Grace is a Free Gift by definition. Many Protestants and Evangelicals are good at correctly pointing out that it isn't "Free" if you have to earn it or can lose it. Yet they've taken on a mistaken notion that it's not a "Gift" if it can't be rejected, that you have to willingly "receive" it.
If a doctor finds a man beaten, bleeding and unconscious on the road and then chooses to heal him without charging a medical bill, is that not a Free Gift that that the man did not have to take any part in receiving? That is in fact how Jesus presents Mankind's predicament.
The phrase "Free Gift" appears in the King James Bible only in Romans 5 verses 15-18, not once is any notion of someone needing to "receive" it mentioned. Quite the contrary it says the Free Gift came upon All, no exceptions.
Paul reiterated repeatedly that Grace is entirely about Jesus with no assistance from us lest we should boast. Even saying we have to "receive" it undermines that Gospel.
As many have argued before, when Ephesians 2 says we are saved by Grace through Faith, the Faith being refereed to there is of Jesus not our Faith. In Paul's writings our Faith Justifies us but doesn't Save us, those are different things. Justification is necessary to receive Citizenship in New Jerusalem and potentially Rewards.
It is actually only Jesus who ever refers to people being saved by their faith (Luke 7:50 and 18:42), and those contexts were in more immediate senses, they do not make Faith necessary for ultimate Salvation.
I affirm Free Will, but my understanding of Free Will is neither a Calvinist or Arminian one.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/free-will-is-not-argument-agaisnt.html
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Friday, November 9, 2018
Limited Atonement vs Arminian Atonement, who is the Most Illogical.
When I cite 1 Timothy 4:10 as evidence of Universal Salvation "we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those
that believe". the response I get is something like "Jesus is the Savior of all because He Died for All but that doesn't mean everyone will be saved".
They are arguing that Jesus is the Savior of people who are not Saved, and think I'm the one using twisted tortured logic. I don't believe failure is possible for Jesus, He is your Savior, therefore you will be Saved.
So why then are believers "especially" saved if no one suffers endless torment or annihilation? First and foremost because we're aware of our Salvation, we are currently in Light and they are in Darkness, which is what it means to be "lost". Now I could also elaborate about the issues of Rewards and Citizenship in New Jerusalem, but I actually think believers can lose those things if we fall away or screw up too badly.
John Calvin himself never addressed the issue of Limited Atonement, he went further then Martin Luthor in developing Augustin's Predestination heresy by saying God does choose not to save some people, but Limited Atonement was developed later, chiefly at the Synod of Dort in 1618.
Wikipedia says there were two things both sides of the Arminian v Calvinism debate agree one.
As an analogy for what both Arminians and Calvinists agree on, let's say I'm someone living in the Pokemon world. Some shop is selling all 802 Pokemon, I paid enough money to buy all of them, but by the time I get home I only have 153. The Calvinist would say those were always the only ones I wanted, I just over paid for them to show off that I could. An Arminian would say the others ran away because they didn't like me. One option makes me very wasteful, the other makes me a very bad trainer.
Calvinists take the route they feel respects God's Sovereignty, while Arminians tried to take the route that respects God's Love and Mercy.
Calvinists have to agree that Jesus Atonement was sufficient to Save everyone to get around the verses that contradict Limited Atonement.
Mostly I think of Calvinists as being the most wrong sect of Christianity. But there are two things on which Calvinists are correct. 1. God is Sovereign, He will get what He Wants. 2. It is Illogical to say Jesus died for Everyone and yet there will still be some who aren't Saved.
The problem in what they agree on is that the word "Elect" (Chosen) is used in many senses. Some verses are about those who currently Believe in their Mortal Life. But Paul in Romans 11:22 is clear that unbelieving Jews are still Elect, and Jesus included Judas when He said that He had Chosen the 12, and yet Judas was a Devil. Ultimately all Humans were Chosen by God to be made in the Image and Likeness of God and have dominion over the Earth in Genesis 1 and Psalm 8.
Both verses that refer to few being chosen, Matthew 20:16 and 22:14, also say many are called. The second occurrence I believe is meant to help explain the random occurrence earlier, and on that occasion it ends the parable of the Wedding Feast, where the Many Called is indeed everyone, but only one person is Chosen and that's the one cast out into Outer Darkness. In Isaiah 42:1 The Elect is The Servant who in chapter 53 is bruised for our iniquities. I have argued that Gehenna could be the site of the Crucifixion. 1 Peter 2:6 also calls the Stone that is Jesus Elect. We are Elect because we are The Body of Christ.
Many verses contradict Limited Atonement by implication, including ones mentioned in this post already, like at the start. But there are two passages that directly render that notion impossible.
1 John 2:1-2, "propitiation" in the KJV is the Greek word for Atonement.
1 Timothy 2:4-6, which also demonstrates that God's Will is to Save everyone along with Matthew 18:14.
They are arguing that Jesus is the Savior of people who are not Saved, and think I'm the one using twisted tortured logic. I don't believe failure is possible for Jesus, He is your Savior, therefore you will be Saved.
So why then are believers "especially" saved if no one suffers endless torment or annihilation? First and foremost because we're aware of our Salvation, we are currently in Light and they are in Darkness, which is what it means to be "lost". Now I could also elaborate about the issues of Rewards and Citizenship in New Jerusalem, but I actually think believers can lose those things if we fall away or screw up too badly.
John Calvin himself never addressed the issue of Limited Atonement, he went further then Martin Luthor in developing Augustin's Predestination heresy by saying God does choose not to save some people, but Limited Atonement was developed later, chiefly at the Synod of Dort in 1618.
Wikipedia says there were two things both sides of the Arminian v Calvinism debate agree one.
"It is particularly associated with the Reformed tradition and is one of the five points of Calvinism. The doctrine states that though the death of Jesus Christ is sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world,[1] it was the intention of God the Father that the atonement of Christ's death would work itself out in the elect only, thereby leading them without fail to salvation."-"Both sides of the controversy agreed that this efficacy was limited to the elect."I think many disputes in Mainstream Christianity are resolved by realizing both sides actually agree on something that is wrong, and that error thus creates apparent contradictions in Scripture where there are none. In this case what both sides agree on are logically inconsistent with each other, at least they are if God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient.
As an analogy for what both Arminians and Calvinists agree on, let's say I'm someone living in the Pokemon world. Some shop is selling all 802 Pokemon, I paid enough money to buy all of them, but by the time I get home I only have 153. The Calvinist would say those were always the only ones I wanted, I just over paid for them to show off that I could. An Arminian would say the others ran away because they didn't like me. One option makes me very wasteful, the other makes me a very bad trainer.
Calvinists take the route they feel respects God's Sovereignty, while Arminians tried to take the route that respects God's Love and Mercy.
Calvinists have to agree that Jesus Atonement was sufficient to Save everyone to get around the verses that contradict Limited Atonement.
Mostly I think of Calvinists as being the most wrong sect of Christianity. But there are two things on which Calvinists are correct. 1. God is Sovereign, He will get what He Wants. 2. It is Illogical to say Jesus died for Everyone and yet there will still be some who aren't Saved.
The problem in what they agree on is that the word "Elect" (Chosen) is used in many senses. Some verses are about those who currently Believe in their Mortal Life. But Paul in Romans 11:22 is clear that unbelieving Jews are still Elect, and Jesus included Judas when He said that He had Chosen the 12, and yet Judas was a Devil. Ultimately all Humans were Chosen by God to be made in the Image and Likeness of God and have dominion over the Earth in Genesis 1 and Psalm 8.
Both verses that refer to few being chosen, Matthew 20:16 and 22:14, also say many are called. The second occurrence I believe is meant to help explain the random occurrence earlier, and on that occasion it ends the parable of the Wedding Feast, where the Many Called is indeed everyone, but only one person is Chosen and that's the one cast out into Outer Darkness. In Isaiah 42:1 The Elect is The Servant who in chapter 53 is bruised for our iniquities. I have argued that Gehenna could be the site of the Crucifixion. 1 Peter 2:6 also calls the Stone that is Jesus Elect. We are Elect because we are The Body of Christ.
Many verses contradict Limited Atonement by implication, including ones mentioned in this post already, like at the start. But there are two passages that directly render that notion impossible.
1 John 2:1-2, "propitiation" in the KJV is the Greek word for Atonement.
1 Timothy 2:4-6, which also demonstrates that God's Will is to Save everyone along with Matthew 18:14.
Wednesday, November 7, 2018
We need to Lower The Voting Age
We also need to end the Electoral Collage and Gerrymandering. And in my opinion if we've come to a consensus on the Senate not being for it's original purpose, we should just abolish it altogether.
But with how things are Republicans can still win the Popular Vote sometimes, they did in 2004 and for just over half of all elections in the 20th Century. And while individually Trump had the weakest popular percentage of any winner in my lifetime, and even weaker then some past losers. When you look at all the 3rd Party Votes cast, Johnson, that Mormon guy in Utah and the Constitution Party candidate got enough votes to put the number of people who voted for right of center candidates over 50% of the Popular Vote, and that's without even adding the write in votes for Ron Paul and Colin Powell.
However there was a Map floating around Tumblr back in late 2016 showing that if only Millennials could vote the only State Trump would have won was Wyoming. And exit-polling data for this recent 2018 Midterm that only broke things down by age and ethnicity, showed the only demographics Republicans won were White People over 45, White People 30-44 were close however, a nearly 50/50 split, but White People 18-29 were significantly voting Democrat, meanwhile People of Color that young were a downright landslide for the Dems.
Now many Republicans might feel vindicated by this, "older people are wiser" says conventional wisdom. There is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill that goes something like "A man who isn't a liberal at 20 has no Heart and a Man who isn't a Conservative at 50 has no Brain". And so some Conservatives even try to argue for raising the age you can Vote at. However the way things actually work isn't that simple.
One factor in why this is is that Wealthier people live longer statistically, between being able to afford better medical care to lower income communities always having more Crime and Violence. That same data on the 2018 Midterms did have the Dems winning People of Color over 45 and even over 65.
And then there is the factor that as society has Progressed the political "Center" has moved to the Left.
But emphasizing those two factors too much might seem like an attempt to deny the commonality of people who's minds actually did change to the right as they got older. Because current young Liberals don't want to think they will become their Bigoted Parents some day.
I know from my own family of the existence of Baby Boomers who were radical Bobby Kennedy and McGovern voting hippies in the 60s and 70s but were voting pretty consistently Republican by the end of the 80s. So does that change happen because of time and experience making one smarter and wiser? Again, actual Marginalized groups continue to not trust Conservatives no matter how old and experienced they get.
This is another product of Toxic Nostalgia, young voters tend to vote thinking about the future, but then once you've been working for awhile you get more and more worried about the present and start more and more voting on short term needs, and then once you get old you start looking at the past with rose tinted glasses (especially if you were relatively privileged in your youth) and next thing you know you wanna "Make America Great Again".
Nothing makes me laugh more then seeing Baby Boomers on Facebook share "In my day kids respected their elders" sentiments.
So basically, if I'm going to trust older voters for their age and experience it's gonna be the less privileged ones, who've actually lived through tough experiences, but it's more difficult for those people to live long enough to get old.
With all those factors in mind, the fact that the age at which privileged White People on average start moving to the right is about half way through the average life expectancy, makes it really unfair that you're not allowed to vote till your life is statistically almost a quarter over.
In some states you're old enough to consent to sexual intercourse and get married at is as young as 16. If you're old enough to contribute to the future by starting a family and potentially create new life, you should be old enough to vote. People have been tried as Adults for crimes including the crime of murder at as young as 15. And plenty of religious customs declare a person an adult at as young as 12 or 13. Also anyone in High School is able to get a part time Job, and sometimes are expected to, which means they're paying Taxes which means they should have a vote in how that Tax money is used.
I'm an unusual person in that I'm a White Christian Cis-Male (who's mostly identified as Heterosexual) who's political life has been the opposite. First year I was old enough to Vote was 2004 and I'm ashamed to admit I voted for Bush back then, and probably would have if I could've voted in 2000. But from 2007-2012 I was a radical Ron Paul Libertarian. By the time I started this Blog I had already become more liberal then I was during the Ron Paul era, and over the course of this blog my further progression to The Left has been documented. I wish I could say that change was because of some life experience Secular Conservatives would respect, but it wasn't. It's mostly been caused by my reading The Bible and deciding to trust what it plainly says removing the filter of Western Traditionalism.
Of course at no time during my past as a Young Conservative was I a proto Alt-Right person, and I'm not just saying that because of the worst stereotypes about the Alt-Right, as a Young Earth Creationist both then and now I would never have supported even the most sanitized form of "Race Realisim", and if anything I questioned the traditional narrative of WWII less then then I do now. I never even trusted the Tea Party.
I make this distinction because the Alt-Right are also an exception to this general trend, they come from the minority of under 30 White People who voted for Trump. They have a few older intellectuals in their pocket, but no one born before 1980 has ever been a regular 4Chan contributor. So I can't help but wonder how many Kekistani flag wavers will be Communists by the time Trump leaves office?
And that's why The Alt-Right can't truly be called Reactionaries in any true sense of that term, they don't want to restore any past status quo, they are proposing a twisted kind of Utopian Fantasy.
Now I'm not gonna suggest a maximum voting age, even the oldest people have the right to be concerned about what future they have left. But I do think we should have a maximum age at which you can hold office, even Aristotle, a pretty Conservative guy in his time, argued against allowing people over 70 to hold office.
But back to the main topic. This is also why Liberals should be concerned about declining Birth Rates, this Birthrate problem is going to give older voters even more of an advantage in coming Elections. In Japan it's already the main reason the Left can't win, they probably still have more people Nostalgic for the 30s then the 90s. The Overpopulation myth was always Capitalist Propaganda in origin as documented in Peter Coffin's documentary.
But with how things are Republicans can still win the Popular Vote sometimes, they did in 2004 and for just over half of all elections in the 20th Century. And while individually Trump had the weakest popular percentage of any winner in my lifetime, and even weaker then some past losers. When you look at all the 3rd Party Votes cast, Johnson, that Mormon guy in Utah and the Constitution Party candidate got enough votes to put the number of people who voted for right of center candidates over 50% of the Popular Vote, and that's without even adding the write in votes for Ron Paul and Colin Powell.
However there was a Map floating around Tumblr back in late 2016 showing that if only Millennials could vote the only State Trump would have won was Wyoming. And exit-polling data for this recent 2018 Midterm that only broke things down by age and ethnicity, showed the only demographics Republicans won were White People over 45, White People 30-44 were close however, a nearly 50/50 split, but White People 18-29 were significantly voting Democrat, meanwhile People of Color that young were a downright landslide for the Dems.
Now many Republicans might feel vindicated by this, "older people are wiser" says conventional wisdom. There is a quote attributed to Winston Churchill that goes something like "A man who isn't a liberal at 20 has no Heart and a Man who isn't a Conservative at 50 has no Brain". And so some Conservatives even try to argue for raising the age you can Vote at. However the way things actually work isn't that simple.
One factor in why this is is that Wealthier people live longer statistically, between being able to afford better medical care to lower income communities always having more Crime and Violence. That same data on the 2018 Midterms did have the Dems winning People of Color over 45 and even over 65.
And then there is the factor that as society has Progressed the political "Center" has moved to the Left.
But emphasizing those two factors too much might seem like an attempt to deny the commonality of people who's minds actually did change to the right as they got older. Because current young Liberals don't want to think they will become their Bigoted Parents some day.
I know from my own family of the existence of Baby Boomers who were radical Bobby Kennedy and McGovern voting hippies in the 60s and 70s but were voting pretty consistently Republican by the end of the 80s. So does that change happen because of time and experience making one smarter and wiser? Again, actual Marginalized groups continue to not trust Conservatives no matter how old and experienced they get.
This is another product of Toxic Nostalgia, young voters tend to vote thinking about the future, but then once you've been working for awhile you get more and more worried about the present and start more and more voting on short term needs, and then once you get old you start looking at the past with rose tinted glasses (especially if you were relatively privileged in your youth) and next thing you know you wanna "Make America Great Again".
Nothing makes me laugh more then seeing Baby Boomers on Facebook share "In my day kids respected their elders" sentiments.
So basically, if I'm going to trust older voters for their age and experience it's gonna be the less privileged ones, who've actually lived through tough experiences, but it's more difficult for those people to live long enough to get old.
With all those factors in mind, the fact that the age at which privileged White People on average start moving to the right is about half way through the average life expectancy, makes it really unfair that you're not allowed to vote till your life is statistically almost a quarter over.
In some states you're old enough to consent to sexual intercourse and get married at is as young as 16. If you're old enough to contribute to the future by starting a family and potentially create new life, you should be old enough to vote. People have been tried as Adults for crimes including the crime of murder at as young as 15. And plenty of religious customs declare a person an adult at as young as 12 or 13. Also anyone in High School is able to get a part time Job, and sometimes are expected to, which means they're paying Taxes which means they should have a vote in how that Tax money is used.
I'm an unusual person in that I'm a White Christian Cis-Male (who's mostly identified as Heterosexual) who's political life has been the opposite. First year I was old enough to Vote was 2004 and I'm ashamed to admit I voted for Bush back then, and probably would have if I could've voted in 2000. But from 2007-2012 I was a radical Ron Paul Libertarian. By the time I started this Blog I had already become more liberal then I was during the Ron Paul era, and over the course of this blog my further progression to The Left has been documented. I wish I could say that change was because of some life experience Secular Conservatives would respect, but it wasn't. It's mostly been caused by my reading The Bible and deciding to trust what it plainly says removing the filter of Western Traditionalism.
Of course at no time during my past as a Young Conservative was I a proto Alt-Right person, and I'm not just saying that because of the worst stereotypes about the Alt-Right, as a Young Earth Creationist both then and now I would never have supported even the most sanitized form of "Race Realisim", and if anything I questioned the traditional narrative of WWII less then then I do now. I never even trusted the Tea Party.
I make this distinction because the Alt-Right are also an exception to this general trend, they come from the minority of under 30 White People who voted for Trump. They have a few older intellectuals in their pocket, but no one born before 1980 has ever been a regular 4Chan contributor. So I can't help but wonder how many Kekistani flag wavers will be Communists by the time Trump leaves office?
And that's why The Alt-Right can't truly be called Reactionaries in any true sense of that term, they don't want to restore any past status quo, they are proposing a twisted kind of Utopian Fantasy.
Now I'm not gonna suggest a maximum voting age, even the oldest people have the right to be concerned about what future they have left. But I do think we should have a maximum age at which you can hold office, even Aristotle, a pretty Conservative guy in his time, argued against allowing people over 70 to hold office.
But back to the main topic. This is also why Liberals should be concerned about declining Birth Rates, this Birthrate problem is going to give older voters even more of an advantage in coming Elections. In Japan it's already the main reason the Left can't win, they probably still have more people Nostalgic for the 30s then the 90s. The Overpopulation myth was always Capitalist Propaganda in origin as documented in Peter Coffin's documentary.
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Dear Dems, if you wanna win in 2020, don't nominate a moderate.
Every Election cycle this conventional wisdom that the "moderate" candidate is more electable keeps being perpetuated by the media. But as far as the Presidential Elections go it has consistently failed every Election in my living memory, (1992 to the Present).
In each of those Elections one of the major parties nominated an "electable" moderate and the other someone perceived as representing the Populist base of the Party. And each time it was the Moderate who lost.
Now look, I know full well lots of Progressives insist Obama was a Moderate, and plenty of Conservatives insist Bush was not very Conservative at all. But that's not my point, compared to the other viable options in those primaries, Bush and Obama were the Radical choices and they won. Meanwhile the John Kerrys and John McCains lost.
As far back as 2014 I was figuring the upcoming Election would follow this pattern. Trump however was unusual enough that I started to think maybe, maybe, this one will break it. But no, he still won, and I still wasn't that surprised.
But I also know Sanders would have won. The Rust Belt states which were the key to Trump's victory were filled with people voting on the Protectionism alone, I live in one of those states, Wisconsin. The key to Trump's victory here, a state that hadn't gone to a Republican in a Presidential Election since 1984, was a lot of those one issue voters who voted for Sanders in the primary but Trump in the general.
Now, dethroning a sitting President is inherently more difficult. But the last three Successful Reelections were indeed partly because the opposition nominated a dull moderate.
But I do think defeating Trump will probably require someone even more radical then Sanders, Sanders feels a lot less Radical now then he was in 2016 because of how much progress the Left has made online in such a short time. We're going to need someone calling for a Basic Income.
If the Dems nominate an Elizabeth Warren, they will lose. The Dems most recent victories have been with younger candidates, ones barely old enough to be eligible to run. On average younger candidates are more radical.
A Candidate who can't get their own base excited, isn't going to get anyone else excited.
In each of those Elections one of the major parties nominated an "electable" moderate and the other someone perceived as representing the Populist base of the Party. And each time it was the Moderate who lost.
Now look, I know full well lots of Progressives insist Obama was a Moderate, and plenty of Conservatives insist Bush was not very Conservative at all. But that's not my point, compared to the other viable options in those primaries, Bush and Obama were the Radical choices and they won. Meanwhile the John Kerrys and John McCains lost.
As far back as 2014 I was figuring the upcoming Election would follow this pattern. Trump however was unusual enough that I started to think maybe, maybe, this one will break it. But no, he still won, and I still wasn't that surprised.
But I also know Sanders would have won. The Rust Belt states which were the key to Trump's victory were filled with people voting on the Protectionism alone, I live in one of those states, Wisconsin. The key to Trump's victory here, a state that hadn't gone to a Republican in a Presidential Election since 1984, was a lot of those one issue voters who voted for Sanders in the primary but Trump in the general.
Now, dethroning a sitting President is inherently more difficult. But the last three Successful Reelections were indeed partly because the opposition nominated a dull moderate.
But I do think defeating Trump will probably require someone even more radical then Sanders, Sanders feels a lot less Radical now then he was in 2016 because of how much progress the Left has made online in such a short time. We're going to need someone calling for a Basic Income.
If the Dems nominate an Elizabeth Warren, they will lose. The Dems most recent victories have been with younger candidates, ones barely old enough to be eligible to run. On average younger candidates are more radical.
A Candidate who can't get their own base excited, isn't going to get anyone else excited.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Agape and Eros are synonyms actually.
We keep hearing it declared that the Greek Language had multiple mutually exclusive words for "Love", the big three being Eros (Sexual and Romantic Love), Agape (Familial Love) and Philia/Phileo (Brotherly Love, which you're supposed to have for everyone). From theologians like the late Karl Bart to to C.S. Lewis to YouTube videos like the Overly Sarcastic Productions summary of Eros and Psyche (a story that originated in the 2nd Century AD BTW).
The thing is, there is a lot of context about the history of the Language being left out of that. I don't know if that's an accurate representation of how people in modern Greece use these words, but there are some important facts about the Ancient usage I need to point out.
First of all, and this is semi-well known, "Eros" is suspiciously missing from The New Testament, the closest we get is one guy's name seems to have Eros as one of it's roots, (Erastus mentioned in Acts 19:22, Romans 16:23 and 2 Timothy 4:20).
A popular theory for why is that the first Generation of Christians were a bunch of prudes seeking to reject Sex and Marriage so they had no need to discus Eros. Well this entire Blog is partly dedicated to refuting that notion.
It's also been proposed that these early Jewish Monotheists wanted to avoid saying "Eros" because it was also the name of a Greek god. Thing is lots of Greek words in the New Testament are also names of Greek gods, from Ouranos to Hades to some Olympians being explicitly mentioned. But maybe there are nuanced reasons why Eros would be different, after all twice the Epistle known as 1 John says that "God is Love (Agape)". Also not every deity in Greek mythology had an active cult of worship, most primordial deities were not as active as part of Greek pagan religion as Eros was.
But wait, why isn't there a Greek god named Agape? A lot of abstract concepts and emotions are personified in Greek mythology, even some pretty trivial ones. Well you see the well known academically but not so casually well known fact is that Agape is a word that was almost never used by Greek speaking Polytheists. Apparently Homer used a form of it but not in any way comparable to it's NT usage.
In other words, Eros and Agape are a bit like Clark Kent and Superman, you kind of never see them in the same place at the same time.
The first problem with excluding Romantic and Sexual Love from the meaning of Agape is that Paul uses Agape of the Love that Husbands are supposed to have for their Wives in Ephesians 5.
But then there is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. As I've said before in my view the Septuagint is at least partly Pre-Christian in origin but the final from we typically know was copied and preserved through Christian hands. Both Eros and Agape are used in the Septuagint, but Eros far more rarely. It is the main place you find both being used.
Both words are used to translate the same Hebrew word, Ahav and other forms of Ahav like Ahavah. But Eros is NEVER used in The Song of Songs that is Solomon's. That's right, the most explicitly Erotic part of the entire Bible used Agape and not Eros.
I can't help but wonder if Agape might actually be Hebrew in origin. There is a rarely used synonym for Ahav that only appears in Jeremiah 4:30, and Ezekiel 23&33, Agab, Egeb and Agabah (Strongs Numbers 5689-5691). For whatever weird reason, Bs sometimes change to Ps in ancient transliterations, so Agape could easily have come from this word. Some of it's uses do seem to imply a Sexual sense. The Strongs definitions for the words say things like Sensually and Amorousness. However I lack a smoking gun on this theory since I can't find a place where this word became Agape in the Septuagint, in the Jeremiah verse it is translated Eros.
So Agape can definitely include Romantic and Sexual Love in ancient Judeo-Christian use.
Meanwhile Eros was definitely used by Gentile Greeks of more then just Sexual Love. Plato is someone who's attitudes towards sex I've strongly opposed on this Blog, but he is a witness to how the word was used, and Platonic Love was indeed Platonic Eros. However what we today means be "Platonic" doesn't always match what Plato actually meant, so it's complicated.
So when 1 John 4:7 says that "everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" using Agape. You can't say that's separate from the Love Homosexuals feel because of some modern notion of Agape and Eros being distinct. Agape is used in negative senses sometimes, but that's only when Love for some thing gets in the way of one's Love for God. It's never used of love for people. Sexual Love can be sinful when it is expressed or taken against someone's will. But calling any consensual romantic love Demonic is in my view potentially Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Update: So I recently learned of a minor Greek Goddess called Philotes, she was associated with both Friendship and Sex, so that right there is evidence that Philia wasn't completely divorced from Sexual connotations either.
The thing is, there is a lot of context about the history of the Language being left out of that. I don't know if that's an accurate representation of how people in modern Greece use these words, but there are some important facts about the Ancient usage I need to point out.
First of all, and this is semi-well known, "Eros" is suspiciously missing from The New Testament, the closest we get is one guy's name seems to have Eros as one of it's roots, (Erastus mentioned in Acts 19:22, Romans 16:23 and 2 Timothy 4:20).
A popular theory for why is that the first Generation of Christians were a bunch of prudes seeking to reject Sex and Marriage so they had no need to discus Eros. Well this entire Blog is partly dedicated to refuting that notion.
It's also been proposed that these early Jewish Monotheists wanted to avoid saying "Eros" because it was also the name of a Greek god. Thing is lots of Greek words in the New Testament are also names of Greek gods, from Ouranos to Hades to some Olympians being explicitly mentioned. But maybe there are nuanced reasons why Eros would be different, after all twice the Epistle known as 1 John says that "God is Love (Agape)". Also not every deity in Greek mythology had an active cult of worship, most primordial deities were not as active as part of Greek pagan religion as Eros was.
But wait, why isn't there a Greek god named Agape? A lot of abstract concepts and emotions are personified in Greek mythology, even some pretty trivial ones. Well you see the well known academically but not so casually well known fact is that Agape is a word that was almost never used by Greek speaking Polytheists. Apparently Homer used a form of it but not in any way comparable to it's NT usage.
In other words, Eros and Agape are a bit like Clark Kent and Superman, you kind of never see them in the same place at the same time.
The first problem with excluding Romantic and Sexual Love from the meaning of Agape is that Paul uses Agape of the Love that Husbands are supposed to have for their Wives in Ephesians 5.
But then there is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. As I've said before in my view the Septuagint is at least partly Pre-Christian in origin but the final from we typically know was copied and preserved through Christian hands. Both Eros and Agape are used in the Septuagint, but Eros far more rarely. It is the main place you find both being used.
Both words are used to translate the same Hebrew word, Ahav and other forms of Ahav like Ahavah. But Eros is NEVER used in The Song of Songs that is Solomon's. That's right, the most explicitly Erotic part of the entire Bible used Agape and not Eros.
I can't help but wonder if Agape might actually be Hebrew in origin. There is a rarely used synonym for Ahav that only appears in Jeremiah 4:30, and Ezekiel 23&33, Agab, Egeb and Agabah (Strongs Numbers 5689-5691). For whatever weird reason, Bs sometimes change to Ps in ancient transliterations, so Agape could easily have come from this word. Some of it's uses do seem to imply a Sexual sense. The Strongs definitions for the words say things like Sensually and Amorousness. However I lack a smoking gun on this theory since I can't find a place where this word became Agape in the Septuagint, in the Jeremiah verse it is translated Eros.
So Agape can definitely include Romantic and Sexual Love in ancient Judeo-Christian use.
Meanwhile Eros was definitely used by Gentile Greeks of more then just Sexual Love. Plato is someone who's attitudes towards sex I've strongly opposed on this Blog, but he is a witness to how the word was used, and Platonic Love was indeed Platonic Eros. However what we today means be "Platonic" doesn't always match what Plato actually meant, so it's complicated.
So when 1 John 4:7 says that "everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" using Agape. You can't say that's separate from the Love Homosexuals feel because of some modern notion of Agape and Eros being distinct. Agape is used in negative senses sometimes, but that's only when Love for some thing gets in the way of one's Love for God. It's never used of love for people. Sexual Love can be sinful when it is expressed or taken against someone's will. But calling any consensual romantic love Demonic is in my view potentially Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Update: So I recently learned of a minor Greek Goddess called Philotes, she was associated with both Friendship and Sex, so that right there is evidence that Philia wasn't completely divorced from Sexual connotations either.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Luke 12:47-48
As they read in the KJV.
First of all any reference to the Punishments not being the same weakens the notion that Endless Torment is the minimum sentence regardless of who is who allegorically.
Secondly, the modern world may have a lot of Unbelievers who've read a lot of The Bible and so intellectually know what it says. But if they don't believe, then they don't "Know" it's The Lord's Will.
And if anything, if you want to say both categories in this passage are more specific then all of Humanity. Other passages in the New Testament imply only Believers can be called God's Servants. And there are plenty of passages that have had me contemplate that perhaps God will only punish Believers and that he won't hold people Jesus died for to rules they never agreed to follow. But I'm hesitant to go all the way with that.
The verse before these verses, verse 46, says.
There is no getting around the Universal Salvation implications of what Jesus taught here. The last verse of chapter 12, paralleling a passage from Matthew 5, is clear that Punishment is finite not infinite.
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.I've cited these verses as evidence that Believers will be punished more then Unbelievers which in turn backs up the Doctrine of Universal Salvation. But I read recently a typical Evangelical site that quoted these passages as if they are only about Unbelievers. And I was simply scratching my head.
First of all any reference to the Punishments not being the same weakens the notion that Endless Torment is the minimum sentence regardless of who is who allegorically.
Secondly, the modern world may have a lot of Unbelievers who've read a lot of The Bible and so intellectually know what it says. But if they don't believe, then they don't "Know" it's The Lord's Will.
And if anything, if you want to say both categories in this passage are more specific then all of Humanity. Other passages in the New Testament imply only Believers can be called God's Servants. And there are plenty of passages that have had me contemplate that perhaps God will only punish Believers and that he won't hold people Jesus died for to rules they never agreed to follow. But I'm hesitant to go all the way with that.
The verse before these verses, verse 46, says.
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.Perhaps this website I read was made by people who don't believe in Eternal Security, and see this as referring to fallen Believers being treated as Unbelievers. But Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 assures us that even the most failed of Believers are still saved.
There is no getting around the Universal Salvation implications of what Jesus taught here. The last verse of chapter 12, paralleling a passage from Matthew 5, is clear that Punishment is finite not infinite.
Friday, October 26, 2018
The Gospel According to The Beloved Disciple
This post is kind of a follow up to my Heresies of Asia Minor post, and with also some prior groundwork laid by my Mary Magdalene and Bethany post.
One of the reasons that I can't put too much stock in what The Early Church Fathers said is that the Patristic Tradition is pretty unanimous that the Gospel we commonly call "The Gospel According to John" was written by John Son of Zebedee brother of James who one of the Twelve. But the fact is the text of that Gospel tells us who wrote it, and it's not one of The Twelve or someone named John.
At the end of The Gospel we're told "The Disciple who Jesus Loved" wrote The Gospel (21:20-23). Normally an analysis will say Chapter 13:23-25 is the first time this Disciple is mentioned. However if you just read The Gospel without bringing prior assumptions into it, it's clear that this verse is identifying someone we were already introduced to.
But first I need to note that most of the traditional Beloved Disciple verses use Agape, but chapter 20:2 uses Phileo.
In chapters 11 verse 3 the sisters of Lazarus inform Jesus of his death by saying "he whom thou lovest is sick" using Phileo. Verse 5 says that Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus using Agape. In verse 36 the Judeans observe "look how Jesus loved him" using Phileo again referring to Lazarus.
Chapter 12 depicts Lazarus sitting next to Jesus just as the Beloved Disciple does in 13:23-24.
The argument that the Beloved Disciple must be one of the Twelve is dependent on verses from the Synoptics that are taken as saying only the Twelve were at the Last Supper, but they don't actually say that, they emphasize the Twelve being there but do not say it was only the Twelve. In fact it is made clear in the Synpotics that someone else owned the house they had it in.
Chapter 21 does mention the Sons of Zebedee, so if you wanna assume the Beloved Disciple can't be mentioned by any other designation in this Gospel, that rules them out as well.
Others have proposed this theory before me, but I have some differences from them. For example I'm rather skeptical of the whole connecting Lazarus to the family of Beothus theory.
http://www.alanrudnick.org/2017/04/13/john-was-not-the-disciple-whom-jesus-loved/
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2007/01/was-lazarus-the-beloved-disciple.html
I also like to stress based on 11:5 that the designation can be expanded to include his Sisters, which helps explain 20:2, and I also still lean towards it being Mary who was entrusted with his mother in 19:25.
I also disagree with the idea that the ending of the Gospel is implying the Beloved Disciple had died before it's final publication.
But biggest of all, I don't think John the Presbyter was a student of the Beloved Disciple. I don't think either John or the Bethany family ever went to Ephesus, Ephesus is mentioned quite a bit in the New Testament with no hints at any of them being there. But Revelation 2 does refer to there being False Apostles in Ephesus, I think one of them claimed to be John and claimed credit for all five books traditionally ascribed to John, and then came to be sometimes known as John the Presbyter based on the 2nd and 3rd Epistles. And because the "Apostolic Succession" of the early Church went back to his alleged students like Ignatius and Polycarp, that false attribution came to be accepted at face value. In the authentic writings of Ignatius and Polycarp they never claim to be disciples of John or anyone else, and it seems Papias distinguished the John he knew from any of the Apostles.
There is an ancient Eastern Extra-Biblical Tradition that Lazarus received his Bishop's Omophorion from The Virgin Mary. It was apparently something she wove for him. So there is some evidence their association was remembered.
Most even Atheist scholars agree that all three Epistles commonly called "of John" probably have the same author as The Gospel. The first of them I don't even view as an Epistle since it doesn't have an Epistle style introduction or ending. I think it was an Appendix to the Gospel.
It's Revelation that scholars have trouble seeing as being by the same author. And I think that argument can hold up better then attempts to deny certain Paulian letters had the same author. The issue is that usually The Gospel is given first dibs on being the true Son of Zebedde (though plenty of Atheists think none could have been written by a Galileen Fisherman) while I'm pointing out that Revelation is the only of these books who's author actually claims to be named John.
These books being dated to between 90 and 100 AD is often itself seen as evidence against them being written by Eye Witnesses because of the modern obsession with saying people didn't live as long back then. The problem with that narrative is "average" life-span statistics are skewed by how there used to be higher infant mortality rates. I think the Twelve Disciples were younger then Jesus to begin with, and Paul was younger then the Twelve. In every era of history some people have successfully lived to 100, therefore some people born around 5 BC could have made it to 96 AD.
Quadratus letter to Hadrian says some people Jesus healed and rose form the dead were still alive at the time he wrote that letter. That's a category Lazarus specifically fits into. Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was said to have been 120 when he was martyred during the reign of Trajan according to Eusebius. If some theories about the Bethany family are true, he could have been the father of Lazarus and his sisters, or the same person as Lazarus, because the Simon of Matthew 26 and Mark 14 seems to have something to do with the Bethany family when you cross reference it with John 12.
Below is additional theorizing that is much more speculative.
Maybe part of the reason the Gospel became associated with the name of John is how it talks about John The Baptist at the beginning. It's not the only Gospel to kind of begin with John but it's treatment of John is arguably unique. John is the first personal name mentioned in the text.
The name Lazarus is often thought to be a nickname. (It being a presumed form of Eleazar never sat right with me, all other El theophoric names still begin an E in their Greek forms, and I don't think a spelling like Lazarus is ever used in Josephus of someone known to be an Eleazar.) A theory that among other things complicates how he relates to the Parable in Luke 16. So he could be someone also named John which was a common name. However there are the Ossuaries at Dominus Flevit which have a Mary, Martha and Eleazer together.
Wikipedia pages about the Eastern Traditions of Lazarus and his sisters say they preached the Gospel in many lands not just Cyrpus, but I can't find specifics about that. What I find unlikely about the Cyprus tradition is that Lazarus would be ordained by Paul and Barnabas when Paul's own definitions of Apostolic Authority would place Lazarus ahead of him. Paul's time on Cyrpus with Barnabas is recorded in Acts 13 with no reference to them visiting Kition or ordaining any Bishops or meeting Lazarus and the Bethany sisters.
If the traditions of Lazarus on Cyprus do have some truth to them, it's notable that they only account for about 30 years after his Resurrection, which takes us to 60 AD or 66 AD at the latest. I'm confident he did live a lot longer then that.
Update April 2020: I have decided that The Disciple who Jesus Agape when used of a single individual is Mary, and Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus are the same Mary. And The Disciple who Jesus Phileo when used of a single individual is Lazarus.
I have abandoned my past flirtation with the idea of Mary Agdalene as Jesus Sister. But I do still think "Mother's Sister" in John 19:25 should probably means "Maternal sister" and so I now think Mary of Cleophas is one of his Sisters.
In verse 26 when Jesus "his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he apagao" both character refereed to here are ones identified in the prior verse. The male pronouns are possibly just translating pronouns not actually originally meant to be gender specific. When He says refers to this disciple as "son" so His Mother he means the legal meaning of sonship, not biology or gender.
One of the reasons that I can't put too much stock in what The Early Church Fathers said is that the Patristic Tradition is pretty unanimous that the Gospel we commonly call "The Gospel According to John" was written by John Son of Zebedee brother of James who one of the Twelve. But the fact is the text of that Gospel tells us who wrote it, and it's not one of The Twelve or someone named John.
At the end of The Gospel we're told "The Disciple who Jesus Loved" wrote The Gospel (21:20-23). Normally an analysis will say Chapter 13:23-25 is the first time this Disciple is mentioned. However if you just read The Gospel without bringing prior assumptions into it, it's clear that this verse is identifying someone we were already introduced to.
But first I need to note that most of the traditional Beloved Disciple verses use Agape, but chapter 20:2 uses Phileo.
In chapters 11 verse 3 the sisters of Lazarus inform Jesus of his death by saying "he whom thou lovest is sick" using Phileo. Verse 5 says that Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus using Agape. In verse 36 the Judeans observe "look how Jesus loved him" using Phileo again referring to Lazarus.
Chapter 12 depicts Lazarus sitting next to Jesus just as the Beloved Disciple does in 13:23-24.
The argument that the Beloved Disciple must be one of the Twelve is dependent on verses from the Synoptics that are taken as saying only the Twelve were at the Last Supper, but they don't actually say that, they emphasize the Twelve being there but do not say it was only the Twelve. In fact it is made clear in the Synpotics that someone else owned the house they had it in.
Chapter 21 does mention the Sons of Zebedee, so if you wanna assume the Beloved Disciple can't be mentioned by any other designation in this Gospel, that rules them out as well.
Others have proposed this theory before me, but I have some differences from them. For example I'm rather skeptical of the whole connecting Lazarus to the family of Beothus theory.
http://www.alanrudnick.org/2017/04/13/john-was-not-the-disciple-whom-jesus-loved/
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2007/01/was-lazarus-the-beloved-disciple.html
I also like to stress based on 11:5 that the designation can be expanded to include his Sisters, which helps explain 20:2, and I also still lean towards it being Mary who was entrusted with his mother in 19:25.
I also disagree with the idea that the ending of the Gospel is implying the Beloved Disciple had died before it's final publication.
But biggest of all, I don't think John the Presbyter was a student of the Beloved Disciple. I don't think either John or the Bethany family ever went to Ephesus, Ephesus is mentioned quite a bit in the New Testament with no hints at any of them being there. But Revelation 2 does refer to there being False Apostles in Ephesus, I think one of them claimed to be John and claimed credit for all five books traditionally ascribed to John, and then came to be sometimes known as John the Presbyter based on the 2nd and 3rd Epistles. And because the "Apostolic Succession" of the early Church went back to his alleged students like Ignatius and Polycarp, that false attribution came to be accepted at face value. In the authentic writings of Ignatius and Polycarp they never claim to be disciples of John or anyone else, and it seems Papias distinguished the John he knew from any of the Apostles.
There is an ancient Eastern Extra-Biblical Tradition that Lazarus received his Bishop's Omophorion from The Virgin Mary. It was apparently something she wove for him. So there is some evidence their association was remembered.
Most even Atheist scholars agree that all three Epistles commonly called "of John" probably have the same author as The Gospel. The first of them I don't even view as an Epistle since it doesn't have an Epistle style introduction or ending. I think it was an Appendix to the Gospel.
It's Revelation that scholars have trouble seeing as being by the same author. And I think that argument can hold up better then attempts to deny certain Paulian letters had the same author. The issue is that usually The Gospel is given first dibs on being the true Son of Zebedde (though plenty of Atheists think none could have been written by a Galileen Fisherman) while I'm pointing out that Revelation is the only of these books who's author actually claims to be named John.
These books being dated to between 90 and 100 AD is often itself seen as evidence against them being written by Eye Witnesses because of the modern obsession with saying people didn't live as long back then. The problem with that narrative is "average" life-span statistics are skewed by how there used to be higher infant mortality rates. I think the Twelve Disciples were younger then Jesus to begin with, and Paul was younger then the Twelve. In every era of history some people have successfully lived to 100, therefore some people born around 5 BC could have made it to 96 AD.
Quadratus letter to Hadrian says some people Jesus healed and rose form the dead were still alive at the time he wrote that letter. That's a category Lazarus specifically fits into. Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was said to have been 120 when he was martyred during the reign of Trajan according to Eusebius. If some theories about the Bethany family are true, he could have been the father of Lazarus and his sisters, or the same person as Lazarus, because the Simon of Matthew 26 and Mark 14 seems to have something to do with the Bethany family when you cross reference it with John 12.
Below is additional theorizing that is much more speculative.
Maybe part of the reason the Gospel became associated with the name of John is how it talks about John The Baptist at the beginning. It's not the only Gospel to kind of begin with John but it's treatment of John is arguably unique. John is the first personal name mentioned in the text.
The name Lazarus is often thought to be a nickname. (It being a presumed form of Eleazar never sat right with me, all other El theophoric names still begin an E in their Greek forms, and I don't think a spelling like Lazarus is ever used in Josephus of someone known to be an Eleazar.) A theory that among other things complicates how he relates to the Parable in Luke 16. So he could be someone also named John which was a common name. However there are the Ossuaries at Dominus Flevit which have a Mary, Martha and Eleazer together.
Wikipedia pages about the Eastern Traditions of Lazarus and his sisters say they preached the Gospel in many lands not just Cyrpus, but I can't find specifics about that. What I find unlikely about the Cyprus tradition is that Lazarus would be ordained by Paul and Barnabas when Paul's own definitions of Apostolic Authority would place Lazarus ahead of him. Paul's time on Cyrpus with Barnabas is recorded in Acts 13 with no reference to them visiting Kition or ordaining any Bishops or meeting Lazarus and the Bethany sisters.
If the traditions of Lazarus on Cyprus do have some truth to them, it's notable that they only account for about 30 years after his Resurrection, which takes us to 60 AD or 66 AD at the latest. I'm confident he did live a lot longer then that.
Update April 2020: I have decided that The Disciple who Jesus Agape when used of a single individual is Mary, and Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus are the same Mary. And The Disciple who Jesus Phileo when used of a single individual is Lazarus.
I have abandoned my past flirtation with the idea of Mary Agdalene as Jesus Sister. But I do still think "Mother's Sister" in John 19:25 should probably means "Maternal sister" and so I now think Mary of Cleophas is one of his Sisters.
In verse 26 when Jesus "his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he apagao" both character refereed to here are ones identified in the prior verse. The male pronouns are possibly just translating pronouns not actually originally meant to be gender specific. When He says refers to this disciple as "son" so His Mother he means the legal meaning of sonship, not biology or gender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)