Given the post I made after Trump was elected it would be remiss of me not to mention this. Especially since I criticized TYT for acting like they never predicted Trump would pass it.
Still, as long as NAFTA and CAFTA still stand I'm not truly impressed yet. And there is always the risk he may try to re-brand the TPP under a different name.
But of course none of that would take away everything Trump is doing that is horrible. Continuing Drone Strikes that kill civilians in Syria and Yemen. The Ban on letting people come to America from Muslim countries his company hasn't done business with. And he seems to be going through with building the Wall.
So in-spite of doing one thing I like Trump is still getting a big fat F- from me.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
Complex history of the Word Sodomite
This is my third post specifically on the Sin of Sodom being Inhospitality (Or Trumpism as I now like to call it).
What prompted this post was an interaction I had on IMDB. So this is mainly my archiving those sources here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
What prompted this post was an interaction I had on IMDB. So this is mainly my archiving those sources here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy
Many cognates in other languages, such as French sodomie (verb sodomiser), Spanish sodomía (verb sodomizar), and Portuguese sodomia (verb sodomizar), are used exclusively for penetrative anal sex, at least since the early nineteenth century. In those languages, the term is also often current vernacular (not just legal, unlike in other cultures) and a formal way of referring to any practice of anal penetration; the word sex is commonly associated with consent and pleasure with regard to all involved parties and often avoids directly mentioning two common aspects of social taboo—human sexuality and the anus—without a shunning or archaic connotation to its use.https://nwanglicanblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/sodomy-a-biblical-word-study-that-might-surprise-you/
In modern German, the word Sodomie has no connotation of anal or oral sex and specifically refers to bestiality.[11] The same goes for the Polish sodomia. The Norwegian word sodomi carries both senses. In Danish, sodomi is rendered as "unnatural carnal knowledge with someone of the same sex or (now) with animals".[12]
Roman Catholic scholar, Mark Jordan in his book The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology (1997) shows that the term “sodomy” originated in the eleventh century as a new classification of certain ‘clerical sins’. While early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Origen clearly associate sodomy with inhospitality, by the time of St. Augustine, cultural associations around the word, communicated through secular poetry and legend shifted both its denotative and connotative meanings.http://www.banap.net/spip.php?article122
“ ‘Sodomy’ as defined by religion and law included a range of condemned practices, ‘a way to encompass a multiple of sins with a minimum of signs’ as one critic has cleverly expressed it.” (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 61)So I hope this information is helpful to many.
Despite the term’s enduring flexibility, from the twelfth century sodomy was increasingly associated with sex acts between men. (Phillips and Reay. Sex Before Sexuality A Premodern History, p. 62)
...
In the older sense, sodomy surpassed all other crimes; in its sinfulness it also included all of them: from blasphemy, sedition, and witchcraft, to the demonic. It was, as many extracts declare, the crime without a name; language was incapable of sufficiently expressing the horror of it. The category was a repository for many items, yet in the eighteenth century a highly specific portrait of an individual, and of a group, was increasingly displacing an undiscriminating, demonic generalization.(McCormick editor, Secret Sexualities A Sourcebook of 17th and 18th Century Writing, p. 118)
...
Sodomy surpassed all other crimes. In its sinfulness it also included all of them, blasphemy, sedition, witchcraft, the demonic: it is yet without a Name: What shall it then be called? There are not Words in our Language to expressive enough of the Horror of it. The foregoing suggests, however, a degree of insecurity about the range of the activity, and what it ought to be called. It was terrible in its sublimity, but unnamed in its sublimation. What was changing was that a specific kind of portrait of an individual was taking over from a theological category of generalized evil. (McCormick, editor Sexual Outcasts 1750-1850 Volume II Sodomy, p. 5)
...
“Clearly when we come across a writer using the words ‘sodomy’ or ‘buggery’ in relation to homosexuality we do the words less than justice if we simply disregard their other meanings. The one word was used because the one concept was intended, and this was a broader concept than simply homosexuality. The notion underlying these passages was not homosexuality but a more general notion: debauchery; and debauchery was a temptation to which all, in principle at least were subject.” (Bray, Homosexuality in Renaissance England, p. 16
...
“On the one hand, historians confirmed sodomy’s capaciousness: it means masturbation, several of forms of same-sex sexual behavior, bestiality, non-procreative sex (oral or anal most commonly) between a and a woman, or any form of sex in which conception was impossible.” (Crawford, The Sexual Culture of the French Renaissance, p. 4)
...
“Initially, sodomy was a theological construct, serving only intermittently to refer to a clear variety of sexual activity or to bring into focus the behaviour of a particular kind of person.” (Mills, “Male-Male Love and Sex in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500”, p. 14 in A Gay History of Britain Love and Sex Between Men Since the Middle Ages editor Matt Cook)
...
“In the early modern phase (here roughly before 1688), the term sodomy covered any activity that challenged the ‘Nature’ of the church-state authority. The logic of sodomy’s deviation from the feudal order was precise but the category covered a wide range of transgressive acts: witchcraft, usury, political dissent, nonconformity, any kind of nonreproductive, non-matrimonial sexuality, and exogamous social relations, for example with Jews or Muslims (Bredbeck, pp. 2-23). By the late eighteen –century, ‘sodomy’, more or less, narrowed to mean a male-male erotics typified by anal penetration (buggery).” (Shapiro, “Of Mollies: Class and same-Sex Sexualities in the Eighteen Century”, p. 159 in In a Queer Place Sexuality and Belonging in British and European Contexts, editors Kate Chedgzoy, Emma Francis, and Murray Pratt.)
Friday, January 27, 2017
The Flood in the Days of Moses
Today, I want to talk about a common criticism of The Koran I consider unfair. I'm not an Islamic Apologist, I'm working on a study where I will address an anachronism in The Koran that is best explained by Muhammad having very limited knowledge of The Bible and this showing it did not have a supernatural origin.
But I find it very unfair to suggest it's an anachronism when The Koran refers to a Flood in the time of Moses. Every Islamic Apologist agrees those references are to the drowning of Pharaoh's Army in The Red Sea. Yet I keep seeing Christians act like that's a stupid excuse and clearly the mere presence of the word Flood proves Muhammad thought the Global Flood happened in the days of Moses, or that there was more then one Global Flood.
Obviously, an army being drowned on land that was just previously dry can qualify as a flood. It's not a normal flood, but neither was the Flood of Noah, since they usually aren't Global and don't normally involve Gates in Heaven or Fountains of the Great Deep being opened.
The KJV of Exodus 15:8 uses the word Flood (though it's Plural) in describing the Red Sea incident. In The Hebrew this isn't the word for Flood used most of the time, so I am overall making little note of this verse. But I mention it for the KJV onliers, if your insist that the KJV is a perfect translation, then you've already lost all right to say it's wrong to call this incident a Flood.
Amos 9:5 also uses Flood in the KJV in reference to Egypt, though in The Hebrew that word is the usual word used to refer to The Nile.
Joshua 24 as well uses Flood in the KJV in a way that is confusing. In the Hebrew it's actually the word for River and probably refers to the Euphrates. But a KJV only Absolutist has no choice but to argue that Flood refers to the Red Sea incident.
The Hebrew word for Flood (Yabul) used in Genesis 6-10 is used pretty rarely, outside those Chapters only in Psalm 29:10. So yeah if you want to limit the idea of flooding to only that Hebrew word there is no Biblical basis for applying it to the Red Sea incident. But other Hebrew words become Flood in English, and so if Arabic likewise used words for Flood to translate those words, then there is plenty of basis for applying it to the drowning of Pharaoh's army.
Revelation 12:15-16 uses the word Flood in a context commonly seen as being an Echo of when Israel was lead by God to the Wilderness. This Flood is often interpreted as representing an Army. One basis for that is Daniel's usage of the Hebrew word Sheteph in 9:26 and 11:22.
But I find it very unfair to suggest it's an anachronism when The Koran refers to a Flood in the time of Moses. Every Islamic Apologist agrees those references are to the drowning of Pharaoh's Army in The Red Sea. Yet I keep seeing Christians act like that's a stupid excuse and clearly the mere presence of the word Flood proves Muhammad thought the Global Flood happened in the days of Moses, or that there was more then one Global Flood.
Obviously, an army being drowned on land that was just previously dry can qualify as a flood. It's not a normal flood, but neither was the Flood of Noah, since they usually aren't Global and don't normally involve Gates in Heaven or Fountains of the Great Deep being opened.
The KJV of Exodus 15:8 uses the word Flood (though it's Plural) in describing the Red Sea incident. In The Hebrew this isn't the word for Flood used most of the time, so I am overall making little note of this verse. But I mention it for the KJV onliers, if your insist that the KJV is a perfect translation, then you've already lost all right to say it's wrong to call this incident a Flood.
Amos 9:5 also uses Flood in the KJV in reference to Egypt, though in The Hebrew that word is the usual word used to refer to The Nile.
Joshua 24 as well uses Flood in the KJV in a way that is confusing. In the Hebrew it's actually the word for River and probably refers to the Euphrates. But a KJV only Absolutist has no choice but to argue that Flood refers to the Red Sea incident.
The Hebrew word for Flood (Yabul) used in Genesis 6-10 is used pretty rarely, outside those Chapters only in Psalm 29:10. So yeah if you want to limit the idea of flooding to only that Hebrew word there is no Biblical basis for applying it to the Red Sea incident. But other Hebrew words become Flood in English, and so if Arabic likewise used words for Flood to translate those words, then there is plenty of basis for applying it to the drowning of Pharaoh's army.
Revelation 12:15-16 uses the word Flood in a context commonly seen as being an Echo of when Israel was lead by God to the Wilderness. This Flood is often interpreted as representing an Army. One basis for that is Daniel's usage of the Hebrew word Sheteph in 9:26 and 11:22.
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
I'm a Continuationist, but most Pentacostals and Charismatics are wrong on what the Gift of Tongues is
Acts 2 clearly spells out for us what it is. It involves people in the crowd hearing The Gospel preached in their native Tongue, even though that Tongue was not known to the ones preaching it.
Tongue is being used here as a synonym for language, the same word is used in contexts that are not supernatural at all.
Almost everyone has it in their heads now that somehow Paul in 1 Corinthians was talking about something completely different, some cryptic mystery language. He was not.
The problem with them seeming incompatible is that what happened in Acts 2 may not be how we usually picture it. I don't think each person listening was hearing everything in their own language regardless, like a Star Trek universal translator. But rather different Disciples were given different specific Tongues to supernaturally speak with. And that fits the imagery better, of each being given a single flaming Tongue.
And so I think the controversy at Corinth came from some believers showing off their Tongue in church, even though no one listening there could understand it. And so Paul says if someone is going to speak in Tongues in church there should be an interpreter to translate it. An unknown Tongue simply means no one there knows it, not that no Human anywhere knows it.
And that would be simply rude behavior even in a non supernatural context. Like an American Otaku who's actually learned Japanese speaking it constantly at a small Anime convention where no one else there can understand it without subtitles. It just makes him look like a pretentious show off.
1 Corinthians 13:1 however is what people cling to for their "Angelic Language" doctrine. Paul is saying in this verse he has spoken in Tongues, plural, of both Men and Angels. That verse does not at all prove the Supernatural Tongues are only the Angels.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Paul didn't actually know Greek, but he spoke in the Greek Tongue to stenographers who could write in it. But perhaps this is even more true of Peter and John, and the brothers James and Jude, who's background doesn't make sense for them to know Greek at all, and that is constantly used against The Bible by skeptics.
I personally feel it's pretty obvious that the Angels speak Hebrew as their native Tongue. The only two who are named have Hebrew names. There is no mystery Angelic Language, that idea is where Occult concepts like John Dee's Enochian Language comes from, but even he knew he should logically start with Hebrew in constructing his made up Angelic language. The Angels may very well speak a more pure and uncorrupted dialect, but it's most certainly Hebrew.
The many people out there thinking they're speaking an Angelic Language may just be misinformed. They don't know what they're speaking.
Also the word "angel" is used of human messengers sometimes.
But do not forget that I am a Continuationist, this Supernatural ability is one I believe Christians can still use. It may be less common now since in the modern world more people are naturally multilingual, and The Bible is available in every major language. But in a situation where a Christian may need it, I believe The Holy Spirit can still provide it.
Tongue is being used here as a synonym for language, the same word is used in contexts that are not supernatural at all.
Almost everyone has it in their heads now that somehow Paul in 1 Corinthians was talking about something completely different, some cryptic mystery language. He was not.
The problem with them seeming incompatible is that what happened in Acts 2 may not be how we usually picture it. I don't think each person listening was hearing everything in their own language regardless, like a Star Trek universal translator. But rather different Disciples were given different specific Tongues to supernaturally speak with. And that fits the imagery better, of each being given a single flaming Tongue.
And so I think the controversy at Corinth came from some believers showing off their Tongue in church, even though no one listening there could understand it. And so Paul says if someone is going to speak in Tongues in church there should be an interpreter to translate it. An unknown Tongue simply means no one there knows it, not that no Human anywhere knows it.
And that would be simply rude behavior even in a non supernatural context. Like an American Otaku who's actually learned Japanese speaking it constantly at a small Anime convention where no one else there can understand it without subtitles. It just makes him look like a pretentious show off.
1 Corinthians 13:1 however is what people cling to for their "Angelic Language" doctrine. Paul is saying in this verse he has spoken in Tongues, plural, of both Men and Angels. That verse does not at all prove the Supernatural Tongues are only the Angels.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Paul didn't actually know Greek, but he spoke in the Greek Tongue to stenographers who could write in it. But perhaps this is even more true of Peter and John, and the brothers James and Jude, who's background doesn't make sense for them to know Greek at all, and that is constantly used against The Bible by skeptics.
I personally feel it's pretty obvious that the Angels speak Hebrew as their native Tongue. The only two who are named have Hebrew names. There is no mystery Angelic Language, that idea is where Occult concepts like John Dee's Enochian Language comes from, but even he knew he should logically start with Hebrew in constructing his made up Angelic language. The Angels may very well speak a more pure and uncorrupted dialect, but it's most certainly Hebrew.
The many people out there thinking they're speaking an Angelic Language may just be misinformed. They don't know what they're speaking.
Also the word "angel" is used of human messengers sometimes.
But do not forget that I am a Continuationist, this Supernatural ability is one I believe Christians can still use. It may be less common now since in the modern world more people are naturally multilingual, and The Bible is available in every major language. But in a situation where a Christian may need it, I believe The Holy Spirit can still provide it.
Monday, January 23, 2017
Thursday, January 19, 2017
Words translated Eternal
Aionion, Aionios, Aioniou, are different forms of Strong Number 166. It is often translated in Latin, English and other translations as Eternal or Everlasting in many key verses. And ultimately the enemies of Universalism are entirely dependent on that translation being accurate.
I don't want to get too deep into the linguistic arguments others have made, starting with how they come from Aion which means Age (Eon comes from Aion), which makes the use of it's Hebrew equivalent Olam in Daniel 12 the same issue.
That same Hebrew word for Eternal/Everlasting/Perpetual is used to describe how long the Aaronic Priesthood will last (Exodus 29:9, 40:13-15, Numbers 25:10-13). But we know from the book of Hebrews that the Aaronic Priesthood has now been done away with and replaced with Jesus, Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek.
A better Hebrew word for Eternal would be Qedem (Strong number 6924) used of God in Deuteronomy 33:27. and Habakkuk 1:12.
The point today is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, to show two places, two confirming witnesses, where Scripture uses this word in a way that in context totally contradicts it meaning eternal. Naturally these verses aren't the occurrences of the word used to build the doctrine of Eternal punishment.
Romans 16:25 in the KJV.
The other key verse is Jude verse 7.
Obviously the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah isn't still raging by the Dead Sea.
But also important is that Ezekiel 16:53 says that Sodom will be restored just as Samaria and Jerusalem are promised to be restored. Sodom had no survivors, they considered Lot a foreigner living among them even on their last day, and Lot's descendants became their own nations, Moab and Amon. And no one was a believer who perished in Sodom's destruction. Sodom can only be restored if eventually Jesus shed Blood redeems even the Sodomites.
In Revelation 22, those who were cast into the Lake of Fire are now just outside New Jerusalem.
And in in the Sheep and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, people overlook that neither the Sheep or Goats were those who believed in Jesus in this life. We are the brethren. Chuck Missler likes to say they are the Jews here (and argue this isn't the same judgment as the White Throne judgment). But earlier in Matthew Jesus had effectively disowned His mother, brothers and sisters and said His real Brethren are those who believe in Him not biological relations.
Luke 3:6 says that all mankind will see God's Salvation. Romans 5:18-19 says that as by one Man's Sin all are condemned, so by one Man's righteousness all men are Justified. Romans 11:32 says all Men are bound to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on ALL men. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says as in Adam all die so in Christ ALL shall be made alive. And Peter tells us it is God's preference that none shall perish.
I don't want to get too deep into the linguistic arguments others have made, starting with how they come from Aion which means Age (Eon comes from Aion), which makes the use of it's Hebrew equivalent Olam in Daniel 12 the same issue.
That same Hebrew word for Eternal/Everlasting/Perpetual is used to describe how long the Aaronic Priesthood will last (Exodus 29:9, 40:13-15, Numbers 25:10-13). But we know from the book of Hebrews that the Aaronic Priesthood has now been done away with and replaced with Jesus, Priest-King after the order of Melchizedek.
A better Hebrew word for Eternal would be Qedem (Strong number 6924) used of God in Deuteronomy 33:27. and Habakkuk 1:12.
The point today is to use Scripture to interpret Scripture, to show two places, two confirming witnesses, where Scripture uses this word in a way that in context totally contradicts it meaning eternal. Naturally these verses aren't the occurrences of the word used to build the doctrine of Eternal punishment.
Romans 16:25 in the KJV.
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,In the Greek the last two words are Aionion and a word that means "kept secret". Aionion is translated "since the world began". The very next verse says "but now is made manifest". Proving that it can refer to a time period that will expire. There are other places where Aion is translated world rather then Age, like Paul calling Satan the "God of this World", it should be Age not World there as we know in the future Jesus will take ruler-ship of the Kosmos from Satan.
The other key verse is Jude verse 7.
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."Eternal fire" there is Aioniou fire. There it is used in the exact same form it is in Mark 3:29, John 6:68, Hebrews 6:2.
Obviously the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah isn't still raging by the Dead Sea.
But also important is that Ezekiel 16:53 says that Sodom will be restored just as Samaria and Jerusalem are promised to be restored. Sodom had no survivors, they considered Lot a foreigner living among them even on their last day, and Lot's descendants became their own nations, Moab and Amon. And no one was a believer who perished in Sodom's destruction. Sodom can only be restored if eventually Jesus shed Blood redeems even the Sodomites.
In Revelation 22, those who were cast into the Lake of Fire are now just outside New Jerusalem.
And in in the Sheep and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, people overlook that neither the Sheep or Goats were those who believed in Jesus in this life. We are the brethren. Chuck Missler likes to say they are the Jews here (and argue this isn't the same judgment as the White Throne judgment). But earlier in Matthew Jesus had effectively disowned His mother, brothers and sisters and said His real Brethren are those who believe in Him not biological relations.
Luke 3:6 says that all mankind will see God's Salvation. Romans 5:18-19 says that as by one Man's Sin all are condemned, so by one Man's righteousness all men are Justified. Romans 11:32 says all Men are bound to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on ALL men. 1 Corinthians 15:22 says as in Adam all die so in Christ ALL shall be made alive. And Peter tells us it is God's preference that none shall perish.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Lex Meyer's book Immortal advocates for Soul Sleep and Annihilationism
I've watched his two part interview with Rob Skiba on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ufMPwt_Co
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c37lN0yDtc
I agree in the sense that contemporary Heaven is not what we are looking forward to. And while I disagree with Soul Sleep, rejecting The Resurrection or arguing it is not a literal Bodily Resurrection is far worse of a false doctrine. And I agree with him that being Born Again refers to the Resurrection. And I can agree with him on where to put the comma when Jesus says to the thief on the Cross "I tell you this day, you shall be with me in Paradise".
Much of what he says is stuff I already addressed in The Soul and Spirit Biblically. And I will be doing a separate post on the Prophecy Blog about what he has to say regarding Enoch and Elijah. But that spins off from what I've already argued regarding them. And I agree with him over Rob Skiba about The Book of Enoch and Jasher being bad sources.
I can also agree with his take on the Witch of Endor and Samuel, in fact he convinced me of that, it does go against how I've mentioned it before. And I agree on the Rich Man and Lazursus of Luke 16 being a Parable and not something to build doctrine on. And his take on the point of what Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matthew 22 is also valid.
And I agree there is no pre-existence, the Soul is created when The Body is given Life at first Breath.
But he doesn't address the references to Sheol/Hades in 1 Peter 3 and 4, or Ezekiel 32, or other passages considered relevant to the Harrowing of Hell. Zechariah 9 also refers to souls in prison. And verses in the Torah that refer to Abraham joining his father when he died, and Moses joining Aaron, though they were buried far apart. And Jesus promises His believers they would Never Die in John 11:26.
Meanwhile it is dangerous to build doctrine on Ecclesiastes, that book is partly Solomon describing things how they seem to mortal eyes, to proclaim all that wrong at the end. Christians absolutely do believe in something New under the Sun, the New Testament.
My biggest issue is his writing off the Matthew 27:52-53 Resurrections as temporary Resurrections like Lazarus. I believe firmly this verse is tied directly to Daniel 12, the only other time the Resurrection is refereed to where Many rather then All are raised. This ties in directly to the Harrowing of Hell, Jesus lead the Dead out of Sheol on the 15th of Nisan, same day Moses lead Israel out of Egypt.
He's a Post-Tribber, so he unlike me thinks Revelation is not Chronological. The "First Resurrection" is a classification rather then a chronological sequence. People already Resurrected followed Jesus in Revelation 19.
Also he responds to using that the Beast and False Prophet were still there 1000 years later against Annihilationism by saying they were Angelic beings not Humans. That happens to be another major annoyance of mine, whenever someone for whatever agenda tries to deny the Humanity of The Beast. Revelation 13 at the end clearly calls him a Man, and the word for Man used is Anthropos. As I've laid out elsewhere, Anthropos means Human, it never means male gender, and Angels probably wouldn't have Genders anyway. If it was in Hebrew the word used here would probably have been Adam or maybe Enosh, but not Zakar or Ish.
The argument for him being not a Human comes down to him ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and from that arguing he is Apollyon of Revelation 9, who is called an Angel. The word Angel is used to describe humans sometimes, in fact the same form of it used of Apollyon Jesus used of John The Baptist. IF Apollyon is the same entity as one of the Beasts, then he was a Human sent there at some point. Maybe Judas Iscariot who went to "his own place".
In fact twice Angels in Revelation clearly identify themselves as having once been normal Humans. That I consider further proof some OT saints are already Resurrected. The Angels of the Seven Churches in Revelation 1-3 I think are believers in those congregations who held the office of Prophet. And the Angels with the Seven Trumpets I've heard argued are seven OT Prophets who foretold corresponding Prophecies. I think that's interesting.
Meyer makes an argument similar to Universalists, questioning how the New Creation can be so Happy if people are being tormented forever. But he thinks Annihilationism is sufficiently more merciful. But here is my question, why bother Resurrecting the Un-Beleivers only to immediately kill them? That seems unduly cruel to me. Where Meyer slips on the Importance of the Resurrection is that it's only our Sin being paid for by Jesus Shed Blood that allows the Resurrection to be possible at all. If you're Resurrected you have been Saved, and since everyone gets Resurrected......
I also agree that Plato is the source of much bad doctrine. But my problems with Plato are more in how he broke with the usual views of the Pagan Greeks before him. The Pagan Greek view of the After Life was no more or less wrong then what the Pagan Canaanites believed which it was pretty much based on. And The Hebrew Bible condemns a lot about the Pagan Canaanites but never the gist of their view of the after life. The issue is they were the opposite of Universalism, they believed in no hope of escape from Sheol/Hades for anyone.
Also the assumed After Life view of casual Christianity which I find just as annoying as he does, comes from Zoroastrianism rather then Gnosticism. If any Gnostics believed an After Life view similar to the Zoroastrians it was maybe the Persia based Manicheans who Augustine came out of. But generally the Gnostics believed all Souls were part of one original Soul that they seek to return to. Sometimes it's Sophia as The World Soul, sometimes it's the Pleroma. We see a similar idea expressed in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith, when Yoda says that the dead become one with The Force, and the closing Yoda arch episodes of Clone Wars elaborated on that concept. We also see this when some modern New Age type people say so and so "merges with the Infinite" when they die.
And this is another aspect of Gnosticism that can be traced back to Ancient Egypt. Everything in existence was said to be one of the Ka of Atum the creator god, who originally contained all things within himself, according to Wilkinson, Richard H. (2003). The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. p. 99
We also see in Acts 23:8-9 that the Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection, they also denied the existence of Spirits and Angels. From what can learn outside The Bible they also seem to have believed in an ancient form of Deism, a belief that a Creator God exists but that he is uninterested in interfering in Human affairs. Deism seems to have arguably began with Aristotle and his Unmoved Mover idea. And Aristotle also rejected Plato's doctrine of an immortal Soul. So denying the immortal Soul also comes from Greek philosophy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-ufMPwt_Co
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3c37lN0yDtc
I agree in the sense that contemporary Heaven is not what we are looking forward to. And while I disagree with Soul Sleep, rejecting The Resurrection or arguing it is not a literal Bodily Resurrection is far worse of a false doctrine. And I agree with him that being Born Again refers to the Resurrection. And I can agree with him on where to put the comma when Jesus says to the thief on the Cross "I tell you this day, you shall be with me in Paradise".
Much of what he says is stuff I already addressed in The Soul and Spirit Biblically. And I will be doing a separate post on the Prophecy Blog about what he has to say regarding Enoch and Elijah. But that spins off from what I've already argued regarding them. And I agree with him over Rob Skiba about The Book of Enoch and Jasher being bad sources.
I can also agree with his take on the Witch of Endor and Samuel, in fact he convinced me of that, it does go against how I've mentioned it before. And I agree on the Rich Man and Lazursus of Luke 16 being a Parable and not something to build doctrine on. And his take on the point of what Jesus said to the Sadducees in Matthew 22 is also valid.
And I agree there is no pre-existence, the Soul is created when The Body is given Life at first Breath.
But he doesn't address the references to Sheol/Hades in 1 Peter 3 and 4, or Ezekiel 32, or other passages considered relevant to the Harrowing of Hell. Zechariah 9 also refers to souls in prison. And verses in the Torah that refer to Abraham joining his father when he died, and Moses joining Aaron, though they were buried far apart. And Jesus promises His believers they would Never Die in John 11:26.
Meanwhile it is dangerous to build doctrine on Ecclesiastes, that book is partly Solomon describing things how they seem to mortal eyes, to proclaim all that wrong at the end. Christians absolutely do believe in something New under the Sun, the New Testament.
My biggest issue is his writing off the Matthew 27:52-53 Resurrections as temporary Resurrections like Lazarus. I believe firmly this verse is tied directly to Daniel 12, the only other time the Resurrection is refereed to where Many rather then All are raised. This ties in directly to the Harrowing of Hell, Jesus lead the Dead out of Sheol on the 15th of Nisan, same day Moses lead Israel out of Egypt.
He's a Post-Tribber, so he unlike me thinks Revelation is not Chronological. The "First Resurrection" is a classification rather then a chronological sequence. People already Resurrected followed Jesus in Revelation 19.
Also he responds to using that the Beast and False Prophet were still there 1000 years later against Annihilationism by saying they were Angelic beings not Humans. That happens to be another major annoyance of mine, whenever someone for whatever agenda tries to deny the Humanity of The Beast. Revelation 13 at the end clearly calls him a Man, and the word for Man used is Anthropos. As I've laid out elsewhere, Anthropos means Human, it never means male gender, and Angels probably wouldn't have Genders anyway. If it was in Hebrew the word used here would probably have been Adam or maybe Enosh, but not Zakar or Ish.
The argument for him being not a Human comes down to him ascending out of the Bottomless Pit, and from that arguing he is Apollyon of Revelation 9, who is called an Angel. The word Angel is used to describe humans sometimes, in fact the same form of it used of Apollyon Jesus used of John The Baptist. IF Apollyon is the same entity as one of the Beasts, then he was a Human sent there at some point. Maybe Judas Iscariot who went to "his own place".
In fact twice Angels in Revelation clearly identify themselves as having once been normal Humans. That I consider further proof some OT saints are already Resurrected. The Angels of the Seven Churches in Revelation 1-3 I think are believers in those congregations who held the office of Prophet. And the Angels with the Seven Trumpets I've heard argued are seven OT Prophets who foretold corresponding Prophecies. I think that's interesting.
Meyer makes an argument similar to Universalists, questioning how the New Creation can be so Happy if people are being tormented forever. But he thinks Annihilationism is sufficiently more merciful. But here is my question, why bother Resurrecting the Un-Beleivers only to immediately kill them? That seems unduly cruel to me. Where Meyer slips on the Importance of the Resurrection is that it's only our Sin being paid for by Jesus Shed Blood that allows the Resurrection to be possible at all. If you're Resurrected you have been Saved, and since everyone gets Resurrected......
I also agree that Plato is the source of much bad doctrine. But my problems with Plato are more in how he broke with the usual views of the Pagan Greeks before him. The Pagan Greek view of the After Life was no more or less wrong then what the Pagan Canaanites believed which it was pretty much based on. And The Hebrew Bible condemns a lot about the Pagan Canaanites but never the gist of their view of the after life. The issue is they were the opposite of Universalism, they believed in no hope of escape from Sheol/Hades for anyone.
Also the assumed After Life view of casual Christianity which I find just as annoying as he does, comes from Zoroastrianism rather then Gnosticism. If any Gnostics believed an After Life view similar to the Zoroastrians it was maybe the Persia based Manicheans who Augustine came out of. But generally the Gnostics believed all Souls were part of one original Soul that they seek to return to. Sometimes it's Sophia as The World Soul, sometimes it's the Pleroma. We see a similar idea expressed in Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of The Sith, when Yoda says that the dead become one with The Force, and the closing Yoda arch episodes of Clone Wars elaborated on that concept. We also see this when some modern New Age type people say so and so "merges with the Infinite" when they die.
And this is another aspect of Gnosticism that can be traced back to Ancient Egypt. Everything in existence was said to be one of the Ka of Atum the creator god, who originally contained all things within himself, according to Wilkinson, Richard H. (2003). The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. Thames & Hudson. p. 99
We also see in Acts 23:8-9 that the Sadducees didn't just deny the Resurrection, they also denied the existence of Spirits and Angels. From what can learn outside The Bible they also seem to have believed in an ancient form of Deism, a belief that a Creator God exists but that he is uninterested in interfering in Human affairs. Deism seems to have arguably began with Aristotle and his Unmoved Mover idea. And Aristotle also rejected Plato's doctrine of an immortal Soul. So denying the immortal Soul also comes from Greek philosophy.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Monday, January 16, 2017
Pre-Islamic Arabs were an important part of Early Church History
The history of Arabia and Christianity I think ultimately begins with the theory I proposed last year that The Magi came from Yemen rather then Persia.
Acts 2:11 confirms Jews of Arabia were at Pentecost.
Perhaps the first Arab Christian was Agabus, the Prophet mentioned in Acts 11. Some have argued his name is neither Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but makes most sense as being Arabic. Since I agree with Bill Cooper in After The Flood that the Idumeans were from Ishmael's son Dumah rather then Edom, and given the influence of the Nabatean Kingdom of Petra at this time, that certainly seems plausible.
Paul in Galatians says he traveled to Mt Sinai in Arabia. But that doesn't quite tell us anything about Arabs who were early Christians.
In the New Testament itself the Arabian presence in The Church is small. But in the coming centuries their influence will be quite important. But constantly overlooked because of the Greek and Roman biases in how Early Church history was recorded and is still studied.
The Petra based Kingdom wasn't the only Nabatean Kingdom. The people of Osroene were also Nabateans. The Nabateans came from Nebojath/Neboiath the Firstborn Son of Ishmael. Many historians doubt the traditions of Abgar V becoming a Christian, and on that they may be right. But there is little doubt that either Abgar VIII and/or Abgar IX was a Christian. And I'm inclined to believe the theory that Lucius of Britain of the Liber Pontificals was actually a scribal error for Lucius Abgarus of Birtha or Birecik.
Philip The Arabian was a Roman Emperor of the first half of the Third Century. He was born in Arabia. There is a controversial belief that I have become convinced of that he was actually the first Roman Emperor to be a Christian, even before Constantine.
Eusebius refers to both Abgar and Philip as Christians but neglects to mention that they were both Arabs.
I personally have a theory that Helena, the mother of Constantine, born about 250 AD, may have been a descendant of an Abgar of Edessa. But that may be for another post some day.
According to an ancient Syraic manuscript, six of the Bishops at the Council of Nicaea were from Arabia.
The Ghassamid and Lakhmid kingdoms both formed around the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, and both became Christian kingdoms pretty early on. The former mainly in modern Jordan, but included the Golan Heights and a little bit of Syria. The latter in parts of modern Iraq west of the Euphrates river. They and the Tanukhids were among many Joktanite tribes of Yemen who had migrated north following the destruction of the Ma'arib Damn and the conquests of the Himyar Kingdom. [I've actually read different accounts not on if the Tanukids came from Yemen or not.]
From the Tanukhids came Queen Mavia(Māwiyya), who reigned from 375-425 AD. There is disagreement over whether she was raised a Christian or converted. She long before Muhammad had an ambition of creating a united Arab Kingdom. Under her a Bishop named Moses was appointed the first Arab Bishop of the Arabs.
What's interesting is how her rebellion was specifically pro Nicene-Christianity against an Arian Emperor. Makes all these Muslim apologists today demonizing the Council of Nicaea sadly ironic. Because the heritage of Islamic Arabia included saving the East form the Tyranny of Arianism.
Heretics also existed among Arab Christians. Like Collyridianism, a group possibly mentioned in The Koran.
The Banu Judham are said to have been Christians before Islam.
The Banu Kalb was also important.
The Christian community of the Najran region is also worth looking into.
Abraha was not an Arab himself, but he had an impact on 6th century Arabian history.
The Lakhmid Kingdom would exist until just before the birth of Islam as I'll discus below. The Ghassamid Kingdom lasted a little longer and was eventually conquered by the Muslims.
I want to mention the Encyclopedia of Pleasure which is a collection of Arabic stories involving Lesbianism that have been preserved. One of the stories is set before Islam, during the lifetime of Muhammad but before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD. Because at least one of the two women in the story would have been a Christian.
Some historians have even speculated that a larger percentage of the family Muhammad came form then is usually assumed was either Christian or Jewish. As is, his family is known to have included at least one Christian, who I mention at the start of this study.
Isaac of Nineveh (613-700) was an Arab born in Eastern Arabia.
Acts 2:11 confirms Jews of Arabia were at Pentecost.
Perhaps the first Arab Christian was Agabus, the Prophet mentioned in Acts 11. Some have argued his name is neither Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but makes most sense as being Arabic. Since I agree with Bill Cooper in After The Flood that the Idumeans were from Ishmael's son Dumah rather then Edom, and given the influence of the Nabatean Kingdom of Petra at this time, that certainly seems plausible.
Paul in Galatians says he traveled to Mt Sinai in Arabia. But that doesn't quite tell us anything about Arabs who were early Christians.
In the New Testament itself the Arabian presence in The Church is small. But in the coming centuries their influence will be quite important. But constantly overlooked because of the Greek and Roman biases in how Early Church history was recorded and is still studied.
The Petra based Kingdom wasn't the only Nabatean Kingdom. The people of Osroene were also Nabateans. The Nabateans came from Nebojath/Neboiath the Firstborn Son of Ishmael. Many historians doubt the traditions of Abgar V becoming a Christian, and on that they may be right. But there is little doubt that either Abgar VIII and/or Abgar IX was a Christian. And I'm inclined to believe the theory that Lucius of Britain of the Liber Pontificals was actually a scribal error for Lucius Abgarus of Birtha or Birecik.
Philip The Arabian was a Roman Emperor of the first half of the Third Century. He was born in Arabia. There is a controversial belief that I have become convinced of that he was actually the first Roman Emperor to be a Christian, even before Constantine.
Eusebius refers to both Abgar and Philip as Christians but neglects to mention that they were both Arabs.
I personally have a theory that Helena, the mother of Constantine, born about 250 AD, may have been a descendant of an Abgar of Edessa. But that may be for another post some day.
According to an ancient Syraic manuscript, six of the Bishops at the Council of Nicaea were from Arabia.
The Ghassamid and Lakhmid kingdoms both formed around the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, and both became Christian kingdoms pretty early on. The former mainly in modern Jordan, but included the Golan Heights and a little bit of Syria. The latter in parts of modern Iraq west of the Euphrates river. They and the Tanukhids were among many Joktanite tribes of Yemen who had migrated north following the destruction of the Ma'arib Damn and the conquests of the Himyar Kingdom. [I've actually read different accounts not on if the Tanukids came from Yemen or not.]
From the Tanukhids came Queen Mavia(Māwiyya), who reigned from 375-425 AD. There is disagreement over whether she was raised a Christian or converted. She long before Muhammad had an ambition of creating a united Arab Kingdom. Under her a Bishop named Moses was appointed the first Arab Bishop of the Arabs.
What's interesting is how her rebellion was specifically pro Nicene-Christianity against an Arian Emperor. Makes all these Muslim apologists today demonizing the Council of Nicaea sadly ironic. Because the heritage of Islamic Arabia included saving the East form the Tyranny of Arianism.
Heretics also existed among Arab Christians. Like Collyridianism, a group possibly mentioned in The Koran.
The Banu Judham are said to have been Christians before Islam.
The Banu Kalb was also important.
The Christian community of the Najran region is also worth looking into.
Abraha was not an Arab himself, but he had an impact on 6th century Arabian history.
The Lakhmid Kingdom would exist until just before the birth of Islam as I'll discus below. The Ghassamid Kingdom lasted a little longer and was eventually conquered by the Muslims.
I want to mention the Encyclopedia of Pleasure which is a collection of Arabic stories involving Lesbianism that have been preserved. One of the stories is set before Islam, during the lifetime of Muhammad but before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD. Because at least one of the two women in the story would have been a Christian.
One of the stories told in the book is a story about the first Arab lesbian Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah, known as al-Zarqa’, and her love to a Christian woman Hind Bint al-Nu`man, who was the daughter of the last Lakhmid king of Hira in the 17th century. When Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah died, her faithful lover "cropped her hair, wore black clothes, rejected worldly pleasures, vowed to God that she would lead an ascetic life until she passed away…" She even built a monastery to commemorate her love to al-Zarqa'
Sahar Amer (2 May 2009). "Medieval Arab Lesbians and Lesbian-Like Women' Journal of the History of SexualityThe Lakhmid king in question is al-Nu'man Ill ibn al-Mundhir. From what we know historically he did have a daughter who's name isn't mentioned.
Nevertheless, according to creditable historical accounts, when Khosrau II demanded Nu'man's Christian daughter as part of his extensive harem, he refused the Shah's demand. In response, Khosrau II had him crushed by elephants; however, according to a Syriac chronicle, Khosrau invited Nu'man to a feast where he was dishonored and trapped;
Philip De Souza and John France, War and peace in ancient and medieval history, p. 139; Khuzistan Chronicle 9Interesting that he was so determined not to marry his daughter off in a back then perfectly normal political marriage. And we have a completely different tradition that his daughter was a very Monogamous Lesbian. I suspect the story may well be historical.
Some historians have even speculated that a larger percentage of the family Muhammad came form then is usually assumed was either Christian or Jewish. As is, his family is known to have included at least one Christian, who I mention at the start of this study.
Isaac of Nineveh (613-700) was an Arab born in Eastern Arabia.
The Feminism of Ancient Arabia
I reject the typical Islamaphobia of the modern Western Church. I would never convert to Islam because of it's Theology, Soterology and Christology. But I believe the violence of the modern Arab world is mainly the result of being politically occupied for centuries by first Ottomans and then European colonialism. They didn't have this problem under the Caliphs of their Golden Age. And on the Ishmael tag of my Prophecy blog I've spent time talking about potential common ground.
However one major area where the claims of Islamic Apologists seem awfully hard for me to buy is when they want to make Muhammad seem like an ancient proto-Feminist. Because Sura 4 is pretty irredeemably Misogynist, and Sura 33 is problematic too. The Huffington Post article claiming Muhammad was a Feminist provides not one single quote from The Koran.
Muslims can be Feminists in-spite of what The Koran says. But that doesn't change what the Koran says.
Now if someone wants to go "The Bible is sexist too" that's a fair direction to take the conversation. But the thing is I have actually cited Scripture in my arguments that The Bible is more Feminist then most people realize. And I will never deny that parts of it certainly reflect being the product of a Patriarchal Culture. But The Bible never says that how the world is is how it should be, it says the opposite. Nor will I deny mainstream Greco-Roman Christianity has been guilty of a lot of the world's misogyny for the last 1700 years.
But the thing I have observed that others talking about the Sexism of Muhammad have not. Is how I don't feel it can even entirely be blamed on being a product of his time. I've seen a lot of evidence that leads me to conclude Pre-Islamic Arabia was quite shockingly Feminist, maybe even matriarchal, compared to the then contemporary Greco-Roman world at least, including sadly most Christians and Jews living within it.
The evidence of this starts contemporary with Muhammad, before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD. He was married to an older woman, who was a very wealthy and successful business woman, Khadija bint Khuwaylid. Muhammad's early success in spreading his religion was dependent on her support, and other key relatives of her's. But she died in 620 AD, and a few of those key relatives of her's died around the same time. It wasn't until after she died that Muhammad started practicing Polygamy. And it wasn't till after those deaths he finally conquered Medina and then started giving the Median Suras, the latest Suras to be given. Suras 2, 4 and 33 and 65 were all Median Suras. From those came all of the most undeniably Sexist of the Koran's verses.
I can't help but wonder if Muhammad was insecure about being supported by a wealthier woman for so long. But regardless, the fact remains that perhaps if he had died before Khadija Islam's record on Women's rights would be much different. Of course gender isn't the only thing Muhammad started changing his tune on around this time, from 610-624 Jerusalem not Mecca was the location Muhammad taught to pray towards. It was also a Median Sura (Sura 2, the first Median Sura) that introduced the doctrine of Abrogation. Sura 9 was the second to last Sura given.
I could talk about the Queen of Sheba and some Extra-Biblical Arabic traditions related to her implying that the Kingdom of Sheba was ruled by women for 60 straight Queens. But for here I want to stick to recorded history.
From 750-675 BC the Qedarites, the same tribe that Muhammad's family would eventually come from, were ruled by five successive ruling Queens.
Contemporary with the last of those were were Baslu, the queen of Ikhilu, and Iapa1, the queen of Dikhrani, a Nabataean clan (Musil, pp. 483 f.; Luckenbill, II, 209). And a little later Adia during the reign of Asurbanipal (Musil, p. 485 f.; Luckenbill, II, 400).
Later the Nabatean Kingdom based in Petra often seemed to have the Queens literally Co-Ruleing with the Kings.
And one of my personal favorite overlooked figures of History was Queen Mavia(Māwiyya), an Arabic Christian Queen who reigned about 375-425 AD. I'll be talking about her more in the future.
It shouldn't surprise us that follows of Muhammad aren't keen on Female Rulers. As the Hadiths relate.
Also Sahih Bukkari records.
However one major area where the claims of Islamic Apologists seem awfully hard for me to buy is when they want to make Muhammad seem like an ancient proto-Feminist. Because Sura 4 is pretty irredeemably Misogynist, and Sura 33 is problematic too. The Huffington Post article claiming Muhammad was a Feminist provides not one single quote from The Koran.
Muslims can be Feminists in-spite of what The Koran says. But that doesn't change what the Koran says.
Now if someone wants to go "The Bible is sexist too" that's a fair direction to take the conversation. But the thing is I have actually cited Scripture in my arguments that The Bible is more Feminist then most people realize. And I will never deny that parts of it certainly reflect being the product of a Patriarchal Culture. But The Bible never says that how the world is is how it should be, it says the opposite. Nor will I deny mainstream Greco-Roman Christianity has been guilty of a lot of the world's misogyny for the last 1700 years.
But the thing I have observed that others talking about the Sexism of Muhammad have not. Is how I don't feel it can even entirely be blamed on being a product of his time. I've seen a lot of evidence that leads me to conclude Pre-Islamic Arabia was quite shockingly Feminist, maybe even matriarchal, compared to the then contemporary Greco-Roman world at least, including sadly most Christians and Jews living within it.
The evidence of this starts contemporary with Muhammad, before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD. He was married to an older woman, who was a very wealthy and successful business woman, Khadija bint Khuwaylid. Muhammad's early success in spreading his religion was dependent on her support, and other key relatives of her's. But she died in 620 AD, and a few of those key relatives of her's died around the same time. It wasn't until after she died that Muhammad started practicing Polygamy. And it wasn't till after those deaths he finally conquered Medina and then started giving the Median Suras, the latest Suras to be given. Suras 2, 4 and 33 and 65 were all Median Suras. From those came all of the most undeniably Sexist of the Koran's verses.
I can't help but wonder if Muhammad was insecure about being supported by a wealthier woman for so long. But regardless, the fact remains that perhaps if he had died before Khadija Islam's record on Women's rights would be much different. Of course gender isn't the only thing Muhammad started changing his tune on around this time, from 610-624 Jerusalem not Mecca was the location Muhammad taught to pray towards. It was also a Median Sura (Sura 2, the first Median Sura) that introduced the doctrine of Abrogation. Sura 9 was the second to last Sura given.
I could talk about the Queen of Sheba and some Extra-Biblical Arabic traditions related to her implying that the Kingdom of Sheba was ruled by women for 60 straight Queens. But for here I want to stick to recorded history.
From 750-675 BC the Qedarites, the same tribe that Muhammad's family would eventually come from, were ruled by five successive ruling Queens.
- Zabibe (ruled c. 750–735 BC)
- Samsi (ruled c. 735–710 BC)
- Yatie (ruled c. 710–695 BC)
- Te'elkhunu (ruled c. 695–690 BC)
- Tabua (ruled c. 678–675 BC)
Contemporary with the last of those were were Baslu, the queen of Ikhilu, and Iapa1, the queen of Dikhrani, a Nabataean clan (Musil, pp. 483 f.; Luckenbill, II, 209). And a little later Adia during the reign of Asurbanipal (Musil, p. 485 f.; Luckenbill, II, 400).
Later the Nabatean Kingdom based in Petra often seemed to have the Queens literally Co-Ruleing with the Kings.
- Chuldu (ruled 9 BC–40 AD), she ruled jointly with her husband Aretas IV Philopatris
- Shaqilath (ruled 40–70/71), she ruled jointly with her husband-brother Malichus II; after his death she was regent for her son Rabbel II Soter
- Gamilath (ruled 70/71–106), she ruled jointly with her brother Rabbel II Soter
And one of my personal favorite overlooked figures of History was Queen Mavia(Māwiyya), an Arabic Christian Queen who reigned about 375-425 AD. I'll be talking about her more in the future.
It shouldn't surprise us that follows of Muhammad aren't keen on Female Rulers. As the Hadiths relate.
"Narrated Abu Bakra: ... When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."" - Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219So thus we haven't often seen female rulers in Islamic Arabia.
Also Sahih Bukkari records.
`Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.".
Friday, January 13, 2017
The Koran says Israel belongs to the Israelites
The Koran and early Hadiths contain many declarations that the Land of Israel belongs to the Children of Israel, just as much as the Land of Arabia belongs to the Arabs.
This argument is made by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi The Qur'an and the Land of Israel.
You can also read The Quran is a Zionist Book.
There is also no support from the Quran for the alleged holiness of the Dome of the Rock. It supports only Mecca as being a Holy Site for Muslims. Regardless, in the context of where I believe The Temple was it can be rebuilt without needing to damage either The Dome or the Al Aqsa Mosque. Others meanwhile think it wasn't on what we now call The Temple Mount at all but in the City of David near the Gihon Spring. That is where I think David's Tabernacle was, so it could also be a valid spot to build The Temple. [Update: I have become more open to that theory but for different reasons. Also this.]
Islamic Eschatology foretells Israel's return to Her Land.
The verses cited from the Quran to support Anti-Semitism and/or make it look Anti-Semitic use the term "Jews" not Israel. And I think all are really more about specific Jewish groups as they existed in Muhammad's time. Mainly I think the Jews of Medina/Yathrib and Khyabar, (but perhaps also Jews of Yeman particularly Himyar). And the Prophetic passages linking a Sect of Jews to the Dajjal were about Jews of Mesopotamia at the time, when the Exilarchs still existed, and one had only a century earlier attempted to revolt against Persia. Also early Caliphs resettled the Jews of Khaybar in Iraq.
This argument is made by Shaykh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi The Qur'an and the Land of Israel.
You can also read The Quran is a Zionist Book.
There is also no support from the Quran for the alleged holiness of the Dome of the Rock. It supports only Mecca as being a Holy Site for Muslims. Regardless, in the context of where I believe The Temple was it can be rebuilt without needing to damage either The Dome or the Al Aqsa Mosque. Others meanwhile think it wasn't on what we now call The Temple Mount at all but in the City of David near the Gihon Spring. That is where I think David's Tabernacle was, so it could also be a valid spot to build The Temple. [Update: I have become more open to that theory but for different reasons. Also this.]
Islamic Eschatology foretells Israel's return to Her Land.
Qur'an 17:104 : And We said unto the Children of Israel after him: Dwell in the land; but when the promise of the Hereafter (wa3’dul akhirati) cometh to pass We shall bring you as a crowd gathered out of various nations.
Qur'an 59:2 : He it is Who caused those who disbelieved of the followers of the Book (Jews) to go forth from their homes (leave their exile) till the first gathering (Li awalil hashr) you did not think that they would go forth, while they were certain that their fortresses would defend them against Allah; but Allah came to them whence they did not expect, and cast terror into their hearts; they demolished their houses with their own hands and the hands of the believers; therefore take a lesson, O you who have eyes!
Other Quran verses on Israel belonging to Israel.Qur'an 17:4 : And We decreed for the Children of Israel in the Scripture: Ye verily will experience corruption (exile) in the earth twice, but Ye will then after (thumma) ascend (ta’lunna) to a great height (or station).
O Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfil your covenant with Me as I fulfil My Covenant with you, and fear none but Me. [Qur'an, sura 2:40]
Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other nations (for My Message). [Qur'an, sura 2:47]
And remember We took your covenant and We raised above you Mount (Sinai) : (Saying): "Hold firmly to what We have given you and bring (ever) to remembrance what is therein: Perchance ye may fear Allah." [Qur'an, sura 2:63]
"We [Allah] made a covenant with you [Children of Israel] and raised the Mount [Sinai] above you, saying: 'Grasp fervently [the Torah] what We [Allah] have given you, and bear in minds its precepts, that you may guard yourselves against evil'". [Qur'an, sura 2:65]
And remember We [Allah] made a covenant with the Children of Israel (to this effect): Worship none but Allah; treat with kindness your parents and kindred, and orphans and those in need; speak fair to the people; be steadfast in prayer; and practise regular charity. Then did ye turn back, except a few among you, and ye backslide (even now). [Qur'an, sura 2:83]
After this it is ye, the same people, who slay among yourselves, and banish a party of you from their homes; assist (Their enemies) against them, in guilt and rancour; and if they come to you as captives, ye ransom them, though it was not lawful for you to banish them. Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest? but what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life?- and on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous penalty. For Allah is not unmindful of what ye do.[Qur'an, sura 2:85]
We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! [Qur'an, sura 2:87]
Those to whom We [Allah] have sent the Book [Torah] study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: [Qur'an, sura 2:121]
O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others nations (for My Message).[Qur'an, sura 2:122]
"When God made a covenant with those [the Children of Israel] to whom the Scriptures were given He said: 'Proclaim these to mankind and do not suppress them'". [Qur'an, sura 3:187, "The 'Imrans"]
"God made a covenant with the Israelites and raised among them twelve chieftains [the princes of the twelve tribes of the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel]". [Qur'an, sura 5:12, "The Table"]
"Bear in mind the words of Moses to his people [the Children of Israel]. He said: 'Remember, my people, the favour which God has bestowed upon you. He [Allah] has raised up prophets among you, made you kings, and given you that [the Torah and the Land of Israel] which He has given to no other nation. Enter, my people, the holy land [of Israel] which God has assigned for you. Do not turn back, and thus lose all'". [Qur'an, sura 5:20, "The Table"]
"We [Allah] made a covenant with the Israelites and sent forth apostles among them". [Qur'an, sura 5:70, "The Table"]
"We [Allah] divided them [the Children of Israel] into twelve tribes, each a whole community". [Qur'an, sura 7:159, "The Heights"]
"We [Allah] sent forth Moses with Our signs, saying: 'Lead your people [the Children of Israel] out of the darkness into the light, and remind them of God's favours'. Surely in this there are signs for every steadfast, thankful man. Moses said to his people [the Children of Israel]: 'Remember God's goodness to you when He delivered you from Pharoah's nation, who had oppressed you cruelly, slaughtering your sons and sparing only your daughters. Surely that was a grevious trial by your Lord. For He had declared: 'If you give thanks, I will bestow abundance upon you: but if you deny My favours, My punishment is terrible indeed'". [Qur'an, sura 14:6-7, "Abraham"]
"But it was Our [Allah's] will to favour those [the Children of Israel] who were oppressed in the land [of Egypt] and to make them leaders among men, to bestow on them a noble heritage and to give them power in the land [of Egypt]; and to inflict on Pharoah, Haman and their warriors the very scourge they [the Egyptians] dreaded".[Qur'an, sura 28:3, "The Story"]
"We [Allah] gave the Book [Torah] to Moses (never doubt that you will meet him) and made it a guide for the Israelites. And when they grew steadfast and firmly believed in Our revelations, We appointed leaders from among them who gave guidance at Our bidding. On the Day of Resurrection your Lord will resolve their differences for them". [Qur'an, sura 32:22, "Adoration"]
"We [Allah] gave the Book [Torah] to the Israelites and bestowed on them wisdom and prophethood. We provided them with wholesome things and exalted them above the nations".[Qur'an, sura 45:17, "Kneeling"]
To those can be added Sura 5:32 which quotes the Mishna and gives Israel authority over the land of Israel."We sent forth Noah and Abraham and bestowed on their offspring [the Children of Israel] prophethood and the Scriptures [Torah]". [Qur'an, sura 57:26, "Iron"]
The verses cited from the Quran to support Anti-Semitism and/or make it look Anti-Semitic use the term "Jews" not Israel. And I think all are really more about specific Jewish groups as they existed in Muhammad's time. Mainly I think the Jews of Medina/Yathrib and Khyabar, (but perhaps also Jews of Yeman particularly Himyar). And the Prophetic passages linking a Sect of Jews to the Dajjal were about Jews of Mesopotamia at the time, when the Exilarchs still existed, and one had only a century earlier attempted to revolt against Persia. Also early Caliphs resettled the Jews of Khaybar in Iraq.
I've also seen it suggested that the positive references to Jews in the Quran and the Negative references don't even quite use the same word in the Arabic. That the Negative references are more like how Arabic renders the name of Judas and so they're using the name as an idiom for traitor, like saying Brutus or Benedick Arnold.
Sura 9, which was the last major Sura and the basis for laws like demanding Jews and Christians pay a Tax, the Jizya. Was only about Jews and Christians living in Arabia, Muhammad's political goal was only the Unification of Arabia (though a definition of Arabia that probably includes Jordan, the Golan Heights, and much of Syria and Iraq west of the Euphrates River).
The Bible also on the other hand gives little support for Israel taking anything East of the Jordan River (that Includes the Golan Heights). The land that equates to modern Jordan, the Golan Heights, and most if not all of Syria west of the Euphrates is given to Ishmael, Abraham's Firstborn. Prophecies of the future Messianic Kingdom clearly refer to Kedar and Nabojoth, (Ishmael's first two sons and the ones Muhammad is variantly claimed to descend from) still existing in this region, Isaiah 60:7.
What I consider to be the accurate Maps of the Tribal Allotments of Ezekiel [Update January 2021: I actually now consider that one out of date and would not include any of Syria or Lebanon] gives the 12 Tribes of Israel nothing East of The Jordan River or Sea of Galilee.
In ancient Israel three Tribes settled East of the Jordan early on, Half of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben. But if you read Numbers 32 where the origin of this arrangement is laid out, it's clearly presented as not what God wanted for them originally, and eventually they were the first carried into exile by Assyria. Dan also would wind up being affiliated with parts of Syria (and the Golan Heights), and that too is linked to Dan's disobedience, and where Jeroboam set up one of his Idols.
"What about Abraham being promised everything to the Euphrates River?" I'll bet you're asking. Well I have argued that his Firstborn Ishmael was not cut off as we often assume, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah, were given the lands between the Jordan and Euphrates, and also Arabia.
David also ruled all the way to the Euphrates. But the nations beyond the Tribal Allotments were ruled as Tributaries, he ruled like Jesus will in the future as a King of Kings. The Gentile Nations he conquered kept independent self governance.
Even in terms of Lebanon, we clearly see God was fine with Tyre's independence during the reigns of David and Solomon. It was only a problem when Israelites worshiped their gods.
If I were in charge of modern Israel, I would either give the Golan Heights to Jordan, or let the Druze (who descend from Ishmael's son Jether through the Greco-Roman era Iturians) self govern themselves there.
Originally the British were going to give all of modern Israel and Jordan to the Jews, but Jordan was wisely pealed off to be a nation for the Arabs of the region. The "Palestinians" already have a state. And to this day over 80% of the population of Jordan are Palestinians, including the current Queen and mother of their future King.
The Theology of the Koran I would never agree with. But it is in fact compatible with The Bible in terms of what land belongs to Israel and what land belongs to Ishmael. It's modern politicians and capitalists of various camps that want to create a conflict.
Sura 9, which was the last major Sura and the basis for laws like demanding Jews and Christians pay a Tax, the Jizya. Was only about Jews and Christians living in Arabia, Muhammad's political goal was only the Unification of Arabia (though a definition of Arabia that probably includes Jordan, the Golan Heights, and much of Syria and Iraq west of the Euphrates River).
The Bible also on the other hand gives little support for Israel taking anything East of the Jordan River (that Includes the Golan Heights). The land that equates to modern Jordan, the Golan Heights, and most if not all of Syria west of the Euphrates is given to Ishmael, Abraham's Firstborn. Prophecies of the future Messianic Kingdom clearly refer to Kedar and Nabojoth, (Ishmael's first two sons and the ones Muhammad is variantly claimed to descend from) still existing in this region, Isaiah 60:7.
What I consider to be the accurate Maps of the Tribal Allotments of Ezekiel [Update January 2021: I actually now consider that one out of date and would not include any of Syria or Lebanon] gives the 12 Tribes of Israel nothing East of The Jordan River or Sea of Galilee.
In ancient Israel three Tribes settled East of the Jordan early on, Half of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben. But if you read Numbers 32 where the origin of this arrangement is laid out, it's clearly presented as not what God wanted for them originally, and eventually they were the first carried into exile by Assyria. Dan also would wind up being affiliated with parts of Syria (and the Golan Heights), and that too is linked to Dan's disobedience, and where Jeroboam set up one of his Idols.
"What about Abraham being promised everything to the Euphrates River?" I'll bet you're asking. Well I have argued that his Firstborn Ishmael was not cut off as we often assume, Ishmael, and the sons of Keturah, were given the lands between the Jordan and Euphrates, and also Arabia.
David also ruled all the way to the Euphrates. But the nations beyond the Tribal Allotments were ruled as Tributaries, he ruled like Jesus will in the future as a King of Kings. The Gentile Nations he conquered kept independent self governance.
Even in terms of Lebanon, we clearly see God was fine with Tyre's independence during the reigns of David and Solomon. It was only a problem when Israelites worshiped their gods.
If I were in charge of modern Israel, I would either give the Golan Heights to Jordan, or let the Druze (who descend from Ishmael's son Jether through the Greco-Roman era Iturians) self govern themselves there.
Originally the British were going to give all of modern Israel and Jordan to the Jews, but Jordan was wisely pealed off to be a nation for the Arabs of the region. The "Palestinians" already have a state. And to this day over 80% of the population of Jordan are Palestinians, including the current Queen and mother of their future King.
The Theology of the Koran I would never agree with. But it is in fact compatible with The Bible in terms of what land belongs to Israel and what land belongs to Ishmael. It's modern politicians and capitalists of various camps that want to create a conflict.
Update January 2021: Here are some YouTube Videos
Sarah Zoabi: Proud Muslim Zionist
I'm a Muslim Zionist, Here's Why
LaChayum: Kasim Hafeed, Muslim Zionist
I've also learned that many early Islamic Sources refer to the Al Aqsa Mosque of the Quran as another location in the area of Mecca in a village called Jiranah or Masjid al-Jiʿrānah (مَسْجِد ٱلْجِعْرَانَة).
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
Sunday, January 8, 2017
Alexander Hamilton did not believe "all men are created equal"
Sadly none of the Founding Fathers held views on "Race" that are acceptable to modern standards. However they did not all hold the same views either.
It is a fact that pretty much all of the notable Founding Fathers opposed Slavery. The Wallbuilders website does a good Job documenting quotes on this subject. But they are a website with a Dominionist agenda, ignoring plenty of the context of all of that. I am also someone well aware that opposing Slavery was not in itself proof of not being a Racist, many Whites opposed Slavery because they wanted Africans gone from the country entirely. There was often a genuine outrage at how Slaves were treated, but that was often little more significant then being outraged by Animal Cruelty.
I've seen it claimed a few times that George Washington freed his slaves when the Revolutionary War ended, but Thomas Jefferson did not. Out of an agenda to try and make Jefferson seem the worst of all of them on this issue. This is false, Washington didn't free his slaves then, I know this because there are quotes of him explaining why he didn't. The State laws in Virginia pretty much made it impossible for a Freed Slave to remain Free. Thomas Jefferson also lived in Virginia and provided the exact same explanation. You can morally question handling the situation that way if you want, I don't know what I would have done if it were me, but you can't just ignore it and deny that there was a reason for people who opposed slavery to continue owning slaves regardless. Thomas Jefferson included a condemnation of slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, it was the Southern delegates who had that part removed.
Depending on what you choose to emphasize, it can be easy to make Alexander Hamilton's views on Slavery seem preferable to Thomas Jefferson's. That is unfortunate to me as on nearly every other issue I certainly see Alexander Hamilton as the worst of the Founding Fathers. And thus I lament the fact that a popular Musical praised by my fellow SJWs for it's Ethnic casting has made Hamilton suddenly the most popular of the Founding Fathers.
Alexander Hamilton was anti-immigration. “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.” Quoted Grant and Davison, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, p. 52.
Hamilton also once said. “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second.” Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.51.
So Hamilton may or may not have believed poor uneducated lower class white people were equal to Negreos. But he certainly did not believe "All Men are Crated Equal". It shows that that quote came from Jefferson not Hamilton, doubt it's sincerity all you want.
When people say things like "the Electoral Collage exists because the Founding Fathers didn't think the common people could be trusted to make decisions". What they really mean are the Hamiltonians.
Alexander Hamilton wanted to make the Presidency a life time appointment, and same with Senators. If he'd had his way the President would be a King in all but name. There was prior precedent in Human History for a King being democratically elected, chiefly Pre-Republic Rome.
Speaking of Rome. Hamilton once told Jefferson that Julius Caesar was the greatest man who ever lived.
Alexander Hamilton actually liked the from of Government Britain had at that time, he viewed it as nearly the ideal form of Government. He supported the American Revolution only because he felt the Colonies should have their own Parliament and not be Subject to one across an Ocean. (Men like Hamilton saw themselves as revolting against Parliament far more so then The King.) Parliament did not represent the entire population of Britain back then, only the Nobility and wealthy land owners.
That is why I find Webster Tarpley's praising of Hamilton hilarious, he clearly does not know what he's talking about.
People will sometimes use Thomas Jefferson's support for the French Revolution to say he approved of The Terror. This is done taking things way out of context. His last strong statement of support for the French Jacobins was in 1793 before he had even learned that King Louis XVI had been executed, because news didn't travel as fast back then. The full Reign of Terror started even later then that. Jefferson did, once that had happened, condemn Robespierre.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/french-revolution
Alexander Hamilton however condemned the French Revolution from the start, in 1789 long before any of why it's viewed so darkly today happened. Hamilton supported our Revolution based on geographical independence, but the Peasantry of France wanting basic Human Rights was not something he could bring himself to Support.
That Hamilton had at least one quote specifically condemning Robespierre I find ironic. Because in many ways though not all Robespierre was the Hamiltonian of the French Revolution. He too wanted a Strong Authoritarian Central Government with a strong leader. He too wanted a Republic that was a Monarchy in all but name.
In Conspiracy Theory circles, the chief disagreement between Hamilton and Jefferson talked about tends to be the Bank. Depending on one's agenda each gets accused of being the pawn of Rich Bankers while the other is painted as their enemy. I unlike a lot of people am least certain of my views on economic issues, they are too complicated for me to grasp.
However the problem with Webster Tarpley's pro-Hamilton narrative is that even non Conspiracy Theorists like Wikipedia admit that the Bank of The United States was partly owned by Foreign Bankers. So his claim that it was a protection against British manipulation of our Economy is just plain wrong. Tarpley constantly talks about the British system being the ultimate Oligarchy, but he ignores the Bank of England so he can praise Hamilton while avoiding that the Bank of The United States was directly molded after the Bank of England. Now I mostly agree with Tarpley on Donald Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/opinion/what-hamilton-forgets-about-alexander-hamilton.html
It is a fact that pretty much all of the notable Founding Fathers opposed Slavery. The Wallbuilders website does a good Job documenting quotes on this subject. But they are a website with a Dominionist agenda, ignoring plenty of the context of all of that. I am also someone well aware that opposing Slavery was not in itself proof of not being a Racist, many Whites opposed Slavery because they wanted Africans gone from the country entirely. There was often a genuine outrage at how Slaves were treated, but that was often little more significant then being outraged by Animal Cruelty.
I've seen it claimed a few times that George Washington freed his slaves when the Revolutionary War ended, but Thomas Jefferson did not. Out of an agenda to try and make Jefferson seem the worst of all of them on this issue. This is false, Washington didn't free his slaves then, I know this because there are quotes of him explaining why he didn't. The State laws in Virginia pretty much made it impossible for a Freed Slave to remain Free. Thomas Jefferson also lived in Virginia and provided the exact same explanation. You can morally question handling the situation that way if you want, I don't know what I would have done if it were me, but you can't just ignore it and deny that there was a reason for people who opposed slavery to continue owning slaves regardless. Thomas Jefferson included a condemnation of slavery in the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, it was the Southern delegates who had that part removed.
Depending on what you choose to emphasize, it can be easy to make Alexander Hamilton's views on Slavery seem preferable to Thomas Jefferson's. That is unfortunate to me as on nearly every other issue I certainly see Alexander Hamilton as the worst of the Founding Fathers. And thus I lament the fact that a popular Musical praised by my fellow SJWs for it's Ethnic casting has made Hamilton suddenly the most popular of the Founding Fathers.
Alexander Hamilton was anti-immigration. “the influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities.” Quoted Grant and Davison, The Founders of the Republic on Immigration, Naturalization, and Aliens, p. 52.
Hamilton also once said. “All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well born, the others the mass of the people…The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge and determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share of government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second.” Democracy for the Few. Michael Parenti. St. Martin’s Press. New York. 1977. p.51.
So Hamilton may or may not have believed poor uneducated lower class white people were equal to Negreos. But he certainly did not believe "All Men are Crated Equal". It shows that that quote came from Jefferson not Hamilton, doubt it's sincerity all you want.
When people say things like "the Electoral Collage exists because the Founding Fathers didn't think the common people could be trusted to make decisions". What they really mean are the Hamiltonians.
Alexander Hamilton wanted to make the Presidency a life time appointment, and same with Senators. If he'd had his way the President would be a King in all but name. There was prior precedent in Human History for a King being democratically elected, chiefly Pre-Republic Rome.
Speaking of Rome. Hamilton once told Jefferson that Julius Caesar was the greatest man who ever lived.
Alexander Hamilton actually liked the from of Government Britain had at that time, he viewed it as nearly the ideal form of Government. He supported the American Revolution only because he felt the Colonies should have their own Parliament and not be Subject to one across an Ocean. (Men like Hamilton saw themselves as revolting against Parliament far more so then The King.) Parliament did not represent the entire population of Britain back then, only the Nobility and wealthy land owners.
That is why I find Webster Tarpley's praising of Hamilton hilarious, he clearly does not know what he's talking about.
People will sometimes use Thomas Jefferson's support for the French Revolution to say he approved of The Terror. This is done taking things way out of context. His last strong statement of support for the French Jacobins was in 1793 before he had even learned that King Louis XVI had been executed, because news didn't travel as fast back then. The full Reign of Terror started even later then that. Jefferson did, once that had happened, condemn Robespierre.
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/french-revolution
Alexander Hamilton however condemned the French Revolution from the start, in 1789 long before any of why it's viewed so darkly today happened. Hamilton supported our Revolution based on geographical independence, but the Peasantry of France wanting basic Human Rights was not something he could bring himself to Support.
That Hamilton had at least one quote specifically condemning Robespierre I find ironic. Because in many ways though not all Robespierre was the Hamiltonian of the French Revolution. He too wanted a Strong Authoritarian Central Government with a strong leader. He too wanted a Republic that was a Monarchy in all but name.
In Conspiracy Theory circles, the chief disagreement between Hamilton and Jefferson talked about tends to be the Bank. Depending on one's agenda each gets accused of being the pawn of Rich Bankers while the other is painted as their enemy. I unlike a lot of people am least certain of my views on economic issues, they are too complicated for me to grasp.
However the problem with Webster Tarpley's pro-Hamilton narrative is that even non Conspiracy Theorists like Wikipedia admit that the Bank of The United States was partly owned by Foreign Bankers. So his claim that it was a protection against British manipulation of our Economy is just plain wrong. Tarpley constantly talks about the British system being the ultimate Oligarchy, but he ignores the Bank of England so he can praise Hamilton while avoiding that the Bank of The United States was directly molded after the Bank of England. Now I mostly agree with Tarpley on Donald Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/11/opinion/what-hamilton-forgets-about-alexander-hamilton.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)