Just accept that The Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy

I myself was once on the bandwagon of trying to deconstruct the Old Testament's approval of Polygyny.  Though at the same time I also deconstructed the presumed New Testament arguments against it.  My mind has changed on a lot of things since then.

This is prompted partly by me watching a recent YouTube video by William Schnebolen, who's gone all Hebrew Roots now.  He's coming at it partly from an Anti-Mormonism angle, which is Ironic.

There are a lot of inconsistencies between what The Book of Mormon teaches and the doctrines that Joseph Smith and even more so Brigham Young would develop later.  Indeed the Book of Mormon actually says the kinds of things The Bible should have said if any of it's authors ever wanted to condemn Polygamy or specifically Polygyny.  And I agree with the Mormon historians who've argued that Joseph Smith never practiced or approved of Polygamy, it seeped into Mormonism through another short lived movement who's members were absorbed into the early LDS church.

Schnebolen even repeats the whole "it's oppressive to women" thing, which is a riot coming from someone who now wants to impose The Torah on the modern world.  The fact is Monogamy has also been traditionally based on viewing women as property.  But even more then that, Polyandry in most cultures that have practiced it still practiced it Patriarchally, the woman was still property just shared property.  No numerical form of Marriage is inherently Patriarchal, it's society that is Patriarchal.

I believe that under The New Testament gender no longer matters, so Polygyny isn't the only form of Polygamy I support, I support Polyandry, Group Marriages, Open Marriages, Polyamory, everything so long as all parties involved are consenting and adults.  And those Mormon communities practicing Polygyny very non-consensually came into existence because of the government making it illegal, just like how so many other forms of prohibition have failed.

The perception that the New Testament is for strict Monogamy is mostly dependent on a lack of any direct references to Polygamy in it.  But I think a lot of that may be because some in the early Church were iffy on continuing marriage as a custom at all, Paul's attitude towards it was complicated and the Disciples left their wives to follow Jesus.

Another factor is how the Greek speaking Early Church Fathers are given primacy in the history of how the New Testament has been interpreted since they spoke the same language (to the point where their Semitic contemporaries works mostly weren't preserved at all). Where that applies to favoring them over the Latins like Augustine I agree.  But the trade off is the New Testament books weren't the only Greek writings to influence them.  The New Testament was a Greek text written mostly by Hebrews.  

You see the Greeks were the first culture in all of history to oppose Polygamy (though they still felt a Husband could have mistresses) and this was among the Greek ideas adopted by Rome.  The Greeks and Romans happen to be the only Pre-Christian cultures to have any opposition to Polygamy, unfortunately they helped shape the development of Christianity.

Every ancient source on 1st and 2nd Century AD Judaism besides the New Testament is clear that they were still practicing Torah based Polygamy, Josephus, Philo, the Talmud, the Early Church Fathers, and even Pagan sources.  Why didn't Jesus ever address this problem if He viewed it as a problem?   

Taking Jesus statement about a man and wife being made one flesh as against Polygamy is massively manipulative.  The context was about condemning divorce (meaning He was willing to directly condemn something Moses allowed if He wanted to) and so would include a Husband with two wives wanting to divorce one because he decided to be Monogamous, if the relationships were consummated he was one flesh with each of them.

Romans 7 cited the part of the Torah it does to prove a principle that you're not bound by the Law anymore at Death, and then explains how believers are Dead to the Law in Jesus at Baptism.  So no this chapter can't be used against Polyandry.

Paul's statements in the Pastoral Epistles about Bishops and Deacons being the "husband of one wife" have been interpreted as meaning no more then one when opposing Polygamy, but no less then one when addressing the Vatican's doctrine of a Celibate clergy.  However it does not say "Only one".

Schnebolen actually says Paul had to say this because of the Polygamy being practiced by the Pagans of Corinth, which shows his ignorance of Pagan Greece.  Quite the contrary the context of Paul saying the Bishop should be "blameless" suggests it's about appeasing the norms of the secular society they live in not rejecting them.  Well as Americans the norms of our secular society are supposed to be about valuing the Freedom to live however you want. 

Jesus told a parable about 10 Virgins awaiting the same Bride Groom, which goes against the usual trend of the Bride of Christ doctrine being presented as a Monogamous marriage even though it's literally not.  I think that the Church should be viewed as a giant Group Marriage, here is an old website advocating for Christian Polyamory.
http://www.libchrist.com/

Some scholars think Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany weren't literally siblings but that the women were his Sister-Wives, I'm not inclined to agree with that given my theories about them, but I can't refute it either.  Brighamite Mormons view Mary and Martha as Sister-Wives of Jesus, which I have a controversial response to.  If Jesus was married to the Sisters at Bethany then He was married to the Brother too, if anything His love for Lazarus is described more strongly.

Now onto the attempts to say the Old Testament didn't really approve of it all that glowingly and was subtly vilifying it all along.  That is kind of the key to making their narrative work.

1 Kings 11 is the main discussion of Solomon's wives.  Now I agree that Solomon is not as glowingly approved of as people assume.  But using this narrative to paint Polygamy as the problem is a blatant manipulation of the text.  The wives promoting the worship of Pagan gods was the problem, the story spells that out for us.  Scripture interprets itself on this issue.

And attempts to blame the dysfunctionality of David's family on his Polygamy are equally decimated by reading II Samuel 12.  It happened as a Judgment for David's adultery and murder of Uriah, and Yahuah tells David he only needed to ask if he wanted more wives.

This drama began with Amnon's rape of Tamar.  And it's tempting to suggest that he wouldn't have lusted after her if she had the same mother based on modern psychological theories.  But we have no evidence he did have any full siblings, and no direct evidence these children were raised in a compartmentalized fashion like we often assume of ancient royal Polygamy.  The connection to the Bathseba situation is that Amnon followed his father's example and simply took what he wanted, and then didn't properly take responsibility for his actions.

Now to Deuteronomy 17.  Most scholars of the Hebrew agree Deuteronomy 17:17 is not limiting the King to only one wife, simply saying some restraint is to be practiced.  But Schnebolen wants to get really technical about what "multiply" means in the KJV (he seems to be be maintaining his old KJV onlyism even as a Hebrew Roots person now, which is weird).  How about we interpret all of these rules equally?  Is verse 16 saying the King can't have more then one single horse?  Of course not, that would be absurd, you need more then one horse just to draw one chariot. 

Many scholars see a connection between this part of Deuteronomy and Solomon.  Atheists say Deuteronomy was actually written later then 1 Kings 11, and Believers see it as a covert Prophecy.  Thing is, a break down of this connection shows that David basically followed these instructions while Solomon broke every part of it.  The total number of David's wives may not have exceeded 10 (8 are named) and a few more concubines (which Abishag may have been counted among).  Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.  So even without Deuteronomy making the line exactly clear, it's obvious how Solomon was excessive in a way prior Biblical Polygamists were not.

Now to the Patriarchs.

On the subject of drawing a connection between the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and their families dysfunctions.  It should be pointed out that Isaac had only one wife and no concubines and that didn't prevent the same thing from happening, parental favoritism and sibling rivalry still happened and it's effects lingered over the rest of the Biblical narrative even more directly then Hagar and Ishmael.  It's post Biblical history that makes Ishmael seem like a bigger conflict then Edom to modern Judeo-Christians.

Here is the thing, Jacob had the most wives, and yes it wasn't any more premeditated then Abraham's situation, but he still had twice as many as Abraham (I now agree with viewing Hagar and Keturah as the same woman).  And yet, in-spite of all the issues Jacob's family had, his family was the one that stuck together, this was where they stopped breaking off into separate nations and in fact remain one pretty united people until Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeorboam messed it up, and that break up wasn't divided along the lines of Jacob's wives.  Leah is treated as Joseph's mother in his dream in Genesis 37, and children of a city of Judah are refereed to as Rachel's children in Matthew 2.

It's common to compare when Rachel asked Jacob to lie with Bilhah to Sarah asking Abraham to lie with Hagar.  But this time it didn't end the same, neither woman wound up despising the other.  Both of Jacob's handmaiden concubines get fully promoted to wives without Leah or Rachel needing to die first.

Among the three Patriarchs, there is a direct correlation between how many wives they had and how well their family stuck together.  Jacob's family had it's issues, but every family has issues.

With the Patriarchs when Polygamy becomes a problem it is the favoritism and jealously that is the problem, not having more then one in the first place, and that's why it was still a problem for Isaac.

The Lamech of the line of Cain in Genesis 4 gets brought up in this debate.  First of all there is no Biblical basis for the law of first mention, the law of needing two references to build doctrine has at least some basis but even it some question.  However the law of first mention is just made up.

And as I recently talked about, Racists love to claim the first Mixed Marriage was also in Genesis 4.

There is nothing in the Lamech narrative to support a connection between his cryptic claim to have killed someone and his having two wives. In fact his confessing his sin to his wives may be the light in this situation.

The Most Racist Christians are usually not Young Earth Creationists

It's pretty surprising to some that in-spite of how Leftist I am I still stick to Six-Day Young Earth Creationism including a truly Global Flood in the days of Noah, and also emphasize Evolution's ties to Scientific Racism.

First off, you got YouTubers like Inspiring Philosophy and R.C. Apologist and their buddy Michael Heiser who are willing to entirely accept the Theory of Evolution, but remain devout Calvinists believing in Eternal Torment and calling Homosexuality a Sin.  So the exact opposite of me in terms of where to break with traditional American Fundamentalism does exist. What is more likely to effect how you treat other people?  What you believe about things that happened thousands of years ago?  Or believing other people are Reprobates who God Hates?

And yes it's true some of the Scientific Racists of the 18th and 19th Centuries saw themselves as being totally compatible with being devout Christians.  Thing is I've visited the websites of the most openly Racist modern Christians, you'll often stumble upon them looking into Lost Tribes related theories, and they tend to believe in an Old Earth and a Local Flood.  Basically I'm talking about forms of "Christian Identity".

Whether or not they place a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, they definitely place one between Genesis 2:3 and 2:5.  They believe the Adamim created on the 6th day were the primitive races, cave men and ape men.  And then much later God created the first "Civilized" or 'White" Man and that's who was placed in The Garden of Eden.  Even the grandfather of modern White Supremacy made this distinction clear.  And later Houston Stewart Chamberlain seems to have felt the same.  Early important figures in how Polygenesist interpretations of Genesis developed in America include Daniel Parker, Charles Caldwell, Lester A Hoyle, Alexander Winchester, Charles Hamilton Smith, Samuel George Mortonn, Charles Pickering, Louis Agassiz, Josiah C. Nott, George Gliddon, Samuel Kneeland and Nathaniel Shaler (a founding member of the Immigration Restriction League).  

I'm not aware of Ripley, Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard saying anything about how Genesis fit into their racial theories, all three of their books are absent of Biblical references but do refer to Darwin and Evolution a lot.  Charlton S. Coon was explicitly an Evolutionist.

Yes some Monogenist Creationists have let Racism influence how they interpreted the existence of different ethnic features, both before and after Darwin.  But the rise of truly militant hateful Scientific Racism is intimately tied to the rise of Polygenism.

Fact is it was Pre-Darwin Moongenist Creationists like Samuel Stanhope Smith, Georges-Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon and Johann Blumenbach who started correctly observing how "racial" features are a product of the environment (also Martin Delany and George Washington Williams). they were wrong on the specifics of how and why, but that's how Science starts.  The bias some had in concluding Adam and Eve were White instead of looking like those indigenous to where The Bible says God created them is embarrassing however and I won't defend that.

Now I don't agree with any layer of these racist polygenesists' logic.  Meaning even if it were true some people didn't 100%  or at all descend from the same Adam it wouldn't make them inferior or any less eligible for Salvation or to become Full Citizens of God's Kingdom.  Anyone sapient enough to respond to The Gospel is who The Gospel is for.  And as a Believer in Universal Salvation, plenty of verses justify not even limiting it to Humanity, we're told Jesus will Reconcile all THINGS to God, and that every Knee shall bow, and God will be All in All.  Gregory of Nyssa was confident of even Satan's eventual Salvation.  But that's a big IF because even Atheist Scientists don't consider Polygenism credible anymore.

Paul said at Mar's Hill in Acts 17:26 that God has made of One Blood all the Nations of Men on the Face of The Earth.  Now the websites I refereed to address this verse, first choosing to favor the Alexandrian texts over the Textus Receptus/KJV for this verse even though that doesn't really help them much, it's still saying He made of one Man all Nations.  They want to use a very particular definition of "Nation" to say it means all Civilized Nations, but Paul didn't say a Greek term that would mean that, Nations here is Ethnos, from which comes our words Ethnicity and Ethnic which are sometimes used as synonyms for "race".

Many scholars see this part of the Mar's Hill Sermon as Paul refuting the common Greek view, the Greeks didn't believe in a Single Adam figure but many Autochthons, and that the truly Civilized were only those descended from Deucalion.  Which the Greeks did not think included the Jews.

Now these sites may well admit that by now everyone descends from Adam and maybe even Noah because of all the exploration and globalization.  It is now a Genetic fact even Evolutionists can't deny that all Humans have both a Mater-Lineal and Pater-Lineal common ancestor and those Ancestors were Humans not some "missing link".  And that was not what 19th Century Evolutionists predicted.

And that's why they emphasize Miscegenation so much, they claim only "pure" descendants of Jacob are truly Elect.  They view Cain and his wife as the first "interracial marriage" and then they might use a Sethite view of Genesis 6 but both have been used by Racists.  Then they'll say The Flood was only local, it only flooded the main homeland of Adam's family (which Cain was exiled from) so non Seed of Eve people did survive.

They may try to support identifying the Kenites with Cain, but since Moses married a Kenite Wife that would be a problem for them.  Mostly their Biblical Evidence of non Noahite "races" in the post Flood world are the Raphaim, Horites, Emims and Zuzims (later called Zamummim) of Genesis 14, and possibly later the Anakim who they may say descend from the Genesis 6 Nephilim.  They'll try to argue Ham's descendants were the ones particularly prone to intermarry with them, especially the Caananites who lived in the same region.  And misuse Genesis 36 to argue for the Edomites and Amalakites being tainted, and in time the Moabites and Ammonites followed suit.  Plenty of this I've already addressed in past posts on why it's only Spiritually mixed marriages God was concerned with.

Then the Anti-Semitism creeps in.  They may or may not tie in the usual Kazzar Myth, or a modern Jews being Edomites narrative.  But mostly these types seem to want to argue that the Southern Kingdom was far more susceptible to Miscegenation, and that while the North had their Spiritual problems they were the Kingdom that remained "Racially" pure.  And so they'll call Judah "the true Lost Tribe".  And then they'll argue the Northern Kingdom became Europeans even though The Bible places them in the exact opposite direction.  Problem is they forget that Joseph's wife was a Mizraimite which undermines that whole narrative.

And thus the Secular Version of this being promoted by Secular Atheist Race Realists in the Alt-Right is basically the same narrative (including the Jews being white looking genetically tainted "Race Traitors").  Darwinism and it's Cousin Eugenics just gave Non Believing Racists a way to secularize the narrative created by the most Racist interpretation of The Bible.  Not unlike how New Atheists borrow a lot of their wrong views on History from older Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric.

So my fellow Leftists like Step Back History and Peter Coffin try to separate Biological Darwinism from Social Darwinism, saying that Creationists "Quote Mine" Darwin out of context.  But it's not a coincidence that Galton came from the same family, they are inseparable.

Now the conclusion I draw from Genesis 36 is that those Genesis 14 tribes were Caananites first and that these tribes broke off from them, not the other way around.  The Horites were named after Seir's grandson Hori, Seir was a Hivite based on how Esau's wife who descended from him is identified.  Same with the Anakim, they were I think a Royal Family of the Hittites who were also associated with Hebron.

It's Racist implications aside it might be possible to some day convince me of a Local Flood of Noah view, though currently unlikely.  It's placing Death before Genesis 3 I will never accept based on my strong uncompromising view of Romans 5 which is also central to my belief in Universal Salvation.

On the subject of Cain's Wife, first of all we're not told he met her after his exile only that that's when their son named Enoch was conceived, they could have been married already before Abel was killed.

But regardless of that, no, the existence of people already in the land of Nod isn't proof of other Adams, I feel Genesis 4 implies Seth was conceived soon after Able was killed, meaning over 100 years had passed, most of Adam and Eve's children would have left by this point following their command to fill the Earth, the first two just stayed near by because they were the heirs.

And my main response to all the people thinking these must be a different "race" or something is, why would people not related to Abel want to avenge Abel?  Elsewhere in The Torah being the avenger of Blood is the Kinsman's responsibility.

If you think the Genesis 1 and 2 Creations of Adam are different events, the problem with saying Genesis 1 is about primitives is that only Genesis 2 actually describes the matter Adam is made from, so only Genesis 1 is possibly a merely Spiritual creation.  And it was the Genesis 1 Adam given Dominion over The Earth, while you could misleadingly translate Genesis 2 as saying it's Adam was made to be a slave.

But I still lean towards Genesis 2 being more details on the Sixth-Day, Genesis backtracks on it's Chronology a lot since it was many accounts edited together by Moses.  The start of Genesis 5 makes it very difficult to separate the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Adams, since it's clearly talking about the direct father of Seth yet describes him restating Genesis 1 rather then Genesis 2.

Update August 19th: Beasts of the Field.

Since making this post I've learned there is apparently a second approach to saying Non-Whites don't descend from Adam (These kinds of Racists I've been talking about are called the Christian Identity movement on Wikipedia).  And that is to say Non-Whites are "Beasts of the Field".

Now I myself have come to consider that the "Beasts of The Field" and other creations of Genesis 2:19-20 were not the same as the normal animals created before Adam but rather more sentient beings, they are presented as potential mates after all.  But that was in the context of arguing they are what we might normally call Angelic beings, like the Cherubim/Seraphim (the Four Beasts surrounding the Throne of God in Revelation) and of course Satan who is identified by Revelation 12 with the Serpent of Genesis 3, and perhaps also the basis for the Lilith tradition.

While Wikipedia seems to list that as their main approach, the currently active websites I've looked at take the separating the Adams of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 approach.  Largely because the Beasts created in the Garden would be in the same region as Adam and so the overlapping it with a Local Flood view doesn't work as well.

Of course the Racists doing this might be talking about the Genesis 1 beasts since it's all about them saying Non-Whites are animals. But the KJV never says "of the field" in Genesis 1 and the Wikipedia page specified "of the field".  And Earth and Field are separate words in the Hebrew as well.

The main website I've looked at argues the Serpent of Genesis 3 was a non Adamite human by saying verses 1&14 distinguish the Nahash from the Beasts of the Field.  I however have it on good authority that the Hebrew does not permit that interpretation, it's purely a product of how the King James English words those verses that makes it more ambiguous.  But whatever the Nahash is, I've already refuted the false doctrine that it mated with Eve.

The crux of the "Beasts of the Field" argument is the ones in Genesis 2 must have been creatures we'd today label Homo-Sapiens if they were eligible mates for Adam.  This ignores Cattle and Fowls of the Air also being in those verses.  We know from Daniel 7 and 8 that Beasts include animals like Lions, Bears, Leopards, Deer and Goats.  Leviticus 11 also details which Beasts are Levitically clean and unclean for eating and for sacrifices, you'd think the status of the two legged ones that could talk would come up if they existed.

Genesis 2 also says Adam named every specific type of Beast of The Field, and yet the people making this non-whites are beasts of the field argument can't find a Biblical noun more specific then Beast to describe any of them.  You can find Biblical names for animals the ancient Israelites barely had experience with, yet no special name for the two legged talking ones?  One website I found arguing this lists all kinds of Torah verses about beasts they say must be about "Negroes" being kept as slaves, yet no more specific term for them.  You'd think the most useful "beasts" would be the most important to name?

I also now know that they use that Adam can also mean Red or Ruddy as evidence the descendants of Adam are those who can blush.   First of all the notion that only White People can Blush is pretty laughable to me as someone who watches Anime, clearly the concept is not alien to the Japanese.  I can also point out that Malcom X was known as Detroit Red, or that we called Native Americans the "Red Man" for some reason.  And some think red was never the color that Adam/Edom was meant to refer to but rather brown.  Regardless of all that the color the spelling A-D-M can be associated with is not the point in Genesis 2, the point is that Adam was made from Adamah which means earth, ground, clay, dust.

I'd already talked a long time ago about how what we call Ethnic or "Racial" features are a product of where various ancient nations lived.  

Could Islam have had Nestorian origins?

I talked once before about the possibility of an Ebonite origin for Islam.  Back then I was pretty skeptical of comparing Nestorains to Islam, but things have changed.  Much of what I said there I still stand by in a sense.

It is frequently assumed that there is no basis for Jesus/Isa being in any way divine in the Quran or Islamic thinking.  However Jesus is called a Kalimah "Word" from Allah (Sura 3:39, 3:45 and 4:171), and also said to be a Ruh "Spirit" of Allah (Sura 4:171, 21:91 and 66:12).  These are unique to Jesus not said of any other Prophets including Muhammad himself.  The Quran also affirms Jesus alone among all humans to have been without Sin, never touched by Satan.  It is possible to argue the Quran gives Jesus a divine quality, but wants to keep it compartmentalized from the Human.  Here is a Christian website talking about the implications of these titles.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html

Some background on the Nestorians.
http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/nestorianism-and-church-of-east.html

The Quran speaks very highly of Mary the mother of Jesus, being the only Woman mentioned by name in the Quran.  But the Quran also condemns the Mary worship that had already developed among many Christians.  In one verse doing so in a way that has caused people to think it's confused on what the Trinity Doctrine is.  Since the Quran repeatedly affirms Jesus as Al-Masih (The Messiah/Christ) it could be said that the Quran supports Mary as the Christokos but not Theotokos.

Bahira aka Sergius is a monk said to have influenced Muhammad, who's sometimes speculated to have been a Nestorian.  And sometimes so is the relative of Muhammad I talked about in the Ebonite post.

Here is an article arguing that much of the Quran could be flawed Arabic translations of Aramaic Christian Liturgy.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/12/the-christian-origins-of-islam
I don't think all of it is though, many of the Median Suras were definitely the sayings of a man who's made himself king of his own little kingdom trying to rewrite how Arabian society functions.  This theory also suggest they were being critical of Miasyphite and Monophysite theology which the Nestorians certainly were.

Nestorius strongly taught Divine Impassability which is also part of Islamic theology.

It is also a misunderstanding that leads people to think the Quran says Jesus didn't die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus'_death#Earliest_reports
The interpretation that these verses are about saying Allah took his life and not that he was killed by whatever appeared to be the physical cause of his death, also makes sense in a Christian context, just look at John 10:17-18.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.  No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Jesus is saying He lays down His Life, no one else could kill him.

On the subject of the Quran seemingly knowing only one Gospel.  There was said to have been an Aramaic harmonized Gospel written by the heretic Tatian, and there exists a text of what is believed to be an Arabic translation of that Harmonized Gospel.

Or Muhammad could have been combining Nestorian ideas with the ideas of some Hebraic-Christian groups and just used only an Aramaic version of Matthew or maybe Mark, or possibly John.  But I think Luke would be the least likely.

Some sources say Nestorius and some of his friends were exiled to Petra in Arabia in 435 briefly before later going to Egypt.  Flavian II of Antioch would also be banished to Petra after being accused of Nestorianism.

Chris White has shown how Islamic Eschatology derives from ideas popular in Eastern Christian Eschatology during the same centuries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOULuQdve-M

The Book of The Bee is a Nestorian text that clearly proves the Nestorians for a long time believed in that same basic model of Eschatology.

I don't think even the earliest form of Islam would have been in proper Communion with the Church of the East however.  Muhammad definitely broke with proper Nestorian thinking in many ways.  Especially his denial of the Fatherhood of God. I disagree with many aspects of how David Wood chooses to deal with Islam, but his Psychology of Islam/Faith of the Fatherless series of videos I do think are pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVQDuplCV7iZkSqORRYgaDEaG67nYGQHG

Now I want to state that I believe Muhammad existed.  However I've learned some interesting facts about history studying those saying he didn't.  I have come to agree with Robert Spencer (author of Did Muhammad Exist?)'s theory in that I think Islam was originally a sect of Christianity and remained so till at least the early 700s, and the Quran wasn't really written down in a form like we now know until about then, and continued being edited even after that.  (Spencer is also someone who's politics I don't agree with.)

But there is room for a Historical Muhammad in that, if he was originally just like many charismatics calling themselves Prophets today, then those who followed his movement wouldn't have made it about him at first.  And I'll agree that the word Muhammad may have originally been a title applied to Jesus or perhaps many prophets and not necessarily the Quran's author as an individual.  But it's often forgotten that the official view of Islamic history doesn't claim Muhammad was his birth name.

But I've already discussed on this Blog how The Quran says Israel belongs to the Israelites.  So that's a problem for Spencer saying the entire Quran was the political agenda of an Empire that had already ruled Israel for a century or two.

Here are two YouTube videos on the subject I watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
His debate with David Wood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXf7uP9lhE8

Now my reasons for believing Muhammad existed are not what David Wood's main reason is.  I'm not impressed by the "Criterium of Embarrassment" because I'm an aspiring writer myself, so I know that if I'm gonna invent a character I won't make him flawless, especially if I want him to seem plausible.  If I was gonna create a fictional Prophet in the style of an Old Testament Prophet, I'd look at how flawed the Old Testament prophets were and imitate that.

On the subject of "the Satanic Verses", it could be that Sura was originally a Pagan Arabic Prayer predating even the presumed time of Muhammad that this new Monotheistic Arabic Empire appropriated.  And after the reference to the goddesses was edited out people later sought to invent a story to explain there being two versions of the Sura.

I think Muhammad existed first because of the Doctrina Jacobi, it was written between 636 and 640 AD depicting events supposed to have happened in 634 AD.  It refers to an unnamed Prophet among the Arabs.  Now some want to use this against the historicity of Muhammad, saying this Prophet is alive still after Muhammad traditionally died (632 AD) and implying he was personally part of the Arab invasion of Palestine.  But it doesn't matter if the details don't line up, it proves a charismatic Arab Prophet was known to have precipitated the Arab invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire.  This is a fictionalized account so of course it may get some things wrong.  And there is also a 5 year discrepancy on the traditional date of King Arthur's death, his existence isn't doubted because of that discrepancy but because of no reference that is this contemporary, since I think an Arthur did exist it'd be hypocritical of me to question the existence of Muhammad on these grounds.  Of course it could be the "Prophet" himself is here being confused with the second or third Calif.

And a second witness is the seventh Century Armenian Bishop Sebeos a couple decades latter, he mentioned a Mahmed by name.  But these sources do not depict him as starting a whole new religion, but present him as advocating for an already existing Abrahamic Faith.  Sebeos also mentions Umar(Amrh) by name as well as Mu'awiya.

And then there is the Chronicle of 741, which was written sometime between that year and 750. It refers to Muhammad by name, but says he lead an Arab rebellion within the the Eastern Roman Empire, and says he was only called a Prophet posthumously by his followers.  And it's the first written down reference to the name of Mecca, but strangely places Mecca in Mesopotamia.
http://www.academia.edu/6485616/_The_Chronicle_of_741_

I actually think the Mesopotamian Mecca of that reference could be Karbala, which the fourth Shiite Imam said was a more ancient Holy Place then the Kaaba.  It's located directly due West of Babylon.

The second reason is because of the evidence I've been convinced of that the original Mecca was actually Petra.  A theory proposed by Dan Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOxZl60MyqE

There are other theories proposing a different location for the Mecca of Muhammad's life.  I first watched this video from Tom Holland.  He doesn't say exactly where he places it here but I know elsewhere he proposes Avdat in modern Israel south of Beersheba.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4

And this article proposing a Sinai Peninsula location.  It depends on Mt Sinai and Kadesh being traditionally placed there.  I don't think that's where Kadesh was, but them being believed to be there was firmly entrenched by Muhammad's time, or at least Sinai was.
http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/original-christian-quran-online/content/original-quran15.html

Diodorus Siculus referred to the Temple revered by all Arabs as being in Northern Arabia in Book 3 chapter 44.

The references to Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat in the biography of Muhammad also support a more northern location.  They were Nabatean goddesses, not well known that far south in Arabia outside their association with stories from Muhammad's life.  And they're not limited to the controversial Satanic Verses story either.  David Wood also loves to mention an account where someone tells someone to "suck the Clitoris of Al-Lat".

It is also said that at some point (sometimes said to be 400 years before Muhammad, sometimes seemingly far older then that) a Hubal idol was placed on top of the Kaaba.  Hubal was also a Nabatean god.

And there is even Ancient evidence for something being called a Kaaba in Petra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaabou

I don't know if Dan Gibson would agree with Tom Holland's view that the Mushrikun of the Quran were Monotheists not Pagan Polytheists.  But in the context of combining those views, I could see the Miaphysites and/or Chalcedonians being called Mushrikun by Nestorians easily.  And the Ghassanid Arabs who controlled much of northern Arabia in Muhammad's time were predominately Miayphysites.  (But I could also see the Ghassanids being called Sabians because of their Yemenite origins.)  The Coptic Church was also Miayphsite.

A recently discovered site in Petra could very well be the exact site of the original Kaaba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upOPc0Yl12M

Josephus in Antiquities Book IV Chapter 4 section 7 refers to Petra as the Metropolis of the Arabians, Metropolis is a combination of the Greek words for Mother and City so the Qur'anic title "Mother of Cities" is an equivalent title.  Later in chapter 7 Josephus also tells us an alternate name for Petra was Arecem which also occurs in the Koran.  He also talks about Petra being once inhabited by Amalekites but then later supplanted by the Midianites, which fits some Muslim traditions about the History of Mecca.

Going back to how this effects the main point of this post.  The closer we get to the immediate outskirts of the Eastern Roman Empire, the more likely it is Nestorians could have had a presence.

Isaac of Nineveh was an ethnically Arab Nesotiran Bishop who lived from 623-700 AD, mostly in Mesopotamia after it had all been conquered by the Arabic Empire.  He never discuses Islam in his writings at all.

Back to the Word of God as a title of Jesus in the Quran.  Since the links I've provided in this post provide much documentation of how the Quran has been changed.  Maybe originally this title was said with more of a definite article then how it reads now.

My goal is not to smear either the Quran or Nestorians by associating one with the other.  While I do strongly disagree with the final product of the Quran on a lot of theology, I have come to think my own understanding of how the Divinity and Humanity of Christ relate may be a little Nestorian.  But the Quran is the result of a Nestorian theology that was distorted over time.  [Update 2025: I'm definitely not considering agreeing with Nestorianism anymore, regardless I do consider them fellow Christians].

"Neither Male or Female in The Church" Follow Up

This is a follow up to my earlier Paul Said there is Neither Male or Female in The Church.  Which was based on Galatians 3:28.

I want to address some of the other passages in the New Testament, mainly other teachings of Paul, people might insist contradict my absolutist understanding of that verse.  Some of course I already anticipated in advance there, or dealt with when defending Female Pastors, [that post is a big out of date only in that I no longer support the traditional office of "pastor" at all, but I definitely support female Presbyters].

In Romans 7 the point of the Torah Passage being cited there is to demonstrate that we are no longer under the Law once we are made Dead to the Law in Christ at Baptism.  I don't think it's meant to be relevant to how Christians should understand Marriage, Gender Roles or the Bride of Christ Doctrine.

The end of 1 Timothy 2 I think is about the Seed of the Woman prophecy, it's not saying any individual woman's salvation is dependent on bearing children.  As for everything alleged to be Sexist about this passage, quite a bit has been written about it already.

1 Corinthians 11:5 is clear that Women were speaking in Church.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is what's often cited to say that women are forbidden to speak in Church and thus be pastors.   First of all 1 Corinthians 14 was largely about the misuse of Tongues and other Charismatic practices.  Second that statement can be viewed as Paul quoting a Rhetorical slogan that he then refutes in verse 36 "What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?".

Ephesians 5 is the key passage used to insist the New Testament reinforces patriarchal Gender Roles in Marriage.  But here is what I want to point out, the words for Male and Female used in Galatians 3:28 are not used at all in the entire book of Ephesians.

There are likely a variety of ways Ephesians 5 has been translated, and maybe not even always internally consistent.  What you need to know is Aner/Andros gets translated both Man and Husband while Gune/Gyno gets translated Woman, Wife and maybe sometimes Bride.

In ancient Greek, the words in Galatians are much closer to being clinical terms, with the word for Female there also being the root for the Greek word for breastfeeding.  Aristotle explained their meaning in his Generation of Animals where he says the Arren are those who generate in another and the Thelu are those who generate in themselves, Aristotle on issues was Conservative but not Reactionary, so whatever ones opinion on his philosophy we can trust he got the meanings of words right.  Gyno only seems clinical to us now because of the modern medical profession's selective use of Greek and Latin words.  

Basically, I think Ephesians 5 is about Marriage rather then Gender.  And that in the context of this author also writing Galatians, it can be considered possible that a Female could be a Husband and a Male could be a Wife and a Non-Binary individual could be either or both.

Seneca the Elder’s Controversiae is a teaching manual in legal rhetoric featuring unusual law cases and strategies to be used for or against the defendants involved.  One example he uses comes from Sacaurus consul suffect in 21 CE in his criticism of the tactics used by Hybreas in defending a man who murdered two women he caught having sex with each other.  Sacaurus referred to both women as Tribades (an often debated term associated with Lesbianism during the Greco-Roman era), Hybreas however used Andra of the active partner.  The scene may be interpreted as being comedic, but the use of Andra is not the punchline, it's the set up, the punch line is using "stitched on" to describe the Dildo he looked for didn't find.  This is a first century AD legal precedent for describing a Butch Lesbian as a Husband.  Later in Lucian's Dialogue of the Courtesans Megilla/Megillus and Demonassa call themselves Husband and Wife.

The Tithe and Socialism

The food and money gathered via the Tithe in the Mosaic law wasn't just used by the Priests and Levites.  Deuteronomy 14:29 makes clear it's also for the Immigrants, Orphans and Widows.

The Tithe was a 10% Tax of sorts, but it can't be compared to something like a Tax on hourly wages. It was a Tax on increase, productivity, more analogous in our modern Tax system to something like the Capitol Gains Tax.

The Tithe is one of many parts of the Law of Moses not applicable under the New Testament as there is no Temple and we aren't supposed to be a civil nation state.

However it's existence in the Mosaic Law means if you want to use The Bible as a guide for your Politics you can't claim things like Welfare and Food Stamps are completely incompatible with The Bible.

But I'd argue in a modern society that is far less agrarian over all then Ancient Israel's, God would approve of even more Socialism when you look at how much Jesus talked about caring for The Poor and the Sick.

Now look, I'm a former Ron Paul Libertarian, so I fully get all the arguments that Jesus saying we morally should give to the poor doesn't mean he'd approve of the Government redistributing the wealth.  But that lack of Government involvement was because the early Christians didn't hold any government power, and in my opinion proper Christians probably still shouldn't seek government power.  But if American Evangelicals and their GOP allies want to keep talking about America as a Christian Nation, then the Nation should be required to do what Jesus told all Christians to do, which includes feeding the hungry and caring for the sick.  You can't have it both ways. 

Now a lot of Republican and Libertarian Christians love to misuse 2 Thessalonians 3:10 "if a Man doesn't work he shouldn't eat".  I'm going to provide some links of others talking about that. But even they are still seeking to keep the Bible compatible with a Neo-Liberal form of Capitalism.  The important part of the context being left out is verse 9 "We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate."

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/9/21/1240473/-I-don-t-think-the-words-in-Thessalonians-3-10-mean-what-you-think-they-mean
http://religiondispatches.org/gop-lawmaker-botches-bible-to-punish-poor/
http://www.christiandemocratsofamerica.org/blog/2014/08/17/dont-work-dont-eat/
http://banpreachergreed.tripod.com/id89.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/2-Thessalonians-3-10-no-work-eat.html
https://itself.blog/2013/07/16/he-who-will-not-work-shall-not-eat-an-explanation/

Also the American Conservatives citing this verse are unaware of how it's actually a part of Socialist rhetoric.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat#Soviet_Union
Likewise "From each according to his Ability, to each according to his Need" comes form Acts 4:32-35.  The problem with attempts to use the Parable of the Talents against that axiom is that Jesus parables are not about actual economic policy but allegories about spiritual work.

Matthew 5:42 says to always give to those who beg of you.

I'm not suggesting we try to make everyone completely 100% economically equal.  But income inequality is not entirely because of "merit".  Major corporations do not function because of their CEOs and shareholders alone.  In a world where some people have more money then even existed 500 years ago, it's possible to take care of the poor without making them not Rich anymore.  We are producing more then enough to feed everyone on the planet, but we don't.

Some earlier relevant posts of mine.  The oldest was written at a time when I was still more hostile to Socialism then I am now.

The Bible and Private Property

My complex views on Marxisim.

And some Conservatives will also quote the end of Genesis 3 to support the importance of work.  The context they're ignoring there is that was Adam's punishment for his sin.  On this side of the Cross the price of sin has been paid so we're supposed to restore the condition of early Genesis.  We know that the true perfection of Eden won't be fully restored till New Jerusalem descends (unless you're an Amillennial full Preterist, then you have no excuse for supporting Capitalism, no one still has to work in New Jerusalem), but we're still supposed to be striving towards that.  Genesis 3 certainly doesn't support Labor being something to be proud of.

Purgatory???

Purgatory as it's traditionally defined in Roman Catholic theology is a false doctrine I aboslutly reject.  And since Medieval Catholics coined the term you can kind of say that means I reject the concept altogether.

But there is a tendency in Protestant and Evangelical circles to use the word "Purgatory" to smear any suggestion that how the After Life and the Resurrection works isn't as simple as "Good go to Heaven and Bad go to Hell", however that view of the After Life comes from Zoroastrianism not The Bible.  But since Purgatory is a Catholic term, in circles often raised to think the Pope is the Antichrist suggesting a vaguely Catholic association is a good scare tactic.  And that includes using it against aspects of the arguments of Universal Salvation, like when we quote Malachi 3 as teaching that the Fire of God is for purifying and purging, and Matthew 5 and Luke 12:19 being clear that God's punishment isn't endless..

The problem with the Medieval Catholic Purgatory doctrine was how they used it as a form of Spiritual Extortion.  Telling people their loved ones are in Purgatory and in need of lots of Prayers to help them get out.  And so people would pay the Church money for special prayer services.

This is also the issue behind debates about "Praying for the Dead".  Someone outside Christianity might be confused why that's even controversial.  When we discus the doctrine of Prayer for the Dead, Protestants and Evangelicals are opposing the notion that the dead need our prayers to help them into Heaven, they believe our eternal destiny is decided once we die.  And I now believe in Universal Salvation so there is nothing to worry about at all.  Praying to say Goodbye if that helps you deal with your grief is not what we're talking about.

This Catholic Purgatory doctrine only really began to develop with certain teachings of Augustine of Hippo and Pope Gregory The Great.  But the term as we know it wasn't coined till the 12th Century.

Attempts by Catholic Apologists to find precedent for Purgatory in Pre-Nicene or even Pre-Augustine Early Church Fathers include Tertulian's view of the after life built on his flawed understanding of the Luke 16 parable and the Fifth Seal in Revelation 6.  And vaguely similar views from Irenaus which all agree no one reaches their final destination till the final Judgment.  And others talking about Fire purifying souls of Sin, often drawing on 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, which is specifically about believers who are Saved but their bad works are consumed by fire.

Basically, the same teachings of the Church Fathers I looked to as a basis for my old Independent Baptist style Free Grace Eternal Security soterology.  But now as an Evangelical Universalist the Biblical Passages behind them I view as supporting the teaching that even the Fires of the Lake of Fire are a Fire of purification.

1 Corinthians 3:15 was important to how I made my old Eternal Security argument even before I knew it had been tied into the Purgatory doctrine by Catholics.  It proves that references to believers facing ramifications for their sins doesn't mean they lose Salvation.  Along with my arguments for the Outer Darkness and Hebrews 6 being about loss of Inheritance and thus being outside New Jerusalem.

However the Achilles Heel to my old Soterology that I wasn't aware of at the time since no one made the argument to me, is the repeated references to a backsliden or apostate believer's judgment being worse then a non believer's.  That's an implication of Matthew 18:34, and the clear teaching of Luke 12:47-48 and some things said in 2 Peter and Jude where Apostasy is viewed as the theme.  And Jesus talking about Tyre and Sidon not having it as bad on the Day of Judgment as the Israelites who heard his message and rejected it.  1 Timothy 5:8 is another witness to that.

You can't reconcile that with a belief that unbelievers face Eternal Endless Torment while believers are definitely promised our Judgment will be temporary and not undo our Salvation.

All this is another reason that Universal Salvation is the most coherent interpretation of the fullness of The Scriptures.

Universal Salvation both with and without Paul.

Back when my Soterology was a more Independent Baptist style Free Grace Eternal Security, I made a post addressing those who reject Paul as a False Prophet showing I could argue it independent of Paul.  Primarily directed at the sub group calling themselves Jesus Words Only.

I figure I ought to do the same for Universal Salvation.  To start with I shall demonstrate it using Jesus Words Only.

John 12:30-33

Jesus answered and said, "This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.  Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.  And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."  This he said, signifying what death he should die.

The language in the Greek in verse 32 is very strong language, implying those being drawn are being drawn regardless of their will.  And on the Cross Jesus asked The Father to forgive those mocking and tormenting him, even though none of them were repentant.

That the Punishment of the Wicked is NOT endless can be demonstrated by Matthew 5:26/Luke 12:59 as well as Matthew 18:34 and Luke 12:47-48.  But back to Matthew 5, later verse 45 tells us that...

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust."

Then I have my post on The Second Death where I tied Jesus teaching about the Sheep and Goats Judgment (last parable of Matthew 25) into what He taught in John 5:21-29 and Revelation 20.  I only mention Paul's Resurrection teaching there to show how I view it as consistent with that, but that doctrine can be built without Paul easily.

The idea that Jesus taught Eternal Damnation is refuted by understanding the Greek (see Words Translated Eternal and The Age of Ages), but I've also rhetorically argued how even the KJV can be interpreted consistent with Universal Salvation.

Matthew 10:28 is a favorite verse of Annihilationists, where Jesus says not to fear who  kill your Body but God who can kill your Soul.  Eternal Punishment believers say "killing the soul" is just a poetic allegory for Eternal Punishment. But the problem is you need to keep reading verses 29-31, Jesus goes on to say NOT to Fear God because He won't do that because He loves us.

Going on to the writings of The Apostles, 1 John 2:2 refutes Limited Atonement.  "And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."  And 2 Peter 3:9 tells us that God is not willing that any should Perish.

I'm also working on a post specifically about how I feel Revelation on it's own strongly implies Universal Salvation which will be posted on my Prophecy Blog, the Anti-Paul people love to misuse certain material from Revelation.

Objections to Paul tend to come from a place of reverence for The Old Testament, especially The Torah.  I have my post on The Resurrection in The Torah where I show that the roots of the Universal Salvation message are right there in The Torah.  And I've talked about the fact that Ezekiel 16 says even Sodom shall be restored.  And then there is Psalm 30, a Davidic Psalm, in verse 5 says that Yahuah's anger is for but a moment. 

So that point has been proven.

But what if the opposite attitude towards Paul also exists?  What if there are Neo-Marcionites out there who think only Paul got it right and the rest of Scripture must be filtered through how it lines up with Paul?  Well I can also prove that Paul taught Universal Salvation.

Romans 5:17-19, and the context only makes the point stronger.

For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.  For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Which is complimented by the discussion of Adam and Christ in 1 Corinthians 15.  The number of people saved by Jesus can't be smaller then the number condemned by Adam.

1 Timothy 2:3-4 says "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all people to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.".  Which is another big Problem for Calvansit theology.  And then verse 6 does more damage to Limited Atonement.

And in Chapter 4 verse 10 we have.

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Showing Jesus has Saved all, not just Believers.

Paul only uses any of the three words that are commonly translated "Hell" once, in 1 Corinthians 15:55, but the KJV doesn't render it Hell here but rather Grave, I shall adjust the KJV reading.

O death, where is thy sting? O hell, where is thy victory?

He only refers to the Abyss when saying Jesus descended into it, making it part of the Harrowing of Hell doctrine.

What Paul says about fire as judgment is in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15, where the context is specifically about Believers at the Bema Judgment.

Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.  If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.  If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and maybe Hebrews 6:2 are the only places where Paul is seemingly referring to Eternal Damnation, but once again this comes down to the issue of how Aionion/Aionios should be translated, and perhaps also what kind of judgment is even in mind.

And there are other Paulian passages with Universalist implications as well.  Like 2nd Corinthians 5 and Paul's teaching on Israel in Romans 9-11, or Colossians 1:20.  

But perhaps most importantly the Sermon on Mar's Hill in Acts 17, that can't be written off as some obscure teaching buried in the Epistles, this is how he presented The Gospels to the Greeks and often held up by people like Ken Ham as the model of how The Gospel should be presented to the Gentiles.  At the end in verses 31 and 32 we read.

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."  And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked: and others said, We will hear thee again of this matter.

The Judgment is mentioned, but then says that "all men" have assurance in the Resurrection.  It's not an option they have to accept, it's assurance.  And the description of how people responded, ranging from hostility to curiosity to belief, is emphasizing The Resurrection not The Judgment.

So if you limited your Canon to Paul, there isn't much of a hint of endless Punishment, the Wage he associates with Sin is Death in Hebrews.  But he also says Death has no Sting now thanks to Jesus.  Marcion's Canon was Paul and Luke minus OT references, and Luke has no references to Eternal or Everlasting punishment, only Eternal Life.  The Parable in Luke 16 is depicting Hades which Paul says will have no Victory.

My bias however has always been against picking and choosing.  So I'm glad I can demonstrate Paul to be consistent with the rest of Scripture on this.