Shalom Uriel,

Sorry for the much delayed response. I was very busy these last couple of months with the arrival of our new baby boy (Yoseph Moshe Aziza), but I did take the time to properly research the Papyri since you mentioned them in your previous emails. To be honest, I was largely unfamiliar with the papyri up until recently. But now I feel sufficiently familiar with their history and contents. So if you would kindly permit me, I would like to address point by point all of your stated objections to my view of the Messiah and my understanding of our Jewish Tanach and how this relates to textual criticism. 

But first, let me state that I am happy to satisfy all of your objections to my Messianic faith and defend my conviction that Jesus (Yeshua) is indeed the Messiah of Israel. And moreover I am confident that every doctrine or theological statement found in the NT is amply supported in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 tells us that by the mouth of two or three witnesses a judgement decree is established and the same is echoed in Mathew 18:16 and 2 Corinthians 13:1. Therefore we can apply this principle to the whole of the NT by finding witnesses for or against its testimony in the pages of the Hebrew Scriptures. Frankly, it's not difficult to find at least two or three and in some instances scores of OT Scriptures that bear witness to the doctrines and theological statements of the Jewish New Testament. So I'm willing to support the theology of the NT using nothing more than the Hebrew Tanach as my foundation. That way it is clear that my faith in Jesus is thoroughly Jewish and so too the New Testament/Covenant. Also, just to be clear, I am not a KJV "onliest" and neither do I subscribe to all of the nonsense coming out of "Jamesville" masquerading itself as Christianity, as you may have gathered from my website. So I'm delighted to discuss with you the fine points of our Jewish/Messianic belief system. 

But I should also preface this email by stating that I do not intend to place any confidence in my well formulated points, as compelling as they may be. I was impressed this past week with Shaul's words in 1 Thessalonians 1:5, where he reminds the Thessalonians that the Gospel they heard did not come to them with many eloquent words or with good argumentation, but rather with supernatural power displayed in signs and wonders of the Holy Spirit. So I completely trust the good LORD to make a distinction between my words and yours, and I'm praying you will see this distinction soon.

Just a few weeks ago I received a big answer to prayer. In a conversation with my dad, I asked him what he currently thought of the New Testament and with a brief sigh of resignation, he acknowledged that he now fully accepted it. You see, about six or seven years ago, he went through a lengthy period in which he began to seriously doubt the NT. He saw all kinds of problems and contradictions in the Gospels and especially the Pauline letters. At one point, his behavior became odd enough that I discerned he was not doing well in his Christian Faith and asked him about it. That's when he confessed that he no longer trusted the NT. As you can imagine, I was deeply grieved by his admission. But at least I knew why his behavior had markedly changed and turned worldly. That's when I began to earnestly pray for him and took the time to listen to his objections and complaints about the unreliability of the NT. In fact, this was a big part of why I'm so familiar with Christian Apologetics and Textual Criticism. I was driven to learn these things from a desire to defend my Faith, and of course, restore my dad's Faith by bringing to bear the most compelling defense possible. So I am elated to inform you that after much prayer and years of earnestly reasoning with my dad, he has now finally come full circle. In fact, just a few days ago he informed me that he was experiencing Christ in a personal way and it was transforming Him and putting fresh love into his heart for his family and friends. Praise Yah!! [By the way, maybe you do know my parents, Moshe and Rose Chaziza. My dad did not seem familiar with your name when I mentioned you. So perhaps you came later, after my parents already moved to Gilo.] 

But I often wondered why my dad hit such a phase of doubt and skepticism when my own Faith has always remained solid. After some thought, I realized that it was because my foundation was stronger than his. I was relying on a profound and personal encounter with Jesus that left me powerfully transformed, while my dad was relying on philosophical and intellectual reasons to justify his belief in Christ as the Jewish Messiah. And eventually, this merely intellectual foundation crumbled when eroded by doubt. 

MY TESTIMONY

Although I had been raised in a Christian home, I abandoned my Faith in God during my teen years in pursuit of worldly pleasure. By late 2006 I was addicted to immorality and all kinds of worldly vises. I was hopeless and needed a miracle. I reached a point when I was completely weary of my sinful lifestyle and I cried out to the Lord for help. In that moment I received the power to abandon my sin. So thankful was I for Christ's deliverance that I decided to fully commit my life to His service without reservation and the rest is history. Since then I cannot even recount the number of times I've experienced supernatural answer to prayer. My life is filled with the joy and peace that comes from walking in continual fellowship with God through Jesus Christ. On several occasions I have encountered Christ in my dreams and seen glimpses of heaven. To me, God is as real as the air I breathe and I have no reason to doubt His presence or His existence. And therefore I believe with all of my heart that when a sincere and genuine plea for help reaches God's ears, He is swift to reveal Himself even to the lowliest individual. There is no reason to believe that those who call upon the name of the Lord with a sincere and honest heart will be lead into rank deception. I have full assurance within me that God has lead me to the only source of ultimate truth and I am happy to give a ready answer to any skeptic who doubts me, whether atheist, Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise.

YOUR CLAIMS (paraphrased)

You made several emphatic claims during the course of our communication. They are as follows:

​

1. All of the existing versions of the NT are corrupted.

2. Most of Christianity’s positions entirely negate the Torah and the Sabbath issue is a prime example.
3. The Jews gave the world the only correct narrative, everyone else is deceived. 

4. Our sofrim kept our Torah intact, but the Christians changed and manipulated the NT in tens of thousands of instances across over 5,000 MSS from the end of the 2nd century CE, until the 16th century CE.
5. The Trinity is a pagan invention of Christianity.
6. Not one christian scholar is brave enough to translate the Papyri (P-46, P-66, P-47, etc.) because they know it will bury christianity’s theological claims.
7. We have documented hundreds of textual changes, additions, subtractions, grammatical edits and the like, that hijacked the identities of our boys… Sha’ul and Yeshua and Kefa, and twisted their messages to conform with a new message based on the 16th century TR, and the Jamesville [KJV] translation.

8. All Jews belong in Israel.

MY REBUTTAL

1. "All of the existing versions of the NT are corrupted."

Are all NT versions completely corrupt and unreliable as you claim? I don't believe so. So let's take a look at the raw facts starting with the very basics (and I apologize in advance if this may sound redundant). Excluding the Western MSS and the Papyri, we both know that there are two predominant schools of manuscript evidence available for the NT and these are the Byzantine/Majority and Alexandrian text types. The latter includes the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Now between these four there are over 5,800 Greek MSS, some of them fragmentary and some complete. And of course, these are the manuscripts that underlie all NT versions in circulation today. It is worth mentioning that the NT is by far the most widely circulated and best preserved book of antiquity--bar none (see here). In fact, it is even more well attested than the OT. It is also the ONLY ancient text for which copies exist so close to the dates of the original autographs (see here). Moreover, even if all of the Greek MSS were completely lost we could still reconstruct the entire NT with the quotations preserved in the writings of the early Church Fathers, etc. Now why is all of this so significant? It's significant because the fewer MSS available, the less certain we can be of the accurate reproduction of the original reading. Simply stated, the more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if they emerge from different geographical areas, the easier it is to cross-check them to discover what the original document was like (see here). Now while there are approximately 400 thousand differences or variants spread out between the Greek manuscripts extent to us, literally 99.5% of these are utterly irrelevant, such as variant spellings, differences in the order of words, punctuation, grammar, and scribal errors (see here). Such variants do not impact or change the overall meaning of the text. Only about 0.5% (1,500-2,000) of the 400 thousand variants merit careful examination and are the difference between a good translation and a really bad one. But while these 1,500-2,000 variants only account for less than 1% of all known variants, they should be isolated from the rest of the text and examined carefully. Thankfully, it is easy to do so because they exist predominantly in the Alexandrian text stream. 

Alexandrian Vs. Byzantine

Between 95%-98% of all NT manuscripts belong to the Byzantine/Majority text family and less than 2% of all NT MSS represent the Alexandrian family, which is very significant in terms of broad testimony. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which comprise the Alexandrian text type are about 85% identical with the Byzantine. The 15% variance accounts for about 6,500 differences. Now while the majority of these differences are insignificant, a large portion of them are significant enough to merit concern and do indeed impact theology. In fact, they even call into question the very integrity of the NT text. And this is why so many skeptics like Bart Ehrman exist to challenge the claims of the NT. For instance, allow me to demonstrate just three examples between these two families of manuscripts, where depending on which variants are chosen, errors of fact and theology exist and Jesus is made to look like a liar:

Note: There are hundreds of these, and some are much worse than others (see here for full list). 

Mark 1:2

As it is written in the prophets... (Byzantine)

As it is written in Isaiah the prophet... (Alexandrian)

The problem here is that the very next line in verse 2 comes directly out of Malachi 3:1, while verse 3 quotes Isaiah 40:3. So if we are to go with the Byzantine reading then we don't have any problems, but if we choose the Alexandrian we wind up with a big discrepancy.

1 Timothy 3:16

great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh... (Byzantine)

great is the mystery of godliness: who was manifested in the flesh... (Alexandrian)

If we go with the Alexandrian reading we end up with a significant grammatical error and a nonsensical statement. What is so mysterious about a human someone being manifested in the flesh??? Obviously, the Alexandrian reading is ridiculous!

John 7:8

"I am not yet going up to this feast..." (Byzantine)

"I am not going up to this feast..." (Alexandrian)

In the Byzantine example, Jesus appears perfectly honest. Because later in verse 10, He does indeed go up to the feast. But not so in the Alexandrian, where "yet" is left out, making Jesus appear to lie. So "yet" makes a world of difference. It is important to note that "yet" is actually present in P-66, P-75, and in the Vaticanus, YET for some mysterious reason the critical text editors left it out.

So why then do the majority of Bible scholars prefer to rely on the Alexandrian text rather than the Byzantine? And why is it that nearly 95% of all modern NT Bible translations are based almost exclusively on the Alexandrian instead of the Byzantine? I will address this question further down in more detail. 

Reasoned Eclecticism & the Alexandrian Text Types

Reasoned eclecticism is the most dominant school of textual criticism. The three main pillars of reasoned eclecticism are as follows: 

1. Older and more ancient MSS are better

2. Variants are chosen based on Griesbach's Canons 

3. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus best reflect the original Greek text

Almost all modern scholars are partial to this school of textual criticism and therefore the majority of New Testament translations today are based on the Alexandrian text types. But what you should know is that reasoned eclecticism is fairly new. It only began to dominate in the last 60 years or so. Furthermore, when eclecticism was first introduced into universities across Europe and America, it was vigorously opposed by the majority of Protestant scholars who noticed its flawed assumptions almost immediately. In fact, the main reason why they rejected reasoned eclecticism was because of its strong reliance on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus which were known to be inferior for the following reasons:

1. Both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are in the extreme minority and represent only 2% of all NT MSS. Unlike modern scholarship which favors older manuscripts, earlier scholarship favored the text stream possessing the most number of similar MSS that closely agreed with each other. After all, scholars of the earlier era championed the Biblical principle located in Deuteronomy 17 and 19, which states that only the testimony of two or more witnesses is legitimate.

​

2. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus differ greatly with 98% of all NT manuscripts. John William Burgon found 7,578 deviations from the Majority/Byzantine, with 2,370 of them being serious. In the Gospels of Sinaiticus, he found 8,972 deviations, with 3,392 serious ones. He also checked these manuscripts for particular readings, or readings that are ONLY found in that manuscript. In the Gospels alone, Vaticanus has 197 particular readings, while Sinaiticus has 443. A particular reading signifies one that is most definitely false. Manuscripts repeatedly proven to have incorrect readings lose credibility. Thus, manuscripts boasting significant numbers of particular readings cannot be relied upon.

3. According to Herman Charles Hoskier, who collated the Alexandrian text types, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with each other 3,036 times in the Gospels ALONE, which means you will find a discordant passage every five verses.

4. Sinaiticus's origins are dubious to say the least. It was discovered in a discarded pile of waste paper used for kindling in St. Catherine's Monastery which had a library full of ancient Biblical texts. The monks at St. Catherine's were unimpressed with Sinaiticus and committed it to the burn pile. Furthermore, a flurry of controversy ensued at the time of Sinaiticus's discovery due to Constantine Simonodes claiming to be its author (see here).

5. Dean Burgon described the poor workmanship of Vaticanus as follows:

"Codex B [Vaticanus] comes to us without a history: without recommendation of any kind, except that of its antiquity. It bears traces of careless transcription in every page. The mistakes which the original transcriber made are of perpetual recurrence. ...On many occasions, 10, 20, 30 words are dropped through very carelessly.”

Burgon's colleague, Frederick H. Scrivener, goes into further detail:

"Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled: while that gross blunder technically known as homoeoteleuton…whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament… Tregelles has freely pronounced that “the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough.”

The New Westminster Dictionary of the Bible concurs, “It should be noted, however, that there is no prominent Biblical MS in which there occurs such gross cases of misspelling, faulty grammar, and omission, as in B [Vaticanus].”

Sinaiticus has also been corrected by “…at least ten revisers between the IVth and XIIth centuries…”  and the Codex Sinaiticus Project readily admits:

"No other early manuscript of the Christian Bible has been so extensively corrected. A glance at the transcription will show just how common these corrections are. They are especially frequent in the Septuagint portion. They range in date from those made by the original scribes in the fourth century to ones made in the twelfth century. They range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences." 

6. Vaticanus omits Mark 16:9-20, yet there is a significant blank space here for these verses. Sinaiticus also lacks these verses, but has a blank space for them. These two manuscripts are the only Greek manuscripts that omit these verses.

7. The unique readings in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the only reason why skeptics are able to undermine the resurrection account and many of the other Gospel accounts. Eliminate the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and skeptics lose all of their ammunition against Christianity.

Reasoned Eclecticism and Griesbach's Canons

Johann Jakob Griesbach is responsible for developing the principles upon which reasoned eclecticism is founded. Unfortunately, Griesbach was a rationalist who disbelieved many of the Bible's miraculous accounts. His pursuit of textual criticism at the academic level eventually led to his compilation of rules that would govern the selection of NT manuscripts and thereby direct its translation from Greek. These rules came to be known as Griesbach's Canons and are as follows:

1. The shorter readings are to be preferred because scribes were much more prone to add than to omit.

2. The more difficult reading is to be preferred eg, "that reading is rightly considered suspect that manifestly gives the dogmas of the orthodox better than the others" because scribes were much more prone to correct errors.

3. The reading that differs from quoted or parallel material is to be prefered because scribes were prone to harmonize discordant passages

4. The reading that best explains the origin of the others (per these canons) is to be preferred

Now when closely examining Griesbach's Canons we begin to realize that his entire system for selecting manuscript variants is based strictly upon assumption and conjecture. In fact, throughout Griesbach's career he was never able to supply any type of evidence to support his assumptions concerning scribal habits in relation to the transmission of the NT text. Nevertheless, his critics were able to prove based on historical record and the testimony of the Patristic Fathers, that as a matter of fact, scribal habits went contrary to Griesbach's assumptions. For instance, Dr. Michael J. Kruger wrote a book titled Early Christian Attitudes toward the Reproduction of Texts which details the habits and attitudes of first century scribes in relation to the reproduction of NT MSS. His findings completely destroy Griesbach's assumptions which were never evidence based to begin with and should have never carried any weight in scholarly circles, but on account of dishonest bias won out. The careful analysis of scribal habits by the following scholars conspicuously agree with Kruger's findings. Notice:

C.C. Tarelli: Omissions, Additions and Conflations in the Chester Beatty Papyrus --JTS 1938.

Earnest Cadman Colwell: Scribal Habits in Early Papyri: A Study in the Corruption of the Text --1965

Peter M. Head: The Habits of New Testament Copyists. Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John --Vol. 85 2004 
James Ronald Royse: Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri  – 2010

So isn't it fascinating that for the better part of a century we accepted the claims that scribes freely meddled with the texts without bothering to check whether they actually did so or not. [Further down I will disclose the shocking truth about what motivated this gross misapplication of textual criticism.]

The Papyri

It is interesting that the Papyri are said to closely resemble the Alexandrian text type according to modern scholars. However, a close look at the Papyri reveals a different story. Dutch scholar Albertus Frederik Johannes Klijn did a comparison of the Papyri against the other prominent text types and here is what he found:

P-66 agrees with Codex Sinaiticus 14x, Codex Vaticanus 29x, and the Byzantine 33x

P-75 agrees with Codex Sinaiticus 9x, Codex Vaticanus 33x, and the Byzantine 29x

When David Stutts wrote his thesis on the textual characteristics of the 5 earliest Papyri of Matthew, comparing them against the Alexandrian and the Byzantine, here is what he found:

P-1 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 93% of the text and with the Byzantine 92%

P-45 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 84.8% of the text and with the Byzantine 89.3%

P-64 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 85.7% of the text and with the Byzantine 88.9%

P-70 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 87.5% of the text and with the Byzantine 94.6%

P-77 agrees with all Alexandrian variants in 87.6% of the text and with the Byzantine 91.2%

So as we can see by combining the two charts above, in 5 out of 7 cases, the Papyri more closely resemble the Byzantine, NOT the Alexandrian. And as far as the other Papyri, there are over 150 distinctly Byzantine readings, including longer readings and conflate readings which greatly frustrate modern scholars. All this to say, that the earliest NT MSS which predate the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus by a long shot make a better case for the Byzantine than they do for the Alexandrian. So this essentially drives the final nail in the coffin of reasoned eclecticism, since as you will recall, two out of three of its main pillars state the following:

1. Older and more ancient MSS are better

3. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus best reflect the original Greek text

Your claim that "not one christian scholar is brave enough to translate the Papyri (P-46, P-66, P-47, etc.) because they know it will bury christianity’s theological claims" is simply untrue. In fact, you can find the full English translation of P-46 online at the Chester Beaty Library (see here). David Hutchinson Edgar prepared the translation back in 1998 and even compared it with NA27. Now the only reason why there is no mainstream scholarly translation for P-66 is because it is indisputably the most error ridden NT manuscript in existence and too highly fragmented. It has 482 singular readings, 400 itacisms, 54 forward leaps, 22 backward leaps, and it has a mistake every 16 words. Also, it is too close to NA27 (Nestle Aland Greek New Testament 27th edition) for it to merit its own translation since it differs only in punctuation. So it already exists in the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc (which is unfortunate). Lastly, there are plenty of non accredited scholars, like yourself, who have translated P-66 fully into English with parallel Greek-English texts and a critical apparatus. The best one I found is here.

And the same explanation applies to P-45 and P-75 which show an unprecedented degree of corruption and contain the following mistakes as noted by Ernest C. Colwell (Scribal Habits in Early Papyri. The Bible in Modern Scholarship. J.P.Hyatt. New York: Abingdon Press, 1963. p.370-389): 

P-45 
Careless Readings 20
Singular Readings 275 
Nonsense Readings 28 
Leaps Forward 16 
Leaps Backward 2

P-75

Careless Readings 57
Singular Readings 257 
Nonsense Readings 64 
Leaps Forward 27 
Leaps Backward 10 

Missing or Deleted Verses in the Alexandrian Text Types

Modern scholars will tell you that the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8), the last 12 verses of Mark 16, and the Pericope Adulteraie in John 7:53-8:11 do not exist in the earliest and best manuscripts and therefore should be omitted from all modern translations. However, is this claim really accurate or is it yet another example of flawed modern scholarship used to sow doubt and mistrust in the New Testament text? Let's look at the hard facts:

1. Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8)

Early Bible Versions that contain it: 

Old Syriac (170 AD) 

Old Latin in North Africa and Italy (200 AD) 

Italic 4th and 5th century  

Latin Vulgate 4th and 5th century 

Italic Monacensis 7th century 

Italic Speculum 9th century

Early church writers that mention it: 

Cyprian 200-258 AD, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one’.” If Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200-258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse. Cyprian lived only 100 years after John wrote the book of I John. Cyprian would have had access to the original manuscript to check. Priscillian 350 AD, a Spanish bishop quotes I John 5:7,8. Idacius Clarus 360 AD, who opposed Priscillian quotes it. And so do all these other Patristic era scholars: Varimadum 380 AD, Cassiodorus 485 AD, Cassian 435 AD, Victor Vita 489 AD, Jerome 450 AD, Fulgentius 533 AD, Ps. Vigilius 484 AD, Ansbert 660 AD.

Early writings that contain it: Liber Apologeticus 350 AD. Council of Carthage 415 AD. 

Greek grammar rules demand its presence. NIV has mismatched genders in v. 7, 8. 

2. The last 12 verses of Mark 16

Early Bible Versions that contain it: 

Old Latin, Peshito Syriac (100-199 AD) 

Coptic Sahidic, Bohairic, Fayyumic, Curetonian Syriac (200-299 AD)

Jerome' s Latin version, Gothic version (300-399 AD)  

Egyptian, Armenian, Philoxenian Syriac (400-499 AD) 

Georgian, Ethiopic (500-699 AD)

18 Early Church Writers who quote Mark 16:9-20 as genuine are: 

Papias (100 AD); Tertullian (145-220 AD); the Epistula Apostolorum (150 AD) contains a narrative based apparently on Mark 16:9-14; Justin Martyr (151 AD) quotes v.20; Tatian (150 AD) in his Diatessaron; Irenaeus (180 AD) comments on v.19 in 180 AD; Hippolytus (190-227 AD) quotes v.17,18; Vincentius (256 AD) quotes v.17,18 at the Seventh Council of Carthage in the presence of 87 African bishops; Augustine quotes it on 7 occasions (v.9, v.12,14, v.15,16,19, v.15-18) in 400 AD; the Gospel of Nicodemus (circa 250 AD) contains v.15,16,17,18; the Apostolical Constitutions (circa 300 AD) quote v.16; 54; Eusebius (325 AD) acknowledged v.9-20; Aphraates (337 AD) quotes v.16,17,18;  Ambrose, Archbishop of Milan (374-397 AD) quotes v.15,16,17,18,20; Chrysostom (400 AD) quotes v.19,20 and adds: "This is the end of the Gospel"; Jerome's (331-420 AD) Vulgate retains v.9-20. Nestorius the heretic quotes v.20; Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD) accepts it and comments on it; Victor of Antioch (425 AD) strongly endorses its genuineness, quoting and refuting Eusebius' doubts; verses 9-20 were in Victor's Palestinian copy of Mark. The above 18 authorities belong to every area of the Ancient Church (Burgon, p.423).

3. Pericope Adulteraie in John 7:53-8:11

Early Bible Versions that contain it: 

Latin Vulgate 4th century

Codex Bezae 5th century

85% (or 1400) of all Greek NT manuscripts support its inclusion in the original

Early church writers that mention it:

Papias of Hierapolis (refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" circa 125 A.D. Didymus the Blind (refers to the passage being found in "several gospels", lived circa 313-398 A.D. Pacian (370 A.D.) cites the passage. Many other Latin Fathers including Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Augustine all speak of the passage as being canonical. Augustine claims that some may have excluded it earlier to avoid the idea that Christ had sanctioned adultery (4th and 5th centuries). Jerome says that the passage was found in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West (late 4th century. A majority of the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate (perhaps mostly due to Jerome's influence). It is also cited by other early Christian writings including the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and the Apostolic Constitutions from the 3rd and 4th centuries respectively. 
 

Rome's Efforts to Undermine the New Testament

While few realize it, the Catholic Church is directly responsible for promoting reasoned eclecticism. In fact, the actual funding for modern textual criticism can be easily traced to the Vatican, as we shall soon discover. However, this shouldn't surprise us considering the fact that Catholic Rome has been the foe of Protestantism since the days of the Reformation and has a history of destroying Bibles. But they particularly dislike the New Testament because it disproves all of their religious claims to authority. And of course, when the reformers read the Bible in their own language for the first time they immediately realized this (hence the Reformation).

But ever since the Reformation, Rome has been quite busy repairing the damage inflicted by the reformers. Yet they've also grown much more discreet and sophisticated in their methods. For instance, instead of attacking the Bible overtly, Rome's Jesuits have been doing so covertly by secretly infiltrating Protestant seminaries where they are able to forward their agenda more successfully. Even the famous Bible Society has been tainted by their corrupt influence. But in case you doubt this, please consider the evidence for these claims presented plainly in Chris Pinto's fascinating new documentary series, available on my Youtube channel (see pt. 1, pt. 2, and pt. 3).

So here are the facts that pertain to Rome's involvement in modern textual criticism, starting first with their history of Bible burning:

Fact 1. To prevent the circulation of the Bible among the common people, the Vatican resorted to burning Bibles throughout the medieval period. Men like John Wycliff, William Tyndale, and Martin Luther, who translated the Scriptures into the common vernacular were subject to intense persecution and martyrdom (see here). 

Fact 2. After the Reformation, the Roman Catholic church launched the Counter-reformation in an attempt to stamp out Protestantism and its spread of the Holy Scriptures (see here).

Fact 3. From 1534 onward, they have had the infamous Jesuit Order or the Society of Jesus at their disposal (see here). Note: The Society of Jesus is the Vatican's militant order sworn to wipe out any opposition to the Catholic Church. 

Fact 4. The Society of Jesus, founded by Ignatius of Loyola, has since managed to infiltrate universities, seminaries, and Bible schools across the Western world in order to launch disinformation campaigns from the highest levels of society. Atheism, communism, socialism, and the numerous schools of secular philosophy can all be traced back to a Jesuit individual pushing these ideals (see here). Pinto's films successfully expose these individuals and their deliberate attempts to undermine Christianity with plenty of historical data. [Note: We must remember that Rome is the final beast described in Daniel 2-7 and Revelation 13, and is presently using Ecumenism to produce the final blow to Protestantism. See my video series on Bible Prophecy here.]

Fact 5. The Vaticanus was conveniently "discovered" and produced for inspection right around the time the Reformers were printing in mass their own Bibles and translating them into the common vernacular. It conveniently supports the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic Bible) in nearly all of its readings (see Pinto's documentary series for proof). 

Fact 6. Constantine Tischendorf's trip to the Sinai region and his archeological efforts were all sponsored by the Pope. In fact, he had a personal visit with pope Gregory XVI and his cardinals in 1843 just prior to this trip and continued to work closely with a Jesuit priest prior to and during his visit to the monastery in the Sinai region. His "discovery" of the Siniaticus parchments were celebrated by the Vatican and he was subsequently awarded accolades of honor by the pope himself for these finds. Note: Constantine writes about his meeting with pope Gregory in his book, When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf (New York: American Tract Society, 1866)

Fact 7. Constantine Simonides, a brilliant palaeographer from Greece, was in fact the true author of the Siniaticus and wrote numerous articles [and even a book] attempting to prove that the Siniaticus was a forgery work of his very own hand. He warned the public not to accept the bogus claims of Tichendorf in respect to the Siniaticus (see Neither Oldest, Nor Best by Dr. David H. Sorenson).

Fact 8. The men responsible for promoting the Alexandrian Text and producing most of our modern Bible versions possessed strong Catholic theological leanings, openly expressed their contempt for the Bible as a book full of myths, and had well documented contact with Jesuits and the pope of Rome. The men to which we refer are Constantine Tichendorf, Brooke Westcott, Fenton Hort, Kurt Aland (of the Nestle-Aland text), and Bruce Metzger. It is highly telling that every one of these men were openly honored by the Pope, embraced Ecumenism, and felt that the Roman Catholic paradigm was far superior to Protestantism (see Pinto's documentaries for proof). Note: Click here to view media images of Kurt Aland's meeting with John Paul II in 1984.

Fact 9. What the Roman Catholic Church could not achieve by openly burning the New Testament Scriptures, they achieved covertly in the modern era by producing and distributing the NIV, a Bible full of pro-Catholic and Ecumenical theological corruptions. Sadly, the NIV is now the most popular Bible in the world and continues to be widely circulated. It would seem as though Rome has triumphed after all, if only for a little season. Yet the Bible predicted this would happen (see here for proof).

​

[SECTION BREAK]

​

2. "Most of Christianity’s positions entirely negate the Torah and the Sabbath issue is a prime example."

I respectfully disagree with you here. Please read my article on this issue located here or on my website in the articles section (Comparing God's Covenants). Like I mentioned before, we can easily find a host of Scriptures in the OT that validate the theological claims of the NT.

3. "The Jews gave the world the only correct narrative, everyone else is deceived." 

I love the Jews deeply, but I must tell you that we do not have such a glorious history. Our history is marred by perpetual rebellion against the Most High, idolatry, breaking the mitzvot of the Torah, and slaughtering God's prophets and righteous men, and this trend continues even until the present in modern day Israel. I would think it a bit presumptuous to suppose we have all the answers and are qualified to set the record straight for the rest of mankind. I don't think we have any special claim to fame, in all actuality, and we Jews need to be humble enough to acknowledge it. Let me also remind you that only the Holy Spirit is able to open men's hearts to the truth, but ONLY if they are sincere, humble, and truly in love with God. Here are some Scriptures to demonstrate this:

"Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Is. 6:10).

"Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not" (Jer. 5:21).

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house" (Ez. 12:2). 

4. "Our sofrim kept our Torah intact, but the Christians changed and manipulated the NT in tens of thousands of instances across over 5,000 MSS from the end of the 2nd century CE, until the 16th century CE."

Here you are both right and wrong. But let's remember that the Hebrew Scriptures ALSO contain a vast number of scribal errors and minor contradictions. I'm sure you will not deny this. And they are even greater in number than found in the NT. But undoubtedly, these are minor and do not impact theology. However, as demonstrated above, 99% of the problems located in the New Testament are resolved when we reject the corrupt Alexandrian text types and rely instead upon the Byzantine.

5. "The Trinity is a pagan invention of Christianity."

First, you must know that almost every pagan culture has its own CORRUPTION of the Trinity. For the ancient Egyptians, for instance, it was Isis, Horus, and Set, and for the Hindus, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. The Devil is a counterfeiter. He does not create anything original and he enjoys inverting the truths of God's Word. But I can prove the doctrine of the Trinity by taking you to the Old Testament. You can find the Trinity everywhere throughout the Old Testament. Let me show you several complete and tight identifications of the Trinity in the OT by listing the following Scriptures:

"I will mention the loving kindnesses of the Lord...For he said, Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour. In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy Spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them. Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? where is he that put his holy Spirit within him? That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name? That led them through the deep, as an horse in the wilderness, that they should not stumble" (Is. 63:7-13)?

It is clear that Isaiah 63 gives us a complete picture of the Trinity. We know from Scripture that the Angel of the Lord, which is here identified as the "angel of his presence", is referred to as the Lord God elsewhere in the OT (see the verses cited below). But then we see the Holy Spirit mentioned here too. So we have the Lord (v. 7), we have the Angel of the Lord (v. 9), and we have the Holy Spirit (v. 10) all in one chapter--the Trinity. I submit that the Lord is the Father, the Angel of the Lord/ Angel of His presence is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, of course, is the Holy Spirit. Notice also that God was afflicted with His people throughout the OT and partook in their suffering (v. 9). Sounds like what Jesus did in the NT.

"And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred" (Gen. 31:11-13).

"And an angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim, and said, I made you to go up out of Egypt, and have brought you unto the land which I sware unto your fathers; and I said, I will never break my covenant with you. And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you. And it came to pass, when the angel of the Lord spake these words unto all the children of Israel, that the people lifted up their voice, and wept. And they called the name of that place Bochim: and they sacrificed there unto the Lord" (Jud. 2:1-5).

Throughout the Old Testament, the Angel of the Lord or Angel of God are identified as being one and the same as the Lord God just as demonstrated in the passages above.

"I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. ... I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan. 7:9-14).

Here again, we see that the Ancient of days and the "one like the Son of man" are pictured separately. And yet we know that they must be one and the same, since God does not share His glory with anyone else: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." (Is. 42:8).

"Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his Spirit, hath sent me" (Is. 48:16).

Here again the Lord God and His Spirit are depicted as separate, yet one.

"And the Lord appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day; And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him... And they said, So do, as thou hast said...And they said unto him, Where is Sarah thy wife? And he said, Behold, in the tent. And he said, I will certainly return unto thee according to the time of life; and, lo, Sarah thy wife shall have a son...And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh. And the men rose up from thence, and looked toward Sodom: and Abraham went with them to bring them on the way" (Gen.18:1-16). 

It is interesting that in verse 1 the Lord appears to Abraham in the form of three men. At first they speak to Abraham in the plural and then it is as though they revert back to the singular when speaking with him in verse 10. And then it carries on that way until verse 15 when they take a plural form once again and Abraham accompanies the three of them on their way to Sodom. What a perfect portrayal of the Triune nature of God--3-1-3!

"And he took them, and sent them over the brook, and sent over that he had. And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day...And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved... He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God: Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed: he wept, and made supplication unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial" (Gen. 32:23; 30; Hos. 12:3-5).

"And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim's head...And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day. The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads..." (Gen. 48:14-16).

Once again, the Angel of the Lord appears to Jacob like a man and wrestles with him, but later He is identified as the Lord God of hosts. Jacob rightly recognizes that he saw God face to face. We call this a Theophany or Christophany.  

It is interesting that many Jews prior to the Christian era were binatarian in their theology, like Philo of Alexandria, who believed in the existence of two extensions of God known as the Spirit of the Lord and the Memra of the Lord (Word of the Lord). Even Allan F. Segal, a Jewish professor at Princeton, wrote a book detailing common elements of the Trinitarian paradigm in the Jewish theology of antiquity (refer to his book, Two Powers in Heaven). Why Jews today have such a hard time with the Trinity is beyond me really.

6. "Not one christian scholar is brave enough to translate the Papyri (P-46, P-66, P-47, etc.) because they know it will bury christianity’s theological claims."

Your statement here is provably false and needs to be better researched. I dealt with this claim in my above examination of TC (refer to my section on the Papyri). 

7. "We have documented hundreds of textual changes, additions, subtractions, grammatical edits and the like, that hijacked the identities of our boys… Sha’ul and Yeshua and Kefa, and twisted their messages to conform with a new message based on the 16th century TR, and the Jamesville [KJV] translation."

I would like to see the evidence you use to make such claims. To the best of my knowledge and research, the Papyri are completely error ridden and inferior to anything else in the school of manuscripts, and therefore, your assertions here are baseless.

​

8. "All Jews belong in Israel."

In your last email, you seemed to imply that I, as a Jew, should return to my homeland and occupy it. But I disagree with you for the following reasons. First, the nation of Israel is currently under a perpetual curse on account of their continued rebellion against God (Deut. 28:15-68). The greatest evidence of this is the fact that they are not operating as a theocracy, as their Law demands. Instead, they are governed by a secular government, which imposes its own secular agenda upon the nation. In fact, the very insignia waving over the state of Israel is evidence enough that they are not under God's sovereign control. There is nothing biblical or noble about a six-pointed satanic hexagram. This hexagram was used for centuries in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism (see here). And its first documented use within the Jewish community is said to be with the esoteric/occult Kabbalist Jews (see here). But by far its most prominent usage is with the Vatican owned/run Freemasons, who happen to control Israel, in case you hadn't noticed their prominent symbols all over our nation's Knesset and all of our national monuments. Here's the proof: 

​

"The interlacing triangles or deltas symbolize the union of the two principles or forces, the active and passive, male and female, pervading the universe ... The two triangles, one white and the other black, interlacing, typify the mingling of apparent opposites in nature, darkness and light, error and truth, ignorance and wisdom, evil and good, throughout human life." – Albert G. Mackey Encyclopedia of Freemasonry

​

You see, this emblem belongs to the luciferian Rothschild family and it was they who chose it for the modern state of Israel before funding its existence via Edmond James de Rothschild (see here). Yet we know that the Rothschilds are Jewish proselytes to Roman Catholicism and have faithfully served the pope for many years as keepers of the papal treasure--the Vatican bank (see the Jewish Encyclopedia under "the Union Générale"). 

I state these facts only to prove that God's Word does not lie or return to Him void. The papacy funding and creating the modern State of Israel through their Rothschild cohorts in order to one day carry out their final solution against the Jewish people and erect the third temple from which the pope will rule, was long prophesied in the pages of Scripture. And the Jewish people accepting all of this was also prophesied. Notice:

​

"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord. Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and Israel. And the Lord said unto me, Take unto thee yet the instruments of a foolish shepherd. For, lo, I will raise up a shepherd in the land, which shall not visit those that be cut off, neither shall seek the young one, nor heal that that is broken, nor feed that that standeth still: but he shall eat the flesh of the fat, and tear their claws in pieces" (Zec. 11:12-16).

"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (Jn. 5:43).

Zechariah 11 makes it clear that because of Israel's betrayal of the true Messiah, an "anti-messiah" will be raised up to shepherd them instead. So as long as Israel persists in rejecting their Messiah they will be ruled by an evil puppet government subservient to the pope of Rome. And this puppet government that currently exists in the modern state of Israel will soon openly submit itself to the antichrist--pope Francis--even as it is now doing. And I, frankly, do not desire to be part of it. So I urge you not to play pawn to these evil stooges by attacking and undermining the Messianic hope of our beloved forefathers.

Conclusion
Dear Uriel, if Jesus didn't come when the prophet Daniel prophesied, 490 years from Cyrus's decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Ezra 1:1-11), and if God hasn't yet ratified a New Covenant with the house of Israel as promised in Jeremiah 31:31, then there is no hope for the nation of Israel today. But we know He did. He sent Jesus Christ, His Son, to deal with the sin of the Jewish people and that of the whole world. And there is insurmountable evidence to prove it [if you wish, I can submit it to you in a separate email]. But it is interesting that you cited Jeremiah 16:19 in your last email, which also parallels Zechariah 8:23, as seen below:

"O Lord, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit" (Jer. 16:19).

"Thus saith the Lord of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you" (Zec. 8:23).

You see, I believe these verses have already been fulfilled during the lifetime and ministry of Christ's Jewish Apostles. In fact, the household of Cornelius was the first such example of this. But then we also see it throughout the ministry of Apostle Paul, because wherever he preached, whilst the Jews rejected his message, the Gentiles pleaded with him to come and share the Gospel of salvation with them. And consequently, many turned to the Lord and were saved, resulting in the greatest influx of pagan converts to the God of Israel in the history of mankind. Just look at how the Gospel has transformed the pagan lands of Africa and Asia in the last two hundred years. Western nations have become the dominant powers in commerce and technology because of their early exposure to Christianity, and the US is a prime example of this, a nation with the strongest Christian heritage of any. Sadly, it is because these Western nations are turning away from the God of Israel and their Christian roots that they are falling into gross moral decay and economic failure.

Finally, I believe in the testimony of the New Testament because it speaks from the highest moral ground known to man. It is impossible for men with the character of the Apostles to bear false witness concerning what they felt, saw, and heard. Besides, what would motivate Jewish men of such high moral caliber to lie, just think about it? And furthermore all those who have taken the message of the New Testament seriously have themselves tasted of its powerful transformative ability. In contrast, the Old Testament dealt superficially with sin and could not cure the root of man's sin sickness, and Israel's repeated rebellion and idolatry is testament to this truth. But the New Testament deals with the root cause of sin. It focuses on character perfection through the transformative power of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us (Jn. 14:17). Jesus laid the ax to the root of the tree (Lk. 3:9). So I submit to you that if the Jews today would try to please God from their hearts, and not merely appease Him (the difference between King David and King Saul), they would finally discover Yeshua the Messiah for themselves, as many of them are even now.

Well, that is all for this email, till next time....

Yours in the Jewish Messiah of Israel,

​

Yochanan (John) Aziza