The stoning of Stephen – Why were the Yahudim allowed to stone Stephen but had to go through Pilate to kill Yahusha?
When Yahusha was tried, Yahudim religious leaders went through the Roman governor, Pilate, since they had no legal right to inflict capital punishment. When Pilate told the Yahudim to try Yahusha according to Yahudi law, they responded, “We have no right to execute anyone” (John 18:31). Later, however, a mob led by those same leaders stoned Stephen to death in Jerusalem (Acts 7:58). This seems to present a conundrum: if the religious leaders were not allowed to inflict the death penalty, why did they execute Stephen? Or, if they could administer capital punishment, why did they involve Pilate with Yahusha’ death?
The answer lies in the very different circumstances of these two incidents. In the case of Yahusha, one of the religious authorities’ concerns was that Yahusha’ immense popularity would somehow lead to Roman retribution (John 11:47—48). Specifically, they were afraid that, if Yahusha started a revolt, Rome would blame the Yahudim leaders. So, part of the motivation for involving Pilate was to prove—or at least give the impression—that the Yahudim leadership was loyal to the Roman Empire. This is reflected in the chief priests’ outrageous statement to Pilate, “We have no king but Caesar” (John 19:15).
There was no question that Yahusha and the religious leaders had been in conflict (John 11:57) and that they wanted Yahusha dead (verse 53). But it would have been impossible for them to kill Yahusha without making obvious that they’d overstepped their legal bounds under Rome. Even a mob attack on Yahusha would have aroused suspicion. On the other hand, having the Romans execute Yahusha would give the Yahudim leaders two layers of protection: Rome would not object—legally—to His death, and Yahusha’ supporters would be discouraged from attempting revenge.
Pilate was already in a precarious political position when Yahusha was brought before him. Historical records suggest that Pilate had been criticized for being too violent in his response to Yahudim unrest in the past (see Luke 13:1). So, when the Yahudim leaders incited a mob to demand the death of Yahusha, Pilate was more interested in political harmony than justice (John 19:4, 6, 15–16). The situation only grew worse for Pilate in the time between Yahusha’ impalment and the Stephen’s stoning. In AD 36, a few years after Stephen’s martyrdom, Pilate lost his governorship.
The difference in Stephen’s case was that Stephen did not have an extensive history of antagonizing the Yahudim religious leaders. Stephen was a relative unknown, and his stoning was not likely to attract any attention from Rome. The crowd who actually killed Stephen could always be blamed for taking matters into their own hands, without the official sanction of the Sanhedrin. And, given Pilate’s growing political weakness, there was little chance he would respond to an incident of mob justice, from the Yahudim, against a Yahudi. Beyond that, Stephen’s sermon seems to have so infuriated the crowd that it’s possible nobody was thinking logically (Acts 7:54, 57).
The long and short of it is that the Yahudim religious leaders did not have the legal right to exact the death penalty. However, Rome’s interest in enforcing that rule was subject to many factors, not the least of which was whether or not the incident was—in Rome’s view—worth pursuing. The stoning of Stephen by the Yahudim was technically illegal, but the Romans had no vested interest in the matter, and the temple leaders in Jerusalem rightly felt that Rome would not respond. Yahusha, on the other hand, had caught the attention of many powerful people, and the Yahudim would not venture to violate Roman law by executing Yahusha on their own.
“The word ‘church’ is really not a translation of any word that was used by either Messiah or His Disciples, but is the Anglican form of a different word with Roman Catholicism substituted in place of the word used by Messiah and His Disciples ….
It is in our English Scriptures by order of King James, who instructed his translators of 1611 not to translate the word ‘ecclesia’ by either ‘congregation’ or ‘assembly’ but to use the word ‘church’ instead of a translation” (Gospel Advocate, 1915, p 589).
What is the Origin of the Term “Church”?
The Greek term (ekklesia) ekklesia which is commonly translated as “church”, basically means ‘called out’ and was commonly used to indicate an “assembly” of citizens of a Greek city and is so used in (Acts 19:32 NAS). The citizens who were quite conscious of their privileged status over against slaves and non citizens were called to the assembly by a herald and dealt . . . with matters of common concern. When the early Natsarim / QODESHIYM Community understood themselves as constituting an “assembly” or “congregation”, they no doubt perceived of themselves as called out by YAHUAH in Messiah YAHUSHA for a special purpose and that their status was a privileged one in Messiah YAHUSHA (Eph. 2:19 ).
It should be noted that, (ekklesia) ekklesia was used more than one hundred times in the Greek translation of the Tanach in common use in the time of YAHUSHA. The Hebrew term from which (ekklesia) ekklesia is derived is (qahal) lhq which simply meant ‘assembly’ and could be used in a variety of ways, referring for example to an assembling of prophets (1 Sam. 19:20 ), soldiers (Num. 22:4 ), or the people of YAHUAH (Deut. 9:10 ). The use of the term in the Tanach in referring to the people of YAHUAH is important for our understanding of the use of the term ‘assembly or congregation’ (ekklesia) ekklesia in the New Covenant Scriptures.
The first Natsarim QODESH Believers were Yahudiym (Jews) who in many cases, used the Hebrew of the Tanach. For them to use a self-designation that was common in the Tanach for the people of YAHUAH reveals their understanding of the continuity that links the Old and Renewed Covenant Scriptures. The early Netserim Community understood themselves as the people of YAHUAH who had revealed Himself in the Tanach (Heb. 1:1-2 ), as the true children of Yashar’el (Israel) (Rom. 2:28-29) with Abraham as their father (Rom. 4:1-25), and as the people of the Renewed Covenant prophesied in the Tanach (Heb. 8:1-13).
As a consequence of this broad background of meaning in the Greek and in the Tanach , the term ‘congregation or assembly’ is used in the Renewed Covenant Scriptures of a local assembly/congregation of called-out QODESH Netserim Believers, such as the ‘Mashicahiym Assembly/Congregation” (ekklesia) ekklesia of YAHUAH which is at Corinth’ (1 Cor. 1:2 ), and also of the entire people of YAHUAH, such as in the affirmation that Messiah is ‘the head over everything for the Natsarim Qodesh Assembly/Congregation, which is His body’ (Eph. 1:22-23)”).
We have seen in the overview above the Greek word (ekklesia) ekklesia is consistently used in the Greek translation of the Tanach and is understood in all other Greek language literature as meaning “assembly” or “congregation”. The word used in the Scriptures should read “assembly” or “congregation” from the Hebrew ( qahal) lhq or (edah) hd[ or the Greek (ekklesia) ekklesia , but not “church.”
Why is it then that in the Renewed Covenant Scriptures the same word is translated as “church” and where does the word “church” come from? We will first examine the source of the word “church” and then examine several passages in the Renewed Covenant Scriptures in seeking to determine why (ekklesia) ekklesia would be translated as “church”, contrary to normal rules of translation.
So where did the word Church come from? It comes from the German word KIRKE. Gary Amirault, in an article on the internet entitled;”Circe (Church)–Daughter of the Sun” shares the following incites:
Those of you who have been in “church” or have “gone to church” for any length of time have probably heard that the origin of the word “church” is from the Greek word ekklasia written in English ecclesia which would translate into English as called out, an assembly, or collection. This may be the definition of the word ecclesia, but the English word “church” does not come from this Greek word. Webster says the English word “church” comes from the Greek word kuriakon meaning “the Lord’s” or “the Lord’s house or belonging”. Sounds plausible, doesn’t it? This is what the seminary students are taught when they enter into the halls or walls of christendom as they study to become “heads of the churches.” To most of you, this explanation would probably suffice, but I am a nosy type, and I like to dig. Looking into Young’s Concordance, I discovered this word kuriakon is not in the Greek text of our Bibles. Strange that the Creator of the Universe would name his body on earth kuriakon and then not use the word in His Holy Word. Something did not smell right, know what I mean?
I am in touch with many people who spend much time doing word studies, and play around with what has been called “etymology”, that is the study of word origins. I also read much material from different authors who have traced many of our “church” words to pagan mythology, especially Greek, Roman, Babylonian, and German or Teutonic mythology. Most of you are not aware of the fact that English is really a part of the German language. As a matter of fact, about 90% of the words in the King James Bible are German in origin. The English peoples are also called Anglo-Saxons. The Webster’s Dictionary says under Anglo-Saxon “A member of the nation created by the consolidation of Low German tribes that invaded England in the 5th and 6th centuries, together with native and Danish elements, which continued as the ruling power of England until the Norman Conquest.” Their language dominated England. Even the name England reflects this. I point this out so that you are aware of how German or Norse mythology has much to do with many of our English words.
Now Webster says that the root of this word “church” is a Saxon word “circe, or circ, or cyric.” Those of you who are versed in Greek mythology or in the Greek language should begin to be raising your eyebrows. This information is so embarrassing that Webster did what he could to hide this in his first edition, but later editions made it easy to uncover. In the Original Webster’s under the word “circ” are the simple words “see circus.” Who says our Father doesn’t have a sense of humor? But it gets more interesting than that! The first entry as to the etymological meaning and origin of the church is “circe.” Now for those who are versed in Greek, this connection is so obvious and embarrassing that Webster did not put this noun in his dictionary, but he did put the adjective which is “Circean” I cannot prove it, but I think this omission was intentional. Under “Circean” we find the following definition: “adjective; Pertaining to Circe, the fabled daughter of Sol and Perseis, who was supposed to possess great knowledge of magic and venomous herbs, by which she was able to charm and fascinate.” Later editions of Webster’s finally had the courage to enter the noun under which we find more information: “Circe noun [L., fr. Gr. Kirke.] In the Odyssey, an island sorceress who turned her victims by magic into beasts but was thwarted by Odysseus with the herb moly given him by Hermes-Circean, circaean adj..”
A couple of years ago Dr. Ernest Martin sent me a photocopy of an old book written in England with a cover page that went as follows: “The MYTH OF KIRKE: Including the visit of Odysseus to the Shades. An Homerik Study by Robert Brown, Jun., F.S.A..” It had a quote from the famous Milton on the title page that read, “Who knows not Circe, The daughter of the Sun?” It appears at the present time few people know her for who she really is. Dr. Martin opened my eyes and since then I have spent much time gathering the pieces to reveal Circe, Church, the daughter of the Sun.
Father willing, we will trace how the Greek Kirke became Circe in the Anglo-Saxon, which became Chirche in Church Latin who finally manifested in full glory as Church, daughter of the Sun, a woman who had the power to turn men into animals.
As we have just seen above the term “church” does not come from the Greek word (ekklesia) ekklesia . However one views it (whether from the Hebrew ( qahal) lhq or (edah) hd[ or the Greek (ekklesia) ekklesia , it never means “church” but an assembly, meeting, or congregation of people. So what then is the reason for translating (ekklesia) ekklesia as “church” when the Greek word does not mean “church?” Could it not be a matter of scholarship but simply a case of a plain and simple anti-semitic bias on the part of Bible translators?
Let us consider several examples:
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church (ekklesia)… (Mat. 16:18)
Compare this with:
I also tell you this: you are Kefa [which means Rock], and on this rock I will build my called out assembly… (Mat. 16:18)
So what’s the difference between church and assembly? Isn’t just a matter of words? Possibly, but which captures more the real sense of the Greek (ekklesia) ekklesia?
Assembly, Greek ekklesia, which means called-out ones, and is used in the Septuagint to translate Hebrew kahal lhq, assembly, congregation, community. The usual English translation of ekklesia is church; and from it comes the word ecclesiastical, meaning, having to do with the church. What is being spoken about is a spiritual community of people based on trust in YAHUAH and his son the Messiah YAHUSHA. This can be all people throughout history who so commit themselves, or a group of such people at a particular time and place, such as the QODESHIYM community in Corinth or Jerusalem. The phrase, the ekklesia that meets in their house (Ro 16:5), refers to a particular congregation. Unlike church, ekklesia never refers either to an institution or to a building.
The point Stern is making is that to translate ekklesia, as “church” simply does not fit nor is it warranted by the context of the passage. YAHUSHA is building a “community” an “assembly” of His followers. To Translate ekklesia as “church”, only confuses the issue – is YAHUSHA talking about a building or a community?
To translate ekklesia as “assembly” or “congregation” is not only consistant with the context of the passage but also consistant with the Greek translation of the Tanach and other Greek literature outside of the New Covenant Scriptures. So why would one risk clairity of translation just to use the word “church”, unless the translators are trying to make a point , “YAHUSHA is building a NEW community – the CHURCH – as opposed to Israel? Could it be that in translating ekklesia as “church” rather than “assembly or “congregation” the translators reveal not scholastic honesty but rather a case of a plain and simple anti-semitic bias on their part?
The case becomes even more clear if we look at Matthew 18:17.
And if he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (ekklesia) ekklesia; and if he refuses to listen even to the church (ekklesia) ekklesia, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax-gatherer. (NAS)
If he refuses to hear them, tell the congregation (ekklesia) ekklesia; and if he refuses to listen even to the congregation (ekklesia) ekklesia, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax-collector. (JNT)
If we look at these two passages, which makes more logical sense of the basic meaning of the word (ekklesia) ekklesia? Again the simple meaning of what Messiah is teaching is that in an area of disagreement between bretheren we are called to consult with other believers the (ekklesia) ekklesia the “assembly”. Again the Biblical translators choose to use the word “church”. Many of these same scholars do not even believe the the “church” came into existance prior to Pentecost (Shavuot) – so who then is the “church” – a non-existant body that is not yet around? The choice of the word “church”, only confuses the issue – is YAHUSHA talking about a building or a community?
To translate ekklesia as “assembly” or “congregation” is consistent with the context of the passage we seek the counsel of other believers, the “assembly” or “congregation.” So why would one risk clarity of translation just to use the word “church”, unless the translators are trying to make a point , “YAHUSHA’s NEW community – meets in a New Building, the CHURCH – as opposed to a Yahudim Synagogue? We will be considering the term synagogue (sunagoge) later in this article. Could it be that in translating (ekklesia) ekklesia as “church” rather than “assembly or “congregation” the translators reveal not scholastic honesty but rather a case of a plain and simple anti-semitic bias on their part?
For our next passage we will be comparing three translations. Let us now consider Hebrews 2:12:
“Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church (ekklesia) ekklesia will I sing praise unto thee. (KJV)
saying, “I will proclaim Thy name to My brethren, In the midst of the congregation (ekklesia) ekklesia I will sing Thy praise” (NAS)
“I will proclaim your name to my brothers; in the midst of the congregation (ekklesia) ekklesia I will sing your praise” (JNT)
This passage is a direct quote from Psalm 22:22. Let us first look at how they deal with the Hebrew text of Psalm 22 before we consider the quote in Hebrews 2:12
I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation ( qahal) lhq will I praise thee. (KJV)
I will tell of Thy name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly ( qahal) lhq I will praise Thee. (NAS)
We can see here that Psalm 22:22 uses the word ( qahal) lhq, which as we noted above should be translated as “assembly” or “congregation.” Interesting to note between these two translations we have both meanings of ( qahal) lhq expresed.
We also noted above that (ekklesia) ekklesia was used more than one hundred times in the Greek translation of the Tanach in common use in the time of YAHUSHA.
Based on this we would expect that the Bible translators would then translate (ekklesia) ekklesia for ( qahal) lhq and arrive at a consistant translation of either “assembly” or “congregation” in Hebrews 2:12. But is this the case?
The (NAS) to it’s credit does. It translates both as using either “congregation” in the case of Psalm 22 or “assembly” in the case of Hebrew 12:2.
But what happened to the (KJV)? In Psalm 22:22 it did a good job in translating ( qahal) lhq as “congregation.” But look what happened to (ekklesia) ekklesia – it has suddenly become “church.” One might just wonder, what “church” did David attend? Was it First Bapist? United Methodist? Obviously such questions are : ludicrous! But so too is translating (ekklesia) ekklesia as “church.”
While we credit the (NAS) for translating (ekklesia) ekklesia as “congregation” in this case. We wonder why, in this case do they translate (ekklesia) ekklesia is more consistently translated as “church” by the (NAS) but here choose to use “congregation”? Could it be that they consider David to be a Jew – and therefore – he would not be going to a “church” to “proclaim Thy name to My brethren, In the midst of the congregation (ekklesia) ekklesia I will sing Thy praise.
What of the “Gentile Believers”, do they proclaim Thy name to their brethren, In the midst of the “church” they will sing Thy praise? One would be led to believe so by the way they consistently translate (ekklesia) ekklesia as “church” in the Renewed Covenant Scriptures. It seems as though may Bible Translators have bought into the “Two People of YAHUAH” heresy which plagues so much of the “church!” And again it must be asked; “Could it be that in translating (ekklesia) ekklesia as “church” rather than “assembly or “congregation” the translators reveal not scholastic honesty but rather a case of a plain and simple anti-semitic bias on their part?”
There is another other issue we would like to consider. What about the Greek for synagogue (sunagoge) (see James 2:2 NAS) and why is synagogue translated as “assembly.?”
Stern in his commentary writes:
Your synagogue. This is a Messianic synagogue, a congregation of believers in YAHUSHA, predominantly Yahudim (Jewish), expressing their Renewed Covenant faith in a way retaining most or all of the prayers, customs and style of non-Messianic synagogues. The word in Greek is sunagoge; it appears 57 times in the New Testament. Fifty-six times it refers to a Yahudim (Jewish) place of congregational assembly and is translated “synagogue” in virtually all English versions. Yet in the present verse KJV and the Revised Standard Version render it “assembly,” and other versions translate it by “church,” “meeting,” “place of worship” and other avoidances of the word “synagogue.” This reflects the translators unwillingness to acknowledge the Yahudi-ness (Jewishness) of Renewed Covenant faith and the overall antisemitic bias that has infected Christianity over the centuries (see Ro 10:4&N 1). The New Jerusalem Bible prepared by Roman Catholics does use the word “synagogue,” but adds in a note, “James is writing to Yahudi (Jewish) Natsarim; it is possible that they may even have still been attending Yahudim (Jewish) synagogues, or it may be his word for the Natsirm Qodesh assembly for liturgical services.” “Even…still…attending Yahudi (Jewish) synagogues” – how backward of them! And how backward of Shaul, who made it his “usual practice” to do so (Ac 17:2 2)!
Yaakov is talking neither about a Christian church service nor a gathering of Yahudi (Jewish) nonbelievers but a Messianic synagogue. He would not refer to “your synagogue” and assume his readers were in charge of seating visitors if the synagogue was not controlled by the Messianic Yahudim (Jews). There is no reason why “synagogue,” with its unmistakably Yahudi (Jewish) connotation, should have been “his word for the Natsarim assembly ” in general, since the term the New Testament uses 112 times for that is ekklesia (ekklesia) ekklesia (usually rendered “church” in other versions; see ( Mt 16:18N); Yaakov himself employs it at 5:14 4 JNT). The idea that this synagogue was Messianic simply did not occur to the Jerusalem Bible note-writer. Rendering (synagogue) sunagoge “church” instead of “synagogue” robs Messianic Yahudim (Jews) of their identity.
This verse establishes a solid New Testament basis for modern-day Natsarim Qodesh synagogues, provided they do not exclude Gentile believers. To do so would “raise the middle wall of partition” once again, in violation of Ep 2:11-16&NN 5. A Messianic Natsarim Qodesh synagogue, while committed to preserving and developing a Yahudi rather than a Gentile mode of expressing Renewed Covenant faith, must be open to participation by believing Yahudi and Gentiles alike.
So where did the word Church come from? It comes from the German word KIRKE.The word “KIRKE” is a word whose root goes back to circle – circe (the false goddess). Kirke is similar to the Hebrew word (kikkar) rKK meaning a disk or circle. Or SUN WORSHIP! (see Zech 5:6-11 NAS). The sun was worshipped as baal or lord by a full circle of pagans. Is it any question why some then worship on sun-day?
Ever wonder if the Bible actually renders the word Israel that way. In Ancient Hebrew, it does not. We will cover this and also address those claiming the word Israel originates from the false gods Isis, Ra and El which is very illiterate. We will prove this out. Then, who and what is Israel? It’s not a modern country today in fact. Yah Bless.
Shem is one of the three sons of Noah, his brothers being Ham and Japheth. They all, along with their wives, were rescued from the great flood (Genesis 8:16–18). Because Shem’s name is consistently listed first, it is possible that he was the oldest of Noah’s three sons, or it may be simply that he was considered the most important of the three because he became the founding ancestor of the Yisraelite people.
After the flood, YAHUAH made a covenant with Noah, his sons (including Shem), and their descendants to never again destroy the earth by flood (Genesis 9:11–17). The rainbow is the sign of that promise. YAHUAH also instructed them to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (Genesis 9:1, 7), echoing His command to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28. YAHUAH further instructed them not to take human life (Genesis 9:5–6) like Cain did in Genesis 4:8. YAHUAH would require a reckoning for taking the lifeblood of a human. But YAHUAH did give humanity permission to eat animals as food (Genesis 9:3).
As Noah set out to obey Y’AHUAHs commands, he planted a vineyard to provide for a growing family (Genesis 9:20).
Unfortunately, he became drunk on his own wine and ended up naked within his tent (Genesis 9:21). When Ham saw his father in this shameful state, he refused to help in any way but instead told his brothers (Genesis 9:22). Shem and Japheth quickly jumped into action and held a cloak between them, entered the tent backwards with their faces turned away, and covered their father’s nakedness (Genesis 9:23). When Noah awoke, he pronounced blessings over Shem and Japheth and a curse over Ham‘s son Canaan (Genesis 9:24–27).
Genesis then records a genealogy of Noah’s sons. Shem’s descendants are counted ten generations down to Abram (later Abraham) whom YAHUAH called out to father a nation, the Yisraelites (Genesis 11:10–26; 12:1–3).
However, other people groups who trace their lineage to Shem include the Chaldeans, Assyrians, Elamites, Arameans, Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Arabs. In fact, Shem’s name is the origin of the term Semitic, and his descendant, Eber, is where the word Hebrew originates. Of course, since Shem is an ancestor to Abram (Abraham), and YAHUSHA, the Messiah, is a descendant of Abram, Shem is also listed in the genealogy tracing the lineage of YAHUSHA in Luke 3:36.
The story of Shem can teach us about our need for salvation. Just as Shem needed YAHUAH to rescue him from the flood, so too do we need YAHUAH to rescue us from the power and consequences of sin in our lives (Romans 7:23–24).
Just as Shem covered his father’s nakedness and shame with a cloak, so too can YAHUSHA The Messiah’s blood cover our sin, unrighteousness, and shame (Romans 5:19; Philippians 3:9).
In Shem’s story we see part of YAHUAH’s plan for humanity unfold. YAHUAH set aside a people through whom He would demonstrate His holiness to the world and through whom He would send the Messiah.
YAHUAH told Abraham, “in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed” (Genesis 12:3). YAHUSHA, YAHUAH manifested in flesh, was born into the family of Shem. His offer of salvation is available to all people.
Every human alive today has descended from Noah, who descended from Adam. Of Adam and YAHUSHA, Romans 5:17 explains, “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man [Adam], much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH.” In YAHUSHA, we can become children of YAHUAH(John 1:12–13). What a glorious salvation (Ephesians 2:1–10)!
Electromagnetic sensitivity (ES), also known as electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), electromagnetic intolerance (EMI), and in cases of wireless exposure by an older name, “microwave sickness”, is any sickness, acute or chronic, that is caused by electromagnetic fields (EMF) and electromagnetic radiation (EMR).
When people with ES are exposed to EMF and EMR from wireless and electrical sources – cell phones, Wi-Fi, cell towers and antennas, tablets, cordless phones, wireless “smart meters”, powerlines, appliances, and imbalanced home wiring among others – they experience signs and symptoms of adverse health effects.
What are the common symptoms of ES?
The most common symptoms are:
headache
tingling in the hands and legs
pain in the head and ears when using a cell phone
cognitive problems
brain fog
heart palpitations
difficulty breathing
sleep disturbances
exhaustion
tinnitus
nose bleeds
dizziness
nausea
What physiological damage is associated with ES?
The signs and symptoms that are associated with ES may indicate serious physiological harm.
A recent study by Prof. Dominque Belpomme (2015) was conducted on about 700 people who have developed ES. The data indicate serious physiological damage to the blood-brain barrier, hypothalamus and immune system, as well as neurodegeneration. Numerous other scientific studies have also established a correlation between the signs and symptoms experienced by people who have developed ES and exposure to EMR and/or EMF.
How many people suffer from ES?
With exposure to wireless technology radiation increasing exponentially, the number of adults and children who have developed the sickness is growing rapidly. Surveys conducted through 2006 indicate that 10% of the population was suffering from ES. Considering the increase in use of wireless technologies in the 10 years since, it is safe to assume that the percentage of people who have developed ES is higher and at epidemic scale. While there are other conditions which have been associated with exposure to wireless radiation, it is clear that ES is the most widespread and the quickest to manifest.
Can anyone develop ES?
Anyone can develop ES.
Human bodies are electromagnetic in nature and thus are affected by wireless technology radiation and EMF. People are not born with ES but develop it as a result of exposure to wireless radiation and artificial EMF sources. With the increase in personal and environmental exposure to these fields and radiation, rapidly increasing numbers of people are developing ES. This increase – documented by surveys – shows the falsity of suggestions that those who suffer from the condition are a small fraction of the population.
The higher prevalence among hi-tech and wireless industry workers is yet further proof that there is a dose-response relationship: Matti Niemelä, Nokia’s Chief Technology Officer; Per Segerbäck, Ericcson mobile phone engineer, and Dr. David McDonald, CSIRO senior scientist – all senior-level employees in the wireless industry – have developed the condition.
What treatments exist?
The only known effective “treatment” is avoidance.
However, with the proliferation of wireless technologies, this is becoming increasingly difficult and is nearly impossible. As a result, many people are forced to leave their homes, families and jobs, and become refugees with nowhere to go.
Since most scientific studies are funded by the wireless industry, which is doing its best to discredit the connection of the sickness to wireless technology, there are very few studies about the potential mechanisms involved in its development. Sadly, no official cure can be offered at time.
Is ES a medically diagnosable condition?
Yes.
An increasing body of objective diagnostic tests and guidelines for the diagnosis and management of the condition exists. Most recently, the EMF Working Group of the European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) published the European EMF Guideline 2016 for the diagnosis and treatment of ES. These guidelines follow after earlier guidelines issued by the Austrian Medical Association.
The Guideline relies on three principles:
the ability of a person to correlate between cause and symptoms, which is the most important tool for every medical diagnosis;
objective bio-markers and diagnostic tests; and
elimination of other potential causes.
The EUROPAEM EMF Guideline has been adopted by doctors around the world.
Is ES a recognized condition?
Numerous international organizations, medical associations, doctors and hospitals in several countries and countless courts have recognized ES.
The European Parliament recognized the condition and its correlation to EMR in 2009 as part of a “Resolution on EMFs and Health“.
In 2011, the Council of Europe recognized ES. Following an extensive and unbiased investigation that resulted in a report entitled “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment”, the Council concluded that “…A syndrome of intolerance to electromagnetic fields (SIEMF) does exist and that those people are not feigning illness or suffering from psychiatric disorders.”
Most recently, a court decision in France ordered disability payments to a woman for an “allergy to Wi-Fi” and in August 2016 a decision in Spain awarded an Ericsson engineer disability payments for developing ES.
Why are doctors and the public unaware of ES?
Despite its epidemic scale, the wireless industry and other interested parties are doing whatever they can to suppress the problem. They make baseless claims that the problem is psychological and they fund subjective provocation studies rather than physiological studies. Governments clearly have a vested interest to avoid dealing with this problem for as long as possible. These factors contribute to the lack of awareness and information available to doctors; as a result many people are misdiagnosed and receive the wrong treatment.
Our contemporary May Day is a blend of several different traditions.
By Wesley Baines
Falling on May 1st, May Day marks the end of the winter half of the year in the Northern Hemisphere, and is traditionally a day of celebration and revelry in many cultures around the world.
Our contemporary incarnation of May Day might bring to mind simple images of children dancing around a festively decorated Maypole and engaging in foot races, but this holiday has surprisingly deep roots that tap into ancient pre-Christian customs relating to fertility, agriculture, and the spring equinox.
May Day was once the premier summer holiday in many ancient European pagan cultures, where the beginning of February marked the beginning of spring, May 1st marked the beginning of summer—the season of growth and life for crops, animals, and people.
Although the origins of May Day are difficult to pinpoint, we can trace our modern festivities back to a few different celebrations, most of which come from pagan traditions. We can still see many elements of those traditions in the flowers, colorful ribbons, and tall poles that mark May Day today.
Let’s take a brief look at these origins.
Beltane
Pagan celebrations often arose from the needs of the community, and May Day was no different. May Day probably arose from the Celtic holiday, Beltane, which was celebrated in ancient Ireland, Scotland, and the Isle of Man. This was one of four Gaelic seasonally-based festivals, which include Samhain, Imbolc, and Lughnasadh. Beltane, however, was one of the most important.
The ancient Celts were a pastoral people, completely dependent on the land and their herds of livestock. Beltane fell at the beginning of the season that saw herds of livestock shepherded out of the summer pastures and grazing lands. Rituals, at this time, were performed that were thought to protect crops, livestock, and people, and to encourage reproduction and growth.
Spirits were also said to be capable of crossing over into the world of the living at this time, and the Celts sought to appease them in order to have a more prosperous year.
These rituals revolved around the lighting of bonfires in the mountains on the eve of Beltaine. The druids of the community would create these fires and drive the village cattle between them so that the livestock might be purified and brought luck. People would also pass between these fires to gain the same benefits.
Another custom of Beltane—a familiar one that would form the basis of the Maypole—was the erection of May Bushes, which usually consisted of a branch of rowan or whitethorn in bloom. These branches would be decorated with painted shells, ribbons, and flowers, and it was customary for a community to decorate them together and hold dances around them. This was believed to bring blessings to the village from tree spirits.
“Celebrants wore garlands of fresh flowers and scattered seeds to promote a bountiful crop.”
The Festival of Flora
The ancient Romans, over 2,000 years ago, celebrated a holiday called Floralia—the Festival of Flora—on the 1st of May. This was a five-day-long ritual that honored the Roman goddess of flowers. Flora, one of the oldest goddesses of the Roman religion, had her own state-sanctioned high priest, known as the flamen Florialis.
This, like Beltane, was a festival that celebrated growth and fertility, and was marked by dancing, flower-gathering, and the wearing of colorful garments. This was also a time for games.
The festival opened with theatrical shows and attractions that included a tightrope-walking elephant, and ended with competitive games and a sacrifice to Flora. Celebrants wore garlands of fresh flowers and scattered seeds to promote a bountiful crop.
Walpurgis Night
During the Middle Ages, these traditions were Christianized, as were many other pagan holidays of the time. In an effort to stamp out pagan cultural elements, many Popes established religious holidays that fell on the same days as pagan rituals, incorporating their elements into a Christian framework.
At one point, May Day took the form of Walpurgis Night, which was a German celebration that focused on Saint Walpurga, and 8th century Roman Catholic missionary and abbess. On this night, celebrants across Europe light “Easter fires,” dance, feast, and perform rituals focused on fertility and love in a carnival-like atmosphere.
May Day was also subsumed by Mary’s month, with May Day being a celebration of the Virgin Mary. During this day, effigies of Mary were adorned with flowers, and May baskets of pastries and flowers were anonymously left at peoples’ doors.
Contemporary May Day
Today, May Day has made somewhat of a resurgence as a secular and pagan holiday in America and Europe, and celebrations vary greatly across different regions. Surviving customs include the signature wooden Maypole, and the practice of dancing around it while holding colorful ribbons that intertwine and unwind about the pole. This is thought to symbolize the lengthening of days during this part of the year.
Morris dancing, named after 13th-century Moorish dancers, is also a common sight on May Day across the world. Their stomping feet and clashing sticks bring to mind the clash of summer and winter, resulting in summer’s eventual triumph.
In England, May Day is especially beloved, and remains a deep-seated tradition celebrated in most towns and communities. These English traditions include crowning of a May Queen, and annual processions of Morris dancers that parade through towns—these modern celebrations often incorporate elements from Beltane, the Festival of Flora, and Walpurgis Night.
In the United States, the celebration of May Day was initially quashed by early Puritan settlers, and so celebrations are fewer, and vary greatly from region to region. Among the largest is the May Day Parade and Pageant that occurs ever year in Minneapolis, and attracts over 35,000 people from all over the country.
Another American May Day custom is the giving of May baskets—someone leaves a basket of sweets and flowers on a doorstep, rings the bell, and runs away. If the recipient manages to catch the basket-giver, a kiss is exchanged.
A Celebration of Growth
All of the sources of what we now know as May Day have roots in celebrations of growth and fertility, and so this remains the core of this summer holiday, no matter where it is celebrated.
Wesley Baines is a graduate student at Regent University’s School of Divinity, and a freelance writer working in the fields of spirituality, self-help, and religion. He is also a former editor at Beliefnet.com. You can catch more of his work at http://www.wesleybaines.com.
The antiquity of the Jubilee Calendar is proven by the 7th Centry BCE plaque. This smooth bone plaque measures just over two inches long and one inch wide. Evidently a peg was moved each day of the month from one to the next of the 30 holes arranged in three rows of ten hols each. In the fourth row of 12 holes, another peg would be moved to mark off the beginning of each month. The last day of the first three quarters or seasons was marked by a peg within the Photo-Aeolic capital at the top of the plaque. Similar plaques have been found at other sites.
(Biblical Archaeology Review, March-April. 1983 p. 37)
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The Book of Jubilees is considered canon by the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia, and has been for over 2000 years.
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The text of Jubilees is between the Angel of YAHUAH and Moshe (Moses) on the Mt. Sinai during the 40 days and nights.
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The Book of Jubilees is comprised of 50 chapters, similar to the book of Genesis, and it’s narrative conversation the same historical timeframe from the start of creation to Moses at Mt Sinai, also similar to the book of Genesis.
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The book of Jubilees ranked 6th in the amount of manuscripts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, next to Psalms, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Exodus, and Genesis.
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The book of Jubilees declares, in Chapter 6, a 364 day yearly calendar, made up of four quarts of 13 weeks each, rather than a year of 12 lunar months, same as the book of Enoch.
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The Book of Jubilees was found in 5 different caves at (1Q17/1Q18/2Q19/2Q20/3Q5) Qumran among the rest of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but Jubilees was found in Paleo-Hebrew.
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The book of Jubilees, chapter 2, tell us the angels and heavenly beings were made on day 1 of creation week, which is something not explained in Genesis but only inferred in the book of Job.
JUBILEES FUN FACTS
The book of Jubilees Enoch and are the only two books that tell us the origin of unclean spirits we see in the Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
A Short Guide To Understand First Fruits Offerings
By Tithe.ly
Curious about first fruits in the Bible? We’ll explain the difference between first fruits & tithing, why it is important & how to give. Read here!
There are plenty of terms and phrases in the Bible you frequently hear in church but may not understand.
One such term is the first fruits in the Bible.
First fruits may be mentioned when pastors talk about giving or generosity. But what exactly does it mean?
And why is it good to know for the average church-goer?
What is first fruits in the Bible?
“When you come into the land which I give you and reap its harvest, then you shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest.” —Leviticus 23:10
The concept of first fruits is rooted in biblical times when people lived in an agrarian society. Harvest time was significant because that was when the hard work the farmers had poured into their crops all year began to pay off. They were literally reaping what they sowed.
YAHUAH called his people to bring the first yield—the first fruits—from their harvest to him as an offering. This was to demonstrate the Israelites’ obedience and reverence for YAHUAH. It also showed that they trusted YAHUAH to provide enough crops to feed their family.
Back then, there were plenty of rules associated with making first fruit sacrifices. They had to be brought to the temple priests. No other crops could be harvested until after the first fruits were presented. It was a complex process.
The Hebrew word for first fruit is bikkurim—literally translated to “promise to come.” The Israelites saw these first fruits as an investment into their future. YAHUAH told them that if they brought their first fruits to him, he would bless all that came afterward.
We no longer live in an agrarian-based society. Most people reading this are probably not farmers. You likely don’t worry about harvest time or giving away the first yield of your crops. But the idea of first fruits is still relevant—it just takes on a new meaning for us.
First fruits in the Bible
“Honor YAHUAH with your wealth, with the firstfruits of all your crops.” —Proverbs 3:9
We see the term first fruits initially mentioned in the book of Exodus when Moses is leading YAH’s people out of captivity in Egypt. YAHUAH instructed the Israelites to give up the first of their crops so that they could understand the value of YAH’s blessings.
Through the first five books of the Bible, Moses brings up the idea of a total of thirteen times. That’s because it was an essential concept for his people to understand. First fruits is mentioned throughout the Old Testament, and it’s even referenced in the New Testament books.
In the New Testament, the term first fruits takes on a symbolic meaning. In 1 Corinthians 15:20, Paul mentions Messiah as the “first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.” YAHUSHA was YAHUAH’s first fruits—his one and only son, and the best that humanity had to offer. YAHUAH gave YAHUSHA, who was raised from the dead, up for us, in the same way that we sacrifice the best we have for him.
What started as a specific instruction for bringing crops to the temple priest was expanded on later in Scripture. It no longer refers to literal fruit—firstfruits means any income, wealth, or blessings that a Believer has received over the course of the year.
Difference between first fruits and tithing
“The first of all first fruits of every kind and every contribution of every kind, from all your contributions, shall be for the priests: you shall also give to the priest the first of your dough to cause a blessing to rest on your house.” —Ezekiel 44:30
To give a tithe means that you give a tenth of your income to your Assembly. Tithes are generally given throughout the entire year. Tithes are meant to be given in an automatic sense of obedience after you receive your income–e.g., paycheck, commission, bonus.
A First fruits offering is something different.
First fruit offerings are typically an annual gift to the Assembly done at “harvest time.”
Because we’re not actually harvesting crops, the harvest can mean different things to different people. Perhaps you just got a bonus at work. Maybe you just received a huge tax refund check. Maybe you saved 15% or more on car insurance.
These are all harvest time moments when your hard work paid off. These are also great opportunities to turn back to YAHUAH in gratitude for the blessings.
Whenever you decide to make a first fruit offering, the important thing is that you do it freely, with no guilt or obligation. This is supposed to be a celebration of all that YAHUAH has done for you. It’s a kind of worship that you can use to support the work of others. A first fruit offering is our opportunity to give above and beyond just a regular tithe.
Why giving first fruits is important
“In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to YAHUAH. And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. YAHUAH looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.” —Genesis 4:3-5
The famous Bible story of Cain and Abel begins when the two brothers make an offering to YAHUAH. Cain brings some of his crops before YAHUAH, and Abel brings an offering of slaughtered animals. But there is a distinct difference between these two gifts.
Cain brings some fruit and vegetables—probably something he had left over after he had fed himself and his family. But Abel brought the best of what he had to YAH—the firstborn of the flock, the healthiest of his animals. YAHUAH noticed this difference in these sacrifices, and he had a clear preference between the two.
Disregarding what famously happens in the rest of the story, the sacrifices of Cain and Abel teaches us a valuable lesson. Giving our firstfruits means giving our best to YAHUAH. It means sacrificing something that costs us a little. It means putting YAHUAH first, even before ourselves, or our family.
Making a first fruit offering opens us up to allow YAHUAH to work in our life. When we approach YAHUAH with open hands—rather than clenched fists—it makes it easier for him to give us more to work with.
Giving of our first fruits reminds us that YAHUAH is our ultimate priority. It shows YAHUAH that we are obedient to him and we can be trusted with more. Perhaps most importantly, being generous in this way shows that we are grateful for all YAHUAH has given to us.
How to give a first fruits offering
“If the part of the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.” —Romans 11:16
What does this practically look like? How do you determine how, when, and how much you should give as a firstfruit offering? This is going to look different for every person and each season. But here are a few steps you can take to help you get started in the right direction:
Pray: If your goal is obedience to YAH, it only makes sense that you would first go to him in prayer. Ask him what you should do with your money and resources. Listen to what he says.
Prepare: YAHUAH calls us to be good stewards of the blessings he gives us. That means knowing what we’re able to give and when. Have a plan in place for your offering. Approach each harvest time with an open mind and a generous heart.
Prioritize: The whole idea behind a first fruit gift is to put YAHUAH first. That may be donating your first paycheck of the year to the Assembly. It may mean that you put this donation first in your budget. Just make sure that you’re prioritizing YAH in your finances.
Give: Know where you are going to give the money to. Is there a specific funds you want to contribute to? Is there another nonprofit you want to support? It also helps to know the amount you’ll give.
Repeat: How often do you want to give a first fruit offering? This was traditionally an annual practice, but you can give as often as you’d like. Making it a part of your routine will help keep it a priority, not something you do spontaneously or sporadically.
However you give, the key thing is that you’re giving with an open heart and mind.
The process of giving above your normal tithe can help prepare you for YAHUAH to make a difference in your life. Making a first fruit offering demonstrates obedience to YAH, rather than your money.
Editor’s Note: This post was updated on August 6, 2020 for accuracy and comprehensiveness.
The scene would look quite ominous to modern-day observers—five bloody animal carcasses on the ground, three of them split in half, with the halves separated a short distance from each other. But in Abraham’s time it would not have been so menacing. The arrangement of divided animal carcasses would have been instantly recognized as the set-up for making a type of blood covenant.
When YAHUAH called Abraham out of his hometown and away from all things familiar, He gave Abraham some promises. A covenant is a kind of promise, a contract, a binding agreement between two parties. The fifteenth chapter of Genesis reiterates the covenant YAHUAH had made with Abraham at his calling. Except this time, YAHUAH graciously reassures His promise with a visual of His presence. He asks Abraham to find and kill a heifer, a ram, a goat, a dove, and a pigeon. Then, Abraham was to cut them in half (except the birds) and lay the pieces in two rows, leaving a path through the center (Genesis 15:9-10).
In ancient Near Eastern royal land grant treaties, this type of ritual was done to “seal” the promises made. Through this blood covenant, YAHUAH was confirming primarily three promises He had made to Abraham: the promise of heirs, of land, and of blessings (Genesis 12:2-3). A blood covenant communicated a self-maledictory oath. The parties involved would walk the path between the slaughtered animals so to say, “May this be done to me if I do not keep my oath.” Jeremiah 34:18-19 also speaks about this type of oath-making.
However, there was an important difference in the blood oath that YAHUAH made with Abraham in Genesis 15. When the evening came, YAHUAH appeared in the form of a “smoking fire pot and flaming torch [that] passed between the pieces” (Genesis 15:17). But Abraham had fallen “into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him” (verse 12). Thus, YAHUAH alone passed through the pieces of dead animals, and the covenant was sealed by YAHUAH alone. Nothing depended on Abraham. Everything depended on YAHUAH, who promised to be faithful to His covenant. “When YAHUAH made his promise to Abraham, since there was no one greater for him to swear by, he swore by himself” (Hebrews 6:13-18). Abraham and his descendants could trust, count on, and believe in everything YAHUAH promised.
This specific blood covenant is also known as the Abrahamic Covenant. The blood involved in this covenant, as with any blood covenant, signifies the life from which the blood comes (Leviticus 17:11).
The Mosaic Covenant was also a blood covenant in that it required blood to be sprinkled on the tabernacle, “the scroll and all the people” (Hebrews 9:19-21). “In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). In the Mosaic Covenant, the blood of animals served as a covering, or atonement, for the sins of the people. The animal’s life was given in place of the sinner’s life. In the Abrahamic Covenant, YAHUAH, in essence, was declaring He would give His life if His promises were broken. There could be no greater encouragement to believers, since YAHUAH is eternal and can no more break an oath than He can die.
All of these things were only “copies,” or “shadows,” of the better covenant to come (Hebrews 9:23). The lives of animals could never remove sin; the life of an animal is not a sufficient substitute for a human life (Hebrews 10:4). The blood of bulls and goats was a temporary appeasement until the final, ultimate blood covenant was made by YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH Himself – the YAHUAH Man (Hebrews 9:24-28). The New Covenant was in His blood (Luke 22:20).
The shadows became realities in Messiah, who fulfilled all of the Old Testament blood covenants with His own blood. Natsarim can be confident that the gift of eternal life that YAHUAH gives through YAHUSHA is the true promise to people of faith. As the apostle Paul explains, the covenant was established with Abraham and his “Seed”—singular. Paul interprets this as the singular person of Messiah (Galatians 3:15-16). Therefore, all who are “in Messiah” are spiritual heirs of the promises made to Abraham (Galatians 3:29).
To put it simply, a blood covenant is a promise made by YAHUAH that He will choose a people for Himself and bless them. The covenant was originally for Abraham’s physical descendants but was later extended, spiritually, to all those who, like Abraham, believe YAHUAH (Galatians 3:7; cf. Genesis 15:6). YAHUAH’s promise of eternal blessing is given only on the basis of faith in the saving blood of His Son, YAHUSHA HA’MASHIACH (Hebrews 9:12).
The Truthers Journal 