The Sunday Mail
Shingai Rukwata Ndoro – Chisel The Debris
In the preceding weeks, we have explored that “Jesus” (Yahoshua the Nazarene) was a Hebrew Rabbi. Humanly brought up on a religious diet of Nazarene Judaism steeped in arcane or esoteric knowledge, he had been born of a biological father who was the Chief Priest through an unsanctioned relationship with a minor temple maiden.
As a natural human being, Yahoshua’s historicity was ordinarily stripped of a sex-based conception and later to be denied of a sexual relationship with a woman.
We identified Myriam of Magdala as his wife and any reader is free to refute the details of the arguments. Seeking to prove that Yahoshua was married cannot be considered as impious, slanderous, hurtful or speaking ill of his integrity.
Denying him of married life may be considered an attempt to reject his humanity and to ignore the Judaic fact that he could not have been a teacher and rabbi without being married.
His sexual relationship with Myriam of Magdala cannot be seen as reducing his place and significance in history, if any.
Those who hide, deny and destroy Yahoshua’s healthy and consensual relationship with a woman may be considered as being sexist.
The major culprits will be identified as the Hebrew Roman citizen called Paul and the Roman Emperor, Constantine, in the first and fourth centuries, respectively.
These are the founders of today’s Christianity. Details will be in future articles.
For now, let us get more details about the family that Yahoshua had:
“. . . A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction.
“Among these are those already mentioned, called Desposyni, on account of their connection with the family of the Saviour. Coming from Nazara and Cochaba, villages of Judea, into other parts of the world, they drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.” — Eusebius, History Section 1, Chapter 7.
Eusebius – “a Roman historian and Christian polemicist of Greek descent,. . . the bishop of Caesarea was a 4th-century pioneer work giving a chronological account of the development of Early Christianity from the 1st century to the 4th century” – reported that several of these “Desposyni” were leaders of various churches.
In 318 CE, they met with the then Bishop of Rome (later to become Pope Sylvester) and requested that the Nazarene congregation of Jerusalem be again recognised as the mother congregation.
Rome refused.
Hegesippus (c.110-c.180) wrote five books of “Commentaries on the Acts of the Church”.
Of the few fragments that are available, there were some quoted by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiae, 3.20.
Among them is the relation ascribed to the reign of Domitian (81-96) about the “Desposyni” bloodline: “. . . There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who, according to the flesh, was called his brother.
“These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.”
The Irish priest Malachi Martin noted in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (1981) that: “. . . A meeting between Sylvester (Pope Silvester I) and the Jewish Christian leaders took place in 318….The vital interview was not, as far as we know, recorded, but the issues were very well known, and it is probable the Joses, the oldest of the Christian Jews, spoke on behalf of the Desposyni and the rest.
“That most hallowed name, Desposyni, had been respected by all believers in the first century and a half of Christian history.
“The word literally meant, in Greek, ‘belonging to the Lord’.
“It was reserved uniquely for (Yahoshua’s) blood relatives. Every part of the ancient Jewish Christian church had always been governed by a desposynos, and each of them carried one of the names traditional in (Yahoshua’s) family – Zachary, Joseph, John, James, Joses, Simeon, Matthias, and so on.
“But no one was ever called (Yahoshua).
“Neither Sylvester nor any of the thirty-two popes before him, nor those succeeding him, ever emphasised that there were at least three well-known and authentic lines of legitimate blood descent from (Yahoshua’s) own family. . .”
It goes on: “. . . The Desposyni demanded that Sylvester, who now had Roman patronage, revoke his confirmation of the authority of the Greek Christian bishops at Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Ephesus and in Alexandria, and to name desposynos bishops to take their place.
“They asked that the practice of sending cash to Jerusalem as the mother church be resumed. . . These blood relatives of Christ demanded the reintroduction of the Law, which included the Sabbath and the Holy Day system of Feasts and New Moons of the (Hebrew Scriptures).
“Sylvester dismissed their claims and said that, from now on, the mother church was in Rome and he insisted they accept the Greek bishops to lead them. . . This was the last known dialogue with the Sabbath-keeping church in the east led by the disciples who were descended from blood relatives of (Yahoshua the Nazarene).”
There could be a surviving bloodline and kinship of Yahoshua the Nazarene somewhere in the world.
Delving more into those details will be less scriptural and theological as the core of this column.
For feedback send email at [email protected] or Twitter,@shingaiRndoro.
Comment on twitter using #ChiseltheDebris.
