Infant Baptism wasn't practiced by the Very Early Church.

The Didache is often considered the earliest Extra Biblical Writing.  Chapter 7 is its instructions for Baptism.

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”

And we also see a description of how Baptism works in Justin Martyr’s First Apology chapter 61.

“I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. Isaiah 1:16-20

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”

In both cases clearly only Baptism of Adults are being described.  If Infant Baptism already existed then some distinctions for how that would obviously work differently would need to be made.  But none of these instructions would need to be different for Adults raised in the Faith after reaching a certain age rather than Converts.

Pedo-Baptists try to infer Infant Baptism in various things said by Irenaeus or the Martyrdom of Polycarp or the Shepherd of Hermas but they are all things with other explanations.  

Largely they are tied to assumptions about what Water Baptism does metaphysically that most Credo-Baptists dispute connecting to Baptism in the first place, but I do think those errors actually came first and Infant Baptism is the symptom.  Treating every Biblical reference to Baptism as about Water Baptism when the most important are not about that.  And misunderstanding Colossians as saying Circumcision is replaced by Baptism when in fact Paul's point is that for both the physical ritual is merely a symbol.

The earliest provable unambiguous references to Infant Baptism are in the Third Century, Tertullian and Origen, then Cyprian was the first to really stress it as obligatory.  Origen and Cyprian supported it while Tertullian opposed it, but unfortunately he opposed it for the wrong reasons because he to accepted the false doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.

I agree that the Novatians were Credo-Baptists even though I disagree with them on their defining doctrine. But I don't think the Donatists were Credo-Baptists.

At least some of the Britons were still Credo-Baptists as late as the early 7th Century.

Age of Consent and Adulthood

If I identify with any specific branch of Christianity more then the others it's The Baptists (but with some Quaker characteristics), especially The General Baptists.  But one annoyance I have with a lot of modern Credo-Baptist sects is a refusal to state a clear absolute minimum age one can choose to be Baptized, with some even thinking Elementary School kids can be old enough.

Baptism should be viewed as in part a Commitment on par with Marriage.  So anyone you consider too young to get Married is also to young to be Baptized because I view Baptism as in-part becoming Betrothed to Christ.  But I think most Churches are permitting Marriage at too young an age as well. 

It's also about becoming an Emancipated Citizen of The Kingdom and so anyone you think is too young to Vote you should also consider too young for Baptism. 

I'm a true Paulian Christian, I don't believe we are under The Law in any rigid or legalistic sense.  But I am Hebrew Roots enough to still believe The Torah is useful, for things like this especially.  And I think a lot of early Christian traditions that don't seem directly mandated by The New Testament have their roots in applying Torah ideas though a New Testament filter.

Exodus 30:14, Leviticus 27:3, Numbers 26:2-4 and 1 Chronicles 27:23 tell us that about 20 is when The Torah considered someone legally an Adult Citizen of the Congregation.  Numbers 1:3 and 2 Chronicles 25:5 also say 20 is the minimum age you could serve in the Military.

However since I view New Testament water Baptism as evolving out of the Water Immersion ritual that was part of consecrating the Aaronic Priesthood (Exodus 29:4, 40:12 and Leviticus 8:6) applied to the Priesthood of All believers Doctrine that only Congregational Polity practicing Christians even pretend to take seriously.  Age milestones related to the Levites specifically may be worth looking at.

1 Chronicles 23:27 and Ezra 3:8 confirm the significance of 20, but that's not actually The Torah. In Numbers 8:24 the age of 25 is when Levites start the service of the Congregation, but in Numbers 4:3-47 the age of 30 is a the minimum.  Contextually the main difference between Numbers 4 and 8 is that chapter 4 is about one specific event and chapter 8 is laying out the more general rules for how Levites will function. There's quite a few things in Numbers 8 that can arguably make it more relevant to Baptism then Numbers 4.

One of the arguments against Infant Baptism being the original norm of the Church is the clear evidence that early Christian Tradition going back to at least the 2nd Century said 5 years of Catechism was necessary before Baptism  This tradition remained formally in-place after Infant Baptism was standardized but was applied only to adult converts.  But that combination makes no sense, why can Infants be Baptized right away but adults need to be prepared to know what they are committing to?

Now a lot of people in Acts seem to be Baptized right after they convert, but in Acts 2 and 8 we are dealing with people coming from an Israelite background, the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading Isaiah already, the stuff the 5 year Catechism was necessary for may be stuff they already knew.  

So I think 20 was originally the Minimum age to begin Catechism and then 25 when 5 years have passed for Baptism, and another five years before you can be considered an "Elder". I don't think NT use of Presbyter meant Elder or Senior in the old age sense but more closer in application to the Japanese honorific Sempai, I think Congregational polity denominations often cede to much ground to Presbyterians and Episcopalians on how to define those words.

It is of course possible the Catechism was only required for Adult Converts and those raised in the faith were expected to know all that when they reached the minimum age.  But I do think it'd be a mistake for parents to pressure their kids to hard to get Baptized as soon as they turn 20 or even 25, let them think about it for awhile if they want to.

Thirty as an ideal age for Baptism is a natural conclusion one could draw from Luke 3:21-23 seeming to say about Thirty was when Jesus was Baptized.

So 20 as the minimum age for even beginning to prepare for Baptism in my view should also be the minimum age of Consent for Sex and Marriage.  But I can even sympathize with raising that to 25 for Marriage based on the science about how the prefrontal context of the Brian' isn't fully formed till 25.

Rabbinic Judaism at some point developed the Bar Mitsvah tradition of considering adulthood to in some sense begin at 12 or 13 (the oldest reference to it is from the 2nd Century AD Mishna but specifically doing it as young as 13 isn't referenced till the 4th Century).  I don't know where this came from, there is nothing supporting it in The Torah or anywhere else in The Hebrew Bible.  Manasseh became king at 12, but he didn't turn out to be a very good King, maybe that had something to do with it?  Either way that happened because that was his age when his father died, no other reason. 

However a lot of Christians think 12 as some sort of milestone age is vindicated in The New Testament by Luke 2:40-42.  Nothing here says Jesus being 12 is the reason for anything.  The Torah required only adult males to attend the Pilgrimage Festivals but those men did often bring their families including wives and children.  Nothing in Luke 2 says Jesus wasn't there for prior observances of Passover, this is just a time when something notable happened.  And it's notable precisely because it's unusual for someone this young to be this intellectually skilled, think of this almost like a Detective Conan scene.  This is a story about how Jesus as the Son of God was not like other 12 year olds, it's not a model for anything.

[I've also been considering a theory on New Testament chronology that would have the Passover when Jesus was Twelve be the first one after the removal of Archelaus which makes sense as the first time Joseph would have brought his family with him given what the end of Matthew 2 says.  But that's a secondary theory and not necessary to explain it.]

Contrary to popular assumption NO it was not in Ancient or Medieval times common for people to get married with at least the woman being as young as 16 or even 12 in some claims.  While on the books marriages that young might have been technically allowed all the evidence shows that in practice the norm was usually at least 20.  The notable exceptions were usually among the Aristocratic or Royal Families making important marriage alliances and even they often weren't consummated right away.  But those exceptions are often what people write historical fiction about helping spread the confusion.

https://youtu.be/E6Ey6tAbUfg?t=530

[Update: And here's one citing sources on specifically Mary's Age at the Annunciation.]

There are no Biblical verses stating a clear ideal or minimum marriage age, but at least 3 notable people didn't get married till 40, Isaac, Esau and Moses (Jacob was Esau's twin and he got married even later). 

Joash becomes King at Seven years old after a crisis which has left things so the continuation of the House of David falls entirely on him.  Yet he still doesn't have his son Amasiah till 14 years later when he's about 21. This is based on the Biblical accounts of 2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 13, and statements made in 2 Kings 12:1, 2 Chronicles 24:1, 2 Kings 14:2 and 2 Chronicles 25:1. 

And no nothing in Scripture supports the "if she can bleed she can breed" meme people assume about pre-modern cultures.  

The one Bible verse some will cite for that is 1 Corinthians 7:36 but it does not explain what "flower of her age" means, the natural assumption to me is Puberty being over not when it starts, that "flowering' is a process not a singe event.   "Flower" isn't even a good translation of the Greek, the Greek text here is communicating the idea of being physically fully grown, which happens at about 20.  So I would consider 20 the age of consent for sex but still hold off on marriage till 25 or 30.  

Also regardless of age some people abuse "let him do what he will" from this chapter to defend martial rape. The context of this chapter is addressing believers questioning whether Sex and Marriage is right for them at all, Paul is giving people permission to enter consensual marriage, not disregarding the woman's consent.

However this scientific basis for the raising the Age of Consent is not an argument against Trans Healthcare for Minors.  Puberty Blockers are for those who DO NOT CONSENT to their assigned gender's puberty.  You can be to young to consent to something but not to young to refuse Consent.   Hormone treatment is reversable, not allowing Top or Bottom surgery till 20 or 25 I can be fine with, but Hormone treatment needs to be allowed as soon as child knows they want it. 

In both Numbers 4:3-47 and Numbers 8:25 the age of Fifty is when Levites retire.  And looking at a lot of contemporary issues not letting people over Fifty stay in Congress or on the Supreme Court sounds like a good idea.  Letting people between 50-60 remain in advisory positions with no direct powers could also work, Sixty as a milestone age comes from Leviticus 27:3-7.

Christmas and Hanukkah

The idea that Christmas is Pagan in origin is thoroughly debunked by people much better at that then I am, including YouTubers like ReligionForBreakfast and InspiringPhilosophy.  

The Pagan Holidays that were observed around the Winter Solstice in the BC Era were not Birthdays but if anything usually that pagan god's equivalent to Easter being when The Sun kinda dies and rises again.  Osiris and Horus had birthdays in September and Apollo's was in May.

And none including Sol Invictus were tied to December 25th specifically till 354 AD by which time Christmas being observed then was firmly established.  The Donatists also observing it on December 25th proves that association has Pre-Nicene Origins.

I'm not invested in trying to prove this time of year is in fact accurate.  I consider some of the arguments against it silly and weak, but The Bible didn't tell us exactly when Jesus was born (at least not directly) therefore it's not something we need to know.

What I do believe is that way more early Christian practices had their origins in evolving from continued Jewish practices filtered through certain New Testament concepts then most people realize.  I'll try to talk more about that in future posts next year.  For now though I do think there is logic to seeing Christmas and Hanukkah happening around the same time of year as not mere coincidence.

Jesus observed Hanukkah in John 10:22 so logic dictates early Christians who included that book in their Canon would have done the same.  I suspect the mysterious origins of Michaelmas similarly have their roots in Christian observances of one of the Tishri Holidays possibly via John 7.

Hanukkah is the only prior precedent for any Late Fall/Early Winter religious observance being on the 25th day of the month.  And if when translating customs from a Jewish Calendar to a Roman Calendar you decide to equate Nisan/Aviv with April the first full month of Spring and the month in which the Romans observed their own Barley Harvest festival the Cerealia.  That makes December the Ninth Month.

Maybe Christians celebrating Hanukkah in a Christian way didn't originally identify it with Jesus's Birthday but decided that should be the basis for the Holiday once it's Jewish Roots were partly forgotten?  And/Or maybe they felt there were good thematic/symbolic reasons to associate the Nativity Narratives with Hanukkah?

Hanukkah means Dedication referring to the rededication of The Temple after the Hasmonean Revolt succeeded.  In John 2:19-21 Jesus refers to His Body as "This Temple", so the Nativity events recorded in Luke 2 and Matthew 2 could be viewed as the Dedication of that Temple.  Herod could even be viewed as a new Antiochus Epiphanes in that context.

Christians would have also noticed that if Jesus was born on the first day of Hanukkah then his Circumcision would have been on the last day since it's an Eight Day Festival bringing us down to verse 21 of Luke 2.

Now we know from cross checking with Leviticus 12 that what Luke 2:22-39 records wouldn't have happened till 33 days later.  But since Luke doesn't directly state that timeframe the way he does the Circumcision timeframe, some early Christians could have felt justified in associating all of this with still being the Eight Day at least thematically.  Maybe someone at some point might have gotten what law Luke was referencing wrong and looked at Leviticus 15:29 instead?  It is notable that Candles became associated with the Mass commemorating this passage, which of course is no February 2nrd Candlemas.

Hanukkah is called The Festival of Lights and Jesus is called The Light of The World at many points in The Fourth Gospel (1:4-9, 3:19-21, 5:35-36, 8:12, 9:5, 11:9-10, 12:35-46) and the Epistle known as 1 John (1:5-7 and 2:8-10), and the Light-Bringer (Day Star in the KJV) in 2 Peter 1:19, and it's even in Simeon's Prophecy in Luke 2:32.  It's called the Festival of Lights because it's tied to The Menorah(Candlestick) which is mentioned or alluded to in The New Testament in Matthew 5:15, Mark 4:21, Luke 8:16, 11:33, Hebrews 9:2 and Revelation chapters 1, 2 and 11 where the last reference connects to Zechariah 4 which is itself often associated with Hanukkah along with Haggai 2:10-23 which becomes Christmas Eve in this model. 

In Leviticus 24 Frankincense (and possibly indirectly Myrrh) are linked to the Menorah and the Shewbread.  Leviticus 23 was all about Holy Days and then chapter 25 returns to Calendar related concerns, so Leviticus 24 naturally could have become thematically linked to Hanukkah.  And of course the Menorah and the Table of Shewbread were made of Gold.  

It's also important to remember that a lot of the specifics of how we think of Hanukkah today are post Diaspora developments (just as a lot of the finer details of the modern Passover Seder are), even the Miracle of the Oil story doesn't show up till the Talmud.  It seems like Second Temple Judaism's Hanukkah was largely just a sort of second Tabernacles, principally it was a time for feasting.  There were no Dreidels yet or giving a gift on each day, and maybe not even yet the custom of lighting one additional candle every day.

Same is true with Christmas of course, most of how we think about it today even as a religious Holy Day wasn't always there.  It's main function originally was as a Feast Day.

Looking at the history and details of Christmastide aka The Twelve Days of Christmas I notice that Epiphany is the only day after the Circumcision that has any special observance to it, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th days of January just have readings that don't even feel very Christmas related.  The oldest reference to Epiphany we have is post Nicaea in AD 361 by Ammianus Marcelinus and it doesn't clarify the exact day just saying it's at the start of January, almsot like it was another name for the Feast of the Circumcision.  Epiphany also gets associated with Jesus's Baptism in some early references, and I feel it's worth noting here that Gentile Christianity by this time was already developing the false doctrine that Baptism replaced Circumcision to justify their false practice of Infant Baptism.

Epiphanius of Salamis said that Epiphany is the same day as the Nativity, but he represents the more obscure to the west tradition of making Christmas January 6th.

Maybe Christmastide was expanded from 8 days to 12 specifically to obscure the Hanukkah connection during this Romanizing era?

Circumcision is Good Actually

Anti-Circumcision rhetoric can be found all over the political spectrum, but I shall in the secular part of this post mainly be thinking of Left Wing opposition to the practice since I am Left Wing and consider Conservatives and "Libertarians" people who's opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

The first problem to complicate the perception of Circumcision is how Female Genital Mutilation is often incorrectly called Female Circumcision.  FGM is both in terms of what it does and why it's done not in any way similar to Circumcision, it should be called Female Castration because that is far more parrel to what's actually being done.  

There is I suspect a direct connection to that barbaric practice being wrongly equated with Circumcision and the way many people decided to start describing Circumcision as "cutting part of your dick off".  The Forsaken is part of the dick in the same way hair is part of your head or fingernails part of your hand.  But the best comparison is actually the ambilocal cord, both serve a function while in the Womb but are obsolete as soon as the infant is born.

It angers me to see so many of the same people chanting "Believe the Science" when the Science seems to be contradicting something religious people believe in, will then ignore the endless scientific studies that have proven the health benefits of Infant Circumcision.  There are many health benefits to Circumcision in general but what's most directly relevant to Infant Circumcision is Urinary Tract Infection, Uncircumcised AMAB children have a significantly increased risk of developing UTI before they even turn 2 years old.  It is absurdly hypocritical how some of the same people who support mandatory vaccinations of children even when the parents are uncomfortable with it to also then turn around and try to ban allowing parents to circumcise their children.

The Science has shown that the benefits of Circumcision far outweigh the hypothetical risks. In addition to the UTI issues it also reduces risk of STDs and HPV and cervical cancer  Now I've seen people seek to respond to all these health arguments with a weird little slogan of "wash your dick", thinking it's that simple is clear evidence of having the privilege of being Cut your whole life.  

Science has also debunked the notion that Circumcision effects male sexual enjoyment one way or the other.

The only Anti-Circumcision claim that has any statistical validity at all is the claim that it has a negative psychological effect and even that is inconclusive.  But the thing is even if that is true that is Socially Constructed.  We live in a society that conditions people of every gender but especially Cis-Males to place much of their self worth in their sex organs, and then idiots start telling Circumcised people that they had part of their dick cut off when they were a baby.  Putting all that value on a piece of vestigial skin because it can technically be considered "part of the dick" is pure Toxic Masculinity.

There is also an obvious overlap between anti-Infant Circumcision arguments and the arguments of TERFs and other Transphobes, this idea that anything related to the natural state of a child's reproductive system is sacrosanct and shouldn't be allowed to be altered until they are unambiguously an adult.  Puberty Blockers weren't even originally created for Trans People but for the rare condition of young girls starting puberty way too early.  The foreskin being technically "natural" doesn't make it not harmful.

But the real bigotry behind Anti-Circumcision rhetoric is Anti-Semitism.  It fascinates me how many things are considered Anti-Semitic dog whistles online simply for being something also believed by some past Anti-Semites.  But all this demonizing of a ritual custom that has been foundational to Jewish cultural identity since the first book of The Bible is apparently fine.  But it's not just Jews, it's also part of the cultures of a number of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia and other places.

I still remember the first Anti-Circumcision webpage I ever stumbled upon.  I was reading it genuinely sympathetic to the author's concerns, but then they just casually inserted an unsourced claim that "Rabbis lick the blood off the circumcised Baby's penis" and my jaw just dropped, that's literally an allusion to the Blood Libel and they just dropped it in there and moved on like it was nothing.

But if you really want to see just how insanely conspiratorial Anti-Circumcision people can get, watch this video on the Silent Hill Wiki.

That's the secular arguments, now I shall get to specifically Christian attitudes towards Circumcision.

Everything Paul says that sounds Anti-Circumcision is in the context of his opposing those who want to make it mandatory for Adult Gentile Converts.  But those I call Reverse-Legalists abuse these passages to claim Circumcision and other Jewish Customs are outright sinful for Christians to engage in.  

Paul also talks about how the true Circumcision is spiritual, but he does the same with Baptism often in the same passages and no one argues that the physical Water Baptism ritual is abolished by those verses [correction there are sects like The Quakers that do basically argue that, but they're outliers].  

In Acts 16 Paul helps Timothy get Circumcised, so he was clearly not entirely agaisnt doing it even for adult gentile converts.  

First Century Christians were still a sect of Judaism, and Jewish Paulian Christians like the Nazarenes continued practicing it at least into the late Fourth Century.

As a Credo-Baptist I believe the false Doctrine that Baptism has replaced Circumcisions is partly to blame for the origin of Infant Baptism.

A Reforming Reformer

I was raised Catholic but have spent most, maybe technically all, of my adult life being a Protestant of some form.  I have never been as pathologically anti Catholic as many Protestants, especially ones who were formerly Catholics, but I did used to have conspiracy theory tendencies that have waned over the last couple of years.

I'd have to say I'm probably still a Protestant, on most of the core issues upon which the Reformation was based I still side with the Protestant position.  The very title of this Blog references a Pillar of the Reformation and I haven't changed my mind on that, it's only gotten stronger the more unconventional interpretations of Scripture I accept.  And in terms of Church hierarchy I'm to a Catholic or Orthodox POV worse then mainline Protestants, I'm even more Anarchical then the Independent Baptists and even more Democratic then the Presbyterians.  And I recently made a post on how I don't regard the Ecumenical Councils even if I do think some of them were right on some things.

However I no longer believe in accusing people of not being true Christians no matter how wrong I think their views are.  1 John 4:15, 1 Corinthians 12:3 and Romans 10:9 tell me all Christians are true Christians.

Sometimes when Protestants, Evangelicals, Baptists and Torah Observant Christians are arguing with each other they will use a view being like a doctrine Catholics have been associated with as an inherent argument against it.  Like when someone tries to explain a view on the After Life or the Coming Judgment that has even the vaguest similarity to Purgatory they'll get shouted down with "That's Purgatory, a Catholic doctrine".

And I've come to realize that is also a violation of Sola Sciprtura, saying "if the Catholics taught it, it must be wrong" is adding to Scripture just as much as blindly following their tradition does.

The Catholic Church also Believes Jesus is The Son of God, and The Word Made Flesh, and born of a Virgin, and was Crucified and died for our Sins and rose again on the third day, and contrary to what you may expect the Catholic Encyclopedia even stresses that the General Resurrection of The Dead is of the Flesh.  And they believe in The Trinity.  Heck most issues behind the 1054 Great Schism are ones mainline Protestants still take the Western Position on,  (as for me I understand the Orthodox issue with the Filioque but have to raise my eyebrow at saying it's "Jewish" to use unleavened bread in communion).

So when you start saying the Pope must be wrong on everything you're opening a pretty awkward can of worms.

The problem with the Medieval Purgatory doctrine was how it was a form of Spiritual Extortion, the Church getting Peasants to pay them money to do special masses to shorten their loved ones time there.  Obviously I'm not arguing anything like that is valid.  And even what the modern Catholic Church teaches on the issue isn't really the same as anything I believe.  However there are Bible verses they cite in support of the doctrine that are also verses I have cited in support of my ideas throughout the history of this blog.  It's the simplistic idea that "good people go to heaven and bad people go to hell" that comes from Plato and Zoroastrianism not The Bible.

I still mostly hold a Baptist position on Baptism.  However contrary to popular assumption the Catholic Church does not officially definitively state that all babies who die unbaptized go to Hell.  Support for the idea of doing something like an Infant Baptism comes from the comparison of it to Circumcision in Collisions 2:11-12, and Acts 2:38-39 implying a link between Baptism and vowing to raise your children to be Believers, and undetailed references to entire households being Baptized.

The thing is, there are two Water Baptisms in the New Testament.  There is the Baptism of John that was for Repentance, and then the Baptism Apollos still hadn't had when he joined The Church at Ephesus.  For someone raised a Christian the Baptism of Repentance is what happens second, that is only for adults.  If you join the Church as an adult normally one Baptism covers both.  But people who came out of John's movement were in a unique position.

I've noticed that Protestantism is more susceptible to Nationalism, a product of seeing Spiritual Allegiance to someone who's technically a foreign head of state as potentially treasonous.  In Italy it's different since The Pope isn't so far away, yet in the 19th Century the Popes still opposed Italian Unification.  The history of Religion in Nazi Germany is complicated but generally the Lutherans were more willing to work with Hitler then the Catholics.  And it's mostly among Protestants you'll find people who try to make whatever tribe they were born into a Lost Tribe of Israel.  Catholics are a lot less susceptible to forgetting that The Gospel is not Ethno-Centric.

I agree with the Catholic view that The Church is the real Nation we should be loyal to.  But I disagree that that means we need a highly organized Church institution. The Holy Spirit and The Bible should be the source of our Unity not a man made hierarchy.

But what about my Soterology?  Am I still Sola Fide?  Well I now believe in Universal Salvation, and there are supporters of some form of that Soterology among Protestants and Evangelicals and Catholics and the Orthodox and Nestorians.  No major denomination is willing to label Gregory of Nyssa a heretic, so there is room for the True Gospel everywhere.

The Baptism of Fire

I'm going to start by quoting Luke 3:16-17 but the parallel in Matthew is chapter 3 verses 10 and 11.  In Mark it's 1:8 but that's a shortened version that leaves out the fire, likewise John 1:33, Acts 1:5 and 11:16.

John answered, saying unto them all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable."

I think a lot of what leads people to weird doctrines about Baptism being required for Salvation or for being truly part of The Bride is people forgetting that Water Baptism isn't the only Baptism.  The Church has long viewed the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as being what happened at Pentecost in Acts 2, when The Holy Spirit descended and gave everyone Tongs of Fire.  Therefore it's illogical to turn around and think the use of the word Baptized in that chapter can refer to water Baptism.

None of the verses that can be twisted to make it sound like maybe Baptism is necessary for Salvation can be proven to refer to Water Baptism, including Mark 16.

The post Pentecost Church kept practicing a Water Baptism like John's as a symbolic act, but that was never the true Baptism.

In Romans 6 Paul teaches that we are made Dead to Sin at Baptism because in Baptism we are in Jesus Death.  That this teaching can only be about the Baptism of Fire will become apparent from the full testimony of Scripture.

The word Baptism comes from a Greek word that means "to wash" or to immerse.  So the idea of Baptizing with Fire does seem weird.  You wash or immerse in a body of water like a river or a pool or a lake....lake.... If you cast someone into a Lake you are immersing or washing them in that lake... hmmmm.

The first time "Unquenchable Fire" is referenced in the New Testament it's John elaborating on the Baptism of The Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:16-17.

Revelation 14:10 describes the Lake of Fire as being in God's presence.  The fire and brimstone that burns the damned emanates from God's presence in Isaiah 30:27-33 and II Thessalonians 1:8-9.  God Himself is called a consuming fire in Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29.  Deuteronomy 32:22-24 and Ezekiel 20:47 also defined the fire of judgment as coming from God.  In Malachi 3 Yahuah says he will purify the sons of Levi with fire and purge them as gold and silver.  1 Corinthians 3:13-15 also refers to people being Saved even though their works were devoured by the fire.  Isaiah 30:33 says the Breath of God is like Brimstone/Sulfur, and the Hebrew word for "Breath" there is also a word for "Spirit".  And I think verses using the mysterious word Resheph are also relevant to this theme.

In Mark 9:49-50 Jesus says that Everyone will be salted with fire.

In Peter's first epistle in chapter 3 he compares the Flood of Noah to Baptism.  And then in chapter 3 of his second Epistle he compares the Flood of Noah to the coming consuming of the Earth by fire.

The most common view of the Second Death held by proponents of Universal Salvation is to call it the Death of Death, which works when you just quote Revelation 20:14 and back it up with 1 Corinthians 15:26 & 54-55, but that is neither the first or last usage of the term Second Death.  Revelation 21:8 defines it as being cast into the Lake of Fire, and 2:11 and 20:6 are clear it's something at least some of the not risen till after the Millennium will experience.

The Second Death is becoming Dead to Sin and the Law as Paul teaches in Romans 6-7, it's the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  It will be more pleasant to experience it now rather then later, but in neither case will it destroy the Image of God or be an indefinite punishment, God's punishments are for correction according to Hanukah 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11.

I've expressed this view on the Second Death once already but this is more in-depth.  I'm not sure to what extend this might require me to refine my view on The Second Resurrection.

When you choose to take a bath or a shower it can be a very pleasant and satisfying experience.  But when a child doesn't want to take a bath and chooses to stay dirty and the parent has to force them into it, that tends to be unpleasant for all parties involved, but it's something the parent does out of love for their child.

The two verses where John The Baptist refers to the Baptism of Fire are also adjacent to discussion of separating the Wheat from The Chaff.  Chaff you need to understand is not a separate plant., it's the part of the Wheat that is not eatable.  The Chaff represents Sin not Sinners.

1 Corinthians 15:26 clearly says the Last Enemy destroyed is Death.  Therefore in Revelation 20 nothing that happens after Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire can be defined as enemies being destroyed.  And even before then the Enemies are "destroyed" by being made not enemies anymore.

Update November 2024: In this post I study the Greek word translated Lake.

https://materialisteschatology.blogspot.com/2024/11/limne-refers-to-body-of-water.html

Pelagius was in error but it wasn't Free Will.

I've already shown that Free Will was taught by the Church before Pelagius.  And then contemporary with Pelagius, and not likely to have been influenced by him was Gregory of Nyssa who also taught Free Will.  And also Theodore of Mopseustia wrote against Augustine's understanding of Original Sin.

Calvanists love to use the condemnations Pelagius received from Councils against the doctrine of Free Will, and indeed Theodore was also condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (the Justinian Council as I call it) because of his association with Nestorianism.  But the seventh and last Ecumenical Council called Gregory the Father of Fathers and a Champion of the Faith.

I feel my fellow Protestant supporters of Free Will are a little too quick to seek to exonerate Pelagius.  Proving it existed before him is sufficient.  I in the past had been reluctant to say much one way or the other on Pelagius himself, but I've now done more research.

It is true that the views of Pelagius were often misrepresented by his critics.  Here is a quote from a letter he wrote to Augustine explicitly denying certain beliefs attributed to him.

Letters of Pelagius

“That Adam was created mortal, and that he would have died whether he had sinned or not sinned. That Adam’s sin
injured only himself, and not the human race. That the law, no less than the gospel, leads us to the kingdom. That
new-born infants are in the same condition that Adam was before he fell. That, on the one hand, the entire human
race does not die owing to Adam’s death and transgression; nor, on the other hand, does the whole human race rise
again through the resurrection of Christ. That infants, even if they die unbaptized, have eternal life. That rich men,
even if they are baptized, unless they renounce and give up all, have, whatever good they may seem to have done,
nothing of it reckoned to them; neither shall they possess the kingdom of heaven.”

“All these statements have not been made by me, even on their own testimony, nor do I hold myself responsible for
them.”

The first Red Flag that Protestants should be weary of him is that he's clearly saying he does believe in Infant Baptism.  A subject which comes up again in his letter to Pope Innocent.

"[I have been] defamed by certain persons for [supposedly] refusing the sacrament of baptism to infants, and
promising the kingdom of heaven irrespective of Christ's redemption.  [I have] never heard even an impious heretic
say this about infants.  Who indeed is so unacquainted with Gospel lessons, as not only to attempt to make such an
affirmation, but even to be able to lightly say it or even let it enter his thought? And then who is so impious as to wish
to exclude infants from the kingdom of heaven, by forbidding them to be baptized and to be born again in Christ?"

Now he's not necessarily saying he thinks Unbaptized Babies who die in infancy burn in Hell for Eternity, which Augustine certainly believed.  Just that they can't enter the Kingdom, which I in both my former and current Soterology distinguish from Salvation.  I don't think Water Baptism is necessary to enter The Kingdom, but I suspect the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is.

These quotes show how widespread Infant Baptism already was during an era when Council affirming Protestants want to think Catholic error hadn't really taken off yet.

YouTuber Ryan Reeves in his videos on Augustine wants to emphasize strongly the things he taught that are similar to Calvin and Luther and modern mainline Protestants, ignoring his teachings on Infant Baptism and The Virgin Mary.  And he totally misrepresents City of God ignoring it's Amillennial Statist bent.

Gregory of Nyssa's teaching on Baptism has been interpreted as opposing Infant Baptism, but I'm unsure, even Gregory wasn't perfect.

We don't have Pleagius On Nature in full, just quotations of it, so maybe this was misrepresented, but if it's Authentic it's a pretty major issue.  It's quote number 42 on this web page.

[In regards to the passage which states ‘By one man sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned. As by the offence of one, upon all men [came a bringing] to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One, upon all men [came a bringing] unto justification of life (Rom. 10:3-4).’ I teach that] there can be no doubt that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism [thus there can be no doubt that not all men are sinners, but only those who are willing to disobey him.]"

For some reason, what I Copy/Pasted says Romans 10 when this quote of Paul is actually from Romans 5, verses 15-18.

Now I will say that Pelagius in a way is closer to being right on this passage then Protestants (especially Calvinists) who believe in Eternal Damnation.  He at least recognizes that you can't interpret the amount of people the word "all" refers to differently for Christ then you do for Adam, and you certainly can't make it a smaller number when it refers to Jesus.

I however strongly believe that yes ultimately all are Made Righteous by Christ, in agreement with Gregory of Nyssa.

Some might argue verse 19 supports Pelagius interpretation, as there we see many and not all.  But that verse also stresses that it is the Obedience of Jesus that matters.

I can maybe sympathize with Pelagius when he's just arguing against Augustine's pessimism towards the ability of Believers to live exemplary lives.  But the above quote does show that he's trying to wiggle around the clear teaching of "all have sinned and fallen short" so that he can propose a works based Salvation.

Defenders of Pelagius love to appeal to the Synod of Diospolis.  I agree it was unfair of Councils he wasn't able to defend himself at to Condemn him.  But we can read much of what transpired at the Synod of Diospolis.  And to some extent his exoneration here was a result of his being very slick.

First however, on the subject of Free Will itself.

Synod: Let another section be read.  [It was then read from his book that] ‘all men are ruled by their own will.’

Pelagius: This I stated in the interest of free will. God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when
sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.

Synod: Nor again is this opposed to the doctrine of the Church.

Wasn't even much of a dispute, this one was probably only an accusation because Augustine insisted on it.

The problems emerge in what is said next.

Synod: [Pelagius has written in his book that] ‘In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and
the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.’  [To this Synod this statement seems to be worded in such a
way as to imply that all sinners whatever were to be punished with an eternal punishment, without excepting even
those who hold Christ as their foundation, although ‘they build thereupon wood, hay, stubble,’ concerning whom the
apostle writes: ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but he shall himself be saved, yet so as by fire.’]

Pelagius: I made this assertion in accordance with the Gospel, in which it is written concerning sinners, ‘These shall
go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.’  [He] who believes differently is an Origenist.

Synod: [What you are saying then is] not opposed to the Church.

What's in [] here seems like it's added commentary from this website, which annoys me that they mislead me into thinking the Synod used that verse of 1 Corinthians 3.

Pelagius did not even really address the Synod's concern, or try to figure out what their concern was, and I suspect they backed down only because of his using Origenist as a slur.  Already people were using the other things Origen was wrong on to smear all Universalsim by affiliation.  The Synod should have responded by mentioning men like Gregory of Nyssa.

Pelagius was from the West, and so a Latin translation of Matthew 25 was probably the basis of how he understood it.

Basically the Synod should have grilled him harder on what his Soterology actually was.  There was no attempt to make sure he understood that Salvation is not by Works.  Instead they just allowed him to say his teaching had some basis in some Scripture.

Also what I quoted above from On Nature was not brought up in this Council or in the Statement of Faith he sent to the Pope to gain his approval.

The Council of Orange ultimately Condemned Augustine's Doctrine as much as it did Pelagianism.

It defined that faith, though a free act, resulted even in its beginnings from the grace of God, enlightening the human mind and enabling belief.^[4][5][6] However, it also explicitly denied double predestination (of the equal-ultimacy variety), stating, "We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema."

Still even that Council made rulings I disagree with.  I only bring them up because Calvanists keep acting like these Councils affirm Calvanism.

The Pelagius-Augustine conflict perfectly anticipates the modern Arminian-Calvanism dispute in that both begin with a false belief that some people won't be saved.

Baptism and the Mikveh

One of the trends of the Hebrew Roots movement is to suggest a connection between New Testament Baptism and the Jewish Mikveh custom.  Thing is, even though I'm someone who wants to explain the New Testament via the Hebrew Bible and Hebrew culture as much as possible, I've been skeptical of this one.

For one, the Mikveh as it's traditionally thought of now is not very supported by the Hebrew Bible, it's mostly a Greco-Roman/Second Temple era development.  There is certainly no verse that uses the word Mikveh in a way that it would make sense to translate it Baptism or Baptize.  There are two Hebrew words sometimes translated wash, washed or bathe in verses cited as being Mikveh relevant.  Of those rachats is the one that I think would be used if the Hebrew Bible described something like Baptism, since it's meaning implies immersion, the other one to consider is kabac but that word is usually about washing cloths.

Secondly, the Mikveh as it had become by New Testament times was done in in-door or at least man made pools of water.  Baptism as presented in the New Testament is done in running water, in rivers.  Now one could say it fits the New Testament theme of rejecting institutionalized religion to move the Mikveh to an outdoor natural water source.  But that would need other evidence.

The Torah/TNAK basis for the Mikveh are all pretty much verses about ritual cleansing.  Which kind of does come up in the New Testament as a separate issue from Baptism, like when Jesus (seemingly) didn't wash his hands in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7.  

Of course another famous New Testament custom connected to this Hebrew word is Foot Washing, Torah references to Foot Washing also use rachats.

It seems the Mishna says the ritual cleansing related to the Red Heifer in Numbers 19 required running water and can't be done in a Mikveh.  But The Torah itself gives no such indication that it has stricter rules.

But even in Rabbinic and Modern Jewish sources, there are no references to Mikvehs being about Repentance as John's Baptism was.

There are two cited uses of the Mikveh that sound to Christians like they make it an attractive analogy for Baptism.  But neither of them have a basis in The Torah or any other part of the Hebrew Bible.

One is it being done as part of a gentile proselyte converting to Judaism.  That seems like what the Baptisms in Acts were all about.  But The Hebrew Bible doesn't call for it, rather the only ritual associated with an outsider becoming an Israelite is Circumcision.  Which of course brings us to the theory about Baptism the Hebrew Roots people hate, that it's meant to replace Circumcision.  Now I'm not convinced of that theory either, but I do believe Christians don't have to be Circumcised.

The other is a claim that it's done by a Bride some time between Espousal and the Wedding.  I could do a whole post on why I'm annoyed at Christians building doctrine on Extra-Biblical Jewish Wedding Customs.  But in this case, not only is this not Biblical but Wikipedia is unaware of it being one of the uses of the Mikveh at all, so this might be something some Christians just imagined.

Michael Rood likes to make it sound like the Israelites were "Mikvehed" in Exodus 19, during the preparation for the giving of The Law.  But actually only their cloths are refereed to as being washed there.

What I have noticed on my own while looking into this issue is that a ritual washing was part of consecrating Aaron and his sons as Priests in Exodus 29:4 and 40:12, and also Leviticus 8:6.  And that makes me think of the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.  And all the other aspects of this consecration ceremony revolved around the Sacrifice which isn't needed anymore.

And this seems to be the only rachats ritual to involve the person in question being "washed" by someone else rather then washing themselves.  Leviticus clarifies Moses did it originally but going forward it's probably implied new Priests are initiated by people already Priests.  So Jesus is Baptized partly because He's our High Priest, and then we are Baptized because of the Priesthood of All Believers.

Baptists are often hostile to these kinds of Hebrew Roots style explanations for New Testament ideas, but in this case it actually does help their position.  The more mainstream view that Baptism simply replaces Circumcision is a core part of the argument for Pedobaptism.  But if it's instead about initiation into the Priesthood of all Believers then that naturally supports Believers Baptism (even Aaron's Sons had already been adults for awhile in Exodus 29, Aaron was older then Moses making him over 80 at the Exodus so it's highly unlikely his kids weren't at least 30).  The Priesthood of all Believers is also foundational to Congregational Polity another core doctrine of the Baptist movement, so connecting it to Baptism is like Poetry it Rhymes.

Speaking of being 30, in Numbers 4 the age of 30 seems to be presented as when Levites began their service in the Tabernacle, 1 Chronicles 23:3 reaffirms that.  And low and behold Jesus came to John to be Baptized when he was about 30 years old.  Perhaps this is why Luke considered John's Kohen Heritage important to emphasize, for both his mother and father.

Whether or not there is some connection between the Mikveh and Baptism.  People like Michael Rood using the word Mikveh as a "translation" of Baptism when they refer to the New Testament doctrine I find very misleading, and doing that when quoting the New Testament is just plain wrong.

The Septuagint should not be trusted

We have lots of normal Christians using the Septuagint to make apologetic points.  We have people using the Septuagint rendering to support their particular interpretations of certain verses.  And we have some Christians (who clearly aren't KJV only) saying Christians should reject the Masoretic Text, that it was altered by "the Jews" after the NT was written to contradict Christianity.  Saying the Septuagint was what the New Testament authors and other early Christians used.

Claims are made that the DSS manuscripts often agree with the Septuagint over the Masoretic text.  This is highly misleading and mostly based on nothing more then that the DSS contains some of the Apocryphal books that were included in the Septuagint.  Which includes stuff written to be added to Daniel and Esther.  The Isaiah Scroll certainly matches the Masoretic text far more then the Septuagint.

I defend Almah meaning Virgin without appealing to the Septuagint at all.  In fact using the Septuagint to prove that is undermined by the fact that the Septuagint also used Parthenos of Dinah after she is raped in Genesis 34.  The Hebrew uses neither Almah or Bethulah in that chapter.

I'm going to quote from a Jewish website incorrectly asserting that Almah doesn't mean Virgin because of some important facts it points out about the Septuagint.

The original Septuagint, translated some 2,200 years ago by 72 Jewish scholars, was a Greek translation of the Five Books of Moses alone, and is no longer in our hands. It therefore did not contain the Books of the Prophets or Writings of the Hebrew Bible such as Isaiah, from which you asserted Matthew quoted. The Septuagint as we have it today, which includes the Prophets and Writings as well, is a product of the Church, not the Jewish people. In fact, the Septuagint remains the official Old Testament of the Greek Orthodox Church, and the manuscripts that consist of our Septuagint today date to the third century C.E. The fact that additional books known as the Apocrypha, which are uniquely sacred to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, are found in the Septuagint should raise a red flag to those inquiring into the Jewishness of the Septuagint.

Christians such as Origin and Lucian (third and fourth century C.E.) edited and shaped the Septuagint that missionaries use to advance their untenable arguments against Judaism. In essence, the present Septuagint is largely a post-second century Christian translation of the Bible, used zealously by the Church throughout its history as an indispensable apologetic instrument to defend and sustain Christological alterations of the Jewish Scriptures.

For example, in his preface to the Book of Chronicles, the Church father Jerome, who was the primary translator of the Vulgate, concedes that in his day there were at least three variant Greek translations of the Bible: the edition of the third century Christian theologian Origen, as well as the Egyptian recension of Hesychius and the Syrian recension of Lucian.1 In essence, there were numerous Greek renditions of the Jewish Scriptures which were revised and edited by Christian hands. All Septuagints in our hands are derived from the revisions of Hesychius, as well as the Christian theologians Origen and Lucian

Accordingly, the Jewish people never use the Septuagint in their worship or religious studies because it is recognized as a corrupt text.

The ancient Letter of Aristeas, which is the earliest attestation to the existence of the Septuagint, confirms that the original Septuagint translated by rabbis more than 22 centuries ago was of the Pentateuch alone, and not the Books of the Prophets such as Isaiah. The Talmud also states this explicitly in Tractate Megillah (9a), and Josephus as well affirms that the Septuagint was a translation only of the Law of Moses in his preface to Antiquities of the Jews.2

Therefore, St. Jerome, a Church father and Bible translator who could hardly be construed as friendly to Judaism, affirms Josephus’ statement regarding the authorship of theSeptuagint in his preface to The Book of Hebrew Questions.3 Likewise, the Anchor Bible Dictionary reports precisely this point in the opening sentence of its article on the Septuagint which states, “The word ‘Septuagint,’ (from Lat. septuaginta = 70; hence the abbreviation LXX) derives from a story that 72 elders translated the Pentateuch into Greek; the term therefore applied originally only to those five books.”4

In fact, Dr. F.F. Bruce, a preeminent professor of Biblical exegesis, keenly points out that, strictly speaking, the Septuagint deals only with the Pentateuch and not the whole Old Testament. Bruce writes,

The Jews might have gone on at a later time to authorize a standard text of the rest of the Septuagint, but . . . lost interest in the Septuagint altogether. With but few exceptions, every manuscript of the Septuagint which has come down to our day was copied and preserved in Christian, not Jewish, circles.5

I btw believe Matthew was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic so certainly not quoting The Septuagint.

There are also quotes of the Septuagint version of the Torah in the Talmud that do not match the standard Septuagint texts we have today.

At any-rate it is wrong to claim that the Masoretic Hebrew text was written by the Rabbis, in fact they are Kariate texts, Kariate websites love to point out that the Hebrew Texts the Rabbis use today are based on Kariate preserved manuscripts.  Kariates can at times be just as hostile to Christianity as the Rabbis, but they are the Sola Sciprtura believers of the Jewish world, they revere The Word and would have preserved it accurately.  When it comes to respect for Scripture I certainly trust them more then the Eastern Orthodox Churches, or the Alexandrian Early Church Fathers.

The Holy Spirit sometimes works through unbelieving individuals, like Balaam.  So I have no trouble believing He used the Kariates to preserve the proper Hebrew TNAK.

There is no manuscript evidence of Caiman in Genesis 10 or 11 till after 220 AD and there are old LXX manuscript that explicitly lack this Cainan including Codex Vaticanus and Papyrus 75, and the standard Septuagint doesn't have him in 1 Chronicles.  Cainan's numbers are exactly the same as Selah's, no where else does the LXX version of Genesis 11 repeats the same numbers like that. That's further evidence Cainan was added later. 

Likewise Josephus and many Early Church Fathers who seem to be using the Septuagint as their source for this genealogy don't include the added Cainan either. He's also not in the Samaritan even though it mostly uses the same numbers as the LXX..

This shows me that Cainan was added by Christian copyists who thought it's absence from Genesis 11 was a problem for Luke 3.  But I believe the issue is that Luke's is a genealogy that is willing to sometimes go through Women, but always naming the male of that generation.  I think Cainan was an older brother (or brother in-law) of Selah and that Selah married Cainan's daughter. Uncle-Niece marriages are not prohibited in The Torah which came later anyway. 

Even though some will say Jubilees chapter 8 is included in the DSS manuscripts of Jubilees, I have found no list of every DSS manuscript of Jubilees that includes chapter fragments of chapter 8. Odd details of the Jubilees chronology like Peleg begetting a son at 12 could be a product of trying to add Cainan while keeping the totally passage of time changed due to the whole Jubilees premise.  But it's also possible Cainain was always there but how he related to Salah/Shelah was changed, reading Jubilees 8 carefully the idea that Salah was originally another son of Aprhaxad by a second wife is a plausible reading, it would fit the patter of many parts of 1 Chronicles 2-7. And Salah does marry the daughter of a Son of Arphaxad, it's possibly that was originally Cainan rather then Kesed.

Demetrius the Chronographer is someone whose writing we don't have directly, the claim that he's a witness to Caiman being included is therefor dubious. In fact he is considered one of the sources Josephus uses so the lack of the second Cainan in Josephus is evidence he wasn't originally in Demetrius either. And our quotes of Demetrius don't Cainan by name, just the fact that he appears to give the same total timeframe from the Flood to Abraham as the versions of the LXX that include Cainan. It could be there was some other difference in his version which coincidentally the same total, it could simple matter of one name having an extra 100 years and another an extra 30 years, discrepancies like those are not unpremeditated in the known textual variations. It could be that total simply seen a symbolic number one would want to give that timeframe. 

People will also cite examples of Abraham being called the 10th generation after the Flood as witnesses to Cainan's inclusion. Abraham is the 10th Generation in both the Masoretic and Samaritan versions of the Genesis 11 genealogy because it starts with Shem not Noah or Arphaxad. Shem may have been born before the Flood but he still lived most of his life after it unlike Noah. When a generation is identified with the Flood it's Noah not Shem. Shem counts as a Post-Flood Generation. Genesis 6:9 says "these are the Generations of Noah" as it's chapter heading for the Flood narrative and then in Genesis 10 "these are the generations of the Sons of Noah" when it becomes truly talking about post Flood history. I believe this "generations of" phrase in Genesis are an example of the grammatical plural form being an emphasis not literal plurality like "Adam" being technically plural in Genesis 1, I would translate the phrase "This is the Generation of".  If you compare Shem's lifespan to modern life expectancies, how old he was during the Flood basically makes him an adolescent, as a Millennial who was an Adolescent when 9/11 happened I cna assure you we think of ourself as a Post-9/11 Generation. 

The main reason the New Testament often seems to match the Septuagint is because Christian copyists conformed the Septuagint to match the New Testament references.  

As for why they may seem to not match the Hebrew, I think many NT quotations of the OT were not meant to be exact word for word quotes.  If Deuteronomy can express The Ten Commandments differently then Exodus then I certainly have no problem with Jesus expressing things a bit differently during his ministry.  Jesus own quotes were expressed differently at different times He said them (and thus recorded differently in different Gospels).

And these people making a big deal out of where the Septuagint seems to match the NT ignore places where it doesn't.  

Like the spelling used for Solomon, Solomon is the spelling Luke used, no NT spelling puts an Alpha in there.  But the Septuagint spells it Salomon.  Not only does the NT disagree with the LXX but it explicitly agrees with the Masoretic, the Masoretic vowel indicators tell us Solomon's vowels are all Os, there are other names in The Hebrew Bible that are basically the same consonants but with an A between the S and L, they refer to different people and one is also in the genealogy of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke.

Also the Septuagint never uses the same word for Comforter that the Fourth Gospel and it's corresponding Epistles used.

The Septuagint "translates" Tarshish as Carthage, which is clearly wrong, Carthage didn't exist yet in Solomon's day and was a Canaanite/Sidonian colony in Phut's territory, not Japhethite.

Also I couldn't even find in the Septuagint the Elam Prophecy of Jeremiah 49.

Also the Septuagint numbers for Genesis 5 fail to match the meaning of Methuselah's name (his Death shall Bring) by having him die the same year as The Flood like other versions do.

The standard texts we have of the Septuagint are in the exact same Manuscripts as the Alexandrian Bibles used by modern Scholars to justify all kinds of mutilations to the New Testament.

Update November 2018: And further arguments against the Septuagint are my arguments against the Deutercanonical Books, since the LXX adds those to the Canon.  Particularly the section I just added proving the Earliest Christians didn't view them as Canon.

Update May 20th 2019: Here is a more recent Article on the Subject at least in regards to Genesis 5 and 11.
 https://creation.com/lxx-mt-response

I have become more willing to accept alternate reading to the Masroetic then I used to be.  But there has to be an existing Hebrew text for that reading, or at least Semitic. I'll never support a change based on the Septuagint alone.

Update March 2023: Stephen's Speech is the exception, because the groups he disputed included Alexandrians he used The Text they prefer. Stephen is important as The First Martyr but he was not an Apostle so it's be iffy to build doctrine any details unique to Stephen. 

Update October 2023: Further conflict between the New Testament and the Septuagint is the use of the Greek word Baptizos/Baptismos.  Mark 7:4-8, Luke 11:38 and Hebrews 9:10 confirm that these words should also be associated with cleansing rituals involving water in The Torah, that they should be used to translate the Hebrew word Rachats and maybe also Kabac, but in fact the LXX of the Pentateuch doesn't use Baptize or Baptismos at all.  The related Bapto is used to translate Tabal in verses associated with Dipping things in Blood which isn't wrong the NT also used Bapto that way.  But the New Testament authors clearly saw Baptismos in Torah passages like Exodus 29:4, 30:18-21 and Leviticus 15

Update December 10th 2024: I recently watched this Video and learned I gave the pro LXX position more credit then it ever deserved. Now for a disclaimer this speaker expressed early on a couple Conservative Political opinions I disagree with, but that's not the main point of the presentation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1mi_RcSLQ8&t

The most important revelation is that "as it is written" is an expression never meant to inherently refer to a direct Word for Word quotation.

Update January 16th 2025: Here's another lecture, again with allusions to Politics I disagree with mainly in the adds for other lectures.

https://youtu.be/fB5izBva3Xc

Update April 2026: I have a few more things to add.

I'm sick of the debate about exactly when the 430 years of Exodus 12:40-41 should begin being framed as a Septuagint vs Masoretic issue. Every version of each verse mentioning this timeframe leaves room for interpretation.

The textual different between the Masoretic and LXX versions of those verses is only adding an "and the land of Chanaan".

Nothing in what Paul says in Galatians 3:16-17 is him quoting the Septuagint version, he makes no mention of "the land of Chanaan".

People going off only the Masoretic of KJV reading like Bishop James Ussher started the 430 years with Abraham in Genesis 12 because Abraham also traveled to Egypt then. 

But what everyone thinking Galatians is definitely starting it then are missing is that Galatians 3:16 refers to the multiple times God gave his promises to the Patriarchs. 

The point Paul is making in context is not an exact chronology but the fact that the Law of Moses is much younger then the promises to the Patriarchs. So I feel he is saying at least 430 years from the last time God made any Promise to any Genesis Patriarch (which I could argue is what Joseph says Prophetically right before dying in Genesis 50:24-25) till The Exodus.  So it's really ironic how many people now want to use these verses to shorten the timeframe between Abraham and Moses. 

While I believe this additional part of the verse in the LXX is an addition, perhaps originally marginal note that got confused with the text itself I don't think it was added for the purpose of starting the 430 years with Abraham.  It might have been because they knew about 1 Chronicles 7:24.  

So even if the LXX reading were the original, I would still not see it as starting the 430 years with Abraham. Egypt did no doubt control the land of Canaan at many points during this 430 years no matter when on the Biblical timeline you start it.  I think it's an oversimplification to assume no Israelites ever spent any time in the land of Canaan between the Death of Joseph and The Exodus. The Egyptians had copper Mines in Southern Canaan they no doubt used their slaves in for example.

Genesis 15:13 is the death nail for the shorter interpretation. The 400 years is being referred to as even it's start still well in the future, and as being entirely a time of affliction, in both the Masoretic and LXX versions. Stephen in Acts 7:6 says the same, if anything this might be the one time Stephen is closer to the Masoretic then the LXX in exact language. 

There are reasons I'd like to be able to start the 430 years with Abraham, but someone will have to offer an explanation of Genesis 15:13. 

Returning to the point of much of the LXX being more Targum like in intent and the NT likewise often paraphrasing and not making exact quotes.  Some similarities between what the NT and LXX does here can easily be a coincidence. 

Like James in Acts 12 quoting Amos 9:12 but saying Mankind instead of Edom as a play on how Edom and Adam are spelled the same in Hebrew. It's a natural choice to make if you want to take this originally more local in scope Prophecy but make it grander in application.

Some people, particularly KJV onlyists, do Strawman themselves denouncing the LXX. No the LXX was not created whole cloth by Origen, he just played an important role in how it reached it's final form. 

KJV onlyists are often the strongest critics of the LXX, because they are in willing ignorance of how some of the KJV's mistakes are lingering LXX influence. A good example is Genesis 10:11-12.  That verse reads how it does in the KJV because of bad decisions made in the Septuagint. A good direct English Translation of the Masoretic Text of that verse would be it's YLT version, which is a lot more clear and less confusing. 

Update April 21st 2026: I also recently learned how two of the four words the LXX uses for Kippur and Kaphar are not used in The New Testament including the by far most popular one.  The New Testament prefers to refer to the concept of Atonement with words that mean Reconciliation which is in my view and I'd assume most Jews a much better translation of Kapahr and Kippur. 

Update May 5th 2026: Not every discrepancy between the LXX and how we're used to reading certain Hebrew Bible passages is a completely inconceivable translation of the Masoretic Text. I already talked about the Almah=Virgin issue.

Some other differences could merely by different interpretations of what Vowel(s) a given Hebrew word has in a certain verse.

Ragau as a transliteration of Reu happens because of hard to explain linguistic regarding the pronunciation of the Hebrew letter Ayin.  It's not even that the name was ever spelled different in Hebrew.

Reading "High Oak" instead of "Plain of Moreh" is a valid interpretation of what the Masoretic says. And may even be correct at least on the Oak rather then Plain part, there are Hebrew words for Plain. We know for example that Mamre had until 1996 an Oak Tree that was 5000 years old traditionally identified with the LXX Oak of Mamre where the KJV says Plain. 

My view on this issue has become more nuanced then it was when I first wrote this. I am willing to consider some LXX readings possibly correct IF there is other precedent for it, especially Semitic precedent like the DSS manuscripts, Samaritan Pentateuch or the Peshita (Targums could be worth considering but remember they are paraphrases not claiming to be direct translations). Like reading Rodanim instead of Dodanim for one of the sons of Javan, or Numbers 24:7 saying Gog instead of Agag.

But in some cases those other witnesses side with the Masoretic over the LXX. Like interpreting Rosh in Ezekiel 38 as a word for Chief or Head not a proper Name.  And the "children of Israel' over 'Angels of God" reading of Deuteronomy 32:8.

I'm undecided on the over all numbers for Genesis 5 and 11, but am solid in my belief that Cainan is not originally part of Genesis 11.  The real Genesis 11 dispute to me is Samaritan vs Masoretic, with the LXX merely being a pro Samaritan witness on the over all longer number but pro Masoretic on the matter of how long Terah lived where the Samaritan was clearly seeking to resolve an apparent contradiction.

What I am against are Septuagint Cultists who want to change traditional readings based on no evidence but an LXX reading while spreading Antisemitic Conspiracy theories about the Masoretic Text.

Update May 9th 2026: Hebrew 11:17 tells me that Monogene should be the Greek word used to translate Yachid in Genesis 22.

Update May 13th 2026: Nahor ben Reu

Nahor's numbers are different in all three versions of Genesis 11:24-25. But in the Masoretic and Samaritan he winds up with the same total, 148, which is pretty a big argument against the LXX version being the original for those verses, which ever Hebrew version made the change felt compelled to keep the total the same. The LXX has Nahor begetting Terah at the same age the SP does 79 which suggesting it was using a source resembling the Samaritan but felt Nahor dying so soon was a problem since the LXX agree with the Masoretic lifespan for Terah so they inflated Nahor to 208. 

Genesis 5 observations.

For Genesis 5, or specifically the first 7 generations Adam through Enoch, every difference for the begetting years is a matter of either adding of subtracting exactly 100, (though Adam and Seth remain the same in all version so it's really Cainan-Enoch).  This suggests the Masoretic is the original for those 7 generations preciously because it looks less consistent, some copier felt the ages at which they had their kids should be more consistent.  

Update May 16th 2026: Matthew

When it comes to Matthew, I believe that text was originally written in either Hebrew or Aramaic so agreements between Greek Matthew and LXX could be the result of the LXX influencing whoever translated Matthew. 

But I already talked about the Almah issue and I likewise do believe what Ketos/Cetos/Cetus meant to the Ancient Greeks was fluid enough to be a valid interpretation of the Masoretic text of Jonah. 

Baptism and Baptists

Baptists are called Baptists because they are the Christians who try the hardest to practice and understand Baptism Biblically.  But even they slip up.

Even the ones who understand it's not needed for Salvation, have this issue where they add other requirements besides profession of faith for it.  Basically in response to others who Baptize everyone and everything without consent, many Baptists want to put all kinds of restrictions on Baptism.

Most even Independent Baptists require you to become a member of their specific Church (I don't think Churches should even have official membership lists), which in turn often requires an agreement (that they usually don't really try to enforce) to live by a bunch of rules.

Even if not requiring membership they feel that they have to ask all kinds of questions, to make sure you're ready for a Christian life.

Before things like Infant Baptism became an issue these problems were popping up, The Didachae around 100 AD was saying you should fast for a day before Baptism.

Let's look at Acts 8: starting in verse 36

And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?  And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.  And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.  And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

No membership, no joining any earthly group, no making sure he got various Doctrines right, no asking him what he was willing to give up for Jesus, no asking him how he intends to live his life.  He just asked him if he believed, and he believed, and that was it.

People also have this notion that Baptism is a public declaration of Faith in Jesus.  This wasn't Public, they were alone, no one else saw this.

John The Baptist alone Baptized people Publicly.  Paul defined John's Baptism as distinct from the water baptism the Church practiced after Pentecost.

Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.  And as John fulfilled his course, he said, Whom think ye that I am? I am not he. But, behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.
Acts 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Lots of Baptists don't understand this, I'm kind of disturbed how often Baptists act like John not Jesus and the Disciples was the founder of their religion.  John is defined Biblically as the end of The Old Testament, not a beginning.

They think Apollos only needed to be Baptized again because it doesn't really count if you weren't Saved when you were Baptized before.  I think it is good to Rebaptize converts from other forms of Christianity.  But that isn't the point here, the emphasis was on it being of John rather then Jesus.

When we receive the Holy Spirit we are Baptized spiritually, not with Water.  The Water Baptism The Church does is mainly an outward symbol of that Baptism, as well as being "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Colossians 2:12.

A lot of Baptists seem really afraid of accidentally Baptizing someone who's not really Saved.  But why care?  All you did was waste some water.

As far as the error of thinking Baptism is necessary for Salvation.  There are really only two verses that doctrine is built on.

Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

The condition of those that Believe but aren't Baptized isn't addressed either way.  Clearly this verse alone doesn't settle the issue.  Some might argue that this means the salvation isn't secure until Baptism.  I think the reason Baptism is excluded from the second statement is to make clear that Baptism without belief doesn't Save.

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."

First of all, the Context of this being Pentecost and addressing the Gifts of the Holy Spirit tells me this isn't Water Baptism but the Baptism of The Holy Spirit.

Secondly, nothing said here makes it needed for Salvation, on Salvation he just said "all who call upon the name of The LORD".

I also feel many people added to The Church at this time were already Saved, I think a lot of the early mass conversations were merely bringing into The Church those already Saved.  Because I'm not and have never been the kind of Dispensationalist who thinks Salvation used to work differently.  Paul proved his doctrine of Salvation from The Old Testament, where Baptism never existed.  I disagree with the claim of some Hebrew Roots people who think it came from the Mikvah custom.