There are a number of theories within Christianity about the nature of Christ's Atonement on the Cross, of what it's purpose was, including a number of different ones that can all be called Substiutionary Atonement. However in the Western Evangelical Church the tendency has been to default to Penal Substitution, that He was taking the punishment for our Sins for us.
First of all I think it's possible that more then one theory of Atonement is true, that the act of the Creator of The Universe incarnating as a flesh and blood Son of Adam willingly laying down His own Life was a pretty big Stone that could kill a lot of different birds.
So on the YouTube Channel titled Early Church Faith there are three videos providing interesting takes on The Cross that I feel are all valid and interesting. Two are by Brad Jersak, The Gospel In Chairs and The Cross Remembered, and then Dr. C Baxter Kruger's God In The Hands of Angry Sinners. However they and a lot of my other allies in advocating for Universal Salvation often object to Penal Substitution, and I understand why, the way Penal Substitution is traditionally understood in a framework that assumes some suffer endless torment, is indeed twisted.
When people come from the starting place that Salvation is not being punished at all, then saying some temporary punishment will take place for people who are saved feels like adding to The Cross. And so we sometimes respond by wanting to remove punishment from the scenario altogether.
Romans 6:23 says the Wages of Sin is Death but the Gift of God is Aionios Life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Hebrew 9:27 says it is appointed unto each Human once to die and after that the Judgment. Therefore there must be a Judgment that is not the "wages of sin" in the same sense.
There are different kinds of Punishments. A Death Sentence or Life in Prison is not done for correction, our Death Sentence is what Jesus paid for us. But that doesn't preclude that some corrective Punishment will be necessary.
The misconception that forgiveness for Sin is inseparable from Salvation
is why the Unpardonable Sin, Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit,
confuses people. They want to redefine it as something much more mystical
and cosmic then what the immediate context implies. It not being
forgivable means you will be punished for it, but God's Punishments are
not endless as Matthew 5:26 and Matthew 18:34 explain. Habakkuk 1:12
and Proverbs 3:11 explain that God's punishments are for correction. Luke 12:47-48 tells us that believers will receive more punishment then unbelievers.
So I can just look at the context of the unpardonable Sin in Matthew 12 and see that it's attributing something God did to Demons or Satan.
1 Corinthians 15 defines Jesus' Death as being for our Sins, 2 Corinthians says He was made Sin for Us. 1 John 2:2 and 4:10 calls his Death an Atonement (Propitiation in the KJV, the Greek word is clearly the equivalent to the Hebrew Kippur), likewise Romans 3:25. Hebrews 2:9-15 says He died to defeat death, also agreeing with material from 1 Corinthians 15. John The Baptist called Him the Lamb of God who takes away the Sins of The World, the Passover Lamb was offered to protect households from the Angel of Death.
So I don't know exactly which model is the most accurate. But I believe that because of His Death and Resurrection from The Dead, Jesus Will Save Everyone.
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Friday, August 24, 2018
The Christology of the Sanctity of Monogamous Heterosexual Marriage.
So I've been talking on this Blog about how Paul said there is neither Male or Female in The Church. And recently I've been noticing how traditionalists will say that it's important to defend "traditional marriage" because of how it's a picture of the relationship between Christ and Israel and/or The Church (whatever your view on The Bride of Christ doctrine is).
And it just occurred to me to ask, have they forgotten about Colossians 2:16-17? Which Paulian Christianity has long viewed as arguing that the Sabbath, and The Holy Days and other aspects of The Law being type pictures of Christ are exactly why those mere terrestrial shadows of the truth don't actually matter, or at least aren't something to be dogmatic and legalistic about.
Or likewise Mark 2:27 where Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", which was one of His responses to the Pharisees overly strict legalistic attitude towards The Sabbath.
That same principle can be applied to marriage. God didn't create Adam and Eve because He wanted Ken and Barbie dolls to play with, He created Eve so Adam wouldn't be alone. Where the KJV says "Help Meet" other translations say Helper or Companion. So when the companionship someone needs is from a person with the same reproductive organs they have, that is perfectly consistent with the intent of Genesis 2. And likewise when some people need more then one companion.
1 John 4:7.
Peter Hiett loves mentioning various Romantic movies in his Sermons and making then analogies for The Bride of Christ doctrine. Well guess what, I'm capable of seeing the same analogy in Gay Romances, or Het ones but with the traditional roles reversed, especially in the Anime I've watched.
And it just occurred to me to ask, have they forgotten about Colossians 2:16-17? Which Paulian Christianity has long viewed as arguing that the Sabbath, and The Holy Days and other aspects of The Law being type pictures of Christ are exactly why those mere terrestrial shadows of the truth don't actually matter, or at least aren't something to be dogmatic and legalistic about.
Or likewise Mark 2:27 where Jesus said "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath", which was one of His responses to the Pharisees overly strict legalistic attitude towards The Sabbath.
That same principle can be applied to marriage. God didn't create Adam and Eve because He wanted Ken and Barbie dolls to play with, He created Eve so Adam wouldn't be alone. Where the KJV says "Help Meet" other translations say Helper or Companion. So when the companionship someone needs is from a person with the same reproductive organs they have, that is perfectly consistent with the intent of Genesis 2. And likewise when some people need more then one companion.
1 John 4:7.
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.So there is no context in which it can ever be appropriate to call Love a Sin, in fact doing so could quite possibly be Blasphemy against The Holy Spirit.
Peter Hiett loves mentioning various Romantic movies in his Sermons and making then analogies for The Bride of Christ doctrine. Well guess what, I'm capable of seeing the same analogy in Gay Romances, or Het ones but with the traditional roles reversed, especially in the Anime I've watched.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Luke 16:19-31, Lazarus and The Rich Man
The first thing that needs to be understood about this parable is it deals with Hades not Gehenna, so we know this condition can't be permanent because of Revelation 20.
I've spent some time in the past defaulting to the interpretation that this is a Parable and so not a real depiction of the contemporary after life at all, and I still think that's probable. But I want to break it down some more.
In the KJV some form of the word "torment" occurs four times. They are two different words in The Greek, neither is the best word for describing torture inflicted for no reason other then pain or punishment. The word Torture actually comes from a Greek root. Luke could have used words used of Jesus's scourging, or the words used by the "Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades" that's been variously attributed to both Josephus and Hippolytus of Rome.
Verses 23 and 28 use forms of Basanos. Basanos was a Greek word for a Touch-Stone used for testing and refining Gold and other precious metals. Forms of the word are also translated "travail" in Revelation 12:2 and "tossed" in Matthew 14:24. An argument can be made that a good deal of the time it's used as a verb "tested" would be the best translation. Basanos is also the basis for every use of "tormented" linked to the Lake of Fire in Revelation. A form of Basanos is also the basis for "Tormentors" in Matthew 18:34 where Jesus explicitly described it as not indefinite.
Verses 24 and 25 use Odunao, a word not at all used of physical pain but of mental or psychological sorrow or anguish. Like how it's used in Luke 2:48 or Acts 20:38.
The use of the word "flame" here is the rich man describing his Odunao. So maybe it's an expression of how he feels and not literally saying he's on fire.
Now even leaving aside what we know elsewhere in Scripture about Hades fate in Revelation 20 or the Harrowing of Hell, there are a couple things in this parable on it's own that imply it won't be a permanent state.
One is the meaning of Basanos, Metals are tested with a Tocuh-Stone for a purpose, as already made clear above.
The other is Abraham's explanation to the Rich Man, The Rich Man is now experiencing what Lazarus did. But if this state were permanent it at some point wouldn't be a just retribution anymore.
I've spent some time in the past defaulting to the interpretation that this is a Parable and so not a real depiction of the contemporary after life at all, and I still think that's probable. But I want to break it down some more.
In the KJV some form of the word "torment" occurs four times. They are two different words in The Greek, neither is the best word for describing torture inflicted for no reason other then pain or punishment. The word Torture actually comes from a Greek root. Luke could have used words used of Jesus's scourging, or the words used by the "Discourse to the Greeks concerning Hades" that's been variously attributed to both Josephus and Hippolytus of Rome.
Verses 23 and 28 use forms of Basanos. Basanos was a Greek word for a Touch-Stone used for testing and refining Gold and other precious metals. Forms of the word are also translated "travail" in Revelation 12:2 and "tossed" in Matthew 14:24. An argument can be made that a good deal of the time it's used as a verb "tested" would be the best translation. Basanos is also the basis for every use of "tormented" linked to the Lake of Fire in Revelation. A form of Basanos is also the basis for "Tormentors" in Matthew 18:34 where Jesus explicitly described it as not indefinite.
Verses 24 and 25 use Odunao, a word not at all used of physical pain but of mental or psychological sorrow or anguish. Like how it's used in Luke 2:48 or Acts 20:38.
The use of the word "flame" here is the rich man describing his Odunao. So maybe it's an expression of how he feels and not literally saying he's on fire.
Now even leaving aside what we know elsewhere in Scripture about Hades fate in Revelation 20 or the Harrowing of Hell, there are a couple things in this parable on it's own that imply it won't be a permanent state.
One is the meaning of Basanos, Metals are tested with a Tocuh-Stone for a purpose, as already made clear above.
The other is Abraham's explanation to the Rich Man, The Rich Man is now experiencing what Lazarus did. But if this state were permanent it at some point wouldn't be a just retribution anymore.
Friday, August 17, 2018
Some Christians oppose the Harrowing of Hell doctrine.
Which I consider very problematic given the amount of Scriptural support the Harrowing of Hell has.
I've been an enthusiastic supporter of InspiringPhilsophy's videos on the Was Jesus a Copycat Savior playlist in-spite of my many doctrinal disagreements with him. But the recently added video about Inanna includes him flat out saying there is no Biblical support for Jesus descending into the underworld. I shall address how Christians should respond to this being compared to ancient Pagan myths at the bottom of this post.
Their only argument against it is Jesus telling the Thief on The Cross next to him that "I tell you this day you will be with me in Paradise".
1. If you believe the Parable of Lazarus and The Rich Man is an accurate literal depiction of how the After Life works (or did before The Cross) and not just an illustration based on the Pharisees own false views, it clearly has a Paradise in/next to Hades, Abraham's Bosom.
2. My main argument on this. An analysis of the actual Greek text can support putting a comma after "I tell you this day" meaning "this day" is not necessarily the day it will happen. Jesus' Crucifixion wasn't normal ( a fact skeptics point out) most Crucifixion victims took days to actually die. And the evidence of Jesus dying sooner then expected is in the Gospels text itself, He died before the Romans even got to the leg breaking part. So chances are the thief didn't even die the same day Jesus did, especially given how in the Hebrew reckoning there was only like 3 hours left when Jesus died.
3. InspiringPhilosophy is an Old Earth Creationist who will say "A day is like a thousand years" when it suits him. After all Adam didn't literally die within 24 hours of eating the fruit did he? Actually this and option 2 go well together.
Now to the clear Biblical Support. If you haven't read it yet, you should read my break down of what "Hell" is Biblically. Before the Cross Sheol/Hades is where all the dead went, including the righteous like Jacob and David.
Isaiah 24:21-22 foretells it. Likewise with Zechariah 9:11. Psalm 16:10 and 83:13 where David says "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.". Psalm 139:8 might be relevant as well.
In Matthew 12:39-41 and Luke 11:29-32 Jesus says "as Jonah was in The Belly of the Whale so shall the Sun of Man be in the Hear(Core) of The Earth". In Jonah 2:2 Jonah felt like he was in Sheol/Hell when he was in the Belly of the Whale leading some to speculate he technically died, but that's besides my point here. Numbers 16:30-33 and Deuteronomy 32:22 confirm that the Core of The Earth is where Sheol is.
In Acts 2:27-31 Peter quotes the above mentioned Psalms in reference to the Resurrection of Jesus. Peter also discuses this in his Epistle (traditionally numbered as his first) to Jewish Churches in Asia Minor. In Chapter 3 verses 19-20, and later in Chapter 4 verse 6 specifically saying Jesus proclaimed the Evangelion (Gospel) to the dead.
Paul in Romans 10:7 says Christ was in the Deep (Abyss). Paul also discuses Christ's Descent to the "lowest parts" in Philippians 2:9-10 and Ephesians 4:7-10.
So Paul alludes to it three times, Peter said it on more then one occasion, two Old Testament Prophets foretold it, two Davidic Palms foretold it and Jesus said it in a statement recorded in two Gospels. Frankly it's affirmed more repeatedly and unambiguously then The Virgin Birth and yet the later is considered more heretical to neglect today.
It's also supported by understanding Easter as the fulfillment of Passover. Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan as the Passover Lambs were being Slaughtered. After that the Lambs were roasted, and then after being eaten any leftovers were required to be burned up before sunrise on the morning of the 15th of Nisan. So if there is indeed a fiery part of Hades/Sheol, Jesus traveled through it during those hours. And then during the daylight hours of the 15th He delivered the saints in Sheol exactly when Israel was delivered out of Egypt. On the 16th of Nisan which was a weekly Sabbath he rested, and then on the 17th, the day Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged, Jesus Rose from The Dead at Sunrise. Matthew 27:51-53 records that others arose from their graves sometime after Jesus did. Maybe that was later on the 17th, or maybe it was the 21st the last day of Unleavened Bread.
Seeing Egypt as Sheol typologically here is backed up by how Joseph is a type of Christ in Genesis. He was presumed dead to his family and then spent time as both a slave and prisoner in Egypt. Then much later his body was taken out of Egypt at the Exodus.
The Early Church Fathers did affirm the doctrine, including Tertulian who IP likes to cite as the best Pre-Nicene precedent for a Homusion understanding of The Trinity. And the Eastern Orthodox Church still considers it important to this day. But it's come to be neglected in the West, possibly partially because of how it lends credence to Universal Salvation.
When some Richard Carrier type starts comparing this to Pagan myths about heroes or gods traveling to the Underworld, our response should be that Christ was Totally Victorious (1 Corinthians 15:55 "Grave" in the KJV is Hades). Orpheus and Izanagi failed to save their Brides from Hades/Yomi, but Jesus got everyone out of Sheol/Hades he intended to (he may have completely emptied it and those in Hades in Revelation 20 have been added since, either way it will one day be fully emptied). Inanna/Ishtar had to leave her Husband Dumuzid/Tammuz behind in her place, Jesus did not add anyone to Sheol to replace who he took out.
Basically, the Pagan versions are Bad News reinforcing the inevitability and inescapablness of Death. The Gospel is The Good News, that as in Adam all Die so in Christ all shall be Made Alive, 1 Corinthians 15:22 (Cross reference with Romans 5).
I've been an enthusiastic supporter of InspiringPhilsophy's videos on the Was Jesus a Copycat Savior playlist in-spite of my many doctrinal disagreements with him. But the recently added video about Inanna includes him flat out saying there is no Biblical support for Jesus descending into the underworld. I shall address how Christians should respond to this being compared to ancient Pagan myths at the bottom of this post.
Their only argument against it is Jesus telling the Thief on The Cross next to him that "I tell you this day you will be with me in Paradise".
1. If you believe the Parable of Lazarus and The Rich Man is an accurate literal depiction of how the After Life works (or did before The Cross) and not just an illustration based on the Pharisees own false views, it clearly has a Paradise in/next to Hades, Abraham's Bosom.
2. My main argument on this. An analysis of the actual Greek text can support putting a comma after "I tell you this day" meaning "this day" is not necessarily the day it will happen. Jesus' Crucifixion wasn't normal ( a fact skeptics point out) most Crucifixion victims took days to actually die. And the evidence of Jesus dying sooner then expected is in the Gospels text itself, He died before the Romans even got to the leg breaking part. So chances are the thief didn't even die the same day Jesus did, especially given how in the Hebrew reckoning there was only like 3 hours left when Jesus died.
3. InspiringPhilosophy is an Old Earth Creationist who will say "A day is like a thousand years" when it suits him. After all Adam didn't literally die within 24 hours of eating the fruit did he? Actually this and option 2 go well together.
Now to the clear Biblical Support. If you haven't read it yet, you should read my break down of what "Hell" is Biblically. Before the Cross Sheol/Hades is where all the dead went, including the righteous like Jacob and David.
Isaiah 24:21-22 foretells it. Likewise with Zechariah 9:11. Psalm 16:10 and 83:13 where David says "For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.". Psalm 139:8 might be relevant as well.
In Matthew 12:39-41 and Luke 11:29-32 Jesus says "as Jonah was in The Belly of the Whale so shall the Sun of Man be in the Hear(Core) of The Earth". In Jonah 2:2 Jonah felt like he was in Sheol/Hell when he was in the Belly of the Whale leading some to speculate he technically died, but that's besides my point here. Numbers 16:30-33 and Deuteronomy 32:22 confirm that the Core of The Earth is where Sheol is.
In Acts 2:27-31 Peter quotes the above mentioned Psalms in reference to the Resurrection of Jesus. Peter also discuses this in his Epistle (traditionally numbered as his first) to Jewish Churches in Asia Minor. In Chapter 3 verses 19-20, and later in Chapter 4 verse 6 specifically saying Jesus proclaimed the Evangelion (Gospel) to the dead.
Paul in Romans 10:7 says Christ was in the Deep (Abyss). Paul also discuses Christ's Descent to the "lowest parts" in Philippians 2:9-10 and Ephesians 4:7-10.
So Paul alludes to it three times, Peter said it on more then one occasion, two Old Testament Prophets foretold it, two Davidic Palms foretold it and Jesus said it in a statement recorded in two Gospels. Frankly it's affirmed more repeatedly and unambiguously then The Virgin Birth and yet the later is considered more heretical to neglect today.
It's also supported by understanding Easter as the fulfillment of Passover. Jesus died on the 14th of Nisan as the Passover Lambs were being Slaughtered. After that the Lambs were roasted, and then after being eaten any leftovers were required to be burned up before sunrise on the morning of the 15th of Nisan. So if there is indeed a fiery part of Hades/Sheol, Jesus traveled through it during those hours. And then during the daylight hours of the 15th He delivered the saints in Sheol exactly when Israel was delivered out of Egypt. On the 16th of Nisan which was a weekly Sabbath he rested, and then on the 17th, the day Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged, Jesus Rose from The Dead at Sunrise. Matthew 27:51-53 records that others arose from their graves sometime after Jesus did. Maybe that was later on the 17th, or maybe it was the 21st the last day of Unleavened Bread.
Seeing Egypt as Sheol typologically here is backed up by how Joseph is a type of Christ in Genesis. He was presumed dead to his family and then spent time as both a slave and prisoner in Egypt. Then much later his body was taken out of Egypt at the Exodus.
The Early Church Fathers did affirm the doctrine, including Tertulian who IP likes to cite as the best Pre-Nicene precedent for a Homusion understanding of The Trinity. And the Eastern Orthodox Church still considers it important to this day. But it's come to be neglected in the West, possibly partially because of how it lends credence to Universal Salvation.
When some Richard Carrier type starts comparing this to Pagan myths about heroes or gods traveling to the Underworld, our response should be that Christ was Totally Victorious (1 Corinthians 15:55 "Grave" in the KJV is Hades). Orpheus and Izanagi failed to save their Brides from Hades/Yomi, but Jesus got everyone out of Sheol/Hades he intended to (he may have completely emptied it and those in Hades in Revelation 20 have been added since, either way it will one day be fully emptied). Inanna/Ishtar had to leave her Husband Dumuzid/Tammuz behind in her place, Jesus did not add anyone to Sheol to replace who he took out.
Basically, the Pagan versions are Bad News reinforcing the inevitability and inescapablness of Death. The Gospel is The Good News, that as in Adam all Die so in Christ all shall be Made Alive, 1 Corinthians 15:22 (Cross reference with Romans 5).
Thursday, August 16, 2018
The Sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 is a problem for The Sacred Name movement.
The Sacred Name movement often overlaps with the Hebrew Roots movement. Not only do they think you have to say the proper names of Yeshua/Jesus and/or YHWH, but that you have to even get the specific pronunciation right, which of course different groups within the movement have different opinions on. (For the record I think the proper pronunciation of YHWH is probably Yahuah.)
Acts 17:37 tells us that at least a few people became believers from the Sermon on Mars Hill. And yet, Paul never mentioned Jesus by name in that Sermon.
"What about all those verses about calling on the name of The LORD/YHWH to be Saved?"
The Hebrew word Shem and Greek word Onoma mean more then just a set of letters or sounds used to identify someone, they include what The Name means. When Jesus says in Revelation 3:1 that Sardis has the "Onoma" of being alive but is dead, the KJV and other translations say "Name" but some instead say something like "Reputation". And yet "Onoma" is the same word for "Name" used in the "All who call on the Name of The Lord shall be Saved" verses like Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.
The Name of Yeshua/Y'shua/Yahshua/Yehoshua/Iesous/Jesus however you pronounce it means "YHWH is Salvation". YHWH is generally agreed to in some way carry the meaning of "I AM that I Am" (Exodus 3:14) a Name which implies Eternal Timeless Divinity. Jesus explicitly identified himself with the I AM of the Burning Bush at least once in John 8:58-59. Of course to some extent every time Jesus said Ego Eimi (Or Ena-Nan in the Aramaic Peshita) is of interest to theologians. But I think the second most interesting example is John 18:5-8. Many scholars compare the I Am statements with a predicate not to Exodus but rather to various I Am statements of YHWH in Isaiah 40-55.
The Salvation that Jesus came to offer is the Resurrection of The Dead, that is The True Gospel. And that is what the Mars Hill Sermon ends on in Acts 17:31 and what really got people's attention according to the following verses. Eternal Life is what Jesus promises in John 3:16 and also promises us we will never die.
There are other refutations of the Sacred Name movement's arguments out there. Christ White did a video I watched years ago, some details of which reflect views I don't agree with, but the basic premise is right.
I reject most attempts to claim certain professing Christians aren't true believers because of what ever doctrine they might have you or I might disagree with. Because 1 John 4:15 says that everyone that confesses Jesus Christ is The Son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in God, and Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:3 says you cannot say that Jesus is The Lord accept by The Holy Spirit.
Philippians 2:10-11 foretells that one day at the name of Jesus every Knee shall bow and all shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. So clearly eventually everyone will be Saved. Romans 14:11 also says every tong shall confess to God.
As a side note, NO ONE is calling on The Name of The Lord in Matthew 7:21-22, those people are doing the opposite, they are calling Him Lord (Kurios/Adonai/Mari) instead of calling Him by Name. Doing things in His Name is not the same as calling upon it. But that argument was more important to me back before I believed in Universal Salvation and was all about Free Grace Eternal Security. I now view them as believers who'll be Weeping and Gnashing their teeth outside New Jerusalem, not as eternally damned.
Acts 17:37 tells us that at least a few people became believers from the Sermon on Mars Hill. And yet, Paul never mentioned Jesus by name in that Sermon.
"What about all those verses about calling on the name of The LORD/YHWH to be Saved?"
The Hebrew word Shem and Greek word Onoma mean more then just a set of letters or sounds used to identify someone, they include what The Name means. When Jesus says in Revelation 3:1 that Sardis has the "Onoma" of being alive but is dead, the KJV and other translations say "Name" but some instead say something like "Reputation". And yet "Onoma" is the same word for "Name" used in the "All who call on the Name of The Lord shall be Saved" verses like Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13.
The Name of Yeshua/Y'shua/Yahshua/Yehoshua/Iesous/Jesus however you pronounce it means "YHWH is Salvation". YHWH is generally agreed to in some way carry the meaning of "I AM that I Am" (Exodus 3:14) a Name which implies Eternal Timeless Divinity. Jesus explicitly identified himself with the I AM of the Burning Bush at least once in John 8:58-59. Of course to some extent every time Jesus said Ego Eimi (Or Ena-Nan in the Aramaic Peshita) is of interest to theologians. But I think the second most interesting example is John 18:5-8. Many scholars compare the I Am statements with a predicate not to Exodus but rather to various I Am statements of YHWH in Isaiah 40-55.
The Salvation that Jesus came to offer is the Resurrection of The Dead, that is The True Gospel. And that is what the Mars Hill Sermon ends on in Acts 17:31 and what really got people's attention according to the following verses. Eternal Life is what Jesus promises in John 3:16 and also promises us we will never die.
There are other refutations of the Sacred Name movement's arguments out there. Christ White did a video I watched years ago, some details of which reflect views I don't agree with, but the basic premise is right.
Philippians 2:10-11 foretells that one day at the name of Jesus every Knee shall bow and all shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. So clearly eventually everyone will be Saved. Romans 14:11 also says every tong shall confess to God.
As a side note, NO ONE is calling on The Name of The Lord in Matthew 7:21-22, those people are doing the opposite, they are calling Him Lord (Kurios/Adonai/Mari) instead of calling Him by Name. Doing things in His Name is not the same as calling upon it. But that argument was more important to me back before I believed in Universal Salvation and was all about Free Grace Eternal Security. I now view them as believers who'll be Weeping and Gnashing their teeth outside New Jerusalem, not as eternally damned.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
The God of The Bible is both Masculine and Feminine.
Genesis 1:27
In Hebrew one common way to make a word or name grammatically feminine is to have them end with a Heh or a Teth. Some names however end with a Heh but aren't considered Feminine for various reasons. Among these are two forms of the word El (god) Elah and Eloah, both are used of YHWH. Elohim being plural is frequently pointed out, but it's technically the plural of Eloah not merely of El. Though -im is technically considered a Masculine plural while ending with a -th would be the Feminine plural, -im is used however when the plural includes both male and female.
The name YHWH (I pronounce it Yahuah) itself ends with a Heh, as does the shortened form Yah, as does Ehyeh (I Am). Yeshuah is a Hebrew word commonly translated Salvation that is acknowledged by scholars and the Strongs Concordance as being grammatically Feminine, it's the spelling of Yeshua (Jesus) with a Heh added at the end, it ends the same way as Yahuah.
Some want to primarily make The Holy Spirit the feminine aspect of The Trinity, because the Hebrew word for Spirit is itself Grammatically Feminine, and also because of the Sophia connection I talked about in Greek Words viewed as being Gnostic. But in my view that does not make the Masculine and Feminine equation of the Trinity even enough.
Hebrew Strongs Number 801 is a feminine form of the word for Fire that is actually spelled the same as the Hebrew word for Woman/Wife, it is used exclusively of the Fire on the Brazen Altar of the Tabernacle.
Here is an Article about El Shaddai possibly referring to a Feminine Attribute of God.
https://scribalishess.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/el-shaddai-and-the-gender-of-god/
The "Desire of Nations" in Haggai 2:7 is generally agreed by Christians to be Jesus, the word translated "Desire" there is Grammatically Feminine. And it's the same with "Desire of Women" in Daniel 11:37 if like Chris White an Chuck Missler you view that as a Messianic Title.
If like me you've come to support a Mount of Olives Crucifixion Model. That involves seeing The Red Heifer as a type of Jesus, and the Red Heifer was required to be Female (as were all Trespass offerings and certain Sin offerings). That is apparent even in the KJV English, "Heifer" tends to be used of female Cows not Bulls.
Typologically I've argued that the Bride not the Groom represents Jesus in the Song of Solomon, and that the type of Jesus in Psalm 45 was a Woman as well. And I've also talked about Venus being a Star of Bethlehem candidate.
It's also interesting how the Hebrew word translated "Mercy Seat" is really the Feminine form of the Hebrew word for Atonement, Kapporeth.
Jesus's body was definitely assigned Male at Birth according to Luke's account of His Circumcision and Mary's time of purification being 40 days (it would have been 80 for a female). And Jesus seems to have presented as Male, or was assumed to be doing so, during His ministry. But the modern conceptions of a Bi-Gender, Non-Binary or Gender Fluid identity hadn't become fully understood yet.
What I'm saying is on a Spiritual Level Jesus was both Genders, Jesus too is called The Image of God by Paul. He took the Sins of all Mankind upon himself on the Cross including Sins committed by and against Women, Transgender, Intersex and Non-Binary human beings. The Church is The Body of Christ, and it contains both Masculine and Feminine, because within it there is neither Male or Female.
If you support Aramaic Primacy for the new Testament, the key Logos verses in John's Gospel say Miltha for Logos in the Peshita. Miltha is a grammatically feminine noun but is refereed to in these verses with masculine pronouns creating a contradiction of normal Aramaic Grammar.
http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Mystery%20of%20Miltha.htm
I'm not sure if the Memra equated with the Dabar of YHWH in some Aramaic Targums is Grammatically Feminine, but it looks like it could be. Logos and Dabar are both grammatically masculine, but the feminine form of Dabar does appear in the Hebrew Scriptures as a personal name, Deborah. And a Feminine form of Logos, Logia, is used a few times in The New Testament, translated "oracles" (even though it doesn't appear to be plural in the Greek) in the KJV of Acts 7:38, Romans 3:2 and 1 Peter 4:11.
Every time you see "Oracle" in the KJV of the Old Testament it is a form of Dabar, mostly the Dbiyr, a term associated with the Holy of Holies of Solomon's Temple, but in II Samuel 16:23 it's Dabar in a weird form I don't get.
I should note that the English word "Oracle" is kind of thought of as inherently feminine due to it's association with the classical Oracle at Delphi and the Sybils. For example when talking about Japanese/Anime culture we might use it of how Mikos used to be Prophetesses but not of any males who foretold the future or spoke for a Kami. So maybe the KJV translators, or translators of earlier English Bibles the KJV followed the lead of, felt there was something Feminine about how Dabar was used in these verses. After all three out of four uses of some form of "oracle" in the New Testament were for Logia, (the exception Hebrew 5:12 was Logion).
Update September 23rd 2019: I can't believe I forgot about the parable of the Lost Coin from Luke 15:8-10. This parable is a companion to the Lost Sheep and Prodigal Son parables, where it is a Woman in the role of the Good Shepherded and The Father.
Update March 2020: I disagree with much of what InspiringPhilosophy says about God and Gender in "Israel's Revolutionary Monotheism". But this ScreenCap is helpful.
Hosea 14:8 is about wordplay in the Hebrew "aniti wa'ashurennus". Anat is also a from of the word for answer which the KJV sometimes translated "heard".
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.In The Hebrew these two statements about the Creation of Mankind are not listed together for no reason, they explain each other. Man was created Male and Female because they were created in the Image of God. And the first two verses of Genesis 5 reaffirm these facts about Adam's creation.
In Hebrew one common way to make a word or name grammatically feminine is to have them end with a Heh or a Teth. Some names however end with a Heh but aren't considered Feminine for various reasons. Among these are two forms of the word El (god) Elah and Eloah, both are used of YHWH. Elohim being plural is frequently pointed out, but it's technically the plural of Eloah not merely of El. Though -im is technically considered a Masculine plural while ending with a -th would be the Feminine plural, -im is used however when the plural includes both male and female.
The name YHWH (I pronounce it Yahuah) itself ends with a Heh, as does the shortened form Yah, as does Ehyeh (I Am). Yeshuah is a Hebrew word commonly translated Salvation that is acknowledged by scholars and the Strongs Concordance as being grammatically Feminine, it's the spelling of Yeshua (Jesus) with a Heh added at the end, it ends the same way as Yahuah.
Some want to primarily make The Holy Spirit the feminine aspect of The Trinity, because the Hebrew word for Spirit is itself Grammatically Feminine, and also because of the Sophia connection I talked about in Greek Words viewed as being Gnostic. But in my view that does not make the Masculine and Feminine equation of the Trinity even enough.
Hebrew Strongs Number 801 is a feminine form of the word for Fire that is actually spelled the same as the Hebrew word for Woman/Wife, it is used exclusively of the Fire on the Brazen Altar of the Tabernacle.
Here is an Article about El Shaddai possibly referring to a Feminine Attribute of God.
https://scribalishess.wordpress.com/2014/05/23/el-shaddai-and-the-gender-of-god/
The "Desire of Nations" in Haggai 2:7 is generally agreed by Christians to be Jesus, the word translated "Desire" there is Grammatically Feminine. And it's the same with "Desire of Women" in Daniel 11:37 if like Chris White an Chuck Missler you view that as a Messianic Title.
If like me you've come to support a Mount of Olives Crucifixion Model. That involves seeing The Red Heifer as a type of Jesus, and the Red Heifer was required to be Female (as were all Trespass offerings and certain Sin offerings). That is apparent even in the KJV English, "Heifer" tends to be used of female Cows not Bulls.
Typologically I've argued that the Bride not the Groom represents Jesus in the Song of Solomon, and that the type of Jesus in Psalm 45 was a Woman as well. And I've also talked about Venus being a Star of Bethlehem candidate.
It's also interesting how the Hebrew word translated "Mercy Seat" is really the Feminine form of the Hebrew word for Atonement, Kapporeth.
Jesus's body was definitely assigned Male at Birth according to Luke's account of His Circumcision and Mary's time of purification being 40 days (it would have been 80 for a female). And Jesus seems to have presented as Male, or was assumed to be doing so, during His ministry. But the modern conceptions of a Bi-Gender, Non-Binary or Gender Fluid identity hadn't become fully understood yet.
What I'm saying is on a Spiritual Level Jesus was both Genders, Jesus too is called The Image of God by Paul. He took the Sins of all Mankind upon himself on the Cross including Sins committed by and against Women, Transgender, Intersex and Non-Binary human beings. The Church is The Body of Christ, and it contains both Masculine and Feminine, because within it there is neither Male or Female.
If you support Aramaic Primacy for the new Testament, the key Logos verses in John's Gospel say Miltha for Logos in the Peshita. Miltha is a grammatically feminine noun but is refereed to in these verses with masculine pronouns creating a contradiction of normal Aramaic Grammar.
http://www.peshitta.org/bethgazza/Mystery%20of%20Miltha.htm
I'm not sure if the Memra equated with the Dabar of YHWH in some Aramaic Targums is Grammatically Feminine, but it looks like it could be. Logos and Dabar are both grammatically masculine, but the feminine form of Dabar does appear in the Hebrew Scriptures as a personal name, Deborah. And a Feminine form of Logos, Logia, is used a few times in The New Testament, translated "oracles" (even though it doesn't appear to be plural in the Greek) in the KJV of Acts 7:38, Romans 3:2 and 1 Peter 4:11.
Every time you see "Oracle" in the KJV of the Old Testament it is a form of Dabar, mostly the Dbiyr, a term associated with the Holy of Holies of Solomon's Temple, but in II Samuel 16:23 it's Dabar in a weird form I don't get.
I should note that the English word "Oracle" is kind of thought of as inherently feminine due to it's association with the classical Oracle at Delphi and the Sybils. For example when talking about Japanese/Anime culture we might use it of how Mikos used to be Prophetesses but not of any males who foretold the future or spoke for a Kami. So maybe the KJV translators, or translators of earlier English Bibles the KJV followed the lead of, felt there was something Feminine about how Dabar was used in these verses. After all three out of four uses of some form of "oracle" in the New Testament were for Logia, (the exception Hebrew 5:12 was Logion).
Update September 23rd 2019: I can't believe I forgot about the parable of the Lost Coin from Luke 15:8-10. This parable is a companion to the Lost Sheep and Prodigal Son parables, where it is a Woman in the role of the Good Shepherded and The Father.
Update March 2020: I disagree with much of what InspiringPhilosophy says about God and Gender in "Israel's Revolutionary Monotheism". But this ScreenCap is helpful.
Monday, August 13, 2018
Annihilationists use a lot of the same arguments as Universal Salvation supporters.
They will agree that references to a Judgment or Punishment itself do not prove endless punishment. They'll likely agree with us on the Translation issues related to Olam, Aionios/Aionion and the Hell words. They might also agree with me that the Fire of the Lake of Fire can be called Eternal because it's the Fire of God. And they'll also seek to define their view of God as more merciful.
I can also agree with them that something will be Annihilated, that something is Sin. And I agree with them that the Punishment for Sin that Jesus paid for us is Death, and that Salvation is The Bodily Resurrection from the Dead.
Many but perhaps not all tend to also support Soul Sleep. The Issue of whether or not we actually have a conscious state between our bodily Death and The Resurrection I don't have a solid opinion on, I could go either way.
The Second Resurrection should be a logical problem for Annihilationism. If Salvation is being saved from death why bother resurrecting the unsaved just to immediately kill them again? And Revelation 20 isn't our only witness to that, that Unbelievers will have a Resurrection is also in John 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and Daniel 12. Paul also refers to it in Acts 24:15, and he was talking to Felix an Unbeliever, a Pagan Roman, and did not feel the need to tell him that unless you become a Christian your Resurrection will be useless.
Annihalationists will argue from John 5, Daniel 12 and the Sheeps and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, that if the contrast is between Life and Judgment, the Judgment must be death since they don't have life. And yet those texts still do not explicitly say that.
What they forget is the word "Life" is used of more then just the state of being physically alive, it can also be about Quality of Life. People will talk about feeling more alive now then they ever had before. Jesus message to Sardis talks about those who have the reputation (or Name) of being alive but are not. In the context of Revelation 21-22 it could be about having direct access to the Tree of Life by being in New Jerusalem, as those chapters do clearly allude to the existence of people outside New Jerusalem, some of whom, at least at first, aren't allowed inside.
Annihilationists will also quote the same verse from Jude I like to quote about Sodom being destroyed by "Eternal" Fire, they will simply say Sodom was Destroyed. But they are forgetting to account for Ezekiel 16 which promises that Sodom will be restored.
A favorite passage of Annihilationists is Matthew 10:28 where Jesus says "fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". The proceeding context of this was Jesus saying if you fear anyone fear God. God is able to Kill the Soul but that doesn't mean he will.
Once again what people need to do is read on.
Now I know people will respond with how Jesus goes on to talk about denying those who deny Him. The point is Matthew 10 doesn't settle the issue. Romans 5&11 settle the issue, as does what I already said about Revelation.
Also Soul and Spirit are not synonyms Biblically. Soul seems to refer to something animals also have while the Spirit is what's unique to Adamkind. The Greek word translated Soul is Psyche. It may be the Soul like the Body can experience a destruction before being Resurrected, "Hell" in Matthew 10:28 is Gehenna which refers to God's Judgment on the world at the end of time.
The Fire of God is for Purification and Purging according to Malachi 3. God's Punishments are for Correction according to Habakkuk 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11.
In the Annihalitatiost view there is no need for Brimstone/Sulfer to be in the Lake of Fire, the fire is all that's needed to destroy. Sulfer is used in the process of refining and purifying Gold, consistent with Malachi 3 and Proverbs 17:3 & 27:21. Isaiah 30:33 says the breath of God is like Brimstone, just as God is called a Consuming Fire.
For more information read my post about The Baptism of Fire, and about Gehenna.
Revelation 20:10 is a bit of a problem for Annihilationism, a thousand years later and the Beast and False Prophet haven't been Annihilated yet, they're still there.
And I think the tears in Revelation 21:4 can be interpreted as tears of joy and happiness, not mourning people who were lost.
I can also agree with them that something will be Annihilated, that something is Sin. And I agree with them that the Punishment for Sin that Jesus paid for us is Death, and that Salvation is The Bodily Resurrection from the Dead.
Many but perhaps not all tend to also support Soul Sleep. The Issue of whether or not we actually have a conscious state between our bodily Death and The Resurrection I don't have a solid opinion on, I could go either way.
The Second Resurrection should be a logical problem for Annihilationism. If Salvation is being saved from death why bother resurrecting the unsaved just to immediately kill them again? And Revelation 20 isn't our only witness to that, that Unbelievers will have a Resurrection is also in John 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and Daniel 12. Paul also refers to it in Acts 24:15, and he was talking to Felix an Unbeliever, a Pagan Roman, and did not feel the need to tell him that unless you become a Christian your Resurrection will be useless.
Annihalationists will argue from John 5, Daniel 12 and the Sheeps and Goats Judgment of Matthew 25, that if the contrast is between Life and Judgment, the Judgment must be death since they don't have life. And yet those texts still do not explicitly say that.
What they forget is the word "Life" is used of more then just the state of being physically alive, it can also be about Quality of Life. People will talk about feeling more alive now then they ever had before. Jesus message to Sardis talks about those who have the reputation (or Name) of being alive but are not. In the context of Revelation 21-22 it could be about having direct access to the Tree of Life by being in New Jerusalem, as those chapters do clearly allude to the existence of people outside New Jerusalem, some of whom, at least at first, aren't allowed inside.
Annihilationists will also quote the same verse from Jude I like to quote about Sodom being destroyed by "Eternal" Fire, they will simply say Sodom was Destroyed. But they are forgetting to account for Ezekiel 16 which promises that Sodom will be restored.
A favorite passage of Annihilationists is Matthew 10:28 where Jesus says "fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell". The proceeding context of this was Jesus saying if you fear anyone fear God. God is able to Kill the Soul but that doesn't mean he will.
Once again what people need to do is read on.
"Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows."What Jesus goes on to say is not to Fear because God won't destroy us because He loves us.
Now I know people will respond with how Jesus goes on to talk about denying those who deny Him. The point is Matthew 10 doesn't settle the issue. Romans 5&11 settle the issue, as does what I already said about Revelation.
Also Soul and Spirit are not synonyms Biblically. Soul seems to refer to something animals also have while the Spirit is what's unique to Adamkind. The Greek word translated Soul is Psyche. It may be the Soul like the Body can experience a destruction before being Resurrected, "Hell" in Matthew 10:28 is Gehenna which refers to God's Judgment on the world at the end of time.
The Fire of God is for Purification and Purging according to Malachi 3. God's Punishments are for Correction according to Habakkuk 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11.
In the Annihalitatiost view there is no need for Brimstone/Sulfer to be in the Lake of Fire, the fire is all that's needed to destroy. Sulfer is used in the process of refining and purifying Gold, consistent with Malachi 3 and Proverbs 17:3 & 27:21. Isaiah 30:33 says the breath of God is like Brimstone, just as God is called a Consuming Fire.
For more information read my post about The Baptism of Fire, and about Gehenna.
Revelation 20:10 is a bit of a problem for Annihilationism, a thousand years later and the Beast and False Prophet haven't been Annihilated yet, they're still there.
And I think the tears in Revelation 21:4 can be interpreted as tears of joy and happiness, not mourning people who were lost.
Sunday, August 12, 2018
The Trinity in The Hebrew Bible
Inspiring Philosophy did a video on The Trinity in The Old Testament.
Where he says there are additional arguments one could make. He also then did a Video about Jewish Sources recognizing these facts.
At any-rate the first of these two videos impressed me so much that I think it more so then any New Testament arguments are what are keeping me Trinitarian. You see what a lot of modern attempts to refute Arianism ignore is that at least modern Arians tend to identify YHWH with Jesus not The Father, supported by IP's own observation that in the New Testament Kurios/Lord usually refers to Jesus. So this video building a Trinity Doctrine just from the references to YHWH is actually the best refutation of Arianism. And then this blog post about the Fatherhood of YHWH in the Old Testament.
I've touched on some of these subjects before, in Greek words commonly viewed as Gnostic and Arguing for the Divinity of the Messiah from The Hebrew Bible.
Here I want to list some additional arguments I find interesting, but they aren't as compelling as the above video, they're merely interesting observations to back up that argument.
First is that a Triune Nature of God is possibly hinted at in The Holy Name itself. It is commonly called the Tetragramaton because it's four letters, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh, but there are two Hehs meaning the name is really constructed from just three letters. The Heh has been associated with The Holy Spirit before.
Some like to view Psalm 2 as a Trialouge between The Trinity, but I've become more hesitant to endorse that given how my views on the Davidic Psalms have developed.
Genesis 48:15-16
But perhaps The Trinity is hinted at in one of the most popular titles of The Jewish God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Which appears in some form Twelve times in The Bible, Seven of them in The Hebrew Bible, Four of those in The Pentateuch. Exodus 3:6, 15, 16, 4:5, 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chronicles 29:18, 2 Chronicles 30:6, Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 and 7:32.
Q: Why stop at Jacob/Israel? Joseph was a main protagonist for a lot more of Genesis then Isaac was?
A: Because it's identifying the Patriarchs all Twelve Tribes share.
Well then why did it take three generations for God to stop narrowing it down? The Issues that broke apart Abraham and Isaac's descendants could have just as easily done the same to Jacob's.
Abraham means "Father of a Multitude" and Abram meant "High-Father", Paul in Romans 4:11 calls Abraham "The Father of All them that Believe". Christians see Abraham as playing the role of The Father typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Isaac was the Promised Seed of Abraham, who plays the role of The Son typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Jacob aka Israel is the one who's names become synonymous with God's People. And it's in God's People that His Spirit dwells.
Update December 7th 2019:
Here is another YouTube video on the subject from a Paul Humber. Watching this video I noticed how the Hebrew word for "One" is spelled with three letters, E-CH-D. Interestingly the Greek word often used to translate that in New Testament quotes is similarly a three letter word. As is "One" in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlrLueWXDTs
I've touched on some of these subjects before, in Greek words commonly viewed as Gnostic and Arguing for the Divinity of the Messiah from The Hebrew Bible.
Here I want to list some additional arguments I find interesting, but they aren't as compelling as the above video, they're merely interesting observations to back up that argument.
First is that a Triune Nature of God is possibly hinted at in The Holy Name itself. It is commonly called the Tetragramaton because it's four letters, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh, but there are two Hehs meaning the name is really constructed from just three letters. The Heh has been associated with The Holy Spirit before.
Some like to view Psalm 2 as a Trialouge between The Trinity, but I've become more hesitant to endorse that given how my views on the Davidic Psalms have developed.
Genesis 48:15-16
And he blessed Joseph, and said, "God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.?That sounds an awful lot like a Trinitarian Formula.
But perhaps The Trinity is hinted at in one of the most popular titles of The Jewish God. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel. Which appears in some form Twelve times in The Bible, Seven of them in The Hebrew Bible, Four of those in The Pentateuch. Exodus 3:6, 15, 16, 4:5, 1 Kings 18:36, 1 Chronicles 29:18, 2 Chronicles 30:6, Matthew 22:32, Mark 12:26, Acts 3:13 and 7:32.
Q: Why stop at Jacob/Israel? Joseph was a main protagonist for a lot more of Genesis then Isaac was?
A: Because it's identifying the Patriarchs all Twelve Tribes share.
Well then why did it take three generations for God to stop narrowing it down? The Issues that broke apart Abraham and Isaac's descendants could have just as easily done the same to Jacob's.
Abraham means "Father of a Multitude" and Abram meant "High-Father", Paul in Romans 4:11 calls Abraham "The Father of All them that Believe". Christians see Abraham as playing the role of The Father typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Isaac was the Promised Seed of Abraham, who plays the role of The Son typologically in Genesis 22&24.
Jacob aka Israel is the one who's names become synonymous with God's People. And it's in God's People that His Spirit dwells.
Update December 7th 2019:
Here is another YouTube video on the subject from a Paul Humber. Watching this video I noticed how the Hebrew word for "One" is spelled with three letters, E-CH-D. Interestingly the Greek word often used to translate that in New Testament quotes is similarly a three letter word. As is "One" in English.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlrLueWXDTs
Saturday, August 11, 2018
The Issue of Semitic Primacy for the New Testament
One of the issues to emerge out of the Hebrew Roots movement is attempting to argue the entire New Testament was written in either Hebrew and/or Aramaic rather then Greek.
As an opponent of how much Platonic and Aristolen Philosophy seeped into the Church via the Greco-Roman perspective of the "Early Church Fathers" I sympathize. But I can't ultimately support this agenda, for the most part.
Yes all but one of the New Testament's Human Authors were Jewish. But Acts 2 shows that Jews living outside Judea did not speak Hebrew all that well anymore, it would have been entirely Jews in the audience, people attending the Feast of Shavuot., but the reason the Gift of Tongs was needed was because their native languages were now those of the Gentile regions they lived in. Following the conquests of Alexander, Greek was the International Language of the Eastern Mediterranean. So even in places where both Greek and Aramaic were spoken, native Semites who knew Greek outnumbered Greeks who knew any Semitic language.
Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, multiple Early Church sources affirm that. But they affirm that as something that makes it distinct from the others, at least the other Gospels.
I personally think Hebrew Matthew was possibly Q, a common source for both Greek Matthew and Luke. Some Early Church comments about Hebrew Matthew imply it was only a collection of Sayings of Jesus making it fit the Q mold even better.
Luke was a Macedonian, writing his Gospel and Acts to a Theophilus, possibly partly as back ground information for Paul's trial before Nero (Nero was a total Hellenophile and so would have had no trouble reading/understanding Greek). Luke and Acts were certainly written in Greek.
All of Paul's Epistles but maybe Hebrews would have to have been written in Greek (here is an article on why Romans wasn't in Latin). Likewise with Revelation which was written to Seven Churches in the same region as three of Paul's letters, and 1st Peter was written to that region as well. Paul wrote to three cities in Greece, to three men with Greco-Roman names, and to staunchly Greek parts of Asia Minor. Acts itself reminds us how Greek the city of Ephesus was being devoted to Artemis. Pergamon was the capital of a Hellenic Kingdom, and Laodicea was founded by a Seleucid ruler.
I'm very open to possible Aramaic Primacy for Mark. As well as Hebrew or Aramaic Primacy for Hebrews, James, Jude and 2 Peter. For Hebrews I'd consider Hebrew more likely and for 2 Peter Aramaic more likely. Jude and James would be 50/50. The Gospel and Epistles of John I still think are Greek, I'll return to that later.
For any books that I'm open to Aramaic Primacy, I strongly favor the Peshita (http://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/) over Old Syriac manuscripts like the the Four Gospels found on Sinai, an origin that parallels one of the Alexandrian Greek Texts. Basically the Peshita should be viewed as the Textus Receptus of the Aramaic tradition. The Peshita of Mark contains none of the common Alexandrian deviations for Mark, and yes that means it has all of Mark 16, however the Peshita versions of some other books do echo Alexandrian corruptions.
My reason for being interested in an Aramaic origin for Mark is that Mark is said by Papias to have been written based on what Peter preached. Later traditions corrupted that to be in Rome but Papias originally didn't mention Rome. Peter was in fact in Mesopotamia, where Aramaic had been the main language since Neo-Assyrian times, and indeed Aramaic is the Language of the Peshita because it's The Bible of the Assyrian Church. The first interesting implication I've noticed for the Peshita possibly being closer to the original for Mark is Simon The Leper being instead called Simon the Jar Maker.
The Gospel according to John and the Three Epistles that likely have the same author I also feel were likely to have been in Greek. Things like their stopping to explain certain Semitic key words to the reader. Cepha/Kefa was a word both Hebrew and Aramaic had, it wasn't necessary to explain, same with Messiah since Christ is Meshika in the Peshita, and Rabbi is basically Aramaic in origin. Now you might think that argument is hypocritical because of Revelation 9:11 identifying both a Hebrew and Greek name, but in that verse neither Name is used outside of being tied to it's language. John says a Semitic word and then explains it in Greek. The Peshita of John simply doesn't have the explanation in these verses which allows one to argue the translator added them, but our Greek of Matthew and Mark doesn't do that for "Messiah" or Peter's new name. Matthew 1:23 is interpreting a name from Isaiah 7:14 that most Jews probably interpreted differently at first. Mark 15:22 in the Peshita gives an Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew Golgotha, likewise with Mark 15:34.
The Peshita of John 8 lacks the story of the Adulteress and for 1 John lacked it's declaration of The Trinity. Disputed passages I plan to make defenses of in future posts on this blog.
Also, based on the little bit of Aramaic that pops up in the Hebrew Bible, I feel that Memar/Memra should be the Aramaic equivalent of Dabar and Logos. But the key Logos verses in the Peshita of John use Miltha. Though the emphasis some Peshita proponents make on Miltha being Feminine is interesting in light of another study I'm working on, Memra could just as easily be said in a Feminine form.
I haven't yet done enough research into the Peshita versions of texts I'm open to an Aramaic origin for. So I'm cautious to in any way sound like I'm strongly endorsing it.
But one major issue is the Peshita lacks two of those books, 2 Peter and Jude. 2 Peter could have been written to Peter's usual audience rather then the specifically identified Greek audience of 1st Peter. And it being originally in a different language could help explain why it seems to scholars like Peter's Epistles can't have the same author. The name of Tartaros being in 2 Peter may be odd if it wasn't originally in Greek, but it could have mentioned a Mesopotamian equivalent. The most possibly distinctly Greek detail in Jude is referring to "Wandering Stars" a Greek astronomical term, equivalents of which may have existed elsewhere but likely wouldn't translate to that directly.
One website on the subject of Semitic Origins for the New Testament I used to visit a lot is www.Ancient-Hebrew.org but I can't agree with everything there.
More recently is the Nazarene Judaism website. It's a peculiar form of the Hebrew Roots movement that I've mentioned before. Again I can't agree with them on everything.
On the subject of Aramaic Texts they side against the Peshita unlike me. They are similar to me on the subject of existing Hebrew texts for Matthew however, except they are not quite as strongly anti Shem-Tov as I am.
The Shem-Tov is more like the Aramaic Targums of the Old Testament then a proper Hebrew version of Matthew. I think the key to figuring out the original Hebrew of Matthew is the DuTillet, Muster and Cinuarbres manuscripts. There is also a Muster text of Hebrews.
But again, I mention these with caution since I really can't study them directly and haven't read enough of what has been studied. My strong support of the Textus Receptus over the Sinaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus for the Greek texts still means that even books that might not have been originally in Greek were preserved well in the Textus Receptus. Any difference in these Semitic texts that effects major doctrines I have to be very hesitant to accept. Also the very same quotes from Eusebius about Clement saying Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew also say it was Luke who made the Greek translation, so in that context I trust Luke to have translated it right.
What I've heard about Hebrew Matthew's version of the "Eye of the Needle" expression, and Matthew 24 saying "The Last Generation" (saying L'Dowr Acharown from Psalms 48, 78 and 102, which English Bibles usually don't translate accurately but Jewish ones will say "The Last Generation"), only help support how I already interpret those verses as they appear in the Greek.
I have a number of questions I'm curious about if anyone who does know a lot about them stumbles upon this.
1. Might the Hebrew Matthew references to Simon The Leper also agree with the Peshita saying Jar Maker? Or maybe something else entirely?
2. Are all appearances of Aion/Aionios/Aionion some form of Olam in the Hebrew texts? And can the Aramaic words used in the Peshita also mean Age/Eon? The Aramaic Scriptures Website translated Eternal in the key Eternal verses but doesn't phonetically tell me what the Aramaic word was.
3. Similarly with the "Hell" words. In this case I'm confident the true Hebrew should say Sheol for Hades and in some way identify the Valley of Hinomm where Gehenna appears.
4. Which of the at least 5 different Hebrew words for "South" is used when Jesus calls the Queen of Sheba the Queen of the South? If it's Teman, Yamin, or Yam that could further verify Sheba is in Yemen, but if it's Negev that would help how Velikvoskians use that verse. If it's Darowm that wouldn't help clarify the issue at all, but Darowm is what I would half way expect of a Hebrew translation of the Greek.
5. Matthew 21:43, in the KJV "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Other translations will sometimes render this "a fruitful nation". British Israelists and Two Hosue Theologists often want to imagine Jesus said the name of Ephraim here, but Ephraim means "double fruit". It may help a developing pet theory of mine if He said Ephratah but it's not something I want to build a vital doctrine on. So do the Hebrew Matthew texts use either of those words here?
6. When Jesus says Ego Eimi in Matthew 14:7 ("It is I" in the KJV) is that Ehyeh (I Am) in the Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew? I already know it's Ena-Na in the Peshita.
I may be editing this in the future to add more such questions. New Questions would be added above this sentence not to the P.S. section.
P.S. Hell in the Peshita?
For the Peshita on Gehenna I did verify it's transliterated as Gihana in all three Mark 9 verses. While James 3:6 has simply dropped Gehnna out of it (the Greek refers to Fire of Gehenna but the Peshita just to fire). Maybe an Aramaic Primacy supporter could theorize Gehenna got added to the Greek in James because of a marginal note connecting it to the Gehenna Fire of Matthew. Is this verse of James one that's different in other Greek texts?
Hades doesn't appear in any books I consider plausible for Aramaic primacy, none the less it looks like The Peshita renders Hades as Sheul.
While Revelation isn't in the Peshita an Aramaic text of it has popped up that some think could represent an Aramaic Original. A problem for an Aramaic origin for Revelation is in fact Revelation 9:11, clearly the Language of the book wouldn't be left out of that list of names? Does this Aramaic Revelation add an Aramaic name like how some Catholic Bibles add Exterminans? And does it say Sheul for Hades like the Peshita?
Update: I have learned that the Peshita, even the books I'm open to Aramaic primacy for, uses the Greek word Evangelion (rendered Evangeliun). How do Peshita Primacy supporters explain that?
There was Greek presence in first century Mesopotamia, like the city of Seleucia which was always predominantly Greek. So it's not impossible texts written there could have been written in Greek. But also not impossible for some Greek to wind up in Aramaic texts written there.
2020 Update: So an issue with specifically Peshita Primacy is that's a specific dialect of Aramaic that is very Mesopotamian. So of books I'm open to Aramaic Primacy for only 2 Peter and Mark originated in the part of the world where it would have been that form of Aramaic. And 2 Peter isn't part of the preserved Peshita. I have considered that maybe 1 Peter had both a Greek and Aramaic form given the broad range of regions it was directed to.
For Mark the appearance of the word Evangeliun in the first verse of the Peshita is evidence that text is a translation. However that is specifically a Latin for of the word Euangelion, and some have argued for Mark being originally written in Latin, and Latin texts do use forms of Evangelion. So maybe the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of a Latin text?
As an opponent of how much Platonic and Aristolen Philosophy seeped into the Church via the Greco-Roman perspective of the "Early Church Fathers" I sympathize. But I can't ultimately support this agenda, for the most part.
Yes all but one of the New Testament's Human Authors were Jewish. But Acts 2 shows that Jews living outside Judea did not speak Hebrew all that well anymore, it would have been entirely Jews in the audience, people attending the Feast of Shavuot., but the reason the Gift of Tongs was needed was because their native languages were now those of the Gentile regions they lived in. Following the conquests of Alexander, Greek was the International Language of the Eastern Mediterranean. So even in places where both Greek and Aramaic were spoken, native Semites who knew Greek outnumbered Greeks who knew any Semitic language.
Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, multiple Early Church sources affirm that. But they affirm that as something that makes it distinct from the others, at least the other Gospels.
I personally think Hebrew Matthew was possibly Q, a common source for both Greek Matthew and Luke. Some Early Church comments about Hebrew Matthew imply it was only a collection of Sayings of Jesus making it fit the Q mold even better.
Luke was a Macedonian, writing his Gospel and Acts to a Theophilus, possibly partly as back ground information for Paul's trial before Nero (Nero was a total Hellenophile and so would have had no trouble reading/understanding Greek). Luke and Acts were certainly written in Greek.
All of Paul's Epistles but maybe Hebrews would have to have been written in Greek (here is an article on why Romans wasn't in Latin). Likewise with Revelation which was written to Seven Churches in the same region as three of Paul's letters, and 1st Peter was written to that region as well. Paul wrote to three cities in Greece, to three men with Greco-Roman names, and to staunchly Greek parts of Asia Minor. Acts itself reminds us how Greek the city of Ephesus was being devoted to Artemis. Pergamon was the capital of a Hellenic Kingdom, and Laodicea was founded by a Seleucid ruler.
I'm very open to possible Aramaic Primacy for Mark. As well as Hebrew or Aramaic Primacy for Hebrews, James, Jude and 2 Peter. For Hebrews I'd consider Hebrew more likely and for 2 Peter Aramaic more likely. Jude and James would be 50/50. The Gospel and Epistles of John I still think are Greek, I'll return to that later.
For any books that I'm open to Aramaic Primacy, I strongly favor the Peshita (http://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/) over Old Syriac manuscripts like the the Four Gospels found on Sinai, an origin that parallels one of the Alexandrian Greek Texts. Basically the Peshita should be viewed as the Textus Receptus of the Aramaic tradition. The Peshita of Mark contains none of the common Alexandrian deviations for Mark, and yes that means it has all of Mark 16, however the Peshita versions of some other books do echo Alexandrian corruptions.
My reason for being interested in an Aramaic origin for Mark is that Mark is said by Papias to have been written based on what Peter preached. Later traditions corrupted that to be in Rome but Papias originally didn't mention Rome. Peter was in fact in Mesopotamia, where Aramaic had been the main language since Neo-Assyrian times, and indeed Aramaic is the Language of the Peshita because it's The Bible of the Assyrian Church. The first interesting implication I've noticed for the Peshita possibly being closer to the original for Mark is Simon The Leper being instead called Simon the Jar Maker.
The Gospel according to John and the Three Epistles that likely have the same author I also feel were likely to have been in Greek. Things like their stopping to explain certain Semitic key words to the reader. Cepha/Kefa was a word both Hebrew and Aramaic had, it wasn't necessary to explain, same with Messiah since Christ is Meshika in the Peshita, and Rabbi is basically Aramaic in origin. Now you might think that argument is hypocritical because of Revelation 9:11 identifying both a Hebrew and Greek name, but in that verse neither Name is used outside of being tied to it's language. John says a Semitic word and then explains it in Greek. The Peshita of John simply doesn't have the explanation in these verses which allows one to argue the translator added them, but our Greek of Matthew and Mark doesn't do that for "Messiah" or Peter's new name. Matthew 1:23 is interpreting a name from Isaiah 7:14 that most Jews probably interpreted differently at first. Mark 15:22 in the Peshita gives an Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew Golgotha, likewise with Mark 15:34.
The Peshita of John 8 lacks the story of the Adulteress and for 1 John lacked it's declaration of The Trinity. Disputed passages I plan to make defenses of in future posts on this blog.
Also, based on the little bit of Aramaic that pops up in the Hebrew Bible, I feel that Memar/Memra should be the Aramaic equivalent of Dabar and Logos. But the key Logos verses in the Peshita of John use Miltha. Though the emphasis some Peshita proponents make on Miltha being Feminine is interesting in light of another study I'm working on, Memra could just as easily be said in a Feminine form.
I haven't yet done enough research into the Peshita versions of texts I'm open to an Aramaic origin for. So I'm cautious to in any way sound like I'm strongly endorsing it.
But one major issue is the Peshita lacks two of those books, 2 Peter and Jude. 2 Peter could have been written to Peter's usual audience rather then the specifically identified Greek audience of 1st Peter. And it being originally in a different language could help explain why it seems to scholars like Peter's Epistles can't have the same author. The name of Tartaros being in 2 Peter may be odd if it wasn't originally in Greek, but it could have mentioned a Mesopotamian equivalent. The most possibly distinctly Greek detail in Jude is referring to "Wandering Stars" a Greek astronomical term, equivalents of which may have existed elsewhere but likely wouldn't translate to that directly.
One website on the subject of Semitic Origins for the New Testament I used to visit a lot is www.Ancient-Hebrew.org but I can't agree with everything there.
More recently is the Nazarene Judaism website. It's a peculiar form of the Hebrew Roots movement that I've mentioned before. Again I can't agree with them on everything.
On the subject of Aramaic Texts they side against the Peshita unlike me. They are similar to me on the subject of existing Hebrew texts for Matthew however, except they are not quite as strongly anti Shem-Tov as I am.
The Shem-Tov is more like the Aramaic Targums of the Old Testament then a proper Hebrew version of Matthew. I think the key to figuring out the original Hebrew of Matthew is the DuTillet, Muster and Cinuarbres manuscripts. There is also a Muster text of Hebrews.
But again, I mention these with caution since I really can't study them directly and haven't read enough of what has been studied. My strong support of the Textus Receptus over the Sinaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus for the Greek texts still means that even books that might not have been originally in Greek were preserved well in the Textus Receptus. Any difference in these Semitic texts that effects major doctrines I have to be very hesitant to accept. Also the very same quotes from Eusebius about Clement saying Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew also say it was Luke who made the Greek translation, so in that context I trust Luke to have translated it right.
What I've heard about Hebrew Matthew's version of the "Eye of the Needle" expression, and Matthew 24 saying "The Last Generation" (saying L'Dowr Acharown from Psalms 48, 78 and 102, which English Bibles usually don't translate accurately but Jewish ones will say "The Last Generation"), only help support how I already interpret those verses as they appear in the Greek.
I have a number of questions I'm curious about if anyone who does know a lot about them stumbles upon this.
1. Might the Hebrew Matthew references to Simon The Leper also agree with the Peshita saying Jar Maker? Or maybe something else entirely?
2. Are all appearances of Aion/Aionios/Aionion some form of Olam in the Hebrew texts? And can the Aramaic words used in the Peshita also mean Age/Eon? The Aramaic Scriptures Website translated Eternal in the key Eternal verses but doesn't phonetically tell me what the Aramaic word was.
3. Similarly with the "Hell" words. In this case I'm confident the true Hebrew should say Sheol for Hades and in some way identify the Valley of Hinomm where Gehenna appears.
4. Which of the at least 5 different Hebrew words for "South" is used when Jesus calls the Queen of Sheba the Queen of the South? If it's Teman, Yamin, or Yam that could further verify Sheba is in Yemen, but if it's Negev that would help how Velikvoskians use that verse. If it's Darowm that wouldn't help clarify the issue at all, but Darowm is what I would half way expect of a Hebrew translation of the Greek.
5. Matthew 21:43, in the KJV "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Other translations will sometimes render this "a fruitful nation". British Israelists and Two Hosue Theologists often want to imagine Jesus said the name of Ephraim here, but Ephraim means "double fruit". It may help a developing pet theory of mine if He said Ephratah but it's not something I want to build a vital doctrine on. So do the Hebrew Matthew texts use either of those words here?
6. When Jesus says Ego Eimi in Matthew 14:7 ("It is I" in the KJV) is that Ehyeh (I Am) in the Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew? I already know it's Ena-Na in the Peshita.
I may be editing this in the future to add more such questions. New Questions would be added above this sentence not to the P.S. section.
P.S. Hell in the Peshita?
For the Peshita on Gehenna I did verify it's transliterated as Gihana in all three Mark 9 verses. While James 3:6 has simply dropped Gehnna out of it (the Greek refers to Fire of Gehenna but the Peshita just to fire). Maybe an Aramaic Primacy supporter could theorize Gehenna got added to the Greek in James because of a marginal note connecting it to the Gehenna Fire of Matthew. Is this verse of James one that's different in other Greek texts?
Hades doesn't appear in any books I consider plausible for Aramaic primacy, none the less it looks like The Peshita renders Hades as Sheul.
While Revelation isn't in the Peshita an Aramaic text of it has popped up that some think could represent an Aramaic Original. A problem for an Aramaic origin for Revelation is in fact Revelation 9:11, clearly the Language of the book wouldn't be left out of that list of names? Does this Aramaic Revelation add an Aramaic name like how some Catholic Bibles add Exterminans? And does it say Sheul for Hades like the Peshita?
Update: I have learned that the Peshita, even the books I'm open to Aramaic primacy for, uses the Greek word Evangelion (rendered Evangeliun). How do Peshita Primacy supporters explain that?
There was Greek presence in first century Mesopotamia, like the city of Seleucia which was always predominantly Greek. So it's not impossible texts written there could have been written in Greek. But also not impossible for some Greek to wind up in Aramaic texts written there.
2020 Update: So an issue with specifically Peshita Primacy is that's a specific dialect of Aramaic that is very Mesopotamian. So of books I'm open to Aramaic Primacy for only 2 Peter and Mark originated in the part of the world where it would have been that form of Aramaic. And 2 Peter isn't part of the preserved Peshita. I have considered that maybe 1 Peter had both a Greek and Aramaic form given the broad range of regions it was directed to.
For Mark the appearance of the word Evangeliun in the first verse of the Peshita is evidence that text is a translation. However that is specifically a Latin for of the word Euangelion, and some have argued for Mark being originally written in Latin, and Latin texts do use forms of Evangelion. So maybe the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of a Latin text?
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Do Universalists need to throw out certain books of The Bible?
I just found a website attacking Universal Salvation that acknowledges the Antiochian School taught it, and then says.
As far as second Peter goes, they cited two verses referring to Judgment on Sinners, none inherently saying it'll be endless or even Aionion. God's punishments are for Correction (Habakkuk 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11) and not endless (Matthew 5:26, Luke 12:59 and Matthew 18:34). And again one of them was about Sodom and Gomorrah, which again we know will be restored because of Ezekiel 16. 2 Peter 3:9 is one of my favorite Universal Salvation proof texts, he says God is "not willing" that any should perish.
They didn't even cite anything from II or III John, those short books deal with Believers behaving badly which makes them attractive to those who say Salvation can be lost or that we need to be on guard for fake believers. But nothing in those books refers to endless torment or annihilation as being their Punishment. In III John it's clear the bad Christian we're to be concerned about is the one trying to kick others out.
This came up later in an article mainly opposing the Semitic New Testament theory, since the Aramaic Peshita lacks exactly the books listed above, and the Church of the East emerged largely from the Antiochene School. I mostly agree with them that the original Language of most of The New Testament was Greek, I'm going to be doing a post on that in the near future.
They accuse Universal Salvation of being Gnostic by associating it with Clement, Origen and Diodore. But they left out Gregory of Nyssa. The Predestination doctrine of Augustine is what was condemned as Gnostic Hersey by the Pre-Nicene fathers, both Origen and Methodius of Olympus (who on many other issues disagreed with Origen) wrote books on the subject.
This website decided to just accept the worst slanders against Nesotrius and Theodore of Mopsuestia uncritically. Theodore did NOT teach a from of Adoptionism, he wrote whole books on the Incarnation.
At any rate dispute on some of these books existed already before Nicaea, it used to be opponents of Pre-Millenial Eschatology just rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea, it was Augustine who enabled them to allegorize it away.
The Muratorian Fragment fails to mentions Either of Peter's Epistles or James or Hebrews and apparently includes only two of John's. But it did include Jude. And it adds the Apocalypse of Peter which affirms Universal Salvation.
I doubt this website approves of the Book of Enoch being added to the Canon, which I mention because the ancient arguments against Jude's inclusion were because it seemingly quotes Enoch. So no, it being a problem for Universal Salvation was not the reason.
I do support the 27 Book New Testament as preserved by the Textus Receptus. I just pointed out these facts to provide some context showing that Universal Salvation could not have been the issue.
Some of my allies give Enoch part of the blame for the development of the Endless Torment doctrine. But while I definitely don't consider Enoch Canon, I do consider what it says about the fate of Azazel and his armies consistent with how I interpret the nature of the Lake of Fire.
In Richard Laurence's Translation "for ever" must be a bad translation (or the Ethiopic was a poor translation). Chapter 10 Verse 8 describes a condition as "for ever" that the very next verse says will one day end. And then verse 15 says "till the judgment that will last forever be completed"???????. Repeatedly the imprisonment of the Angels is said to be "for ever" even though it's also defined as 70 Generations.
Enoch 22:13-14 is what most seemingly opposes Universal Salvation in the book. But it is also a big problem for those who want to make it Canon, it explicitly says the Souls of Sinners won't rise from where they currently are on the day of judgment, this is explicitly contradicted by Revelation 20, 1 Corinthians 15, John 5 and Daniel 12. It might be possible to argue all Jude was even vaguely endorsing was the first part of the book and not this later proto-Dante's Inferno. Or this could be another textual corruption or translation issue and that verse meant to say their souls won't be destroyed or released from their prison until the Day of Judgment.
Origen was pretty fine with Enoch even though we know he supported a form of Universal Salvation.
It was not without reason that the Antioch School refused to canonize the books of II Peter, II and III John, Jude and Revelation. The doctrine of the Universal Salvation could be easily refuted by these five books which contained so many verses on eternal judgment as to render them irrepressible:I'm a proponent of Universal Salvation who is not at all afraid of these books. The very verses from Jude they go on to cite are cited by me to prove "Eternal Fire" can't mean endless torment in both KJV Universal Salvation and Words Translated Eternal, because it's used of the fire that destroyed Sodom and in Ezekiel 16 Yahuah promises Sodom will be restored. And I recently wrote a blog post on how Revelation points to Universal Salvation, and addressed The Lake of Fire in my posts on Gehenna and the Baptism of Fire.
As far as second Peter goes, they cited two verses referring to Judgment on Sinners, none inherently saying it'll be endless or even Aionion. God's punishments are for Correction (Habakkuk 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11) and not endless (Matthew 5:26, Luke 12:59 and Matthew 18:34). And again one of them was about Sodom and Gomorrah, which again we know will be restored because of Ezekiel 16. 2 Peter 3:9 is one of my favorite Universal Salvation proof texts, he says God is "not willing" that any should perish.
They didn't even cite anything from II or III John, those short books deal with Believers behaving badly which makes them attractive to those who say Salvation can be lost or that we need to be on guard for fake believers. But nothing in those books refers to endless torment or annihilation as being their Punishment. In III John it's clear the bad Christian we're to be concerned about is the one trying to kick others out.
This came up later in an article mainly opposing the Semitic New Testament theory, since the Aramaic Peshita lacks exactly the books listed above, and the Church of the East emerged largely from the Antiochene School. I mostly agree with them that the original Language of most of The New Testament was Greek, I'm going to be doing a post on that in the near future.
They accuse Universal Salvation of being Gnostic by associating it with Clement, Origen and Diodore. But they left out Gregory of Nyssa. The Predestination doctrine of Augustine is what was condemned as Gnostic Hersey by the Pre-Nicene fathers, both Origen and Methodius of Olympus (who on many other issues disagreed with Origen) wrote books on the subject.
This website decided to just accept the worst slanders against Nesotrius and Theodore of Mopsuestia uncritically. Theodore did NOT teach a from of Adoptionism, he wrote whole books on the Incarnation.
At any rate dispute on some of these books existed already before Nicaea, it used to be opponents of Pre-Millenial Eschatology just rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea, it was Augustine who enabled them to allegorize it away.
The Muratorian Fragment fails to mentions Either of Peter's Epistles or James or Hebrews and apparently includes only two of John's. But it did include Jude. And it adds the Apocalypse of Peter which affirms Universal Salvation.
I doubt this website approves of the Book of Enoch being added to the Canon, which I mention because the ancient arguments against Jude's inclusion were because it seemingly quotes Enoch. So no, it being a problem for Universal Salvation was not the reason.
I do support the 27 Book New Testament as preserved by the Textus Receptus. I just pointed out these facts to provide some context showing that Universal Salvation could not have been the issue.
Some of my allies give Enoch part of the blame for the development of the Endless Torment doctrine. But while I definitely don't consider Enoch Canon, I do consider what it says about the fate of Azazel and his armies consistent with how I interpret the nature of the Lake of Fire.
And he said unto me, “These are being prepared for the armies of Azazel, in order that they may take them and cast them into the abyss of complete condemnation, and as the Lord of the Spirits has commanded it, they shall cover their jaws with rocky stones. Then Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel themselves shall seize them on that great day of judgment and cast them into the furnace (of fire) that is burning that day, so that the Lord of the Spirits may take vengeance on them on account of their oppressive deeds which (they performed) as messengers of Satan, leading astray those who dwell upon the earth.”It said "on account of their deeds" meaning the Punishment will fit the Crime. Meanwhile the first 8 verses of the Book sound pretty Universalist.
In Richard Laurence's Translation "for ever" must be a bad translation (or the Ethiopic was a poor translation). Chapter 10 Verse 8 describes a condition as "for ever" that the very next verse says will one day end. And then verse 15 says "till the judgment that will last forever be completed"???????. Repeatedly the imprisonment of the Angels is said to be "for ever" even though it's also defined as 70 Generations.
Enoch 22:13-14 is what most seemingly opposes Universal Salvation in the book. But it is also a big problem for those who want to make it Canon, it explicitly says the Souls of Sinners won't rise from where they currently are on the day of judgment, this is explicitly contradicted by Revelation 20, 1 Corinthians 15, John 5 and Daniel 12. It might be possible to argue all Jude was even vaguely endorsing was the first part of the book and not this later proto-Dante's Inferno. Or this could be another textual corruption or translation issue and that verse meant to say their souls won't be destroyed or released from their prison until the Day of Judgment.
Origen was pretty fine with Enoch even though we know he supported a form of Universal Salvation.
Free Will is not an argument agaisnt Universal Salvation
I know this is like my third blog post on this subject, but it's important.
I watched Brad Jersak speak in a video on YouTube about some Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians who taught "Hopeful Inclusivism" but felt they couldn't rule out Endless Torment because of "Free Will". Well, I'm getting tired of the notion that Universal Salvation proponents are the ones who need to explain away Free Will.
Because I know quite a few unbelievers, and none would ever choose Eternal Endless Hopeless Fiery Torment in Hell. Any edgelord who says they want to go to "hell" are not viewing hell as any Christians views it, they're seeing it as an endless orgy rock concert or a realm like Mordor. The problem is many people don't feel like they'd be happy in the Heaven of a God who would torture people forever.
When Calvinists and Arminians are just arguing with each other pretending Universal Salvation isn't an option. Calvinists accuse Arminians of not believing God is Sovereign, and then Arminians respond with "we're not saying God can't override Human Free will, we're saying he chooses not to, he chooses to respect human Free Will."
The problem is there is more to respecting someone's Free Will then just not using your Magical Mind Control powers on them.
If I proposed to a woman and said "If you say no I won't force you to marry me, but I will have to torture you to death for the offense of rejecting me" did I respect her free will?
What I'm saying is in my opinion only Evangelical Unviersalsits can truly believe God respects Human Free Will. Whether your view of God is someone who hypnotizes us to accept Him like a Hollywood vampire, or someone who puts a gun to our head is ultimately no different, the end result is still not respecting Free Will.
Origen, Methodius of Olympus, Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia all affirmed Human Free Will and condemned Predestination as a Gnostic Heresy. And they are also the pillars of the Ancient Precedent for Universal Salvation. It was Augustine who first popularized Predestination while also opposing Universal Salvation.
In my theology God is going to respect our choices. Actions will have consequences, sins will be punished, but they will be for Correction (Habakkuk 1:12) and not endless (Matthew 5:26, Luke 12:59 and Matthew 18:34).
He will not however force anyone to join His Kingdom, His Family, against their will. But the invitation will never be revoked. The Gates of New Jerusalem are never shut during the day and there is no night there. There are benefits to joining now rather then later, but the door will still never be shut.
The Outer Darkness I still view as being outside New Jerusalem. But I now think the only people flat out not let in at first are Believers who messed up, they'll be the ones wailing and gnashing their teeth, and maybe I'll be among them, I have no confidence I've been an ideal Ambassador of the Kingdom. Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth is a Hebrew idiom of remorse and disappointment. Jesus' references to that and the Outer Darkness in Matthew are all about Children of the Kingdom.
But I think even those could be let in eventually, after being cleansed by the River and healed by the leaves of the Tree of Life.
Jesus says in John 12:32 that He Will draw all Humans unto Him. But they will come willingly, even if it takes a long time.
I watched Brad Jersak speak in a video on YouTube about some Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theologians who taught "Hopeful Inclusivism" but felt they couldn't rule out Endless Torment because of "Free Will". Well, I'm getting tired of the notion that Universal Salvation proponents are the ones who need to explain away Free Will.
Because I know quite a few unbelievers, and none would ever choose Eternal Endless Hopeless Fiery Torment in Hell. Any edgelord who says they want to go to "hell" are not viewing hell as any Christians views it, they're seeing it as an endless orgy rock concert or a realm like Mordor. The problem is many people don't feel like they'd be happy in the Heaven of a God who would torture people forever.
When Calvinists and Arminians are just arguing with each other pretending Universal Salvation isn't an option. Calvinists accuse Arminians of not believing God is Sovereign, and then Arminians respond with "we're not saying God can't override Human Free will, we're saying he chooses not to, he chooses to respect human Free Will."
The problem is there is more to respecting someone's Free Will then just not using your Magical Mind Control powers on them.
If I proposed to a woman and said "If you say no I won't force you to marry me, but I will have to torture you to death for the offense of rejecting me" did I respect her free will?
What I'm saying is in my opinion only Evangelical Unviersalsits can truly believe God respects Human Free Will. Whether your view of God is someone who hypnotizes us to accept Him like a Hollywood vampire, or someone who puts a gun to our head is ultimately no different, the end result is still not respecting Free Will.
Origen, Methodius of Olympus, Gregory of Nyssa and Theodore of Mopsuestia all affirmed Human Free Will and condemned Predestination as a Gnostic Heresy. And they are also the pillars of the Ancient Precedent for Universal Salvation. It was Augustine who first popularized Predestination while also opposing Universal Salvation.
In my theology God is going to respect our choices. Actions will have consequences, sins will be punished, but they will be for Correction (Habakkuk 1:12) and not endless (Matthew 5:26, Luke 12:59 and Matthew 18:34).
He will not however force anyone to join His Kingdom, His Family, against their will. But the invitation will never be revoked. The Gates of New Jerusalem are never shut during the day and there is no night there. There are benefits to joining now rather then later, but the door will still never be shut.
The Outer Darkness I still view as being outside New Jerusalem. But I now think the only people flat out not let in at first are Believers who messed up, they'll be the ones wailing and gnashing their teeth, and maybe I'll be among them, I have no confidence I've been an ideal Ambassador of the Kingdom. Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth is a Hebrew idiom of remorse and disappointment. Jesus' references to that and the Outer Darkness in Matthew are all about Children of the Kingdom.
But I think even those could be let in eventually, after being cleansed by the River and healed by the leaves of the Tree of Life.
Jesus says in John 12:32 that He Will draw all Humans unto Him. But they will come willingly, even if it takes a long time.
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
Mishkab and Koiten should be translated Bed.
That's what they mean, there are other Hebrew and Greek words to say "lie with", which sometimes appear in the same verse.
"But they are clearly often used euphemistically of Sexual intercourse."
Well we also use "bed" that way in English so that's not an excuse for not translating them as "bed". Just translate the word as what the word means and let grammar and context determine how it's being used.
The Greek Koiten/Koitus was definitely used that way hence being the origin of our word "Coitus". But I can't help but suspect the Hebrew Mishkab only came to be used that way because of the Septuagint using Koiten to translate Mishkab.
This isn't just about the Homosexuality clobber passages, the other five times the KJV translated "Mishkab" as if it were a verb were in totally Het contexts and are also verses where a break down of the Hebrew Grammar shows it's being used as a noun. They are Judges 21:11-12 and Numbers 31:17, 18 and 35. The difference between those five and the two verses in Leviticus assumed to be about Homsexuality is those verses suggest the bed belongs to the Zakar (male) while in Leviticus the bed belongs to the woman or wife.
All seven verses are definitely about some type of sex happening, but whether or not the word for bed is being used as a noun or a verb can make a big difference in what a verse means. And the number of times even the KJV translated this word as a Noun regardless of if sex is involved dwarf these seven occurrences.
The most hyper literal unbiased translations of Leviticus 18:22 tend to be something like "And with male not lay bed of woman; abomination-her."
In my initial analysis of the Leviticus clobber verses I talked about the theory some have proposed that it means "Thou shall not lie with a male in a Wife's Bed", but was ultimately dismissive of it. Back then I stressed the Pagan context of Leviticus 18 but was also willing to slightly throw anal intercourse under the bus. Today I'm not as comfortable with that.
The grammar of The Hebrew supports some from of the "Wife's Bed" interpretation. But other aspects of it are still unclear.
What if that reading opens the door for it to not even be a gay act at all? Looking at the very literal translation, what if it's about having another male lie with your wife? Something many ancients practiced under the right circumstances. The problem there is I also want to encourage Christians to be more open to Non-Monogamous arrangements.
The fact that the word 'Tovah" (commonly translated "Abomination" or "Detestable" but I feel is perhaps best rendered "Taboo"). has a feminine pronoun attached to it is fascinating. Many scholars pointing this fact out don't see it as really relevant. But I think it could be.
Traditional interpretations say the reference to "womankind" in the verse is just as an analogy, "don't do with a male what you're supposed to do with a woman". And that includes my own past desire to see anal sex a key factor.
But this ignored fact of a feminine pronoun attached to Tovah suggests that this is in fact a crime or offense for which the wife is the victim, or the one being wronged.
Which would mean if it were about having another male sleep with your wife, the issue would be if she's okay with it or not. And going back to the gay option, if your wife is a Fujoshi who's totally cool with you banging a guy in her bed then that's not an issue either.
Regardless of all that, it's certainly NOT a verse condemning all male Homosexuality.
Traditionalists may on this or other disputes throw a "these heretics can't even agree with each other" argument at a post like this. But that's not evidence their view is right, it's evidence their view is one of many. But it's inevitable people will think that way when they've been used to their interpretation being the default.
Fortunately I don't think we're under The Law anymore and so am not that concerned with knowing what these two obscure verses want people to not do. But I do address these Torah passages because I want LGBT Jews to know that the G-d of Abraham is cool with them.
"But they are clearly often used euphemistically of Sexual intercourse."
Well we also use "bed" that way in English so that's not an excuse for not translating them as "bed". Just translate the word as what the word means and let grammar and context determine how it's being used.
The Greek Koiten/Koitus was definitely used that way hence being the origin of our word "Coitus". But I can't help but suspect the Hebrew Mishkab only came to be used that way because of the Septuagint using Koiten to translate Mishkab.
This isn't just about the Homosexuality clobber passages, the other five times the KJV translated "Mishkab" as if it were a verb were in totally Het contexts and are also verses where a break down of the Hebrew Grammar shows it's being used as a noun. They are Judges 21:11-12 and Numbers 31:17, 18 and 35. The difference between those five and the two verses in Leviticus assumed to be about Homsexuality is those verses suggest the bed belongs to the Zakar (male) while in Leviticus the bed belongs to the woman or wife.
All seven verses are definitely about some type of sex happening, but whether or not the word for bed is being used as a noun or a verb can make a big difference in what a verse means. And the number of times even the KJV translated this word as a Noun regardless of if sex is involved dwarf these seven occurrences.
The most hyper literal unbiased translations of Leviticus 18:22 tend to be something like "And with male not lay bed of woman; abomination-her."
In my initial analysis of the Leviticus clobber verses I talked about the theory some have proposed that it means "Thou shall not lie with a male in a Wife's Bed", but was ultimately dismissive of it. Back then I stressed the Pagan context of Leviticus 18 but was also willing to slightly throw anal intercourse under the bus. Today I'm not as comfortable with that.
The grammar of The Hebrew supports some from of the "Wife's Bed" interpretation. But other aspects of it are still unclear.
What if that reading opens the door for it to not even be a gay act at all? Looking at the very literal translation, what if it's about having another male lie with your wife? Something many ancients practiced under the right circumstances. The problem there is I also want to encourage Christians to be more open to Non-Monogamous arrangements.
The fact that the word 'Tovah" (commonly translated "Abomination" or "Detestable" but I feel is perhaps best rendered "Taboo"). has a feminine pronoun attached to it is fascinating. Many scholars pointing this fact out don't see it as really relevant. But I think it could be.
Traditional interpretations say the reference to "womankind" in the verse is just as an analogy, "don't do with a male what you're supposed to do with a woman". And that includes my own past desire to see anal sex a key factor.
But this ignored fact of a feminine pronoun attached to Tovah suggests that this is in fact a crime or offense for which the wife is the victim, or the one being wronged.
Which would mean if it were about having another male sleep with your wife, the issue would be if she's okay with it or not. And going back to the gay option, if your wife is a Fujoshi who's totally cool with you banging a guy in her bed then that's not an issue either.
Regardless of all that, it's certainly NOT a verse condemning all male Homosexuality.
Traditionalists may on this or other disputes throw a "these heretics can't even agree with each other" argument at a post like this. But that's not evidence their view is right, it's evidence their view is one of many. But it's inevitable people will think that way when they've been used to their interpretation being the default.
Fortunately I don't think we're under The Law anymore and so am not that concerned with knowing what these two obscure verses want people to not do. But I do address these Torah passages because I want LGBT Jews to know that the G-d of Abraham is cool with them.
Update: Here's an interlinear Bible showing what I'm talking about.
The Feminine Pronoun attached to Tovah is Eua spelled Aleph-Vav-Heh.
The translation on the side is just the AV (Authorized Version) more commonly known as the KJV.
Monday, August 6, 2018
The Baptism of Fire
I'm going to start by quoting Luke 3:16-17 but the parallel in Matthew is chapter 3 verses 10 and 11. In Mark it's 1:8 but that's a shortened version that leaves out the fire, likewise John 1:33, Acts 1:5 and 11:16.
None of the verses that can be twisted to make it sound like maybe Baptism is necessary for Salvation can be proven to refer to Water Baptism, including Mark 16.
The post Pentecost Church kept practicing a Water Baptism like John's as a symbolic act, but that was never the true Baptism.
In Romans 6 Paul teaches that we are made Dead to Sin at Baptism because in Baptism we are in Jesus Death. That this teaching can only be about the Baptism of Fire will become apparent from the full testimony of Scripture.
The word Baptism comes from a Greek word that means "to wash" or to immerse. So the idea of Baptizing with Fire does seem weird. You wash or immerse in a body of water like a river or a pool or a lake....lake.... If you cast someone into a Lake you are immersing or washing them in that lake... hmmmm.
John answered, saying unto them all, "I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable."I think a lot of what leads people to weird doctrines about Baptism being required for Salvation or for being truly part of The Bride is people forgetting that Water Baptism isn't the only Baptism. The Church has long viewed the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as being what happened at Pentecost in Acts 2, when The Holy Spirit descended and gave everyone Tongs of Fire. Therefore it's illogical to turn around and think the use of the word Baptized in that chapter can refer to water Baptism.
None of the verses that can be twisted to make it sound like maybe Baptism is necessary for Salvation can be proven to refer to Water Baptism, including Mark 16.
The post Pentecost Church kept practicing a Water Baptism like John's as a symbolic act, but that was never the true Baptism.
In Romans 6 Paul teaches that we are made Dead to Sin at Baptism because in Baptism we are in Jesus Death. That this teaching can only be about the Baptism of Fire will become apparent from the full testimony of Scripture.
The word Baptism comes from a Greek word that means "to wash" or to immerse. So the idea of Baptizing with Fire does seem weird. You wash or immerse in a body of water like a river or a pool or a lake....lake.... If you cast someone into a Lake you are immersing or washing them in that lake... hmmmm.
The first time "Unquenchable Fire" is referenced in the New Testament it's John elaborating on the Baptism of The Holy Spirit in Matthew 3:11-12 and Luke 3:16-17.
Revelation 14:10 describes the Lake of Fire as being in God's presence. The fire and brimstone that burns the damned emanates from God's presence in Isaiah 30:27-33 and II Thessalonians 1:8-9. God Himself is called a consuming fire in Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29. Deuteronomy 32:22-24 and Ezekiel 20:47 also defined the fire of judgment as coming from God. In Malachi 3 Yahuah says he will purify the sons of Levi with fire and purge them as gold and silver. 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 also refers to people being Saved even though their works were devoured by the fire. Isaiah 30:33 says the Breath of God is like Brimstone/Sulfur, and the Hebrew word for "Breath" there is also a word for "Spirit". And I think verses using the mysterious word Resheph are also relevant to this theme.
In Mark 9:49-50 Jesus says that Everyone will be salted with fire.
In Peter's first epistle in chapter 3 he compares the Flood of Noah to Baptism. And then in chapter 3 of his second Epistle he compares the Flood of Noah to the coming consuming of the Earth by fire.
The most common view of the Second Death held by proponents of Universal Salvation is to call it the Death of Death, which works when you just quote Revelation 20:14 and back it up with 1 Corinthians 15:26 & 54-55, but that is neither the first or last usage of the term Second Death. Revelation 21:8 defines it as being cast into the Lake of Fire, and 2:11 and 20:6 are clear it's something at least some of the not risen till after the Millennium will experience.
The Second Death is becoming Dead to Sin and the Law as Paul teaches in Romans 6-7, it's the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. It will be more pleasant to experience it now rather then later, but in neither case will it destroy the Image of God or be an indefinite punishment, God's punishments are for correction according to Hanukah 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11.
I've expressed this view on the Second Death once already but this is more in-depth. I'm not sure to what extend this might require me to refine my view on The Second Resurrection.
When you choose to take a bath or a shower it can be a very pleasant and satisfying experience. But when a child doesn't want to take a bath and chooses to stay dirty and the parent has to force them into it, that tends to be unpleasant for all parties involved, but it's something the parent does out of love for their child.
The two verses where John The Baptist refers to the Baptism of Fire are also adjacent to discussion of separating the Wheat from The Chaff. Chaff you need to understand is not a separate plant., it's the part of the Wheat that is not eatable. The Chaff represents Sin not Sinners.
Revelation 14:10 describes the Lake of Fire as being in God's presence. The fire and brimstone that burns the damned emanates from God's presence in Isaiah 30:27-33 and II Thessalonians 1:8-9. God Himself is called a consuming fire in Deuteronomy 4:24 and Hebrews 12:29. Deuteronomy 32:22-24 and Ezekiel 20:47 also defined the fire of judgment as coming from God. In Malachi 3 Yahuah says he will purify the sons of Levi with fire and purge them as gold and silver. 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 also refers to people being Saved even though their works were devoured by the fire. Isaiah 30:33 says the Breath of God is like Brimstone/Sulfur, and the Hebrew word for "Breath" there is also a word for "Spirit". And I think verses using the mysterious word Resheph are also relevant to this theme.
In Mark 9:49-50 Jesus says that Everyone will be salted with fire.
In Peter's first epistle in chapter 3 he compares the Flood of Noah to Baptism. And then in chapter 3 of his second Epistle he compares the Flood of Noah to the coming consuming of the Earth by fire.
The most common view of the Second Death held by proponents of Universal Salvation is to call it the Death of Death, which works when you just quote Revelation 20:14 and back it up with 1 Corinthians 15:26 & 54-55, but that is neither the first or last usage of the term Second Death. Revelation 21:8 defines it as being cast into the Lake of Fire, and 2:11 and 20:6 are clear it's something at least some of the not risen till after the Millennium will experience.
The Second Death is becoming Dead to Sin and the Law as Paul teaches in Romans 6-7, it's the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. It will be more pleasant to experience it now rather then later, but in neither case will it destroy the Image of God or be an indefinite punishment, God's punishments are for correction according to Hanukah 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11.
I've expressed this view on the Second Death once already but this is more in-depth. I'm not sure to what extend this might require me to refine my view on The Second Resurrection.
When you choose to take a bath or a shower it can be a very pleasant and satisfying experience. But when a child doesn't want to take a bath and chooses to stay dirty and the parent has to force them into it, that tends to be unpleasant for all parties involved, but it's something the parent does out of love for their child.
The two verses where John The Baptist refers to the Baptism of Fire are also adjacent to discussion of separating the Wheat from The Chaff. Chaff you need to understand is not a separate plant., it's the part of the Wheat that is not eatable. The Chaff represents Sin not Sinners.
1 Corinthians 15:26 clearly says the Last Enemy destroyed is Death. Therefore in Revelation 20 nothing that happens after Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire can be defined as enemies being destroyed. And even before then the Enemies are "destroyed" by being made not enemies anymore.
Update November 2024: In this post I study the Greek word translated Lake.
Saturday, August 4, 2018
Just accept that The Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy
I myself was once on the bandwagon of trying to deconstruct the Old Testament's approval of Polygyny. Though at the same time I also deconstructed the presumed New Testament arguments against it. My mind has changed on a lot of things since then.
This is prompted partly by me watching a recent YouTube video by William Schnebolen, who's gone all Hebrew Roots now. He's coming at it partly from an Anti-Mormonism angle, which is Ironic.
There are a lot of inconsistencies between what The Book of Mormon teaches and the doctrines that Joseph Smith and even more so Brigham Young would develop later. Indeed the Book of Mormon actually says the kinds of things The Bible should have said if any of it's authors ever wanted to condemn Polygamy or specifically Polygyny. And I agree with the Mormon historians who've argued that Joseph Smith never practiced or approved of Polygamy, it seeped into Mormonism through another short lived movement who's members were absorbed into the early LDS church.
Schnebolen even repeats the whole "it's oppressive to women" thing, which is a riot coming from someone who now wants to impose The Torah on the modern world. The fact is Monogamy has also been traditionally based on viewing women as property. But even more then that, Polyandry in most cultures that have practiced it still practiced it patriarchally, the woman was still property just shared property. No numerical form of Marriage is inherently patriarchal, it's society that is patriarchal.
I believe that under The New Testament gender no longer matters, so Polygyny isn't the only form of Polygamy I support, I support Polyandry, Group Marriages, Open Marriages, Polyamory, everything so long as all parties involved are consenting and adults. And those Mormon communities practicing Polygyny very non-consensually came into existence because of the government making it illegal, just like how so many other forms of prohibition have failed.
The perception that the New Testament is for strict Monogamy is mostly dependent on a lack of any direct references to Polygamy in it. But I think a lot of that may be because some in the early Church were iffy on continuing marriage as a custom at all, Paul's attitude towards it was complicated and the Disciples left their wives to follow Jesus.
Another factor is how the Greek speaking Early Church Fathers are given primacy in the history of how the New Testament has been interpreted since they spoke the same language (to the point where their Semitic contemporaries works mostly weren't preserved at all). Where that applies to favoring them over the Latins like Augustine I agree. But the trade off is the New Testament books weren't the only Greek writings to influence them. The New Testament was a Greek text written mostly by Hebrews.
This is prompted partly by me watching a recent YouTube video by William Schnebolen, who's gone all Hebrew Roots now. He's coming at it partly from an Anti-Mormonism angle, which is Ironic.
There are a lot of inconsistencies between what The Book of Mormon teaches and the doctrines that Joseph Smith and even more so Brigham Young would develop later. Indeed the Book of Mormon actually says the kinds of things The Bible should have said if any of it's authors ever wanted to condemn Polygamy or specifically Polygyny. And I agree with the Mormon historians who've argued that Joseph Smith never practiced or approved of Polygamy, it seeped into Mormonism through another short lived movement who's members were absorbed into the early LDS church.
Schnebolen even repeats the whole "it's oppressive to women" thing, which is a riot coming from someone who now wants to impose The Torah on the modern world. The fact is Monogamy has also been traditionally based on viewing women as property. But even more then that, Polyandry in most cultures that have practiced it still practiced it patriarchally, the woman was still property just shared property. No numerical form of Marriage is inherently patriarchal, it's society that is patriarchal.
I believe that under The New Testament gender no longer matters, so Polygyny isn't the only form of Polygamy I support, I support Polyandry, Group Marriages, Open Marriages, Polyamory, everything so long as all parties involved are consenting and adults. And those Mormon communities practicing Polygyny very non-consensually came into existence because of the government making it illegal, just like how so many other forms of prohibition have failed.
The perception that the New Testament is for strict Monogamy is mostly dependent on a lack of any direct references to Polygamy in it. But I think a lot of that may be because some in the early Church were iffy on continuing marriage as a custom at all, Paul's attitude towards it was complicated and the Disciples left their wives to follow Jesus.
Another factor is how the Greek speaking Early Church Fathers are given primacy in the history of how the New Testament has been interpreted since they spoke the same language (to the point where their Semitic contemporaries works mostly weren't preserved at all). Where that applies to favoring them over the Latins like Augustine I agree. But the trade off is the New Testament books weren't the only Greek writings to influence them. The New Testament was a Greek text written mostly by Hebrews.
You see the Greeks were the first culture in all of history to oppose Polygamy (though they still felt a Husband could have mistresses) and this was among the Greek ideas adopted by Rome. The Greeks and Romans happen to be the only Pre-Christian cultures to have any opposition to Polygamy, unfortunately they helped shape the development of Christianity.
Every ancient source on 1st and 2nd Century AD Judaism besides the New Testament is clear that they were still practicing Torah based Polygamy, Josephus, Philo, the Talmud, the Early Church Fathers, and even Pagan sources. Why didn't Jesus ever address this problem if He viewed it as a problem?
Taking Jesus statement about a man and wife being made one flesh as against Polygamy is massively manipulative. The context was about condemning divorce (meaning He was willing to directly condemn something Moses allowed if He wanted to) and so would include a Husband with two wives wanting to divorce one because he decided to be Monogamous, if the relationships were consummated he was one flesh with each of them.
Romans 7 cited the part of the Torah it does to prove a principle that you're not bound by the Law anymore at Death, and then explains how believers are Dead to the Law in Jesus at Baptism. So no this chapter can't be used against Polyandry.
Paul's statements in the Pastoral Epistles about Bishops and Deacons being the "husband of one wife" have been interpreted as meaning no more then one when opposing Polygamy, but no less then one when addressing the Vatican's doctrine of a Celibate clergy. However it does not say "Only one".
Schnebolen actually says Paul had to say this because of the Polygamy being practiced by the Pagans of Corinth, which shows his ignorance of Pagan Greece. Quite the contrary the context of Paul saying the Bishop should be "blameless" suggests it's about appeasing the norms of the secular society they live in not rejecting them. Well as Americans the norms of our secular society are supposed to be about valuing the Freedom to live however you want.
Jesus told a parable about 10 Virgins awaiting the same Bride Groom, which goes against the usual trend of the Bride of Christ doctrine being presented as a Monogamous marriage even though it's literally not. I think that the Church should be viewed as a giant Group Marriage, here is an old website advocating for Christian Polyamory.
http://www.libchrist.com/
Some scholars think Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany weren't literally siblings but that the women were his Sister-Wives, I'm not inclined to agree with that given my theories about them, but I can't refute it either. Brighamite Mormons view Mary and Martha as Sister-Wives of Jesus, which I have a controversial response to. If Jesus was married to the Sisters at Bethany then He was married to the Brother too, if anything His love for Lazarus is described more strongly.
Now onto the attempts to say the Old Testament didn't really approve of it all that glowingly and was subtly vilifying it all along. That is kind of the key to making their narrative work.
1 Kings 11 is the main discussion of Solomon's wives. Now I agree that Solomon is not as glowingly approved of as people assume. But using this narrative to paint Polygamy as the problem is a blatant manipulation of the text. The wives promoting the worship of Pagan gods was the problem, the story spells that out for us. Scripture interprets itself on this issue.
And attempts to blame the dysfunctionality of David's family on his Polygamy are equally decimated by reading II Samuel 12. It happened as a Judgment for David's adultery and murder of Uriah, and Yahuah tells David he only needed to ask if he wanted more wives.
This drama began with Amnon's rape of Tamar. And it's tempting to suggest that he wouldn't have lusted after her if she had the same mother based on modern psychological theories. But we have no evidence he did have any full siblings, and no direct evidence these children were raised in a compartmentalized fashion like we often assume of ancient royal Polygamy. The connection to the Bathseba situation is that Amnon followed his father's example and simply took what he wanted, and then didn't properly take responsibility for his actions.
Now to Deuteronomy 17. Most scholars of the Hebrew agree Deuteronomy 17:17 is not limiting the King to only one wife, simply saying some restraint is to be practiced. But Schnebolen wants to get really technical about what "multiply" means in the KJV (he seems to be be maintaining his old KJV onlyism even as a Hebrew Roots person now, which is weird). How about we interpret all of these rules equally? Is verse 16 saying the King can't have more then one single horse? Of course not, that would be absurd, you need more then one horse just to draw one chariot.
Many scholars see a connection between this part of Deuteronomy and Solomon. Atheists say Deuteronomy was actually written later then 1 Kings 11, and Believers see it as a covert Prophecy. Thing is, a break down of this connection shows that David basically followed these instructions while Solomon broke every part of it. The total number of David's wives may not have exceeded 10 (8 are named) and a few more concubines (which Abishag may have been counted among). Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So even without Deuteronomy making the line exactly clear, it's obvious how Solomon was excessive in a way prior Biblical Polygamists were not.
Now to the Patriarchs.
On the subject of drawing a connection between the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and their families dysfunctions. It should be pointed out that Isaac had only one wife and no concubines and that didn't prevent the same thing from happening, parental favoritism and sibling rivalry still happened and it's effects lingered over the rest of the Biblical narrative even more directly then Hagar and Ishmael. It's post Biblical history that makes Ishmael seem like a bigger conflict then Edom to modern Judeo-Christians.
Here is the thing, Jacob had the most wives, and yes it wasn't any more premeditated then Abraham's situation, but he still had twice as many as Abraham (I now agree with viewing Hagar and Keturah as the same woman). And yet, in-spite of all the issues Jacob's family had, his family was the one that stuck together, this was where they stopped breaking off into separate nations and in fact remain one pretty united people until Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeorboam messed it up, and that break up wasn't divided along the lines of Jacob's wives. Leah is treated as Joseph's mother in his dream in Genesis 37, and children of a city of Judah are refereed to as Rachel's children in Matthew 2.
It's common to compare when Rachel asked Jacob to lie with Bilhah to Sarah asking Abraham to lie with Hagar. But this time it didn't end the same, neither woman wound up despising the other. Both of Jacob's handmaiden concubines get fully promoted to wives without Leah or Rachel needing to die first.
Among the three Patriarchs, there is a direct correlation between how many wives they had and how well their family stuck together. Jacob's family had it's issues, but every family has issues.
With the Patriarchs when Polygamy becomes a problem it is the favoritism and jealously that is the problem, not having more then one in the first place, and that's why it was still a problem for Isaac.
The Lamech of the line of Cain in Genesis 4 gets brought up in this debate. First of all there is no Biblical basis for the law of first mention, the law of needing two references to build doctrine has at least some basis but even it some question. However the law of first mention is just made up.
And as I recently talked about, Racists love to claim the first Mixed Marriage was also in Genesis 4.
There is nothing in the Lamech narrative to support a connection between his cryptic claim to have killed someone and his having two wives. In fact his confessing his sin to his wives may be the light in this situation.
Every ancient source on 1st and 2nd Century AD Judaism besides the New Testament is clear that they were still practicing Torah based Polygamy, Josephus, Philo, the Talmud, the Early Church Fathers, and even Pagan sources. Why didn't Jesus ever address this problem if He viewed it as a problem?
Taking Jesus statement about a man and wife being made one flesh as against Polygamy is massively manipulative. The context was about condemning divorce (meaning He was willing to directly condemn something Moses allowed if He wanted to) and so would include a Husband with two wives wanting to divorce one because he decided to be Monogamous, if the relationships were consummated he was one flesh with each of them.
Romans 7 cited the part of the Torah it does to prove a principle that you're not bound by the Law anymore at Death, and then explains how believers are Dead to the Law in Jesus at Baptism. So no this chapter can't be used against Polyandry.
Paul's statements in the Pastoral Epistles about Bishops and Deacons being the "husband of one wife" have been interpreted as meaning no more then one when opposing Polygamy, but no less then one when addressing the Vatican's doctrine of a Celibate clergy. However it does not say "Only one".
Schnebolen actually says Paul had to say this because of the Polygamy being practiced by the Pagans of Corinth, which shows his ignorance of Pagan Greece. Quite the contrary the context of Paul saying the Bishop should be "blameless" suggests it's about appeasing the norms of the secular society they live in not rejecting them. Well as Americans the norms of our secular society are supposed to be about valuing the Freedom to live however you want.
Jesus told a parable about 10 Virgins awaiting the same Bride Groom, which goes against the usual trend of the Bride of Christ doctrine being presented as a Monogamous marriage even though it's literally not. I think that the Church should be viewed as a giant Group Marriage, here is an old website advocating for Christian Polyamory.
http://www.libchrist.com/
Some scholars think Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany weren't literally siblings but that the women were his Sister-Wives, I'm not inclined to agree with that given my theories about them, but I can't refute it either. Brighamite Mormons view Mary and Martha as Sister-Wives of Jesus, which I have a controversial response to. If Jesus was married to the Sisters at Bethany then He was married to the Brother too, if anything His love for Lazarus is described more strongly.
Now onto the attempts to say the Old Testament didn't really approve of it all that glowingly and was subtly vilifying it all along. That is kind of the key to making their narrative work.
1 Kings 11 is the main discussion of Solomon's wives. Now I agree that Solomon is not as glowingly approved of as people assume. But using this narrative to paint Polygamy as the problem is a blatant manipulation of the text. The wives promoting the worship of Pagan gods was the problem, the story spells that out for us. Scripture interprets itself on this issue.
And attempts to blame the dysfunctionality of David's family on his Polygamy are equally decimated by reading II Samuel 12. It happened as a Judgment for David's adultery and murder of Uriah, and Yahuah tells David he only needed to ask if he wanted more wives.
This drama began with Amnon's rape of Tamar. And it's tempting to suggest that he wouldn't have lusted after her if she had the same mother based on modern psychological theories. But we have no evidence he did have any full siblings, and no direct evidence these children were raised in a compartmentalized fashion like we often assume of ancient royal Polygamy. The connection to the Bathseba situation is that Amnon followed his father's example and simply took what he wanted, and then didn't properly take responsibility for his actions.
Now to Deuteronomy 17. Most scholars of the Hebrew agree Deuteronomy 17:17 is not limiting the King to only one wife, simply saying some restraint is to be practiced. But Schnebolen wants to get really technical about what "multiply" means in the KJV (he seems to be be maintaining his old KJV onlyism even as a Hebrew Roots person now, which is weird). How about we interpret all of these rules equally? Is verse 16 saying the King can't have more then one single horse? Of course not, that would be absurd, you need more then one horse just to draw one chariot.
Many scholars see a connection between this part of Deuteronomy and Solomon. Atheists say Deuteronomy was actually written later then 1 Kings 11, and Believers see it as a covert Prophecy. Thing is, a break down of this connection shows that David basically followed these instructions while Solomon broke every part of it. The total number of David's wives may not have exceeded 10 (8 are named) and a few more concubines (which Abishag may have been counted among). Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. So even without Deuteronomy making the line exactly clear, it's obvious how Solomon was excessive in a way prior Biblical Polygamists were not.
Now to the Patriarchs.
On the subject of drawing a connection between the Polygamy of the Patriarchs and their families dysfunctions. It should be pointed out that Isaac had only one wife and no concubines and that didn't prevent the same thing from happening, parental favoritism and sibling rivalry still happened and it's effects lingered over the rest of the Biblical narrative even more directly then Hagar and Ishmael. It's post Biblical history that makes Ishmael seem like a bigger conflict then Edom to modern Judeo-Christians.
Here is the thing, Jacob had the most wives, and yes it wasn't any more premeditated then Abraham's situation, but he still had twice as many as Abraham (I now agree with viewing Hagar and Keturah as the same woman). And yet, in-spite of all the issues Jacob's family had, his family was the one that stuck together, this was where they stopped breaking off into separate nations and in fact remain one pretty united people until Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeorboam messed it up, and that break up wasn't divided along the lines of Jacob's wives. Leah is treated as Joseph's mother in his dream in Genesis 37, and children of a city of Judah are refereed to as Rachel's children in Matthew 2.
It's common to compare when Rachel asked Jacob to lie with Bilhah to Sarah asking Abraham to lie with Hagar. But this time it didn't end the same, neither woman wound up despising the other. Both of Jacob's handmaiden concubines get fully promoted to wives without Leah or Rachel needing to die first.
Among the three Patriarchs, there is a direct correlation between how many wives they had and how well their family stuck together. Jacob's family had it's issues, but every family has issues.
With the Patriarchs when Polygamy becomes a problem it is the favoritism and jealously that is the problem, not having more then one in the first place, and that's why it was still a problem for Isaac.
The Lamech of the line of Cain in Genesis 4 gets brought up in this debate. First of all there is no Biblical basis for the law of first mention, the law of needing two references to build doctrine has at least some basis but even it some question. However the law of first mention is just made up.
And as I recently talked about, Racists love to claim the first Mixed Marriage was also in Genesis 4.
There is nothing in the Lamech narrative to support a connection between his cryptic claim to have killed someone and his having two wives. In fact his confessing his sin to his wives may be the light in this situation.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
The Most Racist Christians are usually not Young Earth Creationists
It's pretty surprising to some that in-spite of how Leftist I am I still stick to Six-Day Young Earth Creationism including a truly Global Flood in the days of Noah, and also emphasize Evolution's ties to Scientific Racism.
First off, you got YouTubers like Inspiring Philosophy and R.C. Apologist and their buddy Michael Heiser who are willing to entirely accept the Theory of Evolution, but remain devout Calvinists believing in Eternal Torment and calling Homosexuality a Sin. So the exact opposite of me in terms of where to break with traditional American Fundamentalism does exist. What is more likely to effect how you treat other people? What you believe about things that happened thousands of years ago? Or believing other people are Reprobates who God Hates?
And yes it's true some of the Scientific Racists of the 18th and 19th Centuries saw themselves as being totally compatible with being devout Christians. Thing is I've visited the websites of the most openly Racist modern Christians, you'll often stumble upon them looking into Lost Tribes related theories, and they tend to believe in an Old Earth and a Local Flood. Basically I'm talking about forms of "Christian Identity".
Whether or not they place a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, they definitely place one between Genesis 2:3 and 2:5. They believe the Adamim created on the 6th day were the primitive races, cave men and ape men. And then much later God created the first "Civilized" or 'White" Man and that's who was placed in The Garden of Eden. Even the grandfather of modern White Supremacy made this distinction clear. And later Houston Stewart Chamberlain seems to have felt the same. Early important figures in how Polygenesist interpretations of Genesis developed in America include Daniel Parker, Charles Caldwell, Lester A Hoyle, Alexander Winchester, Charles Hamilton Smith, Samuel George Mortonn, Charles Pickering, Louis Agassiz, Josiah C. Nott, George Gliddon, Samuel Kneeland and Nathaniel Shaler (a founding member of the Immigration Restriction League).
Now I don't agree with any layer of these racist polygenesists' logic. Meaning even if it were true some people didn't 100% or at all descend from the same Adam it wouldn't make them inferior or any less eligible for Salvation or to become Full Citizens of God's Kingdom. Anyone sapient enough to respond to The Gospel is who The Gospel is for. And as a Believer in Universal Salvation, plenty of verses justify not even limiting it to Humanity, we're told Jesus will Reconcile all THINGS to God, and that every Knee shall bow, and God will be All in All. Gregory of Nyssa was confident of even Satan's eventual Salvation. But that's a big IF because even Atheist Scientists don't consider Polygenism credible anymore.
Paul said at Mar's Hill in Acts 17:26 that God has made of One Blood all the Nations of Men on the Face of The Earth. Now the websites I refereed to address this verse, first choosing to favor the Alexandrian texts over the Textus Receptus/KJV for this verse even though that doesn't really help them much, it's still saying He made of one Man all Nations. They want to use a very particular definition of "Nation" to say it means all Civilized Nations, but Paul didn't say a Greek term that would mean that, Nations here is Ethnos, from which comes our words Ethnicity and Ethnic which are sometimes used as synonyms for "race".
Many scholars see this part of the Mar's Hill Sermon as Paul refuting the common Greek view, the Greeks didn't believe in a Single Adam figure but many Autochthons, and that the truly Civilized were only those descended from Deucalion. Which the Greeks did not think included the Jews.
Now these sites may well admit that by now everyone descends from Adam and maybe even Noah because of all the exploration and globalization. It is now a Genetic fact even Evolutionists can't deny that all Humans have both a Mater-Lineal and Pater-Lineal common ancestor and those Ancestors were Humans not some "missing link". And that was not what 19th Century Evolutionists predicted.
And that's why they emphasize Miscegenation so much, they claim only "pure" descendants of Jacob are truly Elect. They view Cain and his wife as the first "interracial marriage" and then they might use a Sethite view of Genesis 6 but both have been used by Racists. Then they'll say The Flood was only local, it only flooded the main homeland of Adam's family (which Cain was exiled from) so non Seed of Eve people did survive.
They may try to support identifying the Kenites with Cain, but since Moses married a Kenite Wife that would be a problem for them. Mostly their Biblical Evidence of non Noahite "races" in the post Flood world are the Raphaim, Horites, Emims and Zuzims (later called Zamummim) of Genesis 14, and possibly later the Anakim who they may say descend from the Genesis 6 Nephilim. They'll try to argue Ham's descendants were the ones particularly prone to intermarry with them, especially the Caananites who lived in the same region. And misuse Genesis 36 to argue for the Edomites and Amalakites being tainted, and in time the Moabites and Ammonites followed suit. Plenty of this I've already addressed in past posts on why it's only Spiritually mixed marriages God was concerned with.
Then the Anti-Semitism creeps in. They may or may not tie in the usual Kazzar Myth, or a modern Jews being Edomites narrative. But mostly these types seem to want to argue that the Southern Kingdom was far more susceptible to Miscegenation, and that while the North had their Spiritual problems they were the Kingdom that remained "Racially" pure. And so they'll call Judah "the true Lost Tribe". And then they'll argue the Northern Kingdom became Europeans even though The Bible places them in the exact opposite direction. Problem is they forget that Joseph's wife was a Mizraimite which undermines that whole narrative.
And thus the Secular Version of this being promoted by Secular Atheist Race Realists in the Alt-Right is basically the same narrative (including the Jews being white looking genetically tainted "Race Traitors"). Darwinism and it's Cousin Eugenics just gave Non Believing Racists a way to secularize the narrative created by the most Racist interpretation of The Bible. Not unlike how New Atheists borrow a lot of their wrong views on History from older Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric.
So my fellow Leftists like Step Back History and Peter Coffin try to separate Biological Darwinism from Social Darwinism, saying that Creationists "Quote Mine" Darwin out of context. But it's not a coincidence that Galton came from the same family, they are inseparable.
Now the conclusion I draw from Genesis 36 is that those Genesis 14 tribes were Caananites first and that these tribes broke off from them, not the other way around. The Horites were named after Seir's grandson Hori, Seir was a Hivite based on how Esau's wife who descended from him is identified. Same with the Anakim, they were I think a Royal Family of the Hittites who were also associated with Hebron.
It's Racist implications aside it might be possible to some day convince me of a Local Flood of Noah view, though currently unlikely. It's placing Death before Genesis 3 I will never accept based on my strong uncompromising view of Romans 5 which is also central to my belief in Universal Salvation.
On the subject of Cain's Wife, first of all we're not told he met her after his exile only that that's when their son named Enoch was conceived, they could have been married already before Abel was killed.
But regardless of that, no, the existence of people already in the land of Nod isn't proof of other Adams, I feel Genesis 4 implies Seth was conceived soon after Able was killed, meaning over 100 years had passed, most of Adam and Eve's children would have left by this point following their command to fill the Earth, the first two just stayed near by because they were the heirs.
And my main response to all the people thinking these must be a different "race" or something is, why would people not related to Abel want to avenge Abel? Elsewhere in The Torah being the avenger of Blood is the Kinsman's responsibility.
If you think the Genesis 1 and 2 Creations of Adam are different events, the problem with saying Genesis 1 is about primitives is that only Genesis 2 actually describes the matter Adam is made from, so only Genesis 1 is possibly a merely Spiritual creation. And it was the Genesis 1 Adam given Dominion over The Earth, while you could misleadingly translate Genesis 2 as saying it's Adam was made to be a slave.
But I still lean towards Genesis 2 being more details on the Sixth-Day, Genesis backtracks on it's Chronology a lot since it was many accounts edited together by Moses. The start of Genesis 5 makes it very difficult to separate the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Adams, since it's clearly talking about the direct father of Seth yet describes him restating Genesis 1 rather then Genesis 2.
Update August 19th: Beasts of the Field.
Since making this post I've learned there is apparently a second approach to saying Non-Whites don't descend from Adam (These kinds of Racists I've been talking about are called the Christian Identity movement on Wikipedia). And that is to say Non-Whites are "Beasts of the Field".
Now I myself have come to consider that the "Beasts of The Field" and other creations of Genesis 2:19-20 were not the same as the normal animals created before Adam but rather more sentient beings, they are presented as potential mates after all. But that was in the context of arguing they are what we might normally call Angelic beings, like the Cherubim/Seraphim (the Four Beasts surrounding the Throne of God in Revelation) and of course Satan who is identified by Revelation 12 with the Serpent of Genesis 3, and perhaps also the basis for the Lilith tradition.
While Wikipedia seems to list that as their main approach, the currently active websites I've looked at take the separating the Adams of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 approach. Largely because the Beasts created in the Garden would be in the same region as Adam and so the overlapping it with a Local Flood view doesn't work as well.
Of course the Racists doing this might be talking about the Genesis 1 beasts since it's all about them saying Non-Whites are animals. But the KJV never says "of the field" in Genesis 1 and the Wikipedia page specified "of the field". And Earth and Field are separate words in the Hebrew as well.
The main website I've looked at argues the Serpent of Genesis 3 was a non Adamite human by saying verses 1&14 distinguish the Nahash from the Beasts of the Field. I however have it on good authority that the Hebrew does not permit that interpretation, it's purely a product of how the King James English words those verses that makes it more ambiguous. But whatever the Nahash is, I've already refuted the false doctrine that it mated with Eve.
The crux of the "Beasts of the Field" argument is the ones in Genesis 2 must have been creatures we'd today label Homo-Sapiens if they were eligible mates for Adam. This ignores Cattle and Fowls of the Air also being in those verses. We know from Daniel 7 and 8 that Beasts include animals like Lions, Bears, Leopards, Deer and Goats. Leviticus 11 also details which Beasts are Levitically clean and unclean for eating and for sacrifices, you'd think the status of the two legged ones that could talk would come up if they existed.
Genesis 2 also says Adam named every specific type of Beast of The Field, and yet the people making this non-whites are beasts of the field argument can't find a Biblical noun more specific then Beast to describe any of them. You can find Biblical names for animals the ancient Israelites barely had experience with, yet no special name for the two legged talking ones? One website I found arguing this lists all kinds of Torah verses about beasts they say must be about "Negroes" being kept as slaves, yet no more specific term for them. You'd think the most useful "beasts" would be the most important to name?
I also now know that they use that Adam can also mean Red or Ruddy as evidence the descendants of Adam are those who can blush. First of all the notion that only White People can Blush is pretty laughable to me as someone who watches Anime, clearly the concept is not alien to the Japanese. I can also point out that Malcom X was known as Detroit Red, or that we called Native Americans the "Red Man" for some reason. And some think red was never the color that Adam/Edom was meant to refer to but rather brown. Regardless of all that the color the spelling A-D-M can be associated with is not the point in Genesis 2, the point is that Adam was made from Adamah which means earth, ground, clay, dust.
I'd already talked a long time ago about how what we call Ethnic or "Racial" features are a product of where various ancient nations lived.
First off, you got YouTubers like Inspiring Philosophy and R.C. Apologist and their buddy Michael Heiser who are willing to entirely accept the Theory of Evolution, but remain devout Calvinists believing in Eternal Torment and calling Homosexuality a Sin. So the exact opposite of me in terms of where to break with traditional American Fundamentalism does exist. What is more likely to effect how you treat other people? What you believe about things that happened thousands of years ago? Or believing other people are Reprobates who God Hates?
And yes it's true some of the Scientific Racists of the 18th and 19th Centuries saw themselves as being totally compatible with being devout Christians. Thing is I've visited the websites of the most openly Racist modern Christians, you'll often stumble upon them looking into Lost Tribes related theories, and they tend to believe in an Old Earth and a Local Flood. Basically I'm talking about forms of "Christian Identity".
Whether or not they place a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, they definitely place one between Genesis 2:3 and 2:5. They believe the Adamim created on the 6th day were the primitive races, cave men and ape men. And then much later God created the first "Civilized" or 'White" Man and that's who was placed in The Garden of Eden. Even the grandfather of modern White Supremacy made this distinction clear. And later Houston Stewart Chamberlain seems to have felt the same. Early important figures in how Polygenesist interpretations of Genesis developed in America include Daniel Parker, Charles Caldwell, Lester A Hoyle, Alexander Winchester, Charles Hamilton Smith, Samuel George Mortonn, Charles Pickering, Louis Agassiz, Josiah C. Nott, George Gliddon, Samuel Kneeland and Nathaniel Shaler (a founding member of the Immigration Restriction League).
I'm not aware of Ripley, Madison Grant or Lothrop Stoddard saying anything about how Genesis fit into their racial theories, all three of their books are absent of Biblical references but do refer to Darwin and Evolution a lot. Charlton S. Coon was explicitly an Evolutionist.
Yes some Monogenist Creationists have let Racism influence how they interpreted the existence of different ethnic features, both before and after Darwin. But the rise of truly militant hateful Scientific Racism is intimately tied to the rise of Polygenism.
Fact is it was Pre-Darwin Moongenist Creationists like Samuel Stanhope Smith, Georges-Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon and Johann Blumenbach who started correctly observing how "racial" features are a product of the environment (also Martin Delany and George Washington Williams). they were wrong on the specifics of how and why, but that's how Science starts. The bias some had in concluding Adam and Eve were White instead of looking like those indigenous to where The Bible says God created them is embarrassing however and I won't defend that.
Yes some Monogenist Creationists have let Racism influence how they interpreted the existence of different ethnic features, both before and after Darwin. But the rise of truly militant hateful Scientific Racism is intimately tied to the rise of Polygenism.
Fact is it was Pre-Darwin Moongenist Creationists like Samuel Stanhope Smith, Georges-Louis Leclerc Comte de Buffon and Johann Blumenbach who started correctly observing how "racial" features are a product of the environment (also Martin Delany and George Washington Williams). they were wrong on the specifics of how and why, but that's how Science starts. The bias some had in concluding Adam and Eve were White instead of looking like those indigenous to where The Bible says God created them is embarrassing however and I won't defend that.
Now I don't agree with any layer of these racist polygenesists' logic. Meaning even if it were true some people didn't 100% or at all descend from the same Adam it wouldn't make them inferior or any less eligible for Salvation or to become Full Citizens of God's Kingdom. Anyone sapient enough to respond to The Gospel is who The Gospel is for. And as a Believer in Universal Salvation, plenty of verses justify not even limiting it to Humanity, we're told Jesus will Reconcile all THINGS to God, and that every Knee shall bow, and God will be All in All. Gregory of Nyssa was confident of even Satan's eventual Salvation. But that's a big IF because even Atheist Scientists don't consider Polygenism credible anymore.
Paul said at Mar's Hill in Acts 17:26 that God has made of One Blood all the Nations of Men on the Face of The Earth. Now the websites I refereed to address this verse, first choosing to favor the Alexandrian texts over the Textus Receptus/KJV for this verse even though that doesn't really help them much, it's still saying He made of one Man all Nations. They want to use a very particular definition of "Nation" to say it means all Civilized Nations, but Paul didn't say a Greek term that would mean that, Nations here is Ethnos, from which comes our words Ethnicity and Ethnic which are sometimes used as synonyms for "race".
Many scholars see this part of the Mar's Hill Sermon as Paul refuting the common Greek view, the Greeks didn't believe in a Single Adam figure but many Autochthons, and that the truly Civilized were only those descended from Deucalion. Which the Greeks did not think included the Jews.
Now these sites may well admit that by now everyone descends from Adam and maybe even Noah because of all the exploration and globalization. It is now a Genetic fact even Evolutionists can't deny that all Humans have both a Mater-Lineal and Pater-Lineal common ancestor and those Ancestors were Humans not some "missing link". And that was not what 19th Century Evolutionists predicted.
And that's why they emphasize Miscegenation so much, they claim only "pure" descendants of Jacob are truly Elect. They view Cain and his wife as the first "interracial marriage" and then they might use a Sethite view of Genesis 6 but both have been used by Racists. Then they'll say The Flood was only local, it only flooded the main homeland of Adam's family (which Cain was exiled from) so non Seed of Eve people did survive.
They may try to support identifying the Kenites with Cain, but since Moses married a Kenite Wife that would be a problem for them. Mostly their Biblical Evidence of non Noahite "races" in the post Flood world are the Raphaim, Horites, Emims and Zuzims (later called Zamummim) of Genesis 14, and possibly later the Anakim who they may say descend from the Genesis 6 Nephilim. They'll try to argue Ham's descendants were the ones particularly prone to intermarry with them, especially the Caananites who lived in the same region. And misuse Genesis 36 to argue for the Edomites and Amalakites being tainted, and in time the Moabites and Ammonites followed suit. Plenty of this I've already addressed in past posts on why it's only Spiritually mixed marriages God was concerned with.
Then the Anti-Semitism creeps in. They may or may not tie in the usual Kazzar Myth, or a modern Jews being Edomites narrative. But mostly these types seem to want to argue that the Southern Kingdom was far more susceptible to Miscegenation, and that while the North had their Spiritual problems they were the Kingdom that remained "Racially" pure. And so they'll call Judah "the true Lost Tribe". And then they'll argue the Northern Kingdom became Europeans even though The Bible places them in the exact opposite direction. Problem is they forget that Joseph's wife was a Mizraimite which undermines that whole narrative.
And thus the Secular Version of this being promoted by Secular Atheist Race Realists in the Alt-Right is basically the same narrative (including the Jews being white looking genetically tainted "Race Traitors"). Darwinism and it's Cousin Eugenics just gave Non Believing Racists a way to secularize the narrative created by the most Racist interpretation of The Bible. Not unlike how New Atheists borrow a lot of their wrong views on History from older Protestant anti-Catholic rhetoric.
So my fellow Leftists like Step Back History and Peter Coffin try to separate Biological Darwinism from Social Darwinism, saying that Creationists "Quote Mine" Darwin out of context. But it's not a coincidence that Galton came from the same family, they are inseparable.
Now the conclusion I draw from Genesis 36 is that those Genesis 14 tribes were Caananites first and that these tribes broke off from them, not the other way around. The Horites were named after Seir's grandson Hori, Seir was a Hivite based on how Esau's wife who descended from him is identified. Same with the Anakim, they were I think a Royal Family of the Hittites who were also associated with Hebron.
It's Racist implications aside it might be possible to some day convince me of a Local Flood of Noah view, though currently unlikely. It's placing Death before Genesis 3 I will never accept based on my strong uncompromising view of Romans 5 which is also central to my belief in Universal Salvation.
On the subject of Cain's Wife, first of all we're not told he met her after his exile only that that's when their son named Enoch was conceived, they could have been married already before Abel was killed.
But regardless of that, no, the existence of people already in the land of Nod isn't proof of other Adams, I feel Genesis 4 implies Seth was conceived soon after Able was killed, meaning over 100 years had passed, most of Adam and Eve's children would have left by this point following their command to fill the Earth, the first two just stayed near by because they were the heirs.
And my main response to all the people thinking these must be a different "race" or something is, why would people not related to Abel want to avenge Abel? Elsewhere in The Torah being the avenger of Blood is the Kinsman's responsibility.
If you think the Genesis 1 and 2 Creations of Adam are different events, the problem with saying Genesis 1 is about primitives is that only Genesis 2 actually describes the matter Adam is made from, so only Genesis 1 is possibly a merely Spiritual creation. And it was the Genesis 1 Adam given Dominion over The Earth, while you could misleadingly translate Genesis 2 as saying it's Adam was made to be a slave.
But I still lean towards Genesis 2 being more details on the Sixth-Day, Genesis backtracks on it's Chronology a lot since it was many accounts edited together by Moses. The start of Genesis 5 makes it very difficult to separate the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 Adams, since it's clearly talking about the direct father of Seth yet describes him restating Genesis 1 rather then Genesis 2.
Update August 19th: Beasts of the Field.
Since making this post I've learned there is apparently a second approach to saying Non-Whites don't descend from Adam (These kinds of Racists I've been talking about are called the Christian Identity movement on Wikipedia). And that is to say Non-Whites are "Beasts of the Field".
Now I myself have come to consider that the "Beasts of The Field" and other creations of Genesis 2:19-20 were not the same as the normal animals created before Adam but rather more sentient beings, they are presented as potential mates after all. But that was in the context of arguing they are what we might normally call Angelic beings, like the Cherubim/Seraphim (the Four Beasts surrounding the Throne of God in Revelation) and of course Satan who is identified by Revelation 12 with the Serpent of Genesis 3, and perhaps also the basis for the Lilith tradition.
While Wikipedia seems to list that as their main approach, the currently active websites I've looked at take the separating the Adams of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 approach. Largely because the Beasts created in the Garden would be in the same region as Adam and so the overlapping it with a Local Flood view doesn't work as well.
Of course the Racists doing this might be talking about the Genesis 1 beasts since it's all about them saying Non-Whites are animals. But the KJV never says "of the field" in Genesis 1 and the Wikipedia page specified "of the field". And Earth and Field are separate words in the Hebrew as well.
The main website I've looked at argues the Serpent of Genesis 3 was a non Adamite human by saying verses 1&14 distinguish the Nahash from the Beasts of the Field. I however have it on good authority that the Hebrew does not permit that interpretation, it's purely a product of how the King James English words those verses that makes it more ambiguous. But whatever the Nahash is, I've already refuted the false doctrine that it mated with Eve.
The crux of the "Beasts of the Field" argument is the ones in Genesis 2 must have been creatures we'd today label Homo-Sapiens if they were eligible mates for Adam. This ignores Cattle and Fowls of the Air also being in those verses. We know from Daniel 7 and 8 that Beasts include animals like Lions, Bears, Leopards, Deer and Goats. Leviticus 11 also details which Beasts are Levitically clean and unclean for eating and for sacrifices, you'd think the status of the two legged ones that could talk would come up if they existed.
Genesis 2 also says Adam named every specific type of Beast of The Field, and yet the people making this non-whites are beasts of the field argument can't find a Biblical noun more specific then Beast to describe any of them. You can find Biblical names for animals the ancient Israelites barely had experience with, yet no special name for the two legged talking ones? One website I found arguing this lists all kinds of Torah verses about beasts they say must be about "Negroes" being kept as slaves, yet no more specific term for them. You'd think the most useful "beasts" would be the most important to name?
I also now know that they use that Adam can also mean Red or Ruddy as evidence the descendants of Adam are those who can blush. First of all the notion that only White People can Blush is pretty laughable to me as someone who watches Anime, clearly the concept is not alien to the Japanese. I can also point out that Malcom X was known as Detroit Red, or that we called Native Americans the "Red Man" for some reason. And some think red was never the color that Adam/Edom was meant to refer to but rather brown. Regardless of all that the color the spelling A-D-M can be associated with is not the point in Genesis 2, the point is that Adam was made from Adamah which means earth, ground, clay, dust.
I'd already talked a long time ago about how what we call Ethnic or "Racial" features are a product of where various ancient nations lived.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)