Chie Oneesama, Personified Wisdom

The Book of Proverbs particularly Chapter 8, Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 are the primary Biblical Basis for the concept of a Divine Personified Wisdom.  Both the Hebrew Chokmah and the Greek Sophia are grammatically Feminine hence personified Wisdom being often depicted as a Woman.

Proverbs 7:4 tells us to call Wisdom our Sister.  The two Jesus quotes refer to Believers as children of Wisdom which some use to instead make Sophia a Mother figure.  But the word for Children used there is not the standard Greek word for Son or Daughter or the word for Offspring used in Acts 17, it’s much more vague about the actual familial relationship being implied and often doesn’t inherently imply one at all being just the basic Greek word for child, but it does here due to the possessive pronouns.  It would not be inappropriate in my view for referring to the younger siblings of an older sister.

Chie is a grammatically Feminine Japanese word for Wisdom and Oneesama is the most prestigious of words one would use to address an older sister.  In Anime it’s most often used in a Class S context, for not a biological relative but as a term of endearment for a Senpai you particularly admire.  Hence my Weebified title for this post.

The main internal debate within Christianity about Wisdom is if this title refers to The Holy Spirit or Jesus, Jesus eventually became the mainstream assumption hence bad Septuagint translations of certain Proverbs 8 verses being used to justify a Pre-Incarnate begetting of The Logos before the Creation of the Cosmos.  But one of the first Extra-Biblical expressions of The Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch defining it as The Father, The Logos and Sophia.  Also both Theophilus and Irenaeus seem to identify the Holy Spirit with Sophia in how they interpret Psalm 33:6.

Previously on this Blog I strongly favored The Holy Spirit view, but I don’t think it actually matters that much and Theophilus of Antioch is someone I have mixed opinions on.  So I want to look into it deeper.

First I want to make clear that The Holy Spirit has a Feminine aspect whether they’re Wisdom or not The Hebrew word for Spirit is also Grammatically Feminine, the Greek word is technically Gender Neutral but by ending with an A sound it leans towards sounding Feminine especially to Semitic Language trained ears.  Luke 15:8-10 I think also uses a Woman as a type of The Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit's Feminine references are so well known that some some think She's only ever Feminine but the title of Parakletos is Masculine as is it's Hebrew original Menahem.

Jesus also has a Feminine side whether He is Wisdom or not.  Jesus is the Desire of Nations of Haggai 2:7 which is Feminine in the Hebrew.  Isaiah 53:7 confirmed to be about Jesus in Acts 8:32 also uses Grammatically Feminine language (in fact one of the words for Lamb/Sheep is identical to the name of Rachel).  The Sun of Righteousness of Malachi 4:2 is also a grammatically feminine title in the Hebrew.   Also Jesus is called The Image of God which Genesis 1:27 and 5:1-2 define as both Male and Female.  Also a prominent Biblical Hebrew word for Salvation is the Feminine form of the name Yeshua.  Luke 2:21 does clearly tell us Jesus’s Incarnate Body (Which He still has) was Assigned Male at Birth, but his Identity is both Male and Female.   And I have argued Shulamith is a type of Jesus not The Church in the Song of Songs.

The main argument against Jesus being Wisdom would be those quotes I mentioned at the start where He refers to Wisdom in the third person.  But there are other times where He refers to a Title or Aspect of Himself in the Third Person, like all the Son of Man verses.

The verses cited to prove Jesus is Wisdom are 1 Corinthians 1:24 and 30 and 1 Corinthians 2:7 (or the entirety of 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:13) and Colossians 2:3, from what I've found so far at least.  However I don’t get the sense that the Proverbs 8 Personified Wisdom is the point of any of those, in Context Paul is using the word Wisdom explicitly in relation to Greek Philosophy, which it may surprise you to learn didn’t really have a Divine Personified Wisdom concept yet, not in Platonism or Stoicism and certainly not Epicureanism, the Gnostics got that from their Judeo-Christian sources.

It’s also important to remember that the Incarnate Jesus was the Vessel of The Holy Spirit while he walked the Earth and is who sent the Comforter which Proceeds from The Father to us at Pentecost.  So aspects of The Holy Spirit can be said to come from Jesus or be manifested in Jesus.

A lot of my past argument for supporting the Holy Spirit view was verses from The Pentateuch and Isaiah 11:2 that speaks of there being a Spirit of Wisdom and making the Spirit of YHWH the source of Wisdom.  The Pentateuch verses are Exodus 28:3, 31:3, 35:31 and Deuteronomy 34:9. 

However it’s important to remember that God as a whole is Spirit (Spirit in 1st Century Greek and Biblical Hebrew did not mean Immaterial) as shown by John 4:24.  In fact Isaiah 11:2 can be interpreted as a Trinitarian Formula calling each person of The Trinity a Spirit of YHWH.  

But I do think The Spirit of YHWH with a Definite Article typically refers to the Third Person of the Trinity and Revelation 1:4 and 4:5 seem to imply The Holy Spirit has a further Sevenfold division which perhaps only three of which were singled out in Isaiah, and Isaiah 11:2 listed the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding first rather than second or third.

So that leads me to still favoring the Holy Spirit view, but it is ultimately unclear. 

The Sign of The Son of Man

So I recently encountered a Full Preterist arguing that because Jesus called his Resurrection a Sign in Matthew 16:1-4 the General Resurrection isn’t materially the same because it’s not a Sign of something else.

This is one of those arguments I find kind of silly, but I want to respond to it anyway.

First of all I have argued that the “Sign of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:30 is the General Resurrection of that Dead because of how Jesus used that language back in chapter 16 to refute Pre-Tibbers who argue Matthew 24’s Parousia can’t be the same event as “The Rapture” of 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 because there appears to be no Resurrection there.

But more importantly Jesus does not call His Resurrection a Sign to define it as merely a Sign, the only Sign that generation received is Him doing exactly what He came to do, He’s not doing anything JUST to prove Himself.

I could also get semantical about how the Sign of the Prophet Jonah here is strictly speaking not the Resurrection itself but the time period between death and resurrection being three days.

The entire point of 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus' Resurrection is NOT a mere Sign but exactly what The Gospel is.  What makes it a true Evangelion, true Good News, is that it’s not just Jesus, as Jesus was risen so will all those who are Christ’s at his Parousia and ultimately absolutely everyone.

Corporate Body View of the Resurrection

This is a view I’ve seen held by Full Preterists as an alternative way to explain how the General Resurrection of The Dead promised by 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20 and other Passages is already Fulfilled.

Now it seems from those I’ve looked at so far to still functionally lead to the exact same Metaphysical conclusion, that our Individual promise of Immortality is as “Spirits” in “Heaven” not our current Fleshy Bodies being made Immortal.  However I could see the exact same Tactics being used by modern Sadducees to deny any kind of After Life at all.

The core argument is taking the Body of Christ Doctrine, particularly how it's expressed in 1 Corinthians 12 and insisting the “Body” discussed in 1 Corinthians 15 is only that Body not individual Bodies.

First of all it is a Lexical Fallacy to insist the word Body must still only refer to the same thing it did earlier, Paul is focusing on a different topic in Chapter 15.

But regardless of that what Paul means by all Believers being the Body of Christ is specifically our Physical Bodies, our Flesh.  That’s why his argument against Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 is that the Members of Christ should not be joined to a Harlot.  Each individual Body is a Member of the Body of Christ the same way our Limbs are Members of our individual bodies.  Romans 12:4-5 says the same thing.

The Body of Christ Doctrine is derived from the Bride of Christ Doctrine, we are One Flesh with Christ the same way Husband and Wife are One Flesh.

And it’s also tied to us being The Temple of God which Paul starts laying out in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and returns to in Chapter 6:19-20.  In John 2:21 the individual Incarnate Body of Jesus is called “the Temple of His Body”.  In Paul both each Individual body is the Temple of God and all of our Bodies are Collectively The Temple of God.  2 Peter 1:13-14 also refers to each individual body as a Tabernacle as does Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4.

So The Corporate Body of Christ can only be said to be risen if Each and Every Individual Body is Risen.

They also focus on the fact that the word Body is only ever used in a singular form in 1 Corinthians 15.  This is a misunderstanding of how Language works, Paul is keeping most of the language Singular so each individual can feel like they are being individually spoken to on some level.  It is a message for everyone which means each individual.

To simply read 1 Corinthians 15 and try to force it to only be using the word Body in some legal sense and not about carnal bodies being buried and then risen is absurd.  That is not the natural impression any of this Language gives no matter how Paul used the word Body earlier.

Flesh Will Inherit The Kingdom of Heaven Actually

Luke 3:6 says that all Flesh shall see the Salvation of God.

I know many of you are thinking I just explicitly disagreed with 1 Corinthians 15:50.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

But that's a verse that is commonly misunderstood because of people proof texting it out of context.  Starting with how they even drop the last part of that verse about Corruption and Incorruption.

The next verse talks about how we will be Changed at the General Resurrection, and the verse after that says we'll be raised Incorruptible and Changed.

Verses 53-54 say.

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."

So placing verse 50 in the context of all that, what is clearly meant is that bodies of MERE Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.  The difference between our future Resurrected Bodies and how our Bodies are now is entirely a matter of what will be added we currently lack not anything being taken away

This is also why II Corinthians 5:2-3 refers to us as currently Naked because we lack our true Spiritual clothing.  We are not Spirits trapped in Bodies but Bodies that lack Spirit.

That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom is the problem the Incarnation is meant to solve.

People will also use selective quotations of verses 35-38 and 42-46 to say "the Body raised isn't the same Body that was buried", ignoring how Paul is saying all of this in the context of an allegory of planting a Seed or Grain in the Earth and then a much larger Plant growing out of it.  It is being called a different body because of how it's nature has changed, not because there is no material biological continuity between them.  The fact is if it's a completely new body being created from scratch there is no reason to use the word "raised".

Also Paul's use of "Celestial" in this Chapter means "Heavenly" as in the Sky and Outer Space, no one in Paul's time used the word "Heaven" to mean some non-material world of forms, Pre-Christian Platonists called that "a place beyond Heaven".  Same with Spirit, it did not mean "non Material" to any first Century Greek speakers.

Again a good visual metaphor for how I think our bodies change at the Resurrection is a Transformation sequence from a Magical Girl Anime.

Biblically Orange isn’t a real Color

The word “Orange” does not occur anywhere in the King James Bible or to my knowledge any other English Translations either.  The modern Hebrew word for the Color Orange is Katom but like a lot of modern Hebrew words it is a recent addition to the language.

Hebrew isn’t the only Language however where acknowledging Orange as a distinct color is a recent development.  Even English didn’t name a color Orange till like 500 years ago, the Color was named after the fruit not the other way around.  And the Japanese Language didn’t have any word for Orange till it’s modern Westernization started.

How we classify and think about Colors is to a large extent culturally constructed, that doesn’t mean different cultures are literally not seeing the same things we see.  But it does mean how we think about and classify them isn’t always the same.

Now a lot of people make a lot of mistakes when choosing Blue to be the color they focus on for talking about this, Blue is actually one of the oldest Colors to get a word it in most languages, and I’ve seen at least one person spreading this “Ancients didn’t see the color Blue” myth say Blue isn’t in The Bible even though anyone as Biblically literate at me knows that the Veil of the Temple basically has the color scheme of the Bisexual Flag.  The Hebrew word for Blue is Tekhelet, Red is Edom, Purple is Argaman, Greek is Yereq and Yellow is Tsahab.  

I really started thinking about the subjectiveness of the very existence of Orange as a distinct color when I was watching MandJTV’s video about Pokémon Colors.  Pokémon Home’s official Color designations for Pokémon can be subjectively disagreed with for many reasons.  But a big part of it is them not having the color Orange at all, every Pokémon you are likely thinking of as an Orange Pokémon is classified as either Red or Brown.

The thing about calling Nintendo Officially wrong on this however is that the list of “Orange” Pokémon officially classified as Red includes Charmander and Charizard, Charizard is Iconically the Box Art Mascot of Pokémon Red and FireRed in both Japan and the West and that is why they are often paired with the Human Character officially named Red.

As I thought about this I began to notice other ways in which Orange as a distinct color seems to be ignored in Japanese Media.  There has never been an Orange Power Ranger to my knowledge because there has never been an Orange Sentai, at least not one called Orange.  Now Purple Rangers are also rare but that’s because Japan associates Purple with Shadows and Darkness and so that color is often reserved for Villains or at least Antiheros.  There is an Anime literally called Orange, but I haven’t watched it yet so I have no idea what to expect, it could be named after the Fruit rather then Color given how there is an Anime called Citrus.

When I was first taught about Colors in School as a kid I was taught that Red, Blue and Yellow are the primary colors while Green, Purple and Orange are the secondary colors each made from combining two of the primary colors.  That’s based on how paints are made, in terms of how Light and our Eyes work it's actually a misleading system.

In our eyes the three Primary Colors are actually Green, Red and Blue with everything else deriving from how they interact.  Yellow is in fact the product of combining Red and Green while Orange is an imperfect Yellow that is more Red.

Besides the Fruit which the Color is now synonymous with, everything else you can think of as being Orange is more anciently culturally associated with either Red, Brown or Yellow.  Fire, the Sun, sand and deserts, ect.  Meanwhile Brown is really just Dark Orange and has itself been anciently associated with Red (Biblically many think the Red associated with Esau and David was probably Brown).  Also think about how often people called Gingers (Red Haired) really have Orange hair.

I spent much of my life thinking I was mildly Color Blind where the Color Orange is concerned for struggling to distinguish that color from Yellow or Red. I didn’t even notice that Charmander and Charizard were technically not Red till I watched this video a few days ago.  But now I know that both God and Anime see that color the same way I do.

Napoleon Restored the Revolution of 1789

The notion that Napoleon’s 18 Brumaire Coup represented the complete undoing of everything the French Revolution fought for is the greatest misnomer in all Historical Discourse.

The radical even by modern standards political visions of the Girondins, Colliders, Jacobins and Enrages had already been dead for years but were themselves the product of the Revolution moving beyond its original goal.  After half a decade of rule by the Centrists devoid of any real political vision Napoleon was supported by multiple key leaders of the original Revolution.  

Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes was the original ideological leader of the Revolution, his “What is the Third Estate” was the Declaration of Independence of the Bourgeoisie.  He had faded into the background when the Revolution was radicalized and then became a vital backer of Napoleon’s Coup.

Of course he and a lot of the well known spokesmen of Bourgeoisie ideology were not strictly speaking of the Bourgeoisie themselves.  Someone who was would be Claude Perier who played an overlooked material role in starting the Revolution in 1789, was not fond of the Radicalism of 1792-94 and then was another vital backer of Napoleon and was among the founders of the Bank of France.

Even when Napoleon later became Emperor he was embodying the Pre-Revolution Philsophe concept of the Enlightened Monarch.

This is the problem I have with Peter Coffin’s “Leftism is the Left Wing of Capitalism” nonsense.  The French Revolution started and ended as a Bourgeoisie Revolution because of its Right Wing.

The Enrages were Proto Marxist-Leninists and the Conspiracy of the Equals were proto Libertarian Socialists.  The Girdondins may not have been Socialist enough to fit an official definition but they would have been enough for the CIA to overthrow them in a Coup during the Cold War with their calls for Agrarian Land Redistribution.

Am I a Marxist?

Marxism is strictly speaking not a Socio-Economic or Political Ideology but a way of looking at History.  That can have implications on how one looks towards achieving their political goals, but you can in theory agree with a Marxist analysis of history while having politics that are the opposite of Marx’s.  And you can in turn have the same political goals as those who call themselves Marxists politically while rejecting a Marxist analysis of history.

At its broadest most basic sense Marxism is viewing history as primarily driven by Class Conflict and Material Conditions.  And in that I am essentially Marxist.  And my political goals are also the same, I am a Communist who desires a Moneyless, Classless Stateless Society.

However I view a lot of the specifics of how Marx and Engels framed their History of Class Conflict as gravely mistaken, which many contemporary Marxists and especially MLs still cling to dogmatically.  The division of eras simplistically into Primitive-Communism then “Slavery” then “Feudalism” then Capitalism being where we are now is very problematic in how biased towards a Western Perspective it is.  But even within that Western Perspective is still an oversimplification and tied to now outdated terminology.  The Socio-Economic Mode of Production of the Middle Ages is better defined as Manorialism not “Feudalism” for one example.

I have prior posts on this Blog already talking about aspects of all that.  But for further understanding of how wrong both the Marxist and common Liberal understanding of “Feudalism” and the Middle Ages is I recommend reading the book Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking The Myths by Regine Pernoud and/or watching the YouTube videos on this Playlist I made.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4CWxmx4wepgNS9Ql6ZQfxjbA5XkJ4OSP

Marxism is an Apostate child of Hegelianism.  Hegelianism was all about viewing History as driven by Conflicts, New Atheists are very Hegleian in their devotion to the discredited Science vs Religion Conflict thesis.  But I say Apostate because while keeping a form of Conflict in his view of History Marx also rejected the Idealism that Hegel inherited from Kant and Plato preferring to see things Materialistically like an Empiricist or Epicurean or Aristotelian or Stoic.  But Marx and Engels were not the first Materialist Worker focused Socialists, before them came Flora Tristan and Moses Hess.

TIK ignores the ways in which Marx Apostatized from Hegelianism in building his little Ideological Genealogy.  He recognized Aristotelianism as ultimately independent of Platonism in-spite of how Aristotle started as a student of Plato, well Marx is to Hegel as Aristotle was to Plato.

However the Marxists have brought this on themselves by not rejecting all the Hegelian terminology they should have.  “Dialectical Materialism” is an Oxymoron, Dialectics is definitionally an idealist concept having its roots in Pythagorean Dualism.  It no longer means what it originally meant in how Marx and Engels use the word, but modern Marxists fall right back into Hegelian Idealism for example in how Slavoj Zizek refuses to see a third option existing for anything including Gender.