Josephus

[Brianroy]

Josephus on the Essenes


Flavius Josephus was a first-century Jewish historian, politician and soldier whose literary works provide crucial documentation of Roman Palestine in the first century A.D. At age 29, he was appointed general of the Jewish forces in Galilee. He was eventually captured by Vespasian, who was at that time the supreme commander of the Roman army. Josephus capitulated and sought to ingratiate himself with the Roman general, eventually becoming part of the imperial court in Rome. He was an eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple by the Roman army in 70 A.D. He spent the rest of his life in Rome pursuing his literary career, the surviving results of which comprise a vital source of historical information.

Josephus’s commentaries on the laws and characteristics of the Essene community have been invaluable to scholars studying ancient Jewish laws and customs. They have also been the subject of much debate, particularly as they pertain to the Dead Sea Scrolls. Researchers have relied heavily on Josephus’s works as they try to determine who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, who inhabited Qumran, and whether or not the authors of the scrolls and the community at Qumran were in fact one and the same.

Professor Steve Mason asserts in his article “Did the Essenes Write the Dead Sea Scrolls? Don’t Rely on Josephus” (BAR, November/December 2008) that the texts of Josephus cannot be relied upon to support the conclusion that the Essenes were the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the inhabitants of Qumran. So what does Josephus have to say about the Essene community? Following is a translated excerpt from The Jewish War, in which Josephus provides his main description of this fascinating group.

This deliberately literal translation of the Greek is from Steve Mason, Flavius Josephus: translation and commentary, vol. 1b: Judean War (Leiden: Brill, 2008).

----------------------------------------------------------------------


The Jewish War, Book II. Chapter 8
(8.2)

119 For three forms of philosophy are pursued among the Judeans: the members of one are Pharisees, of another Sadducees, and the third [school], who certainly are reputed to cultivate seriousness, are called Essenes; although Judeans by ancestry, they are even more mutually affectionate than the others. 120 Whereas these men shun the pleasures as vice, they consider self-control and not succumbing to the passions virtue. And although there is among them a disdain for marriage, adopting the children of outsiders while they are still malleable enough for the lessons they regard them as family and instill in them their principles of character: 121 without doing away with marriage or the succession resulting from it, they nevertheless protect themselves from the wanton ways of women, having been persuaded that none of them preserves her faithfulness to one man.

(8.3)

122 Since [they are] despisers of wealth—their communal stock is astonishing—, one cannot find a person among them who has more in terms of possessions. For by a law, those coming into the school must yield up their funds to the order, with the result that in all [their ranks] neither the humiliation of poverty nor the superiority of wealth is detectable, but the assets of each one have been mixed in together, as if they were brothers, to create one fund for all. 123 They consider olive oil a stain, and should anyone be accidentally smeared with it he scrubs his body, for they make it a point of honor to remain hard and dry, and to wear white always. Hand-elected are the curators of the communal affairs, and indivisible are they, each and every one, [in pursuing] their functions to the advantage of all.

(8.4)

124 No one city is theirs, but they settle amply in each. And for those school-members who arrive from elsewhere, all that the community has is laid out for them in the same way as if they were their own things, and they go in and stay with those they have never even seen before as if they were the most intimate friends. 125 For this reason they make trips without carrying any baggage at all—though armed on account of the bandits. In each city a steward of the order appointed specially for the visitors is designated quartermaster for clothing and the other amenities. 126 Dress and also deportment of body: like children being educated with fear. They replace neither clothes nor footwear until the old set is ripped all over or worn through with age. 127 Among themselves, they neither shop for nor sell anything; but each one, after giving the things that he has to the one in need, takes in exchange anything useful that the other has. And even without this reciprocal giving, the transfer to them [of goods] from whomever they wish is unimpeded.

(8.5)

128 Toward the Deity, at least: pious observances uniquely [expressed]. Before the sun rises, they utter nothing of the mundane things, but only certain ancestral prayers to him, as if begging him to come up. 129 After these things, they are dismissed by the curators to the various crafts that they have each come to know, and after they have worked strenuously until the fifth hour they are again assembled in one area, where they belt on linen covers and wash their bodies in frigid water. After this purification they gather in a private hall, into which none of those who hold different views may enter: now pure themselves, they approach the dining room as if it were some [kind of] sanctuary. 130 After they have seated themselves in silence, the baker serves the loaves in order, whereas the cook serves each person one dish of one food. 131 The priest offers a prayer before the food, and it is forbidden to taste anything before the prayer; when he has had his breakfast he offers another concluding prayer. While starting and also while finishing, then, they honor God as the sponsor of life. At that, laying aside their clothes as if they were holy, they apply themselves to their labors again until evening. 132 They dine in a similar way: when they have returned, they sit down with the vistors, if any happen to be present with them, and neither yelling nor disorder pollutes the house at any time, but they yield conversation to one another in order. 133 And to those from outside, the silence of those inside appears as a kind of shiver-inducing mystery. The reason for this is their continuous sobriety and the rationing of food and drink among them—to the point of fullness.

(8.6)

134 As for other areas: although there is nothing that they do without the curators’ having ordered it, these two things are matters of personal prerogative among them: [rendering] assistance and mercy. For helping those who are worthy, whenever they might need it, and also extending food to those who are in want are indeed left up to the individual; but in the case of the relatives, such distribution is not allowed to be done without [permission from] the managers. 135 Of anger, just controllers; as for temper, able to contain it; of fidelity, masters; of peace, servants. And whereas everything spoken by them is more forceful than an oath, swearing itself they avoid, considering it worse than the false oath; for they declare to be already degraded one who is unworthy of belief without God. 136 They are extraordinarily keen about the compositions of the ancients, selecting especially those [oriented] toward the benefit of soul and body. On the basis of these and for the treatment of diseases, roots, apotropaic materials, and the special properties of stones are investigated.

(8.7)

137 To those who are eager for their school, the entry-way is not a direct one, but they prescribe a regimen for the person who remains outside for a year, giving him a little hatchet as well as the aforementioned waist-covering and white clothing. 138 Whenever he should give proof of his self-control during this period, he approaches nearer to the regimen and indeed shares in the purer waters for purification, though he is not yet received into the functions of communal life. For after this demonstration of endurance, the character is tested for two further years, and after he has thus been shown worthy he is reckoned into the group. 139 Before he may touch the communal food, however, he swears dreadful oaths to them: first, that he will observe piety toward the deity; then, that he will maintain just actions toward humanity; that he will harm no one, whether by his own deliberation or under order; that he will hate the unjust and contend together with the just; 140 that he will always maintain faithfulness to all, especially to those in control, for without God it does not fall to anyone to hold office, and that, should he hold office, he will never abuse his authority—outshining his subordinates, whether by dress or by some form of extravagant appearance; 141 always to love the truth and expose the liars; that he will keep his hands pure from theft and his soul from unholy gain; that he will neither conceal anything from the school-members nor disclose anything of theirs to others, even if one should apply force to the point of death. 142 In addition to these, he swears that he will impart the precepts to no one otherwise than as he received them, that he will keep away from banditry, and that he will preserve intact their school’s books and the names of the angels. With such oaths as these they completely secure those who join them.

(8.

143 Those they have convicted of sufficiently serious errors they expel from the order. And the one who has been reckoned out often perishes by a most pitiable fate. For, constrained by the oaths and customs, he is unable to partake of food from others. Eating grass and in hunger, his body wastes away and perishes. 144 That is why they have actually shown mercy and taken back many in their final gasps, regarding as sufficient for their errors this ordeal to the point of death.

(8.9)

145 Now with respect to trials, [they are] just and extremely precise: they render judgment after having assembled no fewer than a hundred, and something that has been determined by them is non-negotiable. There is a great reverence among them for—next to God—the name of the lawgiver, and if anyone insults him he is punished by death. 146 They make it point of honor to submit to the elders and to a majority. So if ten were seated together, one person would not speak if the nine were unwilling. 147 They guard against spitting into [their] middles or to the right side and against applying themselves to labors on the seventh days, even more than all other Judeans: for not only do they prepare their own food one day before, so that they might not kindle a fire on that day, but they do not even dare to transport a container—or go to relieve themselves. 148 On the other days they dig a hole of a foot’s depth with a trowel—this is what that small hatchet given by them to the neophytes is for—and wrapping their cloak around them completely, so as not to outrage the rays of God, they relieve themselves into it [the hole]. 149 After that, they haul back the excavated earth into the hole. (When they do this, they pick out for themselves the more deserted spots.) Even though the secretion of excrement is certainly a natural function, it is customary to wash themselves off after it as if they have become polluted.

(8.10)

150 They are divided into four classes, according to their duration in the training, and the later-joiners are so inferior to the earlier-joiners that if they should touch them, the latter wash themselves off as if they have mingled with a foreigner. 151 [They are] long-lived, most of them passing 100 years—as a result, it seems to me at least, of the simplicity of their regimen and their orderliness. Despisers of terrors, triumphing over agonies by their wills, considering death—if it arrives with glory—better than deathlessness. 152 The war against the Romans proved their souls in every way: during it, while being twisted and also bent, burned and also broken, and passing through all the torture-chamber instruments, with the aim that they might insult the lawgiver or eat something not customary, they did not put up with suffering either one: not once gratifying those who were tormenting [them], or crying. 153 But smiling in their agonies and making fun of those who were inflicting the tortures, they would cheerfully dismiss their souls, [knowing] that they would get them back again.

(8.11)

154 For the view has become tenaciously held among them that whereas our bodies are perishable and their matter impermanent, our souls endure forever, deathless: they get entangled, having emanated from the most refined ether, as if drawn down by a certain charm into the prisons that are bodies. 155 But when they are released from the restraints of the flesh, as if freed from a long period of slavery, then they rejoice and are carried upwards in suspension. For the good, on the one hand, sharing the view of the sons of Greece they portray the lifestyle reserved beyond Oceanus and a place burdened by neither rain nor snow nor heat, but which a continually blowing mild west wind from Oceanus refreshes. For the base, on the other hand, they separate off a murky, stormy recess filled with unending retributions. 156 It was according to the same notion that the Greeks appear to me to have laid on the Islands of the Blessed for their most courageous men, whom they call heroes and demi-gods, and for the souls of the worthless the region of the impious in Hades, in which connection they tell tales about the punishments of certain men—Sisyphuses and Tantaluses, Ixions and Tityuses—establishing in the first place the [notion of] eternal souls and, on that basis, persuasion toward virtue and dissuasion from vice. 157 For the good become even better in the hope of a reward also after death, whereas the impulses of the bad are impeded by anxiety, as they expect that even if they escape detection while living, after their demise they will be subject to deathless retribution. 158 These matters, then, the Essenes theologize with respect to the soul, laying down an irresistible bait for those who have once tasted of their wisdom.

(8.12)

159 There are also among them those who profess to foretell what is to come, being thoroughly trained in holy books, various purifications, and concise sayings of prophets. Rarely if ever do they fail in their predictions.

(8.13)

160 There is also a different order of Essenes. Though agreeing with the others about regimen and customs and legal matters, it has separated in its opinion about marriage. For they hold that those who do not marry cut off the greatest part of life, the succession, and more: if all were to think the same way, the line would very quickly die out. 161 To be sure, testing the brides in a three-year interval, once they have been purified three times as a test of their being able to bear children, they take them in this manner; but they do not continue having intercourse with those who are pregnant, demonstrating that the need for marrying is not because of pleasure, but for children. Baths [are taken] by the women wrapping clothes around themselves, just as by the men in a waist-covering. Such are the customs of this order.

[Brianroy]

For those with time to read and study,

York University / PACE  has some good papers from 1999 ff. -- from the  SBL Josephus Seminar and SBL Josephus Group (co-chaired by Steve Mason)  --  including contributions  from Louis H. Feldman, et al., to the discussions on Josephus.

The link is:

PACE

Peace.

[Moses]

 




The lost A - ALEPH.

The Torah began with ALEPH that was lost.

Read ABRSHT - AB - Father of the Begining crated Elohim, the Heaven and Earth.

This is why wa pray to our Aba or Ab - Father in heaven.
Bram was Abram - AB - Father - Ram exolted.

 

[Brianroy]

There is no "lost" aleph.  The Torah begins with a "b" because it deals with a "beth", the building of a "house" or "temple" for the Divine...for G-D.

The entire focus of the Torah then, is not on the Alef...it is on the Beth.  The letter Beth, which means "house" such as in Beth-lechem or "house of Bread".  The goal then, of the Torah, is for man to become willing dwelling places (or houses / temples) for G-D to indwell His presence.  The indwelling is as manna or bread from heaven...and the bread itself, is the manifestation of G-D among men in the person we know as Jesus / Yeshua, who is able to dwell without and within many vessels as the Bread (i.e, the one who sustains) of Life. 

Israel as a people, are called to be a nation and a house (or vessel) for which G-D is to inhabit in and among...this is the macro-example given by the 5 books of the Torah.   The goal is the indwelling of each individual in the micro...as it logical progresses the intent of Ancient Judaism of Abraham to Moses (the real Moses) and the prophets into the New Testament.

The thesis of the born again application that is noted by Jesus / Yeshua in John 3 with the chief rabbi of eretz Israel deals with internal application of the external born again experience of being cleansed of leprosy in Numbers 14 or of the 7 times dipping in the Jordan to receive new flesh as that of a newborn babe (in place of the rotting old). 

The study of John the Baptist tells us (from the Greek) that the importance of preparation of our houses / temples / bodies, is that of a spiritual application...of making our hearts and minds ready, not this physical or crude matter (so much).

The entire theme of the Bible is that of a reason for man's Creation...for G-D to be honored by a willing people, and for G-D to dwell in the midst of such a Creation.  It is as if we have a house, created by the Divine, and in gratitude, we are called to willingly ask the Creator to co-inhabit with us in that Beth or House. 

There is no "lost A" or "Aleph".   To assume that either G-D or a friend was lost at the beginning, as the hypothesis of a "lost aleph" must conclude, is to say that it was NOT good at the Creation...and that G-D was a liar for repeatedly saying so. 

So then, even from a terse philosophical / theological assessment (or even a full survey, should we go there), you are mistaken.  This often happens when positions and hypotheses are not thought through.   It happens.

Peace. 

[Moses]

I agree that there is no lost Aleph.
The reason there is no lost Aleph is because of the way the Torah was transmitted. The Hebrew scribes counted the letters - Sofrim and validated check sum.
When I was growing up the teaching I received was that the Torah begins with Beit because it represents 2. Two worlds G-D created this one and the next one.
Earth for children of Adam and Heaven to Elohim.
Some would say that Beit is simply there for its meaning - i.e. In.
In the beginning and the rest is speculative interpretations and noting more.

Some early Christians see Beit as pointing to Father and Son that seen Father and Son as real Godhead before the concept of trinity became official theological view of godhead because the many of the writings of apostles in NT refer to father and son.

(3) Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
James 1:1
(1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.


 Quote:
Adherents of the Trinity doctrine assert that the Holy Spirit is a personality alongside the Father and the Son. Yet, when the apostles—especially Paul—referred to the Godhead in their epistles, why is mention of the Holy Spirit almost totally absent (James 1:1; II Peter 1:2; I John 1:3; Romans 1:7; I Corinthians 1:3; II Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:2; I Timothy 1:1-2; II Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3)?

Where is the Holy Spirit? Is James not a servant of the Holy Spirit (James 1:1)? Is he a servant only of God and of Jesus Christ? What about "knowledge of the Holy Spirit" in II Peter 1:2? Is there no "fellowship with the Holy Spirit" in I John 1:3? Why do the apostles ignore it?

They include a greeting from the Father and the Son in each of these letters, but there is no greeting from the Holy Spirit. This was inspired by God! Is it possible that this is evidence that there is no other personality? Little by little, it keeps adding up. We need to see this with our own eyes—the Holy Spirit is ignored every time the Godhead is mentioned. Father and Son—yes. Holy Spirit—no.

With a few variations in words, every apostle ignores the Holy Spirit. Would it not be gross insubordination for them to recognize two in the highest offices in the universe and totally ignore the third? They did this because they did not know the Holy Spirit as a personality within the Godhead because Jesus taught them no such thing. The Holy Spirit is the power God uses to direct and carry out His purposes within His creation.

John W. Ritenbaugh


2 Peter 1:2
(2) Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

1 John 1:3
(3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:7
(7) To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Corinthians 1:3
(3) Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:2
(2) Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:3
(3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Ephesians 1:2
(2) Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:2
(2) Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:2
(2) To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Thessalonians 1:1
(1) Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 1:2
(2) Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:1-2
(1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; (2) Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Titus 1:4
(4) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

 Quote:
"The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind; but he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul."
(From A Handbook of Christian Truth by Harold Lindsell and Charles Woodbridge, pp. 51-52)

This line of reasoning is in direct opposition to Christ's statement in Matthew 13:11, where He says that it was given to the disciples—and by extension, to us—to understand the mysteries of God.

Paul writes in I Corinthians 2 that we were given the Spirit of God so that we might understand the things of God.

The nature of God is not hard to understand at all. He gives His children the ability to understand it. The world, however, tends to take simple biblical truth and make it into a complicated and confusing false teaching

[kattey]

Re the Essenes.

So this means only men with absolute control over their bowels and urinary tracts could be Essenes?  Surely when ill they got the diarrhea like anybody else.  Probably the foul one was punished.  No one with eating disorders was allowed?  They must have suffered the end of life diseases we suffer today.  I wonder what the punishment was for breaking wind?

They needn't feel proud they excluded women.  Most women would want nothing to do with men like these.  Still, they have become famous after death.  That's something.

[Moses]

Wile they live long life as mentioned pass 100.
They looked at death as transformation and rebirth.
for running to christianity the second birth of spirit.

I think Qumran community evolved. Its possible that a type of community Josephus is talking about was at Qumran at some point. But in earlier times
there existed more mixed communities of Judea's and other groups.

[Brianroy]

I agree that there is no lost Aleph.
The reason there is no lost Aleph is because of the way the Torah was transmitted. The Hebrew scribes counted the letters - Sofrim and validated check sum.
When I was growing up the teaching I received was that the Torah begins with Beit because it represents 2. Two worlds G-D created this one and the next one.
Earth for children of Adam and Heaven to Elohim.
Some would say that Beit is simply there for its meaning - i.e. In.
In the beginning and the rest is speculative interpretations and noting more.

Some early Christians see Beit as pointing to Father and Son that seen Father and Son as real Godhead before the concept of trinity became official theological view of godhead because the many of the writings of apostles in NT refer to father and son.

(3) Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
James 1:1
(1) James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.


 Quote:
Adherents of the Trinity doctrine assert that the Holy Spirit is a personality alongside the Father and the Son. Yet, when the apostles—especially Paul—referred to the Godhead in their epistles, why is mention of the Holy Spirit almost totally absent (James 1:1; II Peter 1:2; I John 1:3; Romans 1:7; I Corinthians 1:3; II Corinthians 1:2; Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2; Philippians 1:2; Colossians 1:2; I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:2; I Timothy 1:1-2; II Timothy 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:3)?

Where is the Holy Spirit? Is James not a servant of the Holy Spirit (James 1:1)? Is he a servant only of God and of Jesus Christ? What about "knowledge of the Holy Spirit" in II Peter 1:2? Is there no "fellowship with the Holy Spirit" in I John 1:3? Why do the apostles ignore it?

They include a greeting from the Father and the Son in each of these letters, but there is no greeting from the Holy Spirit. This was inspired by God! Is it possible that this is evidence that there is no other personality? Little by little, it keeps adding up. We need to see this with our own eyes—the Holy Spirit is ignored every time the Godhead is mentioned. Father and Son—yes. Holy Spirit—no.

With a few variations in words, every apostle ignores the Holy Spirit. Would it not be gross insubordination for them to recognize two in the highest offices in the universe and totally ignore the third? They did this because they did not know the Holy Spirit as a personality within the Godhead because Jesus taught them no such thing. The Holy Spirit is the power God uses to direct and carry out His purposes within His creation.

John W. Ritenbaugh


2 Peter 1:2
(2) Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

1 John 1:3
(3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Romans 1:7
(7) To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Corinthians 1:3
(3) Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:2
(2) Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Galatians 1:3
(3) Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,

Ephesians 1:2
(2) Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philippians 1:2
(2) Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Colossians 1:2
(2) To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.


1 Thessalonians 1:1
(1) Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Thessalonians 1:2
(2) Grace unto you, and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

1 Timothy 1:1-2
(1) Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope; (2) Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.

Titus 1:4
(4) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

 Quote:
"The mind of man cannot fully understand the mystery of the Trinity. He who has tried to understand the mystery fully will lose his mind; but he who would deny the Trinity will lose his soul."
(From A Handbook of Christian Truth by Harold Lindsell and Charles Woodbridge, pp. 51-52)

This line of reasoning is in direct opposition to Christ's statement in Matthew 13:11, where He says that it was given to the disciples—and by extension, to us—to understand the mysteries of God.

Paul writes in I Corinthians 2 that we were given the Spirit of God so that we might understand the things of God.

The nature of God is not hard to understand at all. He gives His children the ability to understand it. The world, however, tends to take simple biblical truth and make it into a complicated and confusing false teaching

The Holy Spirit is the 3rd person of the G-Dhead (Matthew 28:19), who dwells as a person of the G-Dhead with the Father and the Son, whose portion and presence dwells within us believers (John 14:17). The concept of G-D’s portion and presence dwelling upon and in the soul of a man is as old as Genesis 1’s chronological status itself.

A force does not speak and declare and testify.

He speaks as G-D in both the masculine and (sometimes) feminine voice  in the Hebrew Scriptures . 

A force is an energy, even as the sun is an energy.

In the Old Testament, the Holy Spirit can be found to speaking the personhood of being G-D.

 In the New testament book of John's Gospel, the Holy Spirit speaks as from within the complex Unity of One G-D in Trinity...He authoritatively  speaks or has the power to speak  as the ambassador of Jesus Christ (John 14:26, 15:26, 16:13), sent from the very presence of the G-D the Father (cf. John 14:26, 16:28).

 He is our link by which we are drawn to Jesus (2 Corinthians 13:14), for whatsoever He hears as one in the complex unity of the G-Dhead, even as Jesus heard, that He speaks (John 16:13, 16:8-11).

He is our gift, even as Christ is our gift from the Father (Acts 2:38), to whom we are to obey as G-D speaking through the prophets (Acts 5:32, 13:2).

In the First Century to the Second Century, the Apostolic approach was to address G-D in the Abrahamic approach, as if the use of G-D in totality was to address “the Father.”

Adonai first appears in Genesis 15:2.

After the Ugaritic, from which Abraham was more or less akin to in his speech toward YHVeH of Genesis 15:2, the word adn is translated as "father" as well as "lord". The Akkadian carries the meaning of being "mighty".

Hence, translate Genesis 15:2 as, "And said Abram, 'Mighty Father and Lord YHVeH"...etc.

In the introduction to Antiquities of the Jews .4, Josephus concurs and says that...from the Jewish / Hebrew perspective...“G-D is the Father and Lord of all things, and sees all things….”

Yet, when only a portion of His Presence inhabits the Temple, in the Holy of Holies, it is a person…not an “it”…that dwells there.  The priests light the Temple Menorah “before G-D”, says Josephus (Antiquities, 3.8.3)…not simply, before His presence” which fills the Universe.


Antiquities, 8.4.3 

When the king [Solomon]  had thus discoursed to the multitude, he looked again towards the temple, and lifting up his right hand … he said," It is not possible by what men can do to return sufficient thanks to G-D for his benefits bestowed upon them, for the Deity stands in need of nothing and is above any such requital; but so far as we have been made superior, O Lord, to other animals by thee, it becomes us to bless thy Majesty, and it is necessary for us to return thee thanks for what thou hast bestowed upon our house, and on the Hebrew people; for with what other instrument can we better appease thee … than with our voice? which, as we have it from the air, so do we know that by that air it ascends upwards [towards thee] …
I humbly beseech thee that thou wilt let some portion of thy Spirit come down and inhabit in this temple, that thou mayst appear to be with us upon earth. As to thyself, the entire heavens, and the immensity of the things that are therein, are but a small habitation for thee, much more is this poor temple so; but I entreat thee to keep it as thine own house….


So even if it is just a portion of G-D’s presence, there is an ancient expectation of an intelligence that comes with that “portion”…as if G-D from G-D.  And yet, there is as if a shroud or scales upon the eyes, so as for the concept to be dark upon the mind, and beyond an ability for most to comprehend.  This can be accomplished by a hindrance of the Spirit of G-D’s willingness to reveal, or by the pounding traditions of men within the student over that which may be independently derived (such as by the still small voice by which G-D the Spirit might operate apart from grievous but accepted reinterpretations upon the texts).

An example of an elementary inability is when  Flavius Josephus, in his work "Antiquities of the Jews" 1.1.2. , remarks:
"Moses, after the Seventh Day was over, begins to talk philosophically."

The talking philosophically occurs in the same verse that G-D appears with the addition of the Name: YHVeH. In the preface to this work, in section 4, Josephus writes:

"...either to the majesty of G-D, or to his love of mankind...all things have here a reference to the nature of the Universe ... our legislator [Moses] speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory.... However, those that have a mind to know the reasons of everything, may find here a very curious philosophical theory, which I now indeed shall wave the explication of...."

That philosophical theory, the theory of Reasoning, which was a major part of the Protestant Reformation, is in dealing with aspect of Logos that Josephus and most theologians and critics fail to comprehend.

 Or reversed, HASHEM is darkly seen by Josephus as the Logos of G-D; and that to him, this is an enigma he cannot quite comprehend if G-D is simply One Being with only one personality (i.e. one person or yachid).

But the fact of the matter is from the Beginning, from the “en arche” of Genesis 1:1, G-D is Elohim: Eloah in the plural (im); one Being, yet in plurality...for which reason there is the verse of Zechariah 14:9.

Thus, to go from this, to the distinction of Elohim to HASHEM Elohim from Genesis 1 into Genesis 2, is as though the presence of Elohim in the now (encompassing all time past-present-future) steps forth from out of Himself to create man in His out-lines and likeness within. And this follows only upon the twice testimony of the creation of man or adam.

In John 1:18, the essence of the Greek is that,
 "He who is in the Bosom
[throne area within the Cherubim/Seraphim creatures]
of the Father, has declared that no man hath seen G-D [directly, and as He is]
at anytime."


 That is, the very one that Josephus cannot comprehend, has been revealed to a whole other sect of Judaism that Josephus doesn’t even open recognize, even though he briefly (just once), mentions its Jewish founder specifically (as if having legal and a thus far unrefuted right to the claim of Christ) in passing. (Antiquities, 18.3.3.)


Whatever G-D is, He (as a Being) is Spirit (John 4:24), and our worship is invisible (in Spirit) and in truth.

When the Spirit “comes upon” the prophets of the Old Testament, we would to well...as we look at Josephus, and do other studies... to remember Ezekiel’s expression, that the ”Spirit” is “the hand of YHVeH”  / yad_YHVeH (Ezekiel 1:3, cf. the Hebrew). 

   The disciple of John the Apostle’s disciple, Irenaeus (in Against Heresies, 4.20.2 ff. and 5.1.3. of circa 181-183 A.D.) refers to Christ and the Holy Spirit, not only as persons, but as if allegorically the two hands by which G-D the Father works.    

{Again, cf. the  Hebrew of the Ezekiel 1:3 in which the Masoretic text joins the word “yad” / “hand” with a line to the Tetragrammaton.}

In Ezekiel 3:12 we have the contrast between the voice of the (Holy) Spirit with that of  Jesus in Revelation 1:15b (having the voice of many waters)   and HASHEM in Ezekiel 1:25.

In fact, the Holy Spirit as the (voice of the) “wind” hovering upon the pre-incarnate Jesus, the voice of many waters, is seen in both Genesis 1:2 and at the Baptism of Jesus (Mark 1:9-10).

In Ezekiel 1:25, cf.  L’RiQuYA, upon which the voice rides upon the expanse over the heads:  in which the similitude to thunder rolling on top of the dark clouds and whirlwinds, the voice taking to itself  the preternatural aspects of creative power (Nahum 1:3b, Ps. 78:23, Job 37:18), is implied. 

"The spirit took me up, and I heard behind me a voice of a great rushing*quake*that*moves* [one from off their feet]," (Ezekiel 3:12)   after which “rushing or tumultuous event”, Ezekiel must again be “lifted” to his feet. 


In contrast, Josephus bounces between a special empowerment, and the person of G-D, when relating to the “Divine Spirit” of G-D, whom we call The Holy Spirit.  But, to deny personhood to the Holy Spirit by looking at Josephus, is totake Josephus out of context. 

Antiquities, 9.3.1

…they brought him a man that could play on the psaltery, the Divine Spirit came upon him as the music played, and he commanded them to dig many trenches in the valley; for, said [rightly and prophesied] he, "though there appear neither cloud, nor wind, nor storm of rain, ye shall see this river full of water, till the army and the cattle be saved for you by drinking of it. Nor will this be all the favor that you shall receive from G-D….

[Brianroy]

Antiquities (Whiston) Book 4 Section 107

Now the Midianites, at the earnest request and fervent entreaties of Balak, sent other ambassadors to Balaam, who, desiring to gratify the men, inquired again of G-D; but he was displeased at [second] trial and bid him by no means to contradict the ambassadors.

 Now Baalam did not imagine that G-D gave this injunction in order to deceive him, so he went along with the ambassadors; but when the Divine Angel met him in the way, when he was in a narrow passage, and hedged in with a wall on both sides, the ass on which Balaam rode understood that it was a Divine Spirit

{the Hebrew text of the Bible specifically says it was the Angel of YHVeH…hence Josephus allows for the transition between the Angel of YHVeH as the Divine Angel, to be called the "Divine Spirit" here}


that met him, and thrust Balaam to one of the walls, without regard to the stripes which Balaam, when he was hurt by the wall, gave her; but when the ass, upon the angel's continuing to distress her, and upon the stripes which were given her, fell down, by the will of G-D, she made use of the voice of a man, and complained of Balaam as acting unjustly to her; that whereas he had no fault find with her in her former service...






Antiquities (Whiston) Book 4 Section 118

Thus did Balaam speak by inspiration, as not being in his own power, but moved to say what he did by the Divine Spirit. But then Balak was displeased, …
 To which Balaam replied, "O Balak, if thou rightly considerest this whole matter, canst thou suppose that it is in our power to be silent, or to say any thing, when the Spirit of G-D seizes upon us? - for he puts such words as he pleases in our mouths, and such discourses as we are not ourselves conscious of. … but G-D is more powerful ….


Hence the Divine Spirit, the Spirit of G-D and the Angel of YHVeH are potentially synonymous in Josephus’ own historical testimony upon  the Biblical texts he possessed.


Antiquities (Whiston) Book 6.4.2

...this, when thou comest to Gabatha, thou shalt overtake a company of prophets, and thou shalt be seized with the Divine Spirit, and prophesy along with them, till every one that sees thee shall be astonished, and wonder....


Antiquities (Whiston) Book 6 .8.2

So Samuel, when he had given him these admonitions, went away. But the Divine Power departed from Saul, and removed to David; who, upon this removal of the Divine Spirit to him, began to prophesy.


Antiquities (Whiston) Book 6 Section 221

…when it was told Saul that David was with the prophet, he sent soldiers to him, and ordered them to take him, and bring him to him: and when they came to Samuel, and found there a congregation of prophets, they became partakers of the Divine Spirit, and began to prophesy; which when Saul heard of, he sent others to David, who prophesying in like manner as did the first, he again sent others; which third sort prophesying also….


Antiquities (Whiston) Book 8 Section 401

...should be slain at three days' journey distance: "and [said he] you shall soon know whether he be a true prophet, and hath the power of the Divine Spirit; for I will smite him....

 
Antiquities (Whiston) Book 10 Section 239

When Baltasar heard this, he called for Daniel; and when he had discoursed to him what he had learned concerning him and his wisdom, and how a Divine Spirit was with him, and that he alone was fully capable of finding out what others would never have thought of, …



In Matthew 28:19 we have Jesus telling Matthew and the other apostles to go forth...in the name of the Father...in the name of the Son... We do NOT have...in the name of the Father and His Spirit, and of His Christ.

The inference is in the name of the Holy Spirit...a person distinguishable from the Father, even as is the Son, yet ONE.  In two verses of Isaiah 48:16-17, we have the identity of three YHVeH's of distinction  in the Hebrew, and that Isaiah is a Hebrew and ancient Jewish accepted book.

We know the apostolic acceptance of Matthew by at least the apostle John, who only wrote his gospel to supplement what he (by the guidance of the Holy Spirit) saw that the others needed to assist…much like the prophetical giant of Isaiah is supplemented by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel in the OT…though in that OT case, it is chronologically successively, NOT concurrently.   

In Matthew 3:16-17, Mark 1:10-11, Luke 3:22: you have the person of the Son (Jesus) being lighted upon by a dove shaped Holy Spirit, and then the "voice". The Bat Qol, or daughter of the voice, is a feminine aspect. Why? Jesus says in John 5:37, "And the Father Himself, which hath sent Me, hath borne witness of Me. YE HAVE NEITHER HEARD HIS VOICE AT ANY TIME, nor seen His shape."

Peter calls this voice as the voice of the Father (2 Peter 1:17-18), even as John quotes the ministry of Jesus as the living voice and manifestation (or the exact representation and manifestation of the Father in the physical as the exact image ambassador, cf. Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:4)  of the Father (John 5:30) who speaks simultaneously, as One, what the Father speaks.

 There is a distinction of persons within the G-Dhead that occurs, even if there are those who are less observant to have noticed this in the Apostolic accounts by the Apostles themselves.  The ministry of the Holy Spirit, as a person, is likewise as much carried out by a person as Jesus the Son of G-D the Father, from the Bosom of the Father, was a person.

So if now, back at the Baptism of Jesus’, if we have Pharisees and other hostiles looking on at Jesus' baptism, confronting John (Matthew 3:6-7; and John 3:19 ff. infers that spies of the Sanhedrin would have remained), and then watching the events silently...if they didn't hear the Bat Qol as the Father's voice, and they indeed heard the voice, whose voice was it that was heard if it wasn't specifically the Father?  In the example of Acts Damascus road experience, and through the testimony of Mark, etc., we may see that G-D speaks in thunder peals to those to whom His words are not revealed...if they should hear anything they should not be privy to.

 Could the Voice heard atthe Baptism and the Mount of Transfiguration  have been the person of the Holy Spirit (as if a mother's voice perhaps)? (Cf. Matthew 20:20-21).  If that were so, the distinction would have been made.

The hypothesis of a mothering Holy Spirit, might follow along these lines.   G-D is He who makes male and female, and in the IMAGE of G-D …male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27).   Actually, it reads in Genesis 1:27, in the Image {I.e., Christ pre-incarnate} created he him…and then it is followed by male and female, created he them.  

The debate about the particulars as cults and schisms began to arise to take away, including later Mariology, may have started in serious at length discussions over the very issue over who and what the Holy Spirit of G-D is.

So if Christ is the masculine/ strong  Adamic right hand, the left hand then, is the Eve or feminine,  and representative of the Holy Spirit: being then,  the “bat” or “daughter” of the qol / “voice”, as it were.  Yet, as we have seen, the Holy Spirit alone has the attributes of both masculine and feminine in the OT Hebrew, for which reason John’s Gospel oft renders “him” in the neuter  (more as if he/she, NOT as “it”). 

In Matthew 17:1-13, Mark 9:2-13, Luke 9:28-36...we are actually never told that the Bat Qol is the Voice of the Father, and even allowed the option of being the voice of the Holy Spirit.  Therefore, there is a trinity presence at the Baptism of Jesus, which repeats an NT adoption of Genesis 1:2.

 By your interpretation, there is no distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father within the G-Dhead in your selective abridgement of the NT Apostles, and this is in err.


Ireneaus was the student of Polycarp, who in turn was bishop of Smyrna (70/71 - 154/155 A.D.), and the disciple of John (the closest disciple of Jesus, as it were). Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch of Syria (d. 107 A.D., perhaps a couple years earlier), witness to the apostles, and friend of Polycarp, but successor a Church established/founded by Peter, head of the Antioch synod of 70.

 
Irenaeus quotes John as saying those who wish to separate Jesus are of the anti-Christ (Against Heresies, 3.16.. The first roadblock removed in the separation of Jesus and the Father as ONE is the person of the Holy Spirit.

Ignatius,  contrary to your presentation regarding 1st-2nd century Christians, makes a distinction of the Temple and the Father, the Cross and Jesus, and the Rope of the cross-crane as the Holy Spirit...three separate and distinct objects representing separate and distinct persons.

Please read the Greek of John 16:13"s "He {the Holy Spirit} will speak from Himself, and whatever He hears He will speak."

 
The Holy Ghost is labeled by Tertullian as the Vicar of Christ and the Steward of G-D; and the "He Himself was preaching by the Apostles." (On Prescription Against the Heretics, .28)


In Exodus 15 and Psalm 118, we know and see the identity of Yeshua as the Right of HASHEM. If the Head of Christ is G-D, and Christ is the Right Arm of HASHEM as HASHEM, then what of the Left Arm of G-D? The Scriptures prophecy of only the Right being manifest to men..."HASHEM is your keeper, HASHEM is your SHADE ON YOUR RIGHT HAND." (Psalm 121:5).

But we all know that a body has both a right and left side.

The very ministry of Christ is present in the repeated verse of the Song of Solomon, where it says, "His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me." (Song of Solomon 2:6; 8:3). It is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to illumine our minds, and to uphold our thoughts. It is the ministry of Christ to embrace us.

A body does not have a head {Father} only. A right side of the body {Christ} must be in total unity with the left {the Holy Spirit}, and follow the commands of the head.

For the Church, Christ is the head, the nation of Israel one side, and the Gentiles the other side in one interpretation. In another interpretation of the two folds, mankind is one side, and the angels and cherubim the other.

Irregardless: there is One G-D, in Three Persons and Ministries (as it were) acting as One Being in complex unity. In the Trinity, we see all three extensions of the Cross: the head beam, the beam jointed to it extending to its right, and to its left. And nailed to that Cross, the Son of man manifest in the visual shape of the Alef, side ways with one elbow up, and one down, manifesting His commitment to redeeming us.

1) The Holy Spirit is mentioned as working in the resurrection or "eternal life" giving power of G-D, in conjunction and co-existence with Christ. (Romans 8:11)

2) The Holy Spirit "picked up and bore along, upholding" prophecy, and bearing up and speaking through the prophets in the Old Testament. (2 Peter 1:21). Compare the Greek of this verse in its use of "pheromenoi" and that of Hebrews 1:3's use of "upholding and bearing".

Hebrews 1:1-3  {Translation mine: fully expanded from Greek w/word pictures, etc.}

1) “What now lies behind (us as) a great while ago: in many regions and coasts, and in many periods of repentance, in which the mind and will were turned about -- G-D spoke with reasoning to the Fathers
2) with respect upon the most extreme end of Days, in the Prophets. Of these, they spake in the manner of reasoning to us, in the Son, whom He set to lay down as an appointed foundation having the power to distribute as heir of all. Through whom, indeed, using the first cause He brought about the ages.
3) Who, as the Being, (that is, as G-D), splendiferously emits light as the true thought --expression -- and exact representation of the same substance and reality of Him, upholding then, and bearing all things. By the spoken word of His power, through Himself, the sins of us are made into being ritually cleansed and ceremonially pure, being caused to sit down in the Right of the Great One higher than the heavens.



The Holy Spirit -- as G-D -- glorifies Messhiach. He is a person, not an "it", who instructs. He is distinct, although in complex unity as G-D in G-D. He is not only in and through the Father, He is also in and through the Son, AND INDEPENDENTLY JOINED AS HOMOOUSIOS AND HYPOSTASIS [ "same substance and reality of"] OF THE FATHER AND THE SON.

That is, the Holy Spirit is the "glory" of the Father and of the Son.

The principles are that wisdom is as a mother (Proverbs 4:1-8), who is honored by both the Father and the Son. It is wisdom who acts as a mother and whose sayings are UPHELD AND BORNE ALONG as "life" and "health" (Proverbs 4:20-23). The characteristics and ministry of the Holy Spirit are typified in the virtuous woman of Proverbs 31:10ff.

3) In I Corinthians 2:4-14, we see that:
the Holy Spirit demonstrates the "POWER" of G-D (v.4),
acts as the "WISDOM" of G-D (v.7),
acts as the inquisitor/investigator [cf. "Counselor"] of G-D (v. 10),
acts as our tutor in the spiritual things of G-D (vv.12-14).

Hence, the designation of John 14:16 -- the Holy Spirit being an "allos": "another of the same kind."    That is, another ofthe same kind as Jesus.   This is similar to Jesus as the "logos" in John 1:1 being called up alongside the Father (pros ton Theon) as another of the same kind, but in and as G-D (Theos een ho logos).

Hence, the designation of being our "parakletos": our "one who is called up alongside as a Counselor who instructs or aids", an equal to our advocate Jesus, who in turn is equal to the Father. That is, Holy Spirit = Jesus = Father and vice versa in Homoousios and Hypostasis, but the positioning...where before the Creation was singular NAME of the Father and of the Spirit and the Son...is now the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Spirit. What that NAME was "before the Creation" to the angels and cherubim, we know not. What that NAME is of all three persons is now, we call as the Tetragrammaton.

[Brianroy]

In I Clement .13,.16,.42, we are made aware of the Agents of Christ and the Holy Ghost." Contrast the phraseology with I Clement .58 of G-D and his Agent L-RD Christ; and with 2 Clement .14, which also brings the Holy Spirit into the office of Agency.

The Holy Spirit, as the Greek of John's Gospel and its successors taught, is an allos paraclete, another "agent" or comforter of the same kind as Jesus. That is, a like Agency of personhood and purpose.

Diognetus .11, tells us that teaching of the Apostles is that Christ is of/from Everlasting {e.g. Micah 5:2}, and at a certain point in time He becomes a Son. That is, in His Agency as He who spake to Moses, or called the Universe into Being, while acting in the office of Agency (like the Holy Spirit) -- He is G-D.

We see this confirmed by Polycarp .6, in which the L-RD and G-D and Christ (His Agent) are equivalent. Contrast this with Polycarp .12. Polycarp was installed as Bishop of Smyrna of Asia by John the Apostle, and held his office from circa February 70 A.D. until his death 86 years later at age 116 in 156 A.D.

In Polycarp .13, Polycarp gives witness to the acceptance of Ignatius' letters as doctrinally sound. When Polycarp did so, he was in the prime of his knowledge and mental faculties, at less than 68 years of age.

Ignatius to the Ephesians, .9, a pre-107 A.D. epistle, proclaims the equivalency and personification of the Doctrine of the Trinity: it does so from both Greek (in both its short and long versions) and the Syriac manuscript sources.

The person of the Father is referred to as a building; the person of the Son as a Cross; the person of the Holy Spirit as a rope. Those who refute the Trinity -- infers Ignatius in this passage -- are those who bear false doctrine (and not the other way around).

Note also in Ignatius to the Ephesian's .18, that Jesus is born by the Holy Ghost, not by "the Father's Spirit", or by the "power", or any such language that detracts from the Holy Ghost as being co-equal and co-creative with the Father.

Why is the doctrine of the Trinity important?

Ignatius to the Ephesians, .10, writes that it is because "Christianity did not merge into Judaism, Judaism merged into Christianity."

This is the view of the early Church in the immediate decade following John the Apostle's death...and modern scholarship fubars the view of Christians from Antioch of Syria to Ephesus, at the very least.


Here, Ignatius wrote to those who possessed the very writings and teaching of John's Gospel in Ephesus -- and were entrusted with the original manuscripts of John's Gospel, his letters, and Revelation. Igantius writes to the very guardians and disciples who knew John intimately...in the place where John stayed uninterruptedly for 44 years (says Irenaeus from Polycarp).

Here, in Ephesus, the concept of the Trinity was taught by Christ's closest living Apostle for over 40 years...for John taught until his death in circa October of 97 to circa early 98 A.D. (only a few years or less back at the time of this epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians). Ignatius was once a co-disciple of John (with Polycarp), and had studied with some of these to who he writes, while confirming the teaching of Trinity from Antioch of Syria as the tradition of Peter and Paul and the other apostles who founded Antioch of Syria's churches also.

Therefore, Ignatius is telling us that the Churches of Asia, through John, possessed a concept of G-D that really began in its origin in Genesis 1:1, and was continued up to the present day...G-D in Trinity as Father-Son-Holy Ghost. In effect, the Trinity is not just a teaching via the Apostles from Christ, it is viewed by the Earliest Churches as from time immemorial.


Any Judaism that splits away from this, according to Ignatius and the Apostle John and others, therefore would have been viewed by these Christians, as that nation and diaspora of Israel which loses itself and the True Eternal Faith. Christianity, from the viewpoint of 1st and early second century apostolic leadership,  is the true Faith of Israel from before the Foundation of the world...NOT the other way around. Hence, the Trinity also now applies from Genesis 1:1's "Beginning" to the last words of the New Testament.

Ignatius to the Trallians .6  (longer greek version) uses the phrase of Father-Son-Holy Ghost.

In .7 we see that the phrase our G-D Jesus, or Jesus our G-D is used. (Remember the co-equality and co-agency of Christ and the Spirit here).


Ignatius to the Philadelphians,.6, admonishes that if anyone preaches a Jewish Law restraint (such as how it took another 1100 years to impose a yachid on the ehad G-D), don't listen to them. [Talmud, targums, etc. appear to be all void of a yachid G-D, for example.]

Ignatius follows this up in .7 with the agency of the Holy Spirit as G-D from G-D, saying: "yet the Spirit, as being from G-D, is not deceived...the Spirit PROCLAIMS these words...'be the followers of Jesus Christ, as He is of His Father.'" That is, He speaks to us in the same authority or way that Christ the person speaks to the Disciples. He is a being from G-D, speaking the words of G-D, in the Agency of an allos paraclete.

Ignatius to the Smyrnaens, in .12 and Conclusion, teaches us the notion:
to be in union with G-D (the Father) .12;
in the Name of the Son .12;
and in the power of the Holy Ghost (Conclusion).

Therefore, to say that the council of Nicea created Trinity some centuries way after the Apostles and earliest Christianity, is to accept the doctrine of G-D haters, witches, atheists, and the ill-informed or purposely ignorant at face value, not having vetted the claim.


We can take up many pages having a concept and the acceptance Trinity of the early Church shown to be taken from OT passages, and do so in great detail...but suffice it to say, that as regards Josephus, and the early Christian  Church...the personhood of the Holy Spirit posed a complexity to understanding the Unity of the One G-D.   That is the historical.  To go into more, is to get into the later Theological and Historical (but again,  later) defenses in the Christian apologetic history. 

So, again, I repeat the important historical literary summary...


Why is the establishing of the earliness of the historical doctrine of the Trinity important to Christians and students of history?

Ignatius to the Ephesians, .10, writes that it is because

"Christianity did not merge into Judaism, Judaism merged into Christianity."

and this was the view of the early Church in the immediate decade following John the Apostle's death that most modern NT history scholars have rewritten or simply written off,  each to their own or after their own personal biases.

Hope this all helps. 

Peace.

[Moses]

Wile I like your commentary it is but a view.

I will start by translating the word ADONAY.
Its simply a plural for My Lords just like Horay is Hebrew plural for my parents and just like Elohay is my Elohim Plural as in " lets make Adam in our likeness: plural in OUR likeness.

No one denies that Spirit is member of heavenly Kingdom representing the most high God but what I claim is that it is not a third person of God Head
The spirit is an attribute of the Father and not another person. Son as we see in John is another person. Just as Logos is Christ Jesus so is HS or HG is the Father but he is not a separate person.

So why are you ignoring all the passages where the greeting is only from Father and Son? Is this only of convenience not to address early apostles and followers of Yashuah?

In book of Kinds we learn that there are many spirits in heavenly kingdom and some can be a spirit of false prophecy etc.

To me The HG is the Father him self and one of his attributes and not separate personality in Trinity.
There is Father and there is Son as John 1 carefully points to.
The great misconception is the angelic chanting Holy Holy Holy so here it is.

The Name YHWH is permutation of 3 Hebrew words HYH, HOH, YHYH - read Haya the one that was, Howeh - Th One who is and YHEYE the one who will be this is why you hear the Seraphs and Cherubs proclaiming 3 times Holy.
To the everlasting father YHWH who was , Is , and will be.

In no way I deny the HG, I just view it as Fathers Spirit.
This is what Solomon refers to.

If you understand what it means when Apostle stated that branches draft in the the tree you will understand that Christianity is drafted  in to the Israel.  The reason I don't call it Judaism is because Judaism evolved and traditions took priorities above the written word of G-d.

Trinity is one of the false teachings originated in Egypt in my view.
There is Father and there is Son. Fathers spirit and Fathers son.
Father YHWH is the MOST HIGH G_D.
Princes are children of the King. A male child of the King is a son and is a prince of the same substance as the father. There is first born and there are other children who are also princes such are MichaEL the prince stand upon Israel, GabriEL etc.

The Hierarchy of the Heavenly Kingdom is that there is the most high G-d he is YHWH EL ELION.

The divine spirit in Bilam is the Father speaking in him by inhabiting the body - as possessing it that is the temple.
Yes our Body is a temple as the Apostle teaching us.
And if the Temple can be inhabited by Gods spirit it can also can be possessed by other spirits such as spirit of false teaching.

Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

1 John 1:3
(3) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
You can accept words of others I accept words of Father, Jesus and the Apostles.
I honor Father and Son and if found wordy they will send of their spirit to be in me in my body, in my temple.

Another misconception is the declaration of Ehad and Yahid.
When Israel (Bride) declares YHWH (Husband) our ELOHIM is ONE. Israel declares that she is now married and loyal to only one Husband and obligated not to come to other Gods but to be loyal wife of ONE husband.

As the first commandment is not to follow other gods.
As in many prophecies G-d called his wife Israel harlot that cheated on her husband by following other gods.
Loyalty to ONE husband redeemer saviour.
The declaration is marriage union and covenant of wife to one YHWH husband.

The same is required of Church.

[kattey]

Why did my post disappear?  Does the mod have a button he can push if he doesn't like what's posted?  Answer please.

[Brianroy]

The Israeli Antiquities Authority found part of a Roman cemetary at Acco, dating to as early as about 52-54 A.D.

This is relevant to both the New Testament formative period, and to the histories of Josephus.

Any time there is a find prior to 1700 A.D. dug up, the Antiquities Law of 1978 is supposed to kick in.  The IAA writes:

"The Antiquities Law 1978 was enacted in order to protect the antiquities of the country, i.e., any object, which was made by man before 1700 CE, or any zoological or botanical remains from before the year 1300 CE...."

Unfortunately, the Muslim controlled portions rightfully belonging to Israel are ignoring any protection. In fact, they have been documented as destroying artifacts from both Temple periods, from Babylonian arrowheads to Herodian architectural fascicles, and churning them into bits. 

An interesting burial find was made in Acre, and this relates to the Roman presence to the histories Josephus would perhaps even have known about.  Cross-arrangement in the burial of the bodies of Roman soldiers on one another. 

The IAA writes:
"Acre (or Acco) is a very old town situated in northern Israel, along the shore of the western Galilee. The biblical Acco was a famous harbour city on the Phoenician coast, and a main city in the plain of Acco. Established as a police by Ptolemy II Philadelphus, it became an important Hellenistic fortification named Acco-Ptolemains.  In the Early Roman Period it was made a Colony by Claudius (52-54), named Colonia Claudia Felix Ptolemais Garmanica Stabilis.  Acco-Ptolemais served as an entrance point to the land of Israel during the Roman period and it was only natural that the Roman army would station there.

In 2003, while constructing a road, human skeletal remains were found west of the ancient Tell. The remains included fragmentary skull and postcranial bones and some zoological remains. A big-scale excavation was launched (named Acco-Remez), directed by a staff of archaeologists led by Yotam Tepper from the Israel Antiquities Authority.
 

The excavators have discovered a cemetery, in which most of the graves were stone lined cyst graves.

...The pottery and glass artifacts associated with the burials confined the use of this cemetery from the middle of the 1st to the beginning of the 4th centuries (CE).

This is the Roman period in which, as we have stated earlier, the Roman army stationed in Acco where it had its colony Claudia Felix Ptolemais Garmanica Stabilis.

...Cremated bones. Urns with cremated bones were found in two graves. The bones were of adults, 20< years old (sex unknown). The use of cremation is very rare in Israel, even among the non-Jewish Pagan population. However, cremated bones are found in Israel in burial sites associated with Roman military presence.


Unusual burial practices.

 Another distinguishing feature was the unusual burial posture of the dead. Unlike the regular use of burial caves in this region, the Acco-Remez cemetery consisted of cyst graves in 'crossing' orientations: either north/south or east/west, sometimes with more than one individual in a grave.
In one case, a communal burial of 16 individuals was discovered in a big chamber, in which the dead were put either in north/south or east/west orientations, one on top of the other, as in a crossword. All the individuals in this large grave were adult males! This is unusual, and leads us to a more comprehensive paleodemographic analysis of the bones."

[Moses]

It is interesting that Josephus writes that Abraham had 300 officers.

The Masoretic text states 300 yang man.

If Josephuses Torah was correct then 300 officers is very large army.
The army of the king.

[Elijah]

Ur had a population of 30,000 when it fell in 2029 BC,
1st dynasty mistaken as being the year 3rd fell,
and again 30,000 in 1900 BC when the 3rd did fall.
The first 30,000 dispersed at Peleg Mesanipada's death
due to the stupid suicide by Nahor Alumdug and
Haran Meskalumdug. Those leaving Ur were half
of all the HYksos going to Canaan and Egypt
from Ararat because like Gilgamesh of Uruk they went to Ararat first to ask what to do, and where to go.
Before Ur fell in 1900 BC, Abram took all who were his,
and all who were with him, and all who wanted to leave with him in the year 1943 when he was 75 and Shugli died
and AmarPal (AmarSin) took over. This explains why AmarPal decided to create a coalition to go to Canaan and bring some of those people back. So there is no doubt Abram was great. Sitchin who beleive in his spaceships is correct i beleive when he says Abram is the Iburrim in the texts of the wars with AmarSin. It was 17 years between the incident of "war" in 1936 BC and 1919 BC when the valley exploded. if it be the summer of 1919, but if the calendar places it after autumn then summer 1918 BC (either case Isaac born 9 months later), I did note that the full moon occurs on the sothic rise of July 18, as if caused by the flame star, when perhaps tectonic uplift from full moon gravity may be at play.