Women can be leaders in The Church.

The question of whether or not Women are allowed to be "Priests" or “Bishops” or “Pastors” or whatever term you prefer to use has become a hot topic again due to recent events. And I’ve been forced to realize my initial posts on that topic were among the earliest on this blog, before I understood Church Polity related disputes as well as I do now. 

My position is ultimately the same, I still reject the entire concept of Monoepiscopacy as it’s currently practiced even by other Congregationalists. But to whatever extent the New Testament does permit some Christians to be leaders among fellow believers, the distinction between Male and Female is irrelevant as demonstrated by Galatians 3. 

The office of Prophet was even in The Hebrew Bible always open to women, from Mariam to Deborah to Anna, and Joel 2 foretells that “your sons and your daughters shall prophecy” in a Prophecy quoted in Acts 2 as being fulfilled in The Church. Prophecy in The Bible is more predictive Prophecy, it is proclaiming The Word of God. At least in Low Church Protestantism the Pastors have always identified with OT Prophet over OT Priests.

The Aaronic Priesthood is now irrelevant, in The New Testament all believers are Kings and Priests and our only High Priest is Christ, ALL definitely includes the Women. 

The word “Priest” as a term for Christian leaders is not supposed to have anything to do with the Hebrew or Greek terms translated that way in modern Bibles, its etymology derives from the Greek word Presbyter usually translated Elder.

I believe talk of Elders in the Church in The New Testament is about showing respect to any fellow believer who is your Senior, not an office, 1 Timothy 5 explicitly includes women in that.  So a conservative Episcopal Polity supporter will just insist that passage is about all seniors but others still ordain an office, that is simply selective reasoning. 

Bishop is a translation of Episcopas, a word that means “overseer” or “presider” and also has a verb form used in 1 Peter 5:2 which along with Acts 20:17-28 shows us that for both Peter and Paul all Elders were Overseers. 

Phoebe is a female Deacon in Romans 16:1, a word that just means servant but in Episcopal Polity denominations becomes the rank below Priest and is by these Conservatives treated just as only for women.

Romans 16 also refers to Tryphena and Tryphosa, a pair of female missionaries.  

Priscila also clearly always seems to have seniority over her husband Aquilla. 

Colossians 4:15 refers to Nympha, a leader of a local Church which the KJV changes to Nymphas and tries to make seem like a male but all scholars agree the Greek Text is referring to a Woman. 

Women were the first Eyewitnesses to The Resurrection and thus the first Apostles.

Against all that greater testimony of Scripture these Conservative cling to the “women shouldn’t speak in Church” passage from 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and the “a woman shouldn't teach a man” passage in 1 Timothy 2:12.

Read in context 1 Corinthians 14 is clearly Paul quoting someone else to then immediately rebuke them in verse 36 “What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?”.  Other passages in the same Epistle clearly refer to women speaking in Church. 

I honestly haven’t made up my mind how to explain 1 Timothy 2:12, I’ve seen different approaches. What I do know is that later in the same Epistle Women are permitted to be Elders. This one verse alone can not override everything else.  And that’s without me even getting into how this is the most disputed of all Paul’s Epistles.  I believe Paul wrote it and that there is an explanation, I just haven’t made up my mind what that is. 

The Temple was on The Temple Mount, I simply haven’t made up my mind where.

The most extreme alternate theories for The Temple’s location are those that remove it from The Temple Mount entirely, I currently see no validity to doing that. But every YouTube video or documentary defending the traditional mainstream view is only dealing with those extreme alternatives, they don’t have much interest in debating where on The Temple Mount.

The well known alternative theories for The Temple Mount are based on it being either further North or further South. The Dome of The Spirits view and the Al-Kas Fountain view are both ones I’ve entertained in the past.  But today the convictions I’ve developed regarding Dominus Flevit as the site of both the Red Heifer offerings and The Crucifixion/Resurrection tell me that the Dome of The Rock is on the right Latitude.

My main issue with The Dome of The Rock however is the ritual Rock, there is no Biblical Basis for The Holy of Holies being built on a Rock, certainly not one as not flat and unsound to build on as that Rock. Indeed, Rock has just about the exact opposite qualities I would expect a “Foundation Stone” to have. 

Indeed the only Biblical basis for the concept of a sacred Foundation Stone is Isaiah 28:16 which is quoted a couple times in The New Testament, Ephesians 2:20 and 1 Peter 2:6 but they leave out the word foundation.  These verses however refer to Zion not The Temple Mount, Zion is synonymous with The City of David.  The current mainstream archaeological view on where Zion was is south of the Temple Mount, exactly the place the most well known alternative theory is trying to place The Temple. There is also a long history of giving the name of Zion to the Western Hill south of the Zion Gate where the Church of the Dormition is. I however firmly believe Zion, The City of David is Bethlehem. In The New Testament verses identify that Foundation Stone as in fact a title of The Messiah like the Stone of Psalm 118:22 and Isaiah 8:14, that does not contradict there being a real geographical feature Isaiah had in mind but it still could prove futile to look for one. 

However the idea of a Foundation Stone on The Temple Mount does start to develop in post AD 70 Rabbinic Literature.  But it’s complicated.  The Wikipedia page for Foundation Stone quotes midrash Tanhuma (t. Yoma 2:12; y. Yoma 5:3; b. Yoma 54b; PdRK 26:4; Lev. R. 20:4.).

"As the navel is set in the centre of the human body,

so is the land of Israel the navel of the world...

situated in the centre of the world,

and Jerusalem in the centre of the land of Israel,

and the sanctuary in the centre of Jerusalem,

and the holy place in the centre of the sanctuary,

and the ark in the centre of the holy place,

and the Foundation Stone before the holy place,

because from it the world was founded."

Based on what is usually meant to be “before” something in the Biblical Hebrew mind this would be placing The Foundation Stone East of The Holy Place. But it’s possible that by this time the use of “before” was already looser. After all Hadria had already rebuilt Jerusalem in such a way that the main entrance to The Temple Mount was now entering from The West. 

But on the subject of that emphasis on centerness, it should be noted that the exact center of The Temple Mount, the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, is not the Dome of The Rock but the Dome of the Chain east of The Dome of The Rock. 

The Hasmonean and Herodian expansions of The Temple Complex were to the West, South and North but never moved the Eastern Wall further East. So the original center of the area would have been East of The Dome of The Chain. In Ezekiel 40-48 The Brazen Altar is meant to be the Center of The Temple Complex, it’s likely both Solomon and Zerubabel’s designs were smaller scale versions of that basic idea but then Herod wanted to make it so The Holy of Holies was The Center. 

The 12th Century Islamic author al-Idrisi referred to The Dome of The Chain as The Holy of Holies. Some believe a form of The Dome of The Chain might predate the Islamic Conquest entirely (Archnet: Qubba al-Silsila).

So one of the theories I’m considering is that The Dome of The Chain marks The Holy of Holies, or perhaps more specifically it’s Hexagonal inner arcade.  

Now let’s turn to the account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim from AD 333. 

 https://andrewjacobs.org/translations/bordeaux.html

If the "Pierced Stone” in that account is the Foundation Stone, even then it should be noted that the Statues of Hadrian are by it not on it.  Jerome in his Commentary on The Bible for Matthew 24:15 said the Mounted Statue of Hadrian was over the site of The Holy of Holies. 

But part of me still thinks the Chamber where Solomon wrote about Wisdom in that account is the Well of Souls and thus the Dome of The Rock’s Foundation Stone is its roof. 

Bordeaux Pilgrim also refer to a visible Blood Stain that they identify as when Zacheriah was killed in The Temple, but I highly doubt the Blood from that incident wasn't cleaned up right away.  Since the Second Temple never had the Ark this could be the spot where The Ark supposed to be and that Blood is the Blood all those dead Goats sprinkled there every Yom Kippur for centuries. 

Some Traditional Biblical Geography identifications can’t both be correct.

The people who think none of the Mainstream Traditional locations for Biblical Sites are true and want to argue for some alt theory for every single one are kind of silly, I say that as someone who used to be pretty close to being like that. 

However those who think Tradition is wrong on absolutely none of them also inevitably face problems.

The design of The Tabernacle and Temple were both based on the idea that the Sanctuary should eb facing West and entered from The East. This distinct from a lot of ancient culture, the Mesopotamians and Greeks and Romans all tended to prefer the exact opposite.  This fact is important to what will be discussed going forward. 

Two current traditional locations that can’t both be true are The Temple being where The Dome of The Rock is and The Golden Gate’s current location. Because the Eastern Gate is obviously self evidently supposed to be lined up with The Temple. 

I’ve seen exactly one attempt to deconstruct that notion, and that was someone arguing those who think the Eastern Gate has to be lined up with The Temple are confusing it with the Nicanor Gate which was a Gate in The Temple itself. But that’s besides the point, the point is all these Gates should be lined up, it doesn’t matter if no single verse of scripture explicitly says that, that is simply how Ancient cities were designed. There were times like on Yom Kippur when people would have to walk from outside the city entirely directly into The Temple, The High Priest into the Holy of Holies itself, and that path not being a straight line would have been very inconvenient. 

And even to my modern eyes used to more complex modern city layouts it still feels wrong when I look at modern Jerusalem from the east and the big fancy gate on its Eastern Wall isn’t lined up with the Most Sacred Holy Place.  If I saw a JRPG city laid out like this I’d call it bad design. 

The Eastern Wall of Second Temple Jerusalem had already been completely destroyed in AD 70 as documented by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter I where only the Western Wall was left.

If it’s The Golden Gate that is currently in the wrong place the change probably began with Hadrian’s rebuilding of Jerusalem as a Aelia Capitolina, any further construction done later by the Byzantines, Muslims or Ottomans were building on that blueprint.  Hadrian’s major Temples on The Temple Mount aren’t believed to have been lined up with this Gate either, but it is lined up with The Church of The Holy Sepulcher where Hadrian had built a Temple to Aphrodite. 

But what’s most important here is that Roman City and Temple design would not have been primarily based on facing West and entering from The East but rather if anything the opposite. If the current layout of The Temple Mount is still primarily based on how Hadrian redesigned it as I suspect then that fits as the main stairs to access it are approaching The Dome of The Rock from The West, the Ablution Gate and Cotton Merchants Gate.

But also if Hadrian’s Jupiter Temple Complex on The Temple Mount was following a similar pattern to the one he also had built at Baalbek (they are believed to have had the same architect) then based on how they lined up the main ceremonial entrance would have been from the North traveling southward. So the East Gate leading to a spot north of everything makes sense in that context. 

I have not 100% made up my mind yet. But these reasons are causing me to reverse my past position that it’s The Temple location that needs to be changed. 

Rabbi Yonatan Adler’s argument that the site of the Red Heifer sacrifice, which had to be directly East of The Temple at a spot where you could see directly into The Temple, was a location now in the courtyard of the modern Dominus Flevit Church, begins with the assumption that The Temple was where The Dome of The Rock currently is, but there were other details he was also looking for based on what The Mishna and Talmud say about where the Second Temple period Red Heifer sacrifices were made and he found them here.  If he made the investigation based on a different Temple location I have my doubts the other details would have lined up nearly as well. 

Wikipedia sites Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 15 Chapter 11 Section 7 as saying the Eastern Gate was in the North Eastern Extremity of the Inner Sacred Court.  But what the text actually says is a lot less clear.  

"There was also an occult passage built for the king; it led from Antonia to the inner temple, at its eastern gate; over which he also erected for himself a tower, that he might have the opportunity of a subterraneous ascent to the temple, in order to guard against any sedition which might be made by the people against their kings. It is also reported,494 that during the time that the temple was building, it did not rain in the daytime, but that the showers fell in the nights, so that the work was not hindered. And this our fathers have delivered to us; nor is it incredible, if any one have regard to the manifestations of God. And thus was performed the work of the rebuilding of the temple."

He's alluding to some sort of underground passage from the Antonia Fortress to near the East Gate of The Temple itself.  So I don't think this is much of a clue to where any of the Gates actually were. 

I no longer support the supposed Simon Ossuary found at Dominus Flevit being Peter

To be clear, I still believe Peter was never actually in Rome, or at least not in the way traditionally thought.  And I still believe the First Century Ossuaries found at Dominus Flevit were Early Christians and that this Simon is likely one of the Simons mentioned in The New Testament.

First of all I believe even if Peter’s remains wound up in this style of Ossuary the name of Cepha or Petros would also be on, that isn’t just presented as Nick Name in The Bible but a full on new Name. 

Second, I do not believe Peter’s Father was actually named Jonah.  Sometimes in The Bible a “Son of” designation is poetic rather than literal. The only time Simon Peter is called Simon son of Jonas is in John 21 in the same narrative where Jesus prophesies Peter’s fate saying he’ll be taken to a place he didn’t want to go, like what happened to the Prophet Jonah. 

If the alternate reading of the name on this Ossuary as “Simon Bar Zilla” is correct, that could perhaps most likely refer to Simon Zealots who I do not believe was called that because he was a member of the Zealot sect.  But another candidate could be Simon The Leper (Jar Maker in the Peshita) who lived in Bethany and seems to be part of the same household as Mary, Martha and Lazarus, some even argue he’s the same person as Lazarus.  Or Simon of Cyrene.  I rule out the half brother of Jesus only because his patronym would have been Bar Yosef or Ben Yosef. 

One current theory I have on Peter's fate is that he was among the Jews who were burned at the stake in Antioch in AD 67 after being falsely blamed for a plot to burn the city down as recounted by Josephus in Wars of The Jews Book VII Chapter 3. So perhaps his burial place should be looked for there. But there probably wasn't a grave or tomb in that scenario since only ashes were left. 

Ezra-Nehemiah Chronology

It does not serve my own personal interests to argue for what I’m about to argue for given how it would destroy the 70 Weeks Chronology I have favored for over a decade now. 

It is often assumed that every Darius in Ezra but especially in chapters 5 and 6  is King Darius I sometimes called Darius The Great and that every Artaxerxes in both Ezra and Nehemiah is King Artaxerxes I Longimanus.  However this assumption has caused a lot of Chronological confusion for Ezra Chapter 4. 

A much simpler, more coherent timeline forms when one simply assumes the Darius of Ezra 4:5 is Darius I. The way this reference is worded it could be the same Darius as later being referred to in advance, but that wouldn’t fix the other Chronological problems.  The Ahasuerus of Ezra 4:6 is Xerxes I and thus also the Ahasuerus of Esther, in fact I think this verse is about the drama that Esther describes in more detail and thus upon reaching this Verse is where you should read Esther if you wanted to do a strictly Chronological reading of The Bible or just its Narratives.  Then the Artaxerxes of Ezra 4:7-23 is Artaxerxes I.  The Darius introduced in Ezra 4:24 through chapter 6 is Darius II Ochus and then the Artaxerxes of Ezra 7-8 and Nehemiah is Artaxerxes II Memnon. And then finally the Darius of the last verse of Nehemiah 12 is Darius III.

Josephus famously records Sanballat and Jaddua being still alive when Alexander comes to Jerusalem in 332 BC which definitely makes more sense if the Nehemiah narrative is late in the time of Artaxerxes II rather than almost a century earlier. 

The Seder Olam Rabba, which is in part the basis for the modern Jewish Calendar, removed about a century from the Persian period.  Now in-spite of the Seder Olam being a Jewish text the only people I’ve ever seen try to argue its shorter timeline for the Persian Empire is literally true are fringe Fundamentalist Christians trying to make it fit some alternate chronology they want to be true.

Part of what makes the Seder Olam’s timeline seem plausible to some is that our conventional understanding of Biblical History skips right from the first Artaxerxes to when Alexander conquers the Persian Empire.  So about a Century of Persian History is viewed as essentially just a long Filler Arc to someone viewing History mainly through a Biblical lens. 

I’ve seen people try to argue that the Ahasuerus of Ezra 4 is actually Cambyses II son of Cyrus but he didn’t reign long enough to have a 12th year. 

This new theory about the Persian Kings in Ezra-Nehemiah can potentially fix that. 

The only problem is that Ezra has Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel and Jeshua son of Jozadak being important leaders both during the time of Cyrus in Ezra 3-4:3 and the time of Darius in Ezra 5-6. And that is a lot less plausible if that Darius is Darius II rather than the first. 

However there is a text known as 1 Esdras (or 3 Esdras when Ezra-Nehemiah are called 1st and 2nd Esdras) as well as Greek Esdras and Greek Ezra which is essentially another version of what Ezra covers.  It is not considered Canon by Jews or most Protestants but is included in Catholic Bibles and is firmly canonical to the Eastern Orthodox Churches. There are those who would argue the very early Church favored this Esdras over the Ezra now considered more universally Canon.  That usually goes hand in hand with other Septuagint Primacy arguments I don’t agree with, but it does exist. 

In the Greek Esdras narrative Zorobabel and Jesus don’t appear till the time of Darius in Chapter 5 and are not mentioned back during the time of Cyrus in Chapter 2. 

While this version lacks a reference to Ahasuerus or the first Darius it does have two separate Kings named Artexerxes, with the one who would be the first in chapter 2 and the second being introduced in chapter 7.

In Josephus Antiquities of The Jews Book 11, a Zorobabel is mentioned during the time of Cyrus near the end of Chapter 1, but his father isn’t identified and no High-Preist named Jeshua/Jesus is mentioned.  Zorobabel son of Salathiel and Jeshua son of Josedek as a pair, don't show up till the time of Darius in Chapter 3. Now Josephus is definitely presuming that Darius is Darius I, but it’s notable that the narrative he’s giving only has the fullness of this pair during the time of Darius. 

The Elaphantine Papyri seemingly place Johanan’s time as High Priest during the reign of Darius II, or already in the past during his 17th year.  So that could be a counterargument to all this. 

But the standard view that Ezra and Nehemiah served under Artaxerxes I can’t explain the earlier bad Artaxerxes who reigned before Darius.

Pilate's Governorship may have begun sooner in AD 17 or 18.

Here is an article on the subject arguing it could be the case based mostly on Roman Coinage.

http://www.academia.edu/8296217/The_Chronology_and_Tenure_of_Pontius_Pilate_New_Evidence_for_Re-dating_the_Period_of_Office._Judaea_and_Rome_in_Coins_65_BCE_-_135_CE._The_Numismatic_Circular_pp._1-7._Kenneth_L%C3%B6nnqvist

The above Article is behind a Paywall now, I first read it years ago when it wasn't so my memory of exactly how it made it's argument is foggy. 

There is a potential argument for this model from Josephus I have noticed that I don't think that article included.  Which is notable because something Josephus said is also basically the sole reason for the more common AD 26 date.

In Antiquities of The Jews Book 18. the last thing Josephus talks about at the end of chapter 2 before introducing Pilate in chapter 3 is the Death of Antiochus III of Commagene who died in AD 17.  The first three sections of chapter 3 are stories about affairs when Pilate was Governor, one of them being the Crucifixion of Jesus.

Then section 4 begins a long account of calamities that befell the Jews and Egyptians in Rome.  Tacitus Annals II records those same events, his Annals are explicitly year by year and he places them in AD 19 (the Year of the Consulship of Silanus and Balbus), the same year as the death of Germanicus.

Now the above article stresses how this need not change assumptions about the chronology of The Gospels, they're expanding Pilate's administration not moving it, he was still governor during the Passovers of 27-36, with myself long favoring the Passion being in AD 30.

However I have been flirting with the possibility of moving it down.  It would make my arguments for sooner Nativity Dates (Like 12 BC) even more plausible.  The 12 BC Model would have Jesus turn 30 in 19 and his 30th Year begin in 18. 

Apparently Tertullian had said there were 52 years between the first Advent and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus.  Which points us to AD 18.

What about the 15th Year of Tiberius?  Well I've already said more then once that Jesus Baptism could have actually happened before that, it's simply when John was arrested that happened then, which I do view as possibly merely months or even weeks before the Passover of the Crucifixion.  And it could be Luke was using a source counting from when Tiberius truly became Augustus's Heir and given the Tribunician power in AD 4 which can give us a 15th Year that begins in 18 and ends in 19.

This chronology would also make even more plausible the theory that Simon the Pharisee of Luke 7:36-50 is Simeon Ben Hillel.

This redating of the Crucifixion messes up the 70 Weeks Model I have argued for on this blog.  

Whether or not when the Crucifixion happened should be affected, I am convinced of these arguments for beginning Pilate's Governorship almost a decade sooner. 

Neo-Conservatism was a CIA op

First of all, to debunk the popular Trotskyist origins of Neo-Conservatism narrative, watch these videos from InDefenseOfTooucan, I’m not a Trotskyist but they are a Trotskyist YouTuber I respect.

https://youtu.be/xzM0lUko6hY

https://youtu.be/sgr2jkZxFcM

What most people typically mean when they refer to someone as a “Neo-Con” is the most Hawkish Pro Intervention people in the Republican Party in contrast to the firmly Non Interventionist Paleo-Cons.  Specifically how such Foreign Policy aims were framed during the Cold War and War on Terror.  Anyone meaning anything more specific than that is frankly referring to something that doesn’t even really exist., rarely has anyone actually called themselves a Neo-Con.

The core of Neo-Con ideology was defined by the magazine National Review and its founder William F. Buckley Jr.  Buckley was a Yale Graduate who is known to have worked for the CIA for two years at the start of the 50s including one of those for E. Howard Hunt in Mexico City. 

When he launched National Review in 1955 he made a point to hire intellectuals who were Ex-Communists of some sort.  This is tied to the basis for the Trotskyist claim, but the small number of Trotskyists among them were specifically Shachmanites, a sub group disowned by both Trotsky himself and James P. Cannon and are people who ultimately fell out even with Shachman. What most of them do happen to have in common is having all worked for either OSS or CIA at some point previously as they transitioned into abandoning The Left.  James Burnham is perhaps most important as the Magazine's lead writer on Foreign Policy specifically.  Whitaker Chambers proved a valuable spy because he’d spied for the Soviet Union when he was a Communist, a rare example of that McCarthyist accusation being true (usually Soviet Spies did not publicly claim to be Communists or participate in the CPUSA). 

But going outside the realm of intellectuals.  Allen Dulles and his brother John Foster Dulles were major players in the internal politics of The Republican Party and were in fact key backers of the early rise in political importance of both Prescott Bush and Richard Nixon.

Irving Kristol was part of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, a known CIA operation.  However I don’t consider Irving Kristol important actually, he and many others you usually see named as the key Neo-Conservatives are part of the Genre of historical figures whose importance as “behind the scenes” political players is grossly exaggerated while just so happening to be Jews.  However since Kristol is the only person who has ever really self identified as a Neo-Con I couldn’t ignore him completely.