I've dedicated some of this blog to dealing with the doctrines of Torah Only teachers (and people who don't like to be called that but are functionally the same). One issue that comes with that is rejecting Jerusalem, which by that exact name is missing from the Five Books of Moses.
Masoretic and Septuagint versions of the Torah refer to the place that will become the permanent resting place of the Mishkan as a location YHWH hasn't chosen yet in Deuteronomy 12. The Samaritan Pentateuch makes this a place already chosen and makes many other changes designed to say the Tabernacle should be on Mount Gerizim, but I've already spoken on why I reject those changes.
Indeed I shall admit that if I used The Torah alone to decide where to place The Tabernacle my first pick would be Bethel based on Genesis 28 and 35. A second pick might be Shiloh based on what's said in Genesis 49, but as a location Shiloh isn't mentioned by that name in the Torah either.
The fact that I've argued against the Salem of Melchizdek being Jerusalem in favor of it being the same Shalem from Genesis 33 and 34 which is near Shechem, possibly the same place later known as Shiloh, makes it easy to seem like Jerusalem isn't in The Torah at all. I do believe Moriah of Genesis 22 is East of Jerusalem where I believe Jesus was Crucified, but that's hard to prove definitively.
Deuteronomy 33:12 is saying the Beloved of YHWH will be in the land of Benjamin, earlier Chapter 12 talked about it being a Tribe chosen to house his Dwelling place.
The tribal allotments are strictly speaking primarily laid out in Joshua not yet in The Torah, but plenty in the Torah implies the basics of Joshua's allotment is correct. For one thing Caleb is promised Hebron. The Transjordan Tribes also explicitly take the Transjordan in The Torah. Genesis 49:22 is possibly alluding to Jacob's Well thus giving Joseph Shechem. Nephtali's association with a Sea possibly anticipates him getting the Sea of Galilee. Zebulun and Issachar are also possibly associated with coast-lands in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33.
Benjamin meanwhile is the only son of Jacob born in The Land, so it's fitting that the site of his birth where Rachel died and was buried in Genesis 35:19 and 48:7 was on the way to Bethlehem Ephratah, not in that city as people often assume. Rachel's real Tomb was at Ramah a little north east of modern Jerusalem.
I've discovered that some people think the Migdol Edar (Tower of the Flock) of Genesis 35:21 is a location in or near Jerusalem rather then Bethlehem as it is popularly identified, this is based on it being the stronghold of Zion in Micah 4:8, but that same verse is part of my argument that Zion is Bethlehem not Jerusalem.
Bethel was right on the border of Ephraim and Benjamin so it could fit. But the point is there are hints of the general area of Jerusalem being important in The Torah. And then there is the even more speculative idea I recently proposed about Genesis 10 and 11.
I'm more fascinated by the Decline in the importance of Hebron (aka Mamre and Arbah). In Genesis that is where the Patriarchs ultimately spend most of their time, including where all three of them and three of their wives were buried. And then later a big deal is made out of Caleb being promised Hebron which was also where the Anakim ruled which the Book of Joshua further deals with. It is was later David's Capital for the first 7 and a half years of his reign, when he had only Judah. But in The New Testament it doesn't seem to be mentioned even once.
Showing posts with label Torah Only. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Torah Only. Show all posts
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Friday, January 11, 2019
The Torah and Angels
Josephus tells us that the Sadducees were a sect that limited their inspired Canon to only The Torah, the Five Books of Moses, (he also says they believed in no Ressurection or After Life and had a very extreme belief in human Free Will). The New Testament doesn't tell us that directly but it's inferred in how Jesus stayed within the Torah to prove the Resurrection to them in Matthew 22.
In Acts 23:6-9 we get a further elaboration on what the Sadducees believed.
What I want to talk about here however is how I've seen a lot of online scholars say this can't be accurate, that a sect which upholds The Torah can't possibly have any grounds to reject the existence of Angels. And indeed the modern Torah only people you'll encounter online tend to fit every aspect of Paul's description of the Sadducees except the part about Angels, like The Desert Tabernacle Wordpress blog or the Remember the Commands Youtubde channel.
The thing is, I as someone who's very unconventional, have looked into the possibility of rejecting the doctrine of Angels as it's traditionally understood. I've concluded that many passages both within The Torah and elsewhere we assume to be referring to Angels can potentially be interpreted differently when you remember things like the word "angel" in the Greek and Hebrew being their word for messenger and definitely does refer to human prophets sometimes. However I feel unable to fully reject the idea because of certain passages, but none of those passages are in The Torah. If I decided to become a Torah Only person, I might very well reject the doctrine of angels as it's traditionally understood.
First of all I have already decided I believe the Sethite view of Genesis 6.
Second, the majority of the time the word "Angel" appears in the KJV of the Torah, indeed every time it does so in singular form, it is referring to The Angel of YHWH or The Angel of God, an entity which even many Pharisees (like Trinitarian Christians) view as being a manifestation of YHWH Himself (The Word of YHWH) not a completely separate Angelic being. Remember the Voice in the Burning Bush is technically called an Angel.
The Seraphim or "fiery serpents" from Numbers I believe originally refereed to a type of serpent or reptilian animal indigenous to the region (I lean towards the Pterodactyl aka Ropen), it is Isaiah alone who places some in the Throne Room of God, and those I think if they are "Angels" are Angels taking the form of that Animal, or appearing like them to Isaiah's three dimensional eyes.
Now I'd like readers to stop for a minute and read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. Now imagine if that story had been recorded from the Eunuch's POV rather then Philip's? It could very conceivably seem to readers generations later like an encounter with an Angel.
We know that during the time of the Patriarchs of Israel there were people worshiping YHWH in other places, like Salem ruled by Melchizedek or the Kenite Priesthood of Jethro. So the two "Angels" of Genesis 18-19 could possibly have been Human Prophets that YHWH assigned this task to.
Likewise in Genesis 31:1-2 the "Host of God" could be a camp of believers sent to greet Jacob when he returned to the land. In fact if we translated "Malakim" consistently in Genesis 32, it becomes plausible the "messengers" Jacob sent to Esau in verse 3 came from among these "angels". The Hebrew word for "Host" here isn't the same one used in verses about the "Host of Heaven". It's a word elsewhere translated Camp including when referring to the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness and when the Red Heifer is described as being slain "without the camp". So this Camp could have been of people from Isaac's household.
Genesis 28:12 is something Jacob saw in a dream and therefore iffy to build literal doctrine on. The point was to show this place as a "Gate of Heaven".
The "Host of Heaven" is simply a term for the stars, and no verse in The Torah can be taken to insinuate the stars are living sentient beings. The worship of the stars is compared to the worship of Idols, inanimate objects.
That just leaves Genesis 3. In the KJV of verse 14 Cattle is a mistranslation, Behemah I have come to view as simply the broadest Hebrew word for Animal. The English grammar of verses 1 and 14 of Genesis 3 leave more room for interpretation, but in the Hebrew it is actually unambiguous that the Nahash/Serpent is a Behemah and a Beast of the Field. Making it one of the Beasts of the Field created in Genesis 2:18-20.
The Beasts and Fowls created in Genesis 2:19-20 are a separate creation from the animals created before Adam was in Genesis 1. These must be beings who were a bit more sentient since they are, as weird as we may find it, presented as potential Mates for Adam. Frankly I think the Cherubim (as well as the Seraphim Isaiah saw in the Throne Room) could also be among the creatures created here.
You could define such creatures as Angelic, but that isn't the traditional view of Angels.
The problem is some may seek to use that origin for the Serpent against identifying it with the Satan, which identification the Book of Revelation clearly makes. But I don't view it as a conflict, Satan is never called an Angel, only said to appear as one.
The verses outside the Torah that are the real obstacle to rejecting the traditional view of Angels are Psalm 8 (which seems to imply the Angels existed before Adam), 2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10 (and perhaps other Daniel material), and then lots of New Testament stuff, but some New Testament Angels I think are OT Saints Resurrected soon after Jesus was based on Matthew 27:52-53.
[Update: I just realized Psalm 8:5 uses Elohim not Malakim, so we could translate that "a little lower then God" thus removing it from the equation. I believe Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew so no I don't think Greek texts of it's quotation using Angels proves anything.]
So I still believe Angels exist, but people who limit their Canon to the Torah can easily decide otherwise if they want to.
Though I think it's also plausible that the Sadducees were influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle (and/or Epicureanism) who could be described as the original Deist as well as the first Materialist, Antigonus of Sokho may have been the key middle man in that transmission.
Some have mistakenly compared the Saduccess to Platonic Philosophy, but that's based on how within Christianity denial of a bodily Resurrection usually comes via allegorizing it away into a Spiritual rather then physical one. The Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection but any notion of an After Life, they were Jewish Materialists.
So I'm not saying you have to reject the idea of Angels if you limit your Canon to just The Torah, or even that doing so is the most natural conclusion, but it is possible if for whatever reason you wanted to.
In Acts 23:6-9 we get a further elaboration on what the Sadducees believed.
But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.
And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees' part arose, and strove, saying, "We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God."They didn't believe in the Resurrection, angels or spirits. Now based on this scene alone Paul only explicitly sides with the Pharisees on the Resurrection, we have to go elsewhere to try and figure out his (and the rest of The New Testament's) positions on the other issues.
What I want to talk about here however is how I've seen a lot of online scholars say this can't be accurate, that a sect which upholds The Torah can't possibly have any grounds to reject the existence of Angels. And indeed the modern Torah only people you'll encounter online tend to fit every aspect of Paul's description of the Sadducees except the part about Angels, like The Desert Tabernacle Wordpress blog or the Remember the Commands Youtubde channel.
The thing is, I as someone who's very unconventional, have looked into the possibility of rejecting the doctrine of Angels as it's traditionally understood. I've concluded that many passages both within The Torah and elsewhere we assume to be referring to Angels can potentially be interpreted differently when you remember things like the word "angel" in the Greek and Hebrew being their word for messenger and definitely does refer to human prophets sometimes. However I feel unable to fully reject the idea because of certain passages, but none of those passages are in The Torah. If I decided to become a Torah Only person, I might very well reject the doctrine of angels as it's traditionally understood.
First of all I have already decided I believe the Sethite view of Genesis 6.
Second, the majority of the time the word "Angel" appears in the KJV of the Torah, indeed every time it does so in singular form, it is referring to The Angel of YHWH or The Angel of God, an entity which even many Pharisees (like Trinitarian Christians) view as being a manifestation of YHWH Himself (The Word of YHWH) not a completely separate Angelic being. Remember the Voice in the Burning Bush is technically called an Angel.
The Seraphim or "fiery serpents" from Numbers I believe originally refereed to a type of serpent or reptilian animal indigenous to the region (I lean towards the Pterodactyl aka Ropen), it is Isaiah alone who places some in the Throne Room of God, and those I think if they are "Angels" are Angels taking the form of that Animal, or appearing like them to Isaiah's three dimensional eyes.
Now I'd like readers to stop for a minute and read the story of Philip and the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8. Now imagine if that story had been recorded from the Eunuch's POV rather then Philip's? It could very conceivably seem to readers generations later like an encounter with an Angel.
We know that during the time of the Patriarchs of Israel there were people worshiping YHWH in other places, like Salem ruled by Melchizedek or the Kenite Priesthood of Jethro. So the two "Angels" of Genesis 18-19 could possibly have been Human Prophets that YHWH assigned this task to.
Likewise in Genesis 31:1-2 the "Host of God" could be a camp of believers sent to greet Jacob when he returned to the land. In fact if we translated "Malakim" consistently in Genesis 32, it becomes plausible the "messengers" Jacob sent to Esau in verse 3 came from among these "angels". The Hebrew word for "Host" here isn't the same one used in verses about the "Host of Heaven". It's a word elsewhere translated Camp including when referring to the Camp of Israel in the Wilderness and when the Red Heifer is described as being slain "without the camp". So this Camp could have been of people from Isaac's household.
Genesis 28:12 is something Jacob saw in a dream and therefore iffy to build literal doctrine on. The point was to show this place as a "Gate of Heaven".
The "Host of Heaven" is simply a term for the stars, and no verse in The Torah can be taken to insinuate the stars are living sentient beings. The worship of the stars is compared to the worship of Idols, inanimate objects.
That just leaves Genesis 3. In the KJV of verse 14 Cattle is a mistranslation, Behemah I have come to view as simply the broadest Hebrew word for Animal. The English grammar of verses 1 and 14 of Genesis 3 leave more room for interpretation, but in the Hebrew it is actually unambiguous that the Nahash/Serpent is a Behemah and a Beast of the Field. Making it one of the Beasts of the Field created in Genesis 2:18-20.
The Beasts and Fowls created in Genesis 2:19-20 are a separate creation from the animals created before Adam was in Genesis 1. These must be beings who were a bit more sentient since they are, as weird as we may find it, presented as potential Mates for Adam. Frankly I think the Cherubim (as well as the Seraphim Isaiah saw in the Throne Room) could also be among the creatures created here.
You could define such creatures as Angelic, but that isn't the traditional view of Angels.
The problem is some may seek to use that origin for the Serpent against identifying it with the Satan, which identification the Book of Revelation clearly makes. But I don't view it as a conflict, Satan is never called an Angel, only said to appear as one.
The verses outside the Torah that are the real obstacle to rejecting the traditional view of Angels are Psalm 8 (which seems to imply the Angels existed before Adam), 2 Kings 6:17, Daniel 10 (and perhaps other Daniel material), and then lots of New Testament stuff, but some New Testament Angels I think are OT Saints Resurrected soon after Jesus was based on Matthew 27:52-53.
[Update: I just realized Psalm 8:5 uses Elohim not Malakim, so we could translate that "a little lower then God" thus removing it from the equation. I believe Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew so no I don't think Greek texts of it's quotation using Angels proves anything.]
So I still believe Angels exist, but people who limit their Canon to the Torah can easily decide otherwise if they want to.
Though I think it's also plausible that the Sadducees were influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle (and/or Epicureanism) who could be described as the original Deist as well as the first Materialist, Antigonus of Sokho may have been the key middle man in that transmission.
Some have mistakenly compared the Saduccess to Platonic Philosophy, but that's based on how within Christianity denial of a bodily Resurrection usually comes via allegorizing it away into a Spiritual rather then physical one. The Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection but any notion of an After Life, they were Jewish Materialists.
So I'm not saying you have to reject the idea of Angels if you limit your Canon to just The Torah, or even that doing so is the most natural conclusion, but it is possible if for whatever reason you wanted to.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
The Trinity in The Hebrew Bible
Inspiring Philosophy did a video on The Trinity in The Old Testament.
Where he says there are additional arguments one could make. He also then did a Video about Jewish Sources recognizing these facts.
At any-rate the first of these two videos impressed me so much that I think it more so then any New Testament arguments are what are keeping me Trinitarian. You see what a lot of modern attempts to refute Arianism ignore is that at least modern Arians tend to identify YHWH with Jesus not The Father, supported by IP's own observation that in the New Testament Kurios/Lord usually refers to Jesus. So this video building a Trinity Doctrine just from the references to YHWH is actually the best refutation of Arianism. And then this blog post about the Fatherhood of YHWH in the Old Testament.
I've touched on some of these subjects before, in Greek words commonly viewed as Gnostic and Arguing for the Divinity of the Messiah from The Hebrew Bible.
Here I want to list some additional arguments I find interesting, but they aren't as compelling as the above video, they're merely interesting observations to back up that argument.
First is that a Triune Nature of God is possibly hinted at in The Holy Name itself. It is commonly called the Tetragramaton because it's four letters, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh, but there are two Hehs meaning the name is really constructed from just three letters. The Heh has been associated with The Holy Spirit before.
Some like to view Psalm 2 as a Trialouge between The Trinity, but I've become more hesitant to endorse that given how my views on the Davidic Psalms have developed.
Genesis 48:15-16
But perhaps The Trinity is hinted at in one of the most popular titles of The Jewish God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Which appears in some form Twelve times in The Bible, Seven of them in The Hebrew Bible, Four of those in The Pentateuch. Exodus 3:6, 15, 16, 4:5, 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chronicles 29:18, 2 Chronicles 30:6, Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 and 7:32.
Q: Why stop at Jacob/Israel? Joseph was a main protagonist for a lot more of Genesis then Isaac was?
A: Because it's identifying the Patriarchs all Twelve Tribes share.
Well then why did it take three generations for God to stop narrowing it down? The Issues that broke apart Abraham and Isaac's descendants could have just as easily done the same to Jacob's.
Abraham means "Father of a Multitude" and Abram meant "High-Father", Paul in Romans 4:11 calls Abraham "The Father of All them that Believe". Christians see Abraham as playing the role of The Father typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Isaac was the Promised Seed of Abraham, who plays the role of The Son typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Jacob aka Israel is the one who's names become synonymous with God's People. And it's in God's People that His Spirit dwells.
Update December 7th 2019:
Here is another YouTube video on the subject from a Paul Humber. Watching this video I noticed how the Hebrew word for "One" is spelled with three letters, E-CH-D. Interestingly the Greek word often used to translate that in New Testament quotes is similarly a three letter word. As is "One" in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlrLueWXDTs
I've touched on some of these subjects before, in Greek words commonly viewed as Gnostic and Arguing for the Divinity of the Messiah from The Hebrew Bible.
Here I want to list some additional arguments I find interesting, but they aren't as compelling as the above video, they're merely interesting observations to back up that argument.
First is that a Triune Nature of God is possibly hinted at in The Holy Name itself. It is commonly called the Tetragramaton because it's four letters, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh, but there are two Hehs meaning the name is really constructed from just three letters. The Heh has been associated with The Holy Spirit before.
Some like to view Psalm 2 as a Trialouge between The Trinity, but I've become more hesitant to endorse that given how my views on the Davidic Psalms have developed.
Genesis 48:15-16
And he blessed Joseph, and said, "God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.?That sounds an awful lot like a Trinitarian Formula.
But perhaps The Trinity is hinted at in one of the most popular titles of The Jewish God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Which appears in some form Twelve times in The Bible, Seven of them in The Hebrew Bible, Four of those in The Pentateuch. Exodus 3:6, 15, 16, 4:5, 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chronicles 29:18, 2 Chronicles 30:6, Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 and 7:32.
Q: Why stop at Jacob/Israel? Joseph was a main protagonist for a lot more of Genesis then Isaac was?
A: Because it's identifying the Patriarchs all Twelve Tribes share.
Well then why did it take three generations for God to stop narrowing it down? The Issues that broke apart Abraham and Isaac's descendants could have just as easily done the same to Jacob's.
Abraham means "Father of a Multitude" and Abram meant "High-Father", Paul in Romans 4:11 calls Abraham "The Father of All them that Believe". Christians see Abraham as playing the role of The Father typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Isaac was the Promised Seed of Abraham, who plays the role of The Son typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Jacob aka Israel is the one who's names become synonymous with God's People. And it's in God's People that His Spirit dwells.
Update December 7th 2019:
Here is another YouTube video on the subject from a Paul Humber. Watching this video I noticed how the Hebrew word for "One" is spelled with three letters, E-CH-D. Interestingly the Greek word often used to translate that in New Testament quotes is similarly a three letter word. As is "One" in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlrLueWXDTs
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Human Sacrifice in The Torah
So the New2Torah (Zachary Bauer) YouTube channel did a video about Human Sacrifice in The Torah in the context of The Messiah being an Atonement Sacrifice.
Then another video was made in response to it. That second video I'm not able to embed directly it seems, so here is a Link. Human Sacrifice and Messiah Answering New2Torah.
Bauer was definitely stupid to bring up the conspiracy theory that Isaiah 53 is removed from Jewish Bibles. The latter video is also wrong however, no you can't get around that the Suffering Servant is an individual suffering for the sins of the people. The Melchizedek Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls Interpreted it that way before the time of Christ. The Talmud cites it as Messianic at least once in Sanhedrin 98b, the Leper Scholar. The idea of it referring to the Nation doesn't show up till after 1000 AD.
Other criticisms the second video makes of the first are also valid, but not all.
For outside The Torah Zach should have referred to when David had seven sons of Saul hung on trees to appease the Gibeonites. That is clear Hebrew Bible precedent for people being executed not for their own Sins but for the Sins of a blood Kinsman. And five of them were maternal grandchildren interestingly.
The people in the latter video love to emphasize Repentance. The Problem is I don't believe Yahuah is going to Save only those who Repent. They love to point to Ezekiel 18, I point to Ezekiel 16 where even Sodom is promised to be restored.
The common claim that the Passover sacrifice isn't an Atonement Sacrifice I find to be rather semantic. The Passover is unique and doesn't fit into the other five general Sacrifice categories easily at all. But it sure as heck resembles Atonement more then it does offering something to Yahuah just out of devotion. God is carrying out a Judgment on Egypt for not letting Israel go, and putting The Blood on the Doorpost protects your Household from that Judgment. The Levitical Atonement Sacrifices also involved Covering things with The Blood. The Passover Lamb covers a Household not an individual, Jesus was offered for the Household of Adam.
The people in the second video say that Atonement Sacrifices have to be female, I don't know where they got that. The Yom Kippur Sacrifice is a male Goat in Leviticus 16. Leviticus 4:3 requires a male Bullock to Atone for the Sin of a Priest, and Leviticus 4:14 and Numbers 15:24 require it to be a male Bullock and/or male kid of the Goats if it's offered on behalf of the Community. And Leviticus 4:22-23 says if a Nasi sins the Atonement offering has to be a male of the Goats. And of course The Passover had to be a male.
The Trespass offering in Leviticus 5 is what requires a Female. However Jesus defined the Sins of Humanity as unknowing sins on The Cross. But at any rate, I believe Jesus was ultimately both male and female. Jesus also fulfilled the Red Heifer offering by being killed on the Mount of Olives, "without the Camp".
The second Video also got persnickety about saying you don't Anoint a Sacrificial Offering. You know Torah Only people love to say the only person who's Anointed in the Torah is the Priest, there is no Anointing of Kings. Jesus is both the Offering and the one Making the Offering. The Torah does say to anoint the Wafers of Unleavened Bread. Now they made it sound like your forbidden to Anoint the animal, but the Torah doesn't say that either.
Both Isaac and Joseph play the role of a sacrificial offering in narratives even though they weren't literally.
Now here is a subject many are uncomfortable with. Technically Yahuah demands Human Sacrifice in The Torah of all maternal firstborns.
Exodus 22:29-30.
It's interesting that Humans are distinguished from unclean animals, even though when viewed as animals we lack both requirements for being Levitically clean. Humans aren't animals however. With animals these physical characteristics of cleanness are merely symbolic representations of moral purity. The only thing keeping most Humans from being an acceptable Sacrifice is being Sinful. Only someone without Sin can truly Atone for the Sins of another.
Moses' blessing on Joseph is the foundation of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine. Deuteronomy 33:17 says.
The context is about Maternal Firstborns. Galilee in NT times wasn't just Naphtali anymore. I think Nazareth was possibly actually Jezreel, a site that can potentially be linked to Manasseh. And when reading about Hezekiah's Passover it becomes clear plenty of Manasseh was still left behind after the Captivity.
Manasseh was the firstborn of Asenath and Joseph was the firstborn of Rachel. It's interesting that Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 both emphasize that Jesus was the Firstborn of Mary even though the Virgin Birth already made that obvious.
And hey, I made that case without even addressing the awkward issue of Jephthah's Daughter.
Bauer was definitely stupid to bring up the conspiracy theory that Isaiah 53 is removed from Jewish Bibles. The latter video is also wrong however, no you can't get around that the Suffering Servant is an individual suffering for the sins of the people. The Melchizedek Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls Interpreted it that way before the time of Christ. The Talmud cites it as Messianic at least once in Sanhedrin 98b, the Leper Scholar. The idea of it referring to the Nation doesn't show up till after 1000 AD.
Other criticisms the second video makes of the first are also valid, but not all.
For outside The Torah Zach should have referred to when David had seven sons of Saul hung on trees to appease the Gibeonites. That is clear Hebrew Bible precedent for people being executed not for their own Sins but for the Sins of a blood Kinsman. And five of them were maternal grandchildren interestingly.
The people in the latter video love to emphasize Repentance. The Problem is I don't believe Yahuah is going to Save only those who Repent. They love to point to Ezekiel 18, I point to Ezekiel 16 where even Sodom is promised to be restored.
The common claim that the Passover sacrifice isn't an Atonement Sacrifice I find to be rather semantic. The Passover is unique and doesn't fit into the other five general Sacrifice categories easily at all. But it sure as heck resembles Atonement more then it does offering something to Yahuah just out of devotion. God is carrying out a Judgment on Egypt for not letting Israel go, and putting The Blood on the Doorpost protects your Household from that Judgment. The Levitical Atonement Sacrifices also involved Covering things with The Blood. The Passover Lamb covers a Household not an individual, Jesus was offered for the Household of Adam.
The people in the second video say that Atonement Sacrifices have to be female, I don't know where they got that. The Yom Kippur Sacrifice is a male Goat in Leviticus 16. Leviticus 4:3 requires a male Bullock to Atone for the Sin of a Priest, and Leviticus 4:14 and Numbers 15:24 require it to be a male Bullock and/or male kid of the Goats if it's offered on behalf of the Community. And Leviticus 4:22-23 says if a Nasi sins the Atonement offering has to be a male of the Goats. And of course The Passover had to be a male.
The Trespass offering in Leviticus 5 is what requires a Female. However Jesus defined the Sins of Humanity as unknowing sins on The Cross. But at any rate, I believe Jesus was ultimately both male and female. Jesus also fulfilled the Red Heifer offering by being killed on the Mount of Olives, "without the Camp".
The second Video also got persnickety about saying you don't Anoint a Sacrificial Offering. You know Torah Only people love to say the only person who's Anointed in the Torah is the Priest, there is no Anointing of Kings. Jesus is both the Offering and the one Making the Offering. The Torah does say to anoint the Wafers of Unleavened Bread. Now they made it sound like your forbidden to Anoint the animal, but the Torah doesn't say that either.
Both Isaac and Joseph play the role of a sacrificial offering in narratives even though they weren't literally.
Now here is a subject many are uncomfortable with. Technically Yahuah demands Human Sacrifice in The Torah of all maternal firstborns.
Exodus 22:29-30.
"Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, and with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me."However this situation is clarified in Numbers 18:15-17.
"Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto Yahuah, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. But the firstling of a bullock, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat, thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt sprinkle their blood upon the altar, and shalt burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a sweet savour unto Yahuah."This is not about the Firstborns losing their Priestly status to the Levites, Numbers 3:12 dealt with that. This is specifically about a demand for every First Born to be Sacrificed to Yahuah.
It's interesting that Humans are distinguished from unclean animals, even though when viewed as animals we lack both requirements for being Levitically clean. Humans aren't animals however. With animals these physical characteristics of cleanness are merely symbolic representations of moral purity. The only thing keeping most Humans from being an acceptable Sacrifice is being Sinful. Only someone without Sin can truly Atone for the Sins of another.
Moses' blessing on Joseph is the foundation of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine. Deuteronomy 33:17 says.
"His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh."The Hebrew words for firstling and Bullock here are the same as in Numbers 18:17. It was firmly established in the minds of all Israelites that every Firstling Bullock was to be Sacrificed, no exceptions. So this passage has been taken even by non Christians as saying someone of Joseph will be sacrificed and then risen again (the "Unicorn" representing him Resurrected), hence the Messiah Ben Joseph tradition.
The context is about Maternal Firstborns. Galilee in NT times wasn't just Naphtali anymore. I think Nazareth was possibly actually Jezreel, a site that can potentially be linked to Manasseh. And when reading about Hezekiah's Passover it becomes clear plenty of Manasseh was still left behind after the Captivity.
Manasseh was the firstborn of Asenath and Joseph was the firstborn of Rachel. It's interesting that Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7 both emphasize that Jesus was the Firstborn of Mary even though the Virgin Birth already made that obvious.
And hey, I made that case without even addressing the awkward issue of Jephthah's Daughter.
Sunday, December 3, 2017
The Nephilim and the Sons of God
I had opposed the Sethite view for a long time. My last major post on the Nephilim issue on my Prophecy Blog, The Sethite View and the Nephilim, was me still viewing the Nephilim and BeniElohim as fallen angels but arguing it doesn't actually depict any Hybridization. An argument that was maybe a little convoluted.
First I want to advise fellow critics of the Hybrid view to stop making bad arguments. What Jesus said about Marriage and the Resurrection in Matthew 22 had a specific purpose, I do still believe we will be having sex in the Resurrection because it's the Restoration of before the Fall. The Marriage that is done away with is the patriarchal marriage of Genesis 3. And nothing in Hebrews 1 proves Angels can't be called Sons of God, the key word in that verse is begotten, only Jesus is the begotten Son of God.
Calling this view the "Sethite view" does it a disservice because it makes it sound like it's the Racist view, when what made me grow more and more uncomfortable with the Hybride view is how it is constantly tied into racist beliefs. The real point of the Sethite view reaffirms how spiritual intermarriage is the only mixed marriage Yahuah truly objects to. Now it may have so happened that the peoples descended from Enosh may have been most likely to be followers of Yahuah in the Pre-Flood world, like how it was Israel Post-Flood, but that is not the actual point.
I get annoyed when people like Chuck Missler say that the end of Genesis 4 where it says "then began men to call upon the name of Yahuah" it actually says "profane the name of Yahuah" in the Hebrew. Because this is actually the exact same Hebrew phraseology used when Abraham called upon the Name of Yahuah at Shechem and Bethel in Genesis 12. If this "Profane" interpretation began among the Rabbis, it was probably a product of their Non-Biblical idea that you aren't supposed to pronounce the Name of Yahuah, that verbally saying it at all profanes it. And it's the same wording used in Joel 2, quoted by Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Romans 10 for saying that All who Call upon The Name of Yahuah shall be Saved.
The Bible definitely describes Gigantic people in certain narratives, but no word used in Genesis 6 or any other Pre-Flood narrative actually means that. We don't need supernatural hybridization to make that happen, I think this ancient Gigantism, distinct from the modern known condition, was simply a natural part of Noah's genetic potential that has been lost. But perhaps sometimes was triggered by cross breeding similar to why Lygers get so big.
Nephilim is a word used only three times in all of Scripture, in two passages, Genesis 6 and Numbers 13. The problem is using Numbers 13 to help us define the word has a major problem.
In Numbers 13:21-25, the narrative voice describes the Anakim and it never calls them Nephilim or describes them as Gigantic. Numbers 13:27-29 is the first description of the Anakim and others in Canaan the spies give, and still not yet called Nephilim or gigantic.
Caleb's good report comes next, and he doesn't use the word Nephilim or talk about giants. Then comes Numbers 13:31-33. In verse 32 the narrator says "and they gave an evil report of the land they had searched". The Hebrew word translated "evil report" is also sometimes translated "defaming" and "slander", like in Numbers 14:36 referencing back to this report saying it was a slander.
It is this report that first talks about the Anakim having great stature and in verse 33 twice uses the word Nephilim. What they are saying is not accurate, they are exaggerating, and may have themselves not been using this word correctly. And this passage is probably the reason translations starting with the Septuagint translated it Giants.
Deuteronomy 1:27-28 is again referencing back to this evil report. Deuteronomy 2:10 calls the Anakim tall, but Saul was also tall compared to most Israelites. Verse 11 says that Emims like the Anakim were "accounted" Rephaim, this word for accounted is also translated esteemed, reckoned, and even imagined. It is again describing a belief that may not be true. Verse 20 again talks about them being "accounted' Rephaim. Verse 21 again calls the Anakim tall, but nothing more. Deuteronomy 9:2 again simply calls the Anakim tall while referencing back to the evil report.
The first time the Anakim are mentioned in Joshua is in 11:21-22, where there is no mention of them being large in size, or Nephilim or Rephaim. Joshua 14:12-15 again references the evil report but without talking about Giants. Joshua 15:13-14 again mentioned the Anakim but no gigantic size. Joshua 21:11 and Judges 1:20 are the last two references to the Anakim and they are again not called Nephilim or Rephaim or giants.
The word Rephaim is also the name of a location in Israel, and sometimes gets translated "giants" even when referring to that location. The Rephaim as a group of people are first mentioned in Genesis 14 and 15.
The remaining references to the Rephaim are in Deuteronomy 3:11, Joshua 12:4, and 13:12. Which all call Og the king of Bashan the remnant or all the remains of the Rephaim. Og was defeated and killed by Israel in the time of Moses, well before the Anakim were in the time of Joshua. So if Og was the last of the Rephaim, then this repeatedly recorded belief that the Anakim were Rephaim must be wrong.
And it also proves the word Rephaim doesn't mean Giant because Goliath came later and he's never called a Rephaim, neither are his brothers. If Rephaim means giant then Goliath's existence creates a contradiction.
The term BeniElohim, translated "Sons of God", only appears in Genesis 6 and Job in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. Many Christians on this issue have argued the idea of believers being Sons of God isn't introduced until the New Testament in John 1. And that Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God is different because Adam was a "direct creation of God". The problem is that the debate about if this term refers to angels or humans or both and if so when forgets that more verses are relevant to this issue then just those that use that exact phrase.
Exodus 4:22-23 Yahuah says to Pharaoh "Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.". Deuteronomy 14:1 says "Ye are the children of Yahuah your God", the word for children being Ben.
In the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts...
Psalm 82:6, a verse Jesus quoted, says "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Highest.". This is a Psalm of Asaph, and it sounds like it's referencing back to something. When Jesus quotes it He attributes it to The Torah.
Also in the Book of Hosea, just read 1:10 and 11:1. In the latter Yahuah called Israel collectively His Son singular. But in the former he says the children of Israel are sons of the living God, present tense.
In II Samuel 7:14 Yahuah through Nathan tells David that Solomon will be His Son and He will be Solomon's Father. And eventually Solomon's great failing in 1 Kings 11 is tied to exactly what Sethite View proponents think the Sons of God did wrong in Genesis 6.
Ezekiel 16 begins by speaking of Israel as Yahuah's adopted daughter.
Malachi chapter 3 warns against marrying the Daughter of a Strange god. If the followers of strange gods are refereed to as their children, then clearly the followers of Yahuah are His children as well.
Even what's said in John 1 is not contradicting that believers already were God's Children. It says The Word came unto "His Own" and "His own received Him not" and then He gave others the ability to become Sons of God. The implication is that "His Own" were Sons of God already, or were supposed to be anyway.
Job provides the only place where the Hebrew term "BeniElohim" is used in a way where it seems impossible to say it's human believers and not Angels. And it's not even at the beginning, one could argue those are deceased believers in Heaven, or that this takes place in the congregation of an Earthly Mishkan, which is repeatedly refereed to as the Presence of Yahuah, as well as of Eden when Cain left it in Genesis 4. Ezekiel 28 tells us Satan was in the Garden of God and the Mountain of God (a term used only of Sinai), and because of the stones mentioned maybe implies he was the High Priest of that Mishkan.
It's the reference to BeniElohim and Morning Stars singing and shouting for joy when the foundations of the Earth were laid, in 38:4-7. Which then gets cross referenced with other precedent for calling Angels stars.
Thing is, Job unlike Deuteronomy and Psalm 82 isn't quoted by Jesus in the New Testament. But even with viewing it as God's Word it could still be viewed as a poetic narrative or parable and not literal history. And maybe how all these things said in Job 38 connect to each other is being misunderstood. In Revelation 2:28 Jesus says He will give the Morning Star to the over-comer. And Job 38:6 refers to The Corner Stone, something everywhere else we know is a title of Christ, so God could have been speaking Prophetically. And then there is the theory many Nephilim theorists like that the Great Pyramid was a Pre-Flood monument built by Sethites and the Corner Stone was it's Capstone. Verse 7 does seem to be about the Flood.
What Nebuchadnezzar says of the Angel who appeared in the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3 also gets cited. This is an Aramaic term (that should be translated sons of the gods, plural) being used by a Pagan Gentile King who didn't became properly a believer till chapter 4. It's definitely not for building doctrine. (But also this scene is commonly viewed as a Theophany, this is The Angel of Yahuah, The Word of God, not a common ordinary Angel.)
And that Pagan belief is why Skeptics agree with the Hybrid interpretation of Genesis 6 (they just don't think it actually happened) because they're seeing it in the context of how the Pagan texts of Ugarit called the gods of their pantheon the sons of El their chief god, and one at least says there were 70. Actual Believers should be resisting that Pagan interpretation of the text rather then embracing it.
But perhaps it's disingenuous to use external sources or even later Torah verses to interpret Genesis 6 either way. Let's think about what this term likely meant in the context of reading through Genesis blind chronologically. The only prior precedent for something like Angels are the Cherubim and maybe the Serpent, none of them are in any way called sons of Elohim.
But when Eve gave birth to Seth near the end of Genesis 4, Seth is called a Son and then Eve says that Elohim appointed her another seed. Seth is called at his introduction a Son as well as from Elohim. (Additionally Genesis 4:1 could be read as saying Yahuah is a co-father of Cain in some way.) Even if I acquiesced to the Skeptics who think this text was originally written from a Pagan viewpoint, the ancient Pagans often didn't view the idea of having a Human father and a Divine father as contradictory, Alexander didn't think of it as denying Philip as his father when he claimed to be the Son of Zeus-Amon, Herakles was still heir to his father's royal line, and Oedipus was called a Son of Helios even though his story is built around him being the son of Laius. So there is both a Pagan and a Monotheistic justification for reading that verse as proclaiming Seth a son of Elohim. Also God-Human Hybrids (or Demigods) were mainly a Greek concept in antiquity, I've found no solid evidence of Near Eastern, Mesoptamian or Egyptian belief in similar Divine-Human Hybrids.
However maybe Genesis shouldn't be interpreted so independently. The first 5 books of The Bible are called the "books of Moses", but only 4 are directly about Moses. Perhaps Genesis is meant to be looked at as a Prequel, and everything in it should be interpreted in terms of how it anticipates, foreshadows and sets the stage for the Mosaic narrative. As a long time Star Wars Prequel Trilogy apologist and more recently a fan of Fate/Zero, I feel uniquely qualified to analyze Genesis as a Prequel.
In which case there is nothing in Exodus-Deuteronomy defining Angels as Sons of God, but plenty of precedent for believers being sons of Yahuah which I already cited above. And there is no narrative from Moses time about Angels interbreeding with Humans, but a number of passages about the danger of Yahuah's people marrying those who serve other gods. Numbers 25:1 even says "daughters of Moab" in a way that parallels "daughters of Adam". In fact later parts of Genesis say "daughters of Canaan", "daughters of the Canaanites", and "daughters of Heth" talking about the same issue. And beyond the Torah, Judges 14 uses "daughters of the philistines".
When defending the genealogies of Jesus, we love to point out how in the Hebrew mindset you can be called the Son of anyone your parents descended from. So Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God absolutely proves Humans can be called sons of God. But during this mortal life non believers are currently estranged children, I of course believe God intends to bring everyone back in eventually, but it's us believers who already are.
The main reason lots of Christians have supported the Hybrid view is the apparent New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude. Even though offspring of these "rebel angels' are not refereed to in those verses.
2 Peter 2:4 and 5 are possibly not even about the same thing. Verse 4 could seemingly be describing Dathan and Korah's rebellion.
Jude verses 6 and 7 are viewed as comparing the Genesis 6 incident to Sodom and Gomorrah. In my past studies on what Jude says about Sodom, I said both these incidents are about lust between angels and humans, emphasizing how "strange" in strange flesh means different, alien, foreign, ect. But now I recall how my greater point about the Sin of Sodom is how Ezekiel and Jesus define it has being inhospitable to foreigners. I should have realized sooner that Jude's intent was to condemn them for their desire to rape foreigners traveling through them.
Jude mentioned Korah in verse 11, could it be this is all connected and he was also thinking of that incident in verse 6? Verse 5 seems to set up the context as after the Exodus. And you can't object to Jude then going backwards chronologically when he mentions Sodom in verse 7 because verse 11 also listed the people it refers to out of their chronological order.
Chuck Missler makes a thing out of a rarely used word for Habitation in Jude 11. Paul's use of Oiketerion in 1 Corinthians 5:5 follows a reference to the Tabernacle in verse 1. Thing is, Mishkan also means Habitation, Dathan and Korah created their own Tabernacle that their followers chose over the Tabernacle of Moses and Aaron.
I think the Greek root normally translated Tabernacle in the KJV is the Greek equivalent to Ohel, since it literally means Tent and is used of both the Mishkan and the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7. I think Oiketerion should be viewed as the proper Greek equivalent of Mishkan. A number of OT verses use Ohel and Mishkan interchangeably.
In the past I've argued Nephilim means Fallen Ones because it comes from Naphal meaning fall. And viewed that as supporting it being of Fallen Angels because of Isaiah 14:12's use of Naphal. But believers can also "fall away" or "fall from grace". Maybe Nephilim originally meant Apostates or Apostasy? It is often said that Apostasy is the theme of Jude. Numbers 14:43 is also considered relevant to the issue of Apostasy, being possibly drawn on in Hebrews 6, and it uses Naphal.
Now in Number 13:33 it could be a wrong understanding of the word already existed, again we are told not to trust that account. But hypothetically if at least that word was used accurately, there are ways one could argue the Anakim were Apostates, maybe people who once followed Melchizedek and then fell away and traveled south towards Hebron.
Rob Skiba has attempted to make a point for his peculiar view by saying the second use of Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 is spelled the same as in Genesis 6 but the first use is different. Hence him arguing these Nephilim came from the Genesis 6 Nephilim. In the view I've proposed here, it could be these contemporary Anakim were not technically Apostates, but being called something similar because they descended from Apostates. Or more simply I could translate it "Apostates of the Apostasy".
The Enochian literature is all influenced by Greek mythological and philosophical ideas. I've been arguing against viewing such apocryphal literature as canon since way back when I did still believe in Angel-Human Hybrids. Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, none of them predate Greek influence.
But what's annoying is how people act like Apocryphal literature is universal in taking the Hybrid view. The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan is one example of a text that clearly depicts the Sethite view. The Book of the Cave of Treasures is an older Syriac version of the same story that one tells.
But what really surprised me was to find that Rob Skiba's own precious Book of Jasher supports the Sethite view. Jasher chapter 4 verses 16-18, is clearly that book's version of Genesis 6. Jasher chapter 3 verse 23 does use "Sons of God" seemingly of Angels in heaven, but this is unrelated to anything like the Genesis 6 account. In chapter 4 it's clear that the people who's corruption is linked to marrying "daughters of men" are the men of Seth's clan who this chapter is chronicling.
Jubilees chapter 5 I think could be interpreted as supporting either view, so I'm not gonna go into it. It uses the word Angel but again that can be used of human believers.
I've heard it claimed the Septuagint uses the word Angel in Genesis 6 which Hybrid view supporters point to, but the texts I've seen do not, either way the word can be used of human believers since it means messenger.
The Septuagint's main role in how views on this developed is in translating Nephilim as Gigantes, which is the origin of it being translated Giants, the English word Giant comes from Gigantes. What the Gigantes were originally in Greek mythology however was not even partly human, they were siblings of the Titans.
Which interpretation is older is irrelevant to which one is true. But regardless the Angel view can't be proven to exist before the time of Alexander bringing Greek influence to Judea.
The idea that Genetic Impurity was the reason for The Flood is what makes it the inherently Racist view. The only intermarriage The Torah truly opposes is Spiritual intermarriage. Malachi who is affirmed as a Prophet by the New Testament said it was marrying the daughter of a strange god Yahuah objected to.
Many Racists will use the Sethite view of course. Especially since the most blatantly racist Christians I've found online aren't even Young Earth Creationists and believe the first mixed marriage was Cain and his Wife who they wrongly claim didn't descend from Adam.
And what I'd say in a debate with them, is that if biological intermarriage was the point why did God describe it in Spiritual terms that made this confusion inevitable? If their version of the Sethite view was the intent it would have just said Sons of Seth or Sons of Enosh. But if the Hybrid view was true, it would have simply said Angels or just said Elohim which is already plural and sometimes used of Angels and thus not needed the "sons of" part.
In Genesis 6:11 the reason for the Flood is defined as being that the Earth was filled with Violence. The word translated "corrupt" there is also a word often associated with warfare, being also translated things like perish and spoiler. Verse 12 says man corrupted His way upon the Earth.
And this emphasis on violence is also consistent with the first 4 verses of chapter 6 because the word translated "mighty men" in the KJV is gibborim, which also gets accused of being a word for Giant, but what it means is warrior. It's sometimes used of good warriors in The Bible like David's Mighty Men, and is used of the first Warrior King Nimrod. But in this context it's about the world becoming filled with violence.
Also Genesis 6:4 calls them "Enosh of renown" which in a Pre-flood context I feel verifies they paternally descended from Enosh, since tribal identity in The Bible is usually identified by the father's line.
And the book of Jasher's interpretation of this situation of Sethites taking daughters of men is describing those daughters of men as spoils of war. And even Hybrid view supporters have pointed out that the language in Genesis 6:1-4 can be interpreted as implying the daughters of Adam were taken by force.
The line of Cain was also associated with Violence. From Cain being the first murderer, to whatever Lamech did. To Tubal-Cain's clan being perhaps the world's first weapons manufacturers.
The New Testament says Noah preached repentance, you can't repent of being born a hybrid, but you can repent of living by the sword.
Now you may object that I've made two different thematic connections, a connection to the theme of foreign pagan women leading Israelites astray, and women being raped as spoils of war. But I'd argue those themes do go together.
The main obvious Torah example of the foreign women theme is what happened with the Moabite women because of Balaam. People forget that happened after Israel had just been militarily victorious over Moab. And Solomon's many wives also came mostly from nations David had conquered, and chronologically Rehoboam's Ammonite mother he was married to while David still lived.
Taking women as spoils of war can lead to unwanted foreign cultural influence. To a moderner that's not the actual reason to morally object to the practice, and I'm sure God agrees. But when writing people a religious guide book unintended consequences are what people are more likely to listen to.
First I want to advise fellow critics of the Hybrid view to stop making bad arguments. What Jesus said about Marriage and the Resurrection in Matthew 22 had a specific purpose, I do still believe we will be having sex in the Resurrection because it's the Restoration of before the Fall. The Marriage that is done away with is the patriarchal marriage of Genesis 3. And nothing in Hebrews 1 proves Angels can't be called Sons of God, the key word in that verse is begotten, only Jesus is the begotten Son of God.
Calling this view the "Sethite view" does it a disservice because it makes it sound like it's the Racist view, when what made me grow more and more uncomfortable with the Hybride view is how it is constantly tied into racist beliefs. The real point of the Sethite view reaffirms how spiritual intermarriage is the only mixed marriage Yahuah truly objects to. Now it may have so happened that the peoples descended from Enosh may have been most likely to be followers of Yahuah in the Pre-Flood world, like how it was Israel Post-Flood, but that is not the actual point.
I get annoyed when people like Chuck Missler say that the end of Genesis 4 where it says "then began men to call upon the name of Yahuah" it actually says "profane the name of Yahuah" in the Hebrew. Because this is actually the exact same Hebrew phraseology used when Abraham called upon the Name of Yahuah at Shechem and Bethel in Genesis 12. If this "Profane" interpretation began among the Rabbis, it was probably a product of their Non-Biblical idea that you aren't supposed to pronounce the Name of Yahuah, that verbally saying it at all profanes it. And it's the same wording used in Joel 2, quoted by Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Romans 10 for saying that All who Call upon The Name of Yahuah shall be Saved.
The Bible definitely describes Gigantic people in certain narratives, but no word used in Genesis 6 or any other Pre-Flood narrative actually means that. We don't need supernatural hybridization to make that happen, I think this ancient Gigantism, distinct from the modern known condition, was simply a natural part of Noah's genetic potential that has been lost. But perhaps sometimes was triggered by cross breeding similar to why Lygers get so big.
Nephilim is a word used only three times in all of Scripture, in two passages, Genesis 6 and Numbers 13. The problem is using Numbers 13 to help us define the word has a major problem.
In Numbers 13:21-25, the narrative voice describes the Anakim and it never calls them Nephilim or describes them as Gigantic. Numbers 13:27-29 is the first description of the Anakim and others in Canaan the spies give, and still not yet called Nephilim or gigantic.
Caleb's good report comes next, and he doesn't use the word Nephilim or talk about giants. Then comes Numbers 13:31-33. In verse 32 the narrator says "and they gave an evil report of the land they had searched". The Hebrew word translated "evil report" is also sometimes translated "defaming" and "slander", like in Numbers 14:36 referencing back to this report saying it was a slander.
It is this report that first talks about the Anakim having great stature and in verse 33 twice uses the word Nephilim. What they are saying is not accurate, they are exaggerating, and may have themselves not been using this word correctly. And this passage is probably the reason translations starting with the Septuagint translated it Giants.
Deuteronomy 1:27-28 is again referencing back to this evil report. Deuteronomy 2:10 calls the Anakim tall, but Saul was also tall compared to most Israelites. Verse 11 says that Emims like the Anakim were "accounted" Rephaim, this word for accounted is also translated esteemed, reckoned, and even imagined. It is again describing a belief that may not be true. Verse 20 again talks about them being "accounted' Rephaim. Verse 21 again calls the Anakim tall, but nothing more. Deuteronomy 9:2 again simply calls the Anakim tall while referencing back to the evil report.
The first time the Anakim are mentioned in Joshua is in 11:21-22, where there is no mention of them being large in size, or Nephilim or Rephaim. Joshua 14:12-15 again references the evil report but without talking about Giants. Joshua 15:13-14 again mentioned the Anakim but no gigantic size. Joshua 21:11 and Judges 1:20 are the last two references to the Anakim and they are again not called Nephilim or Rephaim or giants.
The word Rephaim is also the name of a location in Israel, and sometimes gets translated "giants" even when referring to that location. The Rephaim as a group of people are first mentioned in Genesis 14 and 15.
The remaining references to the Rephaim are in Deuteronomy 3:11, Joshua 12:4, and 13:12. Which all call Og the king of Bashan the remnant or all the remains of the Rephaim. Og was defeated and killed by Israel in the time of Moses, well before the Anakim were in the time of Joshua. So if Og was the last of the Rephaim, then this repeatedly recorded belief that the Anakim were Rephaim must be wrong.
And it also proves the word Rephaim doesn't mean Giant because Goliath came later and he's never called a Rephaim, neither are his brothers. If Rephaim means giant then Goliath's existence creates a contradiction.
The term BeniElohim, translated "Sons of God", only appears in Genesis 6 and Job in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. Many Christians on this issue have argued the idea of believers being Sons of God isn't introduced until the New Testament in John 1. And that Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God is different because Adam was a "direct creation of God". The problem is that the debate about if this term refers to angels or humans or both and if so when forgets that more verses are relevant to this issue then just those that use that exact phrase.
Exodus 4:22-23 Yahuah says to Pharaoh "Israel is my son, even my firstborn: and I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn.". Deuteronomy 14:1 says "Ye are the children of Yahuah your God", the word for children being Ben.
In the Song of Moses, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 says in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts...
"When the Highest divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For Yahuah's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.".A DSS manuscript of this verse however says BeniElohim instead of "sons of Israel", which has lead many scholars to insist that must be the original and tie it into Daniel 10 and Ephesians 6 to create an idea that Elyon divided the 70 nations of Genesis 10 between 70 divine/angelic Principalities. However, whatever is the original maybe the copyist who changed it simply felt "sons of Israel" and "sons of God" meant the same thing? When Jacob came into Mizraim his family was 70, and in Numbers 11 we see another 70 for Israel. Jesus had His 70 Disciples also. Deuteronomy foretells Israel to be scattered to all the nations. And Romans 11 tells us the fullness of the gentiles will be grafted into Israel.
Psalm 82:6, a verse Jesus quoted, says "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the Highest.". This is a Psalm of Asaph, and it sounds like it's referencing back to something. When Jesus quotes it He attributes it to The Torah.
Also in the Book of Hosea, just read 1:10 and 11:1. In the latter Yahuah called Israel collectively His Son singular. But in the former he says the children of Israel are sons of the living God, present tense.
In II Samuel 7:14 Yahuah through Nathan tells David that Solomon will be His Son and He will be Solomon's Father. And eventually Solomon's great failing in 1 Kings 11 is tied to exactly what Sethite View proponents think the Sons of God did wrong in Genesis 6.
Ezekiel 16 begins by speaking of Israel as Yahuah's adopted daughter.
Malachi chapter 3 warns against marrying the Daughter of a Strange god. If the followers of strange gods are refereed to as their children, then clearly the followers of Yahuah are His children as well.
Even what's said in John 1 is not contradicting that believers already were God's Children. It says The Word came unto "His Own" and "His own received Him not" and then He gave others the ability to become Sons of God. The implication is that "His Own" were Sons of God already, or were supposed to be anyway.
Job provides the only place where the Hebrew term "BeniElohim" is used in a way where it seems impossible to say it's human believers and not Angels. And it's not even at the beginning, one could argue those are deceased believers in Heaven, or that this takes place in the congregation of an Earthly Mishkan, which is repeatedly refereed to as the Presence of Yahuah, as well as of Eden when Cain left it in Genesis 4. Ezekiel 28 tells us Satan was in the Garden of God and the Mountain of God (a term used only of Sinai), and because of the stones mentioned maybe implies he was the High Priest of that Mishkan.
It's the reference to BeniElohim and Morning Stars singing and shouting for joy when the foundations of the Earth were laid, in 38:4-7. Which then gets cross referenced with other precedent for calling Angels stars.
Thing is, Job unlike Deuteronomy and Psalm 82 isn't quoted by Jesus in the New Testament. But even with viewing it as God's Word it could still be viewed as a poetic narrative or parable and not literal history. And maybe how all these things said in Job 38 connect to each other is being misunderstood. In Revelation 2:28 Jesus says He will give the Morning Star to the over-comer. And Job 38:6 refers to The Corner Stone, something everywhere else we know is a title of Christ, so God could have been speaking Prophetically. And then there is the theory many Nephilim theorists like that the Great Pyramid was a Pre-Flood monument built by Sethites and the Corner Stone was it's Capstone. Verse 7 does seem to be about the Flood.
What Nebuchadnezzar says of the Angel who appeared in the Fiery Furnace in Daniel 3 also gets cited. This is an Aramaic term (that should be translated sons of the gods, plural) being used by a Pagan Gentile King who didn't became properly a believer till chapter 4. It's definitely not for building doctrine. (But also this scene is commonly viewed as a Theophany, this is The Angel of Yahuah, The Word of God, not a common ordinary Angel.)
And that Pagan belief is why Skeptics agree with the Hybrid interpretation of Genesis 6 (they just don't think it actually happened) because they're seeing it in the context of how the Pagan texts of Ugarit called the gods of their pantheon the sons of El their chief god, and one at least says there were 70. Actual Believers should be resisting that Pagan interpretation of the text rather then embracing it.
But perhaps it's disingenuous to use external sources or even later Torah verses to interpret Genesis 6 either way. Let's think about what this term likely meant in the context of reading through Genesis blind chronologically. The only prior precedent for something like Angels are the Cherubim and maybe the Serpent, none of them are in any way called sons of Elohim.
But when Eve gave birth to Seth near the end of Genesis 4, Seth is called a Son and then Eve says that Elohim appointed her another seed. Seth is called at his introduction a Son as well as from Elohim. (Additionally Genesis 4:1 could be read as saying Yahuah is a co-father of Cain in some way.) Even if I acquiesced to the Skeptics who think this text was originally written from a Pagan viewpoint, the ancient Pagans often didn't view the idea of having a Human father and a Divine father as contradictory, Alexander didn't think of it as denying Philip as his father when he claimed to be the Son of Zeus-Amon, Herakles was still heir to his father's royal line, and Oedipus was called a Son of Helios even though his story is built around him being the son of Laius. So there is both a Pagan and a Monotheistic justification for reading that verse as proclaiming Seth a son of Elohim. Also God-Human Hybrids (or Demigods) were mainly a Greek concept in antiquity, I've found no solid evidence of Near Eastern, Mesoptamian or Egyptian belief in similar Divine-Human Hybrids.
However maybe Genesis shouldn't be interpreted so independently. The first 5 books of The Bible are called the "books of Moses", but only 4 are directly about Moses. Perhaps Genesis is meant to be looked at as a Prequel, and everything in it should be interpreted in terms of how it anticipates, foreshadows and sets the stage for the Mosaic narrative. As a long time Star Wars Prequel Trilogy apologist and more recently a fan of Fate/Zero, I feel uniquely qualified to analyze Genesis as a Prequel.
In which case there is nothing in Exodus-Deuteronomy defining Angels as Sons of God, but plenty of precedent for believers being sons of Yahuah which I already cited above. And there is no narrative from Moses time about Angels interbreeding with Humans, but a number of passages about the danger of Yahuah's people marrying those who serve other gods. Numbers 25:1 even says "daughters of Moab" in a way that parallels "daughters of Adam". In fact later parts of Genesis say "daughters of Canaan", "daughters of the Canaanites", and "daughters of Heth" talking about the same issue. And beyond the Torah, Judges 14 uses "daughters of the philistines".
When defending the genealogies of Jesus, we love to point out how in the Hebrew mindset you can be called the Son of anyone your parents descended from. So Luke 3 calling Adam the Son of God absolutely proves Humans can be called sons of God. But during this mortal life non believers are currently estranged children, I of course believe God intends to bring everyone back in eventually, but it's us believers who already are.
The main reason lots of Christians have supported the Hybrid view is the apparent New Testament references in 2 Peter and Jude. Even though offspring of these "rebel angels' are not refereed to in those verses.
2 Peter 2:4 and 5 are possibly not even about the same thing. Verse 4 could seemingly be describing Dathan and Korah's rebellion.
Jude verses 6 and 7 are viewed as comparing the Genesis 6 incident to Sodom and Gomorrah. In my past studies on what Jude says about Sodom, I said both these incidents are about lust between angels and humans, emphasizing how "strange" in strange flesh means different, alien, foreign, ect. But now I recall how my greater point about the Sin of Sodom is how Ezekiel and Jesus define it has being inhospitable to foreigners. I should have realized sooner that Jude's intent was to condemn them for their desire to rape foreigners traveling through them.
Jude mentioned Korah in verse 11, could it be this is all connected and he was also thinking of that incident in verse 6? Verse 5 seems to set up the context as after the Exodus. And you can't object to Jude then going backwards chronologically when he mentions Sodom in verse 7 because verse 11 also listed the people it refers to out of their chronological order.
Chuck Missler makes a thing out of a rarely used word for Habitation in Jude 11. Paul's use of Oiketerion in 1 Corinthians 5:5 follows a reference to the Tabernacle in verse 1. Thing is, Mishkan also means Habitation, Dathan and Korah created their own Tabernacle that their followers chose over the Tabernacle of Moses and Aaron.
I think the Greek root normally translated Tabernacle in the KJV is the Greek equivalent to Ohel, since it literally means Tent and is used of both the Mishkan and the Sukkots of the Feast of Tabernacles in John 7. I think Oiketerion should be viewed as the proper Greek equivalent of Mishkan. A number of OT verses use Ohel and Mishkan interchangeably.
In the past I've argued Nephilim means Fallen Ones because it comes from Naphal meaning fall. And viewed that as supporting it being of Fallen Angels because of Isaiah 14:12's use of Naphal. But believers can also "fall away" or "fall from grace". Maybe Nephilim originally meant Apostates or Apostasy? It is often said that Apostasy is the theme of Jude. Numbers 14:43 is also considered relevant to the issue of Apostasy, being possibly drawn on in Hebrews 6, and it uses Naphal.
Now in Number 13:33 it could be a wrong understanding of the word already existed, again we are told not to trust that account. But hypothetically if at least that word was used accurately, there are ways one could argue the Anakim were Apostates, maybe people who once followed Melchizedek and then fell away and traveled south towards Hebron.
Rob Skiba has attempted to make a point for his peculiar view by saying the second use of Nephilim in Numbers 13:33 is spelled the same as in Genesis 6 but the first use is different. Hence him arguing these Nephilim came from the Genesis 6 Nephilim. In the view I've proposed here, it could be these contemporary Anakim were not technically Apostates, but being called something similar because they descended from Apostates. Or more simply I could translate it "Apostates of the Apostasy".
The Enochian literature is all influenced by Greek mythological and philosophical ideas. I've been arguing against viewing such apocryphal literature as canon since way back when I did still believe in Angel-Human Hybrids. Same with the Dead Sea Scrolls, none of them predate Greek influence.
But what's annoying is how people act like Apocryphal literature is universal in taking the Hybrid view. The Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan is one example of a text that clearly depicts the Sethite view. The Book of the Cave of Treasures is an older Syriac version of the same story that one tells.
But what really surprised me was to find that Rob Skiba's own precious Book of Jasher supports the Sethite view. Jasher chapter 4 verses 16-18, is clearly that book's version of Genesis 6. Jasher chapter 3 verse 23 does use "Sons of God" seemingly of Angels in heaven, but this is unrelated to anything like the Genesis 6 account. In chapter 4 it's clear that the people who's corruption is linked to marrying "daughters of men" are the men of Seth's clan who this chapter is chronicling.
Jubilees chapter 5 I think could be interpreted as supporting either view, so I'm not gonna go into it. It uses the word Angel but again that can be used of human believers.
I've heard it claimed the Septuagint uses the word Angel in Genesis 6 which Hybrid view supporters point to, but the texts I've seen do not, either way the word can be used of human believers since it means messenger.
The Septuagint's main role in how views on this developed is in translating Nephilim as Gigantes, which is the origin of it being translated Giants, the English word Giant comes from Gigantes. What the Gigantes were originally in Greek mythology however was not even partly human, they were siblings of the Titans.
Which interpretation is older is irrelevant to which one is true. But regardless the Angel view can't be proven to exist before the time of Alexander bringing Greek influence to Judea.
The idea that Genetic Impurity was the reason for The Flood is what makes it the inherently Racist view. The only intermarriage The Torah truly opposes is Spiritual intermarriage. Malachi who is affirmed as a Prophet by the New Testament said it was marrying the daughter of a strange god Yahuah objected to.
Many Racists will use the Sethite view of course. Especially since the most blatantly racist Christians I've found online aren't even Young Earth Creationists and believe the first mixed marriage was Cain and his Wife who they wrongly claim didn't descend from Adam.
And what I'd say in a debate with them, is that if biological intermarriage was the point why did God describe it in Spiritual terms that made this confusion inevitable? If their version of the Sethite view was the intent it would have just said Sons of Seth or Sons of Enosh. But if the Hybrid view was true, it would have simply said Angels or just said Elohim which is already plural and sometimes used of Angels and thus not needed the "sons of" part.
In Genesis 6:11 the reason for the Flood is defined as being that the Earth was filled with Violence. The word translated "corrupt" there is also a word often associated with warfare, being also translated things like perish and spoiler. Verse 12 says man corrupted His way upon the Earth.
And this emphasis on violence is also consistent with the first 4 verses of chapter 6 because the word translated "mighty men" in the KJV is gibborim, which also gets accused of being a word for Giant, but what it means is warrior. It's sometimes used of good warriors in The Bible like David's Mighty Men, and is used of the first Warrior King Nimrod. But in this context it's about the world becoming filled with violence.
Also Genesis 6:4 calls them "Enosh of renown" which in a Pre-flood context I feel verifies they paternally descended from Enosh, since tribal identity in The Bible is usually identified by the father's line.
And the book of Jasher's interpretation of this situation of Sethites taking daughters of men is describing those daughters of men as spoils of war. And even Hybrid view supporters have pointed out that the language in Genesis 6:1-4 can be interpreted as implying the daughters of Adam were taken by force.
The line of Cain was also associated with Violence. From Cain being the first murderer, to whatever Lamech did. To Tubal-Cain's clan being perhaps the world's first weapons manufacturers.
The New Testament says Noah preached repentance, you can't repent of being born a hybrid, but you can repent of living by the sword.
Now you may object that I've made two different thematic connections, a connection to the theme of foreign pagan women leading Israelites astray, and women being raped as spoils of war. But I'd argue those themes do go together.
The main obvious Torah example of the foreign women theme is what happened with the Moabite women because of Balaam. People forget that happened after Israel had just been militarily victorious over Moab. And Solomon's many wives also came mostly from nations David had conquered, and chronologically Rehoboam's Ammonite mother he was married to while David still lived.
Taking women as spoils of war can lead to unwanted foreign cultural influence. To a moderner that's not the actual reason to morally object to the practice, and I'm sure God agrees. But when writing people a religious guide book unintended consequences are what people are more likely to listen to.
Friday, December 1, 2017
The Tabernacle and The Temple
So another issue that comes up when dealing with Torah only and Torah centric teachers is the distinction between Temple and Tabernacle. How the very existence of Solomon's Temple violates their interpretation of The Torah.
2 Samuel 7 agrees entirely that a Temple like what David wanted to build was not originally God's Plan for Israel. And I frankly feel I can consider the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles and even Ezra-Nehemiah to be God's Word while considering that Yahuah didn't approve of this Monarchical system as much as people assume.
What I want to talk about is how maybe, even leaving aside the doctrine of The Church now being God's Temple, the Eschatological Temple envisioned by the Prophets of the TNAK and New Testament really is a Tabernacle not a Temple like what Solomon built.
I could talk about how in the Hebrew and Greek there is more then one word translated Temple. And I will to an extent. But more importantly is that in English at least 2 Samuel 7 uses no word for Temple to describe what makes David's intended project unlike God's original plan for Israel. Therefore there is no reason to assume either would be inaccurate to use to describe The Tabernacle. Words for Temple tend to just mean a place for worship.
The word Ezekiel uses every time you see Temple in the KJV including in chapters 40-48. Is used of the Tabernacle at Shiloh in 1 Samuel 1:9 and 3:3. This word isn't used in The Torah, but also isn't used in 2 Samuel 7. It's maybe if anything more difficult etymologically to argue can refer to a Tent or outdoor shrine, and yet in Samuel it clearly is used of the Tabernacle. Some people think the use of this word means a fence of some type was built around the Tabernacle at Shiloh, but that's conjecture.
The same word seems to in other places be used of palaces, like of King's Palaces in verses like Psalm 45:15. Remember however that Yahuah was supposed to be Israel's King (Deuteronomy 33 calls Him King in Jashurum), and the Holy of Holies is treated like His Throne Room. This word is also used in Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 about an event from when David was fleeing from Saul.
The other Hebrew word for Temple is also translated House, and as such is used in The Torah and 2 Samuel 7. It is the word that the name Beth-El comes from, meaning House of God. The Tabernacle is called "The House of Yahuah thy God" in The Torah, in Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 23:18. And later Joshua 6:24 also calls it the House of Yahuah, and so does Judges 19:18, and again in 1 Samuel 1 and 3, and 2 Samuel 12:20 (when David still hadn't even bought Moriah from Ornan yet).
In that sense, it seems odd for 2 Samuel 7:6 to have Yahuah say He hasn't dwelt in any House since He brought Israel out of Mizraim. The context was David's comments about a House of Cedar in contrast to Curtains, so the context here is using House more distinctly then it might normally be used, of a House made of Wood or Stone and not a Tent. (I can't help but notice the implication that maybe He did before, perhaps He had a House on Mt Sinai?)
A Hebrew word not translated Temple in the KJV but that possibly is in other translations is Mikadesh, derived from Kadesh. The KJV most commonly translates it Sanctuary. It is very much used of both The Tabernacle (including in The Torah), Solomon's Temple (in Chronicles but not Samuel-Kings curiously), and Ezekiel's Temple.
Some of the Prophetic references do say Tabernacle rather then either of these words for Temple. Isaiah 16:5 and 33:20, Ezekiel 37:27 and 41:1, and Amos 9:11, that a few of these say specifically of David I find interesting, since David's Tabernacle was in Zion, not where Solomon's Temple was. (I have pointed out some misconceptions about where Zion which is The City of David was located.) Though only Ezekiel 37:27 in the Hebrew is Mishkan. But Ohel is the word that most literally means Tent. In Exodus 26:7 Ohel is translated covering, as if the Ohel is the Tent itself and the Mishkan the whole structure, or what's inside the Tent. So Ezekiel 41:1 says this future "Temple" will have a Tent. Amos 9:11 is quoted in the New Testament in Acts 15.
Places where Mishkan is translated something other then Tabernacle include Psalm 132:5 which I think is about David's Tabernacle on Zion where it is rendered Habitation. But also interestingly 2 Chronicles 29:6, also Habitation, which seems to be using it of Solomon's Temple. Psalm 74, a Psalm of Asaph, uses it in verse 7 where it is translated "dwelling place".
Outside The Torah the word Mishkan is used in plural form a few times, but in The Torah the only time it's used in a plural form is Numbers 24:5.
In The New Testament. there is only one word (or rather all from the same root, Strong Numbers 4633-4638) for Tabernacle, it's used both in reference to the Feast of Sukkot and of the Tent of Meeting. But this Greek word is also used as a verb, for Dwell.
What Stephen says in Acts 7:44-50 is interesting.
Everyone talks about Revelation 21-22 saying there is no Temple. But overlook how Revelation 21:3 specifically calls New Jerusalem the Tabernacle of God.
A total of 3 Greek words are translated Temple in the KJV (and two verses in Corinthians that seem to use the word Temple without a direct basis in The Greek). One of them is Temple in the KJV only once in Luke 11:51, it's usually translated House.
Naos is the word used in Revelation, and by Paul when constructing his doctrine of The Church being the Temple of God. And it's the word used when Jesus refers to His Body as "This Temple". Naos also gets translated Shrines in Acts 19:24 referring to Diana's. Naos's usage outside of the New Testament leaves no doubt it can apply to outdoor shrines, like it's usage of the Egyptian Naos. Stephen and Paul both use the plural of Naos when saying God doesn't dwell in Temples made by Human hands in Acts 7:48 and 17:24. Paul also used Naos when referring to our bodies as the Temple of God, Peter expresses that same doctrine saying our bodies are the Tabernacle.
The third is Herion, which is a noun form of the Greek word for Holy, Heiros. It coincidentally happens to resemble how the first part of Jerusalem is rendered in Greek. That happens to fit though since Jerusalem is called God's Holy City, and it is where Solomon and Herod's Temples were located. In Matthew 12:5 Jesus used Herion while citing The Torah, so He must have been using it of The Tabernacle, possibly the Hebrew term translated "Holy Place".
In the New Testament "Sanctuary" is Hagios/Hagion, derived from another Greek word for Holy.
In my Nephilim post I identify what I view as the Greek counterpart to Mishkan.
2 Samuel 7 agrees entirely that a Temple like what David wanted to build was not originally God's Plan for Israel. And I frankly feel I can consider the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles and even Ezra-Nehemiah to be God's Word while considering that Yahuah didn't approve of this Monarchical system as much as people assume.
What I want to talk about is how maybe, even leaving aside the doctrine of The Church now being God's Temple, the Eschatological Temple envisioned by the Prophets of the TNAK and New Testament really is a Tabernacle not a Temple like what Solomon built.
I could talk about how in the Hebrew and Greek there is more then one word translated Temple. And I will to an extent. But more importantly is that in English at least 2 Samuel 7 uses no word for Temple to describe what makes David's intended project unlike God's original plan for Israel. Therefore there is no reason to assume either would be inaccurate to use to describe The Tabernacle. Words for Temple tend to just mean a place for worship.
The word Ezekiel uses every time you see Temple in the KJV including in chapters 40-48. Is used of the Tabernacle at Shiloh in 1 Samuel 1:9 and 3:3. This word isn't used in The Torah, but also isn't used in 2 Samuel 7. It's maybe if anything more difficult etymologically to argue can refer to a Tent or outdoor shrine, and yet in Samuel it clearly is used of the Tabernacle. Some people think the use of this word means a fence of some type was built around the Tabernacle at Shiloh, but that's conjecture.
The same word seems to in other places be used of palaces, like of King's Palaces in verses like Psalm 45:15. Remember however that Yahuah was supposed to be Israel's King (Deuteronomy 33 calls Him King in Jashurum), and the Holy of Holies is treated like His Throne Room. This word is also used in Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel 22 about an event from when David was fleeing from Saul.
The other Hebrew word for Temple is also translated House, and as such is used in The Torah and 2 Samuel 7. It is the word that the name Beth-El comes from, meaning House of God. The Tabernacle is called "The House of Yahuah thy God" in The Torah, in Exodus 23:19, 34:26 and Deuteronomy 23:18. And later Joshua 6:24 also calls it the House of Yahuah, and so does Judges 19:18, and again in 1 Samuel 1 and 3, and 2 Samuel 12:20 (when David still hadn't even bought Moriah from Ornan yet).
In that sense, it seems odd for 2 Samuel 7:6 to have Yahuah say He hasn't dwelt in any House since He brought Israel out of Mizraim. The context was David's comments about a House of Cedar in contrast to Curtains, so the context here is using House more distinctly then it might normally be used, of a House made of Wood or Stone and not a Tent. (I can't help but notice the implication that maybe He did before, perhaps He had a House on Mt Sinai?)
A Hebrew word not translated Temple in the KJV but that possibly is in other translations is Mikadesh, derived from Kadesh. The KJV most commonly translates it Sanctuary. It is very much used of both The Tabernacle (including in The Torah), Solomon's Temple (in Chronicles but not Samuel-Kings curiously), and Ezekiel's Temple.
Some of the Prophetic references do say Tabernacle rather then either of these words for Temple. Isaiah 16:5 and 33:20, Ezekiel 37:27 and 41:1, and Amos 9:11, that a few of these say specifically of David I find interesting, since David's Tabernacle was in Zion, not where Solomon's Temple was. (I have pointed out some misconceptions about where Zion which is The City of David was located.) Though only Ezekiel 37:27 in the Hebrew is Mishkan. But Ohel is the word that most literally means Tent. In Exodus 26:7 Ohel is translated covering, as if the Ohel is the Tent itself and the Mishkan the whole structure, or what's inside the Tent. So Ezekiel 41:1 says this future "Temple" will have a Tent. Amos 9:11 is quoted in the New Testament in Acts 15.
Places where Mishkan is translated something other then Tabernacle include Psalm 132:5 which I think is about David's Tabernacle on Zion where it is rendered Habitation. But also interestingly 2 Chronicles 29:6, also Habitation, which seems to be using it of Solomon's Temple. Psalm 74, a Psalm of Asaph, uses it in verse 7 where it is translated "dwelling place".
Outside The Torah the word Mishkan is used in plural form a few times, but in The Torah the only time it's used in a plural form is Numbers 24:5.
In The New Testament. there is only one word (or rather all from the same root, Strong Numbers 4633-4638) for Tabernacle, it's used both in reference to the Feast of Sukkot and of the Tent of Meeting. But this Greek word is also used as a verb, for Dwell.
What Stephen says in Acts 7:44-50 is interesting.
Everyone talks about Revelation 21-22 saying there is no Temple. But overlook how Revelation 21:3 specifically calls New Jerusalem the Tabernacle of God.
A total of 3 Greek words are translated Temple in the KJV (and two verses in Corinthians that seem to use the word Temple without a direct basis in The Greek). One of them is Temple in the KJV only once in Luke 11:51, it's usually translated House.
Naos is the word used in Revelation, and by Paul when constructing his doctrine of The Church being the Temple of God. And it's the word used when Jesus refers to His Body as "This Temple". Naos also gets translated Shrines in Acts 19:24 referring to Diana's. Naos's usage outside of the New Testament leaves no doubt it can apply to outdoor shrines, like it's usage of the Egyptian Naos. Stephen and Paul both use the plural of Naos when saying God doesn't dwell in Temples made by Human hands in Acts 7:48 and 17:24. Paul also used Naos when referring to our bodies as the Temple of God, Peter expresses that same doctrine saying our bodies are the Tabernacle.
The third is Herion, which is a noun form of the Greek word for Holy, Heiros. It coincidentally happens to resemble how the first part of Jerusalem is rendered in Greek. That happens to fit though since Jerusalem is called God's Holy City, and it is where Solomon and Herod's Temples were located. In Matthew 12:5 Jesus used Herion while citing The Torah, so He must have been using it of The Tabernacle, possibly the Hebrew term translated "Holy Place".
In the New Testament "Sanctuary" is Hagios/Hagion, derived from another Greek word for Holy.
In my Nephilim post I identify what I view as the Greek counterpart to Mishkan.
Saturday, November 25, 2017
The Torah failed it's own Prophet Test
I obviously do not believe that, I'm saying it Rhetorically.
You see, these Hebrew Roots people insisting The Torah says it will last forever have a problem, it didn't.
You see the verses that say something will last for Olam or "All of the Days", are not saying simply that's how long this will be Yahuah's preferred way or doing things. They are saying that is how long it will last.
At the latest The Torah stopped being practiced in 70 AD, but a lot of these Torah only people insist the true Torah system was abandoned well before that, when The Temple replaced the Tabernacle at the latest. That is a subject I'll probably discus in future posts, not sure which Blog I'll put it on.
So you can't just pick and choose which parts of these verses to apply the most extreme interpretation to.
Especially when it comes to the Aaronic Priesthood, that was a Promise to Aaron and his Sons that they wold be Priests, not simply that only they were allowed to be, because as I remind you Yahuah never shut down Jethro's Priesthood. Today the descendants of Aaron have nothing other then special Synagogue reading privileges. So if Yahuah's promise to Aaron was FOREVER then He failed to keep it.
"But doesn't the foretold Captivity imply a temporary ceasing of the system?" You may ask?
1. I believe the true Captivity didn't fully begin till the 130s AD. Everything before was just lesser warnings.
2. During the time between the first and second temples the Elephantine Temple was functioning in Egypt. In 66-73 AD the Egyptian back up Temple was also shut down.
3. Since I believe The Torah was only for an Olam, I believe the Captivity begins after that Olam ends.
You see, these Hebrew Roots people insisting The Torah says it will last forever have a problem, it didn't.
You see the verses that say something will last for Olam or "All of the Days", are not saying simply that's how long this will be Yahuah's preferred way or doing things. They are saying that is how long it will last.
At the latest The Torah stopped being practiced in 70 AD, but a lot of these Torah only people insist the true Torah system was abandoned well before that, when The Temple replaced the Tabernacle at the latest. That is a subject I'll probably discus in future posts, not sure which Blog I'll put it on.
So you can't just pick and choose which parts of these verses to apply the most extreme interpretation to.
Especially when it comes to the Aaronic Priesthood, that was a Promise to Aaron and his Sons that they wold be Priests, not simply that only they were allowed to be, because as I remind you Yahuah never shut down Jethro's Priesthood. Today the descendants of Aaron have nothing other then special Synagogue reading privileges. So if Yahuah's promise to Aaron was FOREVER then He failed to keep it.
"But doesn't the foretold Captivity imply a temporary ceasing of the system?" You may ask?
1. I believe the true Captivity didn't fully begin till the 130s AD. Everything before was just lesser warnings.
2. During the time between the first and second temples the Elephantine Temple was functioning in Egypt. In 66-73 AD the Egyptian back up Temple was also shut down.
3. Since I believe The Torah was only for an Olam, I believe the Captivity begins after that Olam ends.
Friday, November 24, 2017
Torah as The Foundation of The Canon
A few posts I've made over the last two months have been addressed to people who's view on Canon I've described as "Torah Only". The Remember The Commands YouTube channel rejects that description it seems, preferring to say it's the Torah as the Foundation.
Thing is it's basically the same thing, when you're using an extreme interpretation of the Prophet Test to discredit any book that has any apparent conflict with The Torah. But of course they have a different attitude towards alleged places where The Torah contradicts itself.
Numbers 12:6-8 is cited as explaining why Moses is distinct from other Prophets, why what Moses said and wrote is more Canon then anything else.
But Deuteronomy 18:15-19 foretells a future Prophet like Moses, who's authority will be exactly like how Moses was described in Numbers 12.
I believe that Prophet was Jesus. That belief requires a great deal of Faith, as does placing one's Faith in the God of Moses. So anything Jesus quoted as Scripture must be Scripture, and He also passed on His authority to the 12, starting with Peter. And Peter called Paul's writings Scripture.
It's interesting in the context of this title of Jesus to remember what Exodus 7:1 says. Typologically that's another place where Moses represents Jesus, and Aaron all New Testament believers, since now we are all Priests.
Basically what I'm saying is, to Christians Jesus is our Cornerstone, and His Apostles who wrote the New Testament are our Foundation. The dispensation of The Torah is over.
Update November 25th 2017:
Some who aren't Christians or Rabbinic Jews seek to deconstruct the whole idea of Messianic Prophecy. They might insist that Deuteronomy 18 wasn't meant to be about a single individual. But that it would be an office.
Meanwhile the context in Numbers 12 is Yahuah explaining why Miriam and Aaron' authority are not like that of Moses. So you can argue the intent was only that while Moses lived no one else's authority equals Moses.
The end of Deuteronomy does clearly say there was no one like Moses during whatever time separated it's authorship from the Death of Moses. However....
When you look at Samuel's story in 1st Samuel 3, it's easy to conclude that perhaps that author meant us to think of Samuel as the Prophet like Unto Moses, and he was contemporary with other events foretold in Deuteronomy, in chapter 17. Samuel is often considered the first Prophet in the sense of how that Office functioned during the Kingdom period. And most of the Prophetic books are arguably defining themselves as being like how Moses is defined in these passages of Numbers and Deuteronomy, with only Daniel fitting Numbers 12's description of the not Moses like Prophets.
This view can be reconciled with the Christian view. The Prophet like unto Moses is ultimately Jesus, but other Prophets foreshadowed Him, and then He passed His Authority onto The Apostles.
Thing is it's basically the same thing, when you're using an extreme interpretation of the Prophet Test to discredit any book that has any apparent conflict with The Torah. But of course they have a different attitude towards alleged places where The Torah contradicts itself.
Numbers 12:6-8 is cited as explaining why Moses is distinct from other Prophets, why what Moses said and wrote is more Canon then anything else.
But Deuteronomy 18:15-19 foretells a future Prophet like Moses, who's authority will be exactly like how Moses was described in Numbers 12.
I believe that Prophet was Jesus. That belief requires a great deal of Faith, as does placing one's Faith in the God of Moses. So anything Jesus quoted as Scripture must be Scripture, and He also passed on His authority to the 12, starting with Peter. And Peter called Paul's writings Scripture.
It's interesting in the context of this title of Jesus to remember what Exodus 7:1 says. Typologically that's another place where Moses represents Jesus, and Aaron all New Testament believers, since now we are all Priests.
Basically what I'm saying is, to Christians Jesus is our Cornerstone, and His Apostles who wrote the New Testament are our Foundation. The dispensation of The Torah is over.
Update November 25th 2017:
Some who aren't Christians or Rabbinic Jews seek to deconstruct the whole idea of Messianic Prophecy. They might insist that Deuteronomy 18 wasn't meant to be about a single individual. But that it would be an office.
Meanwhile the context in Numbers 12 is Yahuah explaining why Miriam and Aaron' authority are not like that of Moses. So you can argue the intent was only that while Moses lived no one else's authority equals Moses.
The end of Deuteronomy does clearly say there was no one like Moses during whatever time separated it's authorship from the Death of Moses. However....
When you look at Samuel's story in 1st Samuel 3, it's easy to conclude that perhaps that author meant us to think of Samuel as the Prophet like Unto Moses, and he was contemporary with other events foretold in Deuteronomy, in chapter 17. Samuel is often considered the first Prophet in the sense of how that Office functioned during the Kingdom period. And most of the Prophetic books are arguably defining themselves as being like how Moses is defined in these passages of Numbers and Deuteronomy, with only Daniel fitting Numbers 12's description of the not Moses like Prophets.
This view can be reconciled with the Christian view. The Prophet like unto Moses is ultimately Jesus, but other Prophets foreshadowed Him, and then He passed His Authority onto The Apostles.
Thursday, November 16, 2017
The Bible is not against "Interacial" Marriage
The Torah's commands against marriages with the Canaanites were about mixed marriages on Spiritual grounds. The issue with the marriages Balaam helped arrange is deliberately explained as the daughters of Moab leading them to into idolatry.
Lots of people want to deny this, yes even today some still try to preach against White People marrying Black People (as if that modern ethnic divide could possibly correlate to any tribal relations in The Bible).
Even going off just The Torah Who Israelites are allowed to marry, and who they're not, makes no sense if it's purely Ethnic or genealogical lines, they're too arbitrary. The commands against it are primarily directed at Canaanites, which would work in that context. But then Moab and Ammon, who descend from Lot, Abraham's Nephew. One could speculate their gene pool was corrupted by their Incestuous origin, but in Deuteronomy 2 Yahuah still recognized their right to their land as much as he does Edom's. Their idolatry is I believe the reason they normally can't marry Israelites, yet God's promise of the land he gave to the family of Abraham still applies to them in spite of that.
However marriages to Mizraimites, other descendants of Ham, same son of Noah as Canaan, are repeatedly shown to be okay. Hagar and Abraham's relationship was not disapproved of by God. Then Ishmael married a Mizraimite. Joseph married the daughter of a Mizraimite Priest. Leviticus 24 records the son of a Danite Woman and a Mizraimite man being an Israelite. You can conjecture his ancestry related to his Sin all you want, but the text doesn't say that, his Punishment shows he was considered a citizen. Later the Book of Chronicles tells us of other marriages with Mizraimites that happened pretty early on.
I just did a post on the Cushite Wife of Moses. It can be viewed as an oversimplification of the passage to say it's explicitly approving that marriage, yet if Moses was wrong to marry her, Yahuah would have said so as Moses Sin at Meribah is not glossed over.
Edom is not included on those prohibited to marry either. On the one hand you could say that makes sense, they are closer related to Israel then them, coming from Jacob's Twin. Yet Edom himself married some Canaanites he wasn't supposed to, so why wasn't that condemnation inherited by their descendants if genetics not who they worship was the issue? Plus in other contexts The Torah mentions Edom right by Moab and Amon. The difference is Moab and Amon worshiped Idols, Chemosh and Molech, while Edom as I've talked about before seems to have worshiped Yahuah, often worshiped Him wrong perhaps, but still worshiped Him. Compare Deuteronomy 23:3 to 23:7.
And in a post I'm working on for my Prophecy blog, I'm going to suggest the Mizraimites (often translated Egypt and Egyptian) of the Torah may not have worshiped Idols yet either.
The Levites had many special restrictions, they were not allowed to even marry women of other Tribes of Israel. You can't use their restrictions to interpret general Laws for all the people.
Deuteronomy 7:3 is the primary verse cited by anti-Mixed Marriage people. They ignore the very next verse.
Now, going beyond The Torah, since most Christians consider all of The Bible canon.
The Book of Ruth.
One website obsessed with saying Interracial marriage is wrong regardless of faith, insists Ruth was not a Moabitess. This was not a Torah only website obviously, or they'd just do what I've seen some Torah only people do and reject the line of David. They seem to overlook that if you want to be selective about Canon only the Book of Ruth places a Ruth in Davids ancestry in the TNAK, and Matthew does not repeat her Moabite status. Though I feel Matthew's mention of her name does Canonize the book of Ruth for all Christians, since there is no other Biblical source he could have gotten it from.
This website argued the Country or Plain of Moab mentioned in Ruth is not in what you usually see Moab limited to on Maps, south of Reuben and the river Arnon, but land that was Moabite before the conquest. (I think this website was trying to argue it wasn't even Trans-Jordan.) This forgets that Deuteronomy 2 explicitly says God wasn't going to give Israelites any land of Edom, Moab or Amon. The Trans-Jordan tribes decision to stay Trans-Jordon when that wasn't the original plan arguably complicated this, but I still think it was mostly only Canaanite and Ishmaelite territory they borrowed.
The word Sojourn is used in the very first verse, a word that is usually used of dwelling in a foreign land. Used of Non-Israleites in Israel, and of Isrealites when they Sojourned in Egypt.
They say it doesn't matter that Ruth is called a Moabitess, they believe she was an Israelite, yet is the only Israelite ever repeatedly called a Moabite.
Some verses do say ___ite when referring to a geographical association rather then genealogical ancestry. But there are usually of Non-Israelites, or of the Patriarchs back before they were their own tribe, hence them being called Arameans even though they descended form Arphaxad not Aram. Or if it's used of Israelites it's only in a sense that confuses what Tribe they are, like Samuel as a Levite being called am Ephraimite, or the mother of Hiram being both a daughter of Dan and a Widow of Naphtali.
Even if the land they were in can be argued to be formally Moabite territory then belonging to Gad or Reuben. That hardly rules out Ruth being ethnically Moabite, as the Moabite population of that region would hardly disappear.
Either Ruth was not an Israelite, or the author of Ruth wanted to deceive their readers into thinking she wasn't.
But regardless of all their technical arguments about what terms mean. To any literary analysis of the book it is absurd to deny that Ruth was a foreigner and that it is advocating for allowing a foreigner to marry into Israel if they are faithful to The Torah. Ruth is ignorant of the ways of Israel at the start and needs to learn them from Naomi. And in Ruth 4:5-6, why else would the kinsman in line before Boaz reject her out of concern of his inheritance being barred unless he was concerned with the laws against marrying Moabites? Obviously people who thought those laws were purely Ethnic existed back then, Ruth is a book written to argue against that belief.
Uriah The Hittie's marriage to Bathsheba was not an issue either, because he was clearly someone who worshiped Yahuah and who Yahuah considered His Servant.
Ezra and Nehemiah.
Some argue that it is specifically Ezra and Nehemiah who's decisions strongly leave no room for allowing ethnically mixed marriages. Skeptics of The Bible see them as clearly philosophically opposed to the Book of Ruth (and try to claim Ruth was written about the same time by an opposing camp).
Now I haven't studied these two book as much I as should yet. Maybe they too are being miss-characterized by those who oppose mixed Marriages. If so I apologize that I can't adequately defend them here just yet.
What I am going to say is that while I believe the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are canonical inspired records of History. Ezra and Nehemiah were still flawed fallible humans who's interpretations of The Torah we don't necessarily have to agree with. Even Paul sometimes said "says I not The Lord", and I trust Paul's Judgment more then theirs.
The website I have in mind says The Messiah (they believe that is Jesus) upheld the rulings of Ezra and Nehemiah. But I see no place in The Gospels where Jesus does that. The book of Ezra is never directly quoted in the New Testament, there is one verse where arguably Jesus is referencing Nehemiah, but that is disputable. But even then, the verse of Nehemiah in question is not one of their rulings but describing the Manna miracle in the Wilderness.
Jesus acknowledgment of the Second Temple in John 4 is only upholding Zerubabel and Jeshua, Ezra and Nehemiah came later. Likewise the Prophetic books of the return from Captivity period uphold those two a lot but don't mention Ezra or Nehemiah. And I think even they possibly built The Temple on the wrong location.
Malachi who was clearly quoted by Jesus as a Prophet, says in chapter 2 verse 11 that the issue is marrying "the daughter of a strange god". He was a contemporary of the same concerns Ezra and Nehemiah were dealing with. And the only specific people group spoken of negatively in Malachi is Esau, who were not among those prohibited to marry in the Torah as I laid out.
In The New Testament, Paul taught that there is neither Jew or Gentile in The Church in Galatians 3, and about Gentiles being grafted into Israel Unnaturally in Romans 11.
Lots of people want to deny this, yes even today some still try to preach against White People marrying Black People (as if that modern ethnic divide could possibly correlate to any tribal relations in The Bible).
Even going off just The Torah Who Israelites are allowed to marry, and who they're not, makes no sense if it's purely Ethnic or genealogical lines, they're too arbitrary. The commands against it are primarily directed at Canaanites, which would work in that context. But then Moab and Ammon, who descend from Lot, Abraham's Nephew. One could speculate their gene pool was corrupted by their Incestuous origin, but in Deuteronomy 2 Yahuah still recognized their right to their land as much as he does Edom's. Their idolatry is I believe the reason they normally can't marry Israelites, yet God's promise of the land he gave to the family of Abraham still applies to them in spite of that.
However marriages to Mizraimites, other descendants of Ham, same son of Noah as Canaan, are repeatedly shown to be okay. Hagar and Abraham's relationship was not disapproved of by God. Then Ishmael married a Mizraimite. Joseph married the daughter of a Mizraimite Priest. Leviticus 24 records the son of a Danite Woman and a Mizraimite man being an Israelite. You can conjecture his ancestry related to his Sin all you want, but the text doesn't say that, his Punishment shows he was considered a citizen. Later the Book of Chronicles tells us of other marriages with Mizraimites that happened pretty early on.
I just did a post on the Cushite Wife of Moses. It can be viewed as an oversimplification of the passage to say it's explicitly approving that marriage, yet if Moses was wrong to marry her, Yahuah would have said so as Moses Sin at Meribah is not glossed over.
Edom is not included on those prohibited to marry either. On the one hand you could say that makes sense, they are closer related to Israel then them, coming from Jacob's Twin. Yet Edom himself married some Canaanites he wasn't supposed to, so why wasn't that condemnation inherited by their descendants if genetics not who they worship was the issue? Plus in other contexts The Torah mentions Edom right by Moab and Amon. The difference is Moab and Amon worshiped Idols, Chemosh and Molech, while Edom as I've talked about before seems to have worshiped Yahuah, often worshiped Him wrong perhaps, but still worshiped Him. Compare Deuteronomy 23:3 to 23:7.
And in a post I'm working on for my Prophecy blog, I'm going to suggest the Mizraimites (often translated Egypt and Egyptian) of the Torah may not have worshiped Idols yet either.
The Levites had many special restrictions, they were not allowed to even marry women of other Tribes of Israel. You can't use their restrictions to interpret general Laws for all the people.
Deuteronomy 7:3 is the primary verse cited by anti-Mixed Marriage people. They ignore the very next verse.
Now, going beyond The Torah, since most Christians consider all of The Bible canon.
The Book of Ruth.
One website obsessed with saying Interracial marriage is wrong regardless of faith, insists Ruth was not a Moabitess. This was not a Torah only website obviously, or they'd just do what I've seen some Torah only people do and reject the line of David. They seem to overlook that if you want to be selective about Canon only the Book of Ruth places a Ruth in Davids ancestry in the TNAK, and Matthew does not repeat her Moabite status. Though I feel Matthew's mention of her name does Canonize the book of Ruth for all Christians, since there is no other Biblical source he could have gotten it from.
This website argued the Country or Plain of Moab mentioned in Ruth is not in what you usually see Moab limited to on Maps, south of Reuben and the river Arnon, but land that was Moabite before the conquest. (I think this website was trying to argue it wasn't even Trans-Jordan.) This forgets that Deuteronomy 2 explicitly says God wasn't going to give Israelites any land of Edom, Moab or Amon. The Trans-Jordan tribes decision to stay Trans-Jordon when that wasn't the original plan arguably complicated this, but I still think it was mostly only Canaanite and Ishmaelite territory they borrowed.
The word Sojourn is used in the very first verse, a word that is usually used of dwelling in a foreign land. Used of Non-Israleites in Israel, and of Isrealites when they Sojourned in Egypt.
They say it doesn't matter that Ruth is called a Moabitess, they believe she was an Israelite, yet is the only Israelite ever repeatedly called a Moabite.
Some verses do say ___ite when referring to a geographical association rather then genealogical ancestry. But there are usually of Non-Israelites, or of the Patriarchs back before they were their own tribe, hence them being called Arameans even though they descended form Arphaxad not Aram. Or if it's used of Israelites it's only in a sense that confuses what Tribe they are, like Samuel as a Levite being called am Ephraimite, or the mother of Hiram being both a daughter of Dan and a Widow of Naphtali.
Even if the land they were in can be argued to be formally Moabite territory then belonging to Gad or Reuben. That hardly rules out Ruth being ethnically Moabite, as the Moabite population of that region would hardly disappear.
Either Ruth was not an Israelite, or the author of Ruth wanted to deceive their readers into thinking she wasn't.
But regardless of all their technical arguments about what terms mean. To any literary analysis of the book it is absurd to deny that Ruth was a foreigner and that it is advocating for allowing a foreigner to marry into Israel if they are faithful to The Torah. Ruth is ignorant of the ways of Israel at the start and needs to learn them from Naomi. And in Ruth 4:5-6, why else would the kinsman in line before Boaz reject her out of concern of his inheritance being barred unless he was concerned with the laws against marrying Moabites? Obviously people who thought those laws were purely Ethnic existed back then, Ruth is a book written to argue against that belief.
Uriah The Hittie's marriage to Bathsheba was not an issue either, because he was clearly someone who worshiped Yahuah and who Yahuah considered His Servant.
Ezra and Nehemiah.
Some argue that it is specifically Ezra and Nehemiah who's decisions strongly leave no room for allowing ethnically mixed marriages. Skeptics of The Bible see them as clearly philosophically opposed to the Book of Ruth (and try to claim Ruth was written about the same time by an opposing camp).
Now I haven't studied these two book as much I as should yet. Maybe they too are being miss-characterized by those who oppose mixed Marriages. If so I apologize that I can't adequately defend them here just yet.
What I am going to say is that while I believe the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are canonical inspired records of History. Ezra and Nehemiah were still flawed fallible humans who's interpretations of The Torah we don't necessarily have to agree with. Even Paul sometimes said "says I not The Lord", and I trust Paul's Judgment more then theirs.
The website I have in mind says The Messiah (they believe that is Jesus) upheld the rulings of Ezra and Nehemiah. But I see no place in The Gospels where Jesus does that. The book of Ezra is never directly quoted in the New Testament, there is one verse where arguably Jesus is referencing Nehemiah, but that is disputable. But even then, the verse of Nehemiah in question is not one of their rulings but describing the Manna miracle in the Wilderness.
Jesus acknowledgment of the Second Temple in John 4 is only upholding Zerubabel and Jeshua, Ezra and Nehemiah came later. Likewise the Prophetic books of the return from Captivity period uphold those two a lot but don't mention Ezra or Nehemiah. And I think even they possibly built The Temple on the wrong location.
Malachi who was clearly quoted by Jesus as a Prophet, says in chapter 2 verse 11 that the issue is marrying "the daughter of a strange god". He was a contemporary of the same concerns Ezra and Nehemiah were dealing with. And the only specific people group spoken of negatively in Malachi is Esau, who were not among those prohibited to marry in the Torah as I laid out.
In The New Testament, Paul taught that there is neither Jew or Gentile in The Church in Galatians 3, and about Gentiles being grafted into Israel Unnaturally in Romans 11.
Wives of Moses
I want to dedicate a post specifically to this question, since it's something I haven't made up my mind 100% on yet.
Most famously is Zipporah, daughter of Jethro also called Raguel, a Priest in Midian. That could imply they were ethnically Midianite (descendants of Abraham by Keturah) but maybe not.
There is a controversy in Numbers 12 about Moses marrying a Custhie Wife. There have been two common theories about who this is.
Either it's the same person as Zipporah, thus making this relevant to speculation about the Tribal identity of her and her father Jethro.
Or the extra-Biblical tradition recorded in Josephus that Moses married a Nubian Cushite Princess when he conquered Kush for Egypt way back when he was still a Prince of Egypt. (This is in DeMille's The Ten Commandments 1956 film, but it doesn't make their marrying explicit, cause it's 1950s America).
In either of those cases I'm inclined to question, why was it just becoming an issue now?
It's often overlooked that in Exodus 18:2 Moses sent Zipporah back to Jethro in Midian.
That Miriam and Aaron are condemned by God for objecting to Moses marriage is taken as proof their objection was wrong. While that can suit my own agenda well, it's perhaps an oversimplification, since what God was directly angry at was their implying their authority was equal to Moses. So it's more like this was a minor issue bringing a greater one to the forefront.
What were they objecting to however? This passage becomes relevant to two debates about Marriage. Mixed or "Interracial" Marriage, and Polygamy.
Zipporah is last mentioned by that name in Exodus 18. And this passage seems to be the only place after that Moses having a wife comes up. So whether or not Polygamy is possibly relevant here is not just dependent on if they are the same woman. Zipporah could have passed away by this point, leaving Moses free to remarry regardless of how okay with Polygamy you interpret the Torah as being. If Polygamy was their objection, I think they would have said "in addition to".
None of the verses in the Torah taken as condemning mixed marriages even address descent from Cush, they seem to be about Canaanites, Moab and Ammon. Intermarriages with Mizraimites are not objected to at all, so the ban on Canaan can't be inferred to include all Hamites. I believe these are in truth about spiritually mixed marriages, not ethnicity, I'll be doing a post on that later.
That proves Yahuah wouldn't have objected to a Cushite wife, but Miriam and Aaron are a different story.
In The Torah Zipporah and Jethro's clan is never explicitly called Kenite. So people who limit their Canon to the Torah might insist they aren't.
But for those of us who consider Judges a worthwhile source. Judges 1:16 says the Father in Law of Moses was a Kenite. Going off that verse alone it could be a different Father in Law is who was meant. But later Judged 4:11 clarifies these are people who descend form Hobab, and again calls them Kenites. Now this verse as it's rendered in English at least can be accused of contradicting Numbers 10:29. Numbers Says Hobab was the son of Moses Father In Law, while this verse in Judges looks like it's saying Hobab was Moses Father in Law. It might be something is lost in translation here, that it meant to call Hobab and the Father in Law of Moses ancestors of this clan.
Or maybe Numbers 10:29 can be taken as calling Hobab not Raguel the Father in Law of Moses, either way this verse means Jethro wasn't his only name. Exodus 2:18 could have been referring to Reuel was Zipporah's father even though he was really her grandfather, the patriarch of the clan. Exodus 2 is the only time Reuel is mentioned as someone clearly still alive, Jethro isn't mentioned till 40 years later in the first verse of Exodus 3. Every time someone is called Moses' "Father in law" in the KJV the "father" part is added by the translation, the Hebrew just uses a word for in-law. So maybe Reuel, Jethro and Hobab were three different male members of Zipporah's family.
Only Numbers 10:29 calls Raguel a Midianite, and not simply of the region of Midian. But even then Midianite can mean that and not stickily ethnically. Genesis 15 lists the Kenites as people who already existed at this time, that is different from other places in Genesis where I think the narrative voice is mentioning people who'll exist later.
People who don't want The Bible to make sense love to accuse Kenites of being the descendants of Cain, who's line logically perished in The Flood. However if you look at Kenite's placement in the Strongs, the Pre-Flood patriarch name it's closest to is Cainan or Kenen of Genesis 5, the son of Enosh son of Seth. Luke 3 tells us another person with this same name (in the Greek text it's spelled identically to the Genesis 5 Kenen) existed after the Flood as a son of Aprhaxad son of Shem. My theory on this extra name of Luke 3 is that Shelah was a younger son of Arphaxad who married his niece Kenen's daughter. The Kenites could be people who paternally descended from this Kenen.
That Exodus 4 strongly implies Jethro's family didn't practice Circumcision, I think is also evidence against them descending from Abraham.
I myself had strongly argued for Zipporah being the Kushite wife in my post about Cushites in Arabia. However that argument was by no means dependent on that, I had another verse implying Cushites and Midian being associated with the same area.
Now my conclusion is most likely this was someone Moses married at the time this controversy broke in Numbers 12, or just a little before. Given where they were, in Arabia, this Wife of Moses is still evidence for Cushites in Arabia.
For the Josephus tradition, you could get around my first question by saying Moses was obviously separated from her when he fled Egypt, and perhaps they were reunited now. But still, I feel Josephus is recording a story someone before him imagined to explain this mysterious verse in Numbers while also making Moses more awesome. I think it's also dependent on assumptions about "Egypt" that may be wrong.
Numbers 11 ends with the Israelites settling at a place called Hazeroth. Could be this was a place where Arabian Cushites dwelt? and Moses married one of them?
Most famously is Zipporah, daughter of Jethro also called Raguel, a Priest in Midian. That could imply they were ethnically Midianite (descendants of Abraham by Keturah) but maybe not.
There is a controversy in Numbers 12 about Moses marrying a Custhie Wife. There have been two common theories about who this is.
Either it's the same person as Zipporah, thus making this relevant to speculation about the Tribal identity of her and her father Jethro.
Or the extra-Biblical tradition recorded in Josephus that Moses married a Nubian Cushite Princess when he conquered Kush for Egypt way back when he was still a Prince of Egypt. (This is in DeMille's The Ten Commandments 1956 film, but it doesn't make their marrying explicit, cause it's 1950s America).
In either of those cases I'm inclined to question, why was it just becoming an issue now?
It's often overlooked that in Exodus 18:2 Moses sent Zipporah back to Jethro in Midian.
That Miriam and Aaron are condemned by God for objecting to Moses marriage is taken as proof their objection was wrong. While that can suit my own agenda well, it's perhaps an oversimplification, since what God was directly angry at was their implying their authority was equal to Moses. So it's more like this was a minor issue bringing a greater one to the forefront.
What were they objecting to however? This passage becomes relevant to two debates about Marriage. Mixed or "Interracial" Marriage, and Polygamy.
Zipporah is last mentioned by that name in Exodus 18. And this passage seems to be the only place after that Moses having a wife comes up. So whether or not Polygamy is possibly relevant here is not just dependent on if they are the same woman. Zipporah could have passed away by this point, leaving Moses free to remarry regardless of how okay with Polygamy you interpret the Torah as being. If Polygamy was their objection, I think they would have said "in addition to".
None of the verses in the Torah taken as condemning mixed marriages even address descent from Cush, they seem to be about Canaanites, Moab and Ammon. Intermarriages with Mizraimites are not objected to at all, so the ban on Canaan can't be inferred to include all Hamites. I believe these are in truth about spiritually mixed marriages, not ethnicity, I'll be doing a post on that later.
That proves Yahuah wouldn't have objected to a Cushite wife, but Miriam and Aaron are a different story.
In The Torah Zipporah and Jethro's clan is never explicitly called Kenite. So people who limit their Canon to the Torah might insist they aren't.
But for those of us who consider Judges a worthwhile source. Judges 1:16 says the Father in Law of Moses was a Kenite. Going off that verse alone it could be a different Father in Law is who was meant. But later Judged 4:11 clarifies these are people who descend form Hobab, and again calls them Kenites. Now this verse as it's rendered in English at least can be accused of contradicting Numbers 10:29. Numbers Says Hobab was the son of Moses Father In Law, while this verse in Judges looks like it's saying Hobab was Moses Father in Law. It might be something is lost in translation here, that it meant to call Hobab and the Father in Law of Moses ancestors of this clan.
Or maybe Numbers 10:29 can be taken as calling Hobab not Raguel the Father in Law of Moses, either way this verse means Jethro wasn't his only name. Exodus 2:18 could have been referring to Reuel was Zipporah's father even though he was really her grandfather, the patriarch of the clan. Exodus 2 is the only time Reuel is mentioned as someone clearly still alive, Jethro isn't mentioned till 40 years later in the first verse of Exodus 3. Every time someone is called Moses' "Father in law" in the KJV the "father" part is added by the translation, the Hebrew just uses a word for in-law. So maybe Reuel, Jethro and Hobab were three different male members of Zipporah's family.
Only Numbers 10:29 calls Raguel a Midianite, and not simply of the region of Midian. But even then Midianite can mean that and not stickily ethnically. Genesis 15 lists the Kenites as people who already existed at this time, that is different from other places in Genesis where I think the narrative voice is mentioning people who'll exist later.
People who don't want The Bible to make sense love to accuse Kenites of being the descendants of Cain, who's line logically perished in The Flood. However if you look at Kenite's placement in the Strongs, the Pre-Flood patriarch name it's closest to is Cainan or Kenen of Genesis 5, the son of Enosh son of Seth. Luke 3 tells us another person with this same name (in the Greek text it's spelled identically to the Genesis 5 Kenen) existed after the Flood as a son of Aprhaxad son of Shem. My theory on this extra name of Luke 3 is that Shelah was a younger son of Arphaxad who married his niece Kenen's daughter. The Kenites could be people who paternally descended from this Kenen.
That Exodus 4 strongly implies Jethro's family didn't practice Circumcision, I think is also evidence against them descending from Abraham.
I myself had strongly argued for Zipporah being the Kushite wife in my post about Cushites in Arabia. However that argument was by no means dependent on that, I had another verse implying Cushites and Midian being associated with the same area.
Now my conclusion is most likely this was someone Moses married at the time this controversy broke in Numbers 12, or just a little before. Given where they were, in Arabia, this Wife of Moses is still evidence for Cushites in Arabia.
For the Josephus tradition, you could get around my first question by saying Moses was obviously separated from her when he fled Egypt, and perhaps they were reunited now. But still, I feel Josephus is recording a story someone before him imagined to explain this mysterious verse in Numbers while also making Moses more awesome. I think it's also dependent on assumptions about "Egypt" that may be wrong.
Numbers 11 ends with the Israelites settling at a place called Hazeroth. Could be this was a place where Arabian Cushites dwelt? and Moses married one of them?
Saturday, November 11, 2017
How do Torah only people determine what is The Torah?
People like the Remember the Commands YouTube Channel keep saying things like "The Torah never told us to recognize the Canon of Jamnia, or the Calvanists". My response is....
How do you know the Torah is what we today think it is? Nothing in The Torah defines it as Five Books of Moses, one of which is actually a historical narrative of events that happened before Moses was born, so traditionally saying Moses wrote it kinda hurts seeing it as an eye witness account of that history. And another is a book Moses couldn't have physically wrote himself since it records his death.
Now Deuteronomy can be called a "Book of Moses" since it's mostly a record of Speeches Moses gave, so quoting it for the most part is quoting Moses.... IF it's an authentic account.
Only Deuteronomy refers to there being a "Book of Law" in that exact phrase. You can interpret those verses as implying what your reading now is part of that book, but that's kinda iffy. It seems equally likely it's referring to a book already written.
Why would a book of Laws also include all these historical narratives? Well there being commands to remember things seemingly makes the historical narratives part of the Law. But still, one could easily argue that The Torah proper is just what God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Exodus 20:22 begins the proper Covenant Law Code, which arguably concludes in Exodus 24:4, this was written in a Scroll by Moses. But Exodus 25:1 through 31:17 are seemingly what is defined as being written in Stone, according to 31:18. The Stones had to be carved again after the Golden Calf incident. But Exodus 34:28 says the second set of Tablets were written by Moses dictated by Yahuah not by the Finger of Yahuah like the first Tablets were.
Leviticus is stuff added later, as are the parts of Numbers that are new commands, they don't even define themselves as part of either the original Scroll of Moses or what was written in Stone. Deuteronomy meanwhile, doesn't even pass it's own Prophet Test by the standards of how Remember the Commands interprets things. But even if presumed to be a valid record of Speeches Moses gave at the end of the wandering, it mostly demonstrates that Moses memory was often faulty, even the Ten Commandments are expressed differently.
I'm certain Deuteronomy is Canon, since I think anything Jesus quoted as Scripture must be Scripture, and Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6 for what He called the Greatest Commandment. In fact Deuteronomy is the most quoted book of The Torah in the New Testament, with even some NT references to the Ten Commandments seemingly preferring Deuteronomy's version. Jesus also quotes Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, and allusions are made to events from Numbers.
Thing is, I think it's fairly illogical to accept Deuteronomy as Canon but not Joshua. I think Deuteronomy and Joshua's scrolls mostly had the same human author, much of Deuteronomy seems like it's written there just to set the stage for Joshua.
How do you know the Torah is what we today think it is? Nothing in The Torah defines it as Five Books of Moses, one of which is actually a historical narrative of events that happened before Moses was born, so traditionally saying Moses wrote it kinda hurts seeing it as an eye witness account of that history. And another is a book Moses couldn't have physically wrote himself since it records his death.
Now Deuteronomy can be called a "Book of Moses" since it's mostly a record of Speeches Moses gave, so quoting it for the most part is quoting Moses.... IF it's an authentic account.
Only Deuteronomy refers to there being a "Book of Law" in that exact phrase. You can interpret those verses as implying what your reading now is part of that book, but that's kinda iffy. It seems equally likely it's referring to a book already written.
Why would a book of Laws also include all these historical narratives? Well there being commands to remember things seemingly makes the historical narratives part of the Law. But still, one could easily argue that The Torah proper is just what God gave to Moses on Mount Sinai.
Exodus 20:22 begins the proper Covenant Law Code, which arguably concludes in Exodus 24:4, this was written in a Scroll by Moses. But Exodus 25:1 through 31:17 are seemingly what is defined as being written in Stone, according to 31:18. The Stones had to be carved again after the Golden Calf incident. But Exodus 34:28 says the second set of Tablets were written by Moses dictated by Yahuah not by the Finger of Yahuah like the first Tablets were.
Leviticus is stuff added later, as are the parts of Numbers that are new commands, they don't even define themselves as part of either the original Scroll of Moses or what was written in Stone. Deuteronomy meanwhile, doesn't even pass it's own Prophet Test by the standards of how Remember the Commands interprets things. But even if presumed to be a valid record of Speeches Moses gave at the end of the wandering, it mostly demonstrates that Moses memory was often faulty, even the Ten Commandments are expressed differently.
I'm certain Deuteronomy is Canon, since I think anything Jesus quoted as Scripture must be Scripture, and Jesus quoted Deuteronomy 6 for what He called the Greatest Commandment. In fact Deuteronomy is the most quoted book of The Torah in the New Testament, with even some NT references to the Ten Commandments seemingly preferring Deuteronomy's version. Jesus also quotes Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, and allusions are made to events from Numbers.
Thing is, I think it's fairly illogical to accept Deuteronomy as Canon but not Joshua. I think Deuteronomy and Joshua's scrolls mostly had the same human author, much of Deuteronomy seems like it's written there just to set the stage for Joshua.
Friday, November 10, 2017
The Prophet Test of Deuteronomy
Most websites I find online talking about the Prophet Test of Deuteronomy in relation to Jonah, Jeremiah or Ezekiel, are doing so assuming the readers will not question the Prophetic Status of those three Prophets, and so we must interpret Deuteronomy in a way that is consistent with them being valid Prophets. These sites being Continuationist Christians seeking to defend modern Pentecostal/Charismatic Prophets against attempts to use Deuteronomy to discredit them.
But I have become aware of a growing Torah only movement, or at least heavily Torah centric, that would rather reject Prophets of the TNAK as true Prophets then change their overly strict "Plain Reading" interpretation of Deuteronomy. To them it's blasphemous to use Jeremiah 18 to interpret Deuteronomy 18, they would say Jeremiah 18 was Jeremiah making excuses for himself.
Jonah, Jeremiah (and possibly Ezekiel) are all upheld as Prophets by the New Testament. So as a Christian I need to defend them as legit Prophets.
What Jeremiah says Yahuah said in Jeremiah 18 is absolutely consistent with The Torah, the Torah repeatedly teaches that God's Blessings and Curses are conditioned upon behavior. In fact Deuteronomy's prophecy in chapters 29 and 30 is entirety couched as a hypothetical.
This website teaches plenty I disagree with, like on Ezekiel and Tyre which I'll get to later. But it's an analysis on the Prophet test of Deuteronomy that I think is over all pretty helpful.
http://www.crivoice.org/prophetdeut18.html
What's deemed a capital offense is prophesying in the name of other gods, or saying it's okay to worship other gods. That is what it's most concerned with. Deuteronomy 18:22 says.
Interestingly some offshoots of Mormonism like Temple Lot teach that Josephus Smith was a true Prophet at first, but eventually went bad and spoke presumptuously. I think the very foundation of what Joseph Smith taught from the start had major inconsistencies with Scripture, but it's interesting to note that some Mormons look at things that way.
As a Continuationist Christian, I think it's important to note that 1 John 4:2-3 says "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God". There is no room for exceptions to either of those declarations. Likewise 1 John 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God".
Now, I disagree whole heartedly with the assertion that Ezekiel's Prophecy of Tyre failed. Or that we need to expand it's time-frame to include Alexander to make it not a failure (I believe Isaiah 23's Prophecy about Tyre is specifically of Alexander's conquest, where Kittim/Greece is mentioned).
First of all, there is an accusation that Ezekiel 29:17-20 is some kind of admission that his Prophecy about Tyre failed. This is not the case. God is saying Nebuchadnezzar and his army performed a service for him by sieging Tyre, and so he's giving him Egypt to reward that service. Strictly speaking we do not know whether that Siege was successful based on Ezekiel 29 alone.
Now some might infer that if sieging Tyre was successful they wouldn't need to capture another country to be paid for it. A, plenty of successful sieges have failed to produce booty, like when Xerxes captured Athens. B, I can counter that if no judgment was inflicted on Tyre, they performed no service to be paid for.
People are reading things into Ezekiel 26 that aren't there when they say Nebuchadnezzar had to capture the Island to fulfill the Prophecy. What people ignore criticizing this Prophecy is the origin of the Island becoming the main city was the people fleeing there during this Siege, and that is what Ezekiel is describing. The Mainland city is all Ezekiel is clearly saying will be destroyed.
And as far as saying the not being inhabited part is a failure because Tyre exists to this day. That is false, there is a city in New Testament and modern times calling itself Tyre, but that doesn't make it Tyre, it was not built on the exact same location. The mainland city Nebuchadnezzar destroyed is still a barren ruin right now.
Now one could say Alexander's actions have some relevance because of how he threw many of the ruins of the old city into the sea as he built his land bridge. But that is a minor epilogue.
Now as far as questioning if Nebuchadnezzar ever captured Egypt. I talked about that on my Prophecy blog.
But going back to the conditional commands. As far as some people who might fear I'm weakening the Prophet Test's usefulness in opposing cults. The conditional aspect is only an excuse if a nation wide change in behavior happens.
But I have become aware of a growing Torah only movement, or at least heavily Torah centric, that would rather reject Prophets of the TNAK as true Prophets then change their overly strict "Plain Reading" interpretation of Deuteronomy. To them it's blasphemous to use Jeremiah 18 to interpret Deuteronomy 18, they would say Jeremiah 18 was Jeremiah making excuses for himself.
Jonah, Jeremiah (and possibly Ezekiel) are all upheld as Prophets by the New Testament. So as a Christian I need to defend them as legit Prophets.
What Jeremiah says Yahuah said in Jeremiah 18 is absolutely consistent with The Torah, the Torah repeatedly teaches that God's Blessings and Curses are conditioned upon behavior. In fact Deuteronomy's prophecy in chapters 29 and 30 is entirety couched as a hypothetical.
This website teaches plenty I disagree with, like on Ezekiel and Tyre which I'll get to later. But it's an analysis on the Prophet test of Deuteronomy that I think is over all pretty helpful.
http://www.crivoice.org/prophetdeut18.html
What's deemed a capital offense is prophesying in the name of other gods, or saying it's okay to worship other gods. That is what it's most concerned with. Deuteronomy 18:22 says.
"When a prophet speaketh in the name of Yahuah, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which Yahuah hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."It doesn't say this Prophet wasn't a true Believer, or even that he never was a true Prophet. But he spoke presumptuously and for that reason you should no longer fear his words. But it doesn't call for execution. In English in the KJV it looks like this Prophet would also be guilty of Deuteronomy 18:20's offense, but clearly there is a difference.
Interestingly some offshoots of Mormonism like Temple Lot teach that Josephus Smith was a true Prophet at first, but eventually went bad and spoke presumptuously. I think the very foundation of what Joseph Smith taught from the start had major inconsistencies with Scripture, but it's interesting to note that some Mormons look at things that way.
As a Continuationist Christian, I think it's important to note that 1 John 4:2-3 says "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God". There is no room for exceptions to either of those declarations. Likewise 1 John 5:1 "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God".
Now, I disagree whole heartedly with the assertion that Ezekiel's Prophecy of Tyre failed. Or that we need to expand it's time-frame to include Alexander to make it not a failure (I believe Isaiah 23's Prophecy about Tyre is specifically of Alexander's conquest, where Kittim/Greece is mentioned).
First of all, there is an accusation that Ezekiel 29:17-20 is some kind of admission that his Prophecy about Tyre failed. This is not the case. God is saying Nebuchadnezzar and his army performed a service for him by sieging Tyre, and so he's giving him Egypt to reward that service. Strictly speaking we do not know whether that Siege was successful based on Ezekiel 29 alone.
Now some might infer that if sieging Tyre was successful they wouldn't need to capture another country to be paid for it. A, plenty of successful sieges have failed to produce booty, like when Xerxes captured Athens. B, I can counter that if no judgment was inflicted on Tyre, they performed no service to be paid for.
People are reading things into Ezekiel 26 that aren't there when they say Nebuchadnezzar had to capture the Island to fulfill the Prophecy. What people ignore criticizing this Prophecy is the origin of the Island becoming the main city was the people fleeing there during this Siege, and that is what Ezekiel is describing. The Mainland city is all Ezekiel is clearly saying will be destroyed.
And as far as saying the not being inhabited part is a failure because Tyre exists to this day. That is false, there is a city in New Testament and modern times calling itself Tyre, but that doesn't make it Tyre, it was not built on the exact same location. The mainland city Nebuchadnezzar destroyed is still a barren ruin right now.
Now one could say Alexander's actions have some relevance because of how he threw many of the ruins of the old city into the sea as he built his land bridge. But that is a minor epilogue.
Now as far as questioning if Nebuchadnezzar ever captured Egypt. I talked about that on my Prophecy blog.
But going back to the conditional commands. As far as some people who might fear I'm weakening the Prophet Test's usefulness in opposing cults. The conditional aspect is only an excuse if a nation wide change in behavior happens.
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
There are people out there arguing that Salvation is only for a certian Race
I shouldn't have to bother responding to these people. But Racism is on the rise right now.
Even in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible salvation was not limited to Blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Leviticus 19 teaches that the stranger that shall dwell among you shall be treated as if he was born among you. And again, Circumcision was clearly also allowed for foreigners.
There are people who combine their British Israelism and Two House theology to teach that the "Gentiles" of the New Testament were only the outcasts of the Northern Kingdom, the "Lost Tribes". Now the main website I'm responding to is White Supremacist, but much of the same logic could be applied to Black Israelite or Asian Israelite theories. I believe the "Lost Tribes" were scattered to all four corners of the Earth, so some truth exists to each of those theories.
What's dangerous is they do make a valid point about "Gentile" not exclusively meaning only non Israelites, since the same Hebrew and Greek words also get translated Nation and are used of the Nation of Israel. So I need to refute them in a way not dependent on the mere use of that word.
Their main article on this subject quotes only one verse of Romans 11, verse 17.
Romans 11:24 destroys their desire to use natural science in interpreting this as it clearly says.
They also have an article against using the word Seed in a spiritual sense, yet did not actually quote Galatians 3 and 4, where Paul's point is clearly about people not naturally Abraham's Seed becoming Abraham's Seed.
But I can also cite Isaiah 53. If you're a Christian you know the Suffering Servant is Jesus, Acts 8 and 1 Peter both quote it as such. And unless you're a Mormon you don't think Jesus had any children by natural biological reproduction. But Isaiah 53:10 says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. Psalm 45 also says The Messiah and The Bride will have children.
In Revelation 12, The Woman is Israel (all 12 Tribes represented), The Man-Child is the New Testament Church, separate from those is....
The statement in John about Jesus coming "Only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" needs to be understood in the context of John 1. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not, so He gave unto others the ability to become Sons of God.
In the training mission Jesus sent The Twelve on during His ministry, that mission was given only to Israelites, since the New Covenant wasn't quite made yet, as Jesus Blood wasn't Shed yet. In the context of that mission we see the Samaritans are not counted as Israelites, agreeing with the narrative of 2 Kings 17. But when we get to the true Great Commission in Acts, there the Samaritans are blatantly included, as are Syrians (He may have said Aram in Hebrew) and the Whole World. And then Acts 8 brings The Gospel to Samaria.
Even in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible salvation was not limited to Blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Leviticus 19 teaches that the stranger that shall dwell among you shall be treated as if he was born among you. And again, Circumcision was clearly also allowed for foreigners.
There are people who combine their British Israelism and Two House theology to teach that the "Gentiles" of the New Testament were only the outcasts of the Northern Kingdom, the "Lost Tribes". Now the main website I'm responding to is White Supremacist, but much of the same logic could be applied to Black Israelite or Asian Israelite theories. I believe the "Lost Tribes" were scattered to all four corners of the Earth, so some truth exists to each of those theories.
What's dangerous is they do make a valid point about "Gentile" not exclusively meaning only non Israelites, since the same Hebrew and Greek words also get translated Nation and are used of the Nation of Israel. So I need to refute them in a way not dependent on the mere use of that word.
Their main article on this subject quotes only one verse of Romans 11, verse 17.
"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;"And they then said "Clearly only an olive tree can be grafted into an Olive Tree" so they can say the branches being grafted in are the same ones that fell off, even though that is totally incompatible with what Paul said.
Romans 11:24 destroys their desire to use natural science in interpreting this as it clearly says.
"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"In the Greek, "contrary to Nature" is the same as "Against Nature" in Romans 1:26-27. Thus part of the theme of Paul refuting the people who agreed with that rhetorical rant by showing God does something "Against Nature' therefore "Against Nature" can't be inherently wrong.
They also have an article against using the word Seed in a spiritual sense, yet did not actually quote Galatians 3 and 4, where Paul's point is clearly about people not naturally Abraham's Seed becoming Abraham's Seed.
But I can also cite Isaiah 53. If you're a Christian you know the Suffering Servant is Jesus, Acts 8 and 1 Peter both quote it as such. And unless you're a Mormon you don't think Jesus had any children by natural biological reproduction. But Isaiah 53:10 says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. Psalm 45 also says The Messiah and The Bride will have children.
In Revelation 12, The Woman is Israel (all 12 Tribes represented), The Man-Child is the New Testament Church, separate from those is....
the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.So clearly, there is a lot of Seed here.
The statement in John about Jesus coming "Only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" needs to be understood in the context of John 1. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not, so He gave unto others the ability to become Sons of God.
In the training mission Jesus sent The Twelve on during His ministry, that mission was given only to Israelites, since the New Covenant wasn't quite made yet, as Jesus Blood wasn't Shed yet. In the context of that mission we see the Samaritans are not counted as Israelites, agreeing with the narrative of 2 Kings 17. But when we get to the true Great Commission in Acts, there the Samaritans are blatantly included, as are Syrians (He may have said Aram in Hebrew) and the Whole World. And then Acts 8 brings The Gospel to Samaria.
Friday, November 3, 2017
Does God Change?
The Hebrew Roots movement is filled with people rhetorically asking this question even though they think they already known the answer is NO based on their partial citing of Malachi 3:6 "I am Yahuah, I change not".
The problem is Augustine was a Gnostic because he felt an emotional God who changed like the Yahuah of the Hebrew Bible must be Evil, and it was someone convincing him he could allegorize and explain away those changes that lead to Augustine becoming an "Orthodox" Christian and laying the foundations of Catholic and Calvansit heresy.
That God changes in terms of what man can and cannot do based on various factors is shown without even leaving the Torah. Capital Punishment and permission to eat meat where introduced after The Flood. Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17 and the Sabbath as a command in Exodus 16. The came Sinai, where this Meme I created is relevant.
Either God's attitude towards Incest changes, or maybe Leviticus 18 isn't prohibiting Incestuous Marriage, you can't have it both ways.
The context of Malachi 3:6 is clear, just read the whole verse.
The Torah itself does not teach The Law is forever, that is simply an erroneous KJV translation.
The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood, The Sabbath and the Holy Days is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13. Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.
In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to call God Eternal.
Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17. And again in Genesis 5. And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6. If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life. Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it wishful thinking.
Exodus 19:5-6 foretells there will be a time when all of the Nation will be Yahuah's Priests. The temporariness of The Torah is implied in The Torah.
See also today's post on my Prophecy Blog, and the Priesthood of all Believers post.
The problem is Augustine was a Gnostic because he felt an emotional God who changed like the Yahuah of the Hebrew Bible must be Evil, and it was someone convincing him he could allegorize and explain away those changes that lead to Augustine becoming an "Orthodox" Christian and laying the foundations of Catholic and Calvansit heresy.
That God changes in terms of what man can and cannot do based on various factors is shown without even leaving the Torah. Capital Punishment and permission to eat meat where introduced after The Flood. Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17 and the Sabbath as a command in Exodus 16. The came Sinai, where this Meme I created is relevant.
Either God's attitude towards Incest changes, or maybe Leviticus 18 isn't prohibiting Incestuous Marriage, you can't have it both ways.
The context of Malachi 3:6 is clear, just read the whole verse.
"For I am Yahuah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."Because Yahuah's promises are unconditional Jacob will not be consumed. And according to Genesis 48 the Fullness of the Gentiles are considered part of Jacob eventually. Yet many of these same people want to say biological descent from Jacob is irrelevant because of their disobedience.
The Torah itself does not teach The Law is forever, that is simply an erroneous KJV translation.
The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood, The Sabbath and the Holy Days is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13. Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.
In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to call God Eternal.
Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17. And again in Genesis 5. And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6. If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life. Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it wishful thinking.
Exodus 19:5-6 foretells there will be a time when all of the Nation will be Yahuah's Priests. The temporariness of The Torah is implied in The Torah.
See also today's post on my Prophecy Blog, and the Priesthood of all Believers post.
Thursday, November 2, 2017
Even the foreigner that shall dwell among you
People like to use the passages in The Torah that say even foreigners, even people not by Blood descended from Abraham, living among you need to be Circumcised and follow other parts of The Law, against Paulian theology (or to reinterpret Paulian theology).
Those verses are about Nationality/Citizenship. The Nation of Israel were given special privileges by Yahuah, one of which was the right to live in the Land that He gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. People could become citizens of that nation without needing to be literal genealogical descendants of Jacob, but that required following the rules he gave that Nation.
But that does not mean Salvation, or even the ability to please Yahuah and be considered righteous, was limited to that Nation, or people living by that Nation's rules.
Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17. So it's significant that we can clearly infer Jethro's family/priesthood did not practice Circumcision (I don't believe he descended from Abraham, we have to go outside the Torah to find him called a Kenite, but he was still in the Torah only said to be a priest in Midian, not a Midianite). Moses had married Jethro's daughter and lived as one of them for 40 years before the Burning Bush, and yet still hadn't Circumcised his son. In fact Zipporah seemed rather disturbed by the practice.
Deuteronomy 2 has God telling the Israelites he's NOT giving them any land of Edom, Moab or Ammon, saying he gave those lands to those nations. They may have had Circumcision, Edom almost certainly did, but not the rest of the Torah.
That includes The Sabbath, I did a post already on my Prophecy Blog about how The Sabbath as a custom was introduced in Exodus 16. The precedent may have been set by Genesis 1-2, but there is no evidence of the Patriarchs in Genesis or Israelites in Exodus before this practicing it.
God promised Abraham that in his Seed shall ALL the Nations and Families of the Earth be Blessed.
So those are all points for Torah only and heavily Torah centric people. Going to the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Did Jonah Circumcise all the men of Nineveh? Did the Queen of Sheba follow all of the Law? Obviously not, but Jesus clearly refereed to them as Saved. And God also calls Cyrus his Anointed in Isaiah 44/45.
Amos 9:7 is a verse that implies there are even other nations Yahuah might have had similar relationships with.
First it says the children of Israel are like the children of the Cushites to Him. Isaiah 18 and Zephanaih also have verses taken to imply the Cushites were like the Israelites. And then there was Moses Cushite wife, and Ebedmelech who was an Ethiopian in Jerusalem who was friends with Jeremiah. And the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah in Acts 8.
Then He says He brought Israel out of Mizraim like he brought the Philistines out of Caphtor and the Arameans out of Kir, a location in northern Mesopotamia.
This is one of a few verses that seems to say the Philistines came from Caphtor, which causes people to think the usual interpretation/translation of Genesis 10:14 must be wrong in saying they came from Casluhim. But if this Amoz verse is comparing their relation with Caphtor to Israel's with Mizraim, then perhaps they genealogically descended from the Casluhim but had sojourned for a time in Caphtor?
Throughout the Torah and even down to the time of David, Aram was mostly associated with northern Mesopotamia, parts of Turkey, Syria and northern Iraq on the other side of the Euphrates. Harran is repeatedly called a land of Aram. I think Hadadezer son of Rehob of Zobah might be a king of the Assyrian King's List. The origin story of Aram Damascus is interestingly told in 1 Kings 11, and Yahuah is claiming credit for it there.
It's been speculated that the comparison of Cush to Israel here means Cush too was brought out of Mizraim. Interestingly the origins of the Kingdom of Kush/Nubia that later became the 25th Dynasty can be estimated to be contemporary with Amoz (the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II).
But Salvation isn't even limited to those righteous Gentiles either. Ezekiel 16 clearly teaches that even Sodom will be restored.
Those verses are about Nationality/Citizenship. The Nation of Israel were given special privileges by Yahuah, one of which was the right to live in the Land that He gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. People could become citizens of that nation without needing to be literal genealogical descendants of Jacob, but that required following the rules he gave that Nation.
But that does not mean Salvation, or even the ability to please Yahuah and be considered righteous, was limited to that Nation, or people living by that Nation's rules.
Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17. So it's significant that we can clearly infer Jethro's family/priesthood did not practice Circumcision (I don't believe he descended from Abraham, we have to go outside the Torah to find him called a Kenite, but he was still in the Torah only said to be a priest in Midian, not a Midianite). Moses had married Jethro's daughter and lived as one of them for 40 years before the Burning Bush, and yet still hadn't Circumcised his son. In fact Zipporah seemed rather disturbed by the practice.
Deuteronomy 2 has God telling the Israelites he's NOT giving them any land of Edom, Moab or Ammon, saying he gave those lands to those nations. They may have had Circumcision, Edom almost certainly did, but not the rest of the Torah.
That includes The Sabbath, I did a post already on my Prophecy Blog about how The Sabbath as a custom was introduced in Exodus 16. The precedent may have been set by Genesis 1-2, but there is no evidence of the Patriarchs in Genesis or Israelites in Exodus before this practicing it.
God promised Abraham that in his Seed shall ALL the Nations and Families of the Earth be Blessed.
So those are all points for Torah only and heavily Torah centric people. Going to the rest of the Hebrew Bible. Did Jonah Circumcise all the men of Nineveh? Did the Queen of Sheba follow all of the Law? Obviously not, but Jesus clearly refereed to them as Saved. And God also calls Cyrus his Anointed in Isaiah 44/45.
Amos 9:7 is a verse that implies there are even other nations Yahuah might have had similar relationships with.
First it says the children of Israel are like the children of the Cushites to Him. Isaiah 18 and Zephanaih also have verses taken to imply the Cushites were like the Israelites. And then there was Moses Cushite wife, and Ebedmelech who was an Ethiopian in Jerusalem who was friends with Jeremiah. And the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah in Acts 8.
Then He says He brought Israel out of Mizraim like he brought the Philistines out of Caphtor and the Arameans out of Kir, a location in northern Mesopotamia.
This is one of a few verses that seems to say the Philistines came from Caphtor, which causes people to think the usual interpretation/translation of Genesis 10:14 must be wrong in saying they came from Casluhim. But if this Amoz verse is comparing their relation with Caphtor to Israel's with Mizraim, then perhaps they genealogically descended from the Casluhim but had sojourned for a time in Caphtor?
Throughout the Torah and even down to the time of David, Aram was mostly associated with northern Mesopotamia, parts of Turkey, Syria and northern Iraq on the other side of the Euphrates. Harran is repeatedly called a land of Aram. I think Hadadezer son of Rehob of Zobah might be a king of the Assyrian King's List. The origin story of Aram Damascus is interestingly told in 1 Kings 11, and Yahuah is claiming credit for it there.
It's been speculated that the comparison of Cush to Israel here means Cush too was brought out of Mizraim. Interestingly the origins of the Kingdom of Kush/Nubia that later became the 25th Dynasty can be estimated to be contemporary with Amoz (the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II).
But Salvation isn't even limited to those righteous Gentiles either. Ezekiel 16 clearly teaches that even Sodom will be restored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)