I'm inclined towards believing every Mark/Marcus mentioned in the New Testament is the same person (and that person was never in Egypt). But if they're separate we know the author of the Gospel According to Mark is the Mark associated with Peter, 1 Peter 5:13 and Acts 12:12.
Acts 12 in verses 12 and 25 link a "John whose surname was Mark" to both Peter and Paul and Barnabas. Individually both of those were common enough we can't assume two people are the same simply for having that name. But together it's a lot less common and I feel Acts 12:25 would only repeat the exact same wording as verse 12 if they wanted to tell us they were the same person.
Peter refers to Mark as his Son in chapter 5 verse 13 of his first epistle. Most people don't take that exactly literally, or rather not biologically, but what if it is? In Acts 12:12 Peter is liberated from prison and heads to the house of a Mary the mother of John Mark, maybe he was going to the house of his wife and son? In 1 Corinthians 9:5 Paul says that all of the Apostles but him and Barnabas are married.
Now Mary was an insanely common name, so many are quite annoyed at attempts to identify different Marys with each other. But I a made post last year arguing the individual Paul called Kepha was actually Mary Magdalene not Simon Peter. I made a couple pretty strong smoking gun arguments, but the fact remains John 1:42 clearly identifies a Kephas with Peter. What if it was because Peter and Mary Magdalene were married that this title became one they shared? And Paul chose to use Petros for the Husband and Kepha was the Wife?
Next is the question of how Mark is related to Barnabas. In Collisions 4:10 the word sometimes translated cousin or nephew (and "Sister's son" in the KJV) is a word for relative that doesn't really seem to be that specific. This is the only time the New Testament ever uses this word, but it seems like there may be precedent for it not being a literal biological relation at all, and maybe Paul is just using it here because of the connection Mark and Barnabas had in Acts 15:36-39.
When we're first introduced Barnabas in Acts 4:36 he's described as being from Cyprus. Later on he and Mark together become strongly tied to Cyprus in Acts 13 and 15:36-39. I also argued for the possibility that Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same. And there are some early traditions that suggest Lazarus and his Sisters fled to Cyrpus sometime soon after the events of the Fourth Gospel.
Monday, April 15, 2019
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
I'm not interested in whether or not I agree with the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
First, for people who don't know what I'm referring to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_ecumenical_councils
I want to state that this goes both ways, I'm not so Anarchic that I'm gonna act like whatever decision the councils made must be wrong, that attitude also gives them too much power. I feel like I basically agree with the main Theological decisions of the first four Ecumenical Councils, but those Councils also made smaller decisions on things like Church Hierarchy that I can't get behind. The issue around which the 6th Council was convened I haven't even looked into enough to know if I'd have an opinion on it. The rest are issues I have and will continue to look into on this Blog.
To me The Bible is not just the Final Authority but the only Authority. Now people will point to Acts 15 as Biblical Support for the idea of Church Councils. First of all that Council was attended by The Apostles, I've already refuted the notion that Apostolic Authority can be passed on. So this is the only Council that has Apostolic Authority, and it's decision and historical context is recorded for us in Scripture.
But secondly, even if you convinced me some Councils, like the Pre-Nicene/Pre-Constantine ones, mattered even a little bit. The Ecumenical Councils wee in direct violation of passages like 1 Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18 that forbid Christians from turning to Civil Authorities to settle disputes. It doesn't matter if a head of state is a Christian, their authority is Civil not Ecclesiastical. The Council of Nicaea was presided over by Constantine himself, and the Bishops asked him to do it, maybe because they felt he'd be a neutral party. Constantine was not Baptized till he was on his death bed. To me Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation, but to most Ecumenical Council affirming Christians you at least have to be Baptized to be considered a part of The Church.
The second Ecumenical Council was convened by the Emperor who first made Christianity the state religion of the Empire for the purpose of defining what his new state religion was. The first Council of Ephesus basically became two councils and it was Theodosius II who decided which one was right. Chalecdon wasn't even headed by a Bishop but by a committee of Senators and government officials The 5th Ecumenical Council was entirely a product of Justinian's misguided agenda to try and fix the Chalcedonian schism by further pushing away the Nesotrians and others who were simply associated with them.
So for this reason the Ecumenical councils are the least authoritative councils not the most. They are The Church marrying the State, the Sin of Pergamos.
There is also debate about how many of these even fit what the word "Ecumenical" is supposed to mean. The first two councils held in Constantinople had less then half as many attendees as Nicaea. For Nicaea Constantine had invited 1,800 Bishops, 1000 in the east and 800 in the west, but only 318 max showed up. Now it'd be easy for a moderner to throw a "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument at those who didn't attend, but maybe the majority of Bishops actually understood the Biblical Arguments against doing a council like this I laid out above. Only 5 Bishops represented the entire Western half of the Empire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_seven_ecumenical_councils
I want to state that this goes both ways, I'm not so Anarchic that I'm gonna act like whatever decision the councils made must be wrong, that attitude also gives them too much power. I feel like I basically agree with the main Theological decisions of the first four Ecumenical Councils, but those Councils also made smaller decisions on things like Church Hierarchy that I can't get behind. The issue around which the 6th Council was convened I haven't even looked into enough to know if I'd have an opinion on it. The rest are issues I have and will continue to look into on this Blog.
To me The Bible is not just the Final Authority but the only Authority. Now people will point to Acts 15 as Biblical Support for the idea of Church Councils. First of all that Council was attended by The Apostles, I've already refuted the notion that Apostolic Authority can be passed on. So this is the only Council that has Apostolic Authority, and it's decision and historical context is recorded for us in Scripture.
But secondly, even if you convinced me some Councils, like the Pre-Nicene/Pre-Constantine ones, mattered even a little bit. The Ecumenical Councils wee in direct violation of passages like 1 Corinthians 6 and Matthew 18 that forbid Christians from turning to Civil Authorities to settle disputes. It doesn't matter if a head of state is a Christian, their authority is Civil not Ecclesiastical. The Council of Nicaea was presided over by Constantine himself, and the Bishops asked him to do it, maybe because they felt he'd be a neutral party. Constantine was not Baptized till he was on his death bed. To me Baptism has nothing to do with Salvation, but to most Ecumenical Council affirming Christians you at least have to be Baptized to be considered a part of The Church.
The second Ecumenical Council was convened by the Emperor who first made Christianity the state religion of the Empire for the purpose of defining what his new state religion was. The first Council of Ephesus basically became two councils and it was Theodosius II who decided which one was right. Chalecdon wasn't even headed by a Bishop but by a committee of Senators and government officials The 5th Ecumenical Council was entirely a product of Justinian's misguided agenda to try and fix the Chalcedonian schism by further pushing away the Nesotrians and others who were simply associated with them.
So for this reason the Ecumenical councils are the least authoritative councils not the most. They are The Church marrying the State, the Sin of Pergamos.
There is also debate about how many of these even fit what the word "Ecumenical" is supposed to mean. The first two councils held in Constantinople had less then half as many attendees as Nicaea. For Nicaea Constantine had invited 1,800 Bishops, 1000 in the east and 800 in the west, but only 318 max showed up. Now it'd be easy for a moderner to throw a "if you don't vote you can't complain" argument at those who didn't attend, but maybe the majority of Bishops actually understood the Biblical Arguments against doing a council like this I laid out above. Only 5 Bishops represented the entire Western half of the Empire.
One Bishop known to be missing is Lyon's, Lyon was the oldest Church in Gaul the one founded by Irenaeus and other immigrants from Asia Minor but principally Smyrna in the second century. But neither Maximus of Lyon or Tetradius of Lyon attended instead Gaul was represented by a Bishop of a much less significant city, Nicasius of Die. We also know Britannia had 3 bishops at this time including one for York, but whether or not any attended Nicaea is disputed. But it's not just looking West, East of the Empire there were Papa bar Aggai and Simeon Bar Sabbae leading the Church in Babylonia/Persia, there's no evidence they attended the council either.
The 7th and last Council had only 35 attendees and no Frankish Bishops were represented which agitated Charlemagne. Only Chalcedon had significantly more attendees then the first one, and that was still only 520. The 3rd and 4th Councils caused Schisms, not even everyone who attended consented to their outcomes.
The fact is I don't consider any of the issues these Councils debated all that important to whether one is a "True Christian" or not. Now ultimately nothing besides if you call Jesus Lord and believe He's the Son of God matters to if you're a "True Christian" or not. In other words there pretty much are no false Christians in my view, I firmly believe that because of 1 John 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 12:3.
But even after that the issues discussed at these Councils are not at the top of the list of issues I consider it important to be right on. Being right on the issue of The Bodily Resurrection and Soterology are certainly above them in importance based on 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.
Some of my allies on Universal Salvation insist they don't want to make it a core essential doctrine of the Faith, and yet are certainly Ecumenical Christians to some extent. To me being right or wrong on this issue is ultimately more important even then if you're right on The Trinity. And after those two vital issues I may even consider the Virgin Birth and Pre-Millenialism more important then The Trinity.
Again to be clear my view of the Trinity is a Nicene one, especially in the context of my research into Old Testament Trinity passages. But I am sympathetic to those at the Council who weren't even slightly Arian but still uncomfortable with the word Homusias because it was Unbiblical and condemned by an earlier Pre-Nicene council for it's association with Modalism, and some claim it was Constantine himself who insisted on this word being in the Creed.
And there are some passages like Hebrews 1-2 that I'm not sure how to refute the Arian interpretation of. So I can't consider people like Arians or Unitarians damnable heretics, especially not the ones around today who are with me on Universal Salvation.
I know I may be reinforcing the notion among critics of Universal Salvation that it is a heresy by admitting to it making me feel some kinship with Untarians and Mormons. But my point is you should consider Salvation more important whatever your position on Salvation is. And no Universal Salvation is not a reason for me to break with the Ecumenical Councils, the 7th and final one declared Gregory of Nyssa a "Father of the Fathers", and numerous people have already debunked the notion that Universal Salvation was condemned by the fifth council. (It's not an Ecumenical Council but the council of Orange condemned both Pelagianism and Double-Predestination equally.) C Baxter Kruger very strongly ties The Trinity to his view of Universal Salvation.
Soteorlogy was not directly the subject of any of the Ecumenical Councils, though I know Ryan Reeves likes to explain how it's all indirectly relevant. But the fact is none of these hard to understand nuances of Theology or Christology matter so long as you simply believe what The Bible says about Jesus being without Sin and dying for our Sins and being Risen to a Bodily Resurrection.
Protestant Christianity is divided between three different positions on the Councils. The Anglican Church and I think some others uphold all Seven of them. Some other High Church Protestants like Lutherans uphold the first four but not the last three. (I'd like to know more about their reasons for doing so, I haven't looked into it yet.) And then there are people like Independent Baptists and the Hebrew Roots movement who like me don't feel bound to any of them, though too many of those take the overly contrary attitude I also warned about at the start.
I've coined the term Justinianity for all denominations that uphold the fifth Ecumenical Council (to my knowledge there are none that keep the 5th but drop either of the final two). That's Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and maybe some others.
The fact is I don't consider any of the issues these Councils debated all that important to whether one is a "True Christian" or not. Now ultimately nothing besides if you call Jesus Lord and believe He's the Son of God matters to if you're a "True Christian" or not. In other words there pretty much are no false Christians in my view, I firmly believe that because of 1 John 4:15 and 1 Corinthians 12:3.
But even after that the issues discussed at these Councils are not at the top of the list of issues I consider it important to be right on. Being right on the issue of The Bodily Resurrection and Soterology are certainly above them in importance based on 1 Corinthians 15 and Romans 5.
Some of my allies on Universal Salvation insist they don't want to make it a core essential doctrine of the Faith, and yet are certainly Ecumenical Christians to some extent. To me being right or wrong on this issue is ultimately more important even then if you're right on The Trinity. And after those two vital issues I may even consider the Virgin Birth and Pre-Millenialism more important then The Trinity.
Again to be clear my view of the Trinity is a Nicene one, especially in the context of my research into Old Testament Trinity passages. But I am sympathetic to those at the Council who weren't even slightly Arian but still uncomfortable with the word Homusias because it was Unbiblical and condemned by an earlier Pre-Nicene council for it's association with Modalism, and some claim it was Constantine himself who insisted on this word being in the Creed.
And there are some passages like Hebrews 1-2 that I'm not sure how to refute the Arian interpretation of. So I can't consider people like Arians or Unitarians damnable heretics, especially not the ones around today who are with me on Universal Salvation.
I know I may be reinforcing the notion among critics of Universal Salvation that it is a heresy by admitting to it making me feel some kinship with Untarians and Mormons. But my point is you should consider Salvation more important whatever your position on Salvation is. And no Universal Salvation is not a reason for me to break with the Ecumenical Councils, the 7th and final one declared Gregory of Nyssa a "Father of the Fathers", and numerous people have already debunked the notion that Universal Salvation was condemned by the fifth council. (It's not an Ecumenical Council but the council of Orange condemned both Pelagianism and Double-Predestination equally.) C Baxter Kruger very strongly ties The Trinity to his view of Universal Salvation.
Soteorlogy was not directly the subject of any of the Ecumenical Councils, though I know Ryan Reeves likes to explain how it's all indirectly relevant. But the fact is none of these hard to understand nuances of Theology or Christology matter so long as you simply believe what The Bible says about Jesus being without Sin and dying for our Sins and being Risen to a Bodily Resurrection.
Protestant Christianity is divided between three different positions on the Councils. The Anglican Church and I think some others uphold all Seven of them. Some other High Church Protestants like Lutherans uphold the first four but not the last three. (I'd like to know more about their reasons for doing so, I haven't looked into it yet.) And then there are people like Independent Baptists and the Hebrew Roots movement who like me don't feel bound to any of them, though too many of those take the overly contrary attitude I also warned about at the start.
I've coined the term Justinianity for all denominations that uphold the fifth Ecumenical Council (to my knowledge there are none that keep the 5th but drop either of the final two). That's Roman Catholicism, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Anglican Church, and maybe some others.
Friday, February 1, 2019
A recent Twitter Thread I made
https://twitter.com/JaredMithrandir/status/1090615530824916992
I might be adding to it in the future.
I might be adding to it in the future.
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.
Friday, January 4, 2019
Did C.S. Lewis believe in Universal Salvation?
The answer is, probably not. But I'm far from an expert on Lewis as my recent Prince Caspian post makes clear.
What I do know is that he clearly didn't consider George MacDonald a heretic and therefore would not consider belief in Universal Salvation inherently heretical. And I know that attempts to label Lewis a Calvinist require ignoring The Great Divorce where it's clearly the sinners own Free Will keeping them in Hell.
I don't think the after life works how it's presented in The Great Divorce. But I consider that cosmology to be perhaps a descent allegory for how I view the New Heaven and New Earth, where there are people outside New Jerusalem, but the Gates are always open.
I read this article attempting to show how Lewis couldn't possibly be an ally of Universal Salvation, but in so doing strawmans the doctrine.
https://www.equip.org/article/c-s-lewis-hell/
This article admits that Lewis was open to post-mortem Salvation. But the thing is Universal Salvation is kind of inevitable once you allow that.
Frankly what I disapprove of about the situation with Emeth is how much Lewis makes it about good works.
So Lewis does not seem like someone who's Soterology was the same as mine, but he doesn't line up perfectly with traditional Calvanism or Arminianism either.
Here is a Universalist Forum discussing Lewis.
https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/why-wasnt-c-s-lewis-a-universalist-how-close-did-he-get/1183/12
And indeed here I learned Lewis was of the opinion that Paul taught Universal Salvation but Jesus did not. Well I've already demonstrated that Jesus and Paul are in fact consistent on this issue.
What I do know is that he clearly didn't consider George MacDonald a heretic and therefore would not consider belief in Universal Salvation inherently heretical. And I know that attempts to label Lewis a Calvinist require ignoring The Great Divorce where it's clearly the sinners own Free Will keeping them in Hell.
I don't think the after life works how it's presented in The Great Divorce. But I consider that cosmology to be perhaps a descent allegory for how I view the New Heaven and New Earth, where there are people outside New Jerusalem, but the Gates are always open.
I read this article attempting to show how Lewis couldn't possibly be an ally of Universal Salvation, but in so doing strawmans the doctrine.
https://www.equip.org/article/c-s-lewis-hell/
Now, if Emeth had politely asked Aslan to direct him to the Tash part of heaven, and if Aslan had sent him on his way to spend eternity with his god, then critics of Lewis would be justified in accusing him of teaching universal salvation. But that is not at all what happens! As Emeth stands before Aslan, he realizes that Tash and Aslan are not two different names for the same God, but that they are complete opposites. Rather than learn that all religions are the same, Emeth learns that Aslan alone is the true end of his pagan longings. “Beloved,” Aslan explains, “unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.”Evangelical Universalists, like Robin Parry, Peter Hiett and myself do NOT teach that all religions are equally true. I don't think all religions lead to God because in my view NO religion leads to God, only Jesus leads to God. In The New Testament "religion" is the greatest obstacle to finding God.
This article admits that Lewis was open to post-mortem Salvation. But the thing is Universal Salvation is kind of inevitable once you allow that.
Frankly what I disapprove of about the situation with Emeth is how much Lewis makes it about good works.
So Lewis does not seem like someone who's Soterology was the same as mine, but he doesn't line up perfectly with traditional Calvanism or Arminianism either.
Here is a Universalist Forum discussing Lewis.
https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/why-wasnt-c-s-lewis-a-universalist-how-close-did-he-get/1183/12
And indeed here I learned Lewis was of the opinion that Paul taught Universal Salvation but Jesus did not. Well I've already demonstrated that Jesus and Paul are in fact consistent on this issue.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Polycarp & Ignatius and False Apsotalic Succesions.
Polycarp and Ignatius have come up a lot when I talk about Heresies of Asia Minor and questioning alleged Apostolic Succession from John. I want to further make clear here that I do not mean to demonize them, they both died Martyrs and for that they will be rewarded regardless of how wrong I feel they were on certain doctrines.
First and foremost, in their own writings they never claim to be students of John or to have known him, none of the authentic Epistles of Igantius or Polycarp make any references to knowing John. Even the personal letter Ignatius wrote to Polycarp does not mention their alleged important common mentor. In fact Ignatius never even quotes any book attributed to John. The claim they were students of John came later. Papias, who was contemporary with them in near the same region, explicitly distinguishes the John he knew from the Apostle referring to him as John the Elder. Ireneaus and Tertullian are our oldest sources on either of them knowing John and they only mention Polycarp not Ignatius, and in Irenaeus it's clarified the John who Polycarp knew was the same one Papias knew. Polycarp interestingly doesn't seem to support the Monarchical Church structure popularized by Ignatius and later supported by Irenaeus and Tertullian, since he identified himself as one of a group of Presbyters not a Bishop.
Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch was also an Apostolic Successor of Peter (if you believe in Apostolic succession), but claims Peter personally chose him are a much later tradition. Unlike Rome, The Bible supports Peter having been in Antioch. Ignatius was martyred in Rome, so what if he appointed some Bishops or Deacans while he was in Rome and that was the origin of Rome having an alleged Apsotalic Succession from Peter?
I still firmly believe Peter was never in Rome, but I'm not as invested in the Simon Magus conspiracy theory as I once was. I now desire to explain the origins of these wrong traditions as having more to them then just people lying. This theory about Ignatius in Rome is one such possibility.
Another has to do with Mark. The basis for claims of Peter in Rome are tied to claims about the origin of Mark's Gospel being him writing down what Peter preached. Papias did not give any clue where Peter preached or where Mark wrote, it's later writings referencing him that want to read that into Papias.
I disagree with the desire of Eastern Traditions to separate all the Marks of the New Testament. The John Mark of Acts 12-15 has close connections to Peter and Banabas, so I think he is also both the Cousin of Barnabas and the Marcus referenced in 1 Peter.
Some references to Mark in Paul's Epistles do have Mark with Paul in Rome. But again if Peter was there at the same time why isn't Paul mentioning him? Over half the Latin words in the New Testament are in Mark's Gospel, some have even theorized the Gospel of Mark was originally in Latin. So it could be Mark published his Gospel in Rome based on what Peter had preached in Antioch and Mesopotamia.
BTW I don't think Mark was actually ever in Alexandria, I think that tradition is just as shaky as the ones about Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus.
There is solid evidence the Roman Church was not originally Monarchical, but had many Elders who were all Bishops(Overseers) the Monarchical system emerged over the course of the Second Century probably from the influence of Ignatius.
I think the traditional succession of Bishops of Byzantium between Andrew and the founding of Constantinople were probably also Bishops in Rome. Andrew was never associated with Byzantium prior to Constantine, the 2nd Century Acts of Andrew places his Martyrdom in Patras west of Corinth. Byzantium is mentioned briefly in the Acts of Andrew, but only as a place he stopped at on the way to Thrace, like Paul stopping at Samothrace on the way to Macedon.
Constantine is known to have taken many people (including Senators) from Rome to Constantinople when he founded it. The Bishop of Constantinople who was at Nicaea was a native of Calabria in Italy. Castinus a supposed Bishop of Byzantium from the 3rd Century was also said to have been a Roman Senator. Meanwhile the supposed second Bishop of Byzantium is Stachys a name also mentioned in Romans 16 as someone in Rome. And the third is Onesimus who could be the same as the Onesimus of Philemon who we know was also in Rome.
As far as John Son of Zebedee goes, I've been considering the possibly that maybe he was Martyred at the same time his brother was in Acts 12, since Papias arguably implies that. The last explicit reference to him is in Acts 12 when identifying James as his Brother, maybe that verse meant to say both brothers were killed then? For James this is viewed as fulfilling what was prophesied of the Sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40. Galatians 2 mentions a James, Cephas and John when giving his account of the Acts 15 council, but this isn't referring to the usual big three since we know this James can't be the Son of Zebedee. I think John Mark could be the John who Paul was referring to here.
So that would make all extra-biblical traditions about either of them traveling to other lands invalid.
First and foremost, in their own writings they never claim to be students of John or to have known him, none of the authentic Epistles of Igantius or Polycarp make any references to knowing John. Even the personal letter Ignatius wrote to Polycarp does not mention their alleged important common mentor. In fact Ignatius never even quotes any book attributed to John. The claim they were students of John came later. Papias, who was contemporary with them in near the same region, explicitly distinguishes the John he knew from the Apostle referring to him as John the Elder. Ireneaus and Tertullian are our oldest sources on either of them knowing John and they only mention Polycarp not Ignatius, and in Irenaeus it's clarified the John who Polycarp knew was the same one Papias knew. Polycarp interestingly doesn't seem to support the Monarchical Church structure popularized by Ignatius and later supported by Irenaeus and Tertullian, since he identified himself as one of a group of Presbyters not a Bishop.
Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch was also an Apostolic Successor of Peter (if you believe in Apostolic succession), but claims Peter personally chose him are a much later tradition. Unlike Rome, The Bible supports Peter having been in Antioch. Ignatius was martyred in Rome, so what if he appointed some Bishops or Deacans while he was in Rome and that was the origin of Rome having an alleged Apsotalic Succession from Peter?
I still firmly believe Peter was never in Rome, but I'm not as invested in the Simon Magus conspiracy theory as I once was. I now desire to explain the origins of these wrong traditions as having more to them then just people lying. This theory about Ignatius in Rome is one such possibility.
Another has to do with Mark. The basis for claims of Peter in Rome are tied to claims about the origin of Mark's Gospel being him writing down what Peter preached. Papias did not give any clue where Peter preached or where Mark wrote, it's later writings referencing him that want to read that into Papias.
I disagree with the desire of Eastern Traditions to separate all the Marks of the New Testament. The John Mark of Acts 12-15 has close connections to Peter and Banabas, so I think he is also both the Cousin of Barnabas and the Marcus referenced in 1 Peter.
Some references to Mark in Paul's Epistles do have Mark with Paul in Rome. But again if Peter was there at the same time why isn't Paul mentioning him? Over half the Latin words in the New Testament are in Mark's Gospel, some have even theorized the Gospel of Mark was originally in Latin. So it could be Mark published his Gospel in Rome based on what Peter had preached in Antioch and Mesopotamia.
BTW I don't think Mark was actually ever in Alexandria, I think that tradition is just as shaky as the ones about Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus.
There is solid evidence the Roman Church was not originally Monarchical, but had many Elders who were all Bishops(Overseers) the Monarchical system emerged over the course of the Second Century probably from the influence of Ignatius.
I think the traditional succession of Bishops of Byzantium between Andrew and the founding of Constantinople were probably also Bishops in Rome. Andrew was never associated with Byzantium prior to Constantine, the 2nd Century Acts of Andrew places his Martyrdom in Patras west of Corinth. Byzantium is mentioned briefly in the Acts of Andrew, but only as a place he stopped at on the way to Thrace, like Paul stopping at Samothrace on the way to Macedon.
Constantine is known to have taken many people (including Senators) from Rome to Constantinople when he founded it. The Bishop of Constantinople who was at Nicaea was a native of Calabria in Italy. Castinus a supposed Bishop of Byzantium from the 3rd Century was also said to have been a Roman Senator. Meanwhile the supposed second Bishop of Byzantium is Stachys a name also mentioned in Romans 16 as someone in Rome. And the third is Onesimus who could be the same as the Onesimus of Philemon who we know was also in Rome.
As far as John Son of Zebedee goes, I've been considering the possibly that maybe he was Martyred at the same time his brother was in Acts 12, since Papias arguably implies that. The last explicit reference to him is in Acts 12 when identifying James as his Brother, maybe that verse meant to say both brothers were killed then? For James this is viewed as fulfilling what was prophesied of the Sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40. Galatians 2 mentions a James, Cephas and John when giving his account of the Acts 15 council, but this isn't referring to the usual big three since we know this James can't be the Son of Zebedee. I think John Mark could be the John who Paul was referring to here.
So that would make all extra-biblical traditions about either of them traveling to other lands invalid.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
I take Sin very seriously, but I take The Son more seriously
A common accusation against someone like me, who both teaches Universal Salvation and argues for more permissive attitudes towards Sexual Morality, is often that we don't take Sin seriously enough. How can I justify Paul saying "all have Sinned" if there are so many things I don't think are sinful?
But to me, it's mainstream Christianity that isn't taking real Sin seriously enough when they tend to focus on the same kinds of things the Pharisees focused on.
Jesus said the greatest Commandment is to Love God with all your heart mind body and soul, and the second greatest is to love your neighbor as you Love yourself, and He said those were the whole of The Law. James and Paul in both Romans & Galatians also repeated that the second greatest commandment is the gist of the Law. The greatest Sin is failure to Love, and in a way that's what all real Sin comes down to. And I certainly fail to Love God and my neighbor constantly, I don't need a laundry list of specific actions to tell me I'm a Sinner, I just need to look at my own heart.
So I am opposing Sin when I oppose the aspects of Traditional Christianity that lead to justifying Hate.
The epistle known as 1 John in chapter 4 verses 7 and 8 says that God is Love, and that everyone who loves is Born of God and that everyone who Loveth not Knoweth not God. Chapter 3:14 says everyone who loveth not his Brother abideth in Death. This Epistle is not dividing humanity into two categories, but listing two categories into which every human has fallen.
Chapter 4 verse 10 and up clarified we are saved not because We Loved God but because God Loved us and gave His Son as the Atonement for our Sins.
But to me, it's mainstream Christianity that isn't taking real Sin seriously enough when they tend to focus on the same kinds of things the Pharisees focused on.
Jesus said the greatest Commandment is to Love God with all your heart mind body and soul, and the second greatest is to love your neighbor as you Love yourself, and He said those were the whole of The Law. James and Paul in both Romans & Galatians also repeated that the second greatest commandment is the gist of the Law. The greatest Sin is failure to Love, and in a way that's what all real Sin comes down to. And I certainly fail to Love God and my neighbor constantly, I don't need a laundry list of specific actions to tell me I'm a Sinner, I just need to look at my own heart.
So I am opposing Sin when I oppose the aspects of Traditional Christianity that lead to justifying Hate.
The epistle known as 1 John in chapter 4 verses 7 and 8 says that God is Love, and that everyone who loves is Born of God and that everyone who Loveth not Knoweth not God. Chapter 3:14 says everyone who loveth not his Brother abideth in Death. This Epistle is not dividing humanity into two categories, but listing two categories into which every human has fallen.
Chapter 4 verse 10 and up clarified we are saved not because We Loved God but because God Loved us and gave His Son as the Atonement for our Sins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)