The Priesthood of all Believers

I want to make a post on that doctrine on this Blog, since it fits into the overarching theme of opposing organized Religion.

First of all it's a natural implication of Believers now being God's Temple/Tabernacle.  A doctrine I've defended mostly on my Prophecy Blog, in posts like the one on there not being a Millennial Temple, or on The Church being The Bride of Christ.  Note, the latter of those posts was made back when I was more Dispensational then I am now, I have revised my view on that subject since. 

But as far as passages specifically about the Priesthood of Believers.  We could start with 1 Peter 2:4-10.

"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.  Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.  Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

In The Book of Revelation it's clearly taught in Chapter 1 verses 4-6.  And it becomes a part of determining who the 24 Elders are because of Chapter 5 verses 6-10.  (I view the 24 Elders as among those saints who were Resurrected in 30 AD in Matthew 27:51-53.)

As far as those who might object to this because of how Torah centric they are, and would thus be offended by the notion of the Aaronic Levitical Priesthood becoming obsolete.  This is anticipated in The Torah itself in Exodus 19:5-6.  In fact I think the above quoted 1 Peter passage was drawing on these verses.

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel."

This wasn't fulfilled during the Old Testament because Israel kept disobeying.  Now with the Blood of Jesus shed, the true intent of Yahuah can finally be fulfilled.

The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13.  Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.

In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to call God Eternal.

 Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17.  And again in Genesis 5.  And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6.  If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life.  Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it completely illogical.

The Book of Hebrews is considered the definitive discussion of this doctrine.  Before mentioning it I wanted to show that the Doctrine isn't dependent on Paul, since some people want to reject Paul.

Much of that is built around Melchizedek, and his Priesthood as superior to Aaron's.  Psalm 110 is one of the most quoted Psalms in the New Testament, Jesus clearly defined it's subject as The Messiah when he quotes it in Matthew 22.  And it refers to the Messiah as a Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

I also view the Melchizedek narrative of Genesis 14 with it's Bread and Wine as the true Torah precedent for the Last Supper/Eucharist, which was NOT the Passover Seder, that would have been eaten the night after Jesus died on The Cross as the Lambs were slaughtered.

Another Priest who predated the Priesthood of Aaron was Jethro, the Priest of Midian.  Jethro was around when the instructions in Exodus, Leviticus and even early Numbers were given.  He returns to his own people when the Israeites head to Kadesh, no where is he told that his Priesthood is now over because of Aaron's being founded, he was still the Priest of Midian.

As far as Ezekiel 40-48 goes, that is discussed when I address the Temple doctrine on my Prophecy blog.  I don't believe there will be a future Temple building.  Regardless the land allotted to the Priests and Levites in Ezekiel I think will probably indeed be given to the descendants of Levi and Aaron in the Millennium and/or New Creation.  That will be their post-Resurrection retirement.  Likewise with the land given to the Nasi/Prince (David) and his children.

I also agree with those who've argued that Jesus had Aaronic blood via his mother.  I think much you can read as eschatological references to Priests or Levites is being not strictly literal.  It's Aaron's Blood being passed on to us via Jesus Blood that was shed on the Cross, and us being made His Seed.

The Torah places the Law on The Mountain of The Curse.

Deuteronomy 11:29.

"And it shall come to pass, when Yahuah thy God hath brought thee in unto the land whither thou goest to possess it, that thou shalt put the blessing upon mount Gerizim, and the curse upon mount Ebal."

Deuteronomy 27:1-4-8

 "And Moses with the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, Keep all the commandments which I command you this day.  And it shall be on the day when ye shall pass over Jordan unto the land which Yahuah thy God giveth thee, that thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaster them with plaster:  And thou shalt write upon them all the words of this law, when thou art passed over, that thou mayest go in unto the land which Yahuah thy God giveth thee, a land that floweth with milk and honey; as Yahuah God of thy fathers hath promised thee.  Therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which I command you this day, in mount Ebal, and thou shalt plaster them with plaster...........  And thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainly."

This is my problem with the Torah Worshiping movement, The Torah itself acknowledges that the Law is a Curse we are to one day be liberated from.   Now I believe choosing to keep the Law can be good, but we are not under any obligation.  See The Law of Moses and Christianity.

So The Torah agrees with Galatians 3:10-13.

Now some will use textual variations to say this is wrong, obviously the Law was on Mt Gerizim.  The Samaritan Pentateuch adds their own references to Gerizim, and changed Deuteronomy 27 to say the Altar here was to be set up on Gerizim not Ebal.  But it agrees that Gerizim was the Blessing Mountain, and Ebal the Cursing Mountain.

Now in some areas, I have become open to consider that the SP sometimes may be the correct version, contrary to my past strict Masoretic adherence.  That may be the subject of an upcoming post.  But not on this issue.

The Book of Joshua in Chapter 8 verses 30-33 verifies that this Altar was built on Ebal. The Samaritans have their own version of Joshua, but it is clearly a much younger text.

Archeology verifies that a structure was build on Ebal going back to the Bronze Age.  Nothing was built on the Samaritan Mt Gerizim till the time of Alexander The Great.  Some have even theorized that the Samaritan Mountain isn't the Biblical Gerizim but perhaps the true Gerizim was to the North of Ebal.

The Samaritans' particular reverence for Gerizim isn't the only motive to want to change this.  So no I'm not impressed by one DSS text that seems to agree with the Samaritan version here.  Many would be uncomfortable with the implications of the Law being placed on the Cursed Mountain.  Like the Desert Tabernacle website, who are willing to change the Torah to suit their preferences regardless of a textual basis.

And that's the thing, there was no reason to change this the other way, those who preserve the Torah tend to revere it, the Masoretic Text was preserved by Kariates not Rabbis, so they would never choose to change it in a way that diminishes the Law.

The Septuagint and Vulgate sometimes seem to agree with the SP readings, but they don't here.

I may even think the Samaritan version of Exodus 20 is more correct then most people do.  It's apparently a misrepresentation when people claim it makes this part of the Ten Commandments.  And Deuteronomy is mostly about repeating commands given earlier, hence it's name.  But if so, I believe the original version of that would have read Ebal not Gerizim.

The Law is the Curse, but the Seed of Isaac is the one Promised to Bless all Nations and Families.  So maybe the Samaritans are right about Isaac being offered on Gerizim, the Vulgate seems to possibly agree with the Samaritan reading of Genesis 22:2, as saying Moreh rather then Moriah.  Only problem is I feel inclined to believe Jesus was Crucified at about the same spot Isaac was Offered.

The Resurrection in The Torah.

In Matthew 22:31-32 Jesus proves The Resurrection of The Dead from The Torah to the Sadducces.

"But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, "I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?" God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

Josephus tells us a few important things about the Sadducees that this part of The Gospel narrative verifies.  They denied The Resurrection, as well as The Afterlife.  And they limited the Canon to just the Torah.  That's why Jesus didn't just prove it by quoting Ezekiel 37, Isaiah 26, Daniel 12, or Psalm 16:10.

While the Sadducees of the First Century were wiped out in 70 AD, there are some just like them around today.  Like the website TheDesertTabernacle.com.  And the YouTube Channel Remember The Commands.

While by definition no Christians can be strictly Torah only, there are some within the Hebrew Roots movement that get pretty close, the gateway drug is Rob Skiba calling the Torah "The Bible of The Bible", but others go further then that, often deciding to do things like reject David as a tyrant.

Since most today don't have The Torah as memorized as Jesus immediate listeners in Matthew 22 did, I want to break down Jesus argument here.  I think there is more then one verse of The Torah being utilized.

Strictly speaking he's directly quoting Exodus 3:6 (as well as 3:15-16 and 4:5), where the voice from the Burning Bush calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  With terminology that is clearly present tense.

However what he says was also bound to bring to mind Deuteronomy 5:26.  The KJV's reading of that verse is.

"For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived?"

Yahuah being called the "Living God" here could be interpreted as carrying the meaning of "God of the Living" and thus part of the basis of Jesus' argument.

If it was only one of either the Afterlife or Resurrection the Sadducees were denying, Jesus argument here wouldn't quite be so destructive to them.  It's that they denied both that made God proclaiming himself in the present tense to be the God of those three individuals long dead by Moses time, that proves their lives are not simply over and done with.

That was Jesus argument for the Resurrection in The Torah.  The Talmud (composed by descendants of the Hillel Pharisees) has it's own.  Referencing Exodus 15:1, and also possibly Deuteronomy 32.

“Rabbi Meir asked, whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, ‘Then will Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord.’ It is not said ‘sang’ but will sing; hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah” (Sanhedrin 90b).

I'm not sure that argument will hold up under scrutiny as well as Jesus' argument.  But it's interesting to us Christians since Revelation 15:3 seems to refer back to this same Torah subject.

The Samaritans are also a Torah as the only real Canon community, and they affirm The Resurrection based on Deuteronomy 32:39.

See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

Genesis 22 implies Abraham believed Isaac would be resurrected, God had earlier promised him he'd have many descendants specifically through Isaac.  And in verse 5 he tells the servants that he and Isaac both will be back.

Also the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine is partly built on seeing Moses blessing on Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 as implying Josephus or someone of Joseph will be sacrificed and then resurrected.

I normally talk about the doctrine of the Resurrection on my Prophecy Blog. But I do have an earlier post on this Blog responding to Lex Meyer's book.

Since I tie my belief in The Resurrection to my belief in Universal Salvation, perhaps this is a good time to discus proving Universal Salvation from The Torah.  I made a thread on the subject in a Facebook group recently, so I've gathered some thoughts on that.

In Genesis 12:3 God promises Abraham that in him will "All the Families of the Earth be Blessed", families could be translated peoples.  Genesis 22:18 says in Abraham's Seed shall "all the Nations of the Earth be blessed", nations could also be translated gentiles.

A lot of other arguments are more typological, like the Law of the Jubilee.

There is also an important message to be learned from the Image of the Burning Bush itself.  What caught Moses attention was that it was a bush that was on fire yet the fire did not consume it.

I was suggested an article about the story of Joseph's Brothers being used to make the case for the redemption of Judas, who Jesus defined as more damned then anyone else.  And also a website called God's Kingdom ministries.

And then there is the fact that Dispensationists love to go on and on about how God's promise to Abraham was not dependent on Obedience. Well I do believe God will literally fulfill that Covenant.  But perhaps it's also a picture of God's love for Humanity as a whole and every individual Human.  He intends to Save us regardless of our obedience or faithfulness.

Jesus' Instruction about Forgiveness, and Universal Salvation.

Matthew chapter 18, verses 21 through 35 (the last verse of the chapter) are refereed to as the "Instruction about Forgiveness".   Verse 22 is the famous 70 times 7 times quote.  And starting in verse 23 is a parable, explicitly likened unto The Kingdom.

The King forgives a a servant the debt they owed him.  That servant goes on to prove unwilling to forgive someone who owed him a debt.  When the King heard of this, he was very upset and scolded him and then comes the last two verses

"And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.  So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."

Now, back when I was just arguing for Eternal Security, this would have been an issue to me.  I can see those teaching Salvation can be lost using part of this story's ending out of context.  But what I emphasized in Bold is the key, it was clearly not an endless punishment.

The fact that I've shown Aionios doesn't always mean Eternal.  Means we can clearly apply this to The Lake of Fire.

And before anyone tries to argue this is only for Believers who fail to forgive.  The tone of this story is clearly that this person being someone who the Lord had already forgiven and shown mercy on, made him more angry.  So it seems illogical to suggest a non Believer's punishment for their debt would be worse.

Gendered Hebrew names and Transgender people in The Bible

I've done one post defending Trans gender people Biblically already.

In Hebrew, certain grammatical rules make some names pretty indisputably either Masculine or Feminine names.  The most well understood by me being that names ending with a Heh or Tav tend to be Feminine.

Now this can complicate looking at names in English since both those letters have other letters that seemingly sometimes become the same letter in English, like Tav and Teth both becoming a T and/or Th.  There are two names for example that become Noah in English.  The Patriarch of the family that survived The Flood was a Noah ending in a Het, so Masculine.  But the daughter of Zelophead was a Noah ending in a Heh and thus Feminine.  Selah and Terah of the ancestors of Abraham ended with Het so those are Masculine names.

Sometimes however a name that seems unambiguously of one Gender, is seemingly used by individuals of the other Gender.

The first Shelomith in The Bible is in Leviticus 24 and is clearly a woman.  Later however a few Shelomiths seem, in the KJV translation at least, to be males.  Like the one in Ezra 8:10 or 1 Chronicles 26.  2 Chronicles 11:20 lists a Shelomith among the children of Rehoboam, I believe that was a daughter because of my Song of Solomon theory, but others are inclined to assume only sons are named in verses like that.

I'm suggesting that maybe sometimes apparently confusing uses of certain names are evidence of Transgender people in The Bible.  In many cases it can be unclear whether The Bible is recording the name given at Birth/Circumcision, or a name taken later.  So it may not always be easy to guess which kind of Trans they could have been.

Also plenty of verses translate "Ben" in a way that suggests it can be gender neutral, especially when used in plural (Children), even though the default is to translate it Son.   And also be aware that sometimes translations include more pronouns then the Hebrew and Greek text imply., so often Gendered pronouns appear only because of preconceived notions about the Gender of the person being refereed to.

However "begating" offspring I do believe refers strictly to the technically male role in reproduction, and so anyone who "begat" offspring must have been assigned Male at birth.  Just as "bearing" children refers to the female role.

So you're about to read the result of me going through the 1 Chronicles genealogy looking for examples of Trans Women via people with feminine names who Begat offspring.

Elishah ends with a Heh, Elishah was of the children of Javan son of Japheth (Japheth ends in a Teth so it's masculine).

Raamah ends with a Heh, but The Bible avoids using "begat" when referring to Sheba and Dedan as Raamah's sons.  So at first I thought I had an example here, but it turns out Raamah could easily be a Cis woman, or maybe a Trans man or Non-Binary.

Diklah of the children of Joktan ends with a Heh. As does Havilah, a name that pops up among Cush's children also.  But Jerah ends in a Het and is also the Semitic name for the Moon which was seemingly always viewed as masculine by the Semitic near east. Hazarmaveth ends with a Tav.

Dumah of the children of Ishmael also ends with a Heh.  No examples of Dumah being described as begating anyone.  Isaiah 21:11 however associates Dumah with Seir, a region tied to Edom.  I've cited before Bill Cooper 's After The Flood saying the Idumeans descended from Dumah not Edom.  I could see a documentary hypothesis proponent suggesting Dumah and Edom as conflicting Genesis origins for the same nation, since the name possibly share a common root.

Esau married a daughter of Ishmael, (possibly two depending on how you view the different accounts of his wives), in Genesis 36 a daughter of Ishmael bares him sons.  Could it be Dumah and one of the wives of Esau were the same person?

Kedamah also ends with a Heh, in this case Kedamah can even be explained as a feminine form of Kademon, which means "East", east of the Jordan/DeadSea/Arabah is mainly where the Ishmaelites originally settled.  But perhaps most surprising is how the first born of Ishmael, Nabojoth, ends with a Tav.

Of the children and grandchildren borne to Abraham by Keturah.  Shuah ends in a Het so is a masculine name.  But Ephah ends with a Heh,, and is later the name of a Concubine of Caleb in 1 Chronicles 2:46.  Eldaah ends with a Heh as well.  But I'm still searching for an example of one who begat children to make my case airtight.

Aiah and Anah both end with a Heh.  Anah is a name that within Genesis 36 seems to be applied to both a male and a female.  Being called both a Bath of Zibeon and a Ben of Zibeon.  Since it seems possibly Bath is used more strictly gender-wise anyway it's safe to say Anah was a daughter.

Now I enter 1 Chronicles 2, and we reach Judah.  Judah ends in a Heh, and Judah begat at least 5 children.  But Judah is someone we know enough about that it's hard to imagine the intent was for this name to imply anything Feminine.  Nothing in Judah's story seems to suggest Gender Identity being an issue.  Not that I can deduce from my limited Cis-Het experience anyway.

And it's a pretty common male name, largely from people being named after this Judah.  So this is perhaps where the critics of the hypothesis I'm building here would really see it's Achilles heel.  Judah was simply named after the Hebrew word for "praise", which also ends with a Heh.  In general, Judith is viewed as the feminine form of Judah.  There seem to be less exceptions to the Tav ending implying Gender then the Heh.

This does make me, as someone who is admittedly no where near an expert on linguistics, ask how do Hebrew scholars decide when ending with a Heh is Feminine, and when it is not?

A lot of the exceptions to ending in a Heh being Feminine are for theophoric names ending with Yah or YHWH.  Others seems to be when there is a Vav before the Heh, which is the case with the name of YHWH itself.  And that causes to me to wonder if there is a desire among scholars to deny that Yah and YHWH could be technically feminine names.  Meanwhile Elah and Eloah are possibly feminine forms of El (God) that are both used of YHWH in the Hebrew Bible.

At any rate the Hebrew word for Praise perhaps ends with a Heh because it's frequently used to praise YHWH who's name ends with a Heh in both long and short forms.

Eleasah is a name that ends with a Heh.  1 Chronicles 2:39-40 says that Helez begat Eleasah and Eleasah begat Sisamai.  So I finally found something.

Two of David's children born in Jerusalem are named Eliphelet, but that name ends in a Teth not a Tav.

I've refereed to Shelomith and Shulamith as variant forms of the same Feminine version of Solomon's name, and they both end with Tav.  Are the verses with Shelomith that sound like they're referring to Men referring to Transgender people perhaps?  I can't be sure.  But 1 Chronicles 3:19 does refer to a Shelomith as the sister of her brothers so that refutes any attempt to deny it's ever feminine.

Solomon is an interesting name on it's own however.  The Hebrew is Shlomoh, an example of a name ending in Vav-Heh.  So maybe that name itself could be Feminine?  It could be Salma or Salmon is the actual masculine form, Solomon possibly comes from Greek texts combining the names Shlomoh and Salmon.

At no point is Solomon described as Begating any of his children, they're just called Solomon's son or daughters.  Naamah the Ammonitess is refereed to as the mother of Rehoboam, but is not described as bearing him per say.  Naamah is also never referred to as a Queen or Queen Mother, a fact probably most likely to mean she was one of the Concubines, but still interesting.  Naamah is definitely a female name, it ends with a Heh and was in Genesis 4 the sister of Tubal-Cain.

I've also often wondered if Solomon might have been Asexual or something, having seemingly less children then his father or son in-spite of having way more wives and concubines.

As King, Solomon definitely presented as male, since The Hebrew Bible has distinct terms for Female Monarchs.

Another name of Solomon's was Jeddiah, the name Nathan the Prophet gave to Solomon.  This name is another one that would always been assumed to be male chiefly because it's Yah Theophoric.

There is speculation that Lemuel of Proverbs 31 is a name for Solomon, perhaps specifically the name Bathsheba gave Solomon at birth.  It seems like a Male name though there are women in The Bible who's name ends in L, something I didn't want to get into here.  Those examples aren't El Theophoric names however.

The word Koheleth appears only in the Book of Ecclesiastes, the KJV always translates it Preacher though Assembler would be more accurate, the name Ecclesiastes is essentially a Greek translation of this name.  It is feminine, it is not even controversial to say it's Feminine, the Strongs says it's Feminine.  Yet this is a name or title being used of the book's Author, who's usually assumed to be Solomon for good reason even though the name of Solomon is never used in the book.  Sometimes the Koheleth is refereed to with male pronouns in English, but that could be translation issues.  The first verse of the book says the Koheleth is the Son of David and King in Jerusalem.

And at this point it occurs to me I forget something very early on. Right at the start.

Seth ends with a Tav, and Seth Begat Enosh, and many other sons and daughters.  Could Seth have been a Trans Woman right at the start of The Bible?

This is all speculative, and not at all something I want to build a major Doctrine on.  Especially the Solomon part, that's the most speculative.  But it's interesting how something Conservative Christians want to reject can potentially make more sense out of some confusing details of The Bible.

Update: It turns out, on the subject of Salmon ancestor of David, father of Boaz.  The KJV rendering obscures this, but in Ruth 4:20 the name is spelled Salmah, ending with a Heh (Strong number 8009) while in Ruth 4:21 it is Salmon.   Sometimes this person is also called Salma, like in 1 Chronicles 2:11 (another Salma towards the end of that chapter may or may not be the same person).

Then there is the matter of this Salmon/Salmah's spouse.  Salma was likely assigned male at Birth because Matthew 1:5 says "and Salmon begat boos of Racab".  This Racab is often viewed by Christians as the same person as the Rachab of Joshua, the Harlot of Jericho who helped the Spies Joshua sent.  Fitting a presumed theme of the women named in Jesus genealogy being women who did or were perceived as committing sexual sins.  And that would happen to fit my own agenda of deconstructing Augustinian sexual morality, a whore being an ancestor of Jesus.

But the Greek spelling in Matthew is Racab.  While Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 when unambiguously referring to the Rachab of Joshua use the spelling Raab.  Meanwhile I find it unlikely chronologically that the father of Boas was a contemporary of Joshua.

A Hebrew name perhaps far more likely to explain the origin of the Greek Racab is Rekab, rendered in the KJV as Rechab.  But this name is a male name, given to at least two male individuals.  But the last verse of 1 Chronicles 2, while talking about clans of Judah (one of whom being the founder of Bethlehem Ephratah) and right before returning to David's genealogy, refers to "the House of Rekab".  The Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 2:55 uses almost the exact same spelling for Rekab that Matthew 1:5 uses for Racab, only the first vowel is different, Recab rather then Racab.  There are other places where Matthew and the Septuagint use different vowels for the same name, like Solomon being Salomon in the Septuagint.

Is it possible that Salmah and Racab were a marriage between a Trans woman and a Trans man?  Or maybe Salma was non-binary?  Making Boas the son of a Trasngender couple?  Remember these are Ancestors of Jesus Christ.

Update November 27 2017:  Another theory about Salmon.

This second theory involves possibly backing off on my initial absoluteness of anyone who "Begats" offspring being assigned male at birth.

However I do believe Generations are skipped sometimes (Genesis 10 and 11 are different because they give numbers of years, which was clearly for a reason, if there is skipping there, it's skipping that doesn't change the total amount of time that passes).  Especially with the line from Judah to David. I have that time-frame as over 300 years longer then Ussher's dates.  And even in Ussher's time-frame only 10 generation was a little bit of a stretch.

In which case the actual biological father of Boaz could descend from Salmon.

And I still think the Racab of Matthew's genealogy is the Rekab of the last verse of 1 Chronicles 2.  But it could be what Matthew's saying is Boaz mother descends from Rekab.

The thing about the Hebrew of Ruth 4:20-21 I can't get over, is that Salmah is used of this person being Begat, and Salmon of them begating Boaz.  Which would imply Salmah is the name they were given at birth, and Salmon is the name they went by later, by the time they had children.  Which creates the impression that that they are a Trans Man.  And so there is no need for me to refrain from using Male pronouns for him.

The thing is, I do think it's important that David's Y-Chromosome come directly from Judah and Pharez.  So I should investigate who is the assigned Male at birth individual that Salmon reproduced with.

Again, Salmon is Salma in 1 Chronicles 2:11 (Salma could have been constructed to be a compromise name).  Another Salma appears at the end of the Chapter.  This Salma is, if no generations were skipped, the same number of generations from Hezron, yet by a different son of Hezron.  But having the same name isn't the only thing making me wonder if they are the same person, it's also that Salma son of Caleb Ben-Hur (generally assumed not to be the same Caleb prominent in Numbers and Joshua) is called the "Father of Bethlehem".  Whether that means he literally had a son named Bethlehem or not, the main point is it's saying his family founded the city of Bethlehem.  Ephrath is also the name of a female ancestor of this Caleb, Hur is called the Father of Bethlehem in 1 Chronicles 4 in a verse reminding us he's the firstborn of Ephrathah.  And because of the Book of Ruth, and 1 Samuel, and Micah 4-5 and the Nativity narrative, we know that Salmon's descendants were also inhabitants of Bethlehem, and some were prominent ones.

Caleb Ben-Hur is not described as begating Salma.  Could it be Salma was really a Son in Law of Caleb Ben-Hur?

The reason this Caleb is usually assumed to be separate from the famous Caleb is that the latter presumably had a different father.  But Jephunneh ends with a Heh, and they're never called the father or son of anyone.  And we're not told anything about their ancestry, except possibly that they're a Kenezite (which would seemingly make them not of Judah but a gentile).  Jephunneh could be Caleb's mother.

Caleb Ben-Hur is the same number of generations (if none are skipped, and even if there is skipping, they may skip evenly) from Hezron as Nahshon, who was the Prince of Judah during the same time Caleb son of Jephunneh was Judah's spy.  And an Israelite named Hur was prominent at that time as well.

Caleb son of Jephunneh was given Hebron, but 1 Chronicles 2 associates Hebron with the same clan it's Caleb came from.  There are a few things in 1 Chronicles 4 repeated from 1 Chronicles 2.

One of the "sons" of Caleb son of Jephunneh in 1 Chronicles 4:15 is named Elah.  A name that can very easily be argued to be Grammatically Feminine.  Three are named in total.  Why say "the sons of Elah, even Kenaz" but not refer to the sons of the others?  1 Chronicles 4 can be pretty confusing.  I think the Kenaz who is refereed to as a brother of Caleb is a maternal half-brother.

Caleb Ben-Hur has three named sons in 1 Chronicles 2, Shobal, Salma and Hareph.  The "sons" later named to each of them are not individuals but cities and clans.

So perhaps Salmon and Elah were a marriage between a Trans Man and a Trans Woman?

Boaz and the first husband of Ruth had a common ancestor, that's part of the premise of the book.  That another near kinsmen was in line before Boaz implies they were probably second cousins not first cousins.

Update March 19th 2018: Luke's Genealogy lists a Joanna in Luke 3:37, same spelling as the other two appearance of Joanna in the Gospel which clearly refer to a female follower of Jesus, in 8:3 and 24:10.

Now it's true that the Greek text does not use the word "son" nearly as many times as our English Translations do.  But still, as someone convinced of the theory this is Mary's Genealogy, I think the only people named in it are people considered legally the father.

So perhaps that Joanna was a Trans Woman.

As a Christian I do believe The Gospel's Genealogies refer to people by their preferred names consistently but that the Hebrew Bible may not have since as Hebrews tells us The Law was in imperfect.  Thus both Gospels using Salmon I feel settles what name should be used to refer to that person.

Why are Mass Shootings (and Gun Violence in general) more common in America?

This is the retort I've been getting to my point in my previous post, about comparing Banning Guns to Alcohol or Drug prohibition.

There are many reasons why America would have more then many other countries.  Even Michael Moore in his very Pro Gun Control documentary Bowling for Columbine does not conclude having legal access to Guns is the reason, he blames it on the Fear Mongering in our news media.

It has repeatedly been proven that high crime rates in general are a result of high poverty rates.  Something Liberals are frequently pointing out.  That's why minority communities have higher crime rates, because systemic racism keeps them poorer.

America is also the 3rd largest country in the world by Population.  The only two larger are not Western or even particularly westernized countries, so not so easy to compare.

The claim that America has by such a large margin more gun violence then any other country is dependent on a pretty specific definition of what a Mass Shooting is.  For one things gun based slaughter committed by Governments are not counted.

So on twitter I've been seeing a lot of citing of Australia and their strict Gun Laws issued after a mass shooting in 1996.  Saying boldly that there have been NO mass shooting in Australia since, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

Wikipedia's list of Massacres in Australia.

Frankly I think not counting these two 2014 incidents as "mass shootings" is offensive and disingenuous to their victims.  They are certainly included in what American Gun Control activists are claiming strict Gun Laws will prevent, American equivalents to these are aboslutly pointed to by them as part of our problem.

Meanwhile massacres not involving guns have happened plenty.  I know Gun Control advocates love to be dismissive of that point.  As if being killed by something other then a Gun is inherently less tragic.   The problem is they have an outright superstitious view of Guns, that every Gun is like the One Ring and you can't hold one without feeling an urge to use it.  Maybe it says more about them that they feel that way, I've held a Gun a few times and felt nothing special about it, I took it seriously, but felt no sense of godlike power from it.

And it's not like Australia was having an epidemic of these comparable to America's before.  Australia has a population of less then 25 million compared to America having over 300 Million.  They are inevitably going to have less of everything.

I feel confident an analysis of Canada or European nations would turn out the same.

Japan is another nation with strict Gun Laws the Gun Control advocates point to.

Problem is there are a lot of differences between Japan's Laws and America's Laws.  And most of them are NOT ones a Liberal would want to point to as good.  Japan is overall a very Conservative nation, in some ways the only "industrialized" nation to the right even of America.  Their Gun Ban is about the only thing Liberals would point to as a plus.  I'm kinda the opposite of Japan here, Gun Control is the only political issue on which I'm still a "conservative".

Just look at How Japan Uses Low Crime Rates to justify it's Cruel Prison System.  I've also seen Alt-Right blogs claim Japan has never been a victim of "Islamic Terrorism" because they don't have many Muslims and are actively seeking to keep it that way.  While not mentioning how Japan was the victim of a famous act of Buddhist Terrorism back in 1995, the Subway Sairn Gass Attack.

I hate to say this as an Otaku, but Japan is not a free country.  But I shouldn't hate to say that, so much of the Anime I watch is about Japan not being a Free country, Isekai is so popular right now because everyone living there wants out.  Just watch TheAnimeMan's WTF Japan videos on YouTube.

So my point is, even if you could convince me Gun Control would mean less violence.  That's not worth it.  I support Gun Rights for the same reason I oppose the Patriot Act and Trump's Muslim Ban.  I am intensely opposed to giving up Freedom out of Fear, when we do that, the Terrorists win.

Well, another Mass Shooting happened.

I wanted to just spend October watching and talking about Horror Anime.  But now the world has to go through this Gun Control song and dance again.

First of all the people who are supposedly on my side of the Gun issue are going to engage in a moronic hypocrisy of saying to not politicize it to those making their stupid Pro-Gun argument, but at the same time will aboslutly look for ways to make it serve a Right Wing agenda.

Just make the Pro-Gun Right argument, and refute theirs, every-time you try to act like we shouldn't talk about it at all you make yourself look scared and our argument look weak, when it isn't.  It really makes me suspect that all these Republicans and the NRA secretly want Guns to be banned.

But I think it's also fair to remind the Left that there are plenty of times we don't want the country just doing what the most instant fear driven knee jerk reaction to a tragedy is.  Like when it's a Terrorist attack committed by professing Muslims.

Now Gun Control is just about the only remaining issue where I still hold what is currently considered the Conservative position.  So people who know how much I've changed over the last decade, from being a Ron Paul Libertarian to a Libertarian Communist, may feel like suggesting I will inevitably change on this issue too.

Well no, I won't.

Because you see on Guns I follow the same logic I currently follow on Abortion, and Drugs, and Prostitution, and Gambling.

BANNING THINGS DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It never has, and it never will.

It frustrates me how many on The Left get this argument when it comes to all those things, but can't consistently apply it to Guns.

But it's equally moronic and hypocritical that Conservatives will get this argument when it comes to Guns, but not apply it to all those other things.

The nice thing about not being a Constitutionalist anymore is that I no longer base my Pro-Gun Rights argument on the Second Amendment, just a I don't base my belief in Free Speech on the First.  So I don't have to listen to any stupid arguments about defining what a Militia is.

If I wanted to quote people who lived a long time ago.  I might start with how even Karl Marx said the state should never take people's Guns away.  The modern Left hasn't put as much work into explaining that away as they have the Gandhi quote you might have heard before.  So no my position on Guns is not inherently Right-Wing, and plenty of others agree.

But more directly relevant to America is the fact that The Black Panthers were originally a Pro-Gun rights group, protesting laws passed to restrict the Gun Rights of African Americans.  The first Gun Law ever passed in American was one banning freed slaves from owning Guns after the Civil War.

Look, I don't like Guns, I wish they'd never been invented.  But we can't give fire back to Prometheus.  They are here are they aren't going to go away by wishing them away.