Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Trump signed an executive order sinking the TPP

Given the post I made after Trump was elected it would be remiss of me not to mention this.  Especially since I criticized TYT for acting like they never predicted Trump would pass it.

Still, as long as NAFTA and CAFTA still stand I'm not truly impressed yet.  And there is always the risk he may try to re-brand the TPP under a different name.

But of course none of that would take away everything Trump is doing that is horrible.  Continuing Drone Strikes that kill civilians in Syria and Yemen.  The Ban on letting people come to America from Muslim countries his company hasn't done business with.  And he seems to be going through with building the Wall.

So in-spite of doing one thing I like Trump is still getting a big fat F- from me.

Monday, January 30, 2017

Complex history of the Word Sodomite

This is my third post specifically on the Sin of Sodom being Inhospitality (Or Trumpism as I now like to call it).

What prompted this post was an interaction I had on IMDB.  SO this is mainly my archiving those sources here.

Many cognates in other languages, such as French sodomie (verb sodomiser), Spanish sodomía (verb sodomizar), and Portuguese sodomia (verb sodomizar), are used exclusively for penetrative anal sex, at least since the early nineteenth century. In those languages, the term is also often current vernacular (not just legal, unlike in other cultures) and a formal way of referring to any practice of anal penetration; the word sex is commonly associated with consent and pleasure with regard to all involved parties and often avoids directly mentioning two common aspects of social taboo—human sexuality and the anus—without a shunning or archaic connotation to its use.

In modern German, the word Sodomie has no connotation of anal or oral sex and specifically refers to bestiality.[11] The same goes for the Polish sodomia. The Norwegian word sodomi carries both senses. In Danish, sodomi is rendered as "unnatural carnal knowledge with someone of the same sex or (now) with animals".[12]
Roman Catholic scholar, Mark Jordan in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997) shows that the term “sodomy” originated in the eleventh century as a new classification of certain ‘clerical sins’. While early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Origen clearly associate sodomy with inhospitality, by the time of St. Augustine, cultural associations around the word, communicated through secular poetry and legend shifted both its denotative and connotative meanings.
 “ ‘Sodomy’ as defined by religion and law included a range of condemned practices, ‘a way to encompass a multiple of sins with a minimum of signs’ as one critic has cleverly expressed it.” (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 61)

Despite the term’s enduring flexibility, from the twelfth century sodomy was increasingly associated with sex acts between men. (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 62)


In the older sense, sodomy surpassed all other crimes; in its sinfulness it also included all of them: from blasphemy, sedition, and witchcraft, to the demonic. It was, as many extracts declare, the crime without a name; language was incapable of sufficiently expressing the horror of it. The category was a repository for many items, yet in the eighteenth century a highly specific portrait of an individual, and of a group, was increasingly displacing an undiscriminating, demonic generalization.(McCormick editor, Secret Sexualities A Sourcebook of 17th and 18th Century Writing, p. 118)


Sodomy surpassed all other crimes. In its sinfulness it also included all of them, blasphemy, sedition, witchcraft, the demonic: it is yet without a Name: What shall it then be called? There are not Words in our Language to expressive enough of the Horror of it. The foregoing suggests, however, a degree of insecurity about the range of the activity, and what it ought to be called. It was terrible in its sublimity, but unnamed in its sublimation. What was changing was that a specific kind of portrait of an individual was taking over from a theological category of generalized evil. (McCormick, editor Sexual Outcasts 1750-1850 Volume II Sodomy, p. 5)


“Clearly when we come across a writer using the words ‘sodomy’ or ‘buggery’ in relation to homosexuality we do the words less than justice if we simply disregard their other meanings. The one word was used because the one concept was intended, and this was a broader concept than simply homosexuality. The notion underlying these passages was not homosexuality but a more general notion: debauchery; and debauchery was a temptation to which all, in principle at least were subject.” (Bray, Homosexuality in Renaissance England, p. 16


“On the one hand, historians confirmed sodomy’s capaciousness: it means masturbation, several of forms of same-sex sexual behavior, bestiality, non-procreative sex (oral or anal most commonly) between a and a woman, or any form of sex in which conception was impossible.” (Crawford, The Sexual Culture of the French Renaissance, p. 4)


“Initially, sodomy was a theological construct, serving only intermittently to refer to a clear variety of sexual activity or to bring into focus the behaviour of a particular kind of person.” (Mills, “Male-Male Love and Sex in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500”, p. 14 in A Gay History of Britain Love and Sex Between Men Since the Middle Ages editor Matt Cook)


“In the early modern phase (here roughly before 1688), the term sodomy covered any activity that challenged the ‘Nature’ of the church-state authority. The logic of sodomy’s deviation from the feudal order was precise but the category covered a wide range of transgressive acts: witchcraft, usury, political dissent, nonconformity, any kind of nonreproductive, non-matrimonial sexuality, and exogamous social relations, for example with Jews or Muslims (Bredbeck, pp. 2-23). By the late eighteen –century, ‘sodomy’, more or less, narrowed to mean a male-male erotics typified by anal penetration (buggery).” (Shapiro, “Of Mollies: Class and same-Sex Sexualities in the Eighteen Century”, p. 159 in In a Queer Place Sexuality and Belonging in British and European Contexts, editors Kate Chedgzoy, Emma Francis, and Murray Pratt.)
So I hope this information is helpful to many.

Friday, January 27, 2017

The Flood in the Days of Moses

Today, I want to talk about a common criticism of The Koran I consider unfair.  I'm not an Islamic Apologist, I'm working on a study where I will address an anachronism in The Koran that is best explained by Muhammad having very limited knowledge of The Bible and this showing it did not have a supernatural origin.

But I find it very unfair to suggest it's an anachronism when The Koran refers to a Flood in the time of Moses.  Every Islamic Apologist agrees those references are to the drowning of Pharaoh's Army in The Red Sea.  Yet I keep seeing Christians act like that's a stupid excuse and clearly the mere presence of the word Flood proves Muhammad thought the Global Flood happened in the days of Moses, or that there was more then one Global Flood.

Obviously, an army being drowned on land that was just previously dry can qualify as a flood.  It's not a normal flood, but neither was the Flood of Noah, since they usually aren't Global and don't normally involve Gates in Heaven or Fountains of the Great Deep being opened.

The KJV of Exodus 15:8 uses the word Flood (though it's Plural) in describing the Red Sea incident.  In The Hebrew this isn't the word for Flood used most of the time, so I am overall making little note of this verse.  But I mention it for the KJV onliers, if your insist that the KJV is a perfect translation, then you've already lost all right to say it's wrong for the KJV to call this incident a Flood.

Amos 9:5 also uses Flood in the KJV in reference to Egypt, though in The Hebrew that word is the usual word used to refer to The Nile.

Joshua 24 as well uses Flood in the KJV in a way that is confusing.  In the Hebrew it's actually the word for River and probably refers to the Euphrates.  But a KJV only Absolutist has no choice but argue that Flood refers to the Red Sea incident.

The Hebrew word for Flood (Yabul) used in Genesis 6-10 is used pretty rarely, outside those Chapter only in Psalm 29:10.  So yeah if you want to limit the idea of flooding to only that Hebrew word there is no Biblical basis for applying it to the Red Sea incident.  But other Hebrew words become Flood in English, and so if Arabic likewise used words for Flood to translate those words, there is plenty of basis for applying it to the drowning of Pharaoh's army.

Revelation 12:15-16 uses the word Flood in a context commonly seen as being an Echo of when Israel was lead by God to the Wilderness.  This Flood is often interpreted as representing an Army.  One basis for that is Daniel's usage of the Hebrew word Sheteph in 9:26 and 11:22.

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

I'm a Continuationist, but most Pentacostals and Charismatics are wrong on what the Gift of Tongues is

Acts 2 clearly spells out for us what it is.  It involves people in the crowd hearing The Gospel preached in their native Tongue, even though that Tongue was not known to the ones preaching it.

Tongue is being used here as a synonym for language, the same word is used in contexts that are not supernatural.

Almost everyone has it in their heads now that somehow Paul in 1 Corinthians was talking about something completely different, some cryptic mystery language.  He was not.

The problem with them seeming incompatible is that what happened in Acts 2 may not be how we usually picture it.  I don't think each listening was hearing everything in their own language regardless, like a Star Trek universal translator.  But rather different Apostles were given different Tongues to Supernaturally speak.  And that fits the imagery better, of each being given a single flaming Tongue.

And so I think the confusion at Corinth came from some believers showing off their Tongue in church, even though no one listening there could understand it.  And so Paul says if someone is going to speak in Tongues in church there should be an interpreter to translate it.  An unknown Tongue simply means no one there knows it, not that no Human anywhere knows it.

And that would be simply rude behavior even in a non Supernatural context.  Like an American Otaku who's actually learned Japanese speaking it constantly at a small Anime convention where no one else there can understand it without subtitles.  It just makes him look like a pretentious show off.

1 Corinthians 13:1 however is what people cling to for their "Angelic Language" doctrine.  Paul is saying in this verse he has spoken in Tongues, plural, of both Men and Angels.  That verse does not at all prove the Supernatural Tongues are only the Angels.  I'm actually starting to wonder if Paul didn't know Greek at all, but he spoke in the Greek Tongue to stenographers like Barnabas who could write in it.  But perhaps this is even more true of Peter and John, and the brothers James and Jude, who's background doesn't make sense for them to know Greek at all, and this is constantly used against The Bible by skeptics.

I personally feel it's pretty obvious that the Angels speak Hebrew as their native Tongue.  The only two who are named have Hebrew names.  There is no mystery Angelic Language, that idea is where Occult concepts like John Dee's Enochian Language comes from, but even he knew he should logically start with Hebrew in constructing his made up Angelic language.

The many people out there thinking they're speaking an Angelic Language may just be misinformed.  They don't know what they're speaking.

But do not forget that I am a Continuationist, this Supernatural ability is one I believe Christians can still use.  It may be less common now since in the modern world more people are naturally multilingual, and The Bible is available in every major language.  But in a situation where a Christian may need it, I believe The Holy Spirit can still provide it.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Words translated Eternal

Aionion, Aionios, Aioniou, are different forms of Strong Number 166.  It is often translated in Latin, English and other translations as Eternal or Everlasting in many key verses.  And ultimately the enemies of Universalism are entirely dependent on that translation being accurate.

I don't want to get too deep into the linguistic arguments others have made, starting with how they come from Aion which means Age (Eon comes from Aion), which makes the use of it's Hebrew equivalent Olam in Daniel 12 the same issue.

No, the point today is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, to show two places, two confirming witnesses, where Scripture uses this word in a way that in context totally contradicts it meaning eternal.  Naturally these verses aren't the occurrences of the word used to build the doctrine of Eternal punishment.

Romans 16:25 in the KJV.
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,
In the Greek the last two words are Aionion and a word that means "kept secret".  Aionion is translated "since the world began".  There are other places where Aion is translated world rather then Age, like "My Kingdom is not of this World", and Paul calling Satan the "God of this World", it should be Age not World there as we know in the future Jesus will take ruler-ship of the Kosmos from Satan.  The very next verse says "but now is made manifest".  Proving that it can refer to a time period that will expire.

The other key verse is Jude verse 7.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
"Eternal fire" there is Aioniou fire.  There it is used in the exact same form it is in Mark 3:29, John 6:68, Hebrews 6:2, and Romans 16:26 referring to the "Everlasting God".

Obviously the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah isn't still raging north of the Dead Sea.

But also important is that Ezekiel 16:53 says that Sodom will be restored just as Samaria and Jerusalem are promised to be restored.  Sodom had no survivors, they considered Lot a foreigner living among them even on their last day, and Lot's descendants became their own nations, Moab and Amon.  And no one was a believer who perished in Sodom's destruction.  Sodom can only be restored if eventually Jesus shed Blood redeems even the Sodomites.

In Revelation 22, those who were cast into the Lake of Fire are now just outside New Jerusalem. 

And in in the Sheeps and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, people overlook that neither the Sheeps or Goats were those who believed in Jesus in this life.  We are the brethren.  Chuck Missler likes to say they are the Jews here (and argue this isn't the same judgment as the White Throne judgment).  But earlier in Matthew Jesus had effectively disowned His mother, brothers and sisters and said His real Brethren are those who believe in Him.

Luke 3:6 says that all mankind will see God's Salvation.  Romans 5:18-19 says that as by one Man's Sin all are condemned, so by one Man's righteousness all men are Justified.   Romans 11:32 says all Men are bound to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on ALL men.  1 Corinthians 15:22 says as in Adam all die so in Christ ALL shall be made alive.  And Peter tells us it is God's preference that none shall perish.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Lex Meyer's book Immortal advocates for Soul Sleep and Annihilationism

I've watched his two part interview with Rob Skiba on YouTube.

I agree in the sense that contemporary Heaven is not what we are looking forward to.  And while I disagree with Soul Sleep, rejecting The Resurrection, or arguing it is not a liberal Bodily Resurrection is far worse a false doctrine. And I agree with him that being Born Again refers to the Resurrection.

Much of what he says is stuff I already addressed in The Soul and Spirit Biblically.  And I will be doing a separate post on the Prophecy Blog about what he has to say regarding Enoch and Elijah.  But that spins off from what I've already argued regarding them.  And I agree with him over Rob Skiba about The Book of Enoch and Jasher being bad sources.

I can also agree with his take on the Witch of Endor and Samuel, in fact he convinced me of that, it does go against how I've mentioned it here before.  And I agree on the Rich Man and Lazursus of Luke 16 being a Parable and not something to build doctrine on.  And his take on the point of what Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matthew 22 is also valid.

And I agree there is no pre-existence, the Soul is created when The Body is given Life at first Breath.

But he doesn't address the references to Sheol/Hades in 1 Peter 3 and 4, or Ezekiel 32, or other passages considered relevant to he Harrowing of Hell.  Zechariah 9 also refers to souls in prison.  And verses in the Torah that refer to Abraham joining his father when he died, and Moses joining Aaron, though they were buried far apart.  And Jesus promises His believers they would Never Die in John 11:26.

Meanwhile it is dangerous to build doctrine on Ecclesiastes, that book is partly Solomon describing things how they seem to mortal eyes, to proclaim all that wrong at the end.  Christian absolutely do believe in something New under the Sun, the New Testament.

My biggest issue is his writing off the Matthew 27:52-53 Resurrections as temporary Resurrections like Lazarus.  I believe firmly this verse is tied directly to Revelation 12, only other time the Resurrection is refereed to where Many rather then All are raised.  This ties in directly to the Harrowing of Hell, Jesus lead the Dead out of Sheol on the 15th of Nisan, same day Moses lead Israel out of Egypt.

He's a Post-Tribber, so he unlike me things Revelation is not Chronological.  The "First Resurrection" is a classification rather then a chronological sequence.  Probably NONE were Resurrected in that chapter, they are simply refereed to, they followed Jesus in Revelation 19.

I also agree that Plato is the source of much bad doctrine.  But my problems with Plato are more in how he broke with the usual views of the Pagan Greeks before him.  The Pagan Greek view of the After Life was no more or less wrong then what the Pagan Canaanites believed which it was pretty much based on.  And The Hebrew Bible condemns a lot about the Pagan Canaanites but never the gist of their view of the after life.  The issue is they were the opposite of Universalism, they believed in no hope of escape from Sheol/Hades for anyone.

Also the assumed After Life view of casual Christianity which I find just as annoying as he does, comes from Zoroastrianism rather then Gnosticism.  If any Gnostics believed an After Life view similar to the Zoroastrians it was the Persia based Manicheans who Augustine came out of.  But generally the Gnostics believed all Souls were part of one original Soul.  Sometimes it's Sophia as The World Soul, sometimes it's the Pleroma.  We see a similar idea expressed in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith, when Yoda says that the dead become one with The Force, and the closing Yoda arch episodes of Clone Wars elaborated on that concept.  We also see this when some modern New Agey type people say so and so "merges with the Infinite" when the die.

We also see in Acts 23:8-9 that the Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection, they also denied the existence of Spirits and Angels.  From what can learn outside The Bible they also seem to have believed in an ancient form of Deisim, a belief that a Creator God exists but that he is uninterested in interfering in Human affairs.  Deisim seems to have arguably began with Aristotle and his Unmoving Mover idea.  And Aristole also rejected Plato's doctrine of an immortal Soul.  So denying the immortal Soul also comes from Greek philosophy.