There is an old saying that when a Jew reads the Renewed Covenant (the New Testament), it is like he is reading a totally different book than the book the Gentile reads. And that saying is true. Because the Jew understands the Hebraic context of the Renewed Covenant. And the shades of meanings in certain Hebrew words, and in Jewish idiom and tradition. So that is why the Jew gets a totally different picture of what was going on in the first century than the picture the Sunday Christian gets.

But do not we need to know how to read the Scripture with first-century Jewish eyes and through first-century Jewish lenses, so to speak? Do not we need an accurate picture of what is going on in Scripture if we are going to make the right interpretation? Or why would we not need to learn to read the Scriptures with devout first-century Jewish eyes if that is the way the Jewish Messiah’s apostles wrote them? If they were written to the Jew first and then to the Gentile, should not we learn to read the Scriptures as Jews?

Israelite Sect of the Nazarenes

In this series, we are going to learn to read the Scriptures with devout first-century Jewish eyes. We are going to learn to interpret things through first-century Jewish lenses, so to speak. This is going to show us some surprising and amazing things about Scripture that you will never hear talked about in the Sunday Church. And along the way, we are also going to see the reasons why the Sunday-Christian Church might not want us to know this information.

In this chapter, we are going to see hard proof, both from Scripture and the admissions of the Roman Catholic Church, that the faith once delivered for all the saints (Jude 3) was never Catholicism or any form of Sunday-Christianity as we understand Sunday-Christian worship today. But rather, we will see through both the Catholic Church and Scripture that the original faith the Messiah Yeshua taught His apostles to keep in the first century was a little understood Jewish and Israelite faith, called in Scripture the Israelite Sect of the Nazarenes.

And what we need to know is that the original faith was not so much of a Jewish style of Christianity as it was a Christian style of the Jewish and Israelite faith, so to speak. And we know this because the law of Moses, the land of Israel, and the Hebrew language were still very important to them. These things were still central to their faith.

Later in this series, we will see that this is the exact same Jewish and Israelite faith that the Messiah Yeshua tells us He wants us to keep today. In other words, our Redeemer wants us to keep the same Jewish and Israelite faith that He taught His disciples to practice in the first century (or, the original faith). And if you think about it, why would He not want His disciples to keep the same faith He taught them in the first century?

Yochanan (John) 15:9-10
9  “As the Father loved Me, I also have loved you; abide in my love.
10  If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.”

Sect of the Nazarenes: The original faith

In this chapter we will explore why the faith once delivered to the saints was never Catholicism or any form of Greco-Roman Christianity, but rather the Jewish-Hebrew and Israelite sect of the Nazarenes was the original faith.

Christian vs Nazarene: the same thing?

I have been very blessed to be able to study the Scriptures full-time since 1999, with the goal of restoring and re-establishing the  first-century original faith of the apostles. However, that might not have come to fruition if I had listened to what I had been taught as a child in the Christian Church growing up.

When I was a child growing up in the Christian Church, I was always taught that the terms Christian and Nazarene were synonyms and that they referred to the exact same group of people in the first century. I was taught that a Christian is a Nazarene, and a Nazarene is a Christian, and there is no real difference between the two. As a child in the Christian Church, I believed that misconception and I never questioned it. But now years later, after having been called to repentance and studying the Scripture in detail to see what the first-century original faith was, I realized that what I was taught as a child was not actually correct. But that the two groups, the Christians and the Nazarenes, are not the same. And that it makes all the difference as to how we understand and live the Scriptures.

Christians and Nazarene Sect, two different 1st-century groups

What we will see in this series and others is that the Christians and the Nazarenes were not the same. The truth is that they were two related and yet separate, distinct groups, that often met together in the first century. And so they were often confused for each other. But the truth is that they were not technically the same groups of people.

Why does it matter? Well, it matters for a great many reasons. In fact, we cannot truly understand the message of Scripture if we do not know that there were two groups and not one, or who these groups were, or what they represent. As we study into this subject, we find that there is a powerfully different sense of identity for each group.

Nazarnene Sect: Israelite identity

For example, the Nazarene Israelites did not consider themselves to be part of a separate church or even a separate Messianic synagogue system. Rather, they simply considered themselves continuing to be part of the nation of Israel. They wanted to remain part of the nation of Israel. That is to say, their Israelite identity was very important to them. They treasured their Yahweh-given inheritance in the land of Israel, in the Hebrew language, and in the law of Moshe (the Torah). These things were all central to their faith. That is who they were as Israelites and as Jews.

Christians: No Israelite idenity

Now, what we need to understand is that the same identity markers do not hold true for the Christians. As we will see, the Christians were more loose, or open-minded, in many respects, particularly with regard to applying the Father’s laws in their lives. Perhaps just like the reform and reconstructionist Jews of today. The Christians also did not consider it necessary to speak the Hebrew language or to live in the land of Israel. And they also seem to think that the laws in the Torah (the laws of Moshe) were flexible and did not really apply to them. They felt that Yahweh’s laws could either be adapted, dispensed with, or set to one side now that the Messiah had come.

And more than that, the Christians also did not have the same sense of Israelite identity as the Nazarene Israelites did. In other words, the Christians do not truly self-identify as physical, literal Israelites. Rather, Christians are content to belong to any of the other nations of the world. Christians would be content to be Roman Christians, Greek Christians, or maybe even Babylonian Christians. They might be Jewish Christians or Christians of any and every nationality on earth. But the difference is that they do not treasure the land of Israel, the Hebrew language, or the law of Moshe (the Torah) in the same way as the Nazarene Israelites did.

Prophetic purpose of Christian Church

And in this series, we will also see why these things happened. We are going to see that there were some very important reasons for the advent of the Sunday Christian Church. And we will see it was a necessary vehicle for bringing about massive positive, social, and spiritual change in the world.

But now, today, the Christian Church has effectively already fulfilled its prophetic purpose and mission. In a sense, it is also sort of outlived its usefulness. And this will show us why the Father Yahweh wants us all to come back to the Nazarene Israelite original faith that He sent His Son to teach us.

Hoshea (Hosea) 6:1-2
1  Come, and let us return to Yahweh; for He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up.
2  After two days, He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His sight.

Nazarene Sect condemned for practicing original faith

So now, with all of that in mind, let us take a look at some evidence from the Catholic Church’s own writings which should make it clear that Catholicism was never the original faith.

I remember it was shortly after I got called to repentance in 1999 that I was studying. And the Spirit called my attention to a quotation from one of the founding fathers of the Catholic Church. He was a Catholic priest named Epiphanius of Salamis and he is held as a saint both in Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity.

Epiphanius of Catholic Church

Well, late in the fourth century, Epiphanius of Salamis wrote a book called Panarion, which translates as Against Heresies. And in this book, Against Heresies, the church father Epiphanius condemned another group of believers called the Nazarenes for practicing what might be called a Christian form of Judaism.

“The Nazarenes do not differ in any essential thing from them [referring to the Pharisees or the Orthodox Jews] since they practiced the customs and doctrines prescribed by Jewish law [surely referring to the Torah], except that they believe in Christ.”
[Epiphanius of Salamis, “Against Heresies,” Panarion 29, 7, pp. 41, 402]

He is saying that they [Nazarene Sect] are behaving like Jews, and they look like Jews. That is his complaint. He says that the Nazarenes followed all the essentials of the Israelite worship in that they practiced the customs and doctrines prescribed by the Torah. So again, the Torah was a very central tenet of the Israelite sect of the Nazarene’s faith. And the thing we need to point out and that we all need to see is, that is not Christian behavior. That is Israelite behavior. Epiphanius continues.

“They believe in the resurrection of the dead and that the universe was created by God. They preach that God is One and that Jesus Christ is His Son. They are very learned in the Hebrew language [So, we know that the Hebrew was important to them]. They read from the Law [surely as a reference to the Torah]. Therefore, they differ… from [what he calls] the true Christians [or the Catholics] because the Nazarenes fulfill until now [meaning in the fourth century] such Jewish rites as the circumcision, Sabbath, and others.”
[Epiphanius of Salamis, “Against Heresies,” Panarion 29, 7, pp. 41, 402]

Well, when Epiphanius complains that the Nazarenes “read the Law”, that is probably a reference to the traditional Sabbath morning Torah service, which is literally called in Hebrew the Reading of the Law.

So, what Epiphanius is really complaining about here is that the Nazarenes worshiped as Jews, just like the Messiah had done. Meaning, they were still practicing the original faith that had been once for all delivered to the saints. And Epiphanius did not like that.

But what made me stop and think was the realization that the Catholic Church father Epiphanius was condemning the Nazarenes in the fourth century for practicing the same original faith the Messiah Himself had taught them to keep in the first century.

Yeshua Mashiach our example

I remember just sitting there thinking, wait a minute, let me see if I understand.

• Scripture tells us that Yeshua the Messiah is our example and that we are supposed to emulate Him.
• And He was Jewish and Israelite.
• And He kept the Torah perfectly.
• And in Matthew 5, verse 17, He even tells us not to think that the Torah was done away with. (And later we are going to see why that is so critical.)
• And First John chapter 2, verse 6 tells us to learn to walk even as He walked. Meaning that we are supposed to learn to worship just exactly as He worshipped.

Did we get all those Scripture verses right? And yet the Catholic Church father Epiphanius is calling the sect of the Nazarenes heretics because they continued to worship like the Messiah Himself had taught them to worship some 300 years before!

So, since Epiphanius was Catholic, the fact that he condemned the Nazarenes meant that the Catholic Christians and the Nazarenes could not possibly have been the same group of people, even though that is what the church system teaches today. Rather, obviously, the Nazarenes and the Catholic Christians could only have been two separate groups in the fourth century. Because how else could the Catholics condemn the Nazarenes as heretics?

Catholic professor Marcel Simon

Well, now let us take a look at some of the unintentional confessions of the late Catholic professor, Marcel Simon, who was a renowned Catholic expert on the first-century assembly. But yet, even though Professor Simon was a devout Catholic, he openly disagreed with the church father Epiphanius. Professor Simon said that Epiphanius knew that the Catholic Church did not descend from the original Jerusalem community. But that it was rather the Nazarene Israelites who descended from the original Jerusalem community. Let us notice what he says.

“They [Nazarenes] are characterized essentially by their tenacious attachment to Jewish observances. If they became heretics in the eyes of the Mother Church, it is simply because they remain fixed on what he calls outmoded positions.”
[Professor Marcel Simon, Judeo-Christianisme, pp. 47-48.]

Well now, this is because they self-identify as Jews. They were “earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints” (the original faith) which was always Jewish and Israelite. So, of course, they are going to have attachments to Jewish and Israelite things. That is just what Jews and Israelites do.

Yehudah (Jude) 1:3
3  Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

What does Professor Simon mean by outmoded positions? Does that mean that the Catholic Church decided it was not good for the descendants of the disciples to be Jewish, even though the Messiah and His disciples were all Jewish? The Catholic Church decided that Jewishness is passe? The Catholic Pope said that it is not cool to be Jewish anymore, so now the Jews are outmoded? Is that it? Or what are we really saying here?

Simon continues.

“They [meaning the Nazarenes] well represent, [even] though Epiphanius is energetically refusing to admit it, the very direct descendants of that primitive Jerusalem community, of which our author [Epiphanius] knows that it was designated by the Jews, by the same name, of ‘Nazarenes’.
Professor Marcel Simon, Judeo-Christianisme, pp. 47-48.]

Did we get all that? The late, renowned Catholic professor, Marcel Simon, who was an expert on the first-century assembly, tells us that Epiphanius knew that it was the Nazarenes (and not the Catholics) who descended directly from James, John, Peter, Paul, Matthew, Andrew, Philip, and the rest. And yet, the Catholic Church father, Epiphanius, and Professor Marcel Simon both called the Nazarenes heretics. And the reason is that the Nazarenes continued to keep the same original faith the Messiah had taught His apostles to keep some 300 years before the time of Epiphanius. So, if we are willing to receive it, the Catholics called the Nazarenes heretics precisely for keeping the original faith once delivered for all the saints.

Yehudah (Juda) 1:3

Let us take a closer look at what Yehuda, one of the original twelve disciples, tells us. There is only one chapter, but let us look at chapter 1, verse 3.

Yehudah (Jude) 1:3
3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Yehuda is saying, “I am saved, you are saved, everyone is saved here. We are not discussing or debating anyone not being saved, that is not the issue. I am not saying you are not saved. What I am saying is, even though you are saved, still something critical, crucial, and very important is lacking.”

Meaning, whatever that original faith was, that is the one we are supposed to earnestly contend for.

So, Yehuda is saying that, even though there are other Messianic or Christian believers, and they might believe that they are saved, in a certain sense they are not walking the same way as Yeshua walked. Meaning they are not worshiping the same way Yeshua worshiped. (They are not keeping the original faith that Yeshua taught!) And you cannot do that in Judaism. These other groups’ religious practices were different from Yeshua’s practices. And while that might be perfectly fine or perfectly excusable in Christianity, and maybe no one thinks anything of modifying Yeshua’s worship style, it is not at all permissible in traditional Judaism. Because part of traditional Judaism is that, if you are a disciple, then you imitate your teacher in all things.

Qorintim Aleph (1 Corinthians) 11:1
1  Imitate me, just as I also imitate Messiah.

Yochanan (John) 13:15
15  For I have given you an example, that you should do as I have done to you.

And it is enough that you become like your Master. Period! That is part of the walk of a disciple. That is what the walk of a disciple is, to imitate your Master. And that is why Yehuda found it necessary to exhort these other groups, telling them that it was critical that they needed to keep the original faith that Yeshua had first taught His disciples to do. Because again, that is a disciple’s job to imitate his teacher in all things and to become like his master in literally all things.

The Little Horn: Daniel 7:25

Starting in the next chapter, we are going to see why Yeshua was called a Nazarene, and what the Israelite sect of the Nazarenes is all about in a prophetic sense. We are going to see a lot of prophecies that tie into the Israelite sect of the Nazarenes. However, before we do that, first we want to spend the rest of this chapter looking at some of the many ways that the Catholic Church tells us that they have the authority to change the feast days, the day of weekly worship and rest, and the law of Moshe (the Torah) however they see fit.

And in fact, we will see how the Catholic Church fits the prophecy in Daniel chapter 7, verse 25, which tells us that one day there would be a sinister spiritual figure called the Little Horn (meaning the little power) who would attempt to change the appointed times of worship and the law of Moshe.

Daniel 7:25
25  “He [the little horn, or the papacy] shall speak pompous words against the words of the Most High. [He would contradict the words of the Most High.] He shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and he shall intend to change [the appointed feast] times [of worship] and [the] law [of Moshe]. Then the saints [those who are trying to obey Scripture rather than men] shall be given into his hand for a time, and times, and half a time.

If we find the idea shocking that anyone would think that he can speak contrary to the words of the Most High and change the feast times that Yahweh Himself has established in His Torah, then let us read some quotations from some of the other Catholic officials showing how the Catholic Church believes just exactly what the Little Horn is prophesied to believe. That yes, he has the authority to change the Father’s words. And yes, he has the authority to change the weekly day of worship. Just like Daniel chapter 7, verse 25 says.

Changing the 7th-day Shabbath to sun worship

Now, there are too many examples to cover here, or we would be here all year. But for one simple example, let us take a look at how the Catholic Church teaches that it was perfectly fine for them to change the day of weekly worship and rest from the biblical seventh-day Sabbath to the adopted pagan day of sun worship (or Sunday).

In his book, A Course on Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies, the late Catholic Professor John Laux tells us that Elohim (or God) gave the Catholic Church the authority to do pretty much whatever it wants as far as establishing different days of worship and rest. Which is pretty much what it says the Little Horn will say in Daniel 7, verse 25.

For some details and some background, what is happening in this passage is that the Catholic Church used to teach that it was Elohim Himself who was the one to establish Sunday as the new day of worship in the Renewed Covenant. However, what happened is that certain Sabbath-keeping Protestants took the Catholic Church to task on this and forced the Catholic Church to abandon that position. Because they showed it was contrary to Scripture.

Professor John Laux writes as follows.

“Some church theologians have held that God likewise directly determined the Sunday as the day of worship in the New Law [the Catholic Church that first taught that] [and] that He Himself has explicitly substituted the Sunday for the Sabbath. But this theory is now entirely abandoned. [Again, that is an old Catholic doctrine that they were forced to abandon. Because certain Sabbath-keeping Protestants took the Catholic Church to task on it and proved that their doctrine was false.] Well it is now commonly held by the Catholic Church that God simply gave His church the power to set aside whatever day or days she would deem suitable as holy days.”
[John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1936), vol. 1, P. 51.]

In other words, John Laux is saying that the Catholic Church could change Yahweh’s laws and His appointed times to anything they felt like, exactly like what Daniel 7, verse 25 says. And we will see later that Scripture expressly prohibits us from doing this. We are told not to make any changes to the Father’s words.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 12:32
32  “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.”

John Laux continues.

“The church chose Sunday, the first day of the week, and in the course of time added other days as holy days.”
[John Laux, A Course in Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academies (1936), vol. 1, P. 51.]

Again, is not that speaking pompous words in contradiction to the words of the Most High? And is not that changing the appointed feast times and the Torah however the church felt like? Exactly like Daniel 7, verse 25 says?

Daniel 7:25
25  “He [the little horn, or the papacy] shall speak pompous words against the words of the Most High. [He would contradict the words of the Most High.] He shall persecute the saints of the Most High, and he shall intend to change [the appointed feast] times [of worship] and [the] law [of Moshe]. Then the saints [those who are trying to obey Scripture rather than men] shall be given into his hand for a time, and times, and half a time.

In a later chapter, we will see how all this applies to the Papacy. And in fact, we will see how the papacy fulfills certain prophecies over the anti-Messiah. However, for right now, let us hear more from the Catholic Church’s scholars and professors about how they feel they have been given the authority to change the Father’s words however they see fit.

In his work, The Faith of Our Fathers, Catholic professor James Cardinal Gibbons writes as follows.

“But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. [He is boasting about it.] The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we the Catholic Church never sanctify.
James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.]

Well, so is not Professor Gibbons admitting that the Scriptures tell us to keep the Sabbath, but the Catholic Church has the authority to change the appointed times of worship however they feel like? Just exactly as Daniel 7, verse 25 says?

Well, then in his work, A Doctrinal Catechism (or A Doctrinal Indoctrination), Catholic professor Stefan Keenan tells us that, Oh yes! Indeed, the Catholic Church does have the power to change the days of worship and to do away with the need to obey the Torah of Moshe. Again, just like Daniel 7, verse 25 says.

For those who do not know how the catechism works, first, they post a rhetorical question. And then they provide the desired answer to indoctrinate the children in what the catechism says. The rhetorical question posted is as follows.

Question: “Have you any other way of proving that the Catholic Church has the power to institute festivals of precept?”
[Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.]

Meaning the Catholic Church is not going to follow the feast times that Yahweh appointed. The Catholic Church is going to change the festival days of worship to suit herself, even though we will see later that Yahweh clearly says never to do that.

Answer: “Had she not had such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her. She could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.
[Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.]

Now, is it only me that has a problem with the logic here? Am I the only one that sees circular reasoning going on? Or is not Professor Keenan inserting that the Catholic Church has the power to change the days of worship simply because they did? Does not it seem like he is saying we change the days of worship on our own authority, and that proves that we have the authority to change the days of worship on our own authority? Even though Daniel 7, verse 25, and many other passages warn us strictly against this kind of thinking?

Even if the Catholic Church hypothetically had the power that they claim they have, which they do not, even if they had the power, why would anyone want to change the Father’s appointed days of worship or His Torah?

Do not add or take away

In several verses, we see that the Father Yahweh clearly tells us not to change His words. And to be very careful to do only what He says to do. And not to add anything to it. And not to take anything away from it. For example, in Deuteronomy chapter 4, verse 2.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 4:2
2  Yahweh says, “You shall not add to the word which I command you nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your Elohim which I command you.”

The implication here is that if we add anything to or take anything away from Yahweh’s commandments, then they are no longer Yahweh’s commandments but rather our own commandments. And that is basically self-idolatry. To think that we are more important to Him such that we have the authority to change His words, Yahweh does not like that.

For a second witness, Yahweh says the same thing in Devarim 12, verse 32.

Devarim (Deuteronomy) 12:32
32  Yahweh says, “Whatever I command you be careful to observe that you shall not add to My Torah nor take anything away from it.” [We are to do His words His way.]

So, yes. Nazarene Israelites will obey the Torah of Moshe. Because they want to do what the Father commands. Simply because that is what Scripture says to do. They are going to cling tenaciously to the written word. A Nazarene Israelite is not going to change the Sabbath day because the Father said to guard it.

Shemote (Exodus) 20:8
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it set-apart (holy).

Anti-Messiah spirit

However, because the Catholic or Christian has a different Spirit, he might not feel that there is anything wrong in changing the seventh-day Sabbath to the day of the sun. Because that is only what the Creator commanded in His word.

Now check this out. For some reason, (we will see this pattern again and again with various different groups), the Catholic, Christian, or the Eastern Orthodox might feel it is enough to know what the Father’s word says. But then he does not feel that he needs to apply it to himself specifically. He feels like he does not need to obey the letter of the law. Rather, he follows the teachings of the Pope, his pastor, or his priest. In other words, he is following the teachings of men rather than keeping the Creator’s commandments.

One thing we will see again and again, as this series progresses, is that while the Catholic, the Christian, or some other groups might think they are treating the Creator’s commandments as their final authority, in practice they are revering men more than they revere Elohim (or God). In practice, a Catholic might feel that yes, the Pope does have the authority to change the Scriptures. So, the Scriptures will be interesting to him, but not necessarily authoritative. And in practice, an Eastern Orthodox Christian might look to his monk or his priest to tell him what to do since he believes that the Father’s Torah is passe. Likewise, in practice, a Protestant Christian might also ask his pastor what to do since he also genuinely believes that the Torah of Moshe is passe.

Notice in each case, what we have is Christians and Catholics doing what their human leaders tell them to do, rather than defaulting to the Father’s word and doing what is written right in their Bibles.

Now, what we will see in the next several chapters is that, while the Nazarene Israelite faith was opened to the Gentiles later, meaning after Cornelius came into the faith in Acts chapter 10 and after the Spirit first fell in Antioch in Acts chapter 11, the first Nazarene Israelite disciples that followed Yeshua were not Gentiles, but Jews. And that fact is important.

Further, they were also sticklers for the Father’s commandments. And this, sadly, is why the Catholic Church eventually turned against them, condemned them, and persecuted them unto extinction.

Please join us for the next part. We will begin to talk about why Yeshua was called a Nazarene and the prophetic implications of all this in Scripture.
And if you were blessed by this study, please also read the book Nazarene Israel the Original Faith.

Support the Great Commission on PayPal
Support the Great Commission on Patreon
We thank  Yahweh Elohim for your love for His kingdom.