Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Paul said there is neither Male nor Female in The Church

Galatians 3:28.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
I've mentioned this verse before discussing The Bible on Traditional Gender Roles.  And maybe this thread risks retreading that same ground.

But I want to rant on how I'm tired of "Traditionalists" saying this is only about how anyone can get Saved.  No, it's not, the context of verses 25-27 are clear this is about after we're Saved.

But the hypocrisy is that this isn't how anyone applies the references in the same verse to "Jew nor Greek(Gentile)" or "Bond nor Free".

Dispensationists like Chuck Missler are all about how The Church is a new entity and when you're in it you're neither Jew or Gentile, and so no one regardless of ancestry has to follow The Law.  While Hebrew Roots style Christians like Rob Skiba are all about how Gentiles are grafted into Israel and so everyone regardless of ancestry has to follow The Torah.

Neither supports saying believers can be distinguished between Jew and Gentile.  I don't fully fit into either of those camps but sympathize with aspects of both.

But plenty of both those camps want to cling to separate laws for men and women regarding how to dress and so on.

It is interesting that Chapter 4 keeps using the word "Son" and male pronouns, in-spite of just making clear females are included.  But remember the last verse of chapter 3 is about how we are all made spiritually Abraham's Seed, like what Roman 9-11 is about.

Yes the world into which they and still we were born was a patriarchal one.  And those norms influenced even the Hebrew Bible, but in Hebrews Paul calls The Law of Moses imperfect and says The Law is now written on our Hearts.  And I've talked before about how gender issues show those imperfections.

So just as Gentiles can now have the Blessings promised to Abraham, (which was always the plan in Genesis 12) so now has Christ allowed Women the Freedoms that only Men could have before.  Now also for both of those one could argue that comes with increased responsibilities, but that's for a separate debate about The Law under The New Covenant.

 I've also talked about how the marriage of Genesis 2 was equal unlike Genesis 3.

There are New Testament verses that get used to support patriarchal norms also, how do I address those?  

A lot of what's said about Marriage is in the context of discussing The Church as The Bride of Christ, using an Old Testament custom as a type of a New Testament doctrine.  Others may be there just because they were living in a world that is patriarchal still.  And we also need to remember that there are words translated "Man" that are meant to be gender neutral.

I believe The Bible is consistent with itself, and Galatians 3:28 is the most unambitious statement on this issue.  And I think it ties in with how there was no separate courts for Women or Gentiles in Ezekiel's Temple.

Others have also blogged on this subject, the details often differing from my views but the gist being the same.  Here is one example, and another from the same blog.

Thursday, August 4, 2016

The Libertarian Party seems to be the only third party making any effort to do more then just Presidential election

That is something I've noticed as I try to look into state and local elections.

The Green Party seems to naturally want the President to solve everything on their own.  But it's funny that the Constitution Party is the one that most preaches the value of states rights, based on their Paleo-Conservative interpretation of the 10th Amendment, but they are making no no effort to win State elections.

I happen to live in Paul Ryan's congressional district,  So this November I'll have the opportunity to vote for Jason Lebeck for Ryan's Congressional seat, and Phil Anderson for Senate.

August 9th (this Tuesday) will be the Primary for those elections.  And I'm considering voting for Paul Nehlen just to further stick it to Ryan.  If by some chance Ryan lost the primary, the chaos that would create would further open the door for Lebeck.  Wisconsin is an open Primary, so if you're going to vote for a not Republican no mater what, take the opportunity to stick it to Ryan.

For the Senate primary however, Ron Johnson has no Republican opposition, and the not establishment pick Democrat is Scott Harbach, who is frankly what I call a Trump Democrat.  So don't vote for him, make your Protest vote a write in, Incitatus always works for Senate.

Returning to Third Parties.  When Third Parties became major parties in the 1800s, it was from gaining ground up success and support in Congress first.  The desire to put all efforts into just the Presidency is part of what current ones are doing wrong.  Even the Libertarian Party to an extent.

Vote Third Party for President, but support any Third Party running locally too.  We need to break this system.

In places where the Libertarians are the only Third Option.  I know my Liberal friends despise the Economic and Gun policy of Libertarians, but they are the true Pacifists on Foreign Policy, and do not compromise on individual Liberty, things like LGBT rights and ending the Drug War, and they can be trusted more on those issues then Democrats.  So yes vote Green Party if you're a progressive and it's an option, but if not vote Libertarian, you have much to gain and nothing to lose.

Immigration and Abortion are the two most notable issues Libertarians are divided on.  And sadly it seems the above mentioned Wisconsin candidates seem to lean to the right on those (while Gary Johnson and Weld themselves are Liberals on those issues).  But they will still be much more reasonable on those issues then a Republican party lead by Trump.

Sunday, July 10, 2016

The Soul and Spirit Biblically

1 Thessalonians 5:23 "And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

These verses tell us they are different things.  Some word studies of the words have lead people to conclude that animals have souls but not spirits.  I haven't gone too deep into that yet.  If that is true though, it would probably mean that Biblically speaking every use of the word "Soul" in the Buffyverse should be Spirit.

The doctrines of Soul Sleep and Annihilation often go together.  I've seen people argue "Soul" just means a living thing and the idea of an immortal Soul with Conciseness when separated from the Body isn't Biblical.

Now I believe the Belief in a literal Bodily Resurrection is vital.  Some have suggested that what is the point of the Resurrection if the Soul and Spirit are immortal and aware?  My answer is because you lack something vital when separated from the Body.

Demons are spirits that lack a body, and we they are desperately trying to steal one.  I used to believe they were the disembodied spirits of Angel-Human hybrids who died in the Flood.  But I no longer believe in Angel-Human hybrids.

People often argue we see Angels have physical Bodies in a sense so Demons can't be fallen Angels.  But Jude 1:6 tells us the Genesis 6 angels gave up their Oketerion.  I believe that means they lost their Angelic bodies and become evil spirits/demons.  The only reason for assuming the ones imprisoned in the Abyss were imprisoned there before The Flood is the apocryphal First Enoch.  I now believe they were chained there by Jesus in Nisan of 30 AD, Paul tells us the Abyss was one of the places Jesus went, Romans 10:7 and Ephesians 4 7-10.  And more demons get added when we do proper Spiritual Warfare.

While I agree the account of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16 is a parable we shouldn't build doctrine on.  Ezekiel 32 clearly describes those dwelling in Sheol as having conciseness.  1 Peter 3:19-20 and 4:6 says Jesus preached the Gospel to the Spirits in Hades when he descended there between his Death and Resurrection (also implied in Philippians 2:9-11).  And Revelation 6 tells us when the 5th Seal is opened that the Souls of the Martyrs are under the Altar in Heaven and very aware.  Revelation 7 further described these Souls in Heaven pre-Resurrection, the Resurrection/Rapture doesn't happen till the 7th Trumpet is sounded.

Oh, and Samuel without a Body talked to Saul.

So the Doctrine of Soul Sleep isn't supportable.

Anihaliationism is refuted by that we see The Beast and False Prophet clearly described as still being in the Lake of Fire over 1000 years later.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

The Greek words for "Damnation".

Neither "Damnation" or any other word form of Damn appears in the King James translation of the Old Testament, but it does appear in the New Testament.

Mostly it's two word translated "Damnation" Krima(2917) and Krisis(2920).  Both are elsewhere in the KJV translated Judgment and Condemnation.

Krino(2919), another form of Krima is translated "Damned" in 2 Thessalonians 2:12, it is usually translated things like judge, condemn, decree ect.

The other two occurrences of "Damned" are Katakrino(2632), which means "to judge against" or "Sentence".

In 1 Peter 2:1&3, Apoleia(684) is translated Damnable and Damnation.  This word also gets translated Destruction and Perdition, like in the phrase "Son of Perdition" or "Goeth into Perdition" in Revelation about The Beast.

Is is only Apoleia that comes close to meaning what most Christians today casually mean by "Damnation".  But even then it could mean destruction in a mortal or physical sense and not necessarily an eternal sense.

The K words that all mainly mean judgment are the ones clearly used in direct connection to the concept of going to Gehenna or the Lake of Fire.

Apoleia is rare in the Gospels, used by Judas in Matthew 26:8 and Mark 14:4, a context that shows it can be used in a physical sense, the KJV renders it "waste" there.  And by Jesus only twice, in Matthew 7:13, the verse about the broad way and the narrow way.  And in John 17:12 where he calls Judas the Son of Perdition.

The form of the word use din Revelation is the form that end with an N.  Further backing up in my view that it's similarity to Apollyon is intentional.

So when you stumble upon this word reading The Bible.  Be aware that it might not mean what you assume it means.

Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Hades, Gehenna and the Lake of Fire

I want to start by stating that the typical casual understanding of the "Christian" Afterlife is not based on The Bible at all but on Zoroastrianism, which influenced Manicheans like Augustine.

That some preachers continue to play ignorant of how Revelation even in English clearly depicts Hell and the Lake of Fire as distinct really annoys me, but there is no helping them.

The worth discussing issue is of Hades and Gehenna.

A total of three Greek words are translated "Hell" in the KJV translation of the New Testament.  Tartaros is a word used only once in 2 Peter so not worth much of an in-depth discussion here.

Hades is the word that is clearly the synonym for the Hebrew Bible's Sheol (every OT usage of Hell is Sheol, but it also gets translated Grave and Pit which also have other Hebrew words).

It also the only of the three words used in Revelation.  Paul also used the word in 1 Corinthians 15:55 once where the KJV renders it Grave rather then Hell.

So on a practical level what Hades refers to is the least disputable.

Etymology wise it is the most justifiable one to translate Hell as the origin of Hell is the equivalent concept from Germanic/Norse languages and mythologies.  (Sheol, Hades and Hell were also used by the Pagans of their respective languages to refer to an Underworld abode of the Dead that has a god and/or goddess ruling over it that was sometimes called by that same name.)

But in terms of what your typical Preacher means by Hell in modern America, The Lake of Fire is clearly what they mean, and their understanding even of that concept is of disputable accuracy.

The third word is Gehenna.  Gehenna is never by the KJV at least translated anything other then Hell.  It is used 12 times, 11 of them are in the Synoptic Gospels and the only remaining one is in James Epistle.

I have for a long time and mainly still do view Gehenna as referring to the same thing as the Lake of Fire, but I'll get more into that later.

Many radical KJV onliers continue to insist Gehenna and Hades must be the same thing if the KJV used the same term for both.  Though frankly I suspect the Latin translations of The Bible are the origin of both being translated the same way, the Vulgate doesn't use the expected Latin equivalent of Hades (Pluto or Orcus) but rather Inferus, related to a word for fire.

Revelation 20 makes clear Hades is emptied and then thrown into the Lake of Fire before the New Heaven and New Earth are created and New Jerusalem descends.

The only passage using Gehenna that seem to be quoting or paraphrasing an Old Testament passage is Mark 9 43-48 which is drawing on Isaiah 66:24.  Isaiah 66 is still the same Prophecy as 65, which is clearly what Revelation 21 is drawing on, so this is contemporary with when the New Heaven and New Earth were just created.  So it can't be describing Hades (Also Sheol is not used in the verse) but could fit the Lake of Fire.

Now many who have no trouble with Gehenna and Hades referring to different things may still desire to see the Lake of Fire as distinct from either.  But the timing of Isaiah 66:24, as well the affiliation of Fire with Gehenna (at least one Gehenna passages also sues a Greek word for Fire, the verses in Matthew referring to the "Hell Fire"), as well as Gehenna being linked to the word "Damnation" all tell me Gehenna is probably the Lake of Fire.

Luke 16's parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is the only passage linking Torment or Fire to Hell where Hades rather then Gehenna is used.

Deuteronomy 32:22 is the only passage linking fire to Sheol.  KJV onliers will often call this the first reference to "Hell" in The Bible since Sheol's appearances in Genesis are all translated Grave in the KJV.  But this verse does not attribute this Fire to tormenting the currently dead but does possibly connect it to future Judgment.  The only difference between Sheol and NT Hades is Sheol might be a broader term that includes more of the depths of the Earth then just where the dead is/was.

Ezekiel 32 describes Sheol, it describes the Dead being there, seems to imply they are awake there and thus contradicting the Soul Sleep view.  But no references to torment or torture or burning.

So since Luke 16 is the only basis for Hades being a place of torture or burning torment with no second witness, you can't build doctrine on it.

The arguments against it being a Parable I find unconvincing.  The main one is an assumption that Parables don't name names.  But many view Job as a parable.

What is possible is that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man was Jesus using the Pharisees own belief rhetorically against them, and not exactly meant to tell us the true nature of the After Life.

Gehenna is also the name of a real location outside Jerusalem.  The place known in the Hebrew Scriptures as the valley of Hinnom, a place often linked to Child Sacrifice and burnt offerings to Molech.  I've also seen it claimed that in Jesus time it was basically a garbage dump.

Some think using that name for the place of Aionos punishment is merely a figurative or symbolic analogy.  Others see this clear earthly location being linked as an argument against it being the Lake of Fire.  I think it's possible where ever the Lake of Fire is cosmologically, it will at the White Throne Judgment be opened in the valley of Hinnom.

I think the possibility of Jeremiah 7:31-32 and 19:6 corresponding to Isaiah 66:24 would make a lot of sense.

Thursday, June 30, 2016

Gerrard Winstanley was a Universalist.

His The Mysterie of God is apparently the first English language book on Universalism.


His political views also interest me, I'll be writing more on him in the future.