Polycarp & Ignatius and False Apsotalic Succesions.

Polycarp and Ignatius have come up a lot when I talk about Heresies of Asia Minor and questioning alleged Apostolic Succession from John.  I want to further make clear here that I do not mean to demonize them, they both died Martyrs and for that they will be rewarded regardless of how wrong I feel they were on certain doctrines.

First and foremost, in their own writings they never claim to be students of John or to have known him, none of the authentic Epistles of Igantius or Polycarp make any references to knowing John.  Even the personal letter Ignatius wrote to Polycarp does not mention their alleged important common mentor.  In fact Ignatius never even quotes any book attributed to John.  The claim they were students of John came later.  Papias, who was contemporary with them in near the same region, explicitly distinguishes the John he knew from the Apostle referring to him as John the Elder.  Ireneaus and Tertullian are our oldest sources on either of them knowing John and they only mention Polycarp not Ignatius, and in Irenaeus it's clarified the John who Polycarp knew was the same one Papias knew.  Polycarp interestingly doesn't seem to support the Monarchical Church structure popularized by Ignatius and later supported by Irenaeus and Tertullian, since he identified himself as one of a group of Presbyters not a Bishop.

Ignatius as Bishop of Antioch was also an Apostolic Successor of Peter (if you believe in Apostolic succession), but claims Peter personally chose him are a much later tradition.  Unlike Rome, The Bible supports Peter having been in Antioch.  Ignatius was martyred in Rome, so what if he appointed some Bishops or Deacans while he was in Rome and that was the origin of Rome having an alleged Apsotalic Succession from Peter?

I still firmly believe Peter was never in Rome, but I'm not as invested in the Simon Magus conspiracy theory as I once was.  I now desire to explain the origins of these wrong traditions as having more to them then just people lying.  This theory about Ignatius in Rome is one such possibility.

Another has to do with Mark.  The basis for claims of Peter in Rome are tied to claims about the origin of Mark's Gospel being him writing down what Peter preached.  Papias did not give any clue where Peter preached or where Mark wrote, it's later writings referencing him that want to read that into Papias.

I disagree with the desire of Eastern Traditions to separate all the Marks of the New Testament.  The John Mark of Acts 12-15 has close connections to Peter and Banabas, so I think he is also both the Cousin of Barnabas and the Marcus referenced in 1 Peter.

Some references to Mark in Paul's Epistles do have Mark with Paul in Rome.  But again if Peter was there at the same time why isn't Paul mentioning him?  Over half the Latin words in the New Testament are in Mark's Gospel, some have even theorized the Gospel of Mark was originally in Latin.  So it could be Mark published his Gospel in Rome based on what Peter had preached in Antioch and Mesopotamia.

BTW I don't think Mark was actually ever in Alexandria, I think that tradition is just as shaky as the ones about Peter in Rome and John in Ephesus.

There is solid evidence the Roman Church was not originally Monarchical, but had many Elders who were all Bishops(Overseers) the Monarchical system emerged over the course of the Second Century probably from the influence of Ignatius.

I think the traditional succession of Bishops of Byzantium between Andrew and the founding of Constantinople were probably also Bishops in Rome.  Andrew was never associated with Byzantium prior to Constantine, the 2nd Century Acts of Andrew places his Martyrdom in Patras west of Corinth.  Byzantium is mentioned briefly in the Acts of Andrew, but only as a place he stopped at on the way to Thrace, like Paul stopping at Samothrace on the way to Macedon. 

Constantine is known to have taken many people (including Senators) from Rome to Constantinople when he founded it.  The Bishop of Constantinople who was at Nicaea was a native of Calabria in Italy.  Castinus a supposed Bishop of Byzantium from the 3rd Century was also said to have been a Roman Senator.  Meanwhile the supposed second Bishop of Byzantium is Stachys a name also mentioned in Romans 16 as someone in Rome.  And the third is Onesimus who could be the same as the Onesimus of Philemon who we know was also in Rome.

As far as John Son of Zebedee goes, I've been considering the possibly that maybe he was Martyred at the same time his brother was in Acts 12, since Papias arguably implies that.  The last explicit reference to him is in Acts 12 when identifying James as his Brother, maybe that verse meant to say both brothers were killed then?  For James this is viewed as fulfilling what was prophesied of the Sons of Zebedee in Matthew 20:20-23 and Mark 10:35-40.  Galatians 2 mentions a James, Cephas and John when giving his account of the Acts 15 council, but this isn't referring to the usual big three since we know this James can't be the Son of Zebedee.  I think John Mark could be the John who Paul was referring to here.

So that would make all extra-biblical traditions about either of them traveling to other lands invalid.

I take Sin very seriously, but I take The Son more seriously

A common accusation against someone like me, who both teaches Universal Salvation and argues for more permissive attitudes towards Sexual Morality, is often that we don't take Sin seriously enough.  How can I justify Paul saying "all have Sinned" if there are so many things I don't think are sinful?

But to me, it's mainstream Christianity that isn't taking real Sin seriously enough when they tend to focus on the same kinds of things the Pharisees focused on.

Jesus said the greatest Commandment is to Love God with all your heart mind body and soul, and the second greatest is to love your neighbor as you Love yourself, and He said those were the whole of The Law.  James and Paul in both Romans & Galatians also repeated that the second greatest commandment is the gist of the Law.  The greatest Sin is failure to Love, and in a way that's what all real Sin comes down to.  And I certainly fail to Love God and my neighbor constantly, I don't need a laundry list of specific actions to tell me I'm a Sinner, I just need to look at my own heart.

So I am opposing Sin when I oppose the aspects of Traditional Christianity that lead to justifying Hate.

The epistle known as 1 John in chapter 4 verses 7 and 8 says that God is Love, and that everyone who loves is Born of God and that everyone who Loveth not Knoweth not God.  Chapter 3:14 says everyone who loveth not his Brother abideth in Death.  This Epistle is not dividing humanity into two categories, but listing two categories into which every human has fallen.

Chapter 4 verse 10 and up clarified we are saved not because We Loved God but because God Loved us and gave His Son as the Atonement for our Sins.

I just spent a Week in the Hospital

Because of a Bowel Obstruction.

I thought about my faith quite a bit, the strength of the my Faiht is even stronger.

I still have healing to so so if anyone want to Pray for me feel go right ahead. 

I want to thank My God and My Lord for helping me thought all of this, and making sure I was in the hand of a killed physician.

Hebrew Textual Variations

I have been a strong supporter of staying strictly Masoretic for the Hebrew text.  And I'm still against any changes that are supported only by the Septuagint.  But I've rethought a few things.

Number one would be differences that do not actually change a single letter, but just the vowel indicators that didn't come into existence till well after New Testament times (and thus can't be included in the Jot and Tittle reference).

This can explain why Acts 15:16 says Man/Mankind(Anthropos) where Amos 9:12 says Edom.  Edom and Adam are spelled the same in Hebrew but pronounced differently.  From that I've wondered if other apparent references to Edom could be the same, like Isaiah 34 which lacks any references to specific Edomite tribal or place names like Teman or Mt Sier.  (Ezekiel 35-36 however does refer to Mt Sier.)

And it seemingly was also merely a difference in vowel indicators that lead one now gone Interlinear Torah website I used to visit to say that Nimrod's name means Rebel in the Masoretic Text but Leopard in the Samaritan Pentateuch.  The spelling is the same, the difference is if it's Marad with an N prefix or Namer with a D suffix.  The Samaritan meaning makes sense in the immediate context of Nimrod being a hunter since Leopards are animals who hunt.  And contrary to what people who want to vilify Nimrod will tell you "Before The LORD" here is not an expression of hostility in the Hebrew, it's the same phrase used of many things done in worship of Yahuah elsewhere.  So no Nimrod isn't rebelling against anything here.  So it's interesting then that Jeremiah 13:23 poetically compares Cushites to Leopards.

But that leads me to the subject of variations that would require changing at least one letter, or more, since the Samaritan Pentateuch has plenty of those.  But it is a received text as well, not some random text found rotting somewhere like the Alexandrian Bibles.

Any Samaritan variation about Mt Gerizim I inherently don't trust, those were motivated by their peculiar reverence for that mountain. And in the case of Deuteronomy 27:4 there are reasons why even non Samaritans might be uncomfortable with placing the Law on Mount Ebal, the Mountain of the Curse, so no, one DSS text agreeing with the Samaritan here doesn't impress me.  But for Christians Paulian Theology explains exactly why that was, meanwhile both Joshua 8:30-33 and Archaeology agree that Mount Ebal is where the Altar was constructed.

Some have suggested the Vulgate supports saying Moreh instead of Moriah in Genesis 22, but that's based on it translating the meaning rather then transliterating the name which really fits both names equally, in meaning Moriah is just Moreh made into a Yah theophoric name by the adding of one additional Yot. And in Genesis 12 Moreh is a plain not a mountain.

But for differences that aren't in any way connected to that issue, the possibility that the Samaritan could be closer to the original is worth considering.  But one thing I'll always be looking for is another witness to that alternate reading.

First off is the Chrono-Genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11.  The Book of Jubilees agrees with the Samaritan on the Genesis 5 ages but not 11.  The Samaritan matches the Septuagint for Genesis 11 except that it doesn't have an additional Cainan/Kenen between Arphaxad and Selah (something I think Christian copyists added to the Septuagint) and has different dates for Terah having him die when Abraham is called at 75 therefore lacking a timeline confusion other versions have.  Someday I could make a whole post on just this issue.

Meanwhile in Genesis 10 what reads Dodanim in the Masoretic is Rodanim in the Samaritan.  However all texts of 1 Chronicles 1:7 read Rodanim here, and the Septuagint transliteration also begins with an R rather then a D.  Yet the KJV uses Dodanim in 1 Chronicles 1:7 even though there is no Hebrew or Greek textual support for that, and the Strongs just claims Rodanim is a scribal error.  I will be doing a post soon (right here) that will explain how the context of what Javan actually refereed to in antiquity fits this name referring to Rhodes better then any identity a spelling that begins with a D leads to.

I've also seen it claimed that the Samaritan Pentateuch agrees with the Septuagint in saying Gog rather then Agag in Numbers 24:7.  Here is a website talking about that issue without firmly taking a side on it.
http://mydigitalseminary.com/gog-or-agag-jesus-or-david/
Now I can add that some have theorized Agag and Gog are basically different forms of the same name.  This is another subject that could become it's own post.  The Samaritans don't revere Ezekiel or any Prophetic books, so there is no reason for them to want to add Gog to a verse he wasn't originally in.  Meanwhile Ezekiel seems to say Gog is a figure already foretold elsewhere.

I may update this post to add more examples in the future.  For now these are the ones that have caught my attention.  None of them change any essential doctrine of Scripture, and are more relevant to my interests as a History Nerd.

Update: DSS(Dead Sea Scrolls) and the Isaiah Scroll.

I guess I should talk about DSS variants, one I already alluded to above in the case of Deuteronomy 27.  I also talked in my Sethie View post about a DSS variant in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) where the Samaritan sides with the Masoretic against the DSS variant.

The Samaritan is of course only relevant to the Pentateuch.  That now dead interlinear website I mentioned above compared Masoretic and Samaritan versions and included DSS readings when there were some, however there were not many from what I recall going over.

The Isaiah Scroll is the only complete book among the DSS manuscripts.  When it comes to talking about how much it agrees with the Masoretic text Wikipedia is the most unbiased discussion of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_Scroll#Scribal_Profile_and_Textual_Variants

Now at first it may look like the statement that it mostly agrees with the Masoretic might seem contradicted by saying there were 2600 variations.  Isaiah is a big book, you could theoretically fit that many variations into one of the longer chapters.  Most of them are just stuff like different spellings of the same word or the words being in a different order, in ways that do not effect the meaning at all.  A lot of them could just be the Isaiah Scroll using less Yots and Vavs then the Masoretic in places where the Masoretic used those letters as vowels.

There are other DSS fragments of Isaiah, and when it comes to these variations other DSS Isaiah texts tend to agree with the Masoretic over the Isaiah Scroll.    So it doesn't make much sense to use the Isaiah Scroll to invalidate the Masoretic text, yet people try to sometimes to fit various agendas.  Maybe the very reason the Isaiah Scroll is unique among DSS manuscripts of Canonical texts in being complete is because it was a variant non standard text?  But again the variations aren't even significant.

In Isaiah 34:14 the Masoretic Text uses the spelling Lilith but the Isaiah Scroll uses Liliyyoth. I don't know if there are any other DSS manuscripts of Isaiah 34:14 but the Lilith spelling is used in Songs of The Sage (4Q510–511).  The Wikipedia page for Lilith says the Masoretic Spelling is singular and the Isaiah Scroll spelling is plural, but elsewhere ending with a th at all is defined as inherently a feminine plural while the feminine singular is ending with a Heh.  The context of Lilith's reference in 4Q510-511 has everything else listed around Lilith being plural.  So I think the meaning is intended to be plural regardless of which spelling is the original.

An author named Margraret Barker has claimed that the Isaiah Scroll reading of Isaiah 7:11 says "Ask a sign from the Mother of the LORD your God".  Most scholars disagree with this reading of the Isaiah Scroll, and I myself am far from convinced of it.  But Barker popularized this claim to support a fringe theory of ancient Hebrew Goddess worship.  The idea that it could instead lend support to the Christian reading of Isaiah 7:14, that Immanuel is YHWH incarnate, and in turn Cyrillian Christianity's insistence on calling Mary Theotokos, isn't talked about much.

Do Paul and James Disagree?

When it comes to accusing The New Testament of being ideologically inconsistent with itself, the biggest factor is suggesting an inherent conflict between The Epistle of James, and what Paul taught particularly in Romans and Galatians.  With how most Christians try to reconcile this being filtered through which presumed position they take.

First off I think Paul's Soterolgoy is misunderstood as I explain in The Free Gift of Grace.  Justification and Salvation are not the same thing, in Ephesians Paul says we are Saved by Grace through Faith with the Faith being the Faith of Jesus.

Among skeptics and Anti-Paul cults this accusation goes beyond just saying they don't agree, but saying James wrote his Epistle specifically against Paul.  Thing is a lot is missing if that was the plan.  James never brings up the issue of Circumcision even once. Nor does his discussion of the Law of Moses actually make it binding in the minutia, since in Chapter 2 Verse 8 like Paul and Jesus he makes the point that you're doing fine as long as you "Love thy Neighbor as you love thyself".  James also agrees with Paul that no one is without Sin.  He also never names Paul in it, which if it was directed against a single notable heretic is what I'd expect.

Paul and James are emphasizing different things because they are dealing with different issues.  But Paul still stressed the value of good works.  And James clarified what good works he cared about in Chapter 1 verses 26 and 27 which are not the Laws the Hebrew Roots movement obsesses over.

It is often alleged that Paul himself refers to being in conflict with James.  The problem is three out of four times the name James appears in 1 Corinthians and Galatians Paul is clearly referring to him positively and stresses their agreement, and Acts is the same, no evidence of conflict between Paul and any James exists in that book.  It's only because of what Paul said we even know Jesus Brothers including James specifically became Apostles, the Gospels alone at face value do not tell us that.

But Galatians 2:12 then refers to the Legalists as "certain came from James".

First of all the grammar in the Greek is not so explicitly implying people sent by an individual, so even if the same James refereed to so positively a few verses earlier is the James meant, these people's actions may not accurately reflect the will of that James.  It just says there came certain people, and they are in some way "from James".

In 1st Corinthians there's no references to people saying they are "of James" but rather to groups saying they are of Peter, Apollos, Paul himself and even Jesus.  Here everyone understand Paul is not blaming either Peter or Apollos themselves whatever issues these people have, and we see even some putting emphasis on Paul himself get rebuked by Paul.

But here is a fact about the name James people overlook when discussing this issue, that name doesn't actually exist in the Greek at all, it's just the name Jacob.

Every time you see Jacob rather then James in the KJV New Testament it's examples where the Greek spelling just stops at the B with no additional suffix to help clarify grammar.  Most of those are references to the Jacob of Genesis.  But it was also the name of Joseph the husband of Mary's father/ancestor according to Matthew's genealogy which perhaps contextualizes him giving that name to his second son (first he actually begat), Jesus's name was given by the Angel.

Every time it appears with any additional letters at the end the KJV makes it James.  And it seems in Galatians 2:12 that suffix is the basis for the word "from" in the translation.

So it could be the IakObou of Galatians 2:12 is not any contemporary Jacob, but Paul's way of referring to those who want to keep the Faith as Nationalist/Ethno-Centric as possible.  Who's successors today are British Israelism and Two-House Theology, which sometimes overlaps with the Hebrew Roots movement.

The Egyptian Heresy of Eternal Damnation

Augustine of Hippo and other Latin writers of his time are usually given as being the chief popularizers of Endless Torment (Augustine admitted in his writings that the majority believed in Universal Salvation).  But the key to most of Augustine's beliefs, (at least the ones I think he was wrong on, which are a lot of them), was his preference for an Allegorical Non-Literal interpretation of Scripture and willingness to borrow from Platonic Philosophy.

In the Greek speaking Church those two things were primarily characteristic of the Alexandrian School.  And indeed Augustine was known to have communicated with Cyril of Alexandria, and Cyril also taught Endless Torment.

And so ought we to reckon for ourselves; for to endure patiently, and maintain the conflict with courage, brings with it great reward, and is highly desirable, and wins for us the blessings bestowed by God: while to refuse to suffer death in the flesh for the love of Christ, brings upon us lasting, or rather never-ending punishment. For the wrath of man reaches at most to the body, and the death of the flesh is the utmost that they can contrive against us: but when God punishes, the loss reaches not to the flesh alone;----how could it?----but the wretched soul also is cast alone; with it into torments. Let our lot therefore rather be the honoured death; for it makes us mount up to the commencement of an eternal life, to which of necessity are attached those blessings also which come from the divine bounty: and let us flee from and despise a life of shame; a life accursed, and of short duration, and which leads down to bitter and everlasting torment.

From his Commentary on Luke Sermon 87.  The correspondence between Augustine and Cyril further confirms this (Letter 4*).

Sometimes Cyril has been cited as a supporter of Universal Salvation, but that is based on his reference to the Harrowing of Hell, which plenty of enemies of Universal Salvation do still believe in.

Don't forget that the text of the Apocalypse of Peter that removes the reference to the eventual Salvation of all Sinners is the one found in Egypt.  I have argued that that scene was in the original version.

Alexandrians who were okay with Universal Salvation like Clement, Origen and maybe Athanasius were okay with it in-spite of their Alexandrianism not because of it.  With Cyril we see there were counter examples among the Alexandrians, but I can't find any counter examples among the highly Literalist Antiochene School.  Even the Cappadocians' support of Universal Salvation seems to reflect closer affinity to Antioch then Alexandria, Cappadocia was not far from Nisibis and Edessa where offshoots of the School of Antioch existed during their lifetime, and Basil had been Bishop of Caesarea, home of another related school, and Gregory of Nazianzus obtained the position of Bishop of Constantinople with the help of Meletius of Antioch..  Gregory was also critical of Origen on some issues.  Among the Antiochians who strongly opposed the Allegorical approach of Origen was  Eustathius of Antioch who was at the Council of Nicaea and a strong ally of Athanasius in opposing Arianism, he blamed Origenism for Arianism, Eustathius's possible support of Universal Salvation is disputable.

Athanasius does seem to be an exception to the general rule among prominent Christian figures of Alexandria in general, his writings rarely quotes anything outside The New Testament and the few times he discuses Greek Philosophy he doesn't seem to have understood it well.   Maybe he wasn't a Literalist in a similar way to the Antiochians, but he was different from other Alexandrians.

It was the Alexandrian acceptance of Plato that opened the door for the endless punishment doctrine taught in The Republic to creep into the Church.  That Eternal Torment seemingly took the longest of any Platonic ideas to catch on in even the Alexandrian Church is all the more evidence of how Unbiblical it was.

Plato's later dialogues like Republic, Timaeus and Laws are thought to be heavily influenced by the Pythagoreans, Pythagoras was said to have spent some time in Egypt.  Plato also presents his family as passing down knowledge Solon learned in Egypt.  Clement of Alexandria himself claims Pythagoras and Plato got many of their teachings from the Egyptians.

The Ancient Egyptians believed the Hearts of the Impure were devoured by the monster Ammit condemning them to eternal restlessness.

The Bible itself gives good reason to trust Antioch over Egypt when it comes to Church History.  Acts strangely doesn't record an Apostolic Church being set up in Egypt at all, but Antioch is where Believers were first called Christians, and where Paul started most of his missions, and we know Peter was there for a time thanks to Galatians.

Many will accuse Universal Salvation of being something taught to appease the world, but to me it looks like the secular world, even specifically the politically and socially liberal or leftist world, doesn't actually object to hell that much.  The Horror Genre is now unwilling to settle for just death, they have to literally depict people going to Hell, like in Drag Me To Hell, or American Horror Story The Coven.  I watch a lot of YouTube Video Essays about popular culture from fellow SJWs, (Like Renegade Cut's Little Shop of Horrors video) and they're often obsessed with wanting actions to have consequences, ya know like the Hindu concept of Karma.  And some fans of The Last Jedi think Kylo Ren is beyond redemption.

What they find offensive about specifically Evangelical Christianity is the notion that Belief is the sole or primary determining factor. That it might be possible for a believer to lose Salvation, but impossible for someone who never believed no matter how nice they were to avoid Hell.  And these Christians sadly think that idea is how to separate Biblical Hell from the Egyptian concept of Ammit.

My old Second Resurrection post wasn't directly about Universal Salvation at all, simply arguing that there may even be some Unbelievers who aren't cast into the Lake of Fire to start with.  But since then my views have shifted a bit on the Lake of Fire.  Now I like to stress how backsliden believers will have it worse on the day of Judgment then those who never Believed based on passages like Luke 12.

But what's really controversial is that I'm even contemplating the possibility that after death/resurrection punishment is only for Believers. Jesus paid the full price of Sin, which was death, but those who enter a covenant relationship with Him take on certain responsibilities in addition to the benefits of that decision.  I'm not willing to state this definitively yet, but I see reasons to suspect it could be the case.

Which opens the possibly that some Nazis won't qualify at all, we can debate Hitler himself endlessly but some Nazis certainly hated Christianity, and wanted people to think Hitler was with them on that hence the dubious quotes in Table Talk.  And nothing is more offensive to the Left right now then suggesting Nazis could get off scottfree.  Oh and pretty much none of Japan's war criminals were Christians.

But I suppose they'll still find that preferable to the typical Christian view that whether or not Hitler gets into Heaven the Six Million Jews he killed certainly won't.

Why include that rant in a post mainly about associating the mainstream doctrine of Hell with Egypt?  Because lots of Conservative Christians see Egypt in The Bible as often representing The World.  Hence why Chad Schafer's book is doing so well.  So I'm showing that endless torment and/or annihilation is the doctrine of the Egyptian World.

Robin Parry on Universal Salvation in The Nativity Narratives.

12 Days of Christmas: Robin Parry – A Universalist Christmas (NS03)
From NomadPodcast.co.uk

The Magi are Gentiles, and Simeon's Prophecy hints at how Israel's Salvation is the Salvation of The World.