Monday, June 13, 2022

Elections are incompatible with the Classical Definition of Democracy

This goes beyond even how we usually talk about the distinction between Direct Democracy and Representative Democracy.  

Even the most direct Democracy still needs magistrates of some sort to enforce and manage things, and make quick decisions in a crisis when there isn't time to debate.  In classical Athenian direct democracy these magistrates were not chosen by Elections but by the Lot or Sortition, meaning a qualified citizen was selected at random.

The never implemented hypothetical constitution proposed by Hippodamus of Miletus is described as "less democratic then Athens only in that magistrates were chosen by Election rather then by lot".  In other words it's not just that Elections weren't required for Democracy, they were contrary to it.  Sparta is thought of as the antithesis of Athens and in turn the most anti-democratic City-State of Classical Greece, but Sparta did have elected magistrates in the Ephors, and they were often the actual Power in Sparta rather then the Kings.

Athenian Democracy considered Elections a threat because they didn't want one person to become too Popular, Popular enough to form a popular Tyranny, and choosing magistrates by popularly inevitably leads to cults of personality.  

The evangelists of Athenian Style Democracy considered the accountability they hold magistrates to vital.  Elections make accountability more difficult, when everyone in power is also basically the face of a movement holding them accountable for even the most basic of wrongdoings becomes politicized.

When people accuse modern western Democracies of actually being Oligarchies they usually mean that in the sense of how the Rich use their Money and influence to undermine how the system is "supposed" to work.  However Oligarchy as a Greek word is not inherently synonymous with rule by the Wealthy (that would be Plutocracy), it simply means rule by a small group.  Meaning even if American Democracy did work exactly how it claims it's supposed to, that would still be Oligarchy, that would still be rule by a small group rather then the masses, membership in that small group be decided by winning popularity contests (or appointed by a winner of a popularity contest) doesn't matter especially when there is no real accountability for representatives who brazenly defy the will of who they represent.  Whatever legitimacy Representative Democracy used to have was destroyed in the Anglosphere by Edmund Burke.

And as long as there are some people are more massively wealthy then most people, they'll find a way to influence and control the representatives.  Any "campaign finance reform" you pass to address how they're doing it now will only result in them changing their methods.

Now one difference between Classical Athenian Democracy and ours definitely doesn't make theirs look better, and that is the restrictions on who could vote, women, slaves and non native residents were all excluded.  However we started with all those same restrictions and more, the Athenian Constitution to which I refer never had property requirements, but the U.S. originally did.  We also started with a from of Slavery far more brutal and dehumanizing even then how Sparta treated the Helots much less Athens where most Slaves were just unpaid Butlers and Maids.  Women didn't get to vote for over a hundred years, and we still haven't enfranchised all non native born residents.  Plus we take the Vote away from criminals permanently even after they've paid their debt.

There is evidence that there were people in Ancient Athens who sought similar reforms, perhaps the people being satirized by Aristophanes in The Assemblywomen, if the Athenian experiment hadn't been cut short by being conquered by Sparta, Macedon and Rome perhaps those reformers too could have succeeded in time.

Tuesday, May 10, 2022

Class Struggle is Identity Politics

Politically Identifying with other people based on being the same Economic Class as them is also an Identity Politic.

Just as most Leftists agree that being Apolitical is defacto support for the status quo, rejecting "Woke" identity politics is defacto support for the White Supremacy, Patriarchy and Cisheteronormativity, and rejecting Class Politics is defacto support for the continued domination of the Bourgeoisie.

So when it comes to the little Civil War the Terminally Online Left is currently having, I have sympathies with both sides and frustrations with both sides, but they aren't equal.  And there are really more then two sides but for now I'm focusing on the "Woke Anarchists" like Thought Slime and Sophie vs "Anti-Imperialist" MLs like Caleb Maupin and PACD.

Both sides deny that they are what the other side accuses them of being, but the validity of the accusations are not equal to each other.  Maupin and PACD are Class Reductionists, doesn't matter that they pay certain lip service to other issues in ways that an old school Class Reductionists of the 1930s wouldn't have, and I also massively disagree with their "Anti-Imperialist" understanding of international Geo-Politics.  My position on the war between Russia and Ukraine is that both sides are bad and no sane Leftists should take a side on it.  But I don't think everything they are accused of is fair either, being a Class Reductionist is not the same as being actively Racist.  And you can't call someone a Class Reductionist and a Fascist or Nazi at the same time, because Fascism and Nazism were built on Class Collaboration.

Thought Slime and Sophie are not Class Collaborationists, I suspect they may agree with title of this blog post and it's first full paragraph.  But they aren't as well read as they pretend to be.  I don't even agree with proper Anarchism anymore yet still there are better Anarchists then them on YouTube like Zoe Baker, Libertarian Socialist Rants and veritas et caritas.

PACD and Maupin like to say that most Working Class Conservatives are not horrible racist people, they are just misguided and we need to include them in our class solidarity.  And I agree with that sentiment, if that was indeed all they were doing in their flirtations with the Right I would be fine with it.  But they then turn around and engage in this massive demonizing of fellow Leftists who disagree with them, this whole "synthetic left", "Color Revolution" nonsense, and that's what makes their playing nice with Conservatives look like totally hypocritical BS.

But I also agree with them that we need to stop viewing the political spectrum as a simple Binary, or even just overlapping Binaries.  True Socialism and Communism is not simply to the Left of the Democrats and the Green Party.  It's really closer to being like a Venn Diagram, if your understanding of Socialism refuses to acknowledge that we sometimes agree with Conservatives over Liberals, most importantly on the matter of Gun Rights, then it is legitimate to accuse your Socialism of really just being edgy Liberalism.

Saturday, May 7, 2022

The Reformation and the Resurgence of Democracy

It is pretty well known that what we commonly call THE French Revolution was not the last French Revolution.  But what if I told you that, from a certain point of view, it wasn’t the first either?  It can be argued that the French Wars of Religion of the 16th century was a French Revolution that was Protestant rather than Secular in nature. But tragically like many of the later Secular French Revolutions it was betrayed by the very person who won it, Henry Bourbon converting to Catholicism was the Clerical Equivalent of Napoleon being Crowned Emperor. 


This post is a sequel of sorts to Capitalism is Atheistic in Nature, I’m not titling it as a direct parallel because I can't claim Democracy wouldn't exist without Christianity, Ancient Greece definitely had it, and I believe so did Sumerian Kish before Etana.  I mentioned how Capitalism loving New Atheists and YouTube Skeptics love to credit the rise of Capitalism to the Secularism of the Enlightenment, but they also claim credit for Democracy and like the Christian Capitalists of the Eisenhower era try to paint Capitalism and Democracy as inseparable.  But the truth is Capitalism and Democracy are actually incompatible, the only truly Democratic socio-economic system would be Anarcho-Communism, and the only acceptable Representative Democracies are Socialist Republics like Cuba and Vietnam.


That post also acknowledged that some people blame/credit the Protestant Reformation for Capitalism.  The Renaissance and the Enlightenment had both Protestant and Secular sides to them (also a Catholic side but the Catholic Renaissance and Enlightenment was like the New Deal and Huey Long, attempting to appease the people to keep them from running into the arms of the revolutionaries).  And those two sides were not always mutually exclusive, you had Christians who were largely Secular in their mindset, and non Christians unafraid to draw on Scripture to support their ideas like Thomas Paine in Common Sense.  My thesis in that prior post was that Capitalism is chiefly the product of the Secular side, while here I shall argue that the Return of The Demos was mostly the product of the Reformation.


Part 1: Ecclesiastical Polity


Church Governance was not the initial main point of dispute upon which the Reformation started, but it very quickly became an important topic of debate.  There are primarily three different positions on Church Governance, others do exist like the weird system Methodism has, but they were devised much later and can be argued to be simply fiddling around with these three.


Episcopalianism: The form used by The Church of The East, The Oriental Orthodox, The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, Anglicans (Episcopalian as a name for a denomination usually means Anglicans in the United States), and some Lutheran Churches.


Presbyterianism: The form used by the Reformed Churches of the Continent in Switzerland, The Netherlands and parts of Germany as well as the Huguenots and Protestant minorities in France.  But Presbyterian as the name of a Denomination refers to a Denomination founded in Scotland by John Knox, they are today the largest Christian Church in South Korea.


Congregationalism:  As the name of a specific Denomination refers to a subgroup of the Puritans including the founders of Boston MA., but it was also the Polity used by most of the most well known Puritans including the Plymouth Pilgrims, the Baptists and the Quakers.  It also seems to apply to Anabaptist sects like the Mennonites, Hutterites and Amish.  It can be hard to determine with Proto-Protestant groups that no longer exist, but it looks to me like the Waldenses and Taborite were probably Congregational.


So Episcopal Polity is basically Clerical Monarchy, Presbyterian Polity is Clerical Oligarchy or Parliamentarianism, and Congregational Polity is Clerical Democracy.  There are of course differences within each form as well, for example what Separates Catholicism from other Episcopalians is viewing The Bishop of Rome as beyond just a Duke(Bishop), Prince(Cardinal) or King(Patriarch) but as essentially the Emperor of The Church.


I like to describe my own personal position on Ecclesiastical Polity as Congregationalism with Presbyterian Characteristics.  The reason being that the most well known Congregationalists, those who bear the name and Baptists, seem to be classified this way chiefly for their localism over regionalism but sure seem to have Episcopal Characteristics in how the Local Pastor is viewed.  But even in Presbyterian Denominations it still seems like the Church is usually one person giving a speech everyone else listens to, which I view as a monarchial tending problem itself. In many ways I think the Quakers are doing most things better then anyone else.


All three words used to define these forms of Church Government are Biblical, so the first step to seeing who is Biblically Correct is looking into how these words are used in The Bible.


Episcopas is a Greek word that is most literally translated Overseer, but in translations like the KJV more often becomes Bishop, and KJV only Independent Baptists usually use Bishop as the chief Biblical synonym for what they mean by Pastor.  Interestingly the Spartan title of Ephor is derived from the same Greek Root but in a different dialect making it equivalent in it's essential meaning.


Presbyter is a Greek word that is usually translated Elder but I actually feel like Senior conveys the intended meaning better at least in how The New Testament uses it.  Better yet, if I were based on my perspective as a Christian who watches a lot of Anime asked to consult on a Japanese translation of The Bible, I would advise them to translate Presbyter as Senpai and Newtron as Kohai at least in 1 Peter and the Pastoral Epistles.


Neither of these words was meant to refer to an office in any kind of hierarchy, the word “office” is used, but it means a job or function not a position of authority.  I’m a supporter of the House Church Movement, which means I’ve observed how there were no Church buildings till the 3rd Century, the Early Church met in each other’s houses.  Any context where Episcopas seems to be in use in a very singular sense, as in this Church at this time only has one, it’s probably the owner of the house they’re currently meeting in, the host of the meeting is naturally also responsible for organizing and overseeing it.  But in other contexts like Acts 20 and 1st Peter even many who defend the Episcopalian developments of the 2nd through 4th Centuries admit that all the Presbyters are Overseers in those passages.  However I feel the word Deacon is also used interchangeably with Episcopas, Deacon means a servant.


When 1st Peter is talking about elder and younger believers, I don’t think he means by how long it’s been since they came out of their mother’s womb, but by how long they’ve been a Christian.  Anarchist Philosophers have argued it does not conflict with Anarchism to defer to the authority of someone more experienced than you on a certain subject, and for Christian Anarchists that is how Divine Authority is reconciled, God is older and more experienced than all of us, but Scripture actually does depict Him as okay with His decisions being questioned.  This is a form of that, Peter is saying that newer believers should seek guidance from those with greater experiences, but also stresses how those elders need to take seriously the responsibility that comes with that.


William Tyndale chose not to use the word Church in his English Translation of The New Testament, during this early period some Protestants were concerned the word Church itself was perhaps too inherently owned by the Catholic Church.  So the Greek word Ekklesia he translated Congregation, and even in the KJV (which is largely just a revision of Tyndale) and more modern Bibles "Congregation" instead of Church is sometimes still used.  Because it is a pretty good literal translation of what Ekklesia means, but not the only way to translate it.  You see the word Ekklesia was previously a big part of Greek politics and discussions of politics, where in those contexts it is often translated Assembly.  The Ekklesia was in Athens and other Greek Democracies the word for the gathering together of the citizenry to discuss an issue and then vote on it.


The New Testament usage is not unrelated to the Civil Government usage, The Church is the Kingdom of Heaven, and Christ is King but even in The Torah the King still had to involve The People, indeed Ekklesia is also used in the Septuagint to translate equivalent Hebrew Words, as well as in Stephen’s Description of the Mosaic gathering of the people in Acts 7.  And there are hints in the New Testament of the local Ekklesia making decisions democratically.


So the strongest argument for Congregationalism is that only Congregationalists don't need to massively add to the meaning of the word it’s based on. The word itself was inherently an expression of Democracy in Ancient Greek.


Most ancient Oligarchical forms of Government originated as Councils of Elders including pre Solon Athens and Sparta, either the heads of all of a Tribe’s families, or the heads of the aristocratic ruling families like Parliment's House of Lords.  Council of Elders is what the Latin in origin word Senate actually means etymologically, and it’s also what the Sanhedrin is in Numbers 11.  A council of Elders can play a role in how a Democracy functions, but it shouldn’t be the final and certainly not the only authority.


The Episcopalians’ main argument is that they have history on their side, the Church had been Episcopal for well over a thousand years, you can’t even conceivably blame Constantine for this one. Indeed I don’t think one single big bad is to blame, though Ignatius of Antioch is the earliest Church writer we have who explicitly argued for Episcopalianism.  Ignatius gets referred to as a student of the same “John” who Polycarp was a student of.  But the oldest sources on Polycarp being a student of a “John”, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Papias who we don’t have directly, mention only him and not Ignatius, and Ignatius in the letter he supposedly wrote to Polycarp makes no mention of them having a shared mentor, and neither refers to a “John” as their mentor in any of their own authentic writings.  Papias the oldest source on Polycarp and this John clearly distinguishes him from John The Apostle calling him John the Presbyter. 


Some supporters of Episcopalianism will admit that originally Churches founded by Peter and Paul were Presbyterian (I don’t even think they were that) but that "Johannian" Churches in Asia were Episcopalian, basing that largely on Ignatius and Polycarp.  However Polycarp in his one letter refers to himself as one Bishop among a group. But either way something starting in Asia isn't a good sign since Paul referred to Asia departing from him, and in Revelation 2-7 most of the Churches in this region have some doctrinal problems. I'm not the only person to argue that Episcopal Polity is the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans.


The second century seems to be the key transitional century for the rise of Episcopalianism, some have argued it was a “necessary” response for dealing with the Heretics, needing an authoritative leader to refute and oppose them.  These Heretical sects were founded by individual Heretics with a bit of a cult of personality around them like Cerinthus, Maricon and Valentinius.  So the "Proto Orthodox" responded to the Heretics by imitating them.


But the second century was also the century over the course of which Platonism supplanted Stoicism as the leading Metaphysical Philosophy of the Greco-Roman World, including the beginning of its influence on Christianity. 


In Stoicism and Early Christianty I argue that the Early Christians were somewhat Stoic, but Stoics who were socially and morally more like the original Stoicism of Zeno rather than later Roman Stoicism.  Zeno was born a Phonecam on Cyprus but he founded his School in Athens.  The original Stoics were people who’s criticism of Athenian Democracy was that it wasn’t Democratic enough, they wanted full Gender Equality and the abolition of Slavery, as well as a Socio-Economic system we would today call Communist. This lines up well with Paul in Galatians 3 who says that in Christ's Ekklesia there is no distinction between Male/Female or Free/Slave or Jew/Gentile (Native/Immigrant).


However Plato and Aristotle were Athenians who HATED Democracy, they idolized many aspects of Sparta (though in The Laws attributed to Plato the Athenian blames Sparta for the spread of the Homosexuality he wanted to stamp out).  Aristotle of course broke with his former teacher on many things, and his books on Politics criticized both of Plato’s constitutions, he praised Sparta but ultimately gave higher praise to Carthage and Solon’s Constitution.


Plato’s Republic gets misconstrued as Communist because it technically has no Private property, but it is still very much a class based society, there was no discussion of liberating the Slaves.  In The Republic the Monarchy of a "Philosopher King" is Plato's ideal but an Oligarchy of "Guardians" is the acceptable alternative in the absence of a perfect ruler, and so I suspect Platonized Christianity gave rise to both Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism. Plato's Statesman also argued for Monarchy being the ideal.


Now remember what I said about Capitalism and Democracy being incompatible?  Part of that is how Socialists believe Democracy should be expanded to the workplace.  Most Corporations are either Monarchies with one absolute CEO or Oligarchies ruled by a Board of Directors representing the wealthy shareholders. Woker owned Co-Opts would be Democracy, but they are rare the current status actively opposes allowing such experiments.

I've talked about the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers before, but those passages often come hand in hand with the Kingship of all Believers. Christ and God are both King, but they intend to share that Kingship with Us.

Paul Cartledge has a lecture you can watch on YouTube called Ten Things You Really Should Know about Ancient Greek Democracy. One of the points of the lecture is that it seems like in ancient times the word Democracy may have bene inherently derogatory and thus rarely if ever used by people who actually supported it, most of the ancient Greek works that have survived are not very pro Democracy, even the writings of the early Stoics are mostly lost. So in that context the word Democracy not being used in The New Testament may itself be evidence that it's one of the few pro Democracy Ancient Greek Texts to survive. And maybe the word Ekklesia could have been the key word in whatever now lost label the ancient Democrats called themselves.

Here are some articles on Congregational Polity, one of them ties in their Dispensationalism which I disagree with.

Part 2: Applying Ecclesiastical Governance to Civil Governance.


Protestants applying their views of Church Government to Civil Government started before the Reformation proper actually, when we look at the history of Proto-Protestantism, John Ball and his Peasant Revolt was contemporary with John Wycliffe and the Hussite Reformation was soon followed by the Taborite Rebellion.


Then not long after Martin Luther’s message had developed a big following Thomas Munster led an Anarcho-Communist revolt in Germany, then Luther being the evil scumbag he was ordered the Aristocratic Feudal Lords he had converted to his new doctrine to put them down, and there were other Anabaptist revolts as well, but by the end of the 16th century most Anabaptists were absolute Pacifists.


It was Rebels seeking to empower Presbyterianism who were the first to gain success, the Dutch Revolt that started in the 1560s.  And then the English Revolutions of the 16th Century only empowered Parliament (the Presbytery they’d had since long before the Reformation) not the People.  Though more genuinely Congregational rebel groups were involved like Gerrard Winstanley’s Diggers.


Jennifer Tolbert Roberts in Athens On Trial: The Antidemocratic Tradition in Western Thought observes in the chapter on the English Revolution how it was the philosophers of Absolute Monarchy like Hobbes and Filmer who had studied the Classical Pagan Texts of Greece and Rome and felt they supported their conclusion, while it was the most radical of Democrats like the Diggers and Levelers who showed no interest in any secular Classics but based their conclusions on how they interpreted The Bible.

Over in the Colonies New England was founded by Congregational Puritans, and Pennsylvania by the even more Congregational Quakers.  But Maryland was founded by Catholics and the South by Royalist Anglican Cavilers loyal to the Jacobite Monarchs.  In a way the American Civil War was a long delayed Sequel to the English Civil War.  Atun Shei Films has a video on Puritanism that acknowledges both their good and bad points.   It was also under the influence of Puritans like Richard Bernard that England under Cromwell ended it's ban on Jews that has stood since the 13th Century.


Still plenty of Protestants have been openly explicit in not wanting the same kind of Governance for The State they do for The Church.  Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist Party was religiously speaking most popular with the New England Congregationalists, a denomination founded on Clerical Localism, so why were they so opposite politically?  Well they still had the Puritan Attitude that the State should regulate Morality, so they wanted a strong Federal Government regulating public morality.


Evangelical Dominionists will talk about how the phrase “Separation of Church and State” comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Pastor, and say it explains how it's there to protect the Church from the State not the other way around.  The historical context they are leaving out is that this was a Baptist Pastor, and back then Baptists were very much still a minority religion even in the State they had founded.  And the Boston Congregationalists especially hated the Baptists remembering Roger Williams as an Apostate from their Church.  Jefferson was promising a minority religion protection from the majority religion in bed with the then ruling Party.


I don’t feel like retreading all the Roger Williams territory here, I recommend John M. Barry’s book Roger Williams and The Creation of The American Mind.


Roger Williams wasn’t the only association the Baptists had with the fight for Freedom of Religion, it goes back to the founders of the General Baptists John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.  Nor is he the only association the Baptists have with the Abolitionist movement, Slavery in the British Empire was finally outlawed as the result of a Slave Rebellion in Jamaica lead by Baptists called the Baptist War, and Charles Spurgeon also strongly opposed Slavery, and George Washington Williams is also worth mentioning.  The Southern Baptists were originally very much the atypical Baptists, breaking off form the the oldest American Baptist Church because it opposed Slavery, it was a long complicated history that made them the largest Protestant Church in the U.S.  And even today while Southern Baptists are America's largest single Baptist Denomination they are still less then 50%.


However the Quakers became even more virulent abolitionists.


But let’s go back to the discussion of France.  John Calvin himself made a Christian argument for Regicide during the French Wars of Religion.  During the French Enlightenment, of the key Philosophs who died before The Revolution broke out, the only one who was a Christian was Rousseau who was raised Calvinist went Catholic for a while but then returned to Calvinism. He was also the only one who was a Communist rather than a Liberal.  He is a key transitional figure in the Secularization of Communism as unlike prior Christian Communists his argument for it was Secular.  Montesquieu was however not as hostile to religion as Voltaire and did use The Bible in his writings, though exactly how has been misrepresented by certain Evangelicals.


The French Revolution was the beginning of the Secularization of both Democracy and Communism, and at the same time the final stage of them being separated from each other.


Friday, April 8, 2022

Passion Week Chronology Completely Rethought

Some alternate Torah calendars have become popular online lately, in particular I’ve been skeptical of those that try to synchronize the weeks to the months or at least year, like the Lunar Sabbath Calendar or the Jubilees Calendar.

Neither of those actually make the first day of the first month the first day of the week, they come up with excuses for starting the year on the same day of the week every year yet not choosing the first day.

Christians of course aren’t inclined to support a calendar that does always start Aviv on a Sunday because then the 14th of Aviv would always fall on the Sabbath, and placing the Crucifixion on the Sabbath is virtually the most impossible model. 

But I have been rethinking some things.

For starters I am making this theory in the context of my prior posts arguing against the Torah using a Lunar Calendar as well as for starting the day at Sunrise rather than Sunset. So my mind is presuming that as I think of all this ,but it could still be compatible either way.

I’ve been thinking about the flexibility of the usage of the name Peshach/Pascha.  (Commonly translated Passover but Hebrew scholars say it really means Protection or Protector, which as a Weeb I note would in Japanese be Mamoru.)  Christians debating Friday, Thursday or Wednesday Crucifixion models are often focusing mostly on the rather strict use of the term in Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23 for the 14th.  But by NT times common Jewish usage was treating it as synonymous with the entire Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Acts 12 at the very least clearly has it still Pascha during Unleavened Bread.  

The Hebrew Bible itself actually started that expansion of Peshach’s application in Deuteronomy 16 and Ezekiel 45.  Of the Five Books in the Pentateuch Jesus quoted Deuteronomy more than any other, the same is true of the New Testament as a whole, so maybe their definitions for Pascha are based on that book more so than Exodus, Leviticus or Numbers.

So if we study Leviticus 23 under the assumption that for the first month the days numbered a multiple of seven are the Sabbaths.  That would make two of the days that are important observances of that month fall on the weekly Sabbath, the 14th which is YHWH’s Peshach, and the 21st which is the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread.  

For Unleavened Bread both the first and seventh days are defined as a Holy Convocation in which no servile work shall be done, obviously they both can’t be the actual weekly sabbath, neither is exactly directly called a Sabbath the way the Holy Convocation days of the 7th month are later, but the last day of Unleavened Bread is defined in the text by it’s Seventhness rather then it’s Lastness which I think can be seen as implying it.

Leviticus 23:9-15 describes the first day of the Omer, commonly called by Christians interested in this stuff First Fruits however that can be confusing because in English Bibles that term is also associated with Pentecost, but the Hebrew words are different and at least the one used in this section isn’t in it’s etymology referencing fruit.  I like to call it Aparche, the equivalent Greek word which is used for The Resurrection of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15, it rolls off the tongue easier then the Hebrew.  The Aparche is NOT part of Numbers 28, the word for Firstfruits there is the one used in Leviticus 23 of Pentecost.

The timing of the Aparche is defined as the day after the sabbath, in context the Sabbath that follows Peshach is implicit.  I in the past and others opposing Sabbath synchronized calendars have argued it being described this way instead of simply the 22nd or 16th or whatever day you think it is shows that day won’t always be the same day of the month. However the Seventh day of Unleavened Bread isn’t defined as the 21st in Leviticus 23 either.  The Spring Holy Days are directly connected to each other more so then the Fall Holy Days.  The context of this section following the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread being a Holy Convocation in which no servile work is to be done I feel reasonably implies that day is the Sabbath being referred to in verse 11.

And then in verse 14 we are told that bread, parched corn and green ears are things we are to not eat until this Aparche offering is made. During Unleavened you absolutely are supposed to be eating Matzah (unleavened bread), some argue Lehem always means specifically leavened bread, I’m unsure on that but in context it certainly does here.  So verse 14 basically defined this day as the day we return to eating what we were restricted from eating during Unleavened Bread in Exodus 12:20.

Leviticus 23:13 is also the only time the word "wine" appears in the KJV of this chapter.  The Hebrew is Yayin which of the Hebrew words translated Wine is definitely one that refers specifically to fermented Wine.  In Exodus 12:20 the word the KJV translated "leavened" the Young's Literal Translation renders "fermented", some Karaites believe this refers to more then just Unleavened Bread, my interpretation of the Aparche here confirms that.  Numbers 28:24 confirms that Drink Offerings are part of the days of Unleavened Bread, so "fruit of the vine" can be drank during those days, just not fermented Wine.  

In John 20:17 Jesus tells Mary not to touch Him because He hasn’t ascended to The Father yet, since later in the same day the disciples are allowed to touch him, that implies some brief ascension happened, and people studying the Feast Days have argued this was him as our High Priest. Leviticus 23:12 refers to a Lamb being offered at this time, but doesn’t say the Lamb was killed that day.  Now don’t get me wrong I’m sure literal Lambs offered that day were killed that morning, but the wording here gives us room to typologically view this Lamb as the Risen Jesus presenting Himself to The Father.  1 Peter 1:19 could have a lot of Torah Scriptures in mind, but in the KJV wording it’s arguably most directly quoting Leviticus 23:12.  

In Deuteronomy 16 it is contextually Peshach as a name for Unleavened Bread that is required to be observed in Jerusalem with animals killed in The Tabernacle/Temple, probably the same Sacrifices as Numbers 28:17-25, because the establishment of the Pilgrimage Festivals in Exodus 23:14-17 includes Unleavened Bread but not Peshach.  The 14th of Aviv Peshach was a family matter not a Levitical Sacrifice, it did not have to be in the same city as The Mishkan and was killed by the head of the Household not a Kohen.  I think that is the Supper being eaten in Bethany at the start of John 12, and then the 15th is the Day of the Triumphal Entry aka Palm Sunday.

“How does the 10th of Aviv’s significance from Exodus 12 fit in then?” You may ask. Well that is not one of the ordained to be repeated observances of Leviticus 23, there are only two other references in all of The Hebrew Bible to the 10th day of the first month being a day where something happened.  Ezekiel 40:1 where that is the date of the day Ezekiel had the vision the rest of that book is describing.  And Joshua 4:19 where it’s the day Joshua encamped at Gilgal.  Gilgal could be related to the place called Ephraim in John 11, but speaking of John 11 it’s clear in John 11-12 that the raising of Lazarus really spiked Jesus’s popularity, in a very real sense that is the day He was chosen by the people.

But going back to my point about Deuteronomy 16.  I think even if Pascha is always used in a singular form, it’s still a meal that is eaten every evening during this week.  That’s how The Last Supper could be a Pascha Meal but there was also a Pascha being prepared while Jesus was on The Cross in John 19:14.

In Matthew 26 I believe the first five verses should be the end of chapter 25, they tell us when the Olivet Discourse happened not anything in the following verses.  Regardless, two days before the Pascha sounds like there is one specific Pascha in mind, as does John 12:1.  It could be that the narrative voice of The Gospels is often using Pascha specifically of the day of the Crucifixion and/or The Last Supper in timing statements like these.  However for John 12:1 the Peshita reads "before the Six Days of Peshka" which sounds like a direct reference to Deuteronomy 16:8.  Matthew 26:2 reads the same in the Peshita, but Matthew I believe was originally in neither Greek or Aramaic but Hebrew, so maybe it's original likewise said there were two days left of Peshach/Pascha?

Matthew 26, Mark 14 and Luke 22 are all chronologically jumping backwards when they talk about Jesus being anointed for burial and the argument with Judas and Judas deciding to Betray Jesus over it which we know from John 12 all happened the day prior to the Triumphal entry.  And so likewise the following part about making the Arrangements for the Upper Room and Pascha may have also been done soon before or after the Triumphal Entry, then it transitions back to the present for the Last Supper.

Now I know the main objection some are going to have is that this weakens the Typology of Jesus as The Lamb which we’ve usually thought of as the Exodus 12 Peshach Lamb first and foremost.  But that Lamb isn’t a Sin Offering as The Lamb of God is clearly defined as being.  No Sin Offering is ordained for the 14th anywhere in The Torah, but Numbers 28 and Ezekiel 45 do have Sin Offerings happening during the Seven Day Festival.  Jesus fulfills all the Sacrifices, not just one.

This also forces me to become a supporter of a Friday Crucifixion model, since now every reference to a Preparation day in The Gospels would have to be Friday, the preparation for The Sabbath.  In the past I’d always been bothered by the Seventh Day of Unleavened Bread having no significance to The Gospel narrative, now that day is identified with the Sabbath being referred to in those passages and called a High Day in John 19:31.  

Friday is the day Adam was created, The Last Adam goes into the Earth the same day the first Adam was formed out of it.  The Torah constantly counts days Inclusively, like how the time for Circumcision is always determined.  The "Three days and three nights statement" is said only once and in the context of referencing Jonah, how long it would be was not the actual point.

That makes the Crucifixion the 20th day of the First Month, that day is never singled out anywhere in The Hebrew Bible.  But I think that’s good actually, I don’t like how often Western Christians make the Crucifixion more important then or even equal to The Resurrection.  The Resurrection is what the Point of all this was, so that being the day the Aviv Holy Days are all building up to is perfect.

I still view a Biblical Month as 30 days.  So the Seventh month won’t automatically start on a Sabbath.  But the Egyptian Calendar the Hebrews would have been using as their starting point put their extra days before the first fall month. So maybe Leviticus 23 was in part telling them to start the Seventh Month on the Sabbath following the 30th of the sixth month.  There is a natural logic to the Seventh Month having its Holy Days uniquely tied to The Sabbath.

While three of the four Holy Days that are called Sabbaths in the Seventh Month are days that would indeed always be the same day of the week as each other, Yom Kippur on the Tenth is the odd one out.  Maybe that’s partly why the 9th day is also given special attention, since being a day sandwiched between the Weekly Sabbath and this special Sabbath would no doubt make it a very work heavy day.  

The day of the Week that Yom Kippur would always fall on in this model would be the second day, what we now call Monday.  In Genesis 2 that’s the day of the Creation of the Firmament/Heaven, maybe there’s a thematic connection there to Yom Kippur being the day The High Priest crossed the Veil to enter the Holy of Holies.

If the 7th and 8th months are again 30 day months then at the end of the ninth and early tenth month the 8 days of Hanukkah both starts and ends with a Sabbath like the 8 days of Tabernacles, 1 Maccabees 10:21 as well as 2 Maccabees 1:9&18 and 10:6 define Hanukkah as a sort of second Tabernacles so that lines up well.

What Sunday should we start this new proposed Calendar on?  I’m thinking either the Sunday closest to the Spring Equinox, or the first Sunday after it.  For the time being the Spring Equinox will almost always be falling on March 20th.  So for 2022 the first Sunday after model would have  Aviv start on March 27th which actually happens to line up with the official Easter observance.

Monday, April 4, 2022

The Platonist Pentateuch

 The Platonist Pentateuch

Timaeus = Genesis
Republic = Exodus
Gorgias = Leviticus
Critias = Numbers
Laws = Deuteronomy

When I criticize much of Mainstream Christianity for being more Platonist then Biblical, most of the Platonist ideas I have in mind are pretty much laid out in those five dialogues.  "Conservative" Christians of course want nothing to do with Symposium or Phaedrus.

The extent to which Christians are Platonists varies in explicitness more so then how Platonist.  Plenty are in outright denial of how much their beliefs come from Plato, some Full Preterists on Facebook had the gull to suggest it's us teaching a Bodily Resurrection and Soul Sleep who are the Platonists.  Some simply think it doesn't hurt to apply methods learned from Philosophy to your Faith, some believe Plato somehow simply is compatible with The Bible both Old and New Testament.  Some fall just short of full blown Marcionism in their attitudes towards the Hebrew Bible and basically wish they could replace the Old Testament with Plato like David Bentley Hart.  The people who are explicitly Modern Marcionites are sometimes also in denial of the Platonist roots of their Theology, I've yet to see someone who actually does explicitly replace the Old Testament with Plato, but if I ever do it won't surprise me.

I listed those five in that order not because that's their chronological order, Timaeus sets itself up as a sequel to The Republic and Critias in turn is explicitly a sequel to Timaeus.

Timaeus is the counterpart to Genesis because it contains the Pythagorean Creation myth, and it references Atlantis giving it a Flood Legend as well.  A Cosmology that after being filtered through Philo, Plutarch and Numenius of Apamea would give rise to the Gnostic Ialdabaoth, the Arian view of The Logos and Neoplatonism.

Republic has some narratives but is basically Plato's major political Constitution.  While Exodus is named for it's most well known narrative more of the text is actually about laying out Israel's Constitution.

Gorgias is one of the five mainly because it's the Chief origin of the modern idea of Hell.  Leviticus doesn't contain any explicit references to Sheol, but that's not really where modern "Hell" comes from, to the extent it's Biblically justified at all it's largely a misunderstanding of what the purpose of Leviticus's Sacrificial system was.

Critias is most well know for being the fuller account of Atlantis.  And the Purpose the Atlantis myth is supposed to serve in relation the Republic is seeing such an Ideal Republic in action.  But what many forget is that's actually Athens, Atlantis is the Evil Empire so it in this proposed Numbers comparison could be Balaac's Moab or the Amorites under Sihon and Og.  And the Amorites did exist this far south only because of Imperialism, their homeland was the Beqqa Valley by Mount Hermon but they kind of ruled the entire Levant by this time.  Also the Baal-Peor episode is one of The Bible passages abused by Anti-Miscegenationists, and the story of Atlantis has an actual eugenicist subtext in the degeneration of it's Kings.

Deuteronomy means ""Second Law" because much of it is Moses repeating Laws form earlier, The Laws is likewise Plato's constitution Constitution.   Both books are traditionally the last their traditional author wrote. Deuteronomy is believed by secular scholars to not have the same origin as the rest of The Pentateuch, and likewise Robert H. Allen argues that that Plato's Laws isn't authentic Plato.

Deuteronomy is actually the most quoted book of the Pentateuch in the New Testament, with even some NT references to the Decalogue being based on it's version. A fact which I think fits in with the NT's theme that The Law should change.  The Laws of Magnesia however are reactionary and dystopian.

The Joshua to Plato's Moses wound up being Emperor Theodosius I.

Monday, March 28, 2022

Stoicism in Early Christianity

Is the name of a book I recently bought edited by Tuomas Rasimus, Troels Engberg-Pedersen and Ismo Dunderberg, it's a collection of articles written by even more authors but Engberg-Pedersen wrote the introduction.  Engberg-Pedersen has also written books on this subject that on Amazon are way too expensive right now.

I have already on this blog talked about potential affinity between Biblical Theology and Stoicism in God and The Universe and Spiritual and Heavenly what do they actually mean and opposed the common Platonist Interpretation of Biblical Theology in those as well as Pagan Greek Origins of Puritan Sexual Morality, the post on Divine Impassability and Divine Immutability, and also mentioned it in the post on The Sects of First Century Judaism.

These authors however argue for a Stoic Context to the New Testament and other Early Christian texts because they believe in the 1st century AD and even still early 2nd century, Stoicism was the mainstream default Philosophical viewpoint and that Platonism took over during the 2nd Century, which is true, the picture painted in Acts 17 for the Sermon on Mars Hill does imply only the Stoics and Epicureans were really relevant at that time and the Epicureans were the Atheists so their Philosophy wouldn't have been useful to Christians.  And so the Stoic texts they engage with are mostly the Roman Late Stoicism of Cato, Cicero, Thrasyllus of Mendes, Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius.  But earlier a key transitional figure in Stoicism abandoning it's roots was Antipater of Tarsus.

I however believe Christianity was a fundamentally Rebellious religion at it's inception, Pacifist but Rebellious.  Within their Jewish Context the Early Christians were Pharisees but ones who rejected many of the traditions the Pharisees had developed during the Intertestamental period.  And likewise the Stoicism I see in the New Testament is a return to the Old Stoa of Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus.

One of the articles in this book talks about how during the period of Middle Platonism and Later Stoicism the two schools borrowed a lot from each other.  That Platonism that seeped into later Stoicism was the source of it's problems just as it would become the source of Christianity's problems.

The worst thing these Roman Stoics had taken from Platonism was the rigidly Pythagorean Sexual Morality of The Laws, particularly the argument that males lying with males is wrong because it's "Para Phusis".  The Laws was Plato's last work, so late some have argued he didn't actually write it, it is Platonism at the height of it's Pythagoreanism.  Symposium was one of Plato's oldest dialogues, possibly before any of the Pythagorean influence, and the Eros doctrine of Diotima is the one thing in the Platonic canon that could have been compatible with Zeno's Eros or New Testament Agape.  But these Roman Stoics ignored that and followed The Laws instead, Musonius Rufus in Rome in the 50s AD used the Para Phusis argument verbatim and Epictetus repeated it.

But famously that argument that Homosexuality is wrong because it is "against nature" or "unnatural" technically appears in the writings of Paul, in Romans 1:26-27.  The context so many fail to get is that Romans 1:18-32 is not Paul's own opinion, it's him laying out the opinions that the rest of the Epistle is systematically refuting.  Romans is like a Breadtube response video, 1:18-32 is them simply playing clips from the PragerU video(s) they disagree with, then it proceeds with the take down.  In chapter 2 verses 1, 3 and 17 are Paul explicitly saying that part was someone else's argument.

The argument that this part of Romans 1 is Paul quoting or paraphrasing someone else isn't even limited to those trying to argue The Bible doesn't condemn Homosexuality, it's made by people who probably still think it's a Sin because of other mistranslated verses.  It is well known that Romans 1:18-32 is largely based on Wisdom of Solomon 13:1-10 and 14:22-31.  [Update: and here is an article on how the influence of Philo was possibly also relevant.]

One article in this book also says that Wisdom of Solomon is an ultimately Platonist text even though it borrows a bit from Stoicism.  So someone who sees Paul as somewhat of a Stoic should easily agree that if Paul is quoting Wisdom it's a quotation made in disagreement.

Romans goes on even to refute stuff from Wisdom of Solomon not included in that specific paraphrase, like in Romans 5 when Paul says Death and Sin entered the world because of Adam's Sin, he's clearly disagreeing with Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 which says Death entered the world because of the Envy of The Devil.  But the main argument of Wisdom and Romans 1:18-32 is that God gave up on the heathens and surrendered them to their sins.  In Romans 11:30-32 Paul says that God consigned ALL to disobedience so that he might have mercy on ALL, God doesn't give up on anyone, in Romans 5 he says ALL will be made righteous in Christ.

However the Para Phusis argument is the one thing in Romans 1:18-32 not taken from Wisdom.  To people in Rome in the 50s AD this might have seemed like a direct reference to the teaching of Musonius Rufus in Lecture XII.  But as I said it came from Plato's Laws (though was probably a Pythagorean teaching before that) and so that is why it fits in with the Platonism of Wisdom of Solomon.  

Paul in all his writings uses the phrase "Para Phusis" only twice, this section of Romans 1, and then again in Romans 11:24 where he uses it to describe what God does grafting Gentiles into Israel. Now Paul saying God did something that is "contrary to nature" sounds like something those who argue for a Stoic reading of Paul need to explain, since in Stoicism God and Nature are in a sense the same thing.  Well the explanation is that the context is Paul using this wording to refute the anti-Homosexual argument he quoted in chapter 1.  If males lying with males is "Para Phusis" because it can't result in biological reproduction, then God making people who don't biologically descend from Jacob into Israelites is even more "Para Phusis" since it's reproduction without sex.  

Diotima argued that all Love is Generative whether it results in an actual new baby person or not because you are generating the mind of both yourself and your lover when you love, and to me that fits in well with Zeno's understanding of Eros as well New Testament Agape.  1 John 4:7 says that all who Love are Born(Gennao) of God.  Isaiah 53 speaks of the Suffering Servant having Seed, but to Christians that Prophecy was of Jesus and he didn't biologically reproduce, His Seed was His Disciples who He called the Children of the Bridechamber (Matthew 9:15, Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34).  In Galatians 3 Paul says that all who are Christ's are the Seed of Abraham.  Revelation 12:17 says the rest of the Remnant of the Seed of the Woman are those who keep the Commandments of God and Testimony of Jesus Christ, John's Gospel and 1st Epistle repeatedly teach that the commandments of Jesus are to Love one another  This Spiritual generation is what Romans 11 is all about, that is how the Fulness of the Gentiles will be Grafted into Israel and then ALL Israel shall be Saved.

Romans 1 isn't the only time Paul has been painted as more "Conservative" then he really was because he quoted someone to refute them.  1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is also taken at face value by Engberg-Pedersen in his Paul on Identity book, but I've studied the chapter and it's clear to me those verses are Paul quoting someone else that he them immediately calls an idiot in the following verses.  1 Corinthians 7 is Paul responding to being asked a question, and he more then once pretty much says that this is his personal thoughts and not God speaking, I think Paul was personally Asexual and so knew this wasn't his areas of expertise, but with all those qualifiers I still think what Paul says here is not as prudish as it's made out to be, most importantly he clearly contradicts the notion that marriage and sex are for biological reproduction.

Some other books on Stoicism I own are The Making of Fornication by Kathy L. Gaca, The Stoic Idea of The City by Malcolm Schofield and Cities of The Gods: Communist Utopias in Greek Thought by Doyne Dawson.  These books fall into the outdated trap of thinking Paul was a Platonist, but they are useful in how they are in part attempts to reconstruct Zeno of Citium's Republic, and in doing so argue that the original Stoics were both the Communists and Free Love Hippies of the Hellenistic world (which would perhaps make Dionysius of Heraclea the Karl Kautsky).  And that is useful for the Christian Stoicism argument because I agree with Roman A Montero's All Things in Common that Jesus was a Communist and that the Church continued to be even for a generation after Constantine, but I do disagree with his conclusion on the Essenes who I feel were the Pythagoreans of 1st century Judaism, the most Stoic Jews were the Zealots.

One subject covered in those books is how Zeno essentially tried to redefine Eros, Eros in the classical Pagan Greek understanding was uncontrollable Passion, Zeno wanted to make it something more genuinely positive.  I talked in a prior post about how Agape was rarely used at all by Polytheistic Greeks, well my new theory is that among some Stoics, perhaps specifically Hellenized Jews in Galilee and Tarsus, Agape become their word for Zeno's Eros, and this is the Agape meant in the New Testament and the Septuagint version of Song of Songs, especially 1 John where God is Love.  Eros is also the name of the City in Zeno's Republic, in Romans 9:25 Paul uses a specific form of Agape as a title for God's people, which like some other forms is translated Beloved in the KJV, the only other time that exact form of Agape is used is of the Beloved City in Revelation 20:9.  

In Revelation 21 it is stated that there is no Temple in New Jerusalem.  On my Prophecy Blog I've explained that entirely in the context of Old Testament Prophecy.  But perhaps in addition to that it was also meant to remind some of the Greek readers of how in Zeno's Republic the ideal City of Eros should have no Temples.  One of these books (I currently forget which one) argued this and other things the City is not supposed to have is a response to Plato's Laws where a major Temple is at the center of Magnesia, but it's also been argued Temples are abolished in Zeno's city because his God doesn't need Temples but rather is Imminent and Omnipresent, which sounds a lot like Stephen in Acts 7:48.

Before I got into this research of Stoicism I was very hostile to using any kind of Greek Philosophy in studying the New Testament because I don't like trying to explain anything in it in a Greek context rather then Hebrew.  And some of this Stoicism in Early Christianity stuff can seem like it too is going there.  But the key difference is Zeno was a Phoenician, and so was Chrysippus, so some of their ideas may have been Semitic in origin and that's why Stoicism is more compatible with the Hebrew mindset then any other school of Greek Philosophy, and so their ideas made a good context in which the Early Christians could explain their ideas to the Greeks.

At first one is inclined to assume those the Greeks called Phoenicians were simply the Biblical Canaanites particularly of Tyre and Sidon.  However I think the Greeks used that term of maybe even all the ancient Israelites, but particularly the Tribes of Asher and Dan had strong ties to the same coastal regions that the Greeks and Romans called Phoenicia.  But even the Canaanites while Polytheistic still spoke a similar language and I think had basically similar ideas to the Hebrew Bible on Metaphysics.  Some have already argued Zeno's ideas about Eros could be related to the cosmology presented in Philo of Byblos, Byblos is part of what I believe became entirely Danite, but also in that same Danite region was Apheca with it's cult of Aphrodite and Adonis.  The Danites became Pagan Polytheists, but even if there was a minority who tried to stay faithful to YHWHism they wouldn't have had a text of The Hebrew Bible as we know it, that Canon was developed in the Southern Kingdom, up North even The Torah was only Oral Tradition.

Zeno of Citium was contemporary with when the Septuagint is traditionally said to have been written.  I think the actual history of the Septuagint is more complicated, it developed over time and it's final form we have comes in part through Christian copyists.  But the process may have still began then, and thus some of the key words Stoic Philosophers used could have come from Zeno independently making similar translations of Semitic words/concepts into Greek, but while perhaps translating some others differently.

That includes Theos/Dios/Zeus being El/Eloah/Elohim. And from Psalm 33:6 he could have gotten both The Logos being the Dabar/Deber (1697 and 1698 in the Strongs Concordance) and Pneuma being Ruwach, but also Nshamah is sometimes used interchangeably with Ruwach. Also Psyche for Nephesh, Sophia for Chokmah and Phronesis for Binya maybe.  And then Zeno's Eros could have been a translation of Ahav/Ahavah.

My somewhat Stoic readings of The New Testament are consistent with Hebrew Bible ideas, when it says that for God the Heavens are His Throne and the Earth His Footstool (Isaiah 66:1 quoted in Acts 7:49), that to me shows He's not Outside the Universe as we have come to traditionally think of Him but within it as He is in Stoicism.  That God made Adam a Living Soul by breathing His Breath of Life into him, and how Ezekiel 37 describes the coming Resurrection the same way fits the Stoic view of Pneuma pretty well I think.  Even the association of God and His Pneuma with Fire has roots in the Hebrew Bible stuff I talked about in my Baptism of Fire post.  Ecclesiastes 12:7's description of the Spirit returning to God who gave it also anticipates The Stoic's teaching about Pneuma.

The main thing the Stoics lacked was the Resurrection, but their Cyclical view of the Universe is what I'd expect from getting most of the metaphysics right while still lacking The Resurrection.

Wednesday, March 23, 2022

The Three Types of The Hebrew Roots Movement

The Hebrew Roots Movement can be divided into three different types.  However it is a very diverse movement where on each of this levels that can be a variety of disagreement on interpretations of various Scriptures and Bible Prophecy and related issues like the Sacred Name Movement and which version of The Hebrew calendar to use.

Type 1 would be people like the late Chuck Missler who believe Christians should study the Torah and Hebrew costumes to help understand The New Testament's cultural context.  But they still believe in the basic Christian Doctrine that we are not under The Law anymore, they believe it can be good to do things like observe Holy Days of Leviticus 23, but they should never be made obligatory.

Now maybe someone reading this has had some very limited and specific experience with American Evangelicalism that makes them think there are none who aren't at least Type 1.  However there are Independent Baptists like the Pastor I do not like to name who engage in what I call Reverse-Legalism considering it sinful to do any "Jewish Customs", and to some extent that problem goes all the way back to Ignatius of Antioch..  And related to that is the belief of hyper KJV Onlyists that you should never even check the original Hebrew Text or even the Greek for that matter.

But even among people who aren't Reverse-Legalists there is still a common lack of interest in studying The "Old Testament" beyond what we absolutely need to know, or will quote a Torah Law only when it suits their Conservative Politics.  Being even a Type 1 Hebrew Roots person requires more then just a willingness to check the Hebrew when you're unsure what a Verse is saying, or the basic understanding of how Passover works required to even have an opinion on Easter chronology.  

Type 1 is what I consider myself, though to what extent I externally act like it may depend on my mood.

Type 2 are those who reject the basic Christian Doctrine that we are no longer under The Law, but while still keeping Paul just reinterpreting him.  

Type 2 has become the most common form even though back in the 2000s people like Chuck Missler were more common.  Type 2 has became what you're assumed to be if you engage in Hebrew stuff at all.  Though a lot of Type 2s don't like to be called Hebrew Roots because they don't want to be associated with Type 3 and will prefer to be called Torah Observant.

Type 3 are those who reject Paul as a False Apostle.  Though not all Anti-Paulians are even doing Hebrew Roots stuff, some Anti-Semites think even Paul was too Jewish (like Alfred Rosenberg), some Anti-Paul people blame his problem on the Pharisees rather then the Greeks, kind of shows the duality of Paul when you think about it.

As I said there are disagreements even within each type, and among Paul rejecters the disagreements include whether or not to include Hebrews and Luke-Acts in what texts they condemn as Heretical.

The Reverse Legalists probably feel the existence of Type 2 and 3 vindicates their condemning even Type 1s like me, they will insist it's a gateway drug that inevitably leads to the more full blown heresies.  However I have been a Type 1 Hebrew Roots Believer since long before any of this was as popular as it's become, and the ways I've changed have gone in the opposite direction, I've become even more of an Anarchist, even more Antimonian.