 ™ |
 |
Israel Heresy— MODERN SOPHISTICATED DECEPTION LEADING TO AN OLD EVIL — |
|
| "I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you" | ||
| Judaism is not the religion of our Old Testament or of Israel's Sinai Covenant! It is the religion of the Pharisees which Jesus cursed, and is reflected in the Jewish Talmud. |
The twentieth century gave birth to a new heresy which rode into the Christian Church on the back of sympathy for the creation of the State of Israel.
heresy is a mosaic of various deceptions and subtle confusions with a common centre:
the exaltation of Jewishness and in particular the undermining of the authority of the New Testament;
|
and consequently perverting the gospel and the essential nature of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
It feeds itself on Zionism and perverts the character of Christianity which has its unity in the oneness of the Holy Spirit Himself.
proponents, which include many very good and sincere persons, claim it is the re-discovering of the authentic Jesus – the Jewish Jesus of history.
has certainly helped pervert our understanding of Jesus, and so their claims do contain a vestige of truth, but their unbiblical sacralizing of Hebrew culture and their falsification of history through Talmudic-'spectacles' lays the basis for such a perversion of the message of the Gospel and the character of the Christian Church that it makes this a heresy to be vehemently opposed among all of God’s people everywhere.
This heresy claims that there was a Hebrew language original (written or oral) behind our New Testament Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which must therefore be reconstructed by 'back-translation' to a much more authentic and reliable source than our New Testament; and it thereby subtly inserts later Talmudic practices into the New Testament reports about Jesus.
This heresy pretends that God's national covenant with Israel at Sinai was unaffected by its rejection of God's Messiah, so that the Sinai covenant continues today for all true believers except simply that Christ's priesthood now takes the place of Aaron's order of priests.
Jewish religion today is generally dominated by the teaching of the Talmud: a collection reflecting the traditions of the Pharisees, the principle opponents of Jesus at every level. To seek to reconcile Talmudic teaching with the practice of Christ is therefore a most crass perversion of the sacred truth of Holy Scripture. The Bible makes it plain what Jesus thought and taught of this dominant religious sect of first-century Judaism.
The Bible says that Jesus vehemently condemned the Pharisees without exception. But the Israel Heresy says that He only condemned the 'bad' Pharisees, in order to make out that Jesus was somehow sympathetic to Pharisaic teaching which is carried in the Jewish Talmud today.
Jesus said to them,
"Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes'? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."
"Have you never read in the Scriptures: 'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; this was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes'? Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruits. And the one who falls on this stone will be broken to pieces; and when it falls on anyone, it will crush him."
When the chief priests and the Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking about them.”
“And He called the people to Him and said to them,
'Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.'
Then the disciples came and said to Him,
'Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?'
He answered,
'Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.'
Then the disciples came and said to Him,
'Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?'
He answered,
'Every plant that My heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up.
Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit'.”
Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit'.”
Hebrew was used by Jesus as His medium of religious instruction to the common people and so the original record of His teachings, on which Matthew, Mark and Luke's Gospels were based, was in Hebrew. Consequently, this lost 'Hebrew Life of Jesus' is the only trustworthy source of information. That is, the New Testament cannot be trusted as a final authority.
'cannot be trusted'.
This, the most damnable part of their heresy, ignores contradictory evidences or simply explains them away.
On the contrary, it is well proven that the common language of the Jews of Galilee and Judea in Christ’s time was not the Hebrew of our Old Testament even though it is referred to as ‘Hebrew’ in the common speech of the time. Israel’s exile had had a profound effect and a Syro-Palestine language known as Aramaic became the lingua franca of Palestinian Jews. This is affirmed by the Jews themselves in the Jewish Talmud (T. Bab. Nedarim, fol. 37. 2. & Megillah, fol. 3. 1. & Hieros. Megillah, fol. 74. 4.) on Nehemiah 8:8 that the Levites –
‘read in the book, in the law of God, with an interpretation’ (that is, into Aramaic).
For instance, parts of our Old Testament books of Ezra, Daniel (2:4 to 7:28), and a little of Jeremiah were written in the Aramaic language, not Hebrew, because Israel now lived in an environment in which Aramaic was the dominant language, and the scattered people of Israel began to lose the Hebrew language as mother-tongue during their Exile. Consequently, although called ‘Hebrews’, or ‘Hebraic Jews’, the Jews native to Jerusalem actually spoke Aramaic as home language, a Semitic Syro-Chaldean language, as their mother-tongue from after the time of their Babylonian Exile.
This is confirmed by Jesus’ own behaviour in His naming of Simon Peter as Cephas or Kefas (from the Aramaic kefa for ‘rock’ with an ‘s’ added in the New Testament to make it a masculine noun, Jn.1:42; translated as Petros in Greek from which we get 'Peter' in English), and not a Hebrew 'eben as it would have been if the heresy were true.
That the Apostle Paul then persists in referring to the Apostle Peter eight times as ‘Cephas’ when writing to Greek speakers, in Corinth and in Galatia, underlines Aramaic as the original medium of Christ’s instruction. In general, the statements of Christ quoted with a translation in our New Testament were in the Aramaic language.
The existence of an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (a 'targum'), such as is recognised in the Jewish Talmud, further asserts the general practical need among the Jewish people to hear Holy Scripture in their vernacular.
Regarding Judaism's Talmud: that their record of theological discourse by their greatest rabbis should include the Aramaic language, as it does, puts it beyond doubt that the untrained common people, who were the primary audience of the Lord Jesus, would undoubtedly have received His teaching in Aramaic. The perverse attempt to exalt Hebrew as the only proper language of religious instruction in the mouth of Jesus is dishonest and cloaks a far more sinister intention.
This myth is more than a difference of opinion. The heresy unashamedly teaches that our New Testament's first three (Synoptic) Gospels are uninspired reconstructions based on other reconstructions of translations which are themselves reconstructions.
(As falsely taught by Bivin and Blizzard of the so-called Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research:
“Our canonical Gospels are based on Greek texts derived from the Greek translation of the original Hebrew story of the life of Jesus”. p.37).
(As falsely taught by Bivin and Blizzard of the so-called Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research:
“Our canonical Gospels are based on Greek texts derived from the Greek translation of the original Hebrew story of the life of Jesus”. p.37).
Bible in Basic English
Jesus a Rabbi?
David Bivin writes –
David Bivin writes –
"By the time Jesus began his public ministry, he had not only received the thorough religious training typical of the average Jewish man of his day, he had probably spent years studying with one of the outstanding rabbis in the Galilee. Jesus thus appeared on the scene as a respected rabbi himself. He was recognized as such by his contemporaries, as passages in the New Testament illustrate: ..." |
followed as 'proof' by New Testament quotes of where Jesus is addressed with the courtesy title of rabbi (teacher).
In contradiction to this claim the Bible itself says of Jesus as teacher –
“The Jews therefore marvelled, saying, 'How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?'”
This was a clear acknowledgement by Christ's hearers that He did not belong to any learned rabbinic grouping.
Whereas today some instances of this heresy do admit that Jesus was not formally a rabbi they nevertheless still draw a parallel to rabbinic status in order to, as a Jewish religious leader, give status to Jewish traditions and to water-down Christ's public damning-condemnation of the Scribes and Pharisees as a group –
a tassel on Christ’s garment spiritually significant?
Some forms of the heresy assert that special significance lay in the fringe or 'tassel' ('kraspedon') of Christ's clothing as symbolizing Israel's Torah and this was what the woman, who touched Christ's clothing to be healed of her bleeding, reached out to touch. This Jewish symbol (of the Torah) is then asserted to be a common method of distributing healing.
The Scripture says that her intention was not the tassel but His clothing as a way of touching Him. The detail in the Gospel of Matthew spells this out that it was not her special attention to touch a tassel which held the key, but the clothing itself simply because it was His clothing –
"...for she said to herself, 'If I only touch His garment, I will be made well'."
"She had heard the reports about Jesus and came up behind Him in the crowd and touched His garment.
For she said, 'If I touch even His garments, I will be made well'."
For she said, 'If I touch even His garments, I will be made well'."
“And wherever He came, in villages, cities, or countryside, they laid the sick in the marketplaces and implored Him
that they might touch even the fringe of His garment. And as many as touched it were made well."
that they might touch even the fringe of His garment. And as many as touched it were made well."
On the contrary to reverence for a ritual tassel, the Christ's fierce criticism of the Scribes was among other specifically because of the special prominence which they gave to heir ritual (tzitzit) fringes or tassels.
Finally, the bleeding woman who touched Christ's clothing was ritually unclean in terms of the Torah which the tassel-honourers claim she honoured:
On the contrary, Christ responds affectionately with "daughter" to the ritually-unclean woman who had touched Him and shows complete disregard for the Torah's banning of her contact with Him when it contradicts the welfare of those with faith in the revelation of God through Him.
Bivin of the Jerusalem School School of Synoptic Research writes:
"The commandment 'Be fruitful and multiply' (Gen. 1:28) has always been strongly emphasized in Judaism, both today and in the first century. It is therefore surprising that Jesus, who in every other way observed the commandments, did not marry – at least the New Testament gives no indication that he had a wife or children. On the other hand, it is not explicitly stated in the gospels that Jesus was not married. As Michael Hilton and Gordian Marshall point out, the silence of the gospels might suggest that Jesus was married [?]. A Jew reading the gospels would assume that Jesus was married. If Jesus had not been married, his unusual status probably would have been mentioned in the gospels (The Gospels and Rabbinic Judaism: A Study Guide, p. 135). The First Commandment: The [Jewish] sages taught that one should perpetuate the human race by marrying. It was considered especially significant that the commandment “Be fruitful and multiply” is chronologically the first in the Pentateuch. The school of Hillel ruled that to fulfill this commandment a man must have at least one son and one daughter: No man may neglect the commandment “Be fruitful and multiply” unless he already has children: according to the school of Shammai, two sons; according to the school of Hillel, a son and a daughter, as it is written, 'Male and female created he them'...". |
Jesus Himself said –
and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men,
and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."
Would He really call for an acceptance of what He Himself did not accept!
Jesus Christ was certainly not a hypocrite!
The 'Word' is 'Torah' (Covenant Law)
some in this heresy, Christ as the "Word" in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, is simply a derived divine status as personification of the Torah. In other words, this is all it means to say that 'the Word became flesh'. Exalting the Torah (used interchangably as a term for Covenant Law of Israel, and for the first five books of the Bible) as simply being preincarnate in the mind of God from the beginning, and existing in the creative words spoken in Genesis One, is effectively to deny the prexisting person of Jesus.
John the Baptiser, six months older than Jesus, said that the Christ's higher rank than John was because He pre-existed John:
Converted non-Jews today are grafted in to a spiritually renewed nation of Israel (twisting Rom.11:11-25).
'wild olive' is misinterpreted as Christians rather than as the Gentiles, and the 'Root' is misinterpreted as Covenant Israel rather than as the pre-Sinai Patriarchs - Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; so that then national Israel may be presented as the core or root of spiritual reality rather than personal faith in God by which one becomes neither Jew nor Gentile but a new person.
The spiritual 'grafting in' of Gentile believers in Christ is not an incorporation into a renewed national Israel, but into the spiritual heritage of the three Patriarchs of faith. Those whose faith was sufficient before the Law was given, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, long before the national covenant of Sinai (which fell away in Christ, Gal.4:24-26), for in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile but only a new creation (Gal.3:28; Eph.2:15). This correction of the lie is only for those who respect the truth more than their ego!
following agencies feed various aspects of this above mosaic of heresy:
'Institute for Scripture Research' (ISR)
South African based, they have produced their own translation 'The Scriptures' which is being widely spread among Christians today in its electronic format in all sincerity via Rick Meyers 'e-Sword'.
Falsification of historical origin of key terms –
Among other, they falsify the origin and meaning of the name 'Jesus' in New Testament Greek is derived from that of a pagan Greek god, in order to promote their Jewish version ('Yahoshua' or 'Yehoshua'). They teach that the Greek form of the name Jesus, Iesous, is the contracted genitive form of the Greek goddess of healing in the Greek Ionic dialect and therefore not to be used of the Messiah.
Likewise, they teach that the term 'god' in English comes from the false god 'Baal' via a German root which implies sexual perversity, in order to promote their use of the Hebrew term 'Elohim' in English for God.
The ISR's Notes attached to their TS98 Bible translation sometimes betray the character of their perversion. For instance, Sinai law is still held to be applicable in the proper circumstance, such as after Christ returns people will once again be stoned to death by the community if they do not keep the Jewish sabbath. See the full quote below:
"Much of the Torah involves commands, laws, right-rulings, statutes, etc., which [sic.] relate to a properly constituted society, such as that which prevailed under Mosheh or under the sovereigns of Yisra'el. As such, laws which clearly apply within a civil or national context are not to be misapplied by individuals living in a society that is not totally subject to the Torah as its constitution and legal code. Thus for example, you may not decide to stone someone to death for desecrating the sabbath. The decision would have to be made by a judge within the framework of such a Torah-based nation. Clearly then, although these laws are still applicable, since the context in which they are to be applied is lacking at present, they can only be applied when such a Torah-true nation comes into existence (for example, when Messiah returns to set up his Kingdom)."
['The Scriptures' Explanatory Notes: 'Law in the Tanak' 5. Emphasis mine].
['The Scriptures' Explanatory Notes: 'Law in the Tanak' 5. Emphasis mine].
Bigoted Mistranslation
"Then Sha'ul, filled with the Set-apart Spirit, looked intently at him" (Acts 13:9 'The Scriptures' 1998).
"But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him" (Acts 13:9 English Standard Version).
"But Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him" (Acts 13:9 English Standard Version).
The Bible's record of this significant name-change is deliberately omitted because Paul, a Jew, chooses to use a non-Jewish (Roman) name, yet in translating Esther 2:7 the change of name from 'Hadassah' to 'Ester' is shown, demonstrating that their bigotry is specifically aimed at the New Testament Scripture and its revelation of the newness of the New Covenant.
Every subsequent use of the name Paul (Paulus) in the New Testament is substituted by his Jewish name Saul (Sha'ul), effectively rewriting Holy Scripture to fit their philosophy of Jewish priority/superiority.
'Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research'
of the main contributors to the Israel Heresy of a Judaized Christ are a non-Christian organisation known as the 'Jerusalem School of Synoptic Research'.
Their blasphemous perspective is well expressed in their own words as –
"Jesus represents an early stage in the development of Jewish thought which later appears in a more developed form such as that found in Rabbinic Literature."
"Jesus represents an early stage in the development of Jewish thought which later appears in a more developed form such as that found in Rabbinic Literature."
To quote the head of this so-called 'Jerusalem School', David Bivin:
“However, it can safely be said that all members of the School understand the necessity of first translating the Greek text of the Gospels into Hebrew or Aramaic, and then examining that Semitic equivalent in its first-century cultural and linguistic context.
“Comparing the resulting Semitic back-translation with the epigraphical and literary remains from the Second Temple period is an essential feature of the Jerusalem School’s methodology. Underlying the research of the Jerusalem School is the assumption that Jesus probably taught in Hebrew, or at least that the original biography of Jesus was written in Hebrew.
“All members of the School use this methodology because they have found that it works: it clarifies the meaning of Jesus’ words, often when the Greek text is unclear or reflects bad Greek.” (David Bivin).
“Comparing the resulting Semitic back-translation with the epigraphical and literary remains from the Second Temple period is an essential feature of the Jerusalem School’s methodology. Underlying the research of the Jerusalem School is the assumption that Jesus probably taught in Hebrew, or at least that the original biography of Jesus was written in Hebrew.
“All members of the School use this methodology because they have found that it works: it clarifies the meaning of Jesus’ words, often when the Greek text is unclear or reflects bad Greek.” (David Bivin).
This seemingly sincere effort to authenticate the real historical Jesus completely rejects the authority of the New Testament and promotes a Hebraic-perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
L. Brown commenting on Bivin and Blizzard's book, 'Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus', describes the position of this Jerusalem School on the New Testament as follows:
"They do not simply seek to uncover the literary, oral or editorial history which might underlie the Synoptics. Rather, they posit that the Greek text of the Synoptics is often misleading and incomplete, and it is the alleged Hebrew original that is most truthful and trustworthy. These theories, if carried to their logical conclusions, would absolutely undercut the authority of the Greek New Testament, since according to Biven and Blizzard, our canonical (Synoptic) gospels are uninspired reconstructions based on other reconstructions of translations which are themselves reconstructions. ...
"What scholars of the Jerusalem School imply is that even the original autographs of the Greek Synoptics are faulty!
"For example, Brad Young, a professor at Oral Roberts University and one of David Flusser’s top students, argues that Matt.21:43 is a late redactional insertion which 'distorts' the meaning of the preceding parable, contradicting Matthew’s generally positive attitude 'toward the Jewish people as well as the law.'
Oral Roberts University!!
"Young adds, 'Certainly, Paul would not have accepted this radical approach (Romans 9:4-5).'
Taking this a step further, Flusser, detecting an anti-Jewish bias in the final redaction of Matthew, could state that, 'Matthew’s fabrication [i.e., the alleged addition of Matt.8:11ff.] is so subtle and clever that his bias is not obvious . . .' (emphasis mine).
"According to Flusser, Matthew (i.e., the final redactor of that Gospel) was 'evidently a Gentile and is the oldest witness of a vulgar approach which caused much harm to the Jews and did not promote a true understanding of the very essence of the Christian message'. "
the Gospel of Matthew is nonsense
'Restore!' Magazine's perverse Zionist slanting
contradiction of its message, the Word of God says –
'Messianic Renewed Covenant' translation of the New Testament
A New Testament translation which violates the basics of all translation ethics in order to support its Zionist ideology.
John C Hagee, pastor at the San Antonio-based Cornerstone Church, Texas, USA. (and others of his kind).
disregard of Christ's words to Israel's leadership about the kingdom-taken-from-you, in response to their rejection of the Christ (Matt.21:42-43), John Hagee teaches –
"I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah [Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible], which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption."
"I believe that every Jewish person who lives in the light of the Torah [Pentateuch, or first five books of the Bible], which is the word of God, has a relationship with God and will come to redemption."
("San Antonio fundamentalist battles anti-Semitism" Houston Chronicle, April 30, 1988, sec.6, pg.1).
So, Christ is not the only way to God?
Hagee's interpretation of Jeremiah 16:16, as being the Nazis of Europe ('hunters') driving Israel to return to Palestine, is amazingly perverse, for Jeremiah is prophesying God's judgment on Israel to cast them out of the Land for their sins. That the preceding verse refers to an eventual restoration is because, as is always true of God, every prophecy of His judgment is a call to repentance and associated with promise of eventual restoration to those who hear. Brother Hagee needs to spend a little more time with his BIble.
Hagee Heresy
The extent of Hagee's perversity regarding the Newness of the New Covenant in Christ is illustrated in his teaching that, when Jesus Christ returns in the glory of His Father to end this age, He will be wearing a Jewish prayer shawl. That really does not even deserve an answer!
His congregation in San Antonio seriously needs to remember the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, that if the blind lead the blind they will both end up in the ditch!
was this preference given to those of Jewish culture that first threatened the unity of Christianity! A belief in the spiritual superiority of Jewish culture was a poison in the unity of Christ's fledgling church.
Even though so many Jews had then believed, years later the Bible presents the Jews (as a distinct identifiable entity) as carrying a continuing-characteristic-enmity to the faith of Jesus Christ.
Why? It was that damnable feeling of the spiritual superiority their culture:
and oppose all mankind by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved --
so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!"
.2:14-16 ESV
has, and will so remain upon them – until, as their own prophet said, as a people they repent as they look upon Him whom they have pierced (Zech.12:10).
– Some ARAMAIC Words in our New Testament, the (Hellenistic–Greek) NEW COVENANT WORD OF GOD
| • | Raca | – Matthew 5:22 |
| • | Mammon | – Matthew 6:24 |
| • | Gethsemane | – Matthew 26:36 – (Mark 14:32) |
| • | Boanerges | – Mark 3:17 |
| • | Talitha koum | – Mark 5:41 |
| • | Ephphatha | – Mark 7:34 |
| • | Abba | – Mark 14:36 |
| • | Sikera | – Luke 1:15, usually translated 'strong drink' meaning 'barley beer'. |
| • | Gabbatha | – John 19:13 |
| • | Golgotha | – John 19:17 |
| • | Rabboni | – John 20:16 |
| • | Akeldama | – Acts 1:19 |
| • | Maranatha | – 1 Corinthians 16:22 |
also deserves to be mentioned in the face of the ideological exaltation of Hebrew, that:
| 1. | Abraham first arrived in Canaan from Haran as an Aramaic speaker (the parent language of the later Aramaic above); |
| 2. | the language now known as Hebrew was the Canaanite language which was adopted by Abraham and His decendants in Canaan. (W Chomsky 1969). |
– The Name
), which includes an abbreviation of 
) and means 'Pharisee Name-Trap
Like John of 'John the Baptizer', Jesus' name was also a common name, although specially chosen by God for its orginal (Hebrew) meaning, and was certainly not unique.
'Joshua' is spelled exactly the same as 'Jesus' in the pre-Christian Jewish Septuagint translation (international Greek) of the Old Testament by the Jewish-High-Priest-selected Scribes, about 250 years before the Lord Jesus Christ was born. |
name is actually exactly the same as that of Joshua who succeeded Moses in leading Israel's migration to Canaan. Hence the older English versions of our New Testament translated the name of both as 'Jesus'. (Such as in Acts 7:35, in English versions of the years 1385, 1568, 1599, and 1899 AD).
| Just Another Lie! |
today, some wilfully dishonest persons dishonour our New Testament with lies by teaching that the Greek form of the name 'Jesus' is a later invention of the Christian Church to honour the Greek god Zeus (pronouncing it G-Zeus), from which we are alleged to get the name 'Jesus'.
in spite of the fact that the pre-Christian Jewish translation of the Old Testament book of 'Joshua' into the international language of that time is titled 'IESOUS' (exactly the same spelling as the New Testament name 'Jesus'). This lie could only be propagated by shameless dishonesty.
deliberate lie pollutes even the discussion of His name, for it purposefully ignores the following fact:
"Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read,
'Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.'
Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and
it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek.
So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate,
"Do not write, 'The King of the Jews,' but rather, 'This man said, I am King of the Jews'."
Pilate answered, "What I have written I have written."
| As this would have been officially written: | In Aramaic: | Yeshua | haNotzri Melech haYehudim |
| In Greek: | Iesous | ho Nazoraios ho Basileus ton Ioudaion | |
| In Latin: | Iesus | Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum |
So it was written by the Roman Governor at the time of our Lord's crucifixion.
So much nonsense then of a mythical-later-corruption of 'Yeshua' into the name 'Iesous' in honour of the Greek god Zeus (as these unholy heretics claim, so as to bully the sincere into importing their perverse Judaized version into the English language and
thereby suppressing use of the name 'Jesus').
Acts 8:20; 13:41.
