16-

day and annulling the third of Yahuah’s mo`edim, Shavu`ot. “You shall count from the next day after the Shabbat, from the day that you brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Shabbatot shall be completed: even to the next day after the seventh Shabbat you shall number fifty days; and you shall offer a new meal offering to Yahuah.” (Lev. 23:15, 16). In referencing the seven Shabbatot, the Biblical Counting of the Omer commences on the day after the first weekly Shabbat after Pesakh. At the time of the Crucifixion, the first weekly Shabbat was the day after Peskah, leading to the error of fifty days. This changes each year and can be as long as fifty-six days after Pesakh, although the Counting of the Omer is forever fifty days.

Although not determined at the Council, the day of the Master Yahusha’s birth was fixed shortly after. It is significant that no discussion took place during the 1st. and 2nd. Centuries, as to the day of the Incarnation. This was presumably due to first- and second-hand accounts being still alive and no dispute arose, being subject to Scripture texts and types.

Hippolytus of Rome in 204C.E. and subsequent theologians wrote of the day as being in conjunction with the Jewish Feast of Dedication, Khannukah, being celebrated shortly after the mid-winter solstice, with 25th. December in the current calendar, being the most likely date. The first extant document dating the celebration of the Day of Sol Invictus was of 354 C.E. stating that this day was celebrated on ‘Christmas’ would indicate that by 354 C.E., ‘Christmas’ was already being celebrated on 25th. December (ewtn.co.uk).

As the Incarnation can be shown by Scripture text and typology and cultural aspects of the late Second Temple Period, the Master Yahusha was born on the first day of Sukkot, the transferring of the birth to the 25th. December, is annulling yet another of Yahuah’s mo`edim, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, And light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, And sweet for bitter!” (Isa. 5:20).

Thus, it can be seen that the Council sanctions the abrogation of Scripture by destroying all Scriptural primacy for the weekly Shabbat, Pesakh, Shavu`ot and Sukkot replacing them all putting the worship of Sol Invictus above that of Yahuah. “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them, may Yahuah add to him the plagues which are written in this book. If anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, may Yahuah take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18, 19).

However, the most deadly consequence, was in the affirmation that Yahusha as the Son of Yahuah was both Man and Divine, co-equal, consubstantial and co-eternal with Yahuah, the Father. This, unlike the change of the day of rest, was according to Scripture. Nevertheless, it was how it was used that was to cause lasting devastation to the Jews.

The pre-Council view of all parties, was that the Master Yahusha was crucified. There was a consensus of opinion of the homicide, the death of the Man Yahusha. The post-Council view now termed it deicide, the death of the

-17-

God Yahusha. Throughout history, the accusation of ‘Christ-killers’ has been levelled against, not only the Jewish authorities responsible for the Crucifixion, but all Jews, for all time. It is telling that, although the Nicene Creed mentions the role of Pontius Pilate, no such lasting condemnation of all Roman involvement was similarly attributed.

Since the Council, Jews have been constantly and devastatingly oppressed and below are cited just a small example of such throughout history. In such, the following definitions will be helpful:

Genocide: the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.

Pogrom: a state organized massacre of a particular ethnic group, in particular that of Jewish people in Russia or eastern Europe in the late 19th. and early 20th. Centuries. Throughout history, religion has had a disproportionate influence upon state legislation and in many cases could be separated. Even in the 21st. Century, many state governments are controlled by religious doctrine, and when this doctrine clashes with Jews, both secular and religious, the state declares against the Jewish people.

Today, in light of the plethora of Non-governmental Organisations such as the International Court of Justice, United Nations and its subsidiaries World Health Organisation (WHO) and United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), there is a consensus of opinion that Israel is guilty of genocide and mass relocation of Palestinian civilians. Having no legal status, these NGOs exert massive political pressure upon its signatory members.

Blood libel: an accusation that Jewish people used the blood of sacrificed ‘Christians’ in religious rituals, especially in the preparation of Pesakh matzot, that was perpetrated throughout the Middle Ages and until the early 20th. Century. The clergy regularly preached against the ‘Christ-killers’ attributing all plagues and natural catastrophes as well as affirming blood-libels.

At all occasions when it is said that the Jews were expelled, this is a polite way of saying that the Jews were forced out with the subsequent confiscation of lands, businesses, property and possessions. Coupled to this is the physical attacks of murder rape and extreme violence, if not directly sanctioned by the Church, then it has remained quiet (Lewv p.xix, 325) condoning by its silence. Of course, this is a generalisation of the facts, wherein dissident voices have spoken out opposing both state and Church, but usually at the expense of their own liberty, well-being and life.

Crusades (Europe/Yisra`el 1096-1291): ‘Christian’ armies raised by various monarchs at the behest of the Church in order to liberate Yerushalayim from Muslim occupation. As the armies marched through Europe, many atrocities were perpetrated against Jews.

Inquisition (Spain/Portugal 1478-1834): The Catholic Church forced conversion of Jews to ‘Christianity’ under the threat of torture and death. The heinous practice of Auto-da-fey whereby public executions took place, first to

-18-

those faithful Jews who refused to convert and as the blood-lust of the Church, state and populace increased, those ‘Christian’ converts who still held to some of the Laws of Moshe, where subject to execution. This public display, as with all public executions, was meant as punishment, deterrent and public entertainment, usually in the form of burning at the stake.

Pogroms (England 1144, 1290, 1475/ France 1306, 1394/ Germany, Poland 14th. Century, Russian Empire/Communism 1762-20th. Century): It was in the interest of despotic monarchs or governments to distract the general populace from the poor state of their lives. In this, the Jews were an easy target. The poor, illiterate people were taught by both state and Church that all the calamities the people were experiencing was down to the rich, greedy and powerful Jewish landlords, merchants and in particular bankers. It was the people, so indoctrinated by the propaganda issued from both the state and Church, that rose up to attack the Jews. Even though it could be seen that the overwhelming majority were suffering alongside their non-Jewish neighbours.

Forced relocation/exile/restriction of movement (Jerusalem 325/ Visigoth Spain 616/ Germanic States 1066/ England 1225-1290/ Venice 1516/ Russian Empire 1792/ Nazi Europe 1933): Ever since their expulsion from Israel in 70 C.E., the Jewish people have been forced to relocate. Throughout history, the same scenario was played out. The Jews flee their homes, with little more than what they could carry, settle in what was considered a safe haven. Over time, through hard work they built up a thriving community, but due to their adherence to Mosaic Laws, tended to remain segregated. The local populace, including the state and Church, become jealous and rise up to attack the Jews, forcing them to live in ghettos or impoverished lands or to flee to another safe haven. For the cycle only to be repeated.

Holocaust/Final Solution (Nazi Europe 1933-1945): When the National Socialists (Nazis) gained power in 1933, the government embarked upon a program of systematic persecution of German Jews, in compliance with the Nazi ideology. Initially, it was designed to force Jews to relocate outside of Germany. However, by 1941, the Nazi occupation of Europe brought millions of Jews within Nazi jurisdiction. This posed the question of what to do with this mass of humanity.

Reichsfuhrer-SS Heinrich Himmler was the Head of the Schultzstaffen, the paramilitary organisation responsible for the security and policing within Germany and the Occupation Lands. He is considered as the originator of the Final Solution to this Jewish Question. It is well documented to the outworking of this policy, intended to keep Germany secure but ultimately to exterminate all of Jewry.

During the build up of Jewish persecution, the Roman Catholic Church was complicit in that their supposed neutrality was in reality a concession to the Nazi regime in order to protect the status of the Church (Lewy pp. xix, 325). At the end of World War II, the Roman Catholic Church actively aided and abetted the escape from justice of many of the Nazi leaders, along what was called ratlines (dw.com).

October 7th. 2023: During Yom Kippur, Palestinian insurgents, notably Hamas, attacked Israel from Gaza, killingand raping nearly 1200 people and taking 240 hostages. Even while this was unfolding, universities across

-19-

the U.S.A and the U.K. were scenes of protests against Israel, claiming the attack was provoked by the Israeli Government’s policies within Israel. Political, social and religious outrage followed the response of Israel, as being disproportionate, illegal and genocidal.

Kairos II Document (England 2025): The full title of this document is the Palestinian Christian Initiative – A Moment of Truth: Faith in a Time of Genocide. This document is clearly written from a perspective of Palestinian hatred of Israel. The opening paragraph starts with declaring the consequences of the October 7th. attack by Israel were ‘an assault on Gaza’. Further references include justification of the Hamas atrocities as being that of an oppressed people, of countering Jewish supremacy and of colonist-settler statements.

The supreme leader of the Church of England, the Very Right Reverend Sarah Mullaly, Archbishop of Canterbury, resided over the 2025 General Synod. This ecumenical meeting passes the ruling, ‘That this Synod respond to the call of Palestinian Christians to stand in solidarity with them and their fellow Palestinians in non-violent resistance to the ongoing occupation.’ This is not a religious ruling but a political affirmation of an ideology totally contrary to Scripture.

The paradox of this scenario, is that Kairos is Greek for an appointed time, in Hebrew mo`edim, that which the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea took such pains to abrogate the appointed times (kairoi) of Yahuah.

Therefore, in accepting the Kairos II, the Church of England has taken the side of those who oppose and persecute Yahuah’s people. Little has changed in the 1700 years since Nicaea.

Conclusion

It can be seen that the whole rationale of the Council of Nicaea was to de-Judaize not only Scripture by perverting its teachings, but also of the Person of the Master Yahusha, the Son of Yahuah. By exalting theEmperor Constantine to the status of the supreme god and invoking the name of Sol Invictus, the Council had declared itself, and all who follow the Nicene Creed, whether wilfully or out of ignorance, as pagan-worshipers, contrary to the specific laws stating, “I am Yahuah your `Elohiym, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exod. 20:2, 3). Although the Church no longer follows Yahuah’s Laws, it pays lip-service to the Ten Commandments, of which this is the first one and “Be careful to do all things that I have said to you; and do not invoke the name of other gods, neither let them be heard out of your mouth.” (Exod. 23:13).

Politics is the outworking of Biblical prophecy, according to the will of Yahuah. Therefore, as “We know that all things work together for good for those who love Yahuah, to those who are called according to His purpose.” (Rom. 8:28) it should not be a surprise that ultimately Yahuah’s will shall be accomplished. This is evident in “It shall happen in that day, that Yahuah will set His hand again the second time to recover the remnant of His people, who shall remain… and will assemble the outcasts of Yisra`el, and gather together the dispersed of Y`hudah from the four corners of the earth.” (Isa. 11:11, 12).

-20-

The Holocaust was the beginning of the end of haSatan. It thought that the Nazis would annihilate the Jews, little knowing that, in doing so, would usher in the return of the people of Yahuah to His Covenant Land. If there had been no Holocaust and Final Solution, would the world powers have been so eager to fulfil the Balfour Declaration and return the Land back to the Jews?

Since the re-formation of the State of Yisra`el on May 14th. 1948, those Jews throughout history having being driven away from the Land, had a land in which to return. Since then, all that persecution has accomplished is more and more Jews making Aliya.

As the escalation of the Islamification of all the previous ‘safe havens’ for the Jews intensifies, so is the desire for the Jews to return to the Land. Nowhere is it considered safe anymore, as the nations are welcoming in Islamist extremists and remaining silent when anti-Semitism erupts.

In this, HaSatan has played the long game, in that it has laid a foundation of Liberal Theology, Marxist Theory of Oppression ideology and ‘Christian’ Tolerance Theology wherein all western institutes of government, education and religion have been infiltrated by these, “But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons, through the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, branded in their own conscience as with a hot iron;” (1 Tim. 4:1, 2).

“It shall happen, when you shall show this people all these words, and they shall tell you, Why has Yahuah pronounced all this great evil against us? or what is our iniquity? or what is our sin that we have committed against Yahuah `Eloheynu? Then shall you tell them, Because your fathers have forsaken me, says Yahuah, and have walked after other gods, and have served them, and have worshiped them, and have forsaken me, and have not kept my law; therefore will I cast you forth out of this Land into the land that you have not known, neither you nor your fathers; and there shall you serve other gods day and night; for I will show you no favour. Therefore, behold, the days come, says Yahuah, that it shall no more be said, ‘As Yahuah lives, who brought up the children of Yisra`el out of the land of Egypt;’ but, ‘As Yahuha lives, who brought up the children of Yisra`el from the land of the north, and from all the countries where He had driven them.’ I will bring them again into their Land that I gave to their fathers. Behold, I will send for many fishermen, says Yahuah, and they shall fish them up; and afterward I will send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks.” (Jer. 16:10-16). In Yahuah’s pronouncement through His prophet, Yisra`el’s chastisement is not permanent. Notice how Yahuah says in verse 15 that He will bring back His people into their Land. This could only take place after May 1948. Yahuah has sent His fishermen.

-21-

“Walking by the sea of the Galil, he saw two brothers: Shim`on, who is called Kefa, and Andrai, his brother, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen. He said to them, ‘Come after me, and I will make you fishers for men.’” (Matt. 4:18, 19). Andrai and Kefa are the prototypical Messianic Jews, Jews who acknowledge the Master Yahusha as the Messiah and Son of Yahuah. These were sent out to all the nations drawing Jews back to the Land.

Nevertheless, many did not believe. Therefore, Yahuah sent out hunters, “He was a mighty hunter before Yahuah. Therefore, it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before Yahuah.’” (Gen. 10:19). As Andrai and Shim`on Kefa were spiritual ancestors of modern Messianic Jews, so to are Kush and Nimrod spiritual ancestors of those oppressing the Jews, forcing them to escape to the Covenant Land.

Now, the only safe haven for both Jew and true Believer is in the Covenant Land of Yahuah, promised to Abraham, ““It shall happen when you have come to the land which Yahuah will give you, according as He has promised, that you shall keep this service.” (Exod. 12:25).Yahuah had declared His name unto Moshe. “`Elohim spoke to Moshe, and said to him, ‘I am Yahuah; and I appeared to Abraham, to Yitz`khak, and to Ya`akob, as `El Shaddai; but by my name Yahuah I was not known to them. I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Kana`an, the land of their travels, in which they lived as aliens.” (Exod. 6:2-4).

“`Elohiym said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you will keep my covenant, you and your seed after you throughout their generations… He who is born in your house, and he who is bought with your money, must be circumcised. My covenant will be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.’” (Gen. 17:9, 13). All who wish to enter into the physical family of the Abrahamic Covenant must be circumcised. For the Jewish male, this must involve physical circumcision.

However, in order to enter into the spiritual family of the Abrahamic Covenant, Jewish and Gentile males and Jewish and Gentile females all alike must have a circumcised heart, “Yahuah your `Elohiym will circumcise your heart, and the heart of your seed, to love Yahuah your `Elohiym with all your heart, and with all your soul, that you may live.” (Deut. 30:6); “in whom you were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Messiah;” (Col. 2:11).

It is because of the grace and mercy of Yahuah that such a safe haven is made available. First it is through the shed blood of the Master Yahusha, His Servant and through the Israeli Defence Force, His servants, to whom this Writer gives thanks.

Yahuah bless you and keep you,

Yahuah make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you,

Yahuah lift up His face toward you and give you peace.

All glory be to Yahuah,

Ameyn.

-22-

References and Credits

In using these references, it is in no way agreeing to or condoning the theological viewpoint of the authors.

Allen W.C. (1907)                 A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Gospel Of

                                                St. Matthew, T&T Clark, Edinburgh.

Bibliowicz, A.M. (2013).      The Anti-Jewish Strand in Ignatius. In: Jews and

Gentiles in the Early Jesus Movement, Palgrave  Macmillan, New York.

Henry M. (1991)                   Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible,

                                                 Hendrickson, Peabody, Mass.

Hodge C. (1873)                    Systematic Theology, Vol.I, Thomas Nelson & Sons,

                                                London.

Josephus(1) (2006)                     Jewish Antiquities, trans.

Whiston W., Wordsworth  Classics, Herts.

Kittel G. & Friedrich G.       Theological Dictionary of the New

           (1988)                          Testament, trans. Bromley G.W, Eerdmans,

                                                Grand Rapids, Mich.

Larkin C. (1919)                    The Book of Revelation, Moyer & Lotter, Philadelphia,

PA.

Lewy G. (2000)                    The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, De Capo Press,

                                                U.S.A

Roth A.E. (2008)                  Aramaic English New Testament, 4th Ed., Netzari Press,

         (AENT)                          U.S.A.                    

Strong J. (1994)                    Strong’s New Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, World Bible Publishers Inc., Madison. (denoted by #H or #G).

Strong J. (1996)                    The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, Thomas Nelson, Nashville. (denoted by #H or #G).

-23-

https://www.alangarrow.com/didache-and-matthew.html

The Didache: Author, Dates, and Why it’s Not in the Bible

https://www.bartehrman.com/what-was -decided-at-the-council-of-nicaea-in-325

https://www.bibleanalysis.org/understanding-arianism–history-beliefs-

and-impacts

https://www.britannica.com/biography/constantine-i-roman-emperor

https://www.britannica.com/biography/origen

https://www.britannica.com/topic/baal-ancient-deity

https://www.britannica.com/topic/battle-of-milvian-bridge

https://www.britannica.com/topic/petrine-theory

https://www.catholicnewsworld.com/2025/11/council-of-nicaea-explained-7-things.html

https://www.churchhistory101.com/council-nicea-325.php

https://www.dw.com/en/the-ratlines-what-did-the-vatican-know-about-nazi-escape-routes/a-52555068

https://eu.record-courier.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2026/04/17/todays-

leaders-recall-belief-that-caesar-was-lord-chris-mccreight/89625472007/

https://ewtn.co.uk/ca-what-is-the-meaning-of-christmas

https://grokipedia.com/page/the_baptism_of_constantine

https://www.hoegger.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/the-council-

of-nicaea-and-judaism.pdf

https://jerusalemsummit.icej.org/en/affirmation-sign

https://www.jewishportal.com/encyclopedia/the-1901-jewish-encyclopedia/eusebius

https://jewishvirtyallibrary.org/justin-martyr-x00b0

https://www.logos.com/grow/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins-?

-msockid=180870fc2a52609339f765d62bb756110

https://www. /bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-is-the-

nicene-creed-of-a-d-325

Sol Invictus: The Unconquered Sun in Roman Religion

https://roman-empire.net/emperors/the-truth-about-constatine-the-great

https://saet.ac.uk/christianity/eusebiusofcaesarea

https://www.thetorah.com/article/tertullian-father-of-western-christianitys-answer

-to-the-jews

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/the-nicene-creed-where-it-came-from-

and-why-it-still-matters

  1. U.S. Code › Title 17 › Chapter 1 › § 107

17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

-24-

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

-25-