Thursday, July 14, 2016

Patient's autonomy
ought to be respected when hospitalized /

Η αυτονομία του ασθενούς
θα πρέπει να γίνεται σεβαστή κατά την νοσηλεία του

The words of Justice Paul Liacos of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in overturning a probate court’s decision forcing a Jehovah’s Witness to undergo a blood transfusion are enlightening. The trial judge in that case not only overrode a competent adult’s decision to refuse a transfusion, he insisted that “if [the patient] refused the transfusion, she may be restrained” and “was not to leave [the hospital] until medically ready to be discharged.” In vacating those orders, Justice Liacos observed, “By going to a hospital for treatment a competent patient [does not] surrender herself and her will to the status of a prisoner without freedom of choice” (Ruth Littleton v. The Honorable Francis Poitrast 1985). Competent patients do not lose their right to decline an unwanted medical intervention by entering a hospital. Nor do they do so whenever the treating physician, family members, or a consultation team have a different perspective from that of the patient on what constitutes the patient’s best interests.

Ακυρώνοντας αυτές τις αποφάσεις, ο Δικαστής Liacos παρατήρησε ότι «με τη μετάβασή του στο νοσοκομείο για θεραπεία ο ικανός για δικαιοπραξία ασθενής [δεν] παραδίδει τον εαυτό του και τη θέλησή του σαν να επρόκειτο για φυλακισμένο χωρίς την ελευθερία επιλογής». (Ruth Littleton v. The Honorable Francis Poitrast 1985) Οι ικανοί για δικαιοπραξία ασθενείς δεν χάνουν το δικαίωμά τους να απορρίψουν μια ανεπιθύμητη ιατρική παρέμβαση κατά την εισαγωγή τους στο νοσοκομείο. Ούτε συμβαίνει κάτι τέτοιο σε περίπτωση που ο θεράπων γιατρός, τα μέλη της οικογένειάς του ή η συμβουλευτική ομάδα έχουν διαφορετική άποψη από εκείνη που έχει ο ασθενής όσον αφορά στο τι είναι καλύτερο για τα συμφέροντα του ασθενούς.

* John J. Paris, Robert L. Fogerty, Brian M. Cummings & M. Patrick Moore, Jr.,
Overriding Patient Autonomy to Enhance It: Not the Role of a Consultation Team
Παραβίαση της Αυτονομίας του Ασθενούς αποσκοπώντας στη Βελτίωσή της: Δεν έχει τέτοιο Ρόλο η Συμβουλευτική Ομάδα»],
The American Journal of Bioethics, 16 (2016):8, 11-13, DOI:10.1080/15265161.2016.1187223.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Russia today:
What a religious-instigated shame! /

Η Ρωσία σήμερα:
Ένα θρησκευτικά υποκινούμενο αίσχος!


It’s been quite a rough summer in Russia so far. On July 7th, 2016 Mr. Putin signed a new bill, known as “Yarovaya Law.” While human rights organizations around the globe are trying to make sense of this “draconian law”, citizens of Russia are as always silent. Here is a break-down of several new policies, that overthrow the Constitution of the Russian Federation:
  • the new law makes it a crime not to report information about terrorist attacks and other, even much smaller crimes (throwback to the days when in the Soviet Union neighbors were writing false reports on each other out of fear being punished)
  • requires telecoms to assist the government to break into encrypted messages (the stocks for those telecoms crashed the day the law was signed)
  • increases the strongest penalty for “extremism” from four to eight years of imprisonment (posts on Russian social network VK that promote something unappealing for Kremlin are considered extremism as well)
    [αυξάνεται η αυστηρότερη ποινή για "εξτρεμισμό" από 4 σε 8 χρόνια φυλάκιση]
  • children as young as fourteen are now considered old enough to be locked up
    [παιδιά ακόμη και ηλικίας 14 ετών θεωρούνται πλέον αρκετά μεγάλα ώστε να φυλακίζονται]
  • proselytizing, preaching, praying, or disseminating religious materials outside of “specially designated places,” like officially recognized religion institutions are considered a punishable crime
    [ο προσηλυτισμός, το κήρυγμα, η προσευχή ή η διανομή θρησκευτικού υλικού εκτός των "ειδικά καθορισμένων τόπων", όπως είναι τα επισήμως αναγνωρισμένα θρησκευτικά ιδρύματα θεωρούνται αξιόποινα εγκλήματα]

Tanya Lokshina, a program director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement that the bill “will severely curb people’s right to exercise free expression and other fundamental freedoms in Russia.”
Which is true, of course. Let’s take a look at the Constitution of Russian Federation.
Article 23.
1. Everyone shall have the right to the inviolability of private life, personal and family secrets, the protection of honor and good name.
2. Everyone shall have the right to privacy of correspondence, of telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages. Limitations of this right shall be allowed only by court decision.
Article 24.
1. The collection, keeping, use and dissemination of information about the private life of a person shall not be allowed without his or her consent.
Article 28
1. Everyone shall be guaranteed the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, including the right to profess individually or together with other any religion or to profess no religion at all, to freely choose, possess and disseminate religious and other views and act according to them.
The Constitution has died, along with human rights and freedoms in my country.
Evgeniya Melnikova,
"Yarovaya Law. The Death Of The Russian Constitution"
«Νόμος Γιαροβάγια. Ο Θάνατος του Ρωσικού Συντάγματος».
July 11, 2016 05:49 pm ET.

Thursday, June 23, 2016

Students' academic instruction about religion /

Διδάσκοντας τους μαθητές σχετικά με τη θρησκεία

The academic goal in this example would be for students to learn about the significant holidays of different cultural groups in order to broaden and deepen the scope of their knowledgebase. Academic instruction about religion would entail a diversity of non-secular groups being represented in the curriculum and content infused at appropriate times. For example, lessons on Ramadan, Diwali, Bodhi Day, or Passover, in proximity to when they actually occur during the school year, would be included in an appropriate/balanced curriculum in certain grades and subjects. 
Teacher-candidates learn to act as advocates and defenders of students’ religious freedom. In doing so, they come to recognize the distinction between teaching about religion to educate and teaching of religion to indoctrinate. This position has been argued eloquently by Jeffrey Sinensky et al. (2002) and is a distinction explained in my classes.

* Ilene Allgood,
Faith and Freedom of Religion in U.S. Public Schools: Issues and Challenges Facing Teachers,
Religious Education, (2016) 111:3, 270-287,
DOI: 10.1080/00344087.2016.1169882.

Saturday, June 4, 2016

Exodus 6:3:
Is NETS rendering of δηλόω all that is? /

Τι σημαίνει το «οὐκ ἐδήλωσα αὐτοῖς»
στο Έξοδος 6:3, Ο';

καὶ ἐπεκαλέσατο ἐκεῖ τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου Θεὸς αἰώνιος
Γε 21:32

καὶ εἶπεν Αβρααμ ... καὶ ἐξορκιῶ σε κύριον
τὸν θεὸν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καὶ τὸν θεὸν τῆς γῆς 
Γε 24:2, 3

καὶ [Αβρααμ] ἐπεκαλέσατο τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου
Γε 26:25

καὶ ὤφθην πρὸς Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ Ιακωβ, θεὸς ὢν αὐτῶν,
καὶ τὸ ὄνομά μου κύριος οὐκ ἐδήλωσα αὐτοῖς
Εξ 6:3

and I appeared to Abraam and Isaak and Iakob, being their God,
and my name, Lord, I did not make known to them
Ex 6:3, NETS

δὲν ἐγνωρίσθην ὅμως εἰς αὐτοὺς μὲ τὸ ὄνομά μου Ἰεοβά
Εξ 6:3, ΒΑΜ make visible or manifest, to show, exhibit, Soph.:—Pass. to be or become manifest, id=Soph. make known, disclose, reveal, Aesch., Soph. prove, id=Soph., Thuc. declare, explain, set forth, indicate, signify, id=Thuc.; c. part., δηλώσω σε κακόν [ὄντα] Soph.; the partic., if it refers to the nom. of the Verb, is itself in nom., δηλώσει γεγενημένος Thuc.
II.intr. to be clear or plain, Hdt., Plat.
2.impers., δηλοῖ δῆλόν ἐστι, Hdt.; fut. δηλώσει Plat.; aor1 ἐδήλωσε Xen.

Friday, June 3, 2016

& celebrational antisemitism /

& εορταστικός αντισημιτισμός

Ένα περίεργο έθιμο που αφορά και στους Εβραίους, διαδραματιζόταν την παραμονή των Χριστουγέννων στη Χίο. Συγκεκριμένα, κάθε χρόνο η εβραϊκή κοινότητα ήταν υποχρεωμένη  να φτιάχνει μία νέα σημαία που έφερε τον κόκκινο σταυρό του Αγ. Γεωργίου, έμβλημα της Γένοβας (εικ. 5) και να την τοποθετεί σε έναν ιστό που βρισκόταν στον πύργο του Κουλά μέσα στο Κάστρο (εικ. 6). Ακολούθως, ανήμερα των Χριστουγέννων, μία ακόμη ενέργεια λάμβανε χώρα και σχετιζόταν με τους Εβραίους. Την ημέρα αυτή υπήρχε έθιμο όλοι οι μη Λατίνοι κάτοικοι της Χώρας να παρελαύνουν μπροστά από την Podesta (διοικητήριο) για να  υποβάλλουν τα σέβη τους στη Δημοκρατία της Γένοβας (εικ, 7). Στην κεφαλή της παρέλασης βρισκόταν ο ορθόδοξος κλήρος, ενώ ακολουθούσαν οι Έλληνες ευγενείς του νησιού. Στην συνέχεια κατέφταναν και άλλες ομάδες μεταξύ αυτών και οι Εβραίοι. Ο φόβος των Εβραίων ήταν μεγάλος και προσπαθούσαν να υποβάλουν τα σέβη τους τάχιστα και να εξαφανιστούν από την περιοχή, καθώς όσοι παγιδεύονταν, το πλήθος τους πετούσε πορτοκάλια και τους κακοποιούσε σωματικά. Δεν μας προξενεί ιδιαίτερη εντύπωση το έθιμο αυτό και η εχθρότητα εναντίον των Εβραίων του νησιού, καθώς την εποχή εκείνη τέτοιου είδους ενέργειες εναντίον των Εβραίων ήταν συνηθισμένες στην Ευρώπη κατά τη διάρκεια των χριστιανικών εορτών. Οπωσδήποτε συνδέονταν με τις προκαταλήψεις των χριστιανικών κοινωνιών που στο πρόσωπο των Εβραίων έβλεπαν με εξαιρετικό φανατισμό τους «σταυρωτές του Χριστού».

* Βάλια Παπαναστασοπούλου,
"Η Ιουδαϊκή κοινότητα της Χίου. Από τους ρωμαϊκούς χρόνους έως και τα μέσα του 20ου αιώνα".
[Ελληνικά/Greek, PDF]

Friday, May 13, 2016

όταν τρόμαξαν οι φαρισαίοι νοικοκυραίοι...

15 Αργότερα πλάγιαζε μπροστά στο τραπέζι, στο σπίτι του, και πολλοί εισπράκτορες φόρων και αμαρτωλοί πλάγιαζαν μπροστά στο τραπέζι με τον Ιησού και τους μαθητές του, γιατί υπήρχαν πολλοί από αυτούς και τον ακολουθούσαν. 16 Αλλά οι γραμματείς των Φαρισαίων, όταν είδαν ότι αυτός έτρωγε με τους αμαρτωλούς και τους εισπράκτορες φόρων, άρχισαν να λένε στους μαθητές του: «Με τους εισπράκτορες φόρων και τους αμαρτωλούς τρώει;» 17 Όταν το άκουσε αυτό, ο Ιησούς τούς είπε: «Δεν χρειάζονται γιατρό εκείνοι που είναι γεροί αλλά εκείνοι που είναι άρρωστοι. Εγώ ήρθα να καλέσω, όχι δίκαιους ανθρώπους, αλλά αμαρτωλούς».

Μάρκος 2:15-17, ΜΝΚ.


Saturday, May 7, 2016

Psalm/Ψαλμός 29|28:

ἐνέγκατε τῷ Ἰαὼ
δόξαν ὀνόματι αὐτου

Psalm / Ψαλμός 29|28:

1 מִזְמ֗וֹר לְדָ֫וִ֥ד הָב֣וּ לַֽ֭יהוָה בְּנֵ֣י אֵלִ֑ים הָב֥וּ לַ֜יהוָ֗ה כָּב֥וֹד וָעֹֽז׃

2 הָב֣וּ לַֽ֭יהוָה כְּב֣וֹד שְׁמ֑וֹ הִשְׁתַּחֲו֥וּ לַ֜יהוָ֗ה בְּהַדְרַת־קֹֽדֶשׁ׃
3 ק֥וֹל יְהוָ֗ה עַל־הַ֫מָּ֥יִם אֵֽל־הַכָּב֥וֹד הִרְעִ֑ים יְ֜הוָ֗ה עַל־מַ֥יִם רַבִּֽים׃
4 קוֹל־יְהוָ֥ה בַּכֹּ֑חַ ק֥וֹל יְ֜הוָ֗ה בֶּהָדָֽר׃
5 ק֣וֹל יְ֭הוָה שֹׁבֵ֣ר אֲרָזִ֑ים וַיְשַׁבֵּ֥ר יְ֜הוָ֗ה אֶת־אַרְזֵ֥י הַלְּבָנֽוֹן׃
6 וַיַּרְקִידֵ֥ם כְּמוֹ־עֵ֑גֶל לְבָנ֥וֹן וְ֜שִׂרְיֹ֗ן כְּמ֣וֹ בֶן־רְאֵמִֽים׃
7 קוֹל־יְהוָ֥ה חֹצֵ֗ב לַהֲב֥וֹת אֵֽשׁ׃
8 ק֣וֹל יְ֭הוָה יָחִ֣יל מִדְבָּ֑ר יָחִ֥יל יְ֜הוָ֗ה מִדְבַּ֥ר קָדֵֽשׁ׃
9 ק֤וֹל יְהוָ֙ה׀ יְחוֹלֵ֣ל אַיָּלוֹת֘ וַֽיֶּחֱשֹׂ֪ף יְעָ֫ר֥וֹת וּבְהֵיכָל֑וֹ כֻּ֜לּ֗וֹ אֹמֵ֥ר כָּבֽוֹד׃
10 יְ֭הוָה לַמַּבּ֣וּל יָשָׁ֑ב וַיֵּ֥שֶׁב יְ֜הוָ֗ה מֶ֣לֶךְ לְעוֹלָֽם׃
11 יְֽהוָ֗ה עֹ֭ז לְעַמּ֣וֹ יִתֵּ֑ן יְהוָ֓ה׀ יְבָרֵ֖ךְ אֶת־עַמּ֣וֹ בַשָּׁלֽוֹם׃

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Psalms of Solomon /
Ψαλμοί Σολομώντος

«χριστὸς κύριος»?

ἔρχεσθαι ἔθνη ἀπ᾽ ἄκρου τῆς γῆς ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ
φέροντες δῶρα τοὺς ἐξησθενηκότας υἱοὺς αὐτῆς
καὶ ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν κυρίου
ἣν ἐδόξασεν αὐτὴν ὁ θεός.
καὶ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος διδακτὸς ὑπὸ θεοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς
καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν
ὅτι πάντες ἅγιοι
καὶ βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν
χριστὸς κυρίου [v.l. κύριος]

Psalms of Solomon / Ψαλμοί Σολομώντος 17:31, 32|35, 36.

And may see the glory of the LORD,
wherewith God hath glorified her.
And a righteous king and taught of God
is he that reigneth over them;
And there shall be no iniquity in his days in their midst,
for all shall be holy
and their king is the Lord Messiah.
(Transl. Ryle & James, 1891)

And to see the glory of the Lord
with which God has glorified her.
He will be a righteous king over them, taught by God,
there will be no unrighteousness among them during his reign,
because everyone will be holy,
and their king will be the Lord Messiah.
(Transl. Wright, 2007)

To summarise our evidence. We find that the expression χριστὸς κύριος is once applied to a king (by mistake), and once to the expected Messiah (in St Luke), that κύριος is possibly twice applied to the Messiah, and, lastly, that χριστὸς κύριος is by no means a distinctively Christian expression, occurring, as it does, only once in N.T.
It may very well be the case, we think, that the phrase is here a correct rendering of the Hebrew, and that the word κύριος represents not, of course, Jehovah, but אדוֹן, a word which might very properly be applied to a supreme conqueror of earthly origin.

Για να συνοψίσουμε τα στοιχεία. Βρήκαμε ότι η φράση χριστὸς κύριος εφαρμόζεται μία φορά στον βασιλιά (κατά λάθος) και μία φορά στον αναμενόμενο Μεσσία (στον Αγ. Λουκά), ότι ο όρος κύριος εφαρμόζεται πιθανότατα δύο φορές στον Μεσσία και, τέλος, ότι η φράση χριστὸς κύριος δεν είναι ουδόλως αποκλειστικά και μόνο χριστιανική φράση, καθώς εμφανίζεται όντως μόνο μία φορά στην ΚΔ.
Μπορεί πράγματι να ισχύει, κατά τη γνώμη μας, ότι η φράση εδώ αποτελεί ορθή απόδοση εκ του Εβραϊκού και ότι η λέξη κύριος υποδηλώνει όχι, φυσικά, τον όρο Ιεχωβά, αλλά τον όρο אדוֹן, μια λέξη που μπορεί κατάλληλα να εφαρμοστεί σε έναν ανώτατο κατακτητή επίγειας καταγωγής.

Herbert Edward Ryle & Montague Rhodes James
Cambridge University Press, 1891,
pp. 141-143.

But cf.  הָאָד֣וֹן  in Malachi 3:1!

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

«χριστὸς κύριος»,

«χριστὸν κυρίου»

ἐτέχθη ὑμῖν
ὅς ἐστιν χριστὸς κύριος
ἐν πόλει Δαυίδ.
(Nestle-Aland, 28th ed.)

ο οποίος είναι χρισμένος Κύριος,
γεννήθηκε σε εσάς
στην πόλη του Δαβίδ.

to you is born
this day
in the city of David
a Savior,
who is Christ the Lord.
(Revised Standard Version)

in the town of David
a Savior
has been born to you;
he is the Messiah, the Lord.
(New International Version)

a Saviour
who is the Anointed Lord
is born to you
in the town of David.
(The New Testament in Modern Speech,

יֻלַּד לָכֶם
מוֹשִׂיעַ אֲשֶׁר הוּא
הַמָּשִׁיחַ הָאָדוֹן
בְּעִיר דָּוִד

(The Hebrew New Testament, Delitzsch)

יֻלַּד לָכֶם
הֲלֹא הוּא
הַמָּשִׁיחַ הָאָדוֹן
בְּעִיר דָּוִד

(The New Testament, Salkinson-Ginsburg)

cf. Luke 2:26 / πρβλ. Λουκά 2:26:

τὸν χριστὸν κυρίου

אֶת-מְשִׁיחַ יְהוָֹה

(ΝΤ, Delitzsch & Salkinson-Ginsburg)

τον χρισμένο του Ιεοβά

τον Χριστό του ΚΥΡΙΟΥ
(Μεταγλώττιση της Καινής Διαθήκης,
Σπύρου Καραλή

ye LORDES Christ
(Τhe Byble in Englyshe,
Miles Coverdale

den Christ des HERRN
(Biblia, das ist die gantze Heilige Schrifft Deudsch,
Martin Luther

ܠܡܫܝܚܗ ܕܡܪܝܐ


Russia’s systematic attack
on religious freedom /

Η συστηματική επίθεση της Ρωσίας
στη θρησκευτική ελευθερία



Sunday, April 24, 2016

Don Cupitt:

“and the Word
was the Father’s own Word” /

«και ο Λόγος
ήταν ο Λόγος του Πατέρα»

“To avoid this difficulty [the two-fold meaning of the term "God/god"] the line ought to be retranslated: “The Word was with God the Father and the Word was the Father’s own Word,” to stress that the Word is not an independent divine being but is the only God’s own self-expression. If all this is correct, then even John’s language about Jesus still falls within the scope of the King-ambassador model.”

«Για να αποφευχθεί αυτή η δυσκολία [η διττή σημασία του όρου "Θεός/θεός"] ο στίχος θα πρέπει να αναμεταφραστεί ως εξής: «Ο Λόγος ήταν με τον Θεό Πατέρα και ο Λόγος ήταν ο Λόγος του Πατέρα», ώστε να τονιστεί ότι ο Λόγος δεν είναι ένα ανεξάρτητο θεϊκό ον αλλά ότι είναι η μοναδική έκφραση του εαυτού του Θεού. Αν ισχύουν τα παραπάνω, τότε ακόμη και η γλώσσα που χρησιμοποιεί ο Ιωάννης σχετικά με τον Ιησού εξακολουθεί να εμπίπτει στα πλαίσια του μοντέλου Βασιλιά-πρεσβευτή».

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Isaac Newton's theological theses /

Οι θεολογικές θέσεις του Ισαάκ Νεύτωνα

Isaac Newton's personal name anagram
resulting in "Ieova sanctus unus"

1. The {word} God is no where in the scriptures used to signify more then one of the thre persons at once.

2. The word God put absolutly without particular restriction to the Son or Holy ghost doth always signify the Father from one end of the scriptures to the other.

3. When ever it is said in the scriptures that there is but one God, it is meant of the Father

4. When, after some heretiques had taken Christ for a meare man & others for the Supreme God, Saint Iohn in his Gospel indeavoured to state his nature so that men might have from thence a right apprehension of him & avoyd those hæresies & to that end call him the word or λογος: we must suppose that {he inten}ded that {ter}me in the same sence that it was taken in the world before he used it when in like manner applied to an intelligent being. For if the Apostles had not used words as they found them how could they expect to have been rightly understood. Now the term λογος befor Saint Iohn wrote, was {generally} used in the sense of the Platonists, when applied to an intelligent being, & the Arrians understand it in the same sence, & therefore theirs is the true sense of Saint Iohn.

5. The son in several places confesseth his dependance on the will of the father.

6. The son confesseth the father greather then him calls him his God, &c

7 The Son acknowl{ed}g{e}th the original præscience of all future things to be in the father onely.

8 There is no where made mention of a humane soul in our saviour besides the word, by the mediation of which the word should be incarnate. But the word it self was made flesh & took upon him the {form} of a servant.

9. It was the son of God which he sent into the {world} & not a humane soul that suffered for us. If {there} had been such a human soul in our Savour it would havebee{n} a thing of too great consequence to have been wholly omitted by the Apostles.

10. It is a proper epithete of the father to be called almighty. For by God almighty we always understand the Father. yet this is not to limit the power of the Son, For he doth whatsoever he seeth the Father {do}, but to acknowledg that all power is originally in the Father & & that the son hath no power in him but what he derives from the father for he professes that of himself he can do nothing.

11 The son in all things submits his will to the will of the father. which would be unreasonable if he were equall to the father.

12 The union between him & the father he interprets to be like that of the saints one with another. That is in agreement of will & counsil.


--Yahuda Ms. 14, f. 25r.

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

Artic. 1. There is one God the Father everliving, omnipresent, omniscient, almighty, the maker of heaven & earth, & one Mediator between God & Man the Man Christ Iesus.

Artic 2. The father is the invisible God whom no eye hath seen or can see, all other beings are sometimes visible.

Artic. 3. The Father hath life in himself & hath given the son to have life in himself.

Artic 4 The father is omniscient & hath all knowledge originally in his own breast, & communicates knowledge of future things to Iesus Christ & none in heaven or earth or under the earth is worthy to receive knowledge of future things immediately from the father except the Lamb. And therefore the testimony of Iesus is the Spirit of Prophesy & Iesus is the Word or Prophet of God.

Artic 5. The father is immoveable no place being capable of becoming emptier or fuller of him then it is by the eternal necessity of nature: all other beings are moveable from place to place.

Artic 6. All the worship (whether of prayer praise or thanks giving which was due to the father before the coming of Christ is still due to him. Christ came not to diminish the worship of his father.

Artic. 7. Prayers are most prevalent when directed to the father in the name of the son

Artic. 8. We are to return thanks to the father alone for creating us & giving us food & raiment & other blessings of this life & whatsover we are to thank him for or desire that he would do for us we ask of him immediately in the name of Christ

Artic. 9. We need not pray to Christ to intercede for us. If we pray the father aright he will intercede.

Artic. 10. It is not necessary to salvation to direct our prayers to any other then the father in the name of the son.

Artic. 11. To give the name of God to Angels or Kings is not against the first commandment. To give the worship of the God of the Iews to Angels or Kings is against it. The meaning of the commandment is Thou shalt worship no other Gods but me.

Artic 12. To us there is but one God the father of whom are all things & we of him, & one Lord Iesus Christ by whom are all things & we by him. that is, we are to worship the father alone as God Almighty & Iesus alone as the Lord the Messiah the great King the Lamb of God who was slain & hath redeemed us with his blood & made us kings & Priests.

--Keynes Ms. 8, f. 1r.