Religious Truths » DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

Admin · 10/05/2012 8:01 am

DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

INTRODUCTION:

Mainstream religion or the religion that is considered 'orthodox' in any era has varied tremendously with time. What one era or time or nation or group of nations considers mainstream religion varies greatly both with time and geography. In the western world, the Catholic Church and the groups that split from it, the eastern or Orthodox church, and Protestant groups are generally viewed as mainstream religion; whereas, in the eastern world, depending on area, the Islam Religion or the Hindu Religion is considered mainstream. Now one could wonder if the mainstream groups have anything in common? Or they correct in belief?

BIBLE POINTS TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER:

In considering whether the mainstream groups of Christianity are correct in belief or in serious error, one needs to consider several scriptures in the new testament showing the Truth with respect what God (YHWH) has to say through inspired writers and then reflect back to how this would apply to mainstream Christianity to which most so called Christians belong. First let's consider both Luke 13:24 and Matthew 7:13-14, it is in both of these that the road followed by true believers would be narrow and cramped, Luke 13:24, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." (Authorized King James Bible: AV); And Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, abroad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (AV); thereby, clearly showing few would be entering the narrow gate "which leadeth unto life." In reality, it will be difficult for even true Christians to enter as testified to at 1 Peter 4:18, "And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear." (AV). In order to enter, we must have the right sort of guide, Luke 1:79, "To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (AV). Now, if one picks the wrong group, just because it is popular or the so called 'one to belong to in a community' and not because of Bible Truths, there is an important warning given at Matthew 15:14, "Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." (AV). In fact, being with the wrong group can mean you are NOT having fellowship with the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua) as testified to at 1 John 1:6, "If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not [have] the truth." (AV). This danger is made abundantly clear at Luke 12:32 when Jesus (Yeshua) spoke of his true followers as a little flock and not a large one, "Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom." (AV). Simply stated, his true followers will be relatively few in number which should cause all sincere individuals to question whether mainstream religion with its vast membership is heading for the narrow gate!

SATAN'S TRICK - FALSE DOCTRINE EVOLUTION:

Now do most mainstream religions through the ages have anything in common be they so called Christian or pagan? Absolutely, history shows that one mainstream religion evolved into another one while maintaining many of the beliefs of the one before it, but simply changing the name of the God(s). No where is this more self evident than with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. In has been with us since at least the time of ancient Sumeria as shown by The historian H. W. F. Saggs explains that the Babylonian triad consisted of three gods of roughly equal rank. Their "inter-relationship is of the essence of their natures." Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Sumerian, Assyrian, and Babylonian triads? (*1). No. However, Hislop furthers the comparison: "In the unity of that One, Only God of the Babylonians there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the trinity they employed...the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day." (*2).

Yes, the concept of a trinity has been a prevailing belief for a very, very long time perhaps longer than most Christians would imagine. While worshipping innumerable minor deities, triads of gods appeared in all the ancient cultures of Sumer, Babylonia, Egypt, India, Greece and finally Rome. The "mysteries" of the first universal civilization, Babylonia, were transported down in time. The names of the gods changed. The details of ancient incomprehensible religions changed, but the essential ideas were the same. The Sumerians worshipped Anu (the Father), Enlil (the god of earth) and Enki (the lord of wisdom). The Egyptians worshipped Amun who was really three gods in one: Re was his face; Ptah his body and Amun his hidden identity "combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4 - page 201).

Now with respect the next evolution of mainstream religion, the Egyptian, Egypt's history is nearly as old as Sumeria's. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart shows how Egypt also believed in a "transcendental, above creation, and preexisting" one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face; Ptah his body; and Amun his hidden identity (*3). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs: "In later days Ra [sic], Amon [sic], and Ptah were combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity." (*4). A hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC distinguishes the Egyptian trinity: "All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah: they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re before [men], and his body is Ptah." (*5). Certainly is not this positive indicator that the Christian trinity descended from the ancient Egyptian triads? However, Durant submits that "from Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity..." (*6). Laing agrees when he says that "it is probable that the worship of the Egyptian triad Isis, Serapis, and the child Horus helped to familiarize the ancients with the idea of a triune God and was not without influence in the formulation of the doctrine of the trinity as set forth in the Nicene and Athanasian creeds." (*7). And The Encyclopedia of Religions goes even farther when it states that as Christianity "came in contact with the triune gods of Egypt and the Near East, it developed a trinity of its own." (* .

The next evolution or more correctly one concurrent with the Egyptian but originating also from the early Sumeria was the Babylonian. A very important evolution of spread originated from the Babylonian trinity that ultimately spread to Rome by way of the Etrusans. The Etruscans were a group that all indicators indicate as having originated in Babylon. As they slowly passed through Greece and went on to Rome, they brought with them their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva (*9). This trinity was a "new idea to the Romans," and yet it became so "typical of Rome [that] it was imitated in the capitolia of Italy. . . (*7 - page 26)" Even the names of the Roman trinity: Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, reflect the ancestry. Is this positive proof that the Christian trinity descended from the Etruscan and Roman triads? No, but an extremely significant indicator of this fact. However, Dr. Gordon Laing convincingly devotes his entire book Survivals of the Roman Gods to the comparison of Roman Paganism and the Roman Catholic Church. (*7). Pelikan adds to Laing's work when he states that the early church fathers used and cited the Roman Sibylline Oracles so much that these were called "Sibyllists" by the 2nd century critic Celsus. (*10). There was even a medieval hymn, "Dies irae" which prophesied the coming of the day of wrath on the "dual authority of David and the Sibyl." (*10 - page 64-65).

Now let's consider the ancient Grecian world; And in order to fully understand it, we need to digress to gaining an understanding of the origins of the word Trinity and the two types that existed in the ancient world and evolved into the Trinity of mainstream so called Christian religions. First, the word trinity comes from the kemetic language. It consist actually of two words: hemt (three) and neter (which carries the concepts of gods). Therefore, Trinity defines a concept of three gods.

Ths pantheon of Gods is composed of two categories of Gods. We have the creator and self-created Gods on one side and the creator gods that are non autogenic on the other. The creator Gods that are self-created are those who form the first group of trinities. The gods that are not self-created then form the second group of trinities. The Gods of the second trinity exist only in the context of a group of Gods composed of a God-father, a Goddess-mother, and a God-son. They are somehow considered very close to the human nature. The original second group of trinities came from a story known as the holy drama, and is composed by a God-father called Wsr (Osiris) and a goddess-mother Aishat (Isthar or Isis) and the God-son Heru (Horus). It is the second group of trinities that taught humanity the concept of a family, giving a man and woman the idea of a spiritual union with the goal of procreation. We should observe that the importance of the trinities is such that they became a serious problem for the monotheistic religions that are stubbornly talking about the creation of the world by one single god while they are still maintaining the concept of a trinity.

The ancient Trinities of the Greek's were composed of the God-son Perseus, born from Zeus and Danae; Hercules born from Zeus and Alcmene; Apollo born from Zeus and Leto; Dionysos born from Zeus and Semele; Minos born from Zeus and Europe; Aesculapius born from Apollo and Coronis. (*11).

It if from an evolutionary merging of ancient Greek trinities and Roman trinities that in themselves partially evolved from the Greek, but with a precedence being taken by the Etruscans' of their trinity of Tinia, Uni, and Menerva. (*9). This trinity as previously mentioned, became the ancient Roman Trinity of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, which was campaigned by the mainstream religions of the empire of that era. Even the names of the gods in this Trinity reflect from whence it came. (*7). This one is of extreme importance to us of the modern era as it evolved into the Trinity of the mainstream so called Christian religions of today. This Trinity consisted of Jesus born from Yahweh and Mary. However, this new concept of trinities that is presented by the new Christian authorities only comes to add on the contradictions that were undermining the psychological stability of the human of the modern society. The Trinity of the modern time that the religions want us to accept is composed of a God-father, a God-son and a mother that is purely human and considered virgin. (*11).

However since the mother, the Virgin Mary, she is a human, she cannot be classified as a Goddess, and that will not complete the concept of trinity. In this evolution, the religious authorities had to use a little creativity to overcome this; the concept of personalizing the power or force of the supreme God (YHWH), Yahweh. To do this, something new had to enter the equation. What was this?

Whereas, the Gods of the first trinities stayed really far away from the philosophical and political arguments of the society, but the leaders used that fact to kind of drown them in the collective memory of the society. The world has been created in stages. The Gods of the first trinity are recognized by the fact that the first two of them have created the four elements (fire, air, water and matter) and the third God has used them to fashion and create everything that exists. The gods of the first trinity do not intervene in our daily lives, but they guarantee the harmony of the universe. They some-how occupy a very important place in the spiritual essence of anything that exists. By recognizing their exist-ence, we are illuminating the universal conscious on the makers of this world that we are trying to redefine. (*11).

At this point, we need to pause and regress a little. One may ask, How do we know these trinities are not just misrepresentations of the real threeness of God? (After all there were "flood stories" in every culture too reminiscent of the Genesis account.) Assyrian clay tablets now available have most strikingly confirmed the narrative of Scripture which give us revealing insight into our questions (*12). Where did the idea of a three-in-one God originate? After the flood, Nimrod a descendent of Noah's son Ham settled in Asia: "And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel out of that land went forth Asshur [mar., "he went out into Assyria"] and builded Nineveh" (Genesis 10:8-11). "Mighty hunter" was the title given to the great conquering warrior-monarchs of the time. In rebellion of God's command to disburse and people the earth, Nimrod built the Tower of Babel, became very powerful and was even worshipped. We now know the ancient Babylonians worshipped the first person in the Godhead, the Great Invisible, also the Spirit of God incarnate in the human mother and also the Divine Son. Nimrod was this "Son," the first king of Babel, Babylon. And so in this the first notion of a triune God was born. (*7).

In the immediate centuries before the advent of Jesus Christ, we see Plato even in his deeply philosophical mode proposing a trinity of sorts. ("The Supreme Reality appears in the trinitarian form of the Good, the Intelligence, and the World-Soul"). Through all cultures, this perversion of the truth about God was handed down. (*7).

One God (YHWH), One culture, however, escaped this corruption of truth. From the line of Shem, Noah's other son, Abraham was called out of "Ur of the Chaldees" (Genesis 11:31; 12:1,2), the ancient Babylonian empire. His descendants were given the revelation of God by Moses from Mount Sinai. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4). No Hebrew scripture supports the idea of a trinity god. Some verses have been pressed into use by Trinitarians, but without success. For example, in the creation account, Genesis says, "God [elohim, plural.] created the heavens and the earth" (1:1). However, the plural does not have to do with number; it is "plentitude of might" (Pentateuch & Haftorahs, The Soncino Press). In any case, the verb "created" is singular, and would not indicate two gods, let alone three. Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament (Vol. XIV, 306). And the world renown "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia" says, under the article on the Trinity in it, "The term 'Trinity' is NOT a biblical term....In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason." (*14).

While he walked the earth, Jesus clearly acknowledged, "My Father is greater than I" (*15) and that it was his Father who sent him, "He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me" (*16). He consistently acknowledged God as the source of power for his miracles and finally implored his Father, "yet not my will but thine be done." (*17) he be the one sent and also the Sender and why would he pray to himself that not his will but His other will be done? It seems the Trinitarians only answer, "It's a mystery"?

If the trinity is supposed to be an unexplainable "mystery," why do the apostles always talk about revealing mysteries to Christians? "I would not have you ignorant of this mystery [about Jewish blindness] (*1 the revelation of the mystery (*19) the mystery hidden God hath revealed (*20 1 Corinthians 2:7) Behold I show you a mystery (*21) "having made known the mystery of his will" (*22) "to make known the mystery of Christ" (*23) "make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (*24), etc. So how did the Christian Church accept a mystery of a trinity? This will be shown in the next part.

HISTORY OF POLITICAL INTRIGUE AND DECEIT THAT EVOLVED THE TRINITY INTO SO CALLED CHRISTIANITY:

To understand how the Trinity wormed its way into so called Christianity we need to know the political and social climate of the first three centuries after the passing of Jesus (Yeshua) and his apostles, and why true faith deteriorated into compromise; and then total acceptance by the mainstream so called Christian groups, not withstanding its violation of the Word of God, the Holy Bible. Now let's look at that period and try an insert ourselves mentally into it.

In the early church the apostles needed to refute another rising belief system gnosticism. It considered matter to be evil and sought salvation through knowledge. Gnosticism also focused on the "mysteries" meant only for the intellectuals to understand. Christ, the gnostics said, entered Jesus at baptism and left just before he died on the cross. The Apostle John particularly addressed this budding heresy: "Many false prophets, have gone forth into the world, You gain knowledge of the inspired expression from God by this: Every inspired expression that confesses Jesus Christ as having come in the flesh originates with God, but every inspired expression that does not confess Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the anti-christ's [inspired expression] which you have heard was coming, and now it is already in the world." (*25). Jesus' humanity was repulsive to gnostics. After the Apostles died, Christians responded to gnosticism by claiming not only did Jesus Christ come in the flesh as the Son of God.

By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*26).

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*28) .

Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree
that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*29).

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).
Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation. (*29).

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Constantine's fourth century Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 that formalized the "Doctrine of the Trinity." The Athanasian Creed in the fifth century finally included the three, "the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost...the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal So likewise the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three Gods, but one God." Furthermore, this creed added that belief in the trinity "is necessary to everlasting salvation." Strong belief led to action. "Probably more Christians were slaughtered by Christians in these two years ([A.D.]342-3) than by all the persecutions of Christians by pagans in the history of Rome." (*30).

The fact is Christianity never conquered paganism--paganism conquered Christianity. (*31).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons (*2) to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: '[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,' which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in 'one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all' (*2); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad. (*32).

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*10)
The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166 AD). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek Philosophy were related. According to McGiffert, "Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God. . . [He] conceiv[ed] of God as a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things." (*10).

An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament Christians. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "borrowed doctrine" and foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term...In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (*14).

As can readily be seen from the foregoing, even the concept of the Trinity came from the pagan world, and the Bible shows " In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (*33) is trying to keep out the glorious gospel of Christ. Satan the Devil is slipping false dogma in its place. Do not be trapped by him, reject false dogma of the Trinity.

REFERENCES:

*1 - Saggs,H. W. F. "The Greatness that was Babylon: A Sketch of the Ancient Civilization of the Tigris-Euphrates Valley." New York: New American Library. 1968.
*2 - Hislop, Alexander. "The Two Babylons: Or, the Papal Worship." 1853. 2nd American ed. Neptune: Loizeaux. 1959.
*3 - Hart, George. "Egyptian Myths." Austin: U of Texas. 1990.
*4 - Durant, Will. "Our Oriental Heritage". New York: Simon. 1935. Vol. 1 of The Story of Civilization.11 vols. 1935-75. (page 201)
*5 - Hornung, Erik. "Conceptions of God in Ancient Egypt: The One and the Many." Trans. John Baines. Ithaca: Cornell UP. 1982.
*6 - Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75. (page 595)
*7 - Laing, Gordon Jennings. "Survivals of Roman Religion.". New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1963.
*8 - The Encyclopedia of Religions.
*9 - Carter, Jesse Benedict. "The Religious Life of Ancient Rome: A Study in the Development of Religious Consciousness, from the Foundation of the City Until the Death of Gregory the Great." New York: Cooper Square Publishers. 1972. (page 16-19).
*10 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
*11 -
*11 - Morodenibig, Naba Lamoussa. "Light From the Trinities."
*12 - Edersheim Bible History (page 59-62).
*13 - New Catholic Encyclopedia, (Vol. XIV, 306).
*14 - International Encyclopedia of the Bible," Vol. 5, (page 3012).
*15 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 116 in NT, John 14:29)
*16 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 10 in NT, Matthew 10:40).
*17 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 109 in NT, St. Luke 22:42).
*18 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 205 in NT, Romans 11:25).
*19 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 210 in NT, Romans 16:25)
*20 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 213 in NT, 1 Corinthians 2:7).
*21 - The Holy Bible, The Douay Version of the OT-The Confraternity Edition of the NT, John C. Winton Co., Philadelphia, Pa., (page 227 in NT,1 Corinthians 15:51).
*22 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 202 in NT, Ephesians 1:9).
*23 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 206 in NT, Ephesians 6:19).
*24 - The New Chain-Reference Bible, 4 th. Ed. (King James Bible), (page 210 in NT, Colossians 1:27).
*25 - New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1984 revision, (pages 1517 and 1519, 1 John 7; also 1 John 4:1-3).
*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6
*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).
*28 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).
*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.
*30 - Durant, Will, "Age of Faith,"
*31 - Jonas, Hans, "The Gnostic religion: the message of the alien God and the beginnings of Christianity," 2nd ed., 1963.
*32 - Hagensick, Cher-El L, "The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine."
*33 - The Holy Bible (King James Bible), American Bible Society, NY (page 185, 2 Corinthians 4:4).

APPENDIX TO DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

(1) it wasn't until the Council of Nicea that Babylonian paganism became the official doctrine of "modern" Christianity. [The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity, James Parkes, 196

(2) It is customary in Trinitarian language to speak of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. These are assumed to be proper titles, and used extensively. Yet in the Scriptures only one of these appears, "God the Father," and that not as a title, but an expression denoting that God is the Father. "There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things ... and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8:6). The term appears 11 times in the New Testament. By contrast, the terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" appear zero times.

(3) Will Durant, the popular Catholic historian of our day, wrote: "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it ... pagan cultures contributed to the syncretist results. From Egypt came the ideas of a divine trinity ... [Caesar and Christ, page 595) (Lamson, Newton & Durant cited from Charles Redeker, To Us there is One God, June 197 ]

(4) When Constantine succeeded in becoming sole emperor of Rome in A.D. 324, he publicly embraced Christianity. Politically, he saw Christianity as an effective tool of unifying his domain and therefore viewed the Arian controversy as a significant threat to his goal. To solve the problem, in 325 he convened the first ecumenical council of Christendom since Bible days, paying for the delegates to come to the town of Nicea, near the imperial residence. [The FORWARD magazine, January - March 1996, volume 28, No. 1]

(5) It was of great importance in Christian and even in world history," wrote historian W.H.C. Frend about the first Council of Nicea. In Christian history, the doctrine of Christ's divinity (a doctrine essential and unique to Christianity) was formally affirmed for the first time. In world history, never before had the entire church gathered to determine policy and doctrine (let alone at the bidding of the Roman emperor).The follow article, written by the late writer and biographer Robert Payne (d. 1983), is excerpted and adapted from his "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957).

A - It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that the Roman Sun-day or day of the Sun was declared to be the Christian Sabbath along with the worship of the sun being the official state religion.

B - It was at the Council of Nicea, in 325 AD that the emblem of the Sun god, the cross of light, was adopted as the emblem of Christianity. ....

(6) Around the start of the 4th Century AD, The Roman Empire was governed by the Emperor Constantine. The Empire at this time was not in the best of health, being a morass of different cults and belief systems. The official state religion was the worship of Sol Invictus, the Sun God, and this was Constantine's own religion. However, the relatively new cult, as it then was, of Christianity was starting to enjoy a groundswell of support, and it did not require much thought to see that steps needed to be taken if Rome's tenuous grip on the Empire was to be strengthened. [British Broadcasting Corp., http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A307487]

(7) CONSTANT1NE was faced with a very difficult problem when he became Emperor of the Roman Empire in 313 A.D., for he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential [ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, page 366]

( "The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." - {The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)}

(9)To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it." - [Yale University Professor E. Washburn Hopkins: Origin and Evolution of Religion.]

(10)As early as the 8th century, the Theologian St. John of Damascus frankly admitted what every modern critical scholar of the NT now realizes: that neither the Doctrine of the Trinity nor that of the 2 natures of Jesus Christ is explicitly set out in scripture. In fact, if you take the record as it is and avoid reading back into it the dogmatic definitions of a later age, you cannot find what is traditionally regarded as orthodox Christianity in the Bible at all." - [Tom Harpur states, For Christ's Sake. ]

(11) Historian Arthur Weigall: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord." - [Historian Arthur Weigall: The Paganism in Our Christianity ]

(12) Neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament, nor did Jesus and his followers intend to contradict the Shema in the Old Testament: 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' -- Deut. 6:4
. . . The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies . . . By the end of the 4th century . . . the doctrine of the Trinity took substantially the form it has maintained ever since." -[The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976) ]

(13) The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." [The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: "- (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299. ]

(14) The Encyclopedia Americana: "Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian [believing that God is one person]. The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching." -[ The Encyclopedia Americana: " (1956), Vol. XXVII, p. 294L. ]

(15) The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -[ The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, " (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.]

(16) "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essence" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians." [Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899 ]

(17) "Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." - [Robert A. Heinlein]

First, From http://www.convert.org/differ.htm GOD Judaism insists on a notion of monotheism, the idea that there is one God. As Judaism understands this idea, God cannot be made up of parts, even if those parts are mysteriously united. The Christian notion of Trinitarianism is that God is made up of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Such a view, even if called monotheistic because the three parts are, by divine mystery, only one God, is incompatible with the Jewish view that such a division is not possible. The Jewish revolutionary idea is that God is one. This idea allows for God's unity and uniqueness as a creative force. Thus, for Jews, God is the creator of all that we like and all that we don't. There is no evil force with an ability to create equal to God's. Judaism sees Christianity's Trinitarianism as a weakening of the idea of God's oneness. Jews don't have a set group of beliefs about the nature of God; therefore, there is considerable, and approved, debate within Judaism about God. However, all mainstream Jewish groups reject the idea of God's having three parts. Indeed, many Jews see an attempt to divide God as a partial throwback, or compromise with, the pagan conception of many gods.

Second, Why was the Trinity adopted and for what reason? To understand we need to look at the conditions of the Roman Empire in the early 4 th. Century. The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed.

So is was the political product of an apostate church, an apostate church that allowed a pagan Roman Emporer, Constantine, to tell it which dogma to accept at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., and then have it rammed down their throats as blessed dogma by another Roman Emporer, Theodosius, at the Council of Constantinople in 381 A.D. This in direct violation of God's (YHWH's) word found in the Bible " Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God." (James 4:4 AV), " If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." (John 15:19 AV).

(18) Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, volume 6, page 643, regarding I John 5:7 "The only Greek manuscripts, in any form which support the words 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the 15th century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."

(19) World Book Encyclopedia, volume 19, page 363 "Trinity - is a term used of God to express the belief that in the one God there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost). The idea of trinity is drawn from the teaching of Christ as recorded in the New Testament. Belief in Father, Son and Holy Spirit was first defined by the earliest general council of churches. This was the First Council of Nicaea in 325. This council declared that the Spirit is of the same substance as the Father. The Eastern and Western branches of the church later disagreed as to how the Holy Spirit proceeds from the other divine Persons. The Eastern Church held that the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son comes from the Father through the Spirit. The Western Church held that the Spirit comes from the Father and Son together. Most Christians believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have equal power and glory. Each has His own activity. The Father creates; the Son saves souls; and the Spirit makes holy."

(20) From Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia, 1972, volume 23, page 291 "Trinity - in Christian theology, doctrine, according to the Book of Common Prayer that in 'unity of the Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost'. The most elaborate statement of the doctrine is to be found in the Athanasian Creed, which asserts that 'the Catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance, for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one; the glory equal; the majesty coeternal.' "The term Trinitas was first used, in the second century, by the Christian ecclesiastical writer Tertullian, but the concept took form only in the debates on Christology. It was not until the progress of opposing parties sought, on the one hand, to degrade the divine dignity of Christ (Ebionitism in its various forms and Arianism) or, on the other hand, to confound the personality of Christ with God the Father, that the Church was led to define in the Nicaean Creed the relation of the Son to the Father and further, in the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed, the relation of the Holy Ghost to the Father."

(21) From Sacred Origins of Profound Things, by Charles Panati, pages 302-306 "Among the three great monotheistic religions, only Christianity embraces the Trinitarian Creed: the coexistence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in a single Godhead, distinctly different, yet one and the same." "One might ask - as Jews and Muslims repeatedly have - isn't it cheating for a religion to be monotheistic if it recognizes three distinctly different Gods? Three Gods; three different names; three different functions: the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier. Should, Muslims suggested, this not be called 'tritheism'? "Significantly, the Christian books of the Bible - the Gospels, Acts, Epistles (or letters), Revelation, and the Apocrypha ('things that are hidden') - make no explicit reference to a three-fold Godhead. "Nor did Jesus, a Jew, perhaps with rabbinic training, violate the Judaic motto - 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' - in his teachings. "God the Father does mention God the Son in the New Testament, and the Son in turn mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit. The outline of a trinity is there, but it is never clearly delineated "Early in the fourth century, the Trinitarian controversy heated to the high point of heresy, pitting two theologians, Athanasius and Arius, against each other and drawing concern from the Roman emperor Constantine himself who had warmed up to Christianity and would eventually convert. "Today, Arius' name is a byword for heresy: the Arian Heresy. "Back in 320, Arius, who knew Scripture inside and out - and was a skilled propagandist and musician - insisted that Christ, the Word, Logos could only be a creature like ourselves, created by God. When he put his ideas to music and sang songs of Christ's second-rank status to God, thousands of ordinary Christians, once content in their monotheism, became aware of the passionate debate raging among bishops. "Christian bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, convening the Council of Nicaea, which, after much acrimonious contention, decided upon the crucial formula for the Trinitarian doctrine, setting it forth in a credo, the Nicaean Creed. The Son, it declared, is 'of the same essence as the Father.' The creed said troublingly little about the Holy Spirit. "In fact, the entire lengthy creed, as first written, wrestles with logic and common sense to equate Father and Son, giving nod to the Holy Spirit only in the last passing line: 'And we believe in the Holy Ghost.' "The controversy raged on for some years. Later the Nicaean Creed was revised under the leadership of Basil, bishop of Caesarea. It was altered to end 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father'.

(22) "Thus, the concept of the Trinity did not take its present form until some 400 years after Christ's death." From Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, revised by Ivor H. Evans, page 1101.

(23) "The Trinity - the three Persons in one God - God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. "And in this Trinity none is afore, or after other; none is greater or less than another; but the whole three Persons are co-eternal together; and co-equal. The Athanasian Creed "The term triad was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c. 180) for this concept; the term Trinity was introduced by Tertullian about 217 in his treatise Adversus Praxean." From Hastings Bible Dictionary, volume 12, page 458

(24) From the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 3012-3014, "The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.
"...the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated doctrine, but in fragmentary allusions.
"The doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason.
"Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.
"Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three wide-spread standing as a sacred number.
"It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
"As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead.
"Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity.
"It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation."

(25) "Trinity: Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.
"Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity - one God subsisting in three persons and one substance - ultimately prevails.
"While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.
"The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where Paul wishes that 'the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit' be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul's understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son, but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word 'holy' does not appear before 'spirit' in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage." From The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan, page 782.

(26)McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, "proves only that there are the three subjects named, . . . but it does not prove, by itself, that all the three belong necessarily to the divine nature, and possess equal divine honor."

(27) "Trinity - this word is not used in the Bible. It is the name given to the statements about God in the creeds drawn up in the early centuries of the church to explain what is meant by saying that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as a whole. From earliest times it was stated at every Christian baptism.
"The Jewish teaching was that there is only one God. No one and nothing must compromise that belief. Yet the New Testament writers clearly show God as the Father who created and sustained everything in his love and power, as the Son who came into this world, and as the Spirit who worked in their own lives.
"After the end of the New Testament period the church found it necessary to work out carefully worded statements about three persons in one God, in order to uphold the truth of the New Testament against false beliefs." From The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, page 158.

(24) The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia].

(25) Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where [har•pa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'" From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate. The context of the surrounding verses (3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: "In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves." Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." What "mind"? To 'think it not robbery to be equal with God'? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who 'esteemed God as better than himself,' would never 'grasp for equality with God,' but instead he "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death." Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul's point here-namely the importance of humility and obedience to one's Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

4) http://religioustruthsbyiris89.free-forums.org/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!

Admin · 10/05/2012 8:15 am

Part 2

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (American Standard Version, ASV)

Now this scripture seem straight forward and it is, but some translations did a poor job of translating it. Let's look at how the New International Version (NIV) translates this, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.' Would appear to show Jesus (Yeshua) as the One and Only, but this is just an error in translation in the NIV as shown by both the Authorized King James (AV) which renders it, ""No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." And the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible renders it, "No one has at any time seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." Now some may ask, how do you determine for sure which way of translating is correct. You do this quite simply by investigation the scripture from the Old Testament actually being quoted here by the Apostle John for the first part of this scripture which is Exodus 33:20, "And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live." (Authorized King James Bible; AV); And compare with similar scriptures in the New Testament such as John 6:46, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father." (AV). Then you check the Old Testament scripture from which the Apostle John took the second part, Proverbs 8:30, where Jesus (Yeshua) while in heaven was speaking, "Then I was by him, as one brought up with him; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him," (AV). And cross reference this in the New Testament to John 13:23, "Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved." (AV).

Now of course, people have seen Jesus (Yeshua). The Apostle John, who wrote John 1:18, saw Jesus. He even said four verses earlier that Jesus (God
according to Trinitarians) had become flesh, John 1:14, "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." Yet no one has seen God. If John were trying to say in John 1:1 that Jesus (Yeshua) was God (YHWH) and then a few verses later say no one has seen God (YHWH), would he not need to put some type of qualifying statement explaining how this can be? Or are we to assume his readers had a firm grasp of the Duality or Trinity and needed no explanation of this paradox? While some Bibles say "only-begotten son" the oldest manuscripts say "only-begotten god". Most Bible do not want to translate it literally that way since this would imply Jesus (Yeshua) was made a god by God (YHWH). So the New International Version (NIV) reads as I quoted above "God the One and Only". However, the footnote to the NIV reads "or the Only-Begotten". It is proper that the NIV placed that footnote in its Bible translation because we are inclined to ask, "the One and Only what?" In what way is the Son the 'One and Only God' that the Father (YHWH)is not? John said that Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) and yet was a god and Jesus (Yeshua) was the only begotten son of God (YHWH), the context supports a literal translation of John 1:18. Jesus (Yeshua) was the "only-begotten god". That is, God Almighty created Jesus and put him in the position of a god or mighty spirit person whom He used to create the rest of the universe.

While it is true that angels and men can be referred to as "gods", they were not begotten directly by Almighty God.

Interestingly the NIV says, John 6:27, "Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. On him God the Father has placed his seal of approval." (NIV). It is obvious that there are two individuals here: the Son of Man (Yeshua) and God the Father (YHWH). Two separate and distinct persons. Also notice that the Father (YHWH) places his "seal of approval" on the Son. But nowhere in the Bible is there a Scripture where the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) places approval on the Father (YHWH). This shows or indicates that the Father is in the superior position and the Son is in the inferior position, i.e., they are NOT COEQUAL.

The NIV reaffirms this fact, they are NOT COEQUAL at 1 Peter 1:1-2, "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance." (NIV). Once more we see two separate and distinct beings here: God the Father (YHWH) and Jesus (Yeshua) Christ.

Now some will say that Jesus (Yeshua) and His Father (YHWH) are one-and-the-same based on the usual out of context rendering of John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Well, try to keep the mental context of who Jesus was to the people who lived and studied about him when the Bible text was written. Apart from this verse, there is no indicator that anyone thought that Jesus (Yeshua)was God (YHWH). This is made clear by John 1:2, which shows, "The same was in the beginning with God." (AV); And John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not." (AV); Last consider John 1:14, previously quoted, and it is quite clear that they are NOT the same individual. But two distinct individuals. Note, some Bibles correctly render this as either as "the Word was a god," or "the Word was Divine." Both of these are in harmony with the remaining scriptures in John the first chapter.

The fact is that no Apostle nor any other writer of the Bible ever came out and stated that "there is One God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost". No example of the thousands of occurrences of YHWH and God in the original manuscripts can be shown to mean 'God in three Persons' as some falsely claim. In fact neither the word Duality nor Trinity appear nowhere in the scriptures. So be ye not mislead into believing the doctrines of men, but remember John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (AV).

<<Sub Section 'Q' Commentaries on the Scriptures>>

Commentary on John 15:26 all 'Sola Scriptura."

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me: (American Standard Version; ASV)

This scripture clearly shows that the Spirit comes from the Father (YHWH), but we need to ask just what is this spirit, and to look at the scriptures immediately proceeding John 15:26. Let's now look at these scriptures. John 15:18-25, "If the world hateth you, ye know that it hath hated me before [it hated] you. 19 If ye were of the world, the world would love its own: but because ye are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember the word that I said unto you, A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin. 23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also. 24 If I had not done among them the works which none other did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But [this cometh to pass], that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause." (ASV). Here Jesus (Yeshua) clearly testified that he had been sent, i.e., by a superior one, "they know not him that sent me," and this is reinforced when he said, "He that hateth me hateth my Father also." So Jesus (Yeshua) had been sent by his Father (YHWH) to do his Father's (YHWH's) will, and clearly testified at John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (AV); therefore we see that Jesus (Yeshua) was doing the will of his Father (YHWH).

Now let's consider the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, that Jesus (Yeshua) would send to true Christians from his Father (YHWH). What exactly is it? This Spirit or Comforter is God's (YHWH's) active force that goes forth or emanates from Almighty God (YHWH). One of its functions is to act as a Comforter to mankind, see John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV).

In summary, It is the Creator's (YHWH's) force for getting things accomplished, 1 Corinthians 2:10, " And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:" (Ephesians 6:17; AV), " But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God." (AV). This is made even clearer as the Bible shows that God (YHWH) pours out his active force onto his followers, Joel 2:28-29, "And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: 29 And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit." (AV), and also caused inspired individuals to, 2 Peter 1:21, " For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (AV). Clearly then the Trinity is just a myth as defined as follows in the Westminister Confession, "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity;" since Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT COEQUAL with his Father, Almighty God (YHWH), NOR is the Holy Spirit, since this is not an individual, but clearly the power and/or force of God (YHWH). Note, in ancient Koine Greek, the Spirit is always grammatically of the neutral gender, the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. It is now clear beyond question that the Trinity is just false doctrine warned against at Titus 2:1, ""But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine.

Commentary on Galatians 4:6 all 'Sola Scriptura."

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (American Standard Version; ASV)

Let's first look at the scriptures immediately proceeding this to gain an understanding of the contest of this scripture, Galatians 4:1-5, "But I say that so long as the heir is a child, he differeth nothing from a bondservant though he is lord of all; 2 but is under guardians and stewards until the day appointed of the father. 3 So we also, when we were children, were held in bondage under the rudiments of the world: 4 but when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 that he might redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." (ASV). Here is shown God's (YHWH's) purpose for sending his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the earth and this is clarified at Romans 5:12, "Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (The Kingdom Interlinear Lexicon). So he was sent by his Father (YHWH) to redeem mankind of inherited sin, 1 John 4:14, "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world." (Authorized King James Bible, AV); Thus clearly showing his Father (YHWH), as the superior one, sent his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to the world clearly showing a superior subordinate relationship and not one of coequality.

Now let's look at the scriptures immediately after this to gain an even better understanding of the contest of Galatians 4:6, see Galatians 4:7-11, "So that thou art no longer a bondservant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God. Howbeit at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to them that by nature are no gods: 9 but now that ye have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how turn ye back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, whereunto ye desire to be in bondage over again? 10 Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. 11 I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labor upon you in vain." (ASV). So God (YHWH) sent his Spirit, Romans 8:16, "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" (AV); And this Spirit of God (YHWH), 1 John 3:24, "And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us." (AV); And the drelling of his active force or spirit in us is affirmed at 1 John 4:13, "Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit." (AV). And 1 John 3:230-24 shows, "And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the spirit which he hath given." (AV).

Now exactly what is the Spirit of God (YHWH) which is also called the Comforter? It is God's (YHWH's)active force or power that he uses to accomplish his will as shown by John 14:26, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." (AV); And this is reaffirmed at John 14:16-17, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." (AV). And Romans 5:5 shows God (YHWH) gives true Christians a part of his power or holy spirit, "And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." (Authorized King James Bible;" (AV); and this is reaffirmed at Mark 14:33-36, "And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." (AV). Here Jesus was praying to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH) and acknowledging him as the superior one contrary to the untruths put forth by man such as in the Westminister Confession which clearly contradicts the Word of God by stating of one substance and power; whereas, God (YHWH) has been shown by the scriptures to be the superior one that even his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) prays to. It is time for all to disgard myths such as the Trinity put forth as supposed truth by misguided documents such as the Westminster Confession which are the product of hermeneutic methodology used by those who seek to hide the truth of the scriptures instead of letting the scriptures speak for themselves as they do in true 'Sola Scripture' comments on the Word of God; This per 2 Peter 1:20, "This, then, you must understand first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is made by private interpretation." (The Confraternity Edition of The New Testament by John C. Winston Co. -Catholic).

<CONCLUSION>

Unfortunately, the clever deceiver and twister of the scripture who was one of the best masters with respect using hermeneutic methodology to deceive unwary ones into false doctrine and mythology, Cornelius Burges, Assessor to the Westminster Assembly, was only one of many; but more polished in the art of deception than most.

As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. (*2)

The most famous of these Apologists was Justin Martyr (c.107-166 AD). He was born a pagan, became a pagan philosopher, then a Christian. He believed that Christianity and Greek Philosophy were related. According to McGiffert, "Justin insisted that Christ came from God; he did not identify him with God. . . [He] conceiv[ed] of God as a transcendent being, who could not possibly come into contact with the world of men and things." (*2).

An exhaustive review of Scripture and history reveals the simple fact that the Trinity teaching was unknown to the early New Testament Christians. That the doctrine of the Trinity is a "borrowed doctrine" and foreign to the Scriptures is supported by many authorities. Under the article Trinity we read, "The term 'Trinity' is not a biblical term...In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is a purely revealed doctrine...As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason" (*1).

The moral of this discourse is accept the Word of God, reject the clever twisting of the Word of God by deceitful men in keeping with Titus 2:1, ", "But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:" (AV); this means we must reject myths being put forth as doctrine as does the Westminister Confession and similar deceptive documents by others.

REFERENCES:

*1 the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, volume 4, page 3012-3014, "The term 'Trinity' is not a Biblical term and we are not using Biblical language when we define what is expressed by it as the doctrine that there is one only and true God, but in the unity of the Godhead there are three coeternal and coequal Persons, the same in substance but distinct in subsistence. A doctrine so defined can be spoken of as a Biblical doctrine only on the principle that the sense of Scripture is Scripture. And the definition of a Biblical doctrine in such un-Biblical language can be justified only on the principle that it is better to preserve the truth of Scripture than the words of Scripture.
"...the doctrine of the Trinity is given to us in Scripture, not in formulated doctrine, but in fragmentary allusions.
"The doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason.
"Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all polytheistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.
"Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three wide-spread standing as a sacred number.
"It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
"As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of God. In His Trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us to comprehend Him. Many attempts have, nevertheless, been made to construct a rational proof of the Trinity of the Godhead.
"Certainly we cannot speak broadly of the revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the Old Testament. It is a plain matter of fact that none who have depended on the revelation embodied in the Old Testament alone have ever attained to the doctrine of the Trinity.
"It would seem clear that we must recognize in the Old Testament doctrine of the relation of God to His revelation by the creative Word and the Spirit, at least the germ of the distinctions in the Godhead afterward fully made known in the Christian revelation."
*2 - Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition" (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine." 5 vols.
APPENDIX:

(1) Jamieson, Fausett and Brown, volume 6, page 643, regarding I John 5:7
"The only Greek manuscripts, in any form which support the words 'in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth...' are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the 15th century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All old versions omit the words."
(2) Sacred Origins of Profound Things, by Charles Panati, pages 302-306
"Among the three great monotheistic religions, only Christianity embraces the Trinitarian Creed: the coexistence of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit in a single Godhead, distinctly different, yet one and the same."
"One might ask - as Jews and Muslims repeatedly have - isn't it cheating for a religion to be monotheistic if it recognizes three distinctly different Gods? Three Gods; three different names; three different functions: the Creator, the Redeemer, the Sanctifier. Should, Muslims suggested, this not be called 'tritheism'?
"Significantly, the Christian books of the Bible - the Gospels, Acts, Epistles (or letters), Revelation, and the Apocrypha ('things that are hidden') - make no explicit reference to a three-fold Godhead.
"Nor did Jesus, a Jew, perhaps with rabbinic training, violate the Judaic motto - 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord' - in his teachings.
"God the Father does mention God the Son in the New Testament, and the Son in turn mentions the Father and the Holy Spirit. The outline of a trinity is there, but it is never clearly delineated
"Early in the fourth century, the Trinitarian controversy heated to the high point of heresy, pitting two theologians, Athanasius and Arius, against each other and drawing concern from the Roman emperor Constantine himself who had warmed up to Christianity and would eventually convert.
"Today, Arius' name is a byword for heresy: the Arian Heresy.
"Back in 320, Arius, who knew Scripture inside and out - and was a skilled propagandist and musician - insisted that Christ, the Word, Logos could only be a creature like ourselves, created by God. When he put his ideas to music and sang songs of Christ's second-rank status to God, thousands of ordinary Christians, once content in their monotheism, became aware of the passionate debate raging among bishops.
"Christian bishops gathered at Nicaea on May 20, 325, convening the Council of Nicaea, which, after much acrimonious contention, decided upon the crucial formula for the Trinitarian doctrine, setting it forth in a credo, the Nicaean Creed. The Son, it declared, is 'of the same essence as the Father.' The creed said troublingly little about the Holy Spirit.
"In fact, the entire lengthy creed, as first written, wrestles with logic and common sense to equate Father and Son, giving nod to the Holy Spirit only in the last passing line: 'And we believe in the Holy Ghost.'
"The controversy raged on for some years. Later the Nicaean Creed was revised under the leadership of Basil, bishop of Caesarea. It was altered to end 'We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father'.
"Thus, the concept of the Trinity did not take its present form until some 400 years after Christ's death."
(3) Peakes Commentary on the Bible, page 1038
"The famous interpolation after 'three witnesses' is not printed even in the RSV, and rightly. It cites the heavenly testimony of the Father, the Logos and the Holy Spirit, but it is never used in the early Trinitarian controversies. No respectable Greek manuscript contains it. Appearing first in a late 4th century Latin text, it entered the Vulgate and finally the New Testament of Erasmus."
(4) The Oxford Companion to the Bible, edited by Bruce M Metzger and Michael D Coogan, page 782
"Trinity: Because the Trinity is such an important part of later Christian doctrine, it is striking that the term does not appear in the New Testament. Likewise, the developed concept of three coequal partners in the Godhead found in later creedal formulations cannot be clearly detected within the confines of the canon.
"Later believers systematized the diverse references to God, Jesus and the Spirit found in the New Testament in order to fight against heretical tendencies of how the three are related. Elaboration on the concept of a Trinity also serves to defend the church against charges of di- or tritheism. Since the Christians have come to worship Jesus as god (Pliny, Epistles 96.7), how can they claim to be continuing the monotheistic tradition of the God of Israel? Various answers are suggested, debated, and rejected as heretical, but the idea of a Trinity - one God subsisting in three persons and one substance - ultimately prevails.
"While the New Testament writers say a great deal about God, Jesus, and the Spirit of each, no New Testament writer expounds on the relationship among the three in the detail that later Christian writers do.
"The earliest New Testament evidence for a tripartite formula comes in 2 Corinthians 13:14, where Paul wishes that 'the grace of the Lord Jesus, the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit' be with the people of Corinth. It is possible that this three-part formula derives from later liturgical usage and was added to the text of 2 Corinthians as it was copied. In support of the authenticity of the passage, however, it must be said that the phrasing is much closer to Paul's understandings of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit than to a more fully developed concept of the Trinity. Jesus, referred to not as Son, but as Lord and Christ, is mentioned first and is connected with the central Pauline theme of grace. God is referred to as a source of love, not as father, and the Spirit promotes sharing within the community. The word 'holy' does not appear before 'spirit' in the earliest manuscript evidence for this passage."
(5) The Lion Encyclopedia of the Bible, page 158
"Trinity - this word is not used in the Bible. It is the name given to the statements about God in the creeds drawn up in the early centuries of the church to explain what is meant by saying that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament as a whole. From earliest times it was stated at every Christian baptism.
"The Jewish teaching was that there is only one God. No one and nothing must compromise that belief. Yet the New Testament writers clearly show God as the Father who created and sustained everything in his love and power, as the Son who came into this world, and as the Spirit who worked in their own lives.
"After the end of the New Testament period the church found it necessary to work out carefully worded statements about three persons in one God, in order to uphold the truth of the New Testament against false beliefs."
(6) Francis David's Tower, Strength through Peace, by Todd F. Eklof (06-16-02)
Yet his extraordinary life becomes even more meaningful if we find in it relevance for the circumstances of our own day. As we shall see, Francis David, the 16th Century son of a Saxon shoemaker, helped lay the foundation for a new sort of tower that may at last provide humanity with an enduring refuge.

The problem with most towers, that is, with the ideological constructs we adopt to make us feel safe, is that they are maintained by force. For example, when the Roman Emperor Constantine became a Christian, he wanted to rule a unified Christian empire. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. Their solution was to create a creed making it illegal for anyone to believe Jesus was not the same as God by inventing the notion of a Trinity. This intellectual tower remained in full force for well over a thousand years, until the Reformation.
(7) The Origin of the Trinity: From Paganism to Constantine by Cher-El L. Hagensick]The search for the origins of the Trinity begins with the earliest writings of man. Records of early Mesopotamian and Mediterranean civilizations show polytheistic religions, though many scholars assert that earliest man believed in one god. The 19th century scholar and Protestant minister, Alexander Hislop, devotes several chapters of his book The Two Babylons to showing how this original belief in one god was replaced by the triads of paganism which were eventually absorbed into Catholic Church dogmas. A more recent Egyptologist, Erick Hornung, refutes the original monotheism of Egypt: '[Monotheism is] a phenomenon restricted to the wisdom texts,' which were written between 2600 and 2530 BC (50-51); but there is no question that ancient man believed in 'one infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all' (Hislop 14); and in a multitude of gods at a later point. Nor is there any doubt that the most common grouping of gods was a triad.1
(8) Durant, Will. , Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon. 1944. Vol. 3 of The Story of Civilization. 11 vols. 1935-75.- note, I believe this author was Catholic With this background, let's look at the growth and evolution of the Trinity. As previous stated, the Bible does not mention the trinity. Harnack affirms that the early church view of Jesus was as Messiah. After his resurrection he was "raised to the right hand of God" - but not considered as God. (78) Lonergan concurs that the educated Christians of the early centuries believed in one, supreme God. (119). As for the Holy Spirit, McGiffert tells us that "They [early Christians] thought of [the Holy Spirit] not as an individual being or person but simply as the divine power working in the world and particularly in the Church." (111) Durant summarizes Apostolic Christianity thus: "In Christ and Peter Christianity was Jewish; in Paul it became half Greek; in Catholicism it became half Roman." [
(9) Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600). Chicago: U of Chicago P. 1971. Vol. 1 of The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. 5 vols. As the apostles died, various writers undertook the task of defending Christianity against the persecutions evoked by the Church's expansion. The writers of these "Apologies" are known to us now as "Apologists". Pelikan states that "it was at least partly in response to pagan criticism of the stories in the Bible that the Christian apologists... took over and adapted the methods and even vocabulary of pagan allegorism."
(10) Dictionary Of The Bible 1995 John L. Mckenzie
"The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of 'person' and 'nature' which are Greek philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as 'essence' and 'substance' were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(11) The Encyclopedia Americana 1956
"Christianity derived from Judaism and Judaism was strictly Unitarian (believing in one God). The road which led from Jerusalem to Nicea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth century trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."
(12) The Church of the First Three Centuries 1865 Alvan Lamson
" . . . The modern doctrine of the Trinity is not found in any document or relic belonging to the Church of the first three centuries. . . so far as any remains or any record of them are preserved, coming down from early times, are, as regards this doctrine an absolute blank. They testify, so far as they testify at all, to the supremacy of the father, the only true God; and to the inferior and derived nature of the Son. There is nowhere among these remains a coequal trinity. . . but no un-divided three, -- coequal, infinite, self-existent, and eternal. This was a conception to which the age had not arrived. It was of later origin."
"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism . . . Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion to ever have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. "
(13) The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul) "The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -
(14) Colliers Encyclopedia "In brief, the ante-Nicene Fathers taught the real distinction and divinity of the three persons . . . but in their attempts at a philosophical interpretation of the Dogma, the ante-Nicene Fathers used certain expressions which would favor sudordinationism. In the late 17th century, the Socinians cited these expressions that the ante-Nicene tradition agreed rather with Arius than with Athanasius . . . Catholic theologians commonly defend the orthodoxy of these early Fathers, while admitting that certain of their expressions were inaccurate and eventually dangerous."
(15) The Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel, "The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches . . . This Greek philosopher's [Plato, fourth century B.C.E.] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions." -- (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.
(16) Dictionary of the Bible by John L. McKenzie, S.J. p. 899 "The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of "person" and "nature: which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as "essense" and "substance" were erroneously applied to God by some theologians."
(17) Quoting Bruce L. Shelley, a writer for Christian History, we read:
"The Council of Nicea, (was) summoned by Emperor Constantine and held in the imperial palace under his auspices. Constantine viewed the Arian teachings-that Jesus was a created being subordinate to God-as an 'insignificant' theological matter. But he wanted peace in the empire he had just united through force. When diplomatic letters failed to solve the dispute, he convened around 220 bishops, who met for two months to hammer out a universally acceptable definition of Jesus Christ.
"The expression homo ousion, 'one substance,' was probably introduced by Bishop Hosius of Cordova (in today's Spain). Since he had great influence with Constantine, the imperial weight was thrown to that side of the scales. . . . As it turned out, however, Nicea alone settled little. For the next century the Nicene and the Arian views of Christ battled for supremacy. First Constantine and then his successors stepped in again and again to banish this churchman or exile that one. Control of church offices too often depended on control of the emperor's favor." [Christian History, Bruce L. Shelley, "The First Council of Nicea," Issue 28 (Vol. IX, No. 4), 1990, p. 11. ]
(18) Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, The Council of Nice, Isaac Boyle, p. 27.] Furthermore, John 1:1 could not be a proof of the Trinity, for no mention is made of the holy Spirit. That is most embarrassing when the key scripture to the whole Trinity concept omits one-third of the Trinity. Therefore, whatever John 1:1 proves, it does not mention the holy Spirit, and it fails to provide the third part necessary to support the Trinity. Trinitarians have combed through the Bible using every possible text to prove their point. In the overwhelming majority of texts used, you find them doing the same thing as in John 1:1, using arguments that God and Jesus are one, hoping we will not notice that none of their proof verses include the third part necessary - the holy Spirit. The idea is to get people so involved in the discussion that they will forget the holy Spirit is not mentioned. Therefore, the debate lacks the third part needed for rational proof. In order to prove the Trinity doctrine, it is necessary to find Biblical statements of the oneness of being of Father, Son and holy Spirit. Even if we could prove the Father and Son were one being, would it give us a Trinity? When the Nicean Council ended on August 25, 325 A.D., Emperor Constantine delayed the festivities of his twentieth anniversary until the close of this council. We quote the following:
"A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, 'for the ministers of God' . . . No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal edifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ(?), and appeared more like a dream than a reality."
(19) Edward Gibbon says, in his preface to History of Christianity: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."8 [History of Christianity, Edward Gibbon, preface. ] Note: Gibbon is an historian's historian. He would not speak so forthrightly without an enormous basis for his evaluations.
(20) Outline of History, H. G. Wells, p. 421. Commenting on the state of affairs in the early Church, H. G. Wells writes: "We shall see presently how, later on, all Christendom was torn by disputes about the Trinity. There is no clear evidence that the apostles of Jesus entertained that doctrine."

To learn more, go to, http://religioustruths.proboards59.com/

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

4) http://religioustruthsbyiris89.free-forums.org/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!

Admin · 10/05/2012 8:34 am

The False Doctrine of the Trinity Introduced by an Apostate Church in 325 A.D. Proven Wrong by the Bible:

Many believe in the False Dogma of the Trinity and really have only a superficial knowledge of the Theology. So before I discuss this false doctrine using only the Bible I am going into what this false theology really is from an impeccable source.

The Trinitarian dogma, The Cyclopoedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, New York 1871, by John M'Clintock and James Strong, Vol. II, page 560-561, states, "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the
persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.....The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal...So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty...So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God...The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding...And in this Trinity none is afore or after other; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal together, and coequal. So that in all things, as is afore said, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity." [this is the Athanasian Creed quoted in the above mentioned Cyclopoedia].

Now lets see what the Bible (King James Bible; KJB):

First, it says at many places the following:

Matthew 4:3 And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
Matthew 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Matthew 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
Matthew 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Matthew 27:54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
Mark 1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;
Mark 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Mark 15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Luke 4:3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.
Luke 4:9 And he brought him to Jerusalem, and set him on a pinnacle of the temple, and said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down from hence:
Luke 4:41 And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.
Luke 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
John 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
John 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
John 11:4 When Jesus heard that, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God might be glorified thereby.
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 9:20 And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God.
Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
2 Corinthians 1:19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Ephesians 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God.
1 John 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
1 John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Now we noted in all the above Scriptures it calls Jesus Christ (Yeshua) the Son of God; interesting since for if the Trinity was true, it would read God the Son instead of the Son of God. Since it reads the same in every translation I know of except one "feminists" biased Bible, where it reads Daughter of God which I am sure none of you would agree with. Therefore, it is self evident that Jesus is God's (YHWH) son and not God the Son as would be technically necessary for the trinity to be true.

Second, the Bible explicitly says:

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. [Col. 1:12-18 AV – KJB]

We see here that Jesus is God’s (YHWH) dear son and that Jesus is the firstborn of every creature; whereas, God clearly had no beginning as you all well know. Once again the Trinity is shown as impossible of being true, thus it is false dogma.

Third, The Bible explicitly shows Jesus (Yeshua) asking his father, Almighty God (YHWH) to glorify him in a prayer as follows:

1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:
2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
10 And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them.
11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. [John 17.1-12 AV]

Here Jesus is clearly praying to his Father as a more powerful one and not to another part of himself as would be required by false Trinitarian Theology.

Fourth, the Bible clearly says "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."This scripture clearly shows Jesus (Yeshua) to be an obedient Son to his Father (YHWH).

1 If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,
2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Phil. 2:1-11 AV]

And verse 11 clearly shows hierarchy of power in Heaven since it says we should confess Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God. Showing that recognizing Jesus as the Son of God brings glory to his Father (YHWH). Clearly, therefore, Trinitarian theology can not be true, hence it is therefore FALSE.

Fifth, as we all know the giver and the receiver can not be the same, the Bible shows that Jesus (Yeshua) was given power by his Father (YHWH).

49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.
50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and judgeth.
51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself?
54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:
55 Yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying.
56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.
57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?
58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by. [John 8:49-59 AV].

Once more Jesus (Yeshua) says, “Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me.” Clearly showing his Father (YHWH) was a distinct entity and that Jesus (Yeshua) was doing works to honor his Father (YHWH). Once more it is explicitly shown that the Trinity doctrine is false and a messed up belief.

Sixth, Jesus (Yeshua) clearly said he could do nothing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father (YHWH) doing:

7 The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.
8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.
9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.
10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.
11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.
12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?
13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.
14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.
16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.
17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.
19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.
22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
23 That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. [John 5:19 AV]

Clearly, Jesus (Yeshua) is obedient to his Father (YHWH) a superior one and by being obedient brings honour to his Father (YHWH). Also, in this situation, Jesus (Yeshua) once more is shown to be the receivee and his Father the giver. This would be impossible under Trinitarian Theology as it maintains they are one Godhead so either the Bible is wrong or Trinitarian Theology is wrong. I am as a true follower of Jesus (Yeshau) taking the Bible, God's written word for our guidance, as correct; whereas, many wrongly take the false doctrine of the Trinity as correct. Now stand up and show whether you are for the Bible or for the Trinity.

Seventh, now the Bible explicitly shows the chain-of-command; from Almighty God (YHWH) on down as follows:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3 AV)

This scripture clearly shows that the 'head of Christ is God' so the Trinity is once more shown to be false and the Bible shown to be true.

As we can now all see we should stand up for the Bible and not the false doctrine of the Trinity.

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

4) http://religioustruthsbyiris89.free-forums.org/

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!

Admin · 10/05/2012 9:24 am

Digital Book On The Bibles Use Of Alpha and Omega – An Explanation

By Iris the Preacher

INTRODUCTION:

The Bible’s use of the terms Alpha and Omega at various places is one of the most misunderstood items in the Bible. This short digital book deals with each one of its usages in the Bible and attempts to clear up its meaning for all. Each separated segment/article deals with one specific occurrence in the Bible of Alpha and Omega and/or a subject bearing on this usage.

Discourse on Revelation 22:12-13:

INTRODUCTION:

Let’s first look at the two scriptures in several different Bible versions/translations:

“12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.� (Revelation 22:12-13 AV – Authorized King James Version)

“12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.� .� (Revelation 22:12-13 ASV – American Standard Version of 1901)

“12 Lo! I come speedily, and my reward is with me, to render unto each one as, his, work is.
13 I, am the A and the Z, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.� (Revelation 22:12-13 Rothrham)

BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA ON REVELATION 22:12-13:

The International Standard Encyclopedia of the Bible says:

ALPHA AND OMEGA

al'-fa, o'-me-ga, o-me'-ga (Alpha and Omega = A and O):

The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence, symbolically, "beginning and end"; in Revelation "The Eternal One" in Revelation 1:8 of the Father, in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 of the Son. Compare Theodoret, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8:

"We used alpha down to omega, i.e. all." A similar expression is found in Latin (Martial, v.26). Compare Aretas (Cramer's Catenae Graecae in New Testament) on Revelation 1:8 and Tertullian (Monog, 5): "So also two Greek letters, the first and last, did the Lord put on Himself, symbols of the beginning and the end meeting in Him, in order that just as alpha rolls on to omega and omega returns again to alpha, so He might show that both the evolution of the beginning to the end is in Him and again the return of the end to the beginning." Cyprian, Testim, ii.1; vi.22, iii.100, Paulinus of Nola Carm. xix.645; xxx.89; Prudentius, Cathem., ix.10-12. In Patristic and later literature the phrase is regularly applied to the Son. God blesses Israel from 'aleph to taw (Leviticus 26:3-13), but curses from waw to mem (Leviticus 26:14-43). So Abraham observed the whole law from 'aleph to taw. Consequently, "Alpha and Omega" may be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, which expressed among the later Jews the whole extent of a thing.

CONCLUSION:

In these two scriptures we are dealing with the symbolic meaning to the use of the first letter of the Koine Greek alphabet, Alpha, and the last letter, omega. As the International Bible Dictionary of the Bible states, it means the '‘beginning and end’ and shows how in Revelation 1:8 this phase is applied to the Father (YHWH) “6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.� (Revelation 1:6-8 AV). Here we note it says, “6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father� clearly here referring to two individuals, God the Father (YHWH), and his God the Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves) . The term Alpha and Omega in “8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.� Which is made clearer in the Rothrham Bible as “8 I, am, the A, and, the Z, saith the Lord,—the, God who Is, and who Was, and who is Coming, The Almighty.�
Clearly showing he has no beginning in keeping with “2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.� (Revelation 1:8 ASV), which is quite different from how this same phrase is later used at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 to apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) who had a beginning as shown by “ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;� (Revelation 3:14 AV); he was the first created thing with regard to all that was created.

To get a clear understanding of Revelation 22:13, we need to look at it in contest as follows:

“9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and sleepermongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.� (Revelation 22:9-16 AV)

We note that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) or one of his angels is quoted by the Apostle John as saying, “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.� [these being the Angels he was given authority over to carry out his assignment at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.]. Since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had a beginning as shown “ And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;� (Revelation 3:14 AV) and “15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;� (1 Colossians 1:15-19 AV). Clearly Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is separate individual from his Father (YHWH) as the scripture states, “. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;� which makes plain that his Father (YHWH) was pleased that “all fulness dwell� in his faithful Son. Also, the scripture brings out in what manner Alpha and Omega properly applies to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) when it states, “15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.� Where it shows that after his creation by his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) worked along with his Father in creating all of the remainder of creation in the entire universe. His, the Son’s Alpha and Omega symbolic application is further made clear in “17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.� Thus he is the Alpha in the sense he helped create all else except himself and the Omega as his Father (YHWH) has given him immortality for being faithful, and this is made certain by “. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.�

So here we see a faithful Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had been given authority over all by his Father (YHWH) with the “, it is manifest that he is excepted� exception of himself. This subjection to his Father (YHWH) is clearly shown by the faithful Son’s statements, “ Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.� (John 5:19 AV) and “ Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.� (John 14:28 AV).

Those denying that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is not the faithful only begotten Son of Almighty God (YHWH) and not God (YHWH) are thus clearly committing blasphemy.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

By a Jewish scholar on Revelation 1:8:

I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.

I decided to clarify this passage since so many forget what Yehoshua said in John 14:8-10. But first let’s look at another passage.

Revelation 1:1 The revelation of Yehoshua Moshiach, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,

In the beginning of the Book of Revelation we read that God gave Yehoshua Ha’Moshiach a Revelation which Yehoshua gave to John. So we understand that Yehoshua is giving and telling John what God told Yehoshua, to get a better understanding of this read John 12:49.

So why did Yehoshua say “I am the Alpha and Omega� ? Well let me ask you how do you know it was Yehoshua who said it and not The Father who said it through Yehoshua?

John 14:8-10 Philip said to him, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied. Yehoshua said to him, Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, `Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

I mad it in red where the Father speaks “through� the Son, and yet the Apostles would have thoughts Yehoshua said it if he wouldn’t tell them that The Father spoke “through� him, for the Father is in Yehoshua.

But look it says in Revelation 1:8 that “Lord God� said it. Oh yea? Well look in John where I made it in blue, it says “Yehoshua said� also, but yet the Father spoke “through� him. And how do you know Yehoshua was not repeating what The Father (The Only True God according to Yehoshua; John 17:3) told him to say?

What was said in Revelation 1:8 goes for everywhere else in the book of Revelation, the Father speaks through the Son, and the Son speaks for himself, it’s hard to understand what is going on in the book of Revelation since we were not there to see it for ourselves, and remember it was a vision.

Now since we are on this topic, let’s look at some other scriptures in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 3:2 Awake, and strengthen what remains and is on the point of death, for I have not found your works perfect in the sight of the God of me.

Some of you may be puzzled why it does not say what it says above in your English Bible, that is because the translators are scared of what it says in the Greek, look for yourself by clicking here.

Notice that Yehoshua says “the God of me� in Revelation 3:2, The True God does not have a True God, people wake up.

Revelation 3:12 He who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Yerusalem which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.

Here we see Yehoshua speak of his God four times while in heaven in his glorified body.

You think this is the first time Yehoshua talks about his God? If you do then let’s look at another scripture.

John 20:17 Yehoshua said to her, Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

Here we see Yehoshua tell us that his God is our God and his Father is our Father, also read Hebrews 2:11-13. I have seen many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshiach is God in flesh) say that Yehoshua said it because he was in the flesh. HELLO? What difference does it make if he said it in the flesh or in the spirit of if his flesh spoke by itself by some magical power or if his spirit spoke through the flesh? He said it, so OBEY IT!

Let’s look at what else Yehoshua said, and the reason I am going to give the two following scriptures is because Idolaters don’t have God and they will see death according to what Yehoshua and Apostle John said.

John 8:51 Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.

How many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshiach is God in flesh) keep what Yehoshua said in John 17:3 and in John 20:17?

2nd John 9-11 Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Moshiach does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son. If any one comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into the house or give him any greeting; for he who greets him shares his wicked work.

How many Idolaters (those who claim Ha’Moshaich is God in flesh) keep what Yehoshua said in John 17:3 and in John 20:17?

I hope we now understand how dangerous it is to twist scriptures and to claim what the scriptures do not teach.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DISCOURSE ON ISAIAH 44:6:

INTRODUCTION:

Isaiah 44:6 has been one of the scriptures that the preachers of false doctrines such as the Trinity, Mol dualism, and Oneness have twisted the most to try and show support for their none Biblical doctrines, but in reality it supports the Truth of the Bible and not the false reasonings and doctrines of men. But before seeing why this is so, let's look at the scripture in several different Bibles to get a better perspective of it before discussing it - Isaiah 44:6:

"And who, as I, can proclaim--let him declare it, and set it in order for Me--since I appointed the ancient people? And the things that are coming, and that shall come to pass, let them declare". [Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT]

"kh-`mr yhvh mlk-ysr`l vg`lv yhvh &b`vt `ny r`svn v`ny `xrvn vmbljdy `yn `lhym". [Hebrew Transliteration Bible][[so as to give all some feel for how it looks in Hebrew, but with English Characters]]

"Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God." [American Standard Version, ASV]

"Thus saith the Lord the king of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last, and besides me there is no God. " [Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB]

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God." [Authorized King James Bible; AV]

"Thus says the LORD, the King of Yisra'el, and his Redeemer, the LORD of Hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" [Hebrew Names Version of World English Bible]

"Thus said Jehovah, king of Israel, And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts: `I [am] the first, and I the last, And besides Me there is no God." [Youngs Literal Translation]

"Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I [am] the first, and I [am] the last, and beside me there is no God." [The Darby Translation]

"Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and besides me [there is] no God." [The Noah Webster Bible; NWB]

TRANSLATION COMPARISON:

Now that we have the opportunity to look at the translation constructs in various Bibles with respect Isaiah 44:6, let's start considering its significance and meaning. As can readily be seen from the Youngs Literal Translation, The Darby Translation, American Standard Version, and Jewish Publication Society 1917 OT [note, the Jews are strict monotheist and well know the 1 Commandment at Exodus 20:3 that would rule out any three-in-one god] clearly show that this scripture applies solely to God Almighty (YHWH). The Youngs Literal Translation clearly says, "And his Redeemer, Jehovah of Hosts," leaving no doubt that it is referring to God (YHWH) and not to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). However, some supporters of the Trinity claim the son is just a different manifestation of God (YHWH), but many scriptures show them as two distinct beings, such as, John 14:6, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me." (ASV); and John 14:28, "Ye have heard that I said to you, I go away, and come [again] to you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go to the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (NWB). In fact their false contention is actually is just a different manifestation of God (YHWH) is part of three false doctrines with the first being Modulism which many religious dictionaries state is, "The belief that God is a single entity who has appeared in different modes at different times. This is the same as "SABELLIANISM THEOLOGY-- God is three only in relation to the world, in so many "manifestations" or "modes." The unity and identity of God are such that the Son of God, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) did not exist before the incarnation; because the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) are thus one, the Father (YHWH) suffered with the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) in his passion and death.

AN ALL ANSWERING ARTICLE ON ISAIAH 44:6 - USED WITH PERMISSION:

In fact the Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA , has already dealt with this question in an answer to one of these believers in false doctrine. Their answer is as follows, "We have shown that Jesus is a created being (See Did Jesus Have a Beginning?), thus the question has arisen concerning the various uses of the scripture regarding alpha and omega, as this title, as well as some others, seem to be applied to both.

In Isaiah 41:4; 44:6; 48:12 we find the expression "first and last" used of Yahweh. From Isaiah 44:6,7 this expression, "first and last" appears to mean that which is begun is carried through to completion, something which the false gods of the heathen cannot do. However, most of our trinitarian and oneness neighbors appear to read into this expression 'from eternity past to the eternal future,' although there is nothing in the scritpures to warrant this meaning.

In the last book of the Bible, we again find this expression "first and last". At least twice it is applied to Jesus in Revelation 1:17 and Revelation 2:8.Thus our trinitarian and oneness neighbors would have us accept this as proof that Jesus is Yahweh, since the phrase is applied to both Yahweh and Jesus. The phrase appears also in Revelation 22:13, where Yahweh applies it to himself.

Another similar phrase found in Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 is "beginning and the end". These scriptures apply to Yahweh; thus this phrase is not applied to Jesus . Still another phrase used in the book of Revelation is "alpha and omega." We find this phrase in Revelation 1:8; 21:6; 22:13 -- all three of which refer to Yahweh. This phrase is therefore not used of Jesus.

Let us go into more detail to support the above applications of these terms. Looking at Revelation 1:1, we note that the Revelation is from God who gave it to Jesus. (This should be enough to prove that Jesus is not God.) The message is delivered through an angel to John. In Revelation 1:4 John says the message is from the Father, Yahweh, who is and who was and who is to come. Then in verse 5, John says: "and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood." Thus John identifies two individuals which the messages are from, the Father, Yahweh, and Jesus, God's Son. Then in verse 8 we find the quote: "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End', says the Lord God, 'the being who was and who is to come -- the Almighty.'"
"The Lord" in this verse is Yahweh, not Jesus, as shown from Revelation 1:4. The phrase "Lord God" is based on the later Septuagint usage of substituting Kurios for Yahweh. The Hebrew phrase is Yahweh Elohim. The later Septuagint has substituted Yahweh with Kurios [Lord] and Elohim with Theos [God]. This can be seen by comparing Acts 3:22; 7:37 with the Hebrew of Deuteronomy 18:15. In all instances where the phrase occurs in the NT, it is in reference to Yahweh, the Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Luke 1:32; 1 Peter 3:10-15; Revelation 11:17,19; 15:3; 16:7; 18:8; 21:11; 22:6. See Divine Name .

Likewise, with the phrases "the Lord our God" and "the Lord your God". These phrases are always used in reference to Yahweh, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus. -- Matthew 4:7 (Deuteronomy 6:16); Matthew 4:10 (Deuteronomy 6:13; 10:20); Matthew 22:37 (Deuteronomy 6:5); Mark 12:29 (Deuteronomy 6:4); etc.
However, many of the Christian translators in the past must have thought that this was Yahweh speaking, for in their translations into Hebrew, they inserted the tetragrammaton into this verse. The following are some Hebrew translations that contain the tetragrammaton in Revelation 1:8: NT, by W. Robertson, 1661; NT, by J. C. Reichardt, 1846; NT, by J. C. Reichardt & J. H. R. Biesenthal, 1866; NT, by F. Delitzsch, 1981 edition; NT, by I. Salkinson & C. D. Ginsburg, 1891.

The fact that the NT copies we have give a substitute for God's name does not take away the fact that it is Yahweh, not his Son Jesus, who is speaking in Revelation 1:8. In verses 9 and 10 John refers to himself when he heard a loud voice, as of a trumpet, (verse 11) saying, "Write what you see... This quote is from Jesus, not Yahweh, as described in the following verses. In verse 18 Jesus says: "I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore." Jesus was actually dead and not alive anywhere, if this is to make any sense at all, for he contrasts his being dead with being alive forevermore. Now we know that God cannot die, so Jesus is thus by this verse proved to not be God Almighty.

Many translations have the words added in verse 11, before the word "Write": "I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last." However, this sentence does not appear in the oldest Greek manuscripts and therefore does not appear in many Bible translations, and thus we do not include them as part of our discussion.
Revelation 22:12-16: "See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone's work. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. "It is I, Jesus, who sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star."

The angel delivering the message recorded Revelation 22:13 is quoting Yahweh, the Father of Jesus, who comes to judge the world, not only with and by means of Jesus, but also the saints. -- Malachi 3:1-6; Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Daniel 7:18,22; Isaiah 40:10,11; Micah 1:3; Zechariah 14:5; Acts 17:31; 2 Peter 3:7,8; 1 Corinthians 6:2; Psalm 90:4; Revelaton 1:1; 20:4,11-13; 22:6.

Earlier, John says that the angel spoke these words, which he states are from Yahweh. (verse 6) In verse 7 the angel is evidently quoting Jesus. In verse 8 John is the one speaking, and the angel rebukes him in verse 9. In verse 10 John begins to quote the angel again, but in verse 12, the angel is delivering the words of Yahweh (see verse 6) -- it is evident that the angel is not referring to himself. Verses 14 and 15 could be either Jesus or the angel speaking. In verse 16, it is evident that the angel is quoting Jesus, and then in verse 17 the angel is prophetically quoting the spirit and the bride. In verses 18-19, the angel is again speaking (although he could be quoting Jesus), but in verse 20 he quotes Jesus, while the last part of verse 20 and all of verse 21 is John himself speaking.

But let us assume that Jesus is the one speaking in Revelation 22:12,13, as many have claimed. All this would mean is that these titles or phrases applied to Yahweh are also applied to Jesus. Does this mean that Jesus is Yahweh, the God who is identified also as the Father and God of Jesus? Absolutely not!
First we note that none of the passages say that the Father is the Son, or even that the Son equals the Father. Nor do any of these passages directly say anything about the non-creation of either the Father or the Son.
One must admit that just because the same title is applied to individuals, this does not make these two individuals one individual. Else every ruler who has ever used the title "king" would have to be the same individual as every other ruler who has used the title "king." Each ruler who uses this title, however, uses it with respect to his peculiar realm of domain and time. Thus just because the same titles are given to both the Father and the Son does not mean they are the same being.
That Jesus has not always existed throughout eternity can be seen from our earlier discussion, "Did Jesus Have a Beginning?". Thus these titles applied to him must not mean that he existed throughout eternity.
Nor can they refer especially to the Father's being from eternity (which, as a matter of fact, he is), since that would be incompatible with their being used of the Son, who is not from eternity.

Likewise, we have shown elsewhere that the word "beginning" does not mean eternity, but rather a point when something begins, or a person or thing at the start of something. Additionally the word "first" does not mean eternity but a person or thing at the start of something. Similarly can be said concerning the words "last" and "end": neither of these denote eternity, but rather, just as it says, the last or end of something. The Alpha and Omega symbolism only emphasizes the same thing, since Alpha is the first or start of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last or end of the Greek alphabet.

How, then, do these terms apply to both the Father and the Son within the domain of each? We have already pointed out that these expressions seem to carry the thought of that which is begun is carried through to completion: Isaiah 44:6,7. This would apply both to Yahweh as originator of his divine plan and the one who designed it from beginning to the completed end, and to the Son as the one who carries out the divine plan by means of his death, resurrection and the coming day of judgment. Some have noted that Jesus is the first human to be raised to life without end by Yahweh his Father, thus he is called the "firstborn of the dead". (Colossians 1:18) He is also the last to be so resurrected since all others who eventually receive such a resurrection will be through Jesus, not by Yahweh directly. (John 5:21,22; 6:39,44; 11:25) Thus there appears to be a connection between his statements that he became dead was now alive forever and ever. His holding the keys of death and Hades (Revelation 1:18) shows the authority given to him by his God of releasing all who are in death and hades. -- John 5:27-29 (New American Standard); Revelation 20:11-13
However, there is also another application that could be meant. Each -- both Jesus and Yahweh -- is the first and the last of his peculiar kind: Yahweh is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last one to be increate, that is, never to have been created. No one was before Yahweh in this sense and no one will be after him in this sense. The Son is the first and the last of his peculiar kind, in that he is the first and the last to have been directly created by God, all other creatures having been indirectly created by God, that is, through the agency of the Logos. Thus the Father and the Son are both unique -- which is the meaning of these three expressions -- but each of them is unique in a different sense: The Father is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being never created; the Son is unique in that he is the only -- the first and the last -- being ever directly created by Yahweh without the assistance of an agent, which creative assistance by the Logos occurred in the case of all the rest of creation -- the Logos himself being excepted. (John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 15:27; See Question: John 1:1) Thus Yahweh is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of increation -- the only being who never was created. The Logos is the first and the last, the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end of God's direct creation. These terms used with reference to the Son are equivalent to his being called: "the only begotten of the Father." (John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; 1 John 4:9) Their use with reference to the Father implies that he is from eternity, though not directly teaching it, the direct teaching being his uniqueness in that he never was created or begotten, as was the Son.

Answers to Objections
Some have replied that there can only be one first and last, although their reasons for saying this are vague, to say the least. It seems they wish demand a restricted application of the term so that it could only apply to God Almighty. It is true that there can only be on who is first and last as God Almighty. But we have no reason to restrict the term in application to God Almighty, except to satisfy the whims of those who wish to use it thus to prove that Jesus is Yahweh, which, in effect, would make the whole argument circular, that is, 'we believe that Jesus is Yahweh, thus we believe that the expression first and last must be used in application to God Almighty only, and thus this proves that Jesus is Yahweh.'

We have already shown above that there can be more than one first and last, depending on what is being spoken of and its application. We can also provide the following illustrations: Suppose Brother A goes to a Bible study in SW Philadelphia, and Brother B goes to a Bible study in South Philadelphia. Brother A is the first arrive at the Bible study and SW Philadelphia, and Brother B is the first to arrive at the study in South Philadelphia. Likewise Brother A is the last one to leave the study in SW. Philadelphia, and Brother B. is the last to leave the study in South Philadelphia. You have two who are first and two who are last. Additionally the first and the last line of one book is not the same as the first and last line of another book. Likewise, both Yahweh and Jesus are first and last in their respective applications of that term. Regardless, our trinitarian neighbors will have to agree that there are two persons who are referred to as 'first and last', both God the Father and His Son." [This document is presented by Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA 19142. Permission is given to duplicate this document in its entirety, including this statement, for not-for-profit usage in Bible studies and general distribution.]

It is not our object in this list of scriptures to refute all the arguments used by many who try to prove that Jesus is Yahweh. We simply present some of the scriptures that most definitely show that the Father is Yahweh and that Jesus is not Yahweh [his Father]:

Jesus was sent by Yahweh, speaks for Yahweh, represents Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh [who is the Father] whom he represents and speaks for.
Deuteronomy 18:15-19; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1
Jesus receives his inheritance and dominion (power) from Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh [the Father] who gives him this dominion.

Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; Hebrews 1:2,6.
Jesus is son of the Most High Yahweh. He is not the Most High Yahweh.
Genesis 14:22; Psalm 7:17; 83:18; 92:1; Luke 1:32; John 13:16.
Jesus is anointed [made christ, the anointed one] by Yahweh. He is not Yahweh who thus anoints him.
Psalm 2:2; 45:7; Isaiah 61:1; Acts 2:36.
Yahweh speaks to Jesus. Jesus is not Yahweh who speaks to him.
Psalm 2:7,8; 110:1; Matthew 22:41-45.
Jesus is the servant of Yahweh; he is not Yahweh whom he serves.
Isaiah 42:1; 53:11; Matthew 12:18; John 13:16; Acts 4:27,30
Jesus is given the power of life in himself from Yahweh. Jesus is not Yahweh who gives him this power.
1 Samuel 2:6; Psalm 36:9; John 5:21,25-29.
Yahweh [the Father] is the only Most High. Jesus is not the Most High Yahweh who is his Father.
Deuteronomy 4:35,39; Psalm 2:7; 83:18; Luke 1:32; John 10:29; 17:1,3; Hebrews 1:5; Revelation 5:7
Yahweh appoints and gives Jesus authority as judge and to judge in his [Yahweh's] stead. Jesus is not Yahweh who gives this authority to him.
Isaiah 11:1-4; 42:1; John 5:22,23,27-30; Acts 17:31.
Jesus is never described as the father of Jesus, and Yahweh is never described as the son of Yahweh. The term "everlasting father" refers to Jesus' role toward mankind that he purchased, and of whom he has become father as the second or "last Adam." (Romans 5:15-19; 1 Corinthians 15:21,22,45,47; Psalm 45:16). Jesus came in the name of Yahweh his Father. (Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Matthew 23:39; Mark 11:9,10; Luke 13:35; John 3:2,17; 5:19,43; 6:57; 7:16,28; 8:26,28,38; 10:25; 12:49,50; 14:10; 15:15; 17:8,26; Hebrews 1:1,2; Revelation 1:1) Yahweh never came in the name of any other than himself, thus since there is none higher, he swore by himself. -- Hebrews 6:13
Jesus' role as Mighty EL refers to the power and authority given to him by the Mighty EL that is mightier than he, the only true Supreme Being, Yahweh. -- Psalm 2:2,7,8; 110:1,2; Isaiah 9:6,7; 61:1; Luke 1:32; Jeremiah 23:5; Daniel 7:13,14; John 17:1,3; Acts 2:36; Hebrews 1:2,6.
No scripture says that Jesus was God Almighty in the flesh, although possessing the mighty power of Yahweh as did Moses, he could be referred to as God (ELOHIM, THEOS) in a manner similar to Moses. (Exodus 7:1; Deuteronomy 18:15,18; Acts 3:18-22) Neither in the case of Moses nor Jesus does this make either of them into God Almighty who gives them their power and authority.
[This document is presented by Restoration Light Bible Study Services, P.O. Box 2360, Philadelphia, PA 19142. Permission is given to duplicate this document in its entirety, including this statement, for not-for-profit usage in Bible studies and general distribution.][[Special note, Much of Restoration Light Bible Study Service for this article came from, Paul S. L. Johnson's book, Creation, pages 51-53. Now a brief Background of Paul S. L. Johnson: Paul S. L. Johnson graduated from from Capital University in Columbus, OH on May 25, 1898. He won the valedictory and also the highest honors ever given in the history of that university. He also graduated from the Theological Seminary of the Ohio Synod of the Lutheran Church. He was thoroughly educated in both Hebrew and Greek; this gave him the skills necessary to understand the Bible from the original languages. He had been taught in the seminary the doctrine of eternal torture of those not saved; through his studies of the Bible itself he came to understand that a God of perfect, wisdom, justice, power and love, would not, could not, punish his enemies with such a punishment as eternal roasting. He also came to see the Hebraic viewpoint of God, as opposed to the trinitarian or oneness views.]][[[Restoration's article was used as no reason to go to Johnson's works and re-invent the wheel]]]

COMMENTARIES ON ISAIAH 44:6 BY RENOWN SCHOLARS:

By Theodore Beza:

44:6 Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; f I [am] the first, and I [am] the last; and besides me [there is] no God.

(f) I am always like myself, that is, merciful toward my Church, and most able to maintain it, as in (Isaiah 41:4,48:12; Revelation 1:17,22:13). [Beza, Theodore. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "The 1599 Geneva Study Bible", 1600-1645.]

By A.R. Faussett, A.M.:.

6. Here follows an argument for Jehovah, as the only God, and against the idols, as vanity [Fausset, A. R., A.M. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible", 1871]
By Matthew Henry:

Chapter 44
God, by the prophet, goes on in this chapter, as before, I. To encourage his people with the assurance of great blessings he had in store for them at their return out of captivity, and those typical of much greater which the gospel church, his spiritual Israel, should partake of in the days of the Messiah; and hereby he proves himself to be God alone against all pretenders (v. 1-8). II. To expose the sottishness and amazing folly of idol-makers and idol-worshippers (v. 9-20). III. To ratify and confirm the assurances he had given to his people of those great blessings, and to raise their joyful and believing expectations of them (v. 21-28).

Verses 1-8 Two great truths are abundantly made out in these verses:- I. That the people of God are a happy people, especially upon account of the covenant that is between them and God. The people of Israel were so as a figure of the gospel Israel. Three things complete their happiness:- 1. The covenant-relations wherein they stand to God, v. 1, 2. Israel is here called Jeshurun-the upright one; for those only, like Nathanael, are Israelites indeed, in whom is no guile, and those only shall have the everlasting benefit of these promises. Jacob and Israel had been represented, in the close of the foregoing chapter, as very provoking and obnoxious to God's wrath, and already given to the curse and to reproaches; but, as if God's bowels yearned towards him and his repentings were kindled together, mercy steps in with a non-obstante-notwithstanding, to all these quarrels: "Yet now, hear, O Jacob my servant! thou and I will be friends again for all this.'' God had said (ch. 43:25), I am he that blotteth out thy transgression, which is the only thing that creates this distance; and when that is taken away the streams of mercy run again in their former channel. The pardon of sin is the inlet of all the other blessings of the covenant. So and so I will do for them, says God (Heb. 8:12), for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. Therefore hear, O Jacob! hear these comfortable words; therefore fear not, O Jacob! fear not thy troubles, for by the pardon of sin the property of them too is altered. Now the relations wherein they stand to him are very encouraging. (1.) They are his servants; and those that serve him he will own and stand by and see that they be not wronged. (2.) They are his chosen, and he will abide by his choice; he knows those that are his, and those whom he has chosen he takes under special protection. (3.) They are his creatures. He made them, and brought them into being; he formed them, and cast them into shape; he began betimes with them, for he formed them from the womb; and therefore he will help them over their difficulties and help them in their services. 2. The covenant-blessings which he has secured to them and theirs, v. 3, 4. (1.) Those that are sensible of their spiritual wants, and the insufficiency of the creature to supply them, shall have abundant satisfaction in God: I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, that thirsts after righteousness; he shall be filled. Water shall be poured out to those who truly desire spiritual blessings above all the delights of sense. (2.) Those that are barren as the dry ground shall be watered with the grace of God, with floods of that grace, and God will himself give the increase. If the ground be ever so dry, God has floods of grace to water it with. (3.) The water God will pour out is his Spirit (Jn. 7:39), which God will pour out without measure upon the seed, that is, Christ (Gal. 3:16), and by measure upon all the seed of the faithful, upon all the praying wrestling seed of Jacob, Lu. 11:13. This is the great New-Testament promise, that God, having sent his servant Christ, and upheld him, will send his Spirit to uphold us. (4.) This gift of the Holy Ghost is the great blessing God had reserved the plentiful effusion of for the latter days: I will pour my Spirit, that is, my blessing; for where God gives his Spirit he will give all other blessings. (5.) This is reserved for the seed and offspring of the church; for so the covenant of grace runs: I will be a God to thee and to thy seed. To all who are thus made to partake of the privileges of adoption God will give the spirit of adoption. (6.) Hereby there shall be a great increase of the church. Thus it shall be spread to distant places. Thus it shall be propagated and perpetuated to after-times: They shall spring up and grow as fast as willows by the watercourses, and in every thing that is virtuous and praiseworthy shall be eminent and excel all about them, as the willows overtop the grass among which they grow, v. 4. Note, It is a great happiness to the church, and a great pleasure to good men, to see the rising generation hopeful and promising. And it will be so if God pour his Spirit upon them, that blessing, that blessing of blessings. 3. The consent they cheerfully give to their part of the covenant, v. 5. When the Jews returned out of captivity they renewed their covenant with God (Jer. 50:5), particularly that they would have no more to do with idols, Hos. 14:2, 3, 8. Backsliders must thus repent and do their first works. Many of those that were without did at that time join themselves to them, invited by that glorious appearance of God for them, Zec. 8:23; Esth. 8:17. And they say, We are the Lord's and call themselves by the name of Jacob; for there was one law, one covenant, for the stranger and for those that were born in the land. And doubtless it looks further yet, to the conversion of the Gentiles, and the multitudes of them who, upon the effusion of the Spirit, after Christ's ascension, should be joined to the Lord and added to the church. These converts are one and another, very many, of different ranks and nations, and all welcome to God, Col. 3:11. When one does it another shall by his example be invited to do it, and then another; thus the zeal of one may provoke many. (1.) They shall resign themselves to God: not one in the name of the rest, but every one for himself shall say, "I am the Lord's; he has an incontestable right to rule me, and I submit to him, to all his commands, to all his disposal. I am, and will be, his only, his wholly, his for ever, will be for his interests, will be for his praise; living and dying I will be his.'' (2.) They shall incorporate themselves with the people of God, call themselves by the name of Jacob, forgetting their own people and their fathers' house, and desirous to wear the character and livery of God's family. They shall love all God's people, shall associate with them, give them the right hand of fellowship, espouse their cause, seek the good of the church in general and of all the particular members of it, and be willing to take their lot with them in all conditions. (3.) They shall do this very solemnly. Some of them shall subscribe with their hand unto the Lord, as, for the confirming of a bargain, a man sets his hand to it, and delivers it as his act and deed. The more express we are in our covenanting with God the better, Ex. 24:7; Jos. 24:26, 27; Neh. 9:38. Fast bind, fast find. II. That, as the Israel of God are a happy people, so the God of Israel is a great God, and he is God alone. This also, as the former, speaks abundant satisfaction to all that trust in him, v. 6-8. Observe here, to God's glory and our comfort, 1. That the God we trust in is a God of incontestable sovereignty and irresistible power. He is the Lord, Jehovah, self-existent and self-sufficient; and he is the Lord of hosts, of all the hosts of heaven and earth, of angels and men. 2. That he stands in relation to, and has a particular concern for, his church. He is the King of Israel and his Redeemer; therefore his Redeemer because his King; and those that take God for their King shall have him for their Redeemer. When God would assert himself God alone he proclaims himself Israel's God, that his people may be encouraged both to adhere to him and to triumph in him. 3. That he is eternal- the first and the last. He is God from everlasting, before the worlds were, and will be so to everlasting, when the world shall be no more. If there were not a God to create, nothing would ever have been; and, if there were not a God to uphold, all would soon come to nothing again. He is all in all, is the first cause, from whom are all things, and the last end, to and for whom are all things (Rom. 11:36), the Alpha and the Omega, Rev. 1:11. 4. That he is God alone (v. 6): Besides me there is no God. Is there a God besides me? v. 8. We will appeal to the greatest scholars. Did they ever in all their reading meet with any other? To those that have had the largest acquaintance with the world. Did they ever meet with any other? There are gods many (1 Co. 8:5, 6), called gods, and counterfeit gods: but is there any besides our God that is infinite and eternal, any besides him that is the creator of the world and the protector and benefactor of the whole creation, any besides him that can do that for their worshippers which he can and will do for his? "You are my witnesses. I have been a nonsuch to you. You have tried other gods; have you found any of them all-sufficient to you, or any of them like me? Yea, there is no god,'' no rock (so the word is), none besides Jehovah that can be a rock for a foundation to build on, a rock for shelter to flee to. God is the rock, and their rock is not as ours, Deu. 32:4, 31. I know not any; as if he had said, "I never met with any that offered to stand in competition with me, or that durst bring their pretensions to a fair trial; if I did know of any that could befriend you better than I can, I would recommend you to them; but I know not any.'' There is no God besides Jehovah. He is infinite, and therefore there can be no other; he is all-sufficient, and therefore there needs no other. This is designed for the confirming of the hopes of God's people in the promise of their deliverance out of Babylon, and, in order to that, for the curing of them of their idolatry; when the affliction had done its work it should be removed. They are reminded of the first and great article of their creed, that the Lord their God is one Lord, Deu. 6:4. And therefore, (1.) They needed not to hope in any other god. Those on whom the sun shines need neither moon nor stars, nor the light of their own fire. (2.) They needed not to fear any other god. Their own God was more able to do them good than all the false and counterfeit gods of their enemies were to do them hurt. 5. That none besides could foretel these things to come, which God now by his prophet gave notice of to the world, above 200 years before they came to pass (v. 7): "Who, as I, shall call, shall call Cyrus to Babylon? Is there any but God that can call effectually, and has every creature, every heart, at his beck? Who shall declare it, how it shall be, and by whom, as I do?'' Nay, God goes further; he not only sees it in order, as having the foreknowledge of it, but sets it in order, as having the sole management and direction of it. Can any other pretend to this? He has always set things in order according to the counsel of his own will, ever since he appointed the ancient people, the people of Israel, who could give a truer and fuller account of the antiquities of their own nation than any other kingdom in the world could give of theirs. Ever since he appointed that people to be his peculiar people his providence was particularly conversant about them, and he told them beforehand the events that should occur respecting them-their bondage in Egypt, their deliverance from it, and their settlement in Canaan. All was set in order in the divine predictions as well as in the divine purposes. Could any other have done so? Would any other have been so far concerned for them? He challenges the pretenders to show the things that shall come hereafter: "Let them, if they can, tell us the name of the man that shall destroy Babylon ad deliver Israel? Nay, if they cannot pretend to tell us the things that shall come hereafter, let them tell us the things that are coming, that are nigh at hand and at the door. Let them tell us what shall come to pass to-morrow; but they cannot do that; fear them not therefore, nor be afraid of them. What harm can they do you? What hindrance can they give to your deliverance, when I have told thee it shall be accomplished in its season, and I have solemnly declared it?'' Note, Those who have the word of God's promise to depend upon need not be afraid of any adverse powers or policies whatsoever. [Henry, Matthew. "Commentary on Isaiah 44". "Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole," 1706]

By Reverand R.A. Torrey:

Torrey's Topical Textbook under God

None beside him Deuteronomy 4:35; Isaiah 44:6. [Torrey, R.A., Reverand. "Entry for 'God'". "The New Topical Text Book", 1897]

Easton's Bible Dictionary by M.G. Easton, M.A., D.D."

God [N] [T] [b] [s]
(A.S. and Dutch God; Dan. Gud; Ger. Gott), the name of the Divine Being. It is the rendering (1) of the Hebrew 'El , from a word meaning to be strong; (2) of 'Eloah_, plural _'Elohim . The singular form, Eloah , is used only in poetry. The plural form is more commonly used in all parts of the Bible, The Hebrew word Jehovah (q.v.), the only other word generally employed to denote the Supreme Being, is uniformly rendered in the Authorized Version by "LORD," printed in small capitals. The existence of God is taken for granted in the Bible. There is nowhere any argument to prove it. He who disbelieves this truth is spoken of as one devoid of understanding (Psalms 14:1).

The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of the being of God are:
? The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason.
? The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are,
(a) The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause.
(b) The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature.
(c) The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth."
The attributes of God are set forth in order by Moses in Exodus 34:6,7. (see also Deuteronomy 6:4; 10:17; Numbers 16:22; Exodus 15:11; 33:19; Isaiah 44:6; Habakkuk 3:6; Psalms 102:26; Job 34:12.) They are also systematically classified in Revelation 5:12 and 7:12. [M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Third Edition, 1897.]

CONCLUSION:

As can readily be seen from the foregoing, Isaiah 44:6 applies to God (YHWH) alone and not to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) who acts as his agent and has after his assertion been given authority over all except his Father (YHWH) as clearly testified to at 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV). Especially note verse 27, "For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. " which clearly shows the Father (YHWH) and the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) as two distinct beings, with one being subject to the other; hence no co-equality. Therefore, no Trinity, Duality, or Modulism; ther are thus proved to be false doctrines of men

in keeping with 2 Corinthians 4:4, "in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn [upon them]." (ASV)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called: I am he; I am the first, I also am the last. [Authorized King James Bible, AV]

With regard this scripture when viewed in contest is clearly the words of Almighty God (YHWH) as recorded by the prophet Isaiah about 732 B.C.E. The first part of Isaiah the 48 chapter before this scripture deals with how the people of Israel were NOT walking is the ways of God (YHWH) and this is made clear at Isaiah 48:8-11, "Yea, thou heardest not; yea thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened; for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. 9 For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. 10 Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction. 11 For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it; for how should my name be polluted? And I will not give my glory unto another." (AV). The last part, "I will not give my glory unto another" referring to the First Commandment, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (AV).

Now let's consider the scriptures immediately after Isaiah 48:12 as they constitute part of a prophecy about Almighty God's (YHWH's) Son, Jesus (Yeshua) in which the Father (YHWH) where he has called or instructed his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) do his pleasure and stated that he will make his way prosperous clearly showing he, the Father is the supreme one who gives assignments to his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). The scripture at Isaiah 48:13-16, "Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together. 14 All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Challdeans. 15 I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him; I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous. 16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; am I: and now the Lord God and his Spirit, hath sent me." (AV). Here in prophecy, Jesus (Yeshua) testifying that, "the Lord God and his Spirit, hath sent me." Clearly showing that his Father, Lord God (YHWH), would send him on missions.

In fact, after creating him, his Father (YHWH) used him to create all else at his directions with Almighty God serving as the master planner of all. This is shown at Colossians 1:16-19, "For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" (AV), and the Bible reaffirms the Father (YHWH) was pleased to let "in him should all fullness dwell." In 1 Corinthians 15:22-28, "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all." (AV), testifies that God (YHWH) had given his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) over all except himself when the scripture says "it is manifest that he is excepted." Thus these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) are two separate beings; one having always existed and having created the other as his only begotten Son.

See Part 2

Admin · 10/05/2012 9:25 am

Part 2

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Isaiah 41:4 Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, am the first, and with the last, I am He." [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP].

Some think this applies to Jesus (Yeshua), but it does not, it applies to his Father (YHWH) as clearly shown at Isaiah 44:6-8, 'Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. 7 And who, as I, shall call, and shall declare it, and set it in order for me, since I appointed the ancient people? and the things that are coming, and shall come, let them shew unto them. 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.." (AV); and at Isaiah 46:9-10, "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: "; and Isaiah 43:10-11, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." (AV); and many others.

But Isaiah 48:17-18, "Thus saith the LORD, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; I am the LORD thy God which teacheth thee to profit, which leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go. 18 O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea:" (AV) clearly shows the Title, "Lord," being applied to Almighty God (YHWH). This is reaffirmed at Revelation 11:17, "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.",(AV), yet there are those who attempt to twist the scriptures to serve the god of this system or world, and use scriptures such as Revelation 1:11, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (AV) , but fail to notice the critical difference "the first and the last" which rather than implying that Jesus (Yeshua) is Almighty God (YHWH) clearly show his as the first of Creation as does Revelation 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (AV); Clearly they do not recognize the difference between "beginning and the ending" and "the first and the last."

Actually a lot of this confusion results from poor translation as clearly shown by the rendering of Revelation 1:11 in the New American Standard Bible-reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP, "Saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches; To Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyater and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodices." (NASB-MP); similar renderings are found in the American Standard Bible (ASB); the New World Translation (NWT); The Emphatic Dialogue; New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); the Westcott-Hort (1948 Reprint), and many more. Of particular interest is the rendering in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, the following, "Saying: What thou seest, write in a book and send to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamus and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.".

However, be not mislead by the trickery of men, but know this Psalms 83:18 says, "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (AV). And the difference is drawn out at Acts 5:24-26, "Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned." (AV), where it clearly says, Acts 4:26, "The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord, and against His Christ." (NASB-MP). Clearly showing here "Lord" applied to Almighty God (YHWH) and distinguishing him from his son the Christ, Jesus (Yeshua) as it showed them against both as distinct beings and not as one and the same.

So we can clearly see those being mislead by the god of this system, see 2 Corinthians 4:4, "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (AV), are liars like their leader as shown at John 8:44. They twist scripture and/or use poor translations to try and support their idolatry, instead of trying to understand the plain Truth of the Bible.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 'Textual Mechanics' of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments
By Robert A. Kraft (University of Pennsylvania)

[Most recently modified 11 July 2001]
[This is a greatly expanded and revised form of a paper first delivered in May 1998 (Hampton Court, Herefordshire England) to the conference on "The Bible as Book: The Transmission of the Greek Text" sponsored by the Van Kampen Foundation and The Scriptorium: Center for Christian Antiquities. A shorter form of the revised essay is scheduled to appear in the volume being prepared from that conference.]
[The images of MSS provided here are secondary and provisional in nature, mostly drawn from the referenced publications, and intended to help illustrate various aspects of the subject under examination. For a quick list of the fragments reviewed here (and others),
see Early Papyri and MSS for LXX/OG Study.
The following images are linked below [listed here for convenience; other links to be added]:
01. Qumran cave 4 LXXDeut 11 (2nd bce, parchment roll)
02. PRyl458 of Deut (2nd bce, papyrus roll),
03. Qumran cave7 Exod 28 (2nd/1st bce, papyrus roll),
04. Qumran cave4 Lev\a (2nd/1st bce, parchment roll),
05. Qumran cave7 EpJer (2nd/1st bce, papyrus roll),
05+. Qumran cave 7 frg 5 (unidentified controversial "Mark" frg, papyrus roll),
05+. Qumran cave7 frg 8 (unidentified),
06. PFouad266a [942] Gen (1st bce, papyrus roll),
07. Qumran cave4 Lev\b (1st bce, papyrus roll; tetragrammaton = IAW),
08. PFouad266b [848] Deut (1st bce, papyrus roll; Hebrew/Aramaic tetragrammaton),
09. PFouad266c [847] Deut (late 1st bce, papyrus roll),
10. Qumran cave4 paraphrase of Exod(?) (late 1st bce, papyrus roll),
11. Qumran cave4 unidentified Greek (late 1st bce, parchment roll),
12. Qumran cave4 Num 3-4 (turn of the era, parchment roll),
13. Nahal Hever Minor Prophets (hand A), with example of paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton and hand B (turn of the era, parchment roll),
14. POxy3522 of Job 42 (1st ce, papyrus roll; paleo-Hebrew tetragrammaton), see also the black and white image,
15. POxy4443 of Esther (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll), see also the black and white image,
16. PFouad 203 prayer/amulet? [no image yet]
17. PYale1 of Gen 14, recto, and verso (2nd ce, papyrus codex; number 318 abbreviated),
18. PBodl5 of Pss 48-49 (2nd ce, parchment codex),
19. POxy656 of Gen (2nd/3rd ce, papyrus codex, problematic tetragrammaton),
20. POxy1007 of Gen (3rd ce, parchment codex),
21. POxy1166 of Gen 16 (3rd ce, papyrus roll),
22. PBerlin 17213 of Gen (3rd ce) [no image yet]
23. POxy1075 of Exod (3rd ce, papyrus roll; end of book),
24. Cairo ostrakon 215 of Judith (late 3rd ce) [no image yet]
25. PLitLond 202 of Gen (3rd/4th ce, papyrus codex) [no image yet]
26. PWien Rainer 18 of Pss (3rd/4th ce, parchment roll; Symmachus?) [no image yet]
27. PAlex 203 of Isa 48 (3rd/4th ce, papyrus roll?),
28. PHarris 31 of Ps 43 (3rd/4th ce, papyrus roll/amulet?),
29. POxy1225 of Lev 16 (early 4th ce, papyrus roll),
30. PLitLond 211 of Dan 1 Theodotion (early 4th ce, vellum roll) [no image yet]

[[under construction (additions from July 2001)]]
add 31. Goettingen # 967 Ezekiel-Daniel-Esther (about 200 ce, papyrus codex); ending of Daniel/Susanna, with subscriptio (PKoeln Theol 37v, p.196)
add 32. POxy4442 Exodus [first side] (early 3rd ce, papyrus codex); [other side]
add 33. PVindobGr 29828+29456 Jannes and Jambres (early 3rd ce, papyrus roll [reused], nomina sacra uncontracted) [vh1068]
add 34. PMich 4925 Jannes and Jambres (early 3rd ce, papyrus roll [reused]) [BASP 16 (1979) 114]
add 35. PChBeat 16 Jannes and Jambres (4th ce, papyrus codex, odd nomina sacra) [Pietersma]
add 36. POxy1173+1356+1207+2158+ Philo (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [vh696]
add 37. PAntin 8 Prov-Wisd-Eccl (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#928 = vh254]
add 38. PAntin 9 Prov (3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#987 = vh252]
add 39. Freer Minor Prophets (late 3rd ce, papyrus codex) [vh284];
add 40. Berlin Genesis (late 3rd ce, papyrus codex) [#911 = vh004];
add 41. PLond Christ 5 (3-5th ce, liturgical codex) [vh921],
add 42. POxy2745 Hebrew onomasticon (3/4th ce, papyrus roll) [vh1158]
add 43. POxy2068 (4th ce, papyrus liturgical roll) [vh966]
add 44. PAntin 10 Ezek (4th ce, papyrus codex) [#988 = vh316]
add 45. PSorbonne 2250 Jer 17f & 46 (late 4th ce, papyrus codex; aberrent text) [#817 = vh308];
add 46. PRanier 4.5 Psalm 9 (5th ce, papyrus amulet?) [#2086 = vh105].
add 47. PBerlin 17035 Gen 36 Symmachus? (5/6th ce, parchment codex) [vh022];
add 48. PGiessen 13+19+22+26 Deut 24-29 (5/6th ce; parchment codex; possibly non-Christian provenance) [no image yet]

for additional images of scriptural and other (mostly Christian) fragments, see Wieland Willkur's links
Context and Overview
This study is very much "in process," and to view the larger picture (including images of manuscripts) as well as to see periodic supplements and updates the reader is referred to the author's World Wide Web Internet LXX/OG (CATSS) homepage.
The main sources cited below are abbreviated as follows:
Aland = Kurt Aland (ed), Repertorium der griechischen christlichen Papyri I: Biblische Papyri ... (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1976).
DJD = Discoveries in the Judean Desert, the official publication series for the Dead Sea Scroll materials (Oxford Press).
Roberts (MSB) = Colin H. Roberts Manuscript, Society and Belief in Early Christian Egypt, The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1977 (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1979)
Tov = his article in this volume; otherwise also "Scribal Practices and Physical Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls" in The Bible as Book: the Manuscript Tradition ed by John Sharpe III and Kimberly Van Kampen (British Library 1998) 9-33; The Text- Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research (Jerusalem: Simor 1997\2); and numerous other pertinent publications on scribal practices.
Treu = Kurt Treu, "The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire," with an excursus on Jewish scriptural manuscripts/fragments, originally published as "Die Bedeutung des Griechischen f&u%;r die Juden im r&o%;mischen Reich," Kairos NF 15, Hft. 1/2 (1973), 123-144; translated by William Adler with Robert Kraft (1991) for Internet access.
Turner = E.G.Turner, Greek Manuscripts of the Ancient World, (Princeton University Press 1971); second edition revised and enlarged edited by P. J. Parsons (Bulletin Supplement 46, London: Institute of Classical Studies 1987).
Turner (Codex) = E.G.Turner, The Typology of the Early Codex (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1977).
vh### = Joseph van Haelst, Catalogue des Papyrus Litte/raires Juifs et Chre/tiens (Paris: Sorbonne 1976).
The standard papyrological designations will be used, as listed also in vh, Aland, and elsewhere.
A major goal of this research is to explore more closely the preserved evidence from early Jewish biblical and related materials in Greek reflecting scribal habits and techniques in order to address questions about Greek Jewish developments, on the one hand, and the relationship between Greek Jewish "scribal culture" and early Christian literary practices on the other. My intuitions are that the continuities between "Jewish" and "Christian" will outweigh the discontinuities in such matters, but the thrust of earlier scholarship (with some exceptions) has not tended in that direction. Thus I have attempted to select and examine closely some 30 biblical and related Greek fragmentary manuscripts, all of which are either clearly Jewish in origin or have a reasonable claim to be so, with a view to building up a more carefully controlled set of criteria for addressing ambiguities in other, even more ambiguous (with regard to origin) materials. It will be clear from this evidence that there was a variegated "scribal culture" in pre-Christian Jewish circles (not unlike the situation in the non-Jewish Greek world!); how much of it may have carried over into "Christian" practices, and under what conditions, remain less clear, but hopefully will receive further light from this study.
My work on this topic in many ways parallels and supplements the research of my colleague, Emanuel Tov, who focuses even more than I have attempted on the significance of various "physical" characteristics (spacing, punctuation, etc.) for the ancient preparers and users of the texts. I also view my efforts as continuations of the suggestive but relatively little known study by the late Kurt Treu, in his essay mentioned below (which is readily available in English through the aforementioned Internet home page). That I am often critical of the conclusions of the late Colin Roberts on these subjects does not detract from my appreciation of and respect for his pioneering efforts as one of the papyrological giants of the 20th century, on whose shoulders we all must stand.
Setting the Scene
Among the 120 or so papyri and other early fragments of Greek Jewish scriptures ("LXX/OG") and related materials dated paleographically from the 4th century and earlier, we find more than a dozen that are clearly of Jewish origin, and another dozen or so for which this identification has also been strongly suggested.\1/ The vast majority of the remainder has been assumed to have been produced by Christian copyists, although the evidence is seldom unambiguously clear. This study attempts to reexamine the situation with a focus especially on details of format and presentation ("textual mechanics"), without any special attention to textcritical content.\2/
---
\1/I have not included several manuscripts listed by Treu as ambiguous but worth consideration when his reasons appear to be less "mechanical" than seem appropriate for this study. For example, he points out (142f) that since we have evidence for Jewish presence at such sites as Oxyrhynchos and Antinoopolis, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some of the Jewish Greek scriptural materials from those sites might be of Jewish origin, and he offers some textcritical observations in support (e.g. closer affinities to the surviving Hebrew text, "eccentric text"). From this textual basis, he expands his horizons further; see his notes on PAntin 8, 9, 10 [vh254, 252, 316]; PGiss 13... [vh58]; PSorbonne 2250 [vh308]; PBerlin 17035 [vh022]; Freer Minor Prophets [vh284]; Berlin Genesis [#911 = vh004]; Chester Beatty (etc.) Ezekiel-Daniel-Esther [#967 = vh315]; PRanier 4.5 [#2086 = vh105]. Probably POx 2745, a Hebrew onomasticon roll [vh1158] mentioned by Treu (144) should be added to my list; see also n.11 below on liturgical materials (e.g. POx 2068). A fresh look at the evidence from the early papyri (3rd ce) of Philo's works will also be in order at some point.
\2/The textcritical situation seems analogous to what the NT papyri have shown -- that the textual relationships prior to the imagined watershed of recensional activity in the 3rd and early 4th centuries ce are in many ways just as confused and confusing as afterwards. Of course, the materials from this early period, on rolls and early mini-codices, must be examined book by book (and sometimes even in smaller units within "books") rather than in generalized "text types," but even then clear patterns seldom emerge. Did we really expect clear patterns, given what we have learned from the Judean Desert discoveries as well as from other avenues of information about those textually tumultuous early times? For details, consult Emanuel Tov's Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint.
===
The basis for scholarly discussion of these materials in the past quarter century was established primarily by the publications of Treu's article and Roberts' Schweich Lectures (MSB). Treu attempted to view the early fragments in the larger framework of how Judaism adapted to, or perhaps reacted to the Greco-Roman world in which it existed and often flourished. While Treu did not ignore textual matters (see n.1 above), he was much more focused on the sorts of "physical" and immediately visible criteria that could reasonably be employed in attempting to identify "Jewish" scriptural materials. The appendix to his 1973 article presents a challenge to previous analyses, and sets the stage for subsequent discussion.
Roberts, in his attempt to extract information from the early papyri for reconstructing the development of Christianity in Egypt, shows sympathy for some of Treu's observations while at the same time defending aspects of the "older" approach, with its tendency to focus on early Christianity.\3/ Perhaps unwittingly, in his quest to identify characteristic "Christian" traits in the early manuscripts and fragments, Roberts actually opens some new lines of investigation applicable to the Jewish materials as well: especially suggestive are his comments about the "documentary" tendencies exhibited in some aspects of the presentation of early Christian materials (use of spacing, punctuation, enlarged letters, etc.), and his attempt to distinguish the resultant paleographical "style(s)" of his "Christian" witnesses from a more "elegant" literary approach in (some of) the clearly Jewish fragments.
---
\3/This was not a new interest for Roberts, as his pioneering early article on "The Christian Book and the Greek Papyri" (JTS 50 [1949] 155-68) amply attests. It rewards rereading even now.
===
The Main Issues
The older "criteria" to which Treu, especially, reacts, and the new issues introduced into the discussion by Roberts (with further elaboration recently by Lawrence W. Hurtado\4/), may be summarized as follows -- we will want to be especially alert to such matters when we survey the data:
---
\4/"The Origin of the Nomina Sacra: A Proposal," JBL 117 (1998) 655-673. Hurtado's primary contribution to the ongoing discussion relates to the graphic marker (overline stroke) used to indicate the significance of IH as both a suspension of the nomen sacrum IHSOUS (the name Jesus) and as the shorthand way of writing the number 18, which number in Hebrew gematria equivalences also is the word for "life" (XY. Perhaps not to be lost in this discussion is the fact that the Hebrew letter-number for 18 is YX, which in most early orthographies would resemble closely the anticipated (if the numbering system were consistent) Hebrew number 15 YH, but in the development of Jewish tradition this numerical representation is not used, but we find instead +W (nine plus six = 15; also +Z or nine plus seven = 16), presumably as protection against careless reprentation that might be associated with the tetragrammaton and/or its abbreviated forms, but perhaps also to avoid ambiguity. It would be useful to know when, and under what conditions, such a supposed modification in the Hebrew numbering conventions arose.
===
1. Scroll or codex format -- as a rule of thumb, and especially when other evidence is lacking, the equation of scroll with Jewish and codex with Christian has tended to prevail. Admittedly, Christians continued to use the roll format well after codices became popular, and clearly codices came to be used among Jews at some point, but there is little clarity or agreement on the history of such developments. In the survey of 30 Jewish and possibly Jewish texts that follows, all but items 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24 (ostrakon) and 25 are scrolls.
2. Papyrus or parchment material -- it is clear now that early Jewish scriptural copies could be inscribed on either material (see the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example), but in 1973 Treu felt the need to argue against the idea that authentic Jewish copies could only be written on animal skins. Of the unambiguously (by date) Jewish manuscripts listed below, all but items 1, 4, 11, 12, and 13 (see also 20, 24 [ostrakon], 26, 30) are on papyri.
3. Use of "nomina sacra" -- Roberts especially (developed further now by Hurtado) has championed the view that a widely accepted "system" of abbreviation by contraction of certain key words with "sacral" connotations (especially "Jesus," "Christ," "Lord," and "God"; but also several others) developed early in Christian scribal circles, although the modern inventor of the term "nomina sacra" (Ludwig Traube -- at a time when virtually no early Jewish evidence was available) thought that the practice must have had Jewish roots.\5/ No unambiguously Jewish manuscripts with abbreviated nomina sacra in Greek (as opposed to tetragrammaton representations, on which see below) have yet been agreed upon by the debating scholars, but items 19, 21, 23, 27, (and 29?) below (see also n.11 on POx 2068) would seem to offer a strong challenge to Roberts' position.
---
\5/Traube, Nomina Sacra: Versuch einer Geschichte der christlichen Ku%rzung (Munich: Beck 1907), 26. See also A.H.R.E.Paap, Nomina Sacra in the Greek Papyri of the First Five Centuries (Leiden: Brill 1959), 119ff, for a similar view of origins (but different details of development).
===
4. Treatment of the "tetragrammaton" -- the presence in many of the clearly Jewish fragments of a special way of representing the four lettered divine name YHWH, in contrast to the use of the Greek substitute term "LORD" (KURIOS) in most LXX/OG manuscripts, has led to discussions of the origins and history of such practices, including the relationship between this phenomenon and the development of "nomina sacra."\6/ None of the unambiguously (based on date) Jewish manuscripts described below preserves representations of the tetragrammaton with KURIOS, but the evidence from the first hand as well as the corrector/enhancer of item 19 deserves to be noted, along with the contracted forms found in items 21, 23, 27, and 29 (see above; note also the blank in item 22).
---
\6/Hurtado's article provides an excellent discussion of these related issues, as well as an extensive (if not exhaustive) bibliography.
===
5. Treatment of numbers -- Roberts also argued that Christian copyists tended to use number symbols rather than spelling out the numbers in good Greek literary style. He saw this as another "documentary" influence. (This feature, if accurate, could strengthen Hurtado's theory that the abbreviated use of IH = "Jesus" associated with it's numerical value as "18" reflects an early Christian development; see note 4 above.) The only manuscript to preserve abbreviated numbers discussed below is item 17, of ambiguous origin.
6. Use of "scriptio continua" (continuous writing, without word or sense division) or of spacing and other visual aids for the reader -- Roberts attempted to claim that influences from "documentary" scribal practices may have led early Christian scribes and copyists to abandon the strict literary convention of writing an unbroken string of letters and introduce various sorts of sense divisions and similar indicators (using blank spaces, punctuation, enlarged letters, marginal marks, etc.); similar features also seem to be present in many of the early Jewish texts (as Roberts also noted, rather in passing\7/). Of the unambiguously Jewish manuscripts listed below, only items 3 and 5 show completely unbroken strings of writing in their very limited fragmentary remains. Thus it makes no sense to employ this feature as a sign of "Christian" origin.
---
\7/Roberts MSB 18 and n.3: "Documentary practice may not have been the only influence on Christian scribes. In the manuscript of the Minor Prophets found in a cave near Engedi in Judaea [subsequently identified as Nahal Hever] and dated between 50 B.C. and A.D. 50, an enlarged letter, preceded by a small blank space, marks the beginning of a new phrase, while verses are marked off by larger spaces. This may well have been standard Hebrew usage in texts such as this, clearly intended for liturgical reading." The footnote refers to articles by E.J.Revell in BJRL 54 (1971) 214ff and StudPap 15 (1976) 131ff, comparing this situation with Hebrew Masoretic tradition. Roberts then concludes "this might indicate that the method of paragraphing by the initial letter was of Jewish origin." Study of such phenomena in early Jewish and Christian biblical texts is now underway by Emanuel Tov and will make it quite clear that this was no uniquely "Christian" development (in addition to the publications listed above, I have been privileged to see a draft form of his forthcoming "Scribal Features of Early Witnesses to Greek Scripture" [tentative title]).
===
7. Assessment of literary style -- Roberts saw in most of the early Jewish materials an "elegance" of writing style distinct from most of the early Christian examples. He noted especially the use of "serifs" (decorative strokes) on certain letters. I have also tried to pay attention to "shading," that is, the relative thickness of horizontal, vertical, and oblique strokes (shading occurs when one type of stroke tends to be thinner than another). The general comments of Eric Turner on these matters in the Greco-Roman world at large deserve attention, since in what follows attempts will be made briefly to describe the various Jewish hands:
Several 'styles' of writing were simultaneously in use [in the Ptolemaic as in the Roman period]. Contemporary with each other, they cross-fertilize and hybridize easily. Study of these reciprocal influences is rewarding, provided only that the investigator is not trying to prove a derivation of one 'style' from another.

Then Turner lists some of the "objective considerations" on which his classifications are based, including degree of formality or informality in writing, speed and skill in execution, size, shape, and tilt of the letters, and consistency of spacing between letters and lines (ed 1, p.24 = ed 2, p.20f).
Turner's resulting general categories of classification for literary hands of the first four centuries are: (1) Informal round hands; (2) Formal round hands (with three subdivisions: Round/Square, Biblical Majuscule, Coptic Uncial); (3) Formal mixed hands (20-21). Most of the materials described below will fit into Turner's second category, of formal round/square decorated hands. Indeed, it may help to nuance his "round/square" style by noting the extent of formal decoration present -- "highly decorated" indicates that most non-rounded strokes terminate with full serifs (short perpendicular strokes to both sides) or half serifs (to only one side); "moderately decorated" would include the use of hooks or blobs as well as some serifs; "sporadically/minimally decorated" and "undecorated" complete the scale.\8/
---
\8/With such paleographical backgrounding in view, here is my summary checklist of the phenomena that ideally would deserve attention in a complete examination and description of the materials listed below (but for present purposes, a summary treatment will suffice). Note that Aland also tries to follow such a checklist in his descriptions (p.6):
manuscript identification
? contents (author, work, etc.) and relevant modern editions
? current location, identification number(s), ownership history, etc.
? place and circumstances of discovery
? place of origin, probable date
overall form and format description
? type and characteristics (color, texture, etc.) of material for writing surface (papyrus, leather, etc.)
? type and characteristics of ink(s)
? mega-format (roll, codex, amulet, etc.)
? specifics of what is preserved (size, letters, etc.)
? mega-dimensions (writing surface, written blocks)
marginal markings (outside the writing blocks)
? column/page numbers
? corona
? paragraph marks
? indicators of special (e.g. quoted) material
? correction marks and marginal corrections
? other
overall style of writing (within the writing blocks)
? relative bilinearity (consistent letter heights)
? letter widths and proportions (square, rectangular, oval)
? letter slant (e.g. upright, slanting right/left at top)
? letter formation (strokes per letter, speed, ligatures, etc.)
? letter shading (thick/thin strokes)
? decoration
* serifs (i.e. horizontal strokes, esp. along the bilinear planes)
* finials, hooks and/or loops (other, less angular flourishes)
* shading (very subtle end strokes), blobs
use of internal spacing (absence of ink)
? blank lines or unusual vertical spacing
? indentations
? end of line space
? more than one letter width in line
? one letter width in line (or less)
? other (e.g. writing in shapes, like a triangle)
explicit in-line markings (presence of ink)
? enlarged letters
? reduced size letters
? unusual letters (e.g. tetragrammaton)
? punctuation
? trema/dieresis [diaeresis] ("organic" and "inorganic")
? apostrophes (e.g. to separate identical consonants)
? breathings
? accents
? contractions and/or suspensions (e.g. "nomena sacra")
? marking number symbols (e.g. between dots, overlined)
? other special symbols (e.g. "year," monetary denominations)
? correction marks and correction locations
? other (e.g. marked tetragrammaton space)
===
Now let us turn to the detailed evidence.
The Manuscript Fragments
Here are brief descriptions of the Jewish and possibly Jewish fragments (including a few unidentified, perhaps "parabiblical" early pieces) arranged in roughly chronological order (according to paleographical approximations).\9/
---
\9/Items are presented with the Goettingen Septuagint Institute (or "Rahlfs") number in brackets, where available, followed by the van Haelst number (vh###) and Aland's [AT##]. Other attempts to identify and discuss aspects of the early Jewish biblical papyri are noted by Hurtado (his n.6), and by Tov in his forthcoming study (above, n.7).
===
Attention will be given especially to the aforementioned "presentational" issues, as described by the respective editors and reevaluated, when possible, by the present author from available photographs -- and with the problematic issues described above also in mind.
1. 4Q122=LXXDeut, Deuteronomy 11 [#819; unknown to vh];
parchment roll, 2nd bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran, cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 195 (plate 43), with paleographical comments by P.Parsons, 11-12.
Very few consecutive letters are preserved on these tiny, misshapen fragments, making precise judgments especially problematic. The manuscript seems to have contained 26-29 letters per line, but the length of each column cannot be determined.

The hand is literary, but not elegant, tending to a thick informal upright bilinear round style (R and perhaps U descend below the plane; there is a tendency to vertical oval shape with QO, and S has a flattened top), perhaps with some tendencies to ligatured (note the long middle stroke of E) and to cursive forms (e.g. some representations of A), which might suggest "documentary" influence. It is moderately decorated, with small flourishes on the top and base of most verticals (and the left upper diagonal of U) in the form of short hooks or blobs (mostly to the left, except on the top right vertical of N). No shading of ink strokes is evident.
There is some evidence of spacing between at least three of the possible 7 word breaks, but no preserved left margins and not enough words to determine the extent and nature of the use of spacing or associated devices.
No nomina sacra or other special markings are preserved.

[[link appended excerpts]]
2. PRyl 458, Deuteronomy 23-28 [#957 = vh057 = AT28];
papyrus roll, 2nd bce; John Rylands Library, Manchester ENG.
Location of the find is unknown (purchased with other papyri in 1917 by Rendel Harris; cartonnage, possibly from the Fayum); ed. C.H.Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri ... (Manchester Univ Press 1936) (with one photo) and PRyl 3 (1938) (no photos); additional photos are found in E.Wu%rthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (1957, Eerdmans 1995\2).
The papyrus itself is light colored and of good quality. Originally it was about 28 cm tall with at least 30 lines per column, and columns about 10 cm wide with 27-29 letters per line (average). These fragments are written in a relatively bilinear (FY extend above and below the imagined lines, and IRTU below) square/round upright (but the rounded letters, especially S tend to "lean" back to the left at the top), highly decorated "elegant" formal book hand, with no clear evidence of shading.
The use of spacing is noteworthy, with both smaller and larger spaces employed between various word groups, but no word division as such. Roberts comments: "our text ... shows no sign of documentary influence and we cannot ascribe to this cause the systematic use of [spacing] found here" (26), and wonders about possible influence from Hebrew or Aramaic. See now the investigations by Emanuel Tov mentioned above.

No nomina sacra occur, or other special markings.
[[link appended excerpts]]
3. 7Q1 LXXEx, Exodus 28 [#805 = vh038 = AT18];
papyrus roll, ca 100 bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 7; ed. M.Baillet (with J.T.Milik & R.de Vaux), DJD 3 (1962) 142-43 & plate 30. Brief paleographical comments by P.Parsons in DJD 8 (1990) 25.
Probably 19-20 letters per line average; column height cannot be determined on the basis of the two small preserved fragments. The hand is a highly decorated formal upright with strict bilinearity in the few preserved letters -- none protrude above or below the projected lines (there are no occurrences of FY); no shading is obvious.

No unusual formatting appears in the small extant fragments and there are no occurrences of nomina sacra or other special markings.

[[link appended excerpts]]
4. 4Q119=LXXLev\a, Leviticus 26 [#801 = vh049];
parchment roll, ca 100 bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E. Ulrich DJD 9 (1992) 161 & plate 38; paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 7.
Full scroll height about 20 cm, with at least 1.3 cm top margin and 1.5 bottom; about 28 lines per column, with an average of 47- 48 letters per line (about 10 cm wide, with at least .8 cm between columns). There are faint traces of horizontal guidelines, with the letters dropped from the line. This produces greater linearity at the top of the roughly bilinear (with FY extending both above and below, and BRU and occasionally I below) upright informal round (tending to oval in places) rather cramped writing. Sporadic ornamentation, with left hooks at the feet of some RF letters, and a downward hook sometimes on the left horizontal of T. No shading. See Turner's "informal round" style?
A textual break marked by an inline blank of about 3-4 letter widths and a horizontal paragraphos mark below that line on the left margin indicates the start of Lev 26.21. Otherwise there are a few possibly intentional short spaces between some words or clauses at other points in the fragment, but no observable pattern.

No nomina sacra are preserved in the fragment, or other special markings. Iota adscript is used. An interlinear correction occurs (apparently by the original copyist), and perhaps a couple of "strike-over" corrections as well.
[[link appended excerpts]]
5. 7Q2 LXX EpJer, Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) [#804 = vh312 = AT144];
papyrus roll, ca 100 bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 7; ed. M.Baillet (with J.T.Milik & R.de Vaux), DJD 3 (1962) 143 & plate 30.

Parts of 5 lines (21 total letters) are preserved, with probably originally 23-24 letters per line; there is no way to know the size of the column(s). The hand appears to be bilinear, formal upright round/square, relatively thick but perhaps shaded on some horizontals and obliques, with subtle ornamentation (small but full serifs, curved flourishes) on most non-rounded letters. There are no preserved examples of the letters KMRFY, among others, and both a larger and a smaller form of S appears.

No spacing appears in the preserved material, although it is tempting to reconstruct it for one of the lacunae. There are no abbreviations, nomina sacra, or other special marks.\10/
[[link appended excerpts]]
---
\10/Qumran cave 7 has produced several other small Greek fragments that have not yet been identified convincingly. In general, many of them seem to be bilinear and decorated with serifs and/or hooks. Spacing may be present on 7Q5 and 7Q15, and 7Q16 may have a paragraph mark (see also 7Q7?). Since they are probably of Jewish provenance, they are also of possible relevance as attesting Jewish literary activity and scribal practices. In his forthcoming article (above, n.7) Tov notes the following suggested identifications with LXX/OG locations, any of which if verifiable would qualify the respective fragment(s) for inclusion in the present list:
7Q4 Numbers 14.23-24
7Q5 Exodus 36.10-11; Numbers 22.38
7Q6.1 Psalm 34.28; Proverbs 7.12-13
7Q6.2 Isaiah 18.2
7Q8 Zechariah 8.8; Isaiah 1.29-30; Psalm 18.14-15; Daniel 2.43; Qohelet 6.3
===
6. PFouad 266a, Genesis 3-38 [#942 = vh056 = AT3];
papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unknown provenance (acquired by P.Jouget in 1943); ed. Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates); the descriptions and notes are by Koenen.
The height of the roll is unknown, while the preserved columns are about 15 cm wide (about 38 letters per line, average), and the width of vertical margins is unknown. It is good quality papyrus, written by the same hand or in the same scribal tradition as #848 (item 8 below) in a highly decorated rigorous bilinear formal upright (only F extends above and below the projected lines, and Y above); horizontal strokes tend to be thicker than verticals (obliques are mostly thick); there are full lower serifs on TUFY, and sometimes on I and on the left verticals of GHKNPR; half-serifs or hooks occur on most other vertical strokes, and on some obliques (especially also with thickened ends, or delicate "blobs"); the right vertical of P is rounded, and there is a tendency to rounding on the right vertical of H. The horizontal stroke in Q is short, and does not touch the circle on either side; the horizontal midstroke on E is relatively longer, and does connect on the left.

Spacing of about half the width of a letter is occasionally found, especially before and after some proper names.

No examples of the tetragrammaton have survived on these eight small fragments, nor any unusual markings, but QEOS is found (Gen 4.6) uncontracted and unaccompanied by the tetragrammaton, contrary to the majority of witnesses in this passage (compare #905, item 19 below). Iota adscript is frequent.
[[link appended excerpts]]
7. 4Q120=LXXLev\b, Leviticus 2-5 [#802 = vh046 = AT22];
papyrus roll, 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 168 (plates 39- 41), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 10.
A tall scroll, about 31 cm high (about 38 lines per column), with columns of about 10-11 cm in width (23-29 letters).
This fragment is written in a highly decorated bilinear script, with no significant shading (compare #848 and #943b, items 8 and 13 below).
Spacing is used before and after the divine name (represented by IAW) and occasionally between sense-divisions or sentences. Paragraph signs also occur at the left margin. The manuscript also uses iota adscript (usually); and contains some corrections.
[[link appended excerpts]]
8. PFouad 266b, Deuteronomy 17-33 [#848 = vh56 = AT27];
papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unknown provenance (acquired by P.Jouget in 1943); ed. Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates); the descriptions and notes are by Koenen.
The height of the roll was about 24 cm, with 21-23 lines per column, while the preserved columns vary from about 15.5 to 16.5 cm wide (about 37 letters per line, average, but line endings are irregular and the final letters sometimes cramped), and the width of vertical margins varies from about 1.5 cm down to 0.2 cm(!), with a tendency for the lower lines gradually to "move" their beginnings more to the left ("Mass' Law"). Similarly, there is a tendency for the top lines in a column to have more space between them than those at the bottom.
The text is written on good quality papyrus, by the same hand or in the same scribal tradition as #942 (item 6 above) in a highly decorated rigorous bilinear formal round/square upright (only F extends above and below the projected lines, and Y above); horizontal strokes tend to be thicker than verticals (obliques are mostly thick); there are full lower serifs on TUFY, and sometimes on I and on the left verticals of GHKNPR; half-serifs or hooks occur on most other vertical strokes, and on some obliques (especially also with thickened ends, or delicate "blobs"); the right vertical of P is rounded, and there is a tendency to rounding on the right vertical of H. The horizontal stroke in Q is short, and does not touch the circle on either side; the horizontal midstroke on E is relatively longer, and does connect on the left.

Paragraph markers are frequent at the left margin between the lines, and spacing of varying widths is found throughout to indicate various units (or sometimes with no apparent function). Spacing around proper names does not seem to be a feature of #848, unlike its sister MS #942 (item 6 above). At Deut 21.1, along with a paragraph sign, there is a large diagonal slash in the left margin. Its function (if any) is not clear. There are a few corrections, and a marginal gloss at the bottom of one column. Iota adscript is normal.

The tetragrammaton appears frequently, in small square Aramaic/Hebrew letters (resembling PIPI) that are oriented to the base line (not hung from the top), preceded but not followed by a high dot with the entire ensemble occupying the space of about 5-6 letter widths of which perhaps half (distributed on each side of the tetragrammaton) is blank. The first copyist left the dot marker and blank space, which was filled in later, presumably by another hand.
[[link appended excerpts]]
9. PFouad 266c, Deuteronomy 10-33 [#847 = vh56 = Aland01];
papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unknown provenance (acquired by P.Jouget in 1943); ed. Zaki Aly and Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates); the descriptions and notes are by Koenen.
The height of the roll may have been about 24 cm (as with #848, item 8 above), with about 21 lines per column, but the width of the columns was much smaller, around 17 cm (about 24 letters per line, average, but with a great deal of variation), and the width of vertical margins may have been around 1 cm.
The text is written on good quality papyrus, and although in some ways the hand is similar to ##942 and 848 (items 6 and 8 above), it is less formal in execution, while still generally bilinear (the top flourish on A usually breaks the upper plane; and the foot of U sometimes drops below the lower line; there do not seem to be any examples preserved of FY) and round/square (with some oval tendencies in the rounded letters); no obvious shading but highly decorated -- usually there are full lower serifs on TU, and sometimes on I (also on top); half-serifs or hooks occur on most other vertical strokes; the right vertical of P is rounded, but not the right vertical of H. The horizontal stroke in Q connects the two sides and sometimes extends beyond the right arc.
One paragraph stroke is preserved, and small spacing is used similarly to #848 (item 8 above) but also in connection with the start of proper names (as in #942, item 6 above), but not after such names.

There are no instances of the tetragrammaton, but QEOS is uncontracted, as expected. Interlinear corrections appear. The dieresis/trema is found once on an initial vowel, but no other diacritics or explicit punctuation marks occur.
[[link appended excerpts]]
10. 4Q127 Exodus Paraphrase (?) [no Goettingen #; unknown to vh];
papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 223f (plate 47), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 12f.
Dimensions undetermined (no complete line or vertical fragment extending through an entire column's height has been preserved). The writing is similar to #802 (see above, item 7); an informal round/square highly decorated (but no shading) literary script ("ineptly written," so Parsons). Some spacing (e.g. with proper names) and paragraph markings, plus a marginal "coronis" (as in #848, item 8 above) and a few corrections by the original hand. No occurrences of nomina sacra or tetragrammaton are preserved.
[[link appended excerpts]]
11. 4Q126 unidentified Greek [no Goettingen #; unknown to vh];
parchment roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 219 (plate 46), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 12.
The dimensions represented in these 8 fragments are undetermined. The hand is similar to #802 (item 7 above) and #803 (item 12 below) -- a highly decorated bilinear, but with no shading.
Some use of spacing occurs for larger as well as smaller units. Fragment 2 seems to have KURIO[], preceded by a short space.
[[link appended excerpts]]
12. 4Q121=LXXNum, Numbers 3-4 [#803 = vh051];
parchment roll, turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From Qumran cave 4; ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 188 (plates 42- 43), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 11.
Large format, more than 25 cm tall (34 lines per column), with columns about 10.5-11 cm wide (27-34 letters per line) and perhaps a 1.5 cm margin between. Some use of spacing. Iota adscript. Highly decorated pronouncedly bilinear round/square hand (some oval letters, which tend to lean backwards) with no shading, similar to #802 (item 7 above). No occurrence of the tetragrammaton. A few corrections.
[[link appended excerpts]]
13. 8HevXIIgr = Nahal Hever Minor Prophets [#943 = vh285];
parchment roll(s), turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
From the Cave of Horror, Nahal Hever (Wadi Habra), Israel; ed. E.Tov, DJD 8 (1990), with paleographical analysis by P.Parsons, 19-26.
Dimensions can vary somewhat from column to column (especially widths), but in general the material was about 35 cm tall (42 lines per column for hand A, 33 for hand B) with column widths averaging around 9 cm (7.5-11.5 range), and about 1.7 average margins between. It is possible that the original scroll was around 10 meters long, if it was a single scroll containing all the Minor Prophets. It is also possible that two separate scrolls (hand A and hand B, thus #943a-b) are represented by the fragments. The leather inscribed by hand B is also coarser than that by hand A.

Scribe A uses spacing for sections and sub-sections (with some enlarged initial letters), but not for words as such; scribe B spaces between most words as well. Both hands are bilinear round/square in conception (but not necessarily in execution; hand A is especially inconsistent) and heavily ornamented (but not with full serifs). Hand A shows no consistent shading, while hand B does. Parsons concludes that hand B was "a much more fluent and consistent copyist than hand A" (22). Paragraph marks also occur in hand A, and some marginal marks.

Each of the respective sections (A and B) has a different rendering of the archaic Hebrew tetragrammaton, and probably hand A actually wrote the material in continuity with the Greek (not after the Greek was completed), from left to right. It is not clear whether hand B followed the same procedure (see Tov, DJD 8, p. 14).

It is possible that we have remnants of two scrolls here; in any event, two different hands worked on the materials that have survived, and the second hand presents virtual word division in those sections.
[[link appended excerpts]]
14. POx 3522 Job 42 [Goettingen #??; unknown to vh];
see also the black and white image; papyrus roll, 1st ce; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
From Oxyrhynchos; ed. P.Parsons, POx 50 (1983) 1 (with plate).
Dimensions may be as small as 14 cm tall (15 lines per column), or as large as 29 cm (39 lines) or even 32 cm (46 lines), depending on the identification of the poorly represented (3 legible letters!) 2nd column, with 19-22 letters per line. Informal (even careless) upright bilinear (some ovals, tending to lean left) with moderate ornamentation (mostly by hooks on some vertical strokes); no shading; some ligatures and cursive tendencies; dieresis/trema on the initial letter of I+WB.

Use of spacing followed by an exaggerated letter for sense divisions. Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew, written consectutively by the original scribe from left to right.
[[link appended excerpts]]
15. POx 4443 Esther E + 8-9 [Goettingen #??; unknown to vh];
papyrus roll, 1st/2nd ce; Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
From Oxyrhynchos; ed. K.Luchner, POx 65 (1998) 4ff (with plate).
About 30 cm tall, with writing block 20 cm (31 lines) by 7 cm (25 letters average) and about 2 cm between columns. Has paragraph markers with enlarged initial letters of next line projecting into the left margin, and initial letters of most other lines also enlarged. Otherwise relatively bilinear with minimal ornamentation (some hooks and flourishes), and various "documentary" tendencies (ligatures, cursive forms, etc.).
Some spacing for word/phrase separation and at line ends before paragraph markers; dieresis/trema occurs several times, and iota adscript (not always where expected!). Otherwise no punctuation or special markings.
No occurence of tetragrammaton; "nomina sacra" are uncontracted -- e.g. QEOU, SWTHRIAN, ANQRWPOIS in E.16 (reconstructed) and 18, 23, 24.
[[link appended excerpts]]
16. PFouad 203 prayer/amulet? [no Goettingen #; vh911];
papyrus roll, ca 100 ce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
Unidentified provenance; Ed P.Benoit, RevBiblique 59 (1951) 549-65.
From the top of the middle column (of three), 19 lines (about 17- 18 letters per line) are preserved, but it is not possible to determine how much has been lost below. I have not seen a photo of this material but the editor provides an extensive paleographical description and classes the hand as clearly "literary," carefully written without any cursive forms.
Roberts MSB 78: "There can be little doubt of the Jewish origin [of this manuscript], a prayer against evil spirits, written on a roll of papyrus and attributed to the late first or early second century."\11/
---
\11/Roberts continues, MSB 78: "Both PLond Christ 5 (=vh921), a leaf from a liturgical book of the third century [vh reports 4- 5th ce!], and POx 17.2068 (=vh966), some fragments of a papyrus roll of the fourth century, have been thought to be Jewish [e.g. by G.D.Kilpatrick]; but in the latter the contraction of QEOS, the eccentric nomen sacrum BS = BASILEUS, and the apparent echoes of Revelation 15.3 and 1 Timothy 1.17 in l. 7 render the suggestion doubtful. To these should be added the Vienna text of The Penitence of Iannes and Iambres: it was written on the recto of a roll and nomina sacra are left uncontracted [p.61f n.5 calls this PVindobGr 29456 (=vh1068); p.63 n.3 refers to the forthcoming ed of Jannes/Jambres material by A. Pietersma and also to the republication of the Vienna fragment by P.Maraval in ZPE 25 (1977) pp. 199ff.]."
===
17. PYale1 recto and verso of Genesis 14 [#814 = vh012 = AT6];
papyrus codex, 2nd ce; Beinicke Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Largely bilinear upright round/square lettering but with descenders on RUYF and sometimes I, and enlarged B. Also FY and sometimes KI extend above the projected top line. There is no evidence of perpendicular or baseline serifs, but some decorative hooks, especially at the top of some diagonals, notably KU (see also ADL). The writing almost fits Turner's "Formal Round: Biblical Majuscule/Uncial" style (ed1, 25f = ed2, 21f) but is less disciplined, with horizontal strokes (especially on tau and epsilon) frequently touching the adjacent letter; no consistent shading is visible from the photographs.
The text includes mid-points after most proper or gentilic names, some breaks between verse-units, possibly some smaller breaks as well, and mid-points to offset number shorthand TIH (318).

The editor, Bradford Welles, dated PYale 1 to around the year 90 and especially because of the codex form considered it unquestionably Christian. Treu would date it at least a century later , and wonders if it might be of Jewish origin. Turner also dates it to late 2nd or early 3rd c [Codex "OT 7" pp. 90, 164].
Roberts also dates this text later than 100 [see van Haelst], but considers it definitely of Christian origin not only because of its codex form but because "the numeral 318 is written not in words but in symbols, contrary to the usual practice of Graeco- Jewish manuscripts; moreover, in this passage the symbols had for the author of the epistle of Barnabas [9.7-9; see further Hurtado] a mystical significance which the words could not have conveyed and it is reasonable to think that they had the same meaning for the writer of PYale 1" [MSB 78].
18. PBodl 5, Psalms 48-49 [#2082 = vh151 = AT68];
papyrus codex, 2nd ce; Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Ed J.W.B.Barns and G.D.Kilpatrick, Proc Br Acad 43 (1964), 229-32 (plate).
Originally 35-40 lines per page.
The photographs are difficult to read, but the hand appears to be a "delicate" round/square minimally decorated bilinear similar to #905 (item 19 below).
Stichometric format (with some long lines continued at the end of the next line and marked with guidelines accordingly). Uncontracted forms of QEOS and ANQRWPOS are restored ("conclusively," so Treu, but not so confidently Roberts MSB 78) in the gaps. Roberts thinks it "definitely" Christian (as did the original editors, because of the codex format), Treu is less sure.
19. POx 656 Genesis 14-27 [#905(U4) = vh013 = AT8];
papyrus codex, 2nd/3rd ce; Bodleian Library, Oxford.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. Grenfell & Hunt, POx 4 (1904) 28f (plate).
Page dimensions at least 11 by 24 cm, 41-42 lines per page (Turner, Codex OT 9).
Carefully written in a round/square large upright hand with minimal decoration (similar to #2082, item 18 above). Some use of spacing as well as explicit high and middle stops. No abbreviations except the stroke representing N at the end of some lines -- QEOS and KURIOS are uncontracted in the first hand. Some corrections have been made by a second hand, which also seems to have added the numeration at the top of each page.

Treatment of tetragrammaton passages warrants further comment. At Gen 15.8 (where the absence of KURIE is a variant in the MSS) there was a blank, four letters in width, filled in with KURIE by another hand. Presumably the manuscript being copied represented the tetragrammaton here in non-Greek letters, and space was left to be filled in by someone expert in the desired script. In Gen 24.40, no attempt is made to represent the tetragrammaton, in accord with a minority textual variant.

The remaining two passages are especially interesting since they both occur at the end of lines at Gen 24.31 (line 122) and 24.42 (line 166; see the photo), and in neither case is the full form of the word KURIOS preserved! In the first of these passages, only the first letter K can be seen before the fragment breaks off (where space for 1-3 letters would have remained, based on the format of the surrounding lines), and in the second passage only KU appears, although there is some room for additional letters after that on the preserved blank surface (the editors complete the word by supplying RIE in the margin of the lacuna preceding the next line, which would be highly unusual!). It seems to me more likely that only the abbreviated KU (without any mark of abbreviation) was supplied in the second instance, and possibly in the first as well!
[[link appended excerpts]]
20. POx 1007 = PLitLond 199, Genesis 2-3 [#907 = vh005];
parchment codex, 3rd ce; British Museum, London.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. A.S.Hunt, POx 7 (1910) 1-3 (plate).
Relatively square page format, about 16 cm high, with two columns of about 33 lines each and 20-25 letters per line.

Basically upright "formal mixed" bilinear lettering (FY break the upper and lower planes, and R the lower), with oval tendencies and minimal decoration -- some loops/hooks on some vertical strokes, but no serifs as such. A blank space of about one letter width appears between chapters 2 and 3; otherwise no clear evidence of punctuation or word division.

The tetragrammaton is rep resented by paleo-Hebrew double yod (two yods with a line through them both; a form found already on coins from the 2nd century bce [[locate a photo?]]), and QEOS is contracted, but no other nomina sacra contractions occur (e.g. ANQRWPOS is fully written several times). Treu, following Kahle (Cairo Geniza), considers the text to be of Jewish origin.

Roberts is more cautious:
"Either we have an instance of a Jewish scribe being influenced by Christian practice or we must assume that a Christian copying a Jewish manuscript preserved the Hebrew form of the Name, as a few later manuscripts, e.g. the Marchalianus [MS Q], do" (MSB ...). Apparently Roberts does not consider the possibility that the tradition of abbreviating QEOS may itself be of Jewish origin, along with abbreviating the tetragrammaton.
21. POx 1166 = PLitLond 201, Genesis 16 [#944 = vh014 = AT9];
papyrus roll, 3rd ce; British Museum, London.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. A.S.Hunt, POx 9 (1912) (plate).
At least 28 lines per column, about 14-15 letters per line.
The calligraphic style in this scroll fragment differs significantly from all that we have seen above; this is in an attractive large undecorated bilinear round/square "Biblical Uncial/Majuscule" with thick strokes except for the horizontals (thus "shaded"). KURIOS and QEOS (as reconstructed) are contracted, but not ANQRWPOS. A medial point occurs two (or three?) times (e.g. before 16.10 and 16.11), once clearly followed by a short blank space; no other spacing appears. A rough breathing mark also occurs in 16.10, O( AGGELOS KU.
This is an especially important text for the discussion of Jewish or Christian scribal practice. Roberts sees the evidence as ambiguous, finally concluding that "It is perhaps more likely to be Christian than Jewish" (MSB 77; but see his earlier comments in JTS 50 [1949] 157). Treu is less sure.\12/ If this text is Jewish in origin, it suggests that the "biblical majuscule" style may have come into Christianity from Judaism, and that the use of nomina sacra was no less Jewish than Christian in this early period!
---

\12/The fragment contains a variant that might also be relevant to this discussion: in Gen 16.11 which parallels the familiar wording of Matt 1.21 "she shall bear a son," #944 has paidion in agreement with some MSS of Philo, while all other known witnesses to the Genesis and the Matthew passages have uion. Was this an old Jewish reading that survived in our fragment (and in Philo) despite the temptation that Christian scribes might have had to harmonize the text with Matthew? Or is it evidence for Christian revisionary activity to make the Genesis text (on the birth of Ishmael) more different from the Matthew wording (Ishmael is a "servant/son," while Jesus is simply "son")?
===
22. PBerlin 17213, Genesis 19 [#995 = vh015 = AT10];
papyrus codex, early 3rd; Staatlichen Museen, Berlin.
Provenance unknown; ed. K.Treu, Archiv fuer Papyrusforschung 20 (1970) 46f (plate).
Fragments of 8 and 9 lines from a page that originally contained 27-28 lines of about 26-27 letters each. The script is in a relatively bilinear round/square hand that tilts slightly to the left at the top, with little obvious decoration (some feathering) or shading, and regular ligaturing of some letters (e.g. alpha, epsilon, and tau with what follows them).
There is a mid-stop with a space at the end of 19.17, and a space of about 3 letter widths at the end of 19.18, where most texts have a form of KURIOS. Treu comments: "...as though the scribe omitted the word unintentionally.... Or perhaps this resulted from a vorlage that had the Hebrew divine name here?" Roberts suggests that this is "a secular sense" of the designation "lord" (MSB 77 n.2), but it is at best ambiguous, referring to one or two divine messengers, and the textual variants in the context show that a tetragrammaton type of understanding was not impossible.

23. POx 1075 = PLitLond 203, Exodus 40 [#909 = vh044 = AT21];
papyrus roll, 3rd ce; British Museum, London.
Oxyrhynchos. Ed A.S.Hunt POx 8 (1911) (plate).
The remains of 23 lines plus a simple subscription at the end of the book of "Exodus," with about 19-23 letters per line. On the reverse side and in a different and slightly later hand from the 3rd/4th ce are 17 lines from near the beginning of the Apocalypse (POx 1079 = vh559 = NT18).
The Exodus scroll is clearly written in a "sloping uncial hand of medium size," bilinear in concept but erratically executed without literary formalism; there is sporadic ornamentation (no serifs as such) and appears to be some consciousness of word or phrase division (a few very small spaces, and some slightly enlarged letters) in addition to the one high-stop and space after 40.28. Dieresis/trema occurs on the first letter of "Israel." At the end of the text are found three pointed space fillers (> > >) after the last word (underlined, to separate it from the subscription?) and then centered (or indented) on a separated line the title ECODOS[...] with short lines above and below to set it off as well.

KURIOU is contracted as KU with an overstroke (in slightly enlarged letters followed by a small space -- it is possible that this was originally a blank space filled in later, probably by the same hand) but not "sons of Israel."
The reuse of this roll within a generation or so to inscribe a Christian apocalypse inclines one to believe that the Exodus text was also Christian in origin, but as Treu is quick to point out, "Jewish manuscripts in the possession of Christians are attested" (as well as the opposite -- see the reused Cairo Geniza copies of the Hexapla and of some church fathers). Roberts does not discuss this fragment in MSB.

24. Cairo Ostrakon 215, Judith 15 [#999 = vh080];
ostrakon, latter 3rd ce; Egyptian Papyrological Society(?), Cairo.
Fayum; ed. J. Schwartz, RevBiblique 53 (1946) 534-37 (plate).
This unusual fragmentary piece containing at least 19 lines (often with 50 letters or more) from Judith 15.1-7 is written in a sloping but neat semi-cursive hand with minimal ornamentation and no evidence of spacing or added marks of any sort. "Israel," "sons of Israel," and "Jerusalem" are spelled out in full.

See Part 3

Admin · 10/05/2012 9:38 am

Part 3

The editor discusses some pros and cons of whether to classify the fragment as Jewish or Christian, and leaves the question open. Treu (143f and n.81) and Roberts (MSB 78) seem to agree.
25. PLitLond 202 = BM P 2557, Genesis 46-47 [#953 = vh030 = AT14];
papyrus codex, ca 300 ce; British Museum, London.
Provenance unknown; ed. H.J.M.Milne, Catalogue... (1927) 165f (no plate).
The page was originally about 14 by 17 cm, with 16-17 lines per page, written in a "medium-sized upright laterally compressed cursive hand of a type familiar in documents of the period of Diocletian. Punctuation by a middle point and a small space in the line. The I has the diaeresis once [on the first letter of the name Joseph, but not normally]" (Milne). An apostrophe separating double consonants "gg" and "ng" also seems to be present (judging from the transcript). "Father" and "Israel" occur without contraction.
26. PVindob 39777 = StudPal 11.114 = PWien Rainer 18, Ps 68/69, 80/81 (Symmachus) [Goettingen #?? = vh167];
parchment roll, 3/4 ce; Vienna.
Fayum or Heracleopolites Nome; ed. C.Wessely in Melanges ... Chatelain (1910) 224-29 [identified as Aquila], with handwritten replica in Studien zur Palaeographie und Papyruskunde ... Theologischen Inhalts 2 (1911) [corrected identification to Symmachus].
Roberts MSB 77: "The Tetragrammaton is in the archaic Hebrew characters; the writing is noticeably elegant." In the handwritten facsimile, it appears to be moderately decorated with cursive tendencies and frequent ligatures and no pattern of spacing. QEOU is uncontracted.
27. PAlex 203, Isaiah 48 [Goettingen #?? = vh300];
papyrus roll, 3/4th ce; Alexandria Museum, EGYPT.
Provenance unknown; ed. A.Carlini, Ann. Sc. Norm. Sup. Pisa, series 3, vol 2.2 (1972) 489-94 (plate).

The two best preserved columns (of three) differ significantly in width, with the first averaging about 11 letters, and the second about 15; the columns seem to have contained 24-25 lines (not 27 as the editor estimates).
The writing style fits Turner's "formal mixed" classification, with a combination of petit rounded letters (except omega) some medium sized forms (e.g. alpha, iota, rho) and otherwise bold strokes. The result is a relatively attractive upright hand with minimal decoration and a hint of shading (the photo is somewhat blurred, making subtle judgments difficult). One dieresis/trema is visible, on the first letter of the name Jacob. There is a wider space than normal between the last line of 48.11 and the first line of 48.12, and possibly a space was present in the line on which 48.16 begins. Otherwise, no spacing between letters is obvious.

The editor claims that KURIOS is contracted at one point (48.17), although the photo is not clear, and my reconstruction suggests that it was also contracted in the two other occurrences in this material. Possibly the one reconstructed occurrence of QEOS was similarly shortened. Other nomina sacra -- Israel and heaven -- do not seem to have been contracted (although the evidence for "Israel" seems ambiguous in both instances).

28. PHarris 31, Psalm 43 [#2108 = vh148 = AT67];
papyrus roll(?), 3/4th ce; Central Library of the Selly Oak Colleges, Birmingham ENG.
Unknown provenance; ed. J.E.Powell, Rendel Harris Papyri 1 (1936) (plate); identified by G.D.Kilpatrick, JTS 50 (1949) 176-177.
Beginning of six fragmentary lines, stichometric (longest line has 44 letters, shortest 23 -- thus perhaps a page rather than a roll?). "The writing is of the elegant character referred to above [in connection with Jewish biblical manuscripts]" (Roberts MSB 77) -- shaded and modestly ornamented (mostly by feathering), with slightly enlarged initial letters. QEOS is uncontracted.
29. POx 1225, Leviticus 16.33f [#947 = vh048 = AT23];
papyrus roll, early 4th ce; Princeton Theological Seminary, NJ.
Oxyrhynchos; ed. A.S.Hunt, POx 10 (1914) (plate).

Parts of only 12 lines are preserved, with about 15-20 letters per reconstructed line. The style is a heavy, slightly sloping "formal mixed" tending towards "biblical majuscle" (but with relatively smaller O E S forms). There is a hint of ornamentation by means of some subtle thickening and/or feathering at the end of some strokes, and also a hint of shading. The ink is brownish in color rather than the more usual black.

In this short amount of text, three instances of dieresis/trema occur, and three middle stops, without any accompanying spacing (which suggests that they may have been added by a later hand). No nomina sacra are visible, although the editor has supplied -- perhaps unnecessarily -- the contracted form of "Israel" in one reconstruction, preceded by the full form of YI+W[N] (with dieresis/trema on the iota).

30. PLitLond 211, Daniel 1.17f (Theodotion) [#925 = vh319];
vellum roll, early 4th ce; British Museum, London.
Upper Egypt, from the cover of a Sahidic codex; ed. H.I.Bell in Budge, Coptic Biblical Texts (1912) xiv (no plate).
Parts of 8 lines are preserved. Since I have not seen a reproduction of this piece, here are Roberts' comments: "A fragment of a parchment roll of Daniel in the version of Theodotion, written in the first half of the fourth century; QEOS is uncontracted. This too exemplifies the light and elegant script found in other Jewish texts" (MSB 77).

Listing of other early fragments
Summary and Conclusions
There are various ways in which this complex body of literary "presentational evidence" can be analyzed, depending to a large extent on what sort of conclusions are being tested or what hypotheses developed. There are few "control" criteria, such as date, to assist the process. Intuitions are important, but also need careful testing. My own approach tends to assume that developments of this nature came into early Christian circles by means of the Greek Jewish world unless the evidence clearly indicates otherwise; my impression is that Roberts (and Hurtado) would assume the Christian origin of such practices unless there were contrary evidence. So how is the evidence to be evaluated?

It would be useful to have an appropriate and unambiguous term to denote the sorts of features under analysis, some of which have come back into the spotlight partly as a result of scholarly reconsideration of the "oral" side of ancient textual culture. Hurtado seems to prefer "material culture" (659 n.14), but that seems to me unnecessarily imprecise. Something like "textual presentation" or even "textual mechanics" gets closer to the point -- the conventions involved in laying out the text,
from choice of material (e.g. papyrus, leather, pottery, etc.)
to its mode of packaging (roll, codex, ostrakon, etc.)
to the details of how the writing is organized relative to the writing surfaces (dimensions of writing material, size of columns and letters, column/page layout)

as well as relative to itself (paragraphing and marginal markers, use of spacing in relation to lines and letters, punctuating, abbreviating, form of numbers, form of corrections and notations, use of diacritics, etc.), perhaps sometimes with a view to facilitating (public) reading.
"Style": A central point in the overall discussion is the assessment of relevant Greek transcriptional styles. Colin Roberts has moved farther than most in this area, in which he was very experienced -- although sometimes his desire to illuminate early Christian "orthodox" development seems to me to problematize aspects of his presentation.

Roberts sees most of the clearly "Jewish" LXX/OG texts as more professionally written -- more "literary" and "elegant" in appearance than most of the earliest "Christian" texts -- although exactly what features indicate the degree of "literaryness" for him would be useful to know with more precision (e.g. "bilinearity" or consistent height of letters, use of "serifs" and other embelleshments on non-rounded basic strokes, thickness of strokes, shading, etc.). For him this observation goes hand in hand with his explanation of certain "documentary" (in contrast to "literary") tendencies in the early Christian materials (e.g. the use of spacing/punctuation, diacritics, abbreviated numbers and special contractions, less formal script, cursive tendencies, ligatures).\13/

\13/Roberts, MSB 76: "There seems to have been a distinctive style of writing used for Jewish copies of the scriptures in Greek from the second century B.C. onwards and still used, with modifications of course, down to the third century A.D. [\fn/ The style of these Jewish manuscripts needs closer examination and definition than they have as yet been given, especially in the use of serifs (for these see GMAW, p.25).]; a parallel would be the development of the so-called Biblical Uncial or Biblical Majuscule.... But not all Greek manuscripts known to be Jewish are written in this style, witness the roll of the Minor Prophets from Engedi [actually, Nahal Hever], and parallels to it can be found among the secular literary papyri." See also P.Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 23f, on the Minor Prophets scroll (item 13 above): "...the use of enlarged initials at line-beginning (hands A and B) and phrase-beginning (hand A) and (set out in the margin) to mark a new section (hand A) gives this manuscript a documentary look. ... The fact is itself remarkable. Early Christian books show the same characteristic; copies of the Greek classics do not. It has therefore been tempting to argue that the texts of the Early Church stood closer to the world of business than to that of literature, and to draw conclusions about the social milieu in which the texts circulated or the esteem in which they were held. Now we see the same thing in a Jewish manuscript of pre-Christian date. This may suggest that the Christians inherited the practice, rather than inventing it; the problem remains, why Greek-speaking Jews should have adopted it in the first place" (23f). Parsons adds, in his comparisons of the various Dead Sea Scroll Greek scripts: "This makes it clear that serifed hands are common enough (but not universal) in Judaean material assignable to the period i B.C.-i A.D." (25).
===
The range of hands and styles even within the Judean Desert fragments, which were produced within a fairly limited period of time, is noteworthy, and is also reflected in the Egyptian materials contemporary with the Judean. A detailed comparative analysis of the relevant features remains to be made, but I doubt that it will result in identifying "schools" or traditions of scribal culture except in very broad terms. Of course, comparison with what was happening at the same time in the larger Greco- Roman world will also be very relevant.\14/ If, in general, the Roman period (moving into the "common era") witnessed a tendency for literature to be copied less elegantly than it had been before, the presence of such a "decline" in Jewish texts, and its reflection in Christian materials would seem less significant than otherwise.
---
\14/Note, for example, Turner's strictures on giving too much weight to the use and forms of "serifs" in classifying styles of Greek hands (ed1, 25 = ed2, 21)!
===
Nevertheless, progress has been made in this survey simply by recognizing the extent of the problem and sampling some of the possibilities. A next step in assessing these phenomena more carefully would require availability of excellent reproductions of the extant fragments in a framework that facilitates close comparison and contrast (e.g. by computerized paleographic analysis). Hopefully, the Internet can be used to provide such a resources in the near future, if permissions from the current "owners" of the materials can be obtained to display high quality digitized images.

Scroll/Codex: Of course, the main vehicle for Greek literary production at the start of the period we are examining was the roll, and a major point of discussion is the introduction of the codex format and its very rapid acceptance in emerging (Egyptian) Christianity -- where the roll also survives, but not in such relative abundance.\15/ How soon and under what conditions Jewish authors and copyists accepted the codex format is not clear. But as Treu pointed out forcefully, the mere fact that a fragment of LXX/OG is in codex format does not necessarily mean that it must be of Christian origin. Whether there will ever be sufficient evidence to support my suspicion that the codex form came into early Christianity from Judaism remains to be seen. Probably not in my lifetime. But it is almost certain that at least one Jewish codex can be identified in the raw data of this report (as even Roberts gradually came to admit) -- POx 656, from the late 2nd or early 3rd century ce (item 19; see also 20 and 22).
---
\15/The previous state of this question has been defined by the study produced jointly by Roberts and T.C.Skeat, The Birth of the Codex (1983; also released with a 1987 date). ===
Spacing: Whether roll or codex, comprehending the texts required some mental gymnastics on the part of the reader, especially when little or no visual assistance was available to identify larger or smaller sense units or ideally, words. In general, traditional literary Greek texts are in scriptio continua -- an uninterrupted flow of letters -- with occasional breaks or indicators for larger units. As Roberts correctly points out, in many -- perhaps most -- of the early Christian texts with which he deals (not only LXX/OG texts), there are various helps for indicating sense units, whether spaces or lines in the left margin (paragraphoi) or punctuation marks, or exaggerated initial letters or letters that protrude into the left margin. Roberts explains this as part of what he calls the "documentary" influence on early Christian scribal practice.
What Roberts notes (e.g. in editing item 2) but fails to pursue with the same vigor or consistency is that despite their relatively more "literary" flavor the clearly Jewish fragments almost all show evidence of the same sort of "aids to the reader" phenomenon. Indeed, the second hand (or, if I am right, second scroll) of the Nahal Hever Greek Minor Prophets materials [#943b, item 13b above] uniquely engages in actual word division of an obvious sort. To me, this kind of evidence deserves much closer exploration than it has received thus far, and Emanuel Tov is making a major contribution to this discussion by his careful analysis of such phenomena in the Judean Desert materials and in other biblical texts (see n.7 above). Spacing occurs in the Jewish materials whether "elegant" or not, early or late. It also occurs quite early in materials of clearly Christian origin. To view this as coincidental seems highly unlikely, given the fact that early Christianity developed out of Judaism! This not so unambiguously "documentary" practice -- which has not yet received the attention it deserves in the study of Greco-Roman literature in general\16/ -- almost certainly has been inherited by Christian scribes, if not from their Jewish examples (which seems to me most likely), then from the scribal culture of the Greco-Roman world at large.

---
\16/A small (yet large!) step in this direction is taken by William A. Johnson in his Yale dissertation on The Literary Papyrus Roll: Formats and Conventions -- An Analysis of the Evidence from Oxyrhynchus (1992); witness his long list of corrections to the editions of these literary papyri (22-70), where he regularly notes the omission in the editions of signs of paragraphing, punctuation, and occasionally spacing. See also his brief note on "The Function of the Paragraphus in Greek Literary Prose Texts" in ZPE 100 (1994) 65-68.
===
Special Words: Some of the spacing issues in these early Jewish and Christian texts are associated with the appearance of personal or ethnic names and certain special words that, for present purposes, fall into three categories: (1) the tetragrammaton, (2) "nomina sacra," and (3) number symbolism.
Jewish scribes were selfconscious about the representation of the tetragrammaton -- the special revered 4 letter name of the Jewish God -- and had available a variety of devices, from paleo-Hebrew, to square Hebrew (thus Greek PIPI), to abbreviated Hebrew (ZZ), to the semi-transliteration (also an abbreviation?) IAW and the use of substitutes such as ADONAI and KURIOS ("Lord"), or even to using dots and blank spacing. If convincing evidence has not yet emerged that they also used a Greek abbreviated formation such as KS (see items 19, 21, 23, 27 above), that surprises me less than the claim that such abbreviation must have been a Christian invention.

Roberts certainly wants to see it otherwise, and traces the practice that became so prevalent, if not pervasive, in Christian MSS of abbreviating a select group of "nomina sacra" terms to the initial and original Christian sacralizing of "the Name" Jesus, which then led to similar treatment for "Lord," and for "God," and for the other "nomina sacra." Hurtado introduces some considerations (see n.4 above) to strengthen this argument. Nevertheless, I remain skeptical. Though it admittedly remains ambiguous, some of the evidence presented above suggests that Jewish scribes sometimes may have used contractions of QEOS, and perhaps a few other frequently used words, in the development of their scribal traditions (see items 20, 21[?], 27, and n.11 above).

One other "special words" detail that comes up in the discussion is treatment of numbers. Roberts argues that good literary Greek texts invariably (or perhaps, normally) spell out numbers rather than using symbols, while Christian texts -- again following "documentary" influences -- usually employ the symbols. In our early texts, examples are few, and I have not systematically explored all of the early fragments of Greek Jewish scriptures for this feature. If PYale 1 (item 17), a codex fragment of Genesis that should probably be dated no earlier than the 2nd century ce, is of Jewish origin, Roberts' hypothesis would be in trouble since number symbols are found in that material. But the combination of codex and symbolized number in PYale 1 unites to make it difficult for Roberts even to consider the possibility that the text is of Jewish origin. Treu is not so troubled, and leaves open the possibility. Obviously I agree that this should be an open question.

Concluding Remarks
This just scrapes the surface of the variety of information and of issues that can emerge from close study of these early LXX/OG materials. Roberts recreates a developmental historical hypothesis about early Christianity in Egypt from the details as he interprets them, and in general, the hypothesis makes a great deal of sense. But he does not consistently engage the question of what we can learn about Greek speaking/writing/reading Judaism in Palestine and Egypt from the same materials, and in that regard, often fails to be convincing about details.
The evidence is clear that prior to the emergence of Christianity, Greek speaking/writing Jews had access to a range of scriptural (and other) works copied in a highly "professional" manner. That these manuscripts were produced by specifically Jewish copyists cannot be assumed, although in some instances, the treatment of the tetragrammaton and the apparently selfconscious attention to indicating significant sense units by means of spacing suggests that the task must have been entrusted to persons who were familiar with those sorts of special literary traditions. The differences in overall "style" between some of the early Jewish manuscripts suggests that our preserved witnesses represent varieties of technique that had developed in Jewish literary circles. Whether on the basis of this evidence one can mount economic arguments (these Jews were rich enough to afford such quality), or liturgical ones (the spacing techniques were developed to assist in oral reading in the synagogues), or even issues of cultural-educational status (these Jews knew what was appropriate to their social station) I will leave to others. The data suggests variety, and that is what we should have expected. And as new situations developed in the transition to Roman rule and influence, we should expect changes to evidence themselves, not only in our Jewish to Christian trajectories, but in the surrounding world as well.

Early Christianity was formed in large measure in close relationship (positive and negative) to the types of Judaism present in the Greco-Roman world in the first century of the common era. The "scriptural" preoccupations of many early Christian representatives surely were influenced by the established Jewish frameworks of the time. Thus in the end -- if one can responsibly speak of such an end -- I would expect to find that the debt of early Christianity to its Jewish heritage is even greater in these areas of "textual mechanics" and transmitted scribal craft than our scholarly traditions and approaches have permitted us to recognize.
//08 July 1999 draft #6//
Appended Excerpts [[to be linked]]
1. 4Q122=LXXDeut Deuteronomy 11 [#819; not known to vh] parchment roll, 2nd bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 195 (plate 43): "The manuscript is inscribed in a literary hand not particularly elegant, though not careless; its uncial letters seem to be somewhat influenced by cursive forms. ... Space for word division appears between some words but not between others, and an unexpected space appears within the word ERUQRAS after the upsilon. Few, if any, clearly complete words survive, and ERUQRAS fragiley bears the sole possibility for the identification of the manuscript." These scraps would have been unknown to Roberts and Treu.
Parsons, DJD 9 (1992) 11-12: The letters ... are of irregular heights and widths. ... The letters are written with a thick pen, but without organised contrasts. ... There are small decorative hooks or blobs on the feet of some uprights, as well as on the tops of K and U. ... The scroll is written in an informal hand with some ligatures. The overall impression is of a script rather earlier than the others of this find. It is comparable with [some texts] ... of the early second century BCE, or ... of the mid-second century BCE. ... But it should be emphasised that, with so small a sample, the dating must be more than usually uncertain."

Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "The hand of this scrap shows no similarities with [#943a-b]; it is an informal script of Ptolemaic look with some cursive tendencies and no decoration except some terminal hooks and blobs."
2. PRyl 458 Deuteronomy 23-28 [#957 = vh057] papyrus roll, 2nd bce; John Rylands Library, Manchester ENG.

[excerpts]
Roberts, Two Biblical Papyri ... (Manchester Univ Press 1936) (with a facsimile): "The hand is a book hand, stylised and careful and of considerable elegance, if rather formal; its most striking feature is the use of decorative serifs, particularly noticeable on N, U and T. At first sight it has a somewhat archaic appearance, but this may well be deceptive and the formal character of the hand as a whole must be taken into consideration. [Then refers to similar hands, esp in PTeb]" 22f.

"What is paleographically of most interest about the text is the scribe's system of punctuation, or rather of interspacing. ...The writer regularly leaves a space not only at the end of a verse or sentence, but at the end of a KWLON or group of words. At the end of a verse, as in [Dt 24.1], a wider space is left and a high point added; otherwise the writer's principle seems to be to leave a fairly large space at the end of a sentence or clause ... and a smaller one at the end of a group of words. The interspacing does not seem to follow the sense of the passage [in some instances]. But there is no attempt at word division. ... Our text ... shows no sign of documentary influence and we cannot ascribe to this cause the systematic use of [spacing] found here. ... Possibly it may be due to Aramaic influence, as word division is found in the Aramaic papyri of the fifth century B.C. The Nash papyrus, however -- a Hebrew text, probably liturgical, which contains the Decalogue and the Shema and was written not later than the second century A.D. -- has spacing between words but no verse division. ... This system [otherwise] is not to be found in Biblical manuscripts; its origin may perhaps be due to Aramaic influence or if, as is possible, this roll was the property of some Jewish synagogue, to the exigencies of public reading" (25- 28).
3. 7QLXXEx Exodus 28 [#805 = vh038]; papyrus roll, 2nd/1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpt]
Parsons DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This small serifed bilinear hand has some similarities with hands A and B [of #943 Minor Prophets] (note the pointed alpha, and wide tau hooked down at the left)."
4. 4Q119=LXXLev\a Leviticus 26 [#801 = vh049]; parchment roll, 2nd/1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 161 (plate 38): "The scribe used the customary scriptio continua but with occasional spaces for word-division, as after SPORON (line 6), UMWN (line 12), etc. Of the 12 lines whose beginnings are preserved, only two (lines 19, 23) show the division of a word between lines. A new section at 26.14 (line 21) is marked by an interval of about three letters' width within the line and by a horizontal paragraph-mark in the left margin."
Parsons, DJD 9, 7: "The script ... is approximately bilinear .... The letter forms tend toward the oval/rectangular, but not consistently. ... There is no consistent use of shading as part of the style. ... There is no consistent use of ornament, but there are sporadic terminal hooks, notably on the foot of R and the left extremity of T. ...The scribe displays a pinched, plain hand of no great pretensions .... The general impression is of a script ... unlikely to be later than the first century BCE, ... or much earlier. C.H.Roberts (apud Kahle, 616) thought of first century BCE, with the end of the second 'not out of the question'."

Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This is a pinched, undecorated hand ... with a pronounced Ptolemaic look; not similar to [#943a-b], and probably earlier"
5. 7QLXX EpJer Epistle of Jeremiah (Baruch 6) [#804 = vh312]; papyrus roll, 2nd/1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This tiny scrap shows a broad bilinear script without ornament (except for a half-serif on the foot of tau)."
6. PFouad 266a Genesis 3-38 [#942 = vh056] papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
[excerpts]
Zaki Aly & Ludwig Koenen, Three Rolls of the Early Septuagint: Genesis and Deuteronomy ... (Bonn: Habelt 1980) (includes plates). Descriptions are by Koenen. For #942 (Koenen 3): "The papyrus is of good quality. ... The use of the tetragrammaton is not attested for this roll, but may be inferred from the fact that 942 has probably been written by the same hand as 848 [see below] or, at least, by a scribe belonging to the same school and scribal tradition. Little blanks indicate new cola [footnote: "The practice was obviously the same as in 848 and 847" [see below]]. There is also a tendency to mark Hebrew names by little blanks before and after the names."
Turner, Greek Manuscripts\2 #56 (describing #848, below, which is virtually identical to the 9 small fragments of #942): "Medium to large, formal, upright, rounded capitals, written slowly. ... Markedly bilinear, the lower line outlined by horizontal strokes on the feet of letters [full feet on TU, half feet or hooks on most other verticals and on some obliques], the upper indicated by high horizontals; even R and U fall inside the parallels, only F protrudes [below and above, and Y slightly above, but not below]."
7. 4Q120=LXXLev\b Leviticus 2-5 [#802 = vh046]; papyrus roll, 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ed. E.Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 168 (plates 39-41): "The scribe used the customary scriptio continua, but with spaces before and after the divine name and occasionally with spaces between sense-divisions or sentences. Signs to mark a new paragraph occur at the left margin of frg. 27 between lines 6 and 7 (= Lev 6.1 [5.24]) and of frg. 32." It also uses iota adscript (usually); and contains some corrections. The tetragrammaton occurs as IAW twice, and KURIOS is not found in these fragments.
Parsons, DJD 9 (1992) 10: "The scribe used a bilinear script ..., with square/circular letter forms. The upper line is broken by the risers of F and Y; the lower line, emphasised by the serifs, is hardly broken at all. ... There is hardly any noticeable shading. ... Ornament ... is frequent. ... This is a full round hand, carefully executed, comparable with the Fouad Deuteronomy [#848 below] ... and the second script of the Greek Minor Prophets Scroll [below #943]. ... Such scripts may belong to the first century BCE, ... but they may extend well into the first century CE. ... This example has a slightly old-fashioned look ..., and could reasonably be assigned to the first century BCE."
8. PFouad 266b Deuteronomy 17-33 [#848 = vh56]; papyrus roll, 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.
[excerpts]
Koenen, Three Rolls 4-5: "The quality of the papyrus is the same as in the case of 942, and both rolls have probably been written by the same scribe. The columns of 848 are smaller (... [about] 37 letters per line); the height of the writing area varies between 15.5-16.5 cm. (21-23 lines). The upper margin was originally at least 3.5 cm., the lower margin 4 cm. This indicates close to 24 cm. for the height of the entire roll. Kolleseis [joins between sheets of papyri] are occasionally visible, but since too much of the roll is missing, the length of the kollemata [sheets] cannot be determined. The intercolumnation varies around an average of 1.5 cm., but occasionally it narrows down to 0.2 cm. Towards the bottoms the lines have the tendency to begin progressively more to the left, thus producing slightly longer lines (Mass's Law). Paragraphoi marking the beginning of verses are used throughout, though not regularly. An additional long oblique stroke marks the beginning of chapter 21 [footnote: "... This is the only instance; a reason for this special treatment is not apparent. ...]. Frequently small blanks indicate new verses, sentences, or cola [footnote: "... The size varies according to the function of the blank. In addition, there occur blanks for which I see no reason...."], while Hebrew names are not surrounded by blanks, as is the case in 942. The ends of lines are occasionally left blank in order to start the next verse on a new line. Corrections are rare. A gloss appears on the lower margin on pl. 6. col.4."
The tetragrammaton is represented by small square Hebrew letters (slightly more than half the height of the Greek, written along the bottom part of the line) inserted into a space equivalent to about "5-6 Greek letters (i.e. about the size of KU/RIOS written in full) and marked ... by a high dot at its beginning [preceded by a space]. A second scribe filled in the Hebrew letters. They cover only the middle of the blank, usually the space of 2 1/2 - 3 letters" (Koenen 5-6).

Turner, Greek Manuscripts\2 #56: "The ends of lines are not even. Letters may be reduced in size at the line-end. Medium to large, formal, upright, rounded capitals, written slowly. Contrast between thick horizontals and downward obliques, and fine verticals [RAK Note: this is not obvious from the photos]. Markedly bilinear, the lower line outlined by horizontal strokes on the feet of letters [full feet on TU, half feet or hooks on most other verticals and on some obliques], the upper indicated by high horizontals; even R and U fall inside the parallels, only F protrudes [below and above, and Y slightly above, but not below]." "...Few orthographical errors. Iota adscript is written."
9. PFouad 266c Deuteronomy 10-33 [#847 = vh56] papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Egyptian Papyrological Society, Cairo.

[excerpts]
Koenen, Three Rolls 7: "The papyrus is of a quality similar to 942 and 848. Only 49 very small fragments of a few letters each are extant. ... The columns seem to have had [about] 21 lines. ... One might assume that the overall height of the roll 847 was the same (24 cm.) [as 848]. The width of the lines averages 24 letters ... but the number of letters per lines varies considerably. Kollesis may occur [once]. ... Paragraphos is extant on pl. 51 col. V. Small blanks separate verses, sentences, or cola [footnote: "... small blanks also occur elsewhere. ..."] and mark Hebrew names [footnote: "... all in front of the name. No example survives for a blank after those names. ..."]. A large blank precedes Moses' blessing of Dan, presumedly at the end of line (4?) of col VIII (pl.53) [[conjectural reconstruction]] in order that the blessing may begin at a new line.... No KURIOS or tetragrammaton is extant. QEOS is written in full; thus we may assume that the scribe did not use the Christian abbreviations of holy names, which came into use after 70 A.D. 'Inorganic' trema [or dieresis, a single or double dot above a vowel] indicating the beginning of a word) occurs once [51.IV.11; but not clear in photo]... [footnote: "'Inorganic' is the use of the trema which marks the initial or emphasizes the final vowel of a word, while its use for separating vowels in a cluster is called 'organic.' The 'organic' use is attested as early as the 2nd cent. B.C., though it does not become common before the 2nd cent. A.D. For 'inorganic' use I am not aware of any example before the end of the 1st cent. B.C. ...."]. ...Corrections are frequent."
"In many details, this hand is similar to 848 [above], but larger, thinner, more rounded and irregular, and less bilinear, though the extensions of letters above the 'upper line' and below the 'lower line' are only small (see particularly A). The letters are occasionally decorated by quite heavy strokes [Schubart's decorative style...]. Also the middle horizontal strokes are stressed" (6 n.28). In dating, Koenen has vacillated between 1st bce and 1st ce, preferring in his edition "the end of the 1st cent. B.C." (6 n.28 and see examples cited there). The use of serifs and hooks is similar to 848 and 942, but less obvious or obtrusive. It seems to be a more refined formal hand.
10. 4Q127 Exodus Paraphrase (?) [unknown to vh]; papyrus roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 223f (very similar to 4QLXXLev\b = #802): "Where a margin is listed as questionable, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether the blank portion of the papyrus actually represents a margin, or rather a blank line above or below the extant text, or a space between words; it should be remembered, however, that in the Greek manuscripts from Cave 4 blank lines to signal a new paragraph are unusual." ... "Paragraphing is indicated in at least two places. Above KAI in line 3 of frg. 17 is a short horizontal line of 0.3 cm. There is also a coronis, or elaborate marginal marking, preserved on frg. 8 (cf. also frg. 18?)." ... "The manuscript dates from about the first century BCE or the earlier first century CE.... It is written in scriptio continua, with full or narrow spaces occasionally left before sentences (cf KAI in frg. 1 line 5) and before or after proper names (cf. each of lines 6-11 in frg. 1)." There are some corrections by the original scribe. There is no evidence of tetragrammaton passages.
Parsons, DJD 9, 12f: "The scroll is written in a bilinear hand ..., with the letter forms round and square [F (and probably Y) extend slightly below and also above the projected lines]. ... There is no noticeable shading. ... The tops of some uprights are hooked to the left; the feet of uprights and obliques are generally decorated with full or half serifs, sometimes in the form of angled hooks. ... The manuscript is rather ineptly written in a bilinear, decorated literary script. This ineptness is not necessarily personal, since many literary scripts of the early Roman period show the same characteristics .... It is likely that the manuscript was written in the first century BCE or the earlier first century CE. A date early in the period is certainly possible."
11. 4Q126 unidentified Greek [not known to vh]; parchment roll, late 1st bce; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 219 (plate 46): "The scribe used the customary scriptio continua, though leaving some full- letter spaces probably between sentences ... and half- or quarter-spaces occasionally between words." Eight frgs (double plates of some). Frg. 2 seems to have KURIO[], preceded by a short space.
Parsons, DJD 9, 12: "The script ... is bilinear. ... There is no shading. ... There are some half-serifs or hooks on the feet of uprights, and full serifs on the base of T and U. ... To judge from this very small sample, the scroll is written by a hand of the same kind as those of 4Q120[Lev\b = #802] and 4Q121[Num = #803] (but more shakily executed), and it can be assigned to the same date (i.e. the first century BCE or possibly the early first century CE)."
Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "A decorated hand of the same type as [#803], but not so elegant."
12. 4Q121=LXXNum Numbers 3-4 [#803 = vh051]; parchment roll, turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Ulrich, DJD 9 (1992) 188 (plates 42-43): "The scribe does not usually leave a space for word-division. He does leave a single space for some sense-divisions, occasionally at the end of a 'verse,' but not always, and occasionally at other points within a 'verse.' Thus in counting letters per line, for this manuscript one should not count spaces between words, except possibly before some sense-divisions." Uses iota adscript; two or three corrections; no occurrences of tetragrammaton, but "in reconstruction, spacing would seem to allow either KURIOS or YHWH, whereas IAW ... and the (Christian) abbreviation KS would be too short. Palaeo-Hebrew or PIPI forms in a Greek manuscript this early are improbable" [why?!].

Parsons, DJD 9, 11: The scribe used a bilinear script ..., with the letter-forms square/circular [FY and sometimes A extend above the projected top line (but not below?)]. ... Shading [is not] ... notable. ... Ornament ... is frequent: the tops of uprights and obliques are occasionally decorated with hooks, and the feet of uprights and obliques are regularly decorated with heavy full and half-serifs (these are sometimes oblique, sometimes formed as a hook in a single movement with the main stroke). The serifs are notably long, and may run into the serif preceding or following; this marks the lower line all the more emphatically. ... The script is similar to that of 4Q120[Lev\b = #802], but with heavier ornament. This too could be of late Ptolemaic date; but the early Roman period cannot be excluded."
Parsons, DJD 8 (1990) 25: "This bilinear script (the descenders of rho and phi are curtailed), heavily ornamented with half- and full serifs, has some similarities with [#943a], but it is much more elegant and finely written; a distinctive feature is that the oval letters tend to lean backwards."
13. 8HevXIIgr = Nahal Hever Minor Prophets [#943 = vh285]; parchment roll(s), turn of the era; Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem.
[excerpts]
Tov, DJD 8 (1990) 9ff: "The text of the scroll has been subdivided into paragraphs with both minor and major breaks .... What has not been observed by these scholars is that the scroll contains also a division into 'verses' and that in all three divisions the scroll agrees to a great extent with the Masoretic tradition, not only regarding the system of subdividing the text, but also regarding the location of the divisions themselves. ..." "In addition to the open and closed sections the scroll indicates with one or two spaces the beginning of what in MT is a new verse. This practice is known from a few Hebrew sources (1QpaleoLev [limited evidence] and 4QDan\a,d/ [reported by S. J. Pfann]; the situation with regard to 1QIs\a/ is not clear) as well as from two early Greek biblical sources: PFouad 266 [see #848] and PRyl Greek 458 [= #957]. [[para]] It is relatively easy to recognize these spaces in the scroll since in the section written by scribe A there are otherwise no spaces between words. ... The second scribe left spaces between most words, and for the beginnings of new verses he left more than one space. Likewise, the scribe of PRyl Greek 458 [= #957] often left spaces within the verse, and between verses he left more than one space. ..."

It is possible that we have remnants of two scrolls here; in any event, two different hands worked on the materials that have survived, and the second hand presents virtual word division in those sections.
Peter Parsons describes the hands (19ff): With scribe A (the bulk of the preserved material) "the script is in intention bilinear (only F reaches well above the line; the descenders of R F and Y are normally curtailed), although uncertainty in execution, and the enlargement of initial letters, gives an irregular impression. ...[[para]]... The script is profusely ornamented. The feet of verticals and descending obliques carry blobs or hooks or half-serifs (horizontal or angular or arched) or -- rarely -- full serifs; hooks and half-serifs normally point to the right; they may be very large." For scribe B, "the script is bilinear (allowing for the enlargement of some line-initials), except for R and F (this scribe makes no attempt to curtail them). ... The general [horizontal] effect is round and square. ...[[paragraph]]... The feet of uprights, the tops of uprights in I, K, N, F, and the left- hand tips of U and X, take decoration in the form of blobs, hooks and half-serifs (horizontal or oblique), rarely full serifs; hooks and half-serifs more often (but not consistently) point to the left." In general, A "aspires to be a book-hand ..., but the performance is inconsistent." Hand B "is a much more fluent and consistent copyist than hand A." Comparison with other, especially dated materials (23) concludes: "Most of this material is documentary; but the comparison is rather appropriate, since the use of enlarged initials at line-beginning (hands A and B) and phrase-beginning (hand A) and (set out in the margin) to mark a new section (hand A) gives this manuscript a documentary look. ... The fact is itself remarkable. Early Christian books show the same characteristic; copies of the Greek classics do not. It has therefore been tempting to argue that the texts of the Early Church stood closer to the world of business than to that of literature, and to draw condlusions about the social milieu in which the texts circulated or the esteem in which they were held. Now we see the same thing in a Jewish manuscript of pre-Christian date. This may suggest that the Christians inherited the practice, rather than inventing it; the problem remains, why Greek-speaking Jews should have adopted it in the first place" (23f).
14. POx 3522 Job 42 [#??]; papyrus roll, 1st ce; [location?]
[excerpts]
---
POx 50 (1983) 1 (with plate): "The lines are of 19-22 letters; the columns perhaps of 15 lines [but see the discussion in the notes], which would give a roll-height of c. 14 cm.... There are no lectional signs; punctuation by blank space (i.4, 5, 7). The informal upright bilinear script, in which the verticals are often ornamented with back-hooks, has similarities with [[two dated MSS]]; a date in the early first century would suit. ... [[paragraph]] A copy in roll-form, and of this date, will have been Jewish, not Christian."
With regard to the "archaic Hebrew" tetragrammaton, "the scribe of 3522 himself wrote the Hebrew continuously and fluently ...; but apparently without understanding, since the medial and final he have different shapes." The writing appears to be relatively undisciplined (quickly executed, some ligatures and run-on strokes in letter formation), with no serifs of note beyond the "hooks" (mostly on T, H) mentioned above. The initial letter of the name JOB has a dieresis/trema (see above, on #847) over it, and the name may be followed by a short blank.
Tov, DJD 8 (1990) 12: "The scribe of POxy 3522 (Job) very clearly wrote the tetragrammaton from left to right, creating a ligature between the yod and the next Greek letter."
15. POx 4443 Esther E + 8-9 [#???] papyrus roll, 1st/2nd ce; [location?]
[excerpts]
Ed K. Luchner, POx 65 (1998): "...This was a luxurious copy. The columns have 31 lines (height 20 cm) with an average 25 letters (width 7 cm, plus 0.5 cm for projecting letters at paragraphs). The intercolumnium is approximately 2 cm. The back is blank." [[paragraph]] "This is the first known [Greek] copy of a passage from Esther in roll-form, a rare format for biblical texts, probably indicating Jewish provenance (C.H.Roberts and T.C.Skeat, Birthe of the Codex 38-40). It is also the first papyrus to preserve this passage [and it supplies many variants in the "E" "additions" section]. ..." [[paragraph]] "There are no diacritical signs or punctuation, apart from some paragraphi (with short lines preceding them, and projecting enlarged letters at the beginning of the following line), and diaeresis above I (ii.24, 31; iii.6, 24) and U (i.6, ii.16). Words are occasionally separated. There are occasional space fillers at the line ends, and the centre bar of E is frequently extended for the same purpose. Iota adscript is generally used (ii.10 the only exception); four examples are irrational (ii.25, 27, 28, 29). Itacism occurs in i.2, 18, 19." [[paragraph]] "The script is fluent and broadly bilinear, but with its frequent ligatures, cursive forms, enlarged initial letters [also enlarged B elsewhere] and tall risers [e.g. H, F] / deep descenders (R, F, sometimes I) it perhaps owes more to official documentary styles than to bookhands. For the general appearance cf. the earlier Roberts GLH 9a (between 7-4 BC)." Also, "nomina sacra" are uncontracted -- e.g. QEOU, SWTHRIAN, ANQRWPOIS in E.16 (reconstructed) and 18, 23, 24.
16. PFouad 203 [vh911] (1st/2nd ce, papyrus roll, prayer/amulet?)
Roberts MSB 78 (no plate?): "There can be little doubt of the Jewish origin ..., a prayer against evil spirits, written on a roll of papyrus and attributed to the late first or early second century. Both PLond Christ 5 (=vh921), a leaf from a liturgical book of the third century, and POx 17.2068 (=vh966), some fragments of a papyrus roll of the fourth century, have been thought to be Jewish; but in the latter the contraction of QEOS, the eccentric nomen sacrum BS = BASILEUS, and the apparent echoes of Revelation 15.3 and 1 Timothy 1.17 in l. 7 render the suggestion doubtful. To these should be added the Vienna text of The Penitence of Iannes and Iambres: it was written on the recto of a roll and nomina sacra are left uncontracted [p.61f n.5 calls this PVindobGr 29456 (=vh1068); p.63 n.3 refers to the forthcoming ed of Jannes/Jambres material by A. Pietersma and also to the republication of the Vienna fragment by P.Maraval in ZPE 25 (1977) pp. 199ff.]."

19. POx 656 [#905(U4) = vh013 = T009] (2nd/3rd ce, papyrus codex, Gen 14-27)
Grenfell & Hunt, POx 4 (1904) 28f: "The MS was carefully written in round upright uncials of good size and decidedly early appearance, having in some respects more affinity with types of the second century than of the third. To the latter, however, the hand is in all probability to be assigned, though we should be inclined to place it in the earlier rather than the later part of the century. ... Another mark of age is perhaps to be recognized in the absence of the usual contractions for QEOS, KURIOS, &c., but this may of course be no more than an individual peculiarity. The only abbreviation that occurs is the horizontal stroke instead of N, employed to save space at the end of a long line. Both high and middle ... stops are found, but are sparingly used: more often a pause is marked by a slight blank space. A few alterations and additions have been made by a second hand, which seems also to be responsible for the numeration in the centre of the upper margin of each page."
Roberts MSB 76f: [does not comment on literary style] "... The implication is that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton stood in the exemplar and the first scribe, like the scribe of PFouad 266 [#848], either did not know how to write it or was not entrusted with the writing. In the event the second scribe, perhaps not accustomed to writing biblical manuscripts but aware that KURIOS was the Greek equivalent of Adonai inserted it here. The text has a number of unique readings which may point to a revision of the LXX."
//end//

See Part 4

Admin · 10/05/2012 9:40 am

Part 4

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 2:8 And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write; The first and the last, who was dead, and has come to life, says this: [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP]

Now many misguided individuals try to use this scripture to 'prove' that Jesus (Yeshua) is coeternal and coequal with his Father (YHWH); however, it really shows the exact opposite. First, they overlook the fact that he "was dead" for three days which would be impossible if he were the same as Almighty God (YHWH) who has always been immortal and the source of all life, Psalms 36:9, "For with Thee is the fountain of life; In thy light we see light." (NASB-MP). This is further emphasized at Psalms 145:14-16, "The Lord sustains all who fall, And raises up all who are bowed down. 15 The eyes of all look to Thee, And thou dost give them their food in due time. 16 Thou dost open Thy hand, And dost satisfy the desire of every living thing." (NASB-MP). Also, they overlook that someone superior to himself, Jesus (Yeshua), had to resurrect Him and unless his Father was alive, there would be no one capable of doing so. Clearly then, if Jesus (Yeshua) was dead for parts of three days as the scriptures state, he could not be coeternal with his Father (YHWH) who is immortal.

Second, to be coeternal with his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua) would have to have always existed, and he has not. With respect to raising his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) from the dead, Acts 13:33 says, "that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE." (NASB-MP); and Psalm 2:7, "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.'" (NASB-MP); now when we look into what beget or begotten means in the Webster's New world College Dictionary, Fourth Ed., says, "1, to be the father or sire of; procreate, 2, to bring into being; produce ["Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4 ed.", Michael Agnes, Editor in Chief, ISBN 0-02-863118-8]; we can be see from the definition of the word, both these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) did NOT always exist, but was brought into being or created by his Father (YHWH). This clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH) who the Bible shows always existed, Psalms 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (NASB-MP); and Psalms 93:2, "Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art everlasting." (NASB-MP); and Jeremiah 10:10, "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His Indignation." (NASB-MP); and, 1 Timothy 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (NASB-MP). In fact the Bible at Revelation 3:14 clearly states, ""And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) that he is "the beginning of the creation of God" as does Colossians 1:15, ""Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (AV).

Third, Jesus (Yeshua) stated that his Father (YHWH) was greater than he was, John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (AV); Clearly if Jesus (Yeshua) said " for my Father is greater than I" we should believe him. He further reaffirmed this at John 5:19, "Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (AV). And the scripture continues on, John 5:20, "For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel." (AV), so much so as to show him, Jesus (Yeshua) greater works. So it is clear that Jesus (Yeshua) is NEITHER COETERNAL NOR COEQUAL with his Father (YHWH). Always remember John 8:32, "and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (NASB-MP), and avoid false doctrine.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. [Authorized King James Bible: AV]

Clearly this verse does NOT apply to Jesus (Yeshua) as nowhere does the Bible use the term Almighty to apply to Jesus (Yeshua), but only to his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). This is made clear at Genesus 17:1, "And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect, 2... 3 and Abram fell on his face; and God talked with him..." (AV); and at Genesis 35:11, "And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;" (AV). This is also reaffirmed at Revelation 4:8, "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come." (AV), which also shows the Lord here referred to is Almighty God (YHWH), and not his only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to whom this title "Lord" is often also applied.

This fact, is also shown at Revelation 11:17, "Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.",(AV), yet there are those who attempt to twist the scriptures to serve the god of this system or world, and use scriptures such as Revelation 1:11, "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." (AV), but fail to notice the critical difference "the first and the last" which rather than implying that Jesus (Yeshua) is Almighty God (YHWH) clearly show his as the first of Creation as does Revelation 3:14, "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (AV); Clearly they do not recognize the difference between "beginning and the ending" and "the first and the last."

Actually a lot of this confusion results from poor translation as clearly shown by the rendering of Revelation 1:11 in the New American Standard Bible-reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP, "Saying, 'Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches; To Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyater and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodices." (NASB-MP); similar renderings are found in the American Standard Bible (ASB); the New World Translation (NWT); The Emphatic Dialogue; New Revised Standard Version (NRSV); the Westcott-Hort (1948 Reprint), and many more. Of particular interest is the rendering in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, the following, "Saying: What thou seest, write in a book and send to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamus and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.".

However, be not mislead by the trickery of men, but know this Psalms 83:18 says, "That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth." (AV). Here it uses the name, Jehovah, as the English form of God's (YHWH's) name, but since his name in Hebrew is all constants this is only one of several possible transliterations in English.

And the difference is drawn out at Acts 5:24-26, "Now when the high priest and the captain of the temple and the chief priests heard these things, they doubted of them whereunto this would grow. 25 Then came one and told them, saying, Behold, the men whom ye put in prison are standing in the temple, and teaching the people. 26 Then went the captain with the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned." (AV), where it clearly says, Acts 4:26, "The kings of the earth took their stand, And the rulers were gathered together Against the Lord, and against His Christ." (NASB-MP). Clearly showing here "Lord" applied to Almighty God (YHWH) and distinguishing him from his son the Christ, Jesus (Yeshua) as it showed them against both as distinct beings and not as one and the same.

So we can clearly see those entrenched in false doctrine try to use a poor translation (of Revelation 1:11) to support their God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine and a title "Lord" that has been at various times applied to both the Father (YHWH) and to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua) to mislead. How Deceitful!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Discourse on Revelation 22:12-13 and 21:6-7:

INTRODUCTION:

Let's first look at the two scriptures in several different Bible versions/translations:

"12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." (Revelation 22:12-13 AV - Authorized King James Version)

"12 Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is.
13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." ." (Revelation 22:12-13 ASV - American Standard Version of 1901)

"12 Lo! I come speedily, and my reward is with me, to render unto each one as, his, work is.
13 I, am the A and the Z, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." (Revelation 22:12-13 Rothrham)

BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA ON REVELATION 22:12-13 AND 22:6-7:

The International Standard Encyclopedia of the Bible says:

ALPHA AND OMEGA

al'-fa, o'-me-ga, o-me'-ga (Alpha and Omega = A and O):

The first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, hence, symbolically, "beginning and end"; in Revelation "The Eternal One" in Revelation 1:8 of the Father, in Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13 of the Son. Compare Theodoret, Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, iv. 8:

"We used alpha down to omega, i.e. all." A similar expression is found in Latin (Martial, v.26). Compare Aretas (Cramer's Catenae Graecae in New Testament) on Revelation 1:8 and Tertullian (Monog, 5): "So also two Greek letters, the first and last, did the Lord put on Himself, symbols of the beginning and the end meeting in Him, in order that just as alpha rolls on to omega and omega returns again to alpha, so He might show that both the evolution of the beginning to the end is in Him and again the return of the end to the beginning." Cyprian, Testim, ii.1; vi.22, iii.100, Paulinus of Nola Carm. xix.645; xxx.89; Prudentius, Cathem., ix.10-12. In Patristic and later literature the phrase is regularly applied to the Son. God blesses Israel from 'aleph to taw (Leviticus 26:3-13), but curses from waw to mem (Leviticus 26:14-43). So Abraham observed the whole law from 'aleph to taw. Consequently, "Alpha and Omega" may be a Greek rendering of the Hebrew phrase, which expressed among the later Jews the whole extent of a thing.

CONCLUSION:

In these two scriptures we are dealing with the symbolic meaning to the use of the first letter of the Koine Greek alphabet, Alpha, and the last letter, omega. As the International Bible Dictionary of the Bible states, it means the ''beginning and end' and shows how in Revelation 1:8 this phase is applied to the Father (YHWH) "6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. 7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." (Revelation 1:6-8 AV). Here we note it says, "6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father" clearly here referring to two individuals, God the Father (YHWH), and his God the Son (Yeshua or YHWH saves) . The term Alpha and Omega in "8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Which is made clearer in the Rothrham Bible as "8 I, am, the A, and, the Z, saith the Lord,-the, God who Is, and who Was, and who is Coming, The Almighty."
Clearly showing he has no beginning in keeping with "2 Before the mountains were brought forth, Or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Revelation 1:8 ASV), which is quite different from how this same phrase is later used at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13 to apply to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) who had a beginning as shown by " And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Revelation 3:14 AV); he was the first created thing with regard to all that was created.

To get a clear understanding of Revelation 22:13, we need to look at it in contest as follows:

"9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and sleepermongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:9-16 AV)

We note that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) or one of his angels is quoted by the Apostle John as saying, "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." [these being the Angels he was given authority over to carry out his assignment at 1 Corinthians 15:27-28.]. Since Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had a beginning as shown " And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Revelation 3:14 AV) and "15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" (1 Colossians 1:15-19 AV). Clearly Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is separate individual from his Father (YHWH) as the scripture states, ". 19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;" which makes plain that his Father (YHWH) was pleased that "all fulness dwell" in his faithful Son. Also, the scripture brings out in what manner Alpha and Omega properly applies to the Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) when it states, "15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Where it shows that after his creation by his Father (YHWH), he, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) worked along with his Father in creating all of the remainder of creation in the entire universe. His, the Son's Alpha and Omega symbolic application is further made clear in "17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Thus he is the Alpha in the sense he helped create all else except himself and the Omega as his Father (YHWH) has given him immortality for being faithful, and this is made certain by ". 18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence."

So here we see a faithful Son, Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) had been given authority over all by his Father (YHWH) with the ", it is manifest that he is excepted" exception of himself. This subjection to his Father (YHWH) is clearly shown by the faithful Son's statements, " Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise." (John 5:19 AV) and " Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 AV).

Those denying that Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH saves) is not the faithful only begotten Son of Almighty God (YHWH) and not God (YHWH) are thus clearly committing blasphemy.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Revelation 22:12-13 "Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every men according to what he has done. 13 'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'" [New American Standard Bible-Reference Edition by Moody Press, Chicago, a div. Of Moody Bible Institute; NASB-MP]

Many misguided ones attempt to use this scripture to 'prove' that Jesus (Yeshua) always existed and is coeternal with his Father (YHWH), but it does not. Many of these same individuals turn to Acts 13:33, "that God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou ART MY SON; TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN THEE." (NASB-MP); and Psalm 2:7, "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee.'" (NASB-MP); whereas, in doing so they show their ignorance of the word begotten which comes from beget which the Webster's New world College Dictionary, Fourth Ed., says, "1, to be the father or sire of; procreate, 2, to bring into being; produce ["Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4 ed.", Michael Agnes, Editor in Chief, ISBN 0-02-863118-8]; as can be seen from the definition of the word, both these scriptures clearly show that Jesus (Yeshua) did NOT always exist, but was brought into being or created by his Father (YHWH). This clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH) who the Bible shows always existed, Psalms 90:2, "Before the mountains were born, Or Thou didst give birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God." (NASB-MP); and Psalms 93:2, "Thy throne is established from of old; Thou art everlasting." (NASB-MP); and Jeremiah 10:10, "But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His Indignation." (NASB-MP); and, 1 Timothy 1:17, "Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen." (NASB-MP). In fact the Bible at Revelation 3:14 clearly states, ""And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans F1 write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;" (Authorized King James Bible; AV) that he is "the beginning of the creation of God" as does Colossians 1:15, ""Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:" (AV).

Thus we can clearly see that those misguided ones that claim that Jesus (Yeshua) is coeternal with his Father (YHWH) are in gross error, and their use of begotten to attempt to prove this error only highlights their ignorance of the word 'begotten.'

Now with respect, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.'" They overlook the difference in the use of the Alpha and the Omega when applied to the Father (YHWH) at Revelation 1:8, "'I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord God, 'who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.'" (NASB-MP); Which is quite different than when applied to Jesus (Yeshua) where it says, "the first and the last, the beginning and the end." Since in Jesus' (Yeshua's) case, he was the first, that is of creation, or the beginning of creation, and also, the end of direct creation by his Father, Almighty God (YHWH). How so, his Father (YHWH) used him in the creation of all else as testified to at Colossians 1:16-17, "For in Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together." (NASB-MP); and John 1:10, "He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him." (NASB-MP). Whereas, with respect the Father (YHWH) the scripture clearly says, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." Where 'who is' emphasized which show implicitly that he always existed, and was not a created being as was his Son, Jesus (Yeshua). Thus as can be seen, he can NOT BE COETERNAL with his Father (YHWH), nor coequal with his Father (YHWH) since he, Jesus (Yeshua) was created by His Father (YHWH). Always remember John 8:32, "and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (NASB-MP).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See Part 4

Part 4

Discourse on Assumptions:

Some accuse others falsely of not believing in the deity of Christ and pontificating, but when we closely examine what these accusers are writing we see they are the ones guilty of both of these acts. How so? Well let's look at what drives these individuals and what they write as shown by Albert V. Dicey in his book:

"Above all, bodies of beliefs may generally be traced to certain fundamental assumptions which at the time, whether they be actually true or false, are believed by the mass of the world to be true with such good confidence that they hardly appear to be bear the character of assumptions" [source - "The Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England During the 19th. Century," by Albert V. Dicey, NY: Macmillan, 1905].

And, Gerard I. Nierenberg in his book:

"Few people realize what a large part of our beliefs is based on unconscious, hidden assumptions. They are not easy to bring out in the open and we frequently fail to recognize their existence. Like the iceberg, nine-tenths of our assumptions lie below the conscious level. Assumptions certainly are not learned, in the sense that we learn mathematics. When analyzed, they prove to be odds and ends of information, or usually misinformation, gathered during our lifetime, or dogmas that have their roots in emotional conflicts....Hidden assumptions are difficult to subject to rational verification...Perhaps the facts have become distorted because one or both parties are in the grip of hidden assumptions without being aware of it." [source - "The Complete Negotiator," by Gerard I. Nierenberg, Barnes & Noble books]

To take as an example the Deity of Christ, some have the wrong assumption of what it is due to the teachings of the mainstream churches and what they accepted as "truth" from the Council of Nicea of 325 AD. There to fit the political needs of a pagan Roman Emperor the false concept that God (YHWH) and his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) were one and the same was adopted so as to gain the approval of this pagan. However, both the facts and logic clearly show this to be a very false assumption.

For example, a writing by Uriyah the Messiahite:

Johnn 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself

Johnn 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.

By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live. [source - Uriyah the Messiahite]

And Jesus (Yeshua) himself even said, at Johnn 14:28-31, "You have heard Me tell you, 'I am going away and I am coming to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I. 29 I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen you may believe. 30 I will not talk with you much longer, because the ruler of the world is coming. He has no power over Me. 31 On the contrary, I am going away so that the world may know that I love the Father. Just as the Father commanded Me,so I do. "Get up; let's leave this place." (The Holman Christian Standard Bible: HCSB). Here Jesus (Yeshua) clearly shows that his Father (YHWH) is greater than himself so of course he can NOT be his Father (YHWH) also.

And at Johnn 14:23-24, "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." (American Standard Version; ASV).

But of course these ones who make this assumption fall back on corrupted translations made by biased individuals that tend to have Johnn 1:1 showing Jesus (Yeshua) is God (YHWH), i.e., they use the assumptions of similarly biased ones. Now, let's look at some none biased translations of this verse and learn the truth:

The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 which makes the Emphatic Diaglott so vaLukeable in seeing exactly what the Koine Greek is and its word for word equivalency in English, see below:

Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "1 In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the Word 2 This was in a beginning with the God. 3 All through it was done; and without it was done not even one, that has been done. 4 In it life was, and the life was the light of the men, 5 and the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness it not apprehended." And "14And the Word flesh became, and tabernacied among us, (and we beheld the glory of him, a glory as of an only-begotten from a father,) full of favor and truth," ( The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209" done by the great German Bible scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach)

Now let's look at how several unbiased translators translated these verses as opposed to the common biased translation:

The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J. Goodspeed - transltr, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication Year: 1939.:
Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "1 IN THE beginning the Word exist- ed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. 2 It was he that was with God in 3 the beginning. Everything came into ex- istence through him, and apart from him 4 nothing came to be. It was by him that life came into existence, and that life 5 was the light of mankind. The light is still shining in the darkness, for the darkness has never put it out." And "14 So the Word became flesh and blood and lived for a while among us, abounding in blessing and truth, and we saw the honor God had given him, such honor as an only son receives from his father."

A New Translation of The Bible by James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt.:
Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. 2 He was with God in the very beginning: 3 through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. 4 In him life lay, and this life was the Light for men; 5 amid the darkness the Light shone, and the darkness did not master it." And "14 So the Logos became flesh and tarried among us; we have seen his glory-glory such as an only sone enjoys from his father-seen it to be full of grace and reality."

The New English Bible (NEB)
Johnn 1:1-5 & 14, "1 When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was 2 The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, 3 and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him. 4 All that came to be was alive with his life, 5 and that life was the light of men. The light shines on in the dark, and the darkness has never quenched it." And "14 So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth"

[History of this great translation, "A presbytery in the Church of Scotland in 1946 recommended to the General Assembly that a translation of the Bible be made in the language of the present day because the language in the Authorized Version was archaic and less generally understood. The General Assembly approached other churches. There was a desire that a completely new translation rather than a revision and for a contemporary idiom rather than a traditional Biblical English be used.

It was planned and directed by representatives of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Congregational Church in England and Wales, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Irish Council of Churches, the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Presbyterian Church of England, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland. The Roman Catholic Church in England and Scotland sent representatives as observers.]

Other data that shows the truth with respect John 1:1 in brief.

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" [source - The Dictionary of the Bible by Johnn McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317]
"Recent commentaries on Johnn admit that despite the long-standing tradition to the contrary, the term "word" in the famous prologue of Johnn need not refer to the Son of God before he was born. Our translations imply belief in the traditional doctrine of incarnation by capitalizing "Word." But what was it that became flesh in Johnn 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God, the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architect's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read Johnn 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the Old Testament use of "word" admirably: "So shall My word be that goes forth out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."2
We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as "the word (logos) in the flesh." Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God's plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos, and when we speak of the Bible, it is called "the Word" because it also is God's expression of Himself. When we speak of a prophecy, we say, it is "the word of the Lord," both because it is in the form of words and because it is God's expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. Thus, it is quite correct to say that Jesus was the logos, but he was not all of the logos. "Jesus" does not equal "the logos," he was part of and the ultimate expression of the logos. If we see Jesus, we see the Father, but it is also true that if we study the Bible, God's Word, God's expression of Himself in writing, we will see the Father. More dimly, to be sure, because the written Word is not the clear and ultimate expression of God that the Living Word is, but it is the logos just the same. ... The logos or message of God, as it has been revealed in Jesus, incLukedes the following account of the meaning and purpose of creation: Jesus' coming was prophesied throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; he was finally born a man, and by his free will lived a sinless life; Jesus died on the Cross to mark the beginning of the end of the present age of sin and death, revealing that it is only a matter of time until this age and fallen humanity as it now exists come to an end; Jesus was raised from the dead to reveal that death (the experience that all humans since Adam have held in common) is contrary to God's will and will ultimately be abolished by resurrection; Jesus was exalted as Lord to the right hand of God where he presently exercises this authority; after he comes to gather together the Church, Jesus will come again at the end of this age in judgment, bringing destruction on the unbelieving world and salvation to the community of faith; he will rule for one thousand years on this earth; finally he will destroy Satan and all evil, end the heavens and earth of the present age and begin the new heavens and earth of the age to come, a "new creation.".... The meaning of "beginning" that immediately comes to mind when Johnn 1:1 is read refers to the time before history when God first conceived of man, and foresaw the possibility that he would fall and need a Savior. This is because of the familiar phrase, "In the beginning God" in Genesis 1:1. Johnn tells us that "in the beginning" God had wisdom and a plan, and was prepared to start acting that plan out so that the people He created and invested His love in could be rescued from death and live with Him eternally. The crowning piece of the plan of God was the creation of Jesus Christ, who was in a very real sense, "the last word." ... The "word" was with God in the same sense that "wisdom" was with God. Proverbs 8:29b and 30a says, "When He [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side." No one we know of believes that there was a being called "Wisdom" who helped God make the heavens and the earth. Everyone knows that wisdom is personified to make the record interesting and easy to understand. So too, in Johnn 1:1 when Scripture says that the logos was "with God," it is a personification. God had His plan and power, and "when the time had fully come" (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. This means that the person called "Jesus" did not yet exist, as is the case with all human persons, until he was conceived in his mother's womb. Prior to his conception, his existence was not personal, but prophetic, as foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures (the "Word"). Before Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary, the logos was to Jesus what promise is to fulfillment. When "the logos became flesh," the promise was fulfilled in the form of a person. While this understanding will be objectionable, perhaps anathema, to Trinitarian believers, it must be admitted that it is not a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship or Messiahship but, rather, a compelling alternative interpretation of relevant scriptural texts.... Because logos has the article [ho] preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai ("and") shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had the article preceded theos as well as logos, the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God." What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or, to use a piece of modern jargon, was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase, "what God was, the Word was," brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can. Johnn intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God [i.e., "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"]; if this be not true, the book [i.e., the Gospel of Johnn] is blasphemous.25
What it does say is defined as succinctly and accurately as it can be in the opening verse of St. Johnn's Gospel. But we have to be equally careful about the translation. The Greek runs: kai theos en ho logos. The so-called Authorized Version has: "And the Word was God." This would indeed suggest the view that "Jesus" and "God" were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be represented by "God" with the article, not theos but ho theos. But, equally, St. Johnn is not saying that Jesus is a "divine" man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar [the product of God and man] or in the sense in which the Liberals spoke of him [as a great man, teacher, prophet, etc.]. That would be theios. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, "And what God was, the Word was." [source - Biblical Unitarians]

Now, let's consider the subject by way of logic. Biology always shows that like begets like. For example, you have never seen a dog beget a cat and/or a cat beget a dog, have you? So since we know that a son of anything has many of the same characteristics and attributes as the father, and is always the same species as the father we would expect that from this fact that Jesus (Yeshua) would be a divine individual the same as his father. What else would one expect than a god would beget a god? Thus of course Jesus (Yeshua) would be a deity; however, for many this simple fact becomes clouded due to their assumptions consciously and/or unconsciously based on the Council of Nicea of 325 AD. Specifically, the false assumption that Jesus (Yeshua) and his Father (YHWH) are the same deity, an impossibility. In fact they are shown as two distinct divine individuals at Proverbs 8:22-31, with one acting as the Master Worker for the other with respect to everything that was created/beget after his creation, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, 31 Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men." (ASV).

In fact, his Father (YHWH) has put everything under this only begotten Son, Jesus (Yeshua) except himself as clearly shown at 1 Corinthians 15:21-28, " For since by man [came] death, by man [came] also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; then they that are Christ's, at his coming. 24 Then [cometh] the end, when he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be abolished is death. 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him. 28 And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." (ASV). Now if they were the one and same god as this ones who are misguided by their unconscious assumptions assume, the 27 verse would be meaningless and in error when it says, " 27 For, He put all things in subjection under his feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him." (ASV).

Also, the Bible would not say Son of God (YHWH), but would say God the Son which it does not say as clearly shown by over 40 scriptures, let's look at a few to see the facts from the American Standard Version:

Luke 8:28
And when he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I beseech thee, torment me not.
Luke 12:8
And I say unto you, Every one who shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:
Luke 22:69
But from henceforth shall the Son of man be seated at the right hand of the power of God.
Luke 22:70
And they all said, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].
John 1:34
And I have seen, and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.
John 1:49
Nathanael answered him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art King of Israel.
John 1:51
And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.
John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him.
John 5:25
Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.
John 6:27
Work not for the food which perisheth, but for the food which abideth unto eternal life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him the Father, even God, hath sealed.
John 9:35
Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and finding him, he said, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
John 10:36

say ye of him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am [the] Son of God?
John 11:4
But when Jesus heard it, he said, This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of God, that the Son of God may be glorified thereby.
John 11:27
She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I have believed that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, [even] he that cometh into the world.
John 13:31
When therefore he was gone out, Jesus saith, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him;
John 19:7
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
John 20:31
but these are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye may have life in his name.
Acts 7:56
and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God. (ASV).

Last, but not least consider three scriptures that absolutely prove this false unconscious assumption an untruth that there are three divine creatures that make up this false God (YHWH) dishonoring false doctrine of the trinity that these ones believing in the doctrine of the trinity and who are not in line with reality believe:

John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:1, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Neither mention in any way more than two beings, yet a trinity of anything requires three similar things.

John 1:2, "The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, "(New English Translation; NEB)
John 1:2, "The same was in the beginning with God." (American Standard Version; ASV)
Clearly states that the word, Jesus (Yeshua) was with God (YHWH) in the beginning, referring back to Genesis 1:1-2, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." (ASV) when he and his Son started to create the earth and all on it.

John 14:28, "Ye heard how I said to you, I go away, and I come unto you. If ye loved me, ye would have rejoiced, because I go unto the Father: for the Father is greater than I." (ASV)[previously quoted]
Jesus (Yeshua) clearly stated, "for the Father is greater than I." Showing the Father (YHWH) was greater as we all know Jesus (Yeshua) would not lie.

So we can NOW all see this myth is just that and actually just false doctrine baggage from the world's largest cult and those believing it are thoroughly deluded.

Yet some of these deluded ones who have been deluded by their own unconscious assumptions accuse others who have broken away from their deluded unconscious assumptions and see things clearly of being wrong, etc. They say when the ones who have broken away from being deluded tell them the facts that these ones are pontificating and/or just expressing their own opinion even when they use over 50% scripture in their writings mostly made in the true 'Sola Scriptura' writing style that demands the use of over 50% scripture. Yet the ones deluded by their own unconscious assumptions are in reality the ones expressing their own opinion and pontificating, but can NOT see the facts since they are being deluded by their own wrong unconscious assumptions.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See Part 5

Admin · 10/05/2012 9:40 am

Part 5

Trinity Disproved By Refuting Specific Questions/Accusations by Trinitarians:

FIRST, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

There are places in the NT that definitely show Jesus to be God and yet some would deny this. To deny the Son is to deny the Father, meaning that those who say that Jesus is no more than Son and not God deny God the Father.

Answer:

Obviously overlooking the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) also is one of God's (Yeshua's) children, the first or only begotten, and that everything he has was given to him. Now, let's look at the facts concerning Jesus's (Yeshua's) incarnation and his status before his incarnation in brief.

HIS INCARNATION:

Now the Bible says at Matthew 1:18-25, "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. 19 And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. 21 And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us. 24 And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife; 25 and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS." (ASV) clearly showing his conception to be through God's (YHWH's) power or Spirit, a miracle. Now some may ask, what is God's (YHWH's) spirit, let's examine this subject and view the evidence. Now what is this Spirit or Holy Spirit that John the Baptist mentioned at John 1:32, ""And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the holy Ghost." (AV)? The Holy Spirit is only God's (YHWH's) active force and not even a spirit being or person. This is clearly shown at Pentecost where the Holy Spirit was poured out onto all there, Acts 2:1-4, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." (AV). This entire scripture bespeaks of a force and not a being as you do not get filled with a being! And this fact is reaffirmed at Acts 4:31, ""And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spoke the word of God with boldness." (AV); And 2 Corinthians 1:21-22, "Now he which established us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; 22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." (AV), surely a being would not be in our hearts as that is ludicrous, thus this scripture talks of God's (YHWH's) active force; This is clearly shown at Luke 11:13, "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" (AV). Once more, why? Why? Do many say they are coequal and coeternal when clearly they are not and the Holy Ghost is just God's (YHWH's) active force? Only to try to give some resemblance of reality to a myth as we shall later see. An interesting note on the Spirit is that the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu'ma) is used, the neuter pronoun "it" is properly employed. This fact is conveniently over looked or hidden by most Trinitarian translators as admitted in the "New American Bible Catholic Bible," regarding John 14:17: "The Greek word for 'Spirit' is neuter, and while we use personal pronouns in English ('he,' 'his,' 'him'), most Greek MSS [manuscripts] employ 'it.'" So when the Bible uses masculine personal pronouns in connection with pa•ra'kle•tos at John 16:7, 8, it is conforming to rules of grammar, not expressing a doctrine. And in Ancient Hebrew the word here rendered Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, or Spirit which is translated from 'ru'ach' meaning "breath; wind; spirit."

WHO HIS REAL FATHER IS:

The Bible says his Father is Almighty God (YHWH) who we have seen from the foregoing used his power to implant his life force into a virgin Jewish girl named Mary. Also, that he was supposedly the son of Joseph which is clearly shown at Luke 3:23, "And when He began His Ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, [b]being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli." (New American Standard Bible; NASB). He was in effect de-facto adopted by Joseph the husband of Mary who DID NOT have relations with Mary until after Jesus' (yeshua's) birth as testified to at Matthew 1:25, " And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB); thus there can not be any doubt that his real Father is none other than Almighty God (YHWH) as clearly shown in the account of his pre-human existence given at Proverbs 8:22-31, "Jehovah possessed me in the beginning of his way, Before his works of old. 23 I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, Before the earth was. 24 When there were no depths, I was brought forth, When there were no fountains abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills was I brought forth; 26 While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, Nor the beginning of the dust of the world. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there: When he set a circle upon the face of the deep, 28 When he made firm the skies above, When the fountains of the deep became strong, 29 When he gave to the sea its bound, That the waters should not transgress his commandment, When he marked out the foundations of the earth; 30 Then I was by him, [as] a master workman; And I was daily [his] delight, Rejoicing always before him, 31 Rejoicing in his habitable earth; And my delight was with the sons of men." (ASV). Which clearly shows that he was the first or beginning of God's (YHWH's) creation and absolutely proves in gross error anyone imputing anything but legitimacy to his birth since in fact he existed long before the earth or his incarnation on earth.

START OF HIS MINISTRY:

Let's also take a brief look at the start of his ministry. At the age of 30 Jesus (Yeshua) came from Galilee to Jordan to be baptized by John. This is detailed in the Bible at Matthew 3:13-17, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to the Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. 14 But John would have hindered him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? 15 But Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer [it] now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffereth him. 16 And Jesus when he was baptized, went up straightway from the water: and lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him; 17 and lo, a voice out of the heavens, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (ASV). . Jesus (Yeshua) was therefore, now, ready and prepared to take up his ministry, but had not yet received the Holy Spirit with which he would be able to prove that he was the Son of God (YHWH). Now, at his baptism, his Sonship was confirmed by the Spirit of God (YHWH) descending upon him like a dove, and by the voice from heaven which said "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased". There is beautiful symbolism in the use of a dove to g visibly represent the Spirit of God (YHWH). Jesus (Yeshua) was to be the mediator through whom peace would be re-established between God and man. Many people find it difficult to associate human nature with its weakness and propensities with Jesus (Yeshua), the Son of God (YHWH). This association, however, is extremely important since it is only because Jesus (Yeshua) was 'made like his brethren in every respect' as testified to at Hebrews 2:16-18, " For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make expiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered and been tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted." (Revised Standard Version; ASV). This was so to permit him to represent them perfectly in his sacrifice as shown at Hebrews 4:15-16, "For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." (RSV) tells us that he was tempted in all ways like we are but without sinning', and because of this he is 'able to help those who are tempted'. We must acknowledge we are all desperately in need of his help.

SECOND, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

1 - 1 John 5:2,3 is saying that if we love GOD we will keep HIS commandments.

2 - John 14:15 shows that if we love JESUS we will keep HIS commandments!

The key is on keeping the commandments. Whose are they? Answer the question this time.

Answer:

Read Jesus' (Yeshua's) words at John 14:23-24, "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. 24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my words: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me." (American Standard Version; ASV) for your answer. Jesus (Yeshua) clearly answers your question for you and at the same time shows where he receives all from.

Now, to understand 1 John 5:2-3, one need no more than look at it in contest and it actually proves the Trinity impossible, 1 John 5:1-9, "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him[Note; Clearly shows that Jesus (Yeshua) is the begotten of God (YHWH) and NOT God (YHWH)]. 2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. 3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. 4 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, [even] our faith. 5 And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? [Note, Clearly identifies Jesus (Yeshua) as the Son of God and NOT God (YHWH) or God the Son as would be required for the Trinity to even be plausible] 6 This is he that came by water and blood, [even] Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. 7 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. 8 For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son." (ASV) [Note: Some older translations had an error at 1 John 5:7 that had been deliberately inserted by someone way back, but the finding of older manuscripts has clearly shown this to be a violation of Revelations 22:18 called the Comma Johannenium as this error is so well known it has even been given a name].

THIRD, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Once again, Almighty God is El Shaddai (not YHWH ) AND Being the SON does not exempt Him from being YHWH, as you assume that is the name of the Father ONLY, which it is not. It is the name of GOD, not the name of the Father ONLY.

Answer:

YHWH is the name of God and in no way used to describe the devil. Now let's consider what the leading expert has to say on the subject, Gérard GERTOUX is a Hebrew scholar, specialist of the Tetragram; He has been president of the Association Biblique de Recherche d'Anciens Manuscrits since 1991. His training as an engineer and teacher has enabled him to compile an amount of information coming from a great diversity of specialized departments. He has written a book, "The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH Which Is Pronounced As It Is Written I_Eh_Ou_Ah", and it clearly shows what God's (YHWH's) name is, its history, and that it can in no way properly be applied to the Devil.

A short abstract of it appeared in The Wall Street Journal and other publications as follows:

Usually, God's name is presented as fundamental in the monotheistic religions, but its pronunciation is controversial. However, the key to unlock this mystery was provided by the famous Maimonides 800 years ago, when he wrote that the Name 'is read as it is written'. The paradox starts and ends here with these intriguing words...

God's name is fundamental to all monotheistic religions. "May your name be held holy" is the first request for Christians in the Lord's Prayer taught by Jesus (Mt 6:9). "They exult in you, those who love your name" is sung by Jews when they sing the Psalms of David (Ps 5:11). "The hearts of humble ones quiver when the name of God is mentioned" is what Muslims say when they recite certain surahs of the Quran (22:35).

Paradoxically, religions prefer to translate God's name as Yahweh 'He is', Adonay 'my Lord', Allah 'The God', etc., rather than a transcription of the name, which is more usual. This study, initially published in the form of thesis, was greatly appreciated by many renowned specialists, because the subject had never been approached from the historical angle. This work created renewed interest in this fascinating topic -the disappearance of the Name followed by its slow re-emergence- which is relatively unknown.

Eight centuries ago, the famous Talmudist, Moses Maimonides, arrived at the right conclusion: There is no mystical mystery, because God's name is simply pronounced as it is written, that is to say: Y-H-W-H = I-eH-U-A in the same way: Y-H-W-D-H = I-eH-U-D-A.

And other expert critics said this of the book:

From United Bible Societies (Sarah Lind: Editor of the Newsletter)
Gérard Gertoux. 2002. The Name of God Y.EH.OW.AH Which is Pronounced as It is Written I_Eh_oU_Ah: Its Story. University Press of America. Translated from the French Un historique du nom divin. Un Nom Encens (L¹Harmattan, 1999). G. follows Maimonides' teaching that that YHWH "is read as it is written," i.e., yehua, in the same way that yhwdh is vocalized yehuda -applying the (coincidentally correct) Masoretic vowels. G. first considers biblical treatment of "the name": the power of the name; to know God's name; Jesus, Satan, the controversy over the name; and "the name read distinctly" (reconstruction of the reading). Part 2 examines the historical record from Adam to the American Standard Version, and the name of Jesus and its connections to the name. There is a seven part appendix that includes "interpretation of the Hebrew names" and "lack of nomina sacra in the earliest Christian papyrus." G. maintains a website with excerpts at divinename.net. Published in the Translation Information Clearinghouse Talk N°57, 2004.
www.ubs-translations.org/.../tt57.html

From Religious Studies Review (Won W. Lee professor at the Calvin College):
"In contrast to the long-held Jewish tradition, the author claims that the name of God in the HB should be pronounced. His claim is based on Exod 9:16, "... to make my name resound through all the earth" and Maimonides' work stressing the impossibility of a deep, personal relationship with a nameless God. With a survey of the historical record from "Adam" to the American Standard Version, Gertoux argues that the letters Y, W, H are read as the vowels I (or E), U (or O), and A. For the H, a mute e could be added in order to be better heard. The tetragrammaton, YHWH, is therefore read I-eH-U-A (Iehoua), the equivalent of YeHoWaH in Masoretic punctuation. This means that the name is to be pronounced as it is written, or according to its letters. The result is that the tetragrammaton is the only Hebrew name constituted, not of four consonants, but of four vowels, as noted by Josephus. This detailed treatment of the Name is useful for those who are interested in the history of its translation over the centuries." published in the Religious Studies Review Volume 29 Number 3 July 2003 page 285.
www.cssr.org/article.asp?idx=26142

From Seek God Association (Michael John Rood: Messianic Karaite Rabbi)
Emanuel Tov's credentials are numerous and lengthy, but one of the most interesting aspects of Mr. Tov's work is his study on the Masoretic Text and the translation of YHVH. According to postings on various forums, it has been stated that both Emanuel and Nehemiah Gordon believe that the Name of God is closer to Yehowah, which is similar to Jehovah in English, and not even close to Yahweh (...) The Masoretic Text manuscripts tend to vary later on, per Nehemiah Gordon (who also defends Yehovah after extensive study of the Masoretic Text manuscripts). Nehemiah's view, developed quite separately from Gertoux,... based on studying the actual manuscripts under Emanuel Tov, is that Yahweh cannot be defended, and the earlier Masoretic manuscripts all have a Yehowah (or Yehovah) pronounciation, while later on there is a lot of variation.
www.seekgod.ca/roodkaraite.htm

From Golden Age Books (Anthony Byatt: Specialist in English Bibles and Bible Study Material)
The Name of God Y.eH.oW.aH (...): Its Story reflects on God's name as fundamental to all monotheistic religions. Maimonides, 800 years ago, wrote that the Name "is read as it is written." Gerard Gertoux has written a deep treatise with a great deal of factual evidence for Jehovah's name. Contents include The Power of The Name; Jesus and Satan - Their Controversy Over the Name; The Pronunciation of Jesus' Name; Methods to Restore a Pronunciation; and a long section on the historical record from Adam through Bible times and down to the American Standard Version. Many appendices, notes and charts.
www.goldenagebooks.co.uk/...oductID=71

From New Testament Abstracts (Weston Jesuit School of Theology):
Gertoux contends that YHWH, the Tetragram, which is the proper name of God, is pronounced without difficulty because "it is read as it is written" according to the words of Maimonides. He first considers "the name": the power of the name; to know God's name; Jesus, Satan, their controversy over the name; and the name read distinctly. Then he examines the historical record: from Adam to Moses, from Moses to David, from David to Zedekiah, from Zedekiah to Simon the Just, from Simon the Just to Jesus, from Jesus to Justin, from Justin to Jerome, from Jerome to the Masoretes, from the Masoretes to Maimonides, from Maimonides to Tyndale, from Tyndale to the American Standard Version, and the name of Jesus and its connections to the name. Eight appendices are included. Published in the New Testament Abstracts Volume 47 Number 3 (2003) page 553. www.wjst.edu/news/nta/index.htm

From Booknews (Reference and Research Book News)
As indicated in the title, Gertoux concludes that the tetragram YHWH is the proper name of God, and is easy to pronounce because it sounds just like it is written according to the great Maimonides. In order to reach that destination, however, he has examined errors that have accumulated for at least 20 centuries, and wandered through linguistic questions. He posts warnings so non-specialist readers can avoid the very technical bogs. Annotation c. Book News, Inc., Portland, OR (booknews.com) www.paratext.com/booknews_intro.htm
Reference and Research Book News 2002 Volume 17 N°1-4. 5739 NE Summer Street, Portland Or 97218 ISSN 0-887-3763

From Old Presbyterian Meeting House (Professor Bruce M. Metzger)
The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era (....) for further scholarly information on the origins of sacred names, please visit the pages of Gérard GERTOUX. www.opmh.org/newbibles.htm

FOURTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Only SCRIPTURE can either prove or disprove the deity of Christ!

Answer:

Is correct, but used often by Trinitarians who get caught in a corner and need to obfuscate the issue. But common reasoning can go along way to backing up the Bible with regard to the fact that Jesus (Yeshua) is indeed divine and a diety. You should well know the fact that 'like begets like' and know by this law of nature that Jesus (Yeshua) would have to be a diety and not question it; but that in NO way makes him the same spirit being as his Father (YHWH) than it makes any other son the same being as his father. This fact should be obvious to all.

FIFTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

That is not the translation you are referring to. That is the Greek words used in John 1:1 if used OUT OF CONTEXT and SEPARATELY. That is not the meaning of those words. Therefore, it is not an interpretation of John 1:1. [Referring to, "The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209" done by the great German Bible scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach]

Answer:

WRONG, The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209 which makes the Emphatic Diaglott so valuable in seeing exactly what the Koine Greek is and its word for word equivalency in English, see below:

John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 In a beginning was the word, and the word was with the God, and a god was the Word 2 This was in a beginning with the God. 3 All through it was done; and without it was done not even one, that has been done. 4 In it life was, and the life was the light of the men, 5 and the light in the darkness shines, and the darkness it not apprehended." And "14And the Word flesh became, and tabernacied among us, (and we beheld the glory of him, a glory as of an only-begotten from a father,) full of favor and truth," ( The Word for Word English Translation from Koine Greek to English from The Vatican Manuscript #1209" done by the great German Bible scholar and translator Dr. J. J. Griesbach)

Now let's look at how several unbiased translators translated these verses as opposed to the common biased translation:

The Complete Bible: An American Translation. Contributors: Edgar J. Goodspeed - transltr, J. M. Powis Smith - transltr. Publisher: University of Chicago Press. Place of Publication: Chicago. Publication Year: 1939.:
John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 IN THE beginning the Word exist- ed. The Word was with God, and the Word was divine. 2 It was he that was with God in 3 the beginning. Everything came into ex- istence through him, and apart from him 4 nothing came to be. It was by him that life came into existence, and that life 5 was the light of mankind. The light is still shining in the darkness, for the darkness has never put it out." And "14 So the Word became flesh and blood and lived for a while among us, abounding in blessing and truth, and we saw the honor God had given him, such honor as an only son receives from his father."

A New Translation of The Bible by James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt.:
John 1:1-5 & 14, "The Logos existed in the very beginning, the Logos was with God, the Logos was divine. 2 He was with God in the very beginning: 3 through him all existence came into being, no existence came into being apart from him. 4 In him life lay, and this life was the Light for men; 5 amid the darkness the Light shone, and the darkness did not master it." And "14 So the Logos became flesh and tarried among us; we have seen his glory-glory such as an only sone enjoys from his father-seen it to be full of grace and reality."

The New English Bible (NEB)
John 1:1-5 & 14, "1 When all things began, the Word already was. The Word dwelt with God, and what God was, the Word was 2 The Word, then, was with God at the beginning, 3 and through him all things came to be; no single thing was created without him. 4 All that came to be was alive with his life, 5 and that life was the light of men. The light shines on in the dark, and the darkness has never quenched it." And "14 So the Word became flesh; he came to dwell among us, and we saw his glory, such glory as befits the Father's only Son, full of grace and truth"

[History of this great translation, "A presbytery in the Church of Scotland in 1946 recommended to the General Assembly that a translation of the Bible be made in the language of the present day because the language in the Authorized Version was archaic and less generally understood. The General Assembly approached other churches. There was a desire that a completely new translation rather than a revision and for a contemporary idiom rather than a traditional Biblical English be used.

It was planned and directed by representatives of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland, the Church of England, the Church of Scotland, the Congregational Church in England and Wales, the Council of Churches for Wales, the Irish Council of Churches, the London Yearly Meeting of the Society of Friends, the Methodist Church of Great Britain, the Presbyterian Church of England, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland. The Roman Catholic Church in England and Scotland sent representatives as observers.]

Other data that shows the truth with respect John 1:1 in brief.

"Jn 1:1 should rigorously be translated 'the word was with the God [=the Father], and the word was a divine being.'" [source - The Dictionary of the Bible by John McKenzie, Collier Books, p. 317]
"Recent commentaries on John admit that despite the long-standing tradition to the contrary, the term "word" in the famous prologue of John need not refer to the Son of God before he was born. Our translations imply belief in the traditional doctrine of incarnation by capitalizing "Word." But what was it that became flesh in John 1:14? Was it a pre-existing person? Or was it the self-expressive activity of God, the Father, His eternal plan? A plan may take flesh, for example, when the design in the architect's mind finally takes shape as a house. What pre-existed the visible bricks and mortar was the intention in the mind of the architect. Thus, it is quite in order to read John 1:1-3a: "In the beginning was the creative purpose of God. It was with God and was fully expressive of God [just as wisdom was with God before creation]. All things came into being through it." This rendering suits the Old Testament use of "word" admirably: "So shall My word be that goes forth out of My mouth; it shall not return to Me empty, without accomplishing what I desire and without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it."2
We are now in a better position to see why Jesus is known as "the word (logos) in the flesh." Jesus was the ultimate expression of God. God's plan, wisdom and purpose was the logos, and when we speak of the Bible, it is called "the Word" because it also is God's expression of Himself. When we speak of a prophecy, we say, it is "the word of the Lord," both because it is in the form of words and because it is God's expression of Himself. Jesus was the logos in the most complete sense. He was the ultimate expression of God and the essence of His plan and purpose. Thus, it is quite correct to say that Jesus was the logos, but he was not all of the logos. "Jesus" does not equal "the logos," he was part of and the ultimate expression of the logos. If we see Jesus, we see the Father, but it is also true that if we study the Bible, God's Word, God's expression of Himself in writing, we will see the Father. More dimly, to be sure, because the written Word is not the clear and ultimate expression of God that the Living Word is, but it is the logos just the same. ... The logos or message of God, as it has been revealed in Jesus, includes the following account of the meaning and purpose of creation: Jesus' coming was prophesied throughout the Hebrew Scriptures; he was finally born a man, and by his free will lived a sinless life; Jesus died on the Cross to mark the beginning of the end of the present age of sin and death, revealing that it is only a matter of time until this age and fallen humanity as it now exists come to an end; Jesus was raised from the dead to reveal that death (the experience that all humans since Adam have held in common) is contrary to God's will and will ultimately be abolished by resurrection; Jesus was exalted as Lord to the right hand of God where he presently exercises this authority; after he comes to gather together the Church, Jesus will come again at the end of this age in judgment, bringing destruction on the unbelieving world and salvation to the community of faith; he will rule for one thousand years on this earth; finally he will destroy Satan and all evil, end the heavens and earth of the present age and begin the new heavens and earth of the age to come, a "new creation.".... The meaning of "beginning" that immediately comes to mind when John 1:1 is read refers to the time before history when God first conceived of man, and foresaw the possibility that he would fall and need a Savior. This is because of the familiar phrase, "In the beginning God" in Genesis 1:1. John tells us that "in the beginning" God had wisdom and a plan, and was prepared to start acting that plan out so that the people He created and invested His love in could be rescued from death and live with Him eternally. The crowning piece of the plan of God was the creation of Jesus Christ, who was in a very real sense, "the last word." ... The "word" was with God in the same sense that "wisdom" was with God. Proverbs 8:29b and 30a says, "When He [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His side." No one we know of believes that there was a being called "Wisdom" who helped God make the heavens and the earth. Everyone knows that wisdom is personified to make the record interesting and easy to understand. So too, in John 1:1 when Scripture says that the logos was "with God," it is a personification. God had His plan and power, and "when the time had fully come" (Gal. 4:4), Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. This means that the person called "Jesus" did not yet exist, as is the case with all human persons, until he was conceived in his mother's womb. Prior to his conception, his existence was not personal, but prophetic, as foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures (the "Word"). Before Jesus' conception in the womb of Mary, the logos was to Jesus what promise is to fulfillment. When "the logos became flesh," the promise was fulfilled in the form of a person. While this understanding will be objectionable, perhaps anathema, to Trinitarian believers, it must be admitted that it is not a denial of Jesus' divine Sonship or Messiahship but, rather, a compelling alternative interpretation of relevant scriptural texts.... Because logos has the article [ho] preceding it, it is marked out as the subject. The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai ("and") shows that the main emphasis of the clause lies on it. Had the article preceded theos as well as logos, the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God, which is impossible if the Word was also "with God." What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God, or, to use a piece of modern jargon, was an extension of the personality of God. The NEB paraphrase, "what God was, the Word was," brings out the meaning of the clause as successfully as a paraphrase can. John intends that the whole of his gospel shall be read in the light of this verse. The deeds and words of Jesus are the deeds and words of God [i.e., "If you have seen me, you have seen the Father"]; if this be not true, the book [i.e., the Gospel of John] is blasphemous.25
What it does say is defined as succinctly and accurately as it can be in the opening verse of St. John's Gospel. But we have to be equally careful about the translation. The Greek runs: kai theos en ho logos. The so-called Authorized Version has: "And the Word was God." This would indeed suggest the view that "Jesus" and "God" were identical and interchangeable. But in Greek this would most naturally be represented by "God" with the article, not theos but ho theos. But, equally, St. John is not saying that Jesus is a "divine" man, in the sense with which the ancient world was familiar [the product of God and man] or in the sense in which the Liberals spoke of him [as a great man, teacher, prophet, etc.]. That would be theios. The Greek expression steers carefully between the two. It is impossible to represent it in a single English word, but the New English Bible, I believe, gets the sense pretty exactly with its rendering, "And what God was, the Word was." [source - Biblical Unitarians]

Now let's consider a comment on two scriptures by Uriyah the Messiahite,

"John 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself

John 6:57 Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because of me.

By the words of Jesus, Jesus was not eternal; he was given to have life in himself and lives because of the Father. A eternal being cannot be given to have life in themselves, and they do not depend on others to live." [source - Uriyah the Messiahite]
SIXTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:
Yes and I am the byproduct of MY father and I have HIS name IN me and we share the same attributes. In the same way, Jesus has the name of YHWH IN Him, making Him deity, as YHWH is deity. Jesus is not 'a god' unless you are a polytheist. The Word cannot be WITH God and BE a god at the same time. Scripture will not allow it.
Answer,
But obviously one is NOT his father, and the same goes for Jesus (Yeshua); a very simple truth. With respect polytheist accusation this clearly shows one has obviously NOT read Exodus 20:3 with understanding as it says, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." (Authorized King James Bible; AV), so Jesus (Yeshua) is NOT polytheistic thinking as he is NOT a deity before his Father (YHWH) as clearly shown at John 14:28, "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (AV) in Jesus' (Yeshua's) own words. So again what I am seeing is a lack of comprehension on the part of some; they should let me assist them in this most important matter instead of resisting.

SEVENTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:
[claim by Trinitarians] I am not influenced by any councils. The word of GOD has priority and IT says that Jesus is GOD"

Answer:

Here is the facts the reality, remember John 8:32, "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (The Goodnews Bible), now let's look at the facts:
"By the third and fourth centuries, Christians were weary of Pagan persecution. The temptation was to compromise. Besides, the Pagan emperor Constantine needed Christians to salvage his shaky empire. Constantine embraced; howbeit only on his deathbed. However, he saw Christianity as a tool he could use to firm up his shaky empire. To this opportunity for political intrigue, and happy blend of politics and people was the chief triumvirate of Roman gods Jupiter, Juno and Minerva. Jupiter was the principal deity of Roman mythology and Juno was the next highest divinity. Minerva, the "offspring of the brain of Jupiter" was regarded as the "personification of divine thought, the plan of the material universe of which Jupiter was the creator and Juno the representative" (26). Many Pagan ideas, in fact, were incorporated into Christianity. "Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it" (*26).

Roman Emperor Constantine needed to make his subjects feel secure if he were to maintain control of the empire; he wanted to rule a unified empire, be it pagan and/or Christian. But first he would have to find a way to end the dispute over the divinity of Jesus-was he a man or God? So he ordered his Christian bishops to meet at Nicaea in 325 A.D. to settle the matter once and for all. To do this, "he made himself the head of the church, and thus the problems of the church became his responsibilities. As a whole the Western Empire with its Roman influence, with some exceptions, had accepted Tertullian and his new theory of the Trinity in the early part of the previous century, but in the East the church adhered more closely to the older formula of baptism in the name of Jesus, or Jesus the Christ. Especially was this true with the Armenians, who specified that baptism "into the death of Christ" was that which alone was essential (*28) .

Now let's see how Constantine got the Trinity. As previously shown, The Roman Empire at this time was being torn apart by religious differences between pagans, mostly Sun God worshippers, and Christianity. Constantine the Emporer was a worshipper of the Unconquered Sun, but he was a very pragmatic individual and saw the need to bring religious unity to his empire. The central doctrine of the pagans was the dogma of a Trinity that they had received from earlier pagans in Babylon (Chaldea). In this, the pagan Emperor, Constantine, saw a possibility for unifying his empire if he could only lead the majority of the Christians to accept a Trinity or a Duality. He knew however that he had to make them think it was their own idea. To this end, he, the Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea, about 300, but even though it was the emperor's direction, only a fraction actually attended.

This council went on for a very long time and the emperor worked behind the scene to get support for a Trinity or a Duality. This effort was not completely successful, but finally he got a majority and declared under imperial degree
that this hence forth would be the central doctrinal pillar of the Christian church, which by this time was apostate. Even with this declaration by the emperor himself not all bishops signed the creed. (*29).

*26 - McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Vol. 6
*27 - Lamson, Newton & Durant, Will, "Caesar and Christ," cited from Charles Redeker Caesar and Christ, W. Duran (page 595).
*28 - ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366).
*29 - Payne, Robert, "The Holy Fire: The Story of the Early Centuries of the Christian Churches in the Near East" (1957); BETHUNE-BAKER, J,F. "An Introduction to the Early History of Christian Doctrine". Methuen; 5th Ed., 1933 and ENCYLOPEDIA BRITANNICA, 11th Edition, Vol. 3, (page 366); David, Francis and Blandrata, Georgio, "De falsa et vera unius Dei Patris, Filii, et Spiritus Sancti cognitone" [Latin](The False and True Knowledge of the Unity of God the Father, Son, and Holy spirit), 1566 A.D.; Eklof, Todd F., "David's Francis Tower, Strength through Peace," (06-16-02); The New Encyclopedia Britannica: " Micropædia, Vol. X, p. 126. (1976); Parkes, James, "The Foundation of Judaism and Christianity," 1960; Durant, Will. "Caesar and Christ." New York: Simon.[source - "Discourse on Mainstream Religion," by Iris the Preacher- 2001]
EIGHTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Jesus Christ's Father is God. Therefore, Jesus Christ is God because they share an Attibute with each other that cannot be changed. They share the Attribute of God. Jesus Christ is still the Son of God and God as well.

Answer:

All sons share Attributes with their father, but that in NO way makes them their father also. This is just common knowledge that no play on words, logomachy, can change. Now let's look at Jesus' (Yeshua's) name as differentiating him from his father, "Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu;
Which one is the name of Jesus in Hebrew?
By Dr. James D. Price
Forward by Guy Cramer
The Jewish community has claimed the name of Jesus in Hebrew is Yeshu the traditional Jewish spelling of Jesus. Why do others spell Jesus as Yeshua with four letters and sometimes spell it as Yehoshua with five letters ?
Before we look at the answer lets look at the origin of the name. The sixth book of the Old Testament is called Joshua.
The title of the book is appropriately named after its central figure, Joshua. His original name is Hoshea, "Salvation" (Num.13:8); but Moses evidently changes it to Yehoshua, "Yahweh (Jehovah) is Salvation" (Num.13:16). He is also called Yeshua, a shortened form of Yehoshua. This is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek name Iesous (Jesus). (NKJV, Thomas Nelson Inc.,1980, p.190)
Why is it important to find out which spelling to use? Advanced mathematical research into the equidistant letter sequences (ELS) discovered in the Hebrew Bible (see The Mysterious Hebrew Codes) needs the proper spelling of words and names. The wrong spelling of a name can invalidate all (ELS) research on that name. There is a great deal that depends on this simple question.
(Guy Cramer)
The Names Yeshua and Yehoshua
by Dr. James Price, professor of Hebrew
Yehoshua in the Septuagint
Two things indicate that Yehoshua is the proper Hebrew name for Jesus:
(1) In the Greek Translation of the OT known as the Septuagint (LXX), the name Joshua is rendered *Iasous* = Jesus.
(2) In the NT, Joshua is mentioned twice (Acts 7:45; Heb 4:8), and in both places the Greek NT spells the name *Iasous* = Jesus.
Thus the Greek *Iasous* is the equivalent of Hebrew *Yehoshua*
Yehoshua in the Hebrew Bible
As far as the Hebrew Bible is concerned, it is important to note that in the early books, the name Joshua is spelled as ( yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin) or on rare occasions as ( yod-hey-waw-shin-waw-ayin). However, in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the high priest is named Jeshua the son of Jozadak ( yod-shin-waw-ayin); whereas in the contemporary books of Haggai and Zechariah, the same high priest is named Joshua the son of Jehozadak ( yod-hey-waw-shin-ayin beth-nun). Thus, it can be concluded that in post-exilic times of the Biblical era, the namesYeshua and Yehoshua were regarded as equivalent.
Yehoshua in the Talmud
(From A.D. 200 to 500 ancient rabbis compiled their commentaries on the Bible, Jewish social customs and historical events in the Talmud. Because it was compiled by rabbis who were leaders in rabbinical academies, the Talmud is considered to be very authoritative by Jews, even to this day. [Missler, Chuck, "The Creator Beyond Time and Space", 1996 The Word For Today, p.165] )
As far as the Talmud is concerned, it is evident that the old uncensored editions of the Talmud associated Jesus of Nazareth with the name Joshua. This is demonstrated by the following passage:
Sotah 47a
Our Rabbis have taught: Always let the left hand thrust away and the right hand draw near. Not like Elisha who thrust Gehazi away with both his hands (and not like ' Joshua b. Perahiah who thrust one of his disciples away with both his hands).11
Here, the editor's footnote reads:
[(11) MSS. and old editions read Jesus the Nazarene. R. T. Herford sees in Gehazi a hidden reference to Paul. Cf. his Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 97ff.]
Another interesting passage indicates that the Talmud regarded the changing of the spelling of a name to be a sign of divine disapproval. The following passage discusses the change of a name from Yehoshua to Yoshua. Arachim 32b
And the other?13 - He [Ezra] had prayed for mercy because of the passion for idolatry and he removed it, and his merit then shielded them even as the booth. That is why Scripture reproved Joshua, for in all other passages it is spelt: Jehoshua, but here, Joshua.14
The editor's footnote reads:
[(14) For his failure to implore the Lord to remove the passion for idolatry from the heart of the people. Just as with Abram the enlargement of his name into 'Abraham' was an expression of divine approval, so did this diminution of Jehoshua into Joshua express divine disapproval. The reason for Joshua's failure to implore the Lord to remove the passion for idolatry was his assumption that he possessed the land in its pristine holiness, so that it would in itself help Israel to overcome its idolatrous tendencies.]
Perhaps that is the reason why the Talmud altered the spelling of the name Jesus of Nazareth from Yeshua ha-Notzri to Yesu ha-Notzri. However, it is clear that the editor of the Talmud regarded this as the equivalent of Yeshua ha-Notzri. Associated with the following passage in the Talmud is an interesting footnote by the editor:

Sanhedrin 67a
For it has been taught: And for all others for whom the Torah decrees death, witnesses are not hidden, excepting for this one. How is it done? - A light is lit in an inner chamber, the witnesses are hidden in an outer one [which is in darkness], so that they can see and hear him,11 but he cannot see them. Then the person he wished to seduce says to him, 'Tell me privately what thou hast proposed to me'; and he does so. Then he remonstrates; 'But how shall we forsake our God in Heaven, and serve idols'? If he retracts, it is well. But if he answers: 'It is our duty and seemly for us', the witnesses who were listening outside bring him to the Beth din, and have him stoned.12

The editor's footnote reads:
[(12) In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this important passage (supplied from D.S. on the authority of the Munich and Oxford Mss. and the older editions) 'And this they did to Ben Stada in Lydda ( . . .), and they hung him on the eve of Passover. Ben Stada was Ben Padira. '. Hisda said: 'The husband was Stada, the paramour Pandira. But was nor the husband Pappos b. Judah? - His mother's name was Stada. But his mother was Miriam, a dresser of woman's hair? (. . . megaddela neshayia): - As they say in Pumbaditha, This woman has turned away (. . .) from her husband, (i.e., committed adultery).' T. Herford, in 'Christianity in the Talmud', pp. 37 seqq, 344 seqq, identifies this Ben Stada with Jesus of Nazareth. As to the meaning of the name, he connects it with ** 'seditious', and suggests (p. 345 n.1) that it originally denoted 'that Egyptian' (Acts XXI 38, Josephus, Ant. XX, 8, 6) who claimed to be a prophet and led his followers to the Mount of Olives, where he was routed by the Procurator Felix, and that in later times he might have been confused with Jeshua ha-Notzri. This hypothesis, however, involves the disregard of the Talmudic data, for Pappos b. Judah lived a century after Jesus (Cit. 90a), though the mother's name, Miriam (Mary), would raise no difficulty, as . . . megaddla neshayia may be the result of a confusion with Mary Magdalene (v. also Box, The Virgin Birth of Jesus, pp. 201f, for other possible meanings of Ben Stada and Ben Pandira) Derenbourg (Essai note 9, pp. 465-471) rightly denies the identity of Ben Stada with Jesus, and regards him simply as a false prophet executed during the second century at Lydda.]
Note that the editor spells the name of Jesus as Jeshua ha-Notzri when he transliterated it.
From this evidence it can be concluded that in post-exilic Bible times the names Yehoshua and Yeshua were regarded as equivalent names of the same person. Also the Talmudic evidence indicates that historically the Jews regarded the name of Jesus as Yeshua, perhaps omitting the *hey* as their sign of divine disapproval, and then subsequently omitting the *ayin* as further disapproval. [source - Dr. Price, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Temple Baptist Seminary][Note, this gentlemen is a Trinitarian but even differentiates Jesus' (Yeshua's) name from that of his father.

NINTH, Question/Accusation by a Trinitarian:

Revelation 1:7. Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

Isn't Revelation 1:7 referring to The Mighty God in Isaiah 9:6?

Revelation 1:8. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

Doesn't Revelation 1:8 support Jesus Christ's claim in John 10:30? John 10:30 states...

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

Answer,

Now we have a similar result in the New Testament with titles often times being substituted for proper names such as Jesus' (Yeshua) proper name being substituted with titles such as 'Lord,' 'Logos,' etc. This causes great confusion as the same title, 'Lord,' is often used for Almighty God (YHWH) in the New Testament, such as at Revelation 1:8, "I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. " (AV); and at, Revelation 22:6, "And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done." (AV).; whereas, isused as a title for his Son, Jesus (Yeshua) at Revelation 22:20, "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus." (AV).[[source - "The Confusion Factor," by Iris the Preacher 1987]

As can be seen from the above many wrestle with the scriptures trying to make them fit their tradition instead of trying to get an understanding of same. This is clearly shown by the poster's question if you can call it that of, "Doesn't Revelation 1:8 support Jesus Christ's claim in John 10:30?" which clearly shows one trying to support his pet tradition. Why, well John 10:30 says, "My Father and I are one" (the New English Bible; NEB), but if this poster really wanted understanding rather than to support his misguided tradition he would continue to read on in the Book of John since at John 17:11 this oneness is explained as unity of purpose as, "And I am no more in the world, and these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we [are]." (ASV).

Next, this same poster asks about Revelation 1:7, "Every eye shall see him, and among them those who pierced him; and all the peoples of the world shall lament in remose. So it shall be. Amen." (NEB). Obviously, unlike Revelation 1:8 which refers to the Father (YHWH), this one refers to Jesus (Yeshua or YHWH is Salvation). Now it is high time that all start reading the Bible for understanding instead of constantly trying to trick me with silly questions in the same perverted manner as the Jews at Matthew 22: , "But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. 35 And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, trying him: 36 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. 40 On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets. 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, 42 saying, What think ye of the Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The son] of David. 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, 44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I put thine enemies underneath thy feet? 45 If David then calleth him Lord, how is he his son? 46 And no one was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions." (ASV).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now to know the truth, go to:

1) http://religioustruths.forumsland.com/

2) http://www.network54.com/Forum/403209/

3) http://religioustruths.lefora.com/

4) http://religioustruthsbyiris89.free-forums.org/

If you wish more information and/or wish to ask a question or what ever, contact me by leaving me a message on the CONTACT thread at http://religioustruths.yuku.com/topic/58/CONTACTS-A-place-to-leave-comments-for-me

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

Francis David said it long ago, "Neither the sword of popes...nor the image of death will halt the march of truth."Francis David, 1579, written on the wall of his prison cell." Read the book, "What Does The Bible Really Teach" and the Bible today!

Index
» General Discussion
» DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 8:01 am #1

DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 8:15 am #2

Re: DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 8:34 am #3

Re: DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 9:24 am #4

Re: DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 9:25 am #5

Re: DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 9:38 am #6

Re: DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 9:40 am #7

Re: DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

10/05/2012 9:40 am #8

Re: DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

Index
» General Discussion
» DISCOURSE ON MAINSTREAM RELIGION:

Board footera