We keep hearing it declared that the Greek Language had multiple mutually exclusive words for "Love", the big three being Eros (Sexual and Romantic Love), Agape (Familial Love) and Philia/Phileo (Brotherly Love, which you're supposed to have for everyone). From theologians like the late Karl Bart to to C.S. Lewis to YouTube videos like the Overly Sarcastic Productions summary of Eros and Psyche (a story that originated in the 2nd Century AD BTW).
The thing is, there is a lot of context about the history of the Language being left out of that. I don't know if that's an accurate representation of how people in modern Greece use these words, but there are some important facts about the Ancient usage I need to point out.
First of all, and this is semi-well known, "Eros" is suspiciously missing from The New Testament, the closest we get is one guy's name seems to have Eros as one of it's roots, (Erastus mentioned in Acts 19:22, Romans 16:23 and 2 Timothy 4:20).
A popular theory for why is that the first Generation of Christians were a bunch of prudes seeking to reject Sex and Marriage so they had no need to discus Eros. Well this entire Blog is partly dedicated to refuting that notion.
It's also been proposed that these early Jewish Monotheists wanted to avoid saying "Eros" because it was also the name of a Greek god. Thing is lots of Greek words in the New Testament are also names of Greek gods, from Ouranos to Hades to some Olympians being explicitly mentioned. But maybe there are nuanced reasons why Eros would be different, after all twice the Epistle known as 1 John says that "God is Love (Agape)". Also not every deity in Greek mythology had an active cult of worship, most primordial deities were not as active as part of Greek pagan religion as Eros was.
But wait, why isn't there a Greek god named Agape? A lot of abstract concepts and emotions are personified in Greek mythology, even some pretty trivial ones. Well you see the well known academically but not so casually well known fact is that Agape is a word that was almost never used by Greek speaking Polytheists. Apparently Homer used a form of it but not in any way comparable to it's NT usage.
In other words, Eros and Agape are a bit like Clark Kent and Superman, you kind of never see them in the same place at the same time.
The first problem with excluding Romantic and Sexual Love from the meaning of Agape is that Paul uses Agape of the Love that Husbands are supposed to have for their Wives in Ephesians 5.
But then there is the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. As I've said before in my view the Septuagint is at least partly Pre-Christian in origin but the final from we typically know was copied and preserved through Christian hands. Both Eros and Agape are used in the Septuagint, but Eros far more rarely. It is the main place you find both being used.
Both words are used to translate the same Hebrew word, Ahav and other forms of Ahav like Ahavah. But Eros is NEVER used in The Song of Songs that is Solomon's. That's right, the most explicitly Erotic part of the entire Bible used Agape and not Eros.
I can't help but wonder if Agape might actually be Hebrew in origin. There is a rarely used synonym for Ahav that only appears in Jeremiah 4:30, and Ezekiel 23&33, Agab, Egeb and Agabah (Strongs Numbers 5689-5691). For whatever weird reason, Bs sometimes change to Ps in ancient transliterations, so Agape could easily have come from this word. Some of it's uses do seem to imply a Sexual sense. The Strongs definitions for the words say things like Sensually and Amorousness. However I lack a smoking gun on this theory since I can't find a place where this word became Agape in the Septuagint, in the Jeremiah verse it is translated Eros.
So Agape can definitely include Romantic and Sexual Love in ancient Judeo-Christian use.
Meanwhile Eros was definitely used by Gentile Greeks of more then just Sexual Love. Plato is someone who's attitudes towards sex I've strongly opposed on this Blog, but he is a witness to how the word was used, and Platonic Love was indeed Platonic Eros. However what we today means be "Platonic" doesn't always match what Plato actually meant, so it's complicated.
So when 1 John 4:7 says that "everyone who loves is born of God and knows God" using Agape. You can't say that's separate from the Love Homosexuals feel because of some modern notion of Agape and Eros being distinct. Agape is used in negative senses sometimes, but that's only when Love for some thing gets in the way of one's Love for God. It's never used of love for people. Sexual Love can be sinful when it is expressed or taken against someone's will. But calling any consensual romantic love Demonic is in my view potentially Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
Update: So I recently learned of a minor Greek Goddess called Philotes, she was associated with both Friendship and Sex, so that right there is evidence that Philia wasn't completely divorced from Sexual connotations either.
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Luke 12:47-48
As they read in the KJV.
First of all any reference to the Punishments not being the same weakens the notion that Endless Torment is the minimum sentence regardless of who is who allegorically.
Secondly, the modern world may have a lot of Unbelievers who've read a lot of The Bible and so intellectually know what it says. But if they don't believe, then they don't "Know" it's The Lord's Will.
And if anything, if you want to say both categories in this passage are more specific then all of Humanity. Other passages in the New Testament imply only Believers can be called God's Servants. And there are plenty of passages that have had me contemplate that perhaps God will only punish Believers and that he won't hold people Jesus died for to rules they never agreed to follow. But I'm hesitant to go all the way with that.
The verse before these verses, verse 46, says.
There is no getting around the Universal Salvation implications of what Jesus taught here. The last verse of chapter 12, paralleling a passage from Matthew 5, is clear that Punishment is finite not infinite.
And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.I've cited these verses as evidence that Believers will be punished more then Unbelievers which in turn backs up the Doctrine of Universal Salvation. But I read recently a typical Evangelical site that quoted these passages as if they are only about Unbelievers. And I was simply scratching my head.
First of all any reference to the Punishments not being the same weakens the notion that Endless Torment is the minimum sentence regardless of who is who allegorically.
Secondly, the modern world may have a lot of Unbelievers who've read a lot of The Bible and so intellectually know what it says. But if they don't believe, then they don't "Know" it's The Lord's Will.
And if anything, if you want to say both categories in this passage are more specific then all of Humanity. Other passages in the New Testament imply only Believers can be called God's Servants. And there are plenty of passages that have had me contemplate that perhaps God will only punish Believers and that he won't hold people Jesus died for to rules they never agreed to follow. But I'm hesitant to go all the way with that.
The verse before these verses, verse 46, says.
The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.Perhaps this website I read was made by people who don't believe in Eternal Security, and see this as referring to fallen Believers being treated as Unbelievers. But Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 assures us that even the most failed of Believers are still saved.
There is no getting around the Universal Salvation implications of what Jesus taught here. The last verse of chapter 12, paralleling a passage from Matthew 5, is clear that Punishment is finite not infinite.
Friday, October 26, 2018
The Gospel According to The Beloved Disciple
This post is kind of a follow up to my Heresies of Asia Minor post, and with also some prior groundwork laid by my Mary Magdalene and Bethany post.
One of the reasons that I can't put too much stock in what The Early Church Fathers said is that the Patristic Tradition is pretty unanimous that the Gospel we commonly call "The Gospel According to John" was written by John Son of Zebedee brother of James who one of the Twelve. But the fact is the text of that Gospel tells us who wrote it, and it's not one of The Twelve or someone named John.
At the end of The Gospel we're told "The Disciple who Jesus Loved" wrote The Gospel (21:20-23). Normally an analysis will say Chapter 13:23-25 is the first time this Disciple is mentioned. However if you just read The Gospel without bringing prior assumptions into it, it's clear that this verse is identifying someone we were already introduced to.
But first I need to note that most of the traditional Beloved Disciple verses use Agape, but chapter 20:2 uses Phileo.
In chapters 11 verse 3 the sisters of Lazarus inform Jesus of his death by saying "he whom thou lovest is sick" using Phileo. Verse 5 says that Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus using Agape. In verse 36 the Judeans observe "look how Jesus loved him" using Phileo again referring to Lazarus.
Chapter 12 depicts Lazarus sitting next to Jesus just as the Beloved Disciple does in 13:23-24.
The argument that the Beloved Disciple must be one of the Twelve is dependent on verses from the Synoptics that are taken as saying only the Twelve were at the Last Supper, but they don't actually say that, they emphasize the Twelve being there but do not say it was only the Twelve. In fact it is made clear in the Synpotics that someone else owned the house they had it in.
Chapter 21 does mention the Sons of Zebedee, so if you wanna assume the Beloved Disciple can't be mentioned by any other designation in this Gospel, that rules them out as well.
Others have proposed this theory before me, but I have some differences from them. For example I'm rather skeptical of the whole connecting Lazarus to the family of Beothus theory.
http://www.alanrudnick.org/2017/04/13/john-was-not-the-disciple-whom-jesus-loved/
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2007/01/was-lazarus-the-beloved-disciple.html
I also like to stress based on 11:5 that the designation can be expanded to include his Sisters, which helps explain 20:2, and I also still lean towards it being Mary who was entrusted with his mother in 19:25.
I also disagree with the idea that the ending of the Gospel is implying the Beloved Disciple had died before it's final publication.
But biggest of all, I don't think John the Presbyter was a student of the Beloved Disciple. I don't think either John or the Bethany family ever went to Ephesus, Ephesus is mentioned quite a bit in the New Testament with no hints at any of them being there. But Revelation 2 does refer to there being False Apostles in Ephesus, I think one of them claimed to be John and claimed credit for all five books traditionally ascribed to John, and then came to be sometimes known as John the Presbyter based on the 2nd and 3rd Epistles. And because the "Apostolic Succession" of the early Church went back to his alleged students like Ignatius and Polycarp, that false attribution came to be accepted at face value. In the authentic writings of Ignatius and Polycarp they never claim to be disciples of John or anyone else, and it seems Papias distinguished the John he knew from any of the Apostles.
There is an ancient Eastern Extra-Biblical Tradition that Lazarus received his Bishop's Omophorion from The Virgin Mary. It was apparently something she wove for him. So there is some evidence their association was remembered.
Most even Atheist scholars agree that all three Epistles commonly called "of John" probably have the same author as The Gospel. The first of them I don't even view as an Epistle since it doesn't have an Epistle style introduction or ending. I think it was an Appendix to the Gospel.
It's Revelation that scholars have trouble seeing as being by the same author. And I think that argument can hold up better then attempts to deny certain Paulian letters had the same author. The issue is that usually The Gospel is given first dibs on being the true Son of Zebedde (though plenty of Atheists think none could have been written by a Galileen Fisherman) while I'm pointing out that Revelation is the only of these books who's author actually claims to be named John.
These books being dated to between 90 and 100 AD is often itself seen as evidence against them being written by Eye Witnesses because of the modern obsession with saying people didn't live as long back then. The problem with that narrative is "average" life-span statistics are skewed by how there used to be higher infant mortality rates. I think the Twelve Disciples were younger then Jesus to begin with, and Paul was younger then the Twelve. In every era of history some people have successfully lived to 100, therefore some people born around 5 BC could have made it to 96 AD.
Quadratus letter to Hadrian says some people Jesus healed and rose form the dead were still alive at the time he wrote that letter. That's a category Lazarus specifically fits into. Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was said to have been 120 when he was martyred during the reign of Trajan according to Eusebius. If some theories about the Bethany family are true, he could have been the father of Lazarus and his sisters, or the same person as Lazarus, because the Simon of Matthew 26 and Mark 14 seems to have something to do with the Bethany family when you cross reference it with John 12.
Below is additional theorizing that is much more speculative.
Maybe part of the reason the Gospel became associated with the name of John is how it talks about John The Baptist at the beginning. It's not the only Gospel to kind of begin with John but it's treatment of John is arguably unique. John is the first personal name mentioned in the text.
The name Lazarus is often thought to be a nickname. (It being a presumed form of Eleazar never sat right with me, all other El theophoric names still begin an E in their Greek forms, and I don't think a spelling like Lazarus is ever used in Josephus of someone known to be an Eleazar.) A theory that among other things complicates how he relates to the Parable in Luke 16. So he could be someone also named John which was a common name. However there are the Ossuaries at Dominus Flevit which have a Mary, Martha and Eleazer together.
Wikipedia pages about the Eastern Traditions of Lazarus and his sisters say they preached the Gospel in many lands not just Cyrpus, but I can't find specifics about that. What I find unlikely about the Cyprus tradition is that Lazarus would be ordained by Paul and Barnabas when Paul's own definitions of Apostolic Authority would place Lazarus ahead of him. Paul's time on Cyrpus with Barnabas is recorded in Acts 13 with no reference to them visiting Kition or ordaining any Bishops or meeting Lazarus and the Bethany sisters.
If the traditions of Lazarus on Cyprus do have some truth to them, it's notable that they only account for about 30 years after his Resurrection, which takes us to 60 AD or 66 AD at the latest. I'm confident he did live a lot longer then that.
Update April 2020: I have decided that The Disciple who Jesus Agape when used of a single individual is Mary, and Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus are the same Mary. And The Disciple who Jesus Phileo when used of a single individual is Lazarus.
I have abandoned my past flirtation with the idea of Mary Agdalene as Jesus Sister. But I do still think "Mother's Sister" in John 19:25 should probably means "Maternal sister" and so I now think Mary of Cleophas is one of his Sisters.
In verse 26 when Jesus "his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he apagao" both character refereed to here are ones identified in the prior verse. The male pronouns are possibly just translating pronouns not actually originally meant to be gender specific. When He says refers to this disciple as "son" so His Mother he means the legal meaning of sonship, not biology or gender.
One of the reasons that I can't put too much stock in what The Early Church Fathers said is that the Patristic Tradition is pretty unanimous that the Gospel we commonly call "The Gospel According to John" was written by John Son of Zebedee brother of James who one of the Twelve. But the fact is the text of that Gospel tells us who wrote it, and it's not one of The Twelve or someone named John.
At the end of The Gospel we're told "The Disciple who Jesus Loved" wrote The Gospel (21:20-23). Normally an analysis will say Chapter 13:23-25 is the first time this Disciple is mentioned. However if you just read The Gospel without bringing prior assumptions into it, it's clear that this verse is identifying someone we were already introduced to.
But first I need to note that most of the traditional Beloved Disciple verses use Agape, but chapter 20:2 uses Phileo.
In chapters 11 verse 3 the sisters of Lazarus inform Jesus of his death by saying "he whom thou lovest is sick" using Phileo. Verse 5 says that Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus using Agape. In verse 36 the Judeans observe "look how Jesus loved him" using Phileo again referring to Lazarus.
Chapter 12 depicts Lazarus sitting next to Jesus just as the Beloved Disciple does in 13:23-24.
The argument that the Beloved Disciple must be one of the Twelve is dependent on verses from the Synoptics that are taken as saying only the Twelve were at the Last Supper, but they don't actually say that, they emphasize the Twelve being there but do not say it was only the Twelve. In fact it is made clear in the Synpotics that someone else owned the house they had it in.
Chapter 21 does mention the Sons of Zebedee, so if you wanna assume the Beloved Disciple can't be mentioned by any other designation in this Gospel, that rules them out as well.
Others have proposed this theory before me, but I have some differences from them. For example I'm rather skeptical of the whole connecting Lazarus to the family of Beothus theory.
http://www.alanrudnick.org/2017/04/13/john-was-not-the-disciple-whom-jesus-loved/
https://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/bibleandculture/2007/01/was-lazarus-the-beloved-disciple.html
I also like to stress based on 11:5 that the designation can be expanded to include his Sisters, which helps explain 20:2, and I also still lean towards it being Mary who was entrusted with his mother in 19:25.
I also disagree with the idea that the ending of the Gospel is implying the Beloved Disciple had died before it's final publication.
But biggest of all, I don't think John the Presbyter was a student of the Beloved Disciple. I don't think either John or the Bethany family ever went to Ephesus, Ephesus is mentioned quite a bit in the New Testament with no hints at any of them being there. But Revelation 2 does refer to there being False Apostles in Ephesus, I think one of them claimed to be John and claimed credit for all five books traditionally ascribed to John, and then came to be sometimes known as John the Presbyter based on the 2nd and 3rd Epistles. And because the "Apostolic Succession" of the early Church went back to his alleged students like Ignatius and Polycarp, that false attribution came to be accepted at face value. In the authentic writings of Ignatius and Polycarp they never claim to be disciples of John or anyone else, and it seems Papias distinguished the John he knew from any of the Apostles.
There is an ancient Eastern Extra-Biblical Tradition that Lazarus received his Bishop's Omophorion from The Virgin Mary. It was apparently something she wove for him. So there is some evidence their association was remembered.
Most even Atheist scholars agree that all three Epistles commonly called "of John" probably have the same author as The Gospel. The first of them I don't even view as an Epistle since it doesn't have an Epistle style introduction or ending. I think it was an Appendix to the Gospel.
It's Revelation that scholars have trouble seeing as being by the same author. And I think that argument can hold up better then attempts to deny certain Paulian letters had the same author. The issue is that usually The Gospel is given first dibs on being the true Son of Zebedde (though plenty of Atheists think none could have been written by a Galileen Fisherman) while I'm pointing out that Revelation is the only of these books who's author actually claims to be named John.
These books being dated to between 90 and 100 AD is often itself seen as evidence against them being written by Eye Witnesses because of the modern obsession with saying people didn't live as long back then. The problem with that narrative is "average" life-span statistics are skewed by how there used to be higher infant mortality rates. I think the Twelve Disciples were younger then Jesus to begin with, and Paul was younger then the Twelve. In every era of history some people have successfully lived to 100, therefore some people born around 5 BC could have made it to 96 AD.
Quadratus letter to Hadrian says some people Jesus healed and rose form the dead were still alive at the time he wrote that letter. That's a category Lazarus specifically fits into. Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was said to have been 120 when he was martyred during the reign of Trajan according to Eusebius. If some theories about the Bethany family are true, he could have been the father of Lazarus and his sisters, or the same person as Lazarus, because the Simon of Matthew 26 and Mark 14 seems to have something to do with the Bethany family when you cross reference it with John 12.
Below is additional theorizing that is much more speculative.
Maybe part of the reason the Gospel became associated with the name of John is how it talks about John The Baptist at the beginning. It's not the only Gospel to kind of begin with John but it's treatment of John is arguably unique. John is the first personal name mentioned in the text.
The name Lazarus is often thought to be a nickname. (It being a presumed form of Eleazar never sat right with me, all other El theophoric names still begin an E in their Greek forms, and I don't think a spelling like Lazarus is ever used in Josephus of someone known to be an Eleazar.) A theory that among other things complicates how he relates to the Parable in Luke 16. So he could be someone also named John which was a common name. However there are the Ossuaries at Dominus Flevit which have a Mary, Martha and Eleazer together.
Wikipedia pages about the Eastern Traditions of Lazarus and his sisters say they preached the Gospel in many lands not just Cyrpus, but I can't find specifics about that. What I find unlikely about the Cyprus tradition is that Lazarus would be ordained by Paul and Barnabas when Paul's own definitions of Apostolic Authority would place Lazarus ahead of him. Paul's time on Cyrpus with Barnabas is recorded in Acts 13 with no reference to them visiting Kition or ordaining any Bishops or meeting Lazarus and the Bethany sisters.
If the traditions of Lazarus on Cyprus do have some truth to them, it's notable that they only account for about 30 years after his Resurrection, which takes us to 60 AD or 66 AD at the latest. I'm confident he did live a lot longer then that.
Update April 2020: I have decided that The Disciple who Jesus Agape when used of a single individual is Mary, and Magdalene and the sister of Lazarus are the same Mary. And The Disciple who Jesus Phileo when used of a single individual is Lazarus.
I have abandoned my past flirtation with the idea of Mary Agdalene as Jesus Sister. But I do still think "Mother's Sister" in John 19:25 should probably means "Maternal sister" and so I now think Mary of Cleophas is one of his Sisters.
In verse 26 when Jesus "his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he apagao" both character refereed to here are ones identified in the prior verse. The male pronouns are possibly just translating pronouns not actually originally meant to be gender specific. When He says refers to this disciple as "son" so His Mother he means the legal meaning of sonship, not biology or gender.
Thursday, October 25, 2018
I don't think Jesus was Poor.
As a type of Socialist the fact that Jesus repeatedly taught to give to the Poor is something I love to emphasize.
But I kind of feel like what that says about Jesus is more meaningful if He wasn't poor Himself. It's easy for a poor person to say you should care about the poor, the problem is too many rich people, even ones who formally were poor, lose that empathy as they live in luxury. This is my greatest self doubt about myself, if I'd still maintain the values I have now if I became wealthy in the future.
Jesus mostly lived like a poor person during his ministry, of that I have no doubt. But he did so by choice just as he took on mortality by choice.
Even if Jesus family wasn't well off before He was born, at His Birth they received some very expensive gifts from the Magi.
We also know Jesus descended from Royalty. We tend to assume this branch of the House of David must have been impoverished for generations due to the Captivity. But my post on Misconceptions about The Magi and The Census shows that Joseph was at least a Land Owner. They were not turned away by any Innkeepers, that's all extra Biblical fan fiction.
Tekton, the Greek word translated Carpenter in reference to Joseph and at least once to Jesus himself, can also meant Architect. Tekton is also possibly being used here as the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Charash used in Zechariah 1:20.
The whole argument between Jesus and Judas in Bethany after Mary Anointed Jesus for Burial in John 12, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 makes the most sense as being between people who were not poor themselves. Mary of Bethany at the very least was not broke if she could buy ointment that expensive. Judas here comes off as one of those rich people who pretends to care about the Poor but really doesn't.
And then there is my argument that Joseph of Arimathea was most likely Jesus' Brother Joses.
Luke 2:24 is what gets cited to argue Mary and Joseph were poor. All this verse tells us is they offered Two Turtle Doves or Two Pigeons in accordance with The Law, Luke doesn't directly mention the presumed conditionality of that. We have to go to Leviticus 12 to read the context that ideally this offering should be a Lamb and one Turtledove or Pigeon, but if you are unable to offer a Lamb you replace it with a second bird. However the passage not only doesn't limit poverty to being the cause of that but doesn't even mention poverty, it implies nothing about why. It could be Lambs good for Temple offerings weren't available at all, even to the rich, since they had to be a Year old and without blemish. It could be this tells us more about the time of year then anyone's financial situation.
I realize that we have traditionally valued the Poetic contrast of the true Ruler of The Universe incarnating into the most humble circumstance imaginable, imagining Him to be born in a smelly barn. But nothing in The Bible ever actually tells us to think of it that way.
The core difference between Capitalism and Feudalism is that Capitalism in theory doesn't respect ancestry, the irony of some Superhero stories being called Randian is that Rand hated the idea of specialness being something one is born with, or given by luck, Capitalism is about alleged "Merit".
Under Feudalism a "rags to riches" story is not something to celebrate, a commoner becoming a rich or powerful person was abhorrent. And a story like that was only tolerable if the person in question was secretly royalty all along.
So really the whole narrative of Jesus as being dirt poor actually serves to make Him the ultimate version of the "American Dream", it plays into Capitalist ideology..
But I kind of feel like what that says about Jesus is more meaningful if He wasn't poor Himself. It's easy for a poor person to say you should care about the poor, the problem is too many rich people, even ones who formally were poor, lose that empathy as they live in luxury. This is my greatest self doubt about myself, if I'd still maintain the values I have now if I became wealthy in the future.
Jesus mostly lived like a poor person during his ministry, of that I have no doubt. But he did so by choice just as he took on mortality by choice.
Even if Jesus family wasn't well off before He was born, at His Birth they received some very expensive gifts from the Magi.
We also know Jesus descended from Royalty. We tend to assume this branch of the House of David must have been impoverished for generations due to the Captivity. But my post on Misconceptions about The Magi and The Census shows that Joseph was at least a Land Owner. They were not turned away by any Innkeepers, that's all extra Biblical fan fiction.
Tekton, the Greek word translated Carpenter in reference to Joseph and at least once to Jesus himself, can also meant Architect. Tekton is also possibly being used here as the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew word Charash used in Zechariah 1:20.
The whole argument between Jesus and Judas in Bethany after Mary Anointed Jesus for Burial in John 12, Matthew 26 and Mark 14 makes the most sense as being between people who were not poor themselves. Mary of Bethany at the very least was not broke if she could buy ointment that expensive. Judas here comes off as one of those rich people who pretends to care about the Poor but really doesn't.
And then there is my argument that Joseph of Arimathea was most likely Jesus' Brother Joses.
Luke 2:24 is what gets cited to argue Mary and Joseph were poor. All this verse tells us is they offered Two Turtle Doves or Two Pigeons in accordance with The Law, Luke doesn't directly mention the presumed conditionality of that. We have to go to Leviticus 12 to read the context that ideally this offering should be a Lamb and one Turtledove or Pigeon, but if you are unable to offer a Lamb you replace it with a second bird. However the passage not only doesn't limit poverty to being the cause of that but doesn't even mention poverty, it implies nothing about why. It could be Lambs good for Temple offerings weren't available at all, even to the rich, since they had to be a Year old and without blemish. It could be this tells us more about the time of year then anyone's financial situation.
I realize that we have traditionally valued the Poetic contrast of the true Ruler of The Universe incarnating into the most humble circumstance imaginable, imagining Him to be born in a smelly barn. But nothing in The Bible ever actually tells us to think of it that way.
The core difference between Capitalism and Feudalism is that Capitalism in theory doesn't respect ancestry, the irony of some Superhero stories being called Randian is that Rand hated the idea of specialness being something one is born with, or given by luck, Capitalism is about alleged "Merit".
Under Feudalism a "rags to riches" story is not something to celebrate, a commoner becoming a rich or powerful person was abhorrent. And a story like that was only tolerable if the person in question was secretly royalty all along.
So really the whole narrative of Jesus as being dirt poor actually serves to make Him the ultimate version of the "American Dream", it plays into Capitalist ideology..
Saturday, October 20, 2018
How much should Christians Agree with Mainstream Academia on the Origins of The New Testament?
There are a lot of Christian scholars trying to not break with mainstream Secular Academia on when particularly The Gospels were written as much as possible, Brad Jersak, Inspiring Philosophy, the Casual Historian, ect. Part of it is to avoid hypocrisy, since we appeal to the general consensus of mainstream Secular Academia when refuting the Christ Myth Hypothesis and other pseudo-historical conspiracy theories of the New Atheist movement.
Well in a way I'm not going to be as radical as those being the opposite on this would be either.
I think Greek Matthew and Greek Mark were possibly written when they are currently dated, between 60 and 80 AD. But Matthew I think was originally in Hebrew and that Hebrew Matthew could be Q, and Mark I think was originally written in Syriac Aramaic in Mesopotamia, where Peter was. Both I think were written before 42 AD, maybe even before 37 AD.
Luke is the only Gospel where I need to place the Greek Text sooner then mainstream scholars do, which I then place Acts at about the same time. And I'm doing so out of Faith right now and not claiming to have a solid argument to do so.
When it comes to Revelation, the disagreement is chiefly about who wrote it not when since I place it's authorship when most Futurists do. The disagreement about who is primarily about if it could have the same author as John's Gospel and Epistles, since textual scholars can't really claim to know whether either was ever a Galilean fisherman or not.
I'm actually very open to suggesting Revelation had a different author from the other books attributed to John. The difference is when most open the door to this distinction it's The Gospel who's given first dibs on being written by John brother of James son of Zebedee who was one of the Twelve. However it's only Revelation who's actual text identifies it's author as bearing the name of John. The Gospel says at the end the "Disciple whom Jesus Loved" wrote it, and using that Gospel to interpret itself, three disciples are associated with that description in chapter 11, none were among the twelve, they are the three siblings, Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany. The first Epistle doesn't identify it's author in any way which is why I'm not sure it truly qualifies as an Epistle, frankly I have come to view it as an appendix to Gospel of the Beloved Disciple. The authors' of 2nd and 3rd John simply refer to themselves as the Elder.
When it comes to the arguments against the writings of Paul or Peter having the same author, I find myself wondering if the diverse literary careers of many modern writers would seem like they're the same to these scholars looking at them without already knowing. Particularly when they say "stylistic and linguistic grounds". Sometimes a writer's style changes over time, or they'll deliberately write in different styles. And as far as linguistics go, the traditional authors of these books where not native to the language we have them in anyway.
We know Paul's letters were at least sometimes dictated because of how Tertius inserts himself into Romans 16, which is one of the Paulian Epistles considered pretty universally to be authentic, if it wasn't written by who we think of Paul as being then there was no Paul at all. I think they were all dictated, and I think both Paul and Peter were actually reciting in Hebrew and the recorder was translating it, so the linguistic style could very often be the product of different recorders. And Hebrews I think was originally written in Hebrew and what we have is a Greek translation that came later.
There is not quite universal agreement on which Paulian Epistles are authentic, Romans and Galatians are pretty agreed on, which is convenient for me since they include passages vital to my core ideologies. There are 5 or 7 that are pretty commonly excluded by secular scholars, Hebrews which even believers will debate since it doesn't identify itself as Paul's at the start, the pastorals, and the sequel to Thessalonians. Disputing II Corinthians is actually more rare then I originally thought it was.
The arguments against the two sequels is mostly them allegedly contradicting their predecessor. Again, how many modern sequels would fail the same test? These are not like poorly planned fictional narratives however, the reason for these apparent contradictions is that in the 1st letters to these churches Paul was addressing specific issues they were dealing with. The second letters were needed partly because some of what he said in the first was being misunderstood. II Thessalonians 2 was written specifically to correct the the Imminence interpretation of I Thessalonians 4.
The letters written to individuals rather then congregations could in many ways be different because of that difference in audience. Just as Hebrews is different because it's written to a Jewish rather then Greek audience. It's still consistent with Paul's faith over works message as shown by Chapter 11. And you really can't complete Paul's 'we're not under the Law anymore' doctrine without bringing up Hebrews discussion of Jeremiah's prophecy of the Law being written on our Hearts.
For The Pastoral Epistles, most of the argument against their authenticity comes from the reasons to believe they came later. They are dated later then most Paulian Epistles, but still not later then 100 AD, they're still in the first century. Irenaeus quoted all three of them, writing around 180 AD, so they must have been around for awhile already.
It's relevant even to the "linguistic and stylistic grounds".
The problem is we are traditionally conditioned to assume Peter and Paul died in 64 or 67 AD, but The Bible never says that, and I have for reasons irrelevant to this issue rejected the traditions of either dying in Rome, and Peter I believe was never in Rome at all. I think Paul's conversion happened in 37 or 38 AD, and I think he was in his 20s when that happened, pre-conversion Paul has a zealousness typical of a 20 something. So if he was born between 10 and 17 AD, he could easily have lived into the 90s. 2 Timothy does seem to be written by an old man expecting to pass away soon.
Take for example this argument.
The argument about "The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism" is also related to this time-frame issue. But I should note that I reject that these Epistles support the monarchical Church structure they are often presumed to support. What "emergent Catholicism" means to secular scholars is different from Protestants debating how early what we object to about the Roman Church emerged, it's mostly about the development of Ignatius' organized church structure.
There are some who attempt to extend the late dating of the Pastorals into the second century, but I've already talked about evidence to view them as contemporary with Marital.
Colossians is apparently considered inauthentic by 60% of Scholars, and Ephessians is now considered inauthentic partly because of presumed dependence on Colossians. Again these arguments overlaps with reasons the Pastorals are dated later. I think Paul might have been composing these two letters at the same time in a way where much of Colossians was written first yet it was finished last. You see I agree with the argument that there is no Epistle to the Laodiceans, it was from Laodicea, and that the Epistle Paul alluded to there was Ephesians, which would have likely traveled through Laodicea if it went to Colossae. And maybe these two were also post 70 AD.
Traditional timelines of the Epistles by people who question none of them already mostly tend to make the Agreed upon ones the earliest, with the rest being after he came to Rome in 62 AD at the soonest. Needless to say a lot of things changed for Paul then. He may well have had access to none of the recorders he had before, and the dialect of Greek in the western empire was likely different. The outlier is 2nd Thessalonians which some seem to think was written right after the first, but I find that unlikely regardless of this dispute, I think it took time for Paul to realize that Church developed all new problems he needed to address.
There is also a lot of overlap between arguments against the Pastorals being authentic Paul and arguments against 2 Peter being the same author as 1 Peter. But again a difference in what the author is concerned with talking about can be explained by when without doubting who wrote it. But I also think Peter's two Epistles were written to different audiences, the first to Hellenistic Jewish communities in Asia Minor, and the second probably to a more Aramaic community.
I do not believe James and Jude were written by the half brothers of Jesus with those names, but rather by the James and Jude who were bothers among the 12.
Frankly a lot of the arguments about the authenticity of Letters attributed to the 12 reminds me of Anti-Stradfordian arguments, the massive incredulity that simple Galilean fisherman could have ever become capable of writing in such sophisticated Greek. But this time it's those of us opposing that elitist argument who are viewed as fringe. And Shakespeare doesn't have the excuse of being believed to have been Supernaturally assisted by The Holy Spirit.
And then there is the issue of referring to the Temple's Destruction being itself proof a book must have been written later cause we won't even entertain the notion of a real Prophecy.
So I guess The Wreck of the Titan: or, Futility must have been written after The Titanic sank. And the Lone Gunman Pilot must have been written after September 11th 2001. And that Simpsons episode where Donald Trump becomes President can't have been written any sooner then 2015.
"Wait, aren't you making Jesus prediction not even supernatural by comparing to things like that?" Well I'm a Continuationsit who points out how sometimes The Holy Spirit even uses unbelievers like Balaam. In my opinion those predictions were supernatural whether to not the writer claimed to be a Prophet (with the Lone Gunman either it's supernatural or the Conspiracy Theorists are right). But the fact still remains, if you think those things just happened because they were naturally predictable, well Jerusalem inevitably revolting against Rome and getting crushed it can be argued was predictable even in 30 AD.
The fact is Jerusalem falling and being lead away into Captivity again was already in Old Testament Prophecy, Daniel 9 and Zechariah 14 were prophecies made when Judea was returning from the Babylonian Captivity predicting another would be inevitable, in Daniel it's arguably even specifically said that The Temple will be destroyed again. It was already in the Torah that this was a cycle that's going to keep playing itself out as long as Israel keeps backsliding. So frankly it would have been weird for a 1st Century Jewish Prophet to not be saying all this is going to happen again. And the Olivte Discourse does specifically cite Daniel, while Luke 21 uses terminology from Jeremiah "Desolation of Jerusalem".
What Jesus said is vague enough that both Atheist and Christian scholars will sometimes disagree on if Mark 13's account is about the 70 AD fall or the Bar-Kochba revolt. Everything that seems really specific in what Jesus said arguably comes from echoing the fall to Babylon and/or drawing on what Daniel and Zechariah said. Because the fact is the Roman Captivity was that history repeating itself on many levels.
In some cases it's not about "Prophecy after the fact" but just saying some things about the present scenario implied in a text must be post 70 AD. Frankly however I feel that the author of Hebrews would have explicitly refereed to The Temple being destroyed to make his point if it had been.
Still some New Testament authors could have lived past 70 AD, Paul as I argued above, John who I think could have been a Nephew of Jesus, as well the Beloved Disciple Candidates, even Peter since I reject the tradition of him being in Rome at all. And again since I don't view James and Jude as brothers of Jesus they could have. Jude could have even if he was, Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was a brother of Jesus who tradition says lived into the reign of Trajan.
Well in a way I'm not going to be as radical as those being the opposite on this would be either.
I think Greek Matthew and Greek Mark were possibly written when they are currently dated, between 60 and 80 AD. But Matthew I think was originally in Hebrew and that Hebrew Matthew could be Q, and Mark I think was originally written in Syriac Aramaic in Mesopotamia, where Peter was. Both I think were written before 42 AD, maybe even before 37 AD.
Luke is the only Gospel where I need to place the Greek Text sooner then mainstream scholars do, which I then place Acts at about the same time. And I'm doing so out of Faith right now and not claiming to have a solid argument to do so.
When it comes to Revelation, the disagreement is chiefly about who wrote it not when since I place it's authorship when most Futurists do. The disagreement about who is primarily about if it could have the same author as John's Gospel and Epistles, since textual scholars can't really claim to know whether either was ever a Galilean fisherman or not.
I'm actually very open to suggesting Revelation had a different author from the other books attributed to John. The difference is when most open the door to this distinction it's The Gospel who's given first dibs on being written by John brother of James son of Zebedee who was one of the Twelve. However it's only Revelation who's actual text identifies it's author as bearing the name of John. The Gospel says at the end the "Disciple whom Jesus Loved" wrote it, and using that Gospel to interpret itself, three disciples are associated with that description in chapter 11, none were among the twelve, they are the three siblings, Lazarus, Martha and Mary of Bethany. The first Epistle doesn't identify it's author in any way which is why I'm not sure it truly qualifies as an Epistle, frankly I have come to view it as an appendix to Gospel of the Beloved Disciple. The authors' of 2nd and 3rd John simply refer to themselves as the Elder.
When it comes to the arguments against the writings of Paul or Peter having the same author, I find myself wondering if the diverse literary careers of many modern writers would seem like they're the same to these scholars looking at them without already knowing. Particularly when they say "stylistic and linguistic grounds". Sometimes a writer's style changes over time, or they'll deliberately write in different styles. And as far as linguistics go, the traditional authors of these books where not native to the language we have them in anyway.
We know Paul's letters were at least sometimes dictated because of how Tertius inserts himself into Romans 16, which is one of the Paulian Epistles considered pretty universally to be authentic, if it wasn't written by who we think of Paul as being then there was no Paul at all. I think they were all dictated, and I think both Paul and Peter were actually reciting in Hebrew and the recorder was translating it, so the linguistic style could very often be the product of different recorders. And Hebrews I think was originally written in Hebrew and what we have is a Greek translation that came later.
There is not quite universal agreement on which Paulian Epistles are authentic, Romans and Galatians are pretty agreed on, which is convenient for me since they include passages vital to my core ideologies. There are 5 or 7 that are pretty commonly excluded by secular scholars, Hebrews which even believers will debate since it doesn't identify itself as Paul's at the start, the pastorals, and the sequel to Thessalonians. Disputing II Corinthians is actually more rare then I originally thought it was.
The arguments against the two sequels is mostly them allegedly contradicting their predecessor. Again, how many modern sequels would fail the same test? These are not like poorly planned fictional narratives however, the reason for these apparent contradictions is that in the 1st letters to these churches Paul was addressing specific issues they were dealing with. The second letters were needed partly because some of what he said in the first was being misunderstood. II Thessalonians 2 was written specifically to correct the the Imminence interpretation of I Thessalonians 4.
The letters written to individuals rather then congregations could in many ways be different because of that difference in audience. Just as Hebrews is different because it's written to a Jewish rather then Greek audience. It's still consistent with Paul's faith over works message as shown by Chapter 11. And you really can't complete Paul's 'we're not under the Law anymore' doctrine without bringing up Hebrews discussion of Jeremiah's prophecy of the Law being written on our Hearts.
For The Pastoral Epistles, most of the argument against their authenticity comes from the reasons to believe they came later. They are dated later then most Paulian Epistles, but still not later then 100 AD, they're still in the first century. Irenaeus quoted all three of them, writing around 180 AD, so they must have been around for awhile already.
It's relevant even to the "linguistic and stylistic grounds".
The problem is we are traditionally conditioned to assume Peter and Paul died in 64 or 67 AD, but The Bible never says that, and I have for reasons irrelevant to this issue rejected the traditions of either dying in Rome, and Peter I believe was never in Rome at all. I think Paul's conversion happened in 37 or 38 AD, and I think he was in his 20s when that happened, pre-conversion Paul has a zealousness typical of a 20 something. So if he was born between 10 and 17 AD, he could easily have lived into the 90s. 2 Timothy does seem to be written by an old man expecting to pass away soon.
Take for example this argument.
Literary style. Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative style, far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.Maybe this difference is because he mellowed with age. And also that the concerns the Church is facing have changed with the times.
The argument about "The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism" is also related to this time-frame issue. But I should note that I reject that these Epistles support the monarchical Church structure they are often presumed to support. What "emergent Catholicism" means to secular scholars is different from Protestants debating how early what we object to about the Roman Church emerged, it's mostly about the development of Ignatius' organized church structure.
There are some who attempt to extend the late dating of the Pastorals into the second century, but I've already talked about evidence to view them as contemporary with Marital.
Colossians is apparently considered inauthentic by 60% of Scholars, and Ephessians is now considered inauthentic partly because of presumed dependence on Colossians. Again these arguments overlaps with reasons the Pastorals are dated later. I think Paul might have been composing these two letters at the same time in a way where much of Colossians was written first yet it was finished last. You see I agree with the argument that there is no Epistle to the Laodiceans, it was from Laodicea, and that the Epistle Paul alluded to there was Ephesians, which would have likely traveled through Laodicea if it went to Colossae. And maybe these two were also post 70 AD.
Traditional timelines of the Epistles by people who question none of them already mostly tend to make the Agreed upon ones the earliest, with the rest being after he came to Rome in 62 AD at the soonest. Needless to say a lot of things changed for Paul then. He may well have had access to none of the recorders he had before, and the dialect of Greek in the western empire was likely different. The outlier is 2nd Thessalonians which some seem to think was written right after the first, but I find that unlikely regardless of this dispute, I think it took time for Paul to realize that Church developed all new problems he needed to address.
There is also a lot of overlap between arguments against the Pastorals being authentic Paul and arguments against 2 Peter being the same author as 1 Peter. But again a difference in what the author is concerned with talking about can be explained by when without doubting who wrote it. But I also think Peter's two Epistles were written to different audiences, the first to Hellenistic Jewish communities in Asia Minor, and the second probably to a more Aramaic community.
I do not believe James and Jude were written by the half brothers of Jesus with those names, but rather by the James and Jude who were bothers among the 12.
Frankly a lot of the arguments about the authenticity of Letters attributed to the 12 reminds me of Anti-Stradfordian arguments, the massive incredulity that simple Galilean fisherman could have ever become capable of writing in such sophisticated Greek. But this time it's those of us opposing that elitist argument who are viewed as fringe. And Shakespeare doesn't have the excuse of being believed to have been Supernaturally assisted by The Holy Spirit.
And then there is the issue of referring to the Temple's Destruction being itself proof a book must have been written later cause we won't even entertain the notion of a real Prophecy.
So I guess The Wreck of the Titan: or, Futility must have been written after The Titanic sank. And the Lone Gunman Pilot must have been written after September 11th 2001. And that Simpsons episode where Donald Trump becomes President can't have been written any sooner then 2015.
"Wait, aren't you making Jesus prediction not even supernatural by comparing to things like that?" Well I'm a Continuationsit who points out how sometimes The Holy Spirit even uses unbelievers like Balaam. In my opinion those predictions were supernatural whether to not the writer claimed to be a Prophet (with the Lone Gunman either it's supernatural or the Conspiracy Theorists are right). But the fact still remains, if you think those things just happened because they were naturally predictable, well Jerusalem inevitably revolting against Rome and getting crushed it can be argued was predictable even in 30 AD.
The fact is Jerusalem falling and being lead away into Captivity again was already in Old Testament Prophecy, Daniel 9 and Zechariah 14 were prophecies made when Judea was returning from the Babylonian Captivity predicting another would be inevitable, in Daniel it's arguably even specifically said that The Temple will be destroyed again. It was already in the Torah that this was a cycle that's going to keep playing itself out as long as Israel keeps backsliding. So frankly it would have been weird for a 1st Century Jewish Prophet to not be saying all this is going to happen again. And the Olivte Discourse does specifically cite Daniel, while Luke 21 uses terminology from Jeremiah "Desolation of Jerusalem".
What Jesus said is vague enough that both Atheist and Christian scholars will sometimes disagree on if Mark 13's account is about the 70 AD fall or the Bar-Kochba revolt. Everything that seems really specific in what Jesus said arguably comes from echoing the fall to Babylon and/or drawing on what Daniel and Zechariah said. Because the fact is the Roman Captivity was that history repeating itself on many levels.
In some cases it's not about "Prophecy after the fact" but just saying some things about the present scenario implied in a text must be post 70 AD. Frankly however I feel that the author of Hebrews would have explicitly refereed to The Temple being destroyed to make his point if it had been.
Still some New Testament authors could have lived past 70 AD, Paul as I argued above, John who I think could have been a Nephew of Jesus, as well the Beloved Disciple Candidates, even Peter since I reject the tradition of him being in Rome at all. And again since I don't view James and Jude as brothers of Jesus they could have. Jude could have even if he was, Simeon the second Bishop of Jerusalem was a brother of Jesus who tradition says lived into the reign of Trajan.
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
I take The Bible Literally and beleive in Universal Salvation.
It annoys me how it's only with The Bible where people feel the need to go down this rabbit hole of "do you take the figures of speech literally?", no other book is talked about that way. And yes there are also accounts of visions and dreams that use symbolic imagery.
One Baptist Pastor I used to know said he prefers to say he takes The Bible Seriously rather then Literally. The thing is there are people who take nothing literally and feel from their POV they're taking it just as seriously.
What's important to be understood is that I'm a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist, and I believe in a literal Virgin Birth and Bodily Resurrection from The Dead.
I watched Brad Jersak's video about "How the Church Fathers interpreted Scripture" in which he makes many valid points I agree with. But every time a prominent figure in the Universal Salvation community makes clear they're not a Creationist and don't take all of The Bible Literally, it reinforces a perception that you have to do that to believe God will Save Everyone. But for me this doctrine is proven because I take Romans 5 and Ezekiel 16 highly literally.
Now I'm also not gonna say you have to agree with me on how to interpret Genesis to be a "True Christian", I'm not interested in heretic hunting. The issue is I want Literalists to know that the Literal interpretation of Scripture supports Universal Salvation. Ezekiel 16 taken literally promises restoration for Sodom.
Peter Hiett has an approach to Genesis and Revelation that is kind of similar to Jersak's, though he defines his view as being very literal. The whole "time is relative from the viewpoint" argument could be useful to Creation Science. But I'm firmly against any view that has any kind of Death already happening prior to Adam's Sin not even mainly because of anything Genesis says, but because of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3, those Chapters make a literal historical understanding of Genesis vital to New Testament theology.
Brad Jersak talks about The Bible coming in different genres, and yes I agree the Psalms and Job are not history books. And most of Jesus parables I don't think are events that literally happened either.
But the problem is when does the Book of Genesis change genre from Myth to History? Does it ever? Because it's clearly presenting itself as an ongoing narrative, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are there to connect it's three different eras. And then Exodus and Numbers genealogically link themselves to the later part of Genesis.
And Genesis has nothing truly comparable to what you see in Pagan myths, there are no embodiments of the elements or abstract concepts that also behave like sentient life forms. Nor any myths about the Sun just not doing her job for awhile and hiding in a cave, we have an example of that at Ugarit but it didn't make it into The Bible.
Jersak says that a "man literally named Man and a woman named Living" is clearly a symbolic myth. But you see all Hebrew names have meanings, Ancient languages weren't like modern English, all their names also were common words. Adam's name means Human because his descendants were named after him, that's actually not what it originally meant, he was named after the substance he was made from.
It is only with Early Genesis that there is this attitude that thinking these events literally happened must somehow take away from learning it's applicable lessons. I have a study called "Ye Hath God Said", I know full well there is a lesson to be learned here. But we also learn lessons from the narratives told about Jesus and the Kings & Prophets of Ancient Israel, that doesn't mean those events didn't happen.
I'm absolutely someone who understands the importance of context, I just did a post on Dinosaurs and Dragons where I talk about the difference between literal zoological descriptions of animals and animals being used symbolically.
Brad Jersak talks about the Early Church as if none of them valued Literalism. But actually the Antiochene School did, however their tradition was suppressed by Justinian following the 5th Ecumenical Council.
He also says that we should be careful about calling The Bible the Word of God because Jesus is The Word of God. "Logos" is what's used of that title of Jesus in John 1, 1st John 1 and 1st John 5. When Paul in Ephesians 6 refers to "the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God", he says Rhema. Church tradition has always understood there to be a distinction between between the Logos and the Rhema.
The issue when addressing the doctrine of Endless Torment in "Hell" isn't about if they're literal or not. Even if you want to believe the KJV rendering is literally true it's still a matter of what's being called "Eternal" and what even does "Eternal" truly mean. And then after that is the issue of understanding what the Greek and Hebrew truly said.
The only area where my approach can even be slightly called a less literal one is how I approach the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16. But again that is a parable, it's those wanting to Hellfire Preach from it treating it different then how they do other parables. And I've done a post on that subject fully showing that even if it is a Literal event that actually happened it still doesn't prove endless torment. The idea of endless punishment is refuted by Luke 12.
One Baptist Pastor I used to know said he prefers to say he takes The Bible Seriously rather then Literally. The thing is there are people who take nothing literally and feel from their POV they're taking it just as seriously.
What's important to be understood is that I'm a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist, and I believe in a literal Virgin Birth and Bodily Resurrection from The Dead.
I watched Brad Jersak's video about "How the Church Fathers interpreted Scripture" in which he makes many valid points I agree with. But every time a prominent figure in the Universal Salvation community makes clear they're not a Creationist and don't take all of The Bible Literally, it reinforces a perception that you have to do that to believe God will Save Everyone. But for me this doctrine is proven because I take Romans 5 and Ezekiel 16 highly literally.
Now I'm also not gonna say you have to agree with me on how to interpret Genesis to be a "True Christian", I'm not interested in heretic hunting. The issue is I want Literalists to know that the Literal interpretation of Scripture supports Universal Salvation. Ezekiel 16 taken literally promises restoration for Sodom.
Peter Hiett has an approach to Genesis and Revelation that is kind of similar to Jersak's, though he defines his view as being very literal. The whole "time is relative from the viewpoint" argument could be useful to Creation Science. But I'm firmly against any view that has any kind of Death already happening prior to Adam's Sin not even mainly because of anything Genesis says, but because of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Peter 3, those Chapters make a literal historical understanding of Genesis vital to New Testament theology.
Brad Jersak talks about The Bible coming in different genres, and yes I agree the Psalms and Job are not history books. And most of Jesus parables I don't think are events that literally happened either.
But the problem is when does the Book of Genesis change genre from Myth to History? Does it ever? Because it's clearly presenting itself as an ongoing narrative, the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are there to connect it's three different eras. And then Exodus and Numbers genealogically link themselves to the later part of Genesis.
And Genesis has nothing truly comparable to what you see in Pagan myths, there are no embodiments of the elements or abstract concepts that also behave like sentient life forms. Nor any myths about the Sun just not doing her job for awhile and hiding in a cave, we have an example of that at Ugarit but it didn't make it into The Bible.
Jersak says that a "man literally named Man and a woman named Living" is clearly a symbolic myth. But you see all Hebrew names have meanings, Ancient languages weren't like modern English, all their names also were common words. Adam's name means Human because his descendants were named after him, that's actually not what it originally meant, he was named after the substance he was made from.
It is only with Early Genesis that there is this attitude that thinking these events literally happened must somehow take away from learning it's applicable lessons. I have a study called "Ye Hath God Said", I know full well there is a lesson to be learned here. But we also learn lessons from the narratives told about Jesus and the Kings & Prophets of Ancient Israel, that doesn't mean those events didn't happen.
I'm absolutely someone who understands the importance of context, I just did a post on Dinosaurs and Dragons where I talk about the difference between literal zoological descriptions of animals and animals being used symbolically.
Brad Jersak talks about the Early Church as if none of them valued Literalism. But actually the Antiochene School did, however their tradition was suppressed by Justinian following the 5th Ecumenical Council.
He also says that we should be careful about calling The Bible the Word of God because Jesus is The Word of God. "Logos" is what's used of that title of Jesus in John 1, 1st John 1 and 1st John 5. When Paul in Ephesians 6 refers to "the Sword of the Spirit which is the Word of God", he says Rhema. Church tradition has always understood there to be a distinction between between the Logos and the Rhema.
The issue when addressing the doctrine of Endless Torment in "Hell" isn't about if they're literal or not. Even if you want to believe the KJV rendering is literally true it's still a matter of what's being called "Eternal" and what even does "Eternal" truly mean. And then after that is the issue of understanding what the Greek and Hebrew truly said.
The only area where my approach can even be slightly called a less literal one is how I approach the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16. But again that is a parable, it's those wanting to Hellfire Preach from it treating it different then how they do other parables. And I've done a post on that subject fully showing that even if it is a Literal event that actually happened it still doesn't prove endless torment. The idea of endless punishment is refuted by Luke 12.
Sunday, October 7, 2018
Does God Love Everyone? Or Does He Hate Some People?
Calvinists will insist that God can't Love everyone because lots of verses refer to God's "Hate" or "Eminity" or "Loathing" or says he "abhors". It's not just Calvinists though, the Pastor I do not like to name also does this and he considers himself an enemy of both Calvinism and Arminianism. If you believe in the doctrine of endless torment or annihilation you can't honestly claim you think God Loves everyone including the unbelievers.
I could simply question the accuracy of equating those Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words with the modern English notion of "Hate". However even the modern meaning of "Hate" does not always carry the meaning they want it to, i.e. it's not mutually exclusive to Love. The opposite of Love is indifference, there is a common expression that you can only truly Hate what you Love. The only movies I've ever described myself as Hating are parts of Franchises that I Love, if I didn't care about the property in the first place I'd just forget about it. And the only people I've ever truly felt like I hate are members of my own family when I'm really mad at them.
There is no single verse in Scripture that says the three word phrase "God Loves Everyone", but there is similarly no single verse clear statement on The Trinity. Jesus said God Loved The World in John 3:16, and in John 12 He says He will draw (can also be translated Romance) all humans unto himself. Romans 11:32 says God will have Mercy on All. 1 John 2:2 specifically says Jesus died for the Sins of the whole world not just believers. 1 Timothy 2:4-6 also clearly says God will have all to be saved. 1 Timothy 4:10 says Jesus is the Savior of All Men not just believers. And I John also teaches that God Is Love.
It's what's said about Esau in Malachi 1 and Romans 9 that is the crux of how Calvinists build their doctrine of God's Hate. At the bottom of this post I'll link to an interesting Peter Hiett Sermon on the subject, but first I shall try to give my own take.
First of all there is no Verse anywhere in Scripture saying God "Hates" Esau in the present tense, both relevant verses say He "Hated" in the past tense. In Hosea 9:15 God says he hated the children of Israel and loves them no more, same Hebrew word Malachi uses. But when you read the whole book that clearly didn't stick. Indeed this is a problem for the Calvinist misuse of "God never changes" since they specifically say God's Love or Hate for someone never changes.
The reason why these Esau verses are vital to Calvinism is because of the contrast to how God Loved Jacob. They assume they must be equal, that the Hate for Esau must be just as irrevocable as the Love for Jacob. But Scripture says the opposite, Psalm 8 says God's Anger is for but a moment, while the Psalms also repeatedly say (if you're KJV only) "His Mercy Endures Forever". God's Hate can't be equal to his Love because God Is Love.
The Irony about using Paul's quotation of Malachi this way is that it's role in the grander meta-narrative of Romans is clearly that those God "Hated' in the Old Testament are being brought in now. Chuck Missler liked to say that Romans 9 is Israel's past, 10 the present (of Paul's time and probably still now) and 11 Israel's future. In the present not only is Esau not still hated but if anything they've switched because Israel is now under Spiritual Blindness. However that Blindness will be lifted, Romans 11 makes clear that after the "Fullness of the gentiles" are grafted into Israel, All Israel shall be Saved.
There had developed a Jewish tradition of identifying Rome specifically with Esau/Edom. It's mostly associated with later Rabbinic tradition but there is a DSS manuscript that seems to imply this had been done already in the BC era by identifying the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2/7 with Edom. Maybe that's why Paul brought up Edom here, but either way the greater point is that Paul is trying to prove that God's love is not and never really was limited only to Israel. I no longer think Rome literally genealogically descended from Edom, but I used to argue that in the past.
The basis in Genesis itself for what Malachi said is believed to be when The Angel told Rachel the younger of her twins will serve the elder, and yet no where does Genesis say Esau was hated. Genesis 27:41 says Esau hated Jacob, but in the Hebrew that's a different word then Malachi used, a much rarer word that appears right next to Satan in the Strongs and is never used of God's feelings for anyone, at least not by a reliable source.
The same Hebrew word Malachi used is used in Genesis 29:30-33 in an interesting way, there it seemingly describes Leah being hated by Jacob. But did Jacob really "hate" Leah? No, he calls Leah Joseph's mother in chapter 37. At this point in the narrative Leah feels hated because of how Jacob chose Rachel. But then God opens her Womb which Provokes Rachel to Jealousy, again echoing terminology Paul uses in Romans where the fruitfulness of the Gentiles provokes Israel to jealously.
There are Prophecies that seem to refer to Edom as a nation (and Amalek his bastard offshoot) being permanently irrecoverably destroyed in a way no other nation is. From Balaam's oracles about Amalek, to Obadiah, to Jeremiah 49 seemingly not promising Edom the restoration the other nations are, to Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36, and then of course what Malachi says at the start of his Prophecy. And maybe that's true, maybe as a geo-political entity the nation of Edom will be no more, but that wouldn't preclude every single individual Edomite from still being resurrected to live in the New Creation as nationalized citizens of other nations.
But there are also potential translation issues with those prophecies, like Olam being translated Forever when it means Age. And comparing Amos 9:11-12 as it is in the Masoretic text/KJV to how it's quoted in Acts 15:15-17 shows at least one reference to Edom should really be Adam (spelled the same in Hebrew) and so perhaps more should be and some of these prophecies are about Mankind's judgment. And then there is the really fringe part of my brain that contemplates the possibility that Jeremiah's different treatment of Edom is because he and Obadiah 4 are saying Edom migrated to outer space.
Here is that Peter Hiett Sermon.
http://www.thesanctuarydenver.org/sermons/does-god-love-everyone-even-esau/
I could simply question the accuracy of equating those Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words with the modern English notion of "Hate". However even the modern meaning of "Hate" does not always carry the meaning they want it to, i.e. it's not mutually exclusive to Love. The opposite of Love is indifference, there is a common expression that you can only truly Hate what you Love. The only movies I've ever described myself as Hating are parts of Franchises that I Love, if I didn't care about the property in the first place I'd just forget about it. And the only people I've ever truly felt like I hate are members of my own family when I'm really mad at them.
There is no single verse in Scripture that says the three word phrase "God Loves Everyone", but there is similarly no single verse clear statement on The Trinity. Jesus said God Loved The World in John 3:16, and in John 12 He says He will draw (can also be translated Romance) all humans unto himself. Romans 11:32 says God will have Mercy on All. 1 John 2:2 specifically says Jesus died for the Sins of the whole world not just believers. 1 Timothy 2:4-6 also clearly says God will have all to be saved. 1 Timothy 4:10 says Jesus is the Savior of All Men not just believers. And I John also teaches that God Is Love.
It's what's said about Esau in Malachi 1 and Romans 9 that is the crux of how Calvinists build their doctrine of God's Hate. At the bottom of this post I'll link to an interesting Peter Hiett Sermon on the subject, but first I shall try to give my own take.
First of all there is no Verse anywhere in Scripture saying God "Hates" Esau in the present tense, both relevant verses say He "Hated" in the past tense. In Hosea 9:15 God says he hated the children of Israel and loves them no more, same Hebrew word Malachi uses. But when you read the whole book that clearly didn't stick. Indeed this is a problem for the Calvinist misuse of "God never changes" since they specifically say God's Love or Hate for someone never changes.
The reason why these Esau verses are vital to Calvinism is because of the contrast to how God Loved Jacob. They assume they must be equal, that the Hate for Esau must be just as irrevocable as the Love for Jacob. But Scripture says the opposite, Psalm 8 says God's Anger is for but a moment, while the Psalms also repeatedly say (if you're KJV only) "His Mercy Endures Forever". God's Hate can't be equal to his Love because God Is Love.
The Irony about using Paul's quotation of Malachi this way is that it's role in the grander meta-narrative of Romans is clearly that those God "Hated' in the Old Testament are being brought in now. Chuck Missler liked to say that Romans 9 is Israel's past, 10 the present (of Paul's time and probably still now) and 11 Israel's future. In the present not only is Esau not still hated but if anything they've switched because Israel is now under Spiritual Blindness. However that Blindness will be lifted, Romans 11 makes clear that after the "Fullness of the gentiles" are grafted into Israel, All Israel shall be Saved.
There had developed a Jewish tradition of identifying Rome specifically with Esau/Edom. It's mostly associated with later Rabbinic tradition but there is a DSS manuscript that seems to imply this had been done already in the BC era by identifying the fourth Kingdom of Daniel 2/7 with Edom. Maybe that's why Paul brought up Edom here, but either way the greater point is that Paul is trying to prove that God's love is not and never really was limited only to Israel. I no longer think Rome literally genealogically descended from Edom, but I used to argue that in the past.
The basis in Genesis itself for what Malachi said is believed to be when The Angel told Rachel the younger of her twins will serve the elder, and yet no where does Genesis say Esau was hated. Genesis 27:41 says Esau hated Jacob, but in the Hebrew that's a different word then Malachi used, a much rarer word that appears right next to Satan in the Strongs and is never used of God's feelings for anyone, at least not by a reliable source.
The same Hebrew word Malachi used is used in Genesis 29:30-33 in an interesting way, there it seemingly describes Leah being hated by Jacob. But did Jacob really "hate" Leah? No, he calls Leah Joseph's mother in chapter 37. At this point in the narrative Leah feels hated because of how Jacob chose Rachel. But then God opens her Womb which Provokes Rachel to Jealousy, again echoing terminology Paul uses in Romans where the fruitfulness of the Gentiles provokes Israel to jealously.
There are Prophecies that seem to refer to Edom as a nation (and Amalek his bastard offshoot) being permanently irrecoverably destroyed in a way no other nation is. From Balaam's oracles about Amalek, to Obadiah, to Jeremiah 49 seemingly not promising Edom the restoration the other nations are, to Isaiah 34 and Ezekiel 35-36, and then of course what Malachi says at the start of his Prophecy. And maybe that's true, maybe as a geo-political entity the nation of Edom will be no more, but that wouldn't preclude every single individual Edomite from still being resurrected to live in the New Creation as nationalized citizens of other nations.
But there are also potential translation issues with those prophecies, like Olam being translated Forever when it means Age. And comparing Amos 9:11-12 as it is in the Masoretic text/KJV to how it's quoted in Acts 15:15-17 shows at least one reference to Edom should really be Adam (spelled the same in Hebrew) and so perhaps more should be and some of these prophecies are about Mankind's judgment. And then there is the really fringe part of my brain that contemplates the possibility that Jeremiah's different treatment of Edom is because he and Obadiah 4 are saying Edom migrated to outer space.
Here is that Peter Hiett Sermon.
http://www.thesanctuarydenver.org/sermons/does-god-love-everyone-even-esau/
Wednesday, October 3, 2018
We're not the ones Cherry Picking Verses
The critics of Universal Salvation like to claim we're taking random verses out of context and ignoring the clear overall message. However it's their apparent Endless Torment verses that are far outnumbered by the verses that contradict that idea.
Is what Jesus said on The Cross an obscure unimportant part of Scripture? He said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". He didn't say "if they repent forgive them", in fact what He said makes it impossible to repent, you can't repent of what you don't even know you did.
Is the Sermon on the Mount obscure? Cause right at the start in Matthew 5:26 Jesus makes clear the Punishment is not endless but until the price is paid, Luke 12 backs that up.
Some people like to say everything you need to know about Salvation is in John's Gospel, well interestingly there are no declarations of Eternal Fire in John nor does it mention Hell, but in John 12:32 Jesus does say He will Draw all Humanity unto Himself.
1 Corinthians 15 is often refereed to as the part of Scripture that most clearly explains what The Gospel is (it's The Resurrection). And that happens to be one of our favorite chapters. We're told all who Died because of Adam will Rise again because of Christ, and that Death and Hell will have no victory, the only time Paul ever refers to Hell BTW.
It is common in Protestant and Evangelical circles to refer to Romans as the definitive statement of Christian Doctrine. Chuck Missler liked to say the first 8 chapters were laying out the Doctrine of Salvation and then 9-11 are about Israel. People less Dispensational then Missler would say those two sections aren't so easy to separate. Well again Romans never refers to Hell or Eternal Fire.
Romans 1 contains a rhetorical rant about how many Jewish Believers viewed the Gentile world, drawing on the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon. But he then spends chapter 2 into chapter 3 explaining how Israel is no better. Then by the end of Chapter 3 and into chapter 4 he talks quite a bit about how in the present tense those who Believe are Saved and those who don't Believe are currently Unsaved. But then in Romans 5 he looks forward to the future and firmly declares that ALL who were made Sinners in Adam will be made Righteous in Christ.
Romans 6 goes on to explain why we shouldn't take that as a license to Sin, but that doesn't take away the clear message of Romans 5. Then we reach Romans 11, where he talks about Gentiles being grafted into Israel. He says that the Fullness of The Gentiles will be grafted into Israel and then All Israel shall be Saved. For God consigned them all to disobedience so that he might have mercy on All.
I have done a post on how Revelation implies Universal Salvation, and also one on how the seeds of that message are planted right in The Torah.
The overarching meta narrative of The Bible clearly supports Universal Salvation, it's the doctrine of Endless Punishment that depends on cherry picking certain verses out of context. Even if KJV onlyism were true that'd still be the case.
Is what Jesus said on The Cross an obscure unimportant part of Scripture? He said "Father forgive them for they know not what they do". He didn't say "if they repent forgive them", in fact what He said makes it impossible to repent, you can't repent of what you don't even know you did.
Is the Sermon on the Mount obscure? Cause right at the start in Matthew 5:26 Jesus makes clear the Punishment is not endless but until the price is paid, Luke 12 backs that up.
Some people like to say everything you need to know about Salvation is in John's Gospel, well interestingly there are no declarations of Eternal Fire in John nor does it mention Hell, but in John 12:32 Jesus does say He will Draw all Humanity unto Himself.
1 Corinthians 15 is often refereed to as the part of Scripture that most clearly explains what The Gospel is (it's The Resurrection). And that happens to be one of our favorite chapters. We're told all who Died because of Adam will Rise again because of Christ, and that Death and Hell will have no victory, the only time Paul ever refers to Hell BTW.
It is common in Protestant and Evangelical circles to refer to Romans as the definitive statement of Christian Doctrine. Chuck Missler liked to say the first 8 chapters were laying out the Doctrine of Salvation and then 9-11 are about Israel. People less Dispensational then Missler would say those two sections aren't so easy to separate. Well again Romans never refers to Hell or Eternal Fire.
Romans 1 contains a rhetorical rant about how many Jewish Believers viewed the Gentile world, drawing on the apocryphal Wisdom of Solomon. But he then spends chapter 2 into chapter 3 explaining how Israel is no better. Then by the end of Chapter 3 and into chapter 4 he talks quite a bit about how in the present tense those who Believe are Saved and those who don't Believe are currently Unsaved. But then in Romans 5 he looks forward to the future and firmly declares that ALL who were made Sinners in Adam will be made Righteous in Christ.
Romans 6 goes on to explain why we shouldn't take that as a license to Sin, but that doesn't take away the clear message of Romans 5. Then we reach Romans 11, where he talks about Gentiles being grafted into Israel. He says that the Fullness of The Gentiles will be grafted into Israel and then All Israel shall be Saved. For God consigned them all to disobedience so that he might have mercy on All.
I have done a post on how Revelation implies Universal Salvation, and also one on how the seeds of that message are planted right in The Torah.
The overarching meta narrative of The Bible clearly supports Universal Salvation, it's the doctrine of Endless Punishment that depends on cherry picking certain verses out of context. Even if KJV onlyism were true that'd still be the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)