InspiringPhilosophy's videos on Genesis and the Passion Week.

I respect IP a great deal and he's done many videos I like, it is not my intention to be hostile at any point in this.

Genesis first.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TUeQHe-lZZF2DTxDHA_LFxi

He is making these videos largely to oppose Young Earth Creationism, so in that way we are at odds.  But he also makes arguments on some issues I feel very inclined to agree with.

Ben S I also have in mind in this post, he and IP have different views on the Nephilim but besides that they seem to be mostly coming from the same place.  I haven't dug into the details of Peter Hiett's interpretation of Genesis yet.

I don't want to go in-depth on everything, as much of it relates to things I've talked about before. I just have a few particular comments to make.

I believe he was correct to argue that Adam was forbidden to eat the fruit only until he was ready for it.  But to me that should have gone hand in hand with arguing that the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge are actually the same tree.  The entire basis for the "doctrine" that Pre-Fall Adam needed to eat from the Tree of Life to be immortal is a comment made at the end of Genesis 3 about Adam in his post-fall state.

And as proof that I'm not some absurd Hyperliteralist, no I clearly don't think "both their eyes were opened" means they literally had their physical eyes closed.  It's a description of something metaphysical happening.

On the creation of Eve, I also agree that "rib" should be translated "side" and that the picture here is of Adam being split in half.  However he argues that this is merely a vision because God putting someone in a deep sleep always means that, and then cites Genesis 15 as if no one would disagree that God's covenant cutting ritual was a mere vision there.  But I do disagree with that, I believe God walked in a figure eight at Shechem and that is why Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal look the way they do.  Genesis 1 and 5 tell us Adam was created Male and Female, what we call the creation of Woman was really Adam being literally split in two.

On the argument about what The Serpent is I mostly agree.  But the one difference is no the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:1 and 14 does not justify saying the Serpent wasn't a "beast of the field" and a Behemah, it was.  The thing is I believe all the beasts and fowls created in Genesis 2:18-19 are angelic beings who were sapient enough to be potential mates for Adam, and only Genesis 1 records the creation of normal animals.

IP's Nephilim argument is for the royal bloodlines view.  I hold what is technically a from of the Sethite view, unfortunately IP talked about that view the least trying to write it off with two bad arguments based on a strawman understanding of it, the point is not about bloodlines but about Sons of God being Believers.  My post on the subject is partly devoted to undoing that false understanding.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-nephilim-and-sons-of-god.html

Now his argument overlaps with mine in some ways when it comes to arguing that the Sons of God can be Human beings.  But I actually disagree with conceding Sons of God ever means Angels, especially not Psalm 82 which Jesus quotes as being about the Israelites.

He criticized the Hybrid view for being so dependent on later material, yet he too depends a lot on extra-Biblical material to support Sons of God meaning Kings.  I show how my view fits the meta narrative of Genesis being about the escalation of violence.

His Meta Narrative for Genesis makes it so he thinks the main Sin in view here is Polygamy.  I have utterly destroyed the notion that The Bible is anti Polygamy in any Testament.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2019/11/saying-one-flesh-does-not-rule-out.html
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/just-accept-that-bible-doesnt-condemn.html
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2019/12/mono-mia.html

And that's as far as he is at this point.  I may do a follow up in response to future videos.

In his answering Bible Contradictions series, he on a number of occasions takes routes different then what I would and that's fine.

The problem is when it comes to ones relating to the chronology of the Passion Week.  He is acting as if the Crucifixion being Friday is the most undisputed detail of the Chronology, and those who think Jesus spent more time in the Grave then the traditional Easter week observance are moving the Resurrection to Monday or later, when I've never seen anyone argue that and I investigate these matters and study alternate views a lot, the day of Crucifixion is what's disputed, most commonly are arguments for Wednesday and Thursday.  The only people trying to move the Resurrection are those wanting to move it up to the Sabbath who I have a few posts addressing on my Prophecy blog.

As someone who has been for most of my online activity a Thursday Crucifixion proponent (but I have been more open mindedly looking into other chronologies recently), I agree that the inclusive numbering is a valid interpretation which is part of why I have generally rejected the Wednesday model.  But his desire to weasel out of three days and three nights is simply nonsense, that phraseology is clearly meant to imply something more specific then just three days.

The Resurrection is placed on the "third day" many times, but the Crucifixion is never called the "first day".  I believe the Resurrection was on the Third Day of Unleavened Bread, the 17th of Aviv.

The Crucifixion is seemingly described as the day before (or preparation day of) the Sabbath a few times.  However the Sabbath in question is the 15th of Aviv not the weekly Sabbath.  Leviticus 23 describes the 15th as a day that is like the Sabbath in that doing labor was forbidden.  Leviticus 23 doesn't use the word Sabbath for that day, but when talking about the seventh month it does do so for it's non weekly days you can't work.  When discussing the first month it avoids that only so there is no confusion that the weekly Sabbath is the one relevant for determining Fristfurits and Pentecost.  We know the Sabbath approaching when Jesus died was a Holy Day not a regular weekly Sabbath because John 19:31 explicitly calls it a High Day.

And not even every Gospel explicitly calls the day after the Crucifixion a Sabbath, Matthew never does, Matthew only calls the night before the Resurrection the Sabbath in 28:1, and calls the day of the Crucifixion the Preparation in 27:62 but never uses the word Sabbath in chapters 26 or 27.  Matthew is the most Jewish Gospel, the one some sources say was originally written in Hebrew.  So it makes sense he would use these terms more strictly and correctly to Torah terminology then other NT writers.  I believe in all four Gospels that Preparation Day means the 14th of Nisan not Friday.  Ezekiel 45:21-22 gives Biblically precedent to the 14th being a Preparation day.

Mark 16:1 is misused by Wednesday proponents to say the Women purchased the spices after the Sabbath creating apparent conflict with Luke 23:56 that they then resolve by placing a day between the two sabbaths.  But this is false, Mark 16 is only referring to them having purchased these spices previously.   In context Luke 23 is clearly making it still the same day they Buried Jesus that they prepared the Spices.

IP's second video on Passion Week chronology is about if the Last Supper was the Passover Seder.  The Last Supper being the Seder is the casual popular misconception, but every theologian who actually cares about how Jesus fulfills the meaning of Passover knows the answer to this alleged contraction needs to be that Jesus is the Lamb and so is killed when the Lamb is killed.

The idea that the Synoptics make the Last Super the Passover Seder is based on a statement recorded in Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7, and then another Quote that's only in Luke I'll get to later.

And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?

If these verses are translated correctly then they are a problem no matter what chronology you support because they make it sound like the Passover is killed during the days of Unleavened Bread.  The Passover is killed during the daylight hours (Between the evenings in the YLT) of the 14th.  Fact is there is no coherent chronology where eating the Seder is yet future but it's already during Unleavened Bread.

In at least Matthew the word Day isn't used in the Greek, and the word translated "first" can also mean "before".  I don't know exactly how to translate these verses, but I think they are saying that Unleavened Bread is approaching since everyone knows they come after the Passover is killed.  And the beginnings of both Matthew 26 and Mart 14 place these events 2 days before Passover and Unleavened Bread.

The Disciples make these Passover arrangements two days in advance, but then Matthew 26:20 and Mark 14:17 make the Last Supper that very evening.

The only verse that even comes close to seemingly directly describing the Last Supper as Passover is Luke 22:15-16.  And we have another translation issue, because some add the word "again" to verse 16 when that's not in the Greek, or the KJV or the YLT (it's not even in the Peshita).  In this quote Jesus says he desired to eat the Passover with His Disciples before He suffered, but he's saying that to lament the fact that He won't.

John 18:28 is using the word Passover not of a holiday but of the Lamb itself to be eaten.  Even in the looser terminology they might have been using in the first century AD that was still only ever done in reference to the Lamb killed during the daylight hours of the 14th.  And I believe 19:14 is doing the same, this is happening as they are preparing the Passover Lambs for slaughter just as Jesus is being prepared for slaughter.  John called Jesus the Lamb of God all the way back in the first chapter.  This is also why it's stressed that none of the bones were broken.

1 Corinthians 5:7 says Jesus is our Passover Sacrificed for us.

What was the Last Supper if it wasn't The Seder?

Well I feel the main Hebrew Bible precedent for it is Genesis 14 not Exodus 12, with Jesus as Melchizedek and the Disciples (us) as Abraham.  [But I also now view The Showbread as another Hebrew Bible concept connected to the Eucharist.  It however provides the justification for doing a weekly Eucharist on the weekly Sabbath rather then helping us identify the day of the original Last Supper.]

Extra Biblical ideas suggested include it being a Seudat Mitzvah of some kind like a Seudat Siyum Masechet, or a "Teaching Seder".

As I've gone over the different types of Seudat Mitzvah further, I've come to think that maybe the Last Supper is a Sedat HoDaa, a Thanksgiving Mitzvah given the emphasis on Jesus giving Thanks.  But the Pidyon HaBen is also interesting.

The "Teaching Seder" I have had trouble finding verification is a thing among Jews independent of Christians talking about this issue which is why I bring it up with reservations.  But the concept is basically like doing a rehearsal dinner for a wedding the night before the actual dinner.  And frankly that actually fits best with what actually happens at the Last Supper.  When Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, He's giving them instructions for the Seder they will have the following night when He's gone.  Which is why it's still valid for Christians to read the Last Supper account when we have a Christian Passover Sedar.

So I think the earliest Christians were doing the Eucharist on Thursday night proceeding Resurrection Sunday for that reason, and in time the tradition simply got confused.

Mono Mia

Three times in the Pastoral Epistles Paul makes a comment about Overseers (Bishops in the KJV) and Deacons being the "Husband of One Wife", or in some more literal translations "of one wife a husband".  1 Timothy 3:2-12 and Titus 1:6.

When Protestants are attacking the Catholic Priestly Celibacy doctrine they quote these verses as if no less then one is the point.  But then when trying to claim the Bible teaches strict Monogamy will argue the point is no more then one.  Either of those applications would be a lot more plausible to me if the Greek word used was Mono, but instead the word used is Mia.

The Oriental Orthodox Church (which includes the Coptic, Nubian, Ethiopian and Armenian Churches) is commonly accused of Monophysitism (believing Jesus had only one nature, usually Divine rather then Human) by Chalcedonians.  They however insist that they are instead Miaphysite because they believe Christ's Divine and Human natures are United.

They take this use of Mia and Physis from a quote of Cyril of Alexandria, but Cyril is also revered as a Saint by Chalcedonians who insist what Cyril said in that quote is perfectly compatible with the Chalcedonian Definition.  The Chalcedonian Definition itself is not really why the Oriental Orthodox reject Chalcedon, but rather Chalcedon's condemnation of Dioscorus.  I don't want to get into all that here, the point is the Greek word Mia while often translated "one" can refer to something there is more then one of.

I think the point of these three quotes in the Pastoral Epistles was the Unity between Husband and Wife.  But my point is that phrasing was never meant to rule out being untied with more then one wife.  BTW the Husband and Wife being One Flesh verses also use Mia.

Many people (Muslims, Unitarians, Modalists, JWs, some Jews and even Secularists) accuse Nicene Trinitarian Christianity of not being truly Monotheist.  And we typically feel compelled to defend the applicability of the term Monotheism to us.  But I have recently been asking, why?  Monotheism and Monotheist are NOT Biblical terms.

I've looked at every New Testament verse that says "One God" or that "God is One", or "One Lord" or "Lord is One".  And likewise none of them use Mono either but instead Heis.  Some material from my Trinity in the Hebrew Bible and the YT videos I linked to in it are worth remembering here.

When Mono is used in the New Testament, in the KJV it partly because of context tends to get translated "Alone" or "Only" instead of simply One.  While it is used close to Theos in the text sometimes it's never directly used of how many Theos exist or that we worship.

According to the Strongs Concordance, Mia is the "irregular feminine" form of Heis.  Now it's easy to guess why Paul used a feminine form when referring to wives.  But why did Cyril use a feminine form when referring to the Divine and Human natures of Christ?  Is it simply that Miaphysite rolls off the tong as a name for your Christology better then Heisphysite?  Or maybe it's because Cyril said this while he was engaging in the Theotokos controversy and wanted to stress that it was in the Womb of a Woman that Deity and Humanity were United?

But perhaps Cyril had some awareness of what I talked about in The God of The Bible is both Masculine and Feminine?

So this Trinitarian Christian feels prepared to suggest that maybe we should stop clinging to the title of Monotheist and instead claim we are Miatheists, we believe True God is Three Persons who are United in One Being or Essence.  #Miatheism

In fact given how often Mono is translated things like "Only" and "Alone" I am willing to consider using it to define God potentially in conflict with the Nicene understanding of The Trinity.  Calling God the Monad was part of Gnosticism and Neoplatonism.  C Baxter Kruger likes to make the point that God didn't create Humanity because he was lonely, that theory on the "why" of Creation ignores The Trinity.  God created Humanity because they were a family that wanted to add to that family.  Elohim was technically plural right there in Genesis 1:1.

Who are the "Many"?

The Greek word Polus/Pollwn is translated a lot of different ways in English Translations of the New Testament (even the same translation never translates it the same every time) including "altogether", but perhaps the most important uses of the word are certain key passages where the KJV and most others it seems render it "many".  I don't know if every "many" in English Bibles is this word, but I have verified it is for each verse that I shall single out below.

The way we use "many" in modern 21st Century English means a large number, but presumably you would never use it if you actually meant 100% of the what you're referring to, and it's not even necessarily the majority.

And that is why Calvanists will use this Last Supper quote from Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 to try and support limited Atonement.

"For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

Of course it used to be Calvinists admitted they had no direct Biblical support for Limited Atonement, that it was just based on "logical" deductions from other allegedly Biblical conclusions.  Another verse in Matthew using the same word for "many" they might cite is 20:28, and there is also Hebrew 9:28.

The problem is that Greek word wasn't used the way we modern English speakers usually use "many".  Maybe "many" was used that way in the time of William Tyndale and King James, I don't know.

The context being ignored is that "Polus" is the root of the words "Polity" and "Politics" (and is related the Greek word for "City" as well as Politeia the Greek word that gets translated "Republic"), a more accurate translation of the word when used in these kinds of context would be "the Population" or "the Populous".  And some Biblical uses of the word where it gets translated "many" demonstrate this.  Like in Romans 5 where "many" is clearly used interchangeably with "all" in reference to those made Sinners in Adam and then made Righteous in Christ.

I actually think the best translation in these kinds of passages would be "The Masses".

But to provide context for Matthew is that twice earlier in the Gospel Jesus said "For many are called, but few are chosen", in 20:16 and 22:14.  The latter is as the final point of the Parable of the Wedding Feast which starts at the beginning of chapter 22.  There is some disagreement on who exactly the "few" are in that parable, but there is no dispute that the "many" who are called is clearly absolutely everyone, even generally in Calvinist commentaries of that parable just to them it's somehow still only the "Chosen" who are saved.  I like Peter Hiett's sermon on the parable in question though I'm not sure I 100% agree with his interpretation.

1 John 2:1-2, "propitiation" in the KJV is the Greek word for Atonement.

1 Timothy 2:4-6, which also demonstrates that God's Will is to Save everyone along with Matthew 18:14.

Those verses render limited atonement impossible, it's also difficult to reconcile Limited Atonement with Acts 2:21, 1 Timothy 4:10 and John 3:16.

Tarshish is Tarsus of Cilicia.

It has long been popular to argue for more exotic or distant identifications for Tarshish, including by myself in the past.  But Josephus said Tarshish was Tarsus, and this modern article backs up that identification convincingly.

Tarshish (Josephus' Tarsus Reconsidered)
http://www.bibleorigins.net/tarshishtarsus.html

There is one detail in that I can't agree with, and that's arguing for a late dating of Genesis based on pre Esarhaddon Assyrian Inscriptions rendering Tarsus was Tarzi.  It could be Tarzi was a mistaken Assyrian form corrected by later Assyrians who knew more directly what they called themselves, or the Tarzi inscriptions could be scribal errors.  There is no need to question the reliability of Genesis over this.

Identifying Tarshish with Tarsus also best fits the thesis of this post of mine from last year, (though in said post I also considered a Cretan identification).
https://mithrandironchronology.blogspot.com/2018/12/what-does-greek-even-mean.html

Those are all very technical and scholarly reasons for that identification.  What I want to speculate on now is how it could theologically serve the Meta-narrative of The Bible to connect Old Testament Tarshish to New Testament Tarsus.

Like OT Tarshish it's never a location the narrative visits directly (same with Cilicia as a whole), the few times it seems like Acts is about to go there it then skips forward.

NT Tarsus is only relevant for being the hometown of Saul later known as Paul.  Before he's ever mentioned by name he's probably one of the Cilicians refereed to in Acts 6.

We know from Extra Biblical sources that Tarsus of Cilicia was a port city associated with sea trade and thus with ships, but Biblcially the New Testament never directly mentions that.  However Paul does spend a lot of time on ships, some travel by ship was a part of all four missionary journeys, most famously his ship wreck on Malta.

Tarshish was a grandson of Japheth, but the name is also duplicated as a Benjamite in 1 Chronicles 7:10.  I think it's possible the Chronicler is more using this name as a stand in for a Benjamite clan that would in the future live in Cilicia, possibly as a result of the slave trade alluded to in Joel 3.

Paul who was a Benjamite can be viewed as playing a role in how the Genesis 9 eschatological relationship between Japheth and Shem was fulfilled.

A number of Prophecies also speak of Ships of Tarshish playing a role in how exiled Israelites are brought back to the promised land.  In some views that too is arguably fulfilled partly by the work of Paul.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem

Matthew 24:37-39 and Luke 13:34-35 are an interesting saying of Jesus.

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!

 Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

First I want to address what might be an alleged contradiction in that these two Gospels have Jesus say this at different times in different places.  The basis for the Q Hypothesis are sayings of Jesus that appear in Matthew and Luke but not Mark, where often the context is different.

It's actually normal that Jesus would have repeated himself.  This quote Jesus says earlier in Galilee according to Luke but later in Jerusalem in Matthew.  Naturally those in Jerusalem aren't guaranteed to have heard what he said in Galilee.

Now what really interests me is how this passage implies at least His Prexistence and probably His Divinity and yet it is overlooked when that issue is discussed.  Generally John's Gospel is where the theology of who Jesus is is gone into, while the Synoptics seem to just focus on Him as the Son of God without much concern for the implications of what that means.

But this quote is about Jesus reminiscing what He's been doing, it pretty much only makes sense if He is claiming to be YHWH.

Maybe "Medina" wasn't where we think it was either?

In my post on possible Nestorian origins for Islam I diverged a bit to discus the theory that "Mecca" was originally Petra, or some other location closer to Israel.  I've noticed none of those get into the issue of Medina's role in the story much.

Madinah as it is in Arabic is said to be mentioned by name in the Qurran four times, Surah 9: 101, 120; 33: 60; 63: 8.  And in all four of them the name mentioned is Madinah not Yathrib.  Which is significant because Madinah is actually the Arabic word for City (the traditional Islamic narrative is that Muhmmad changed the name of Yathrib to Madinat Rasul Allah, The City of the Messenger of Allah).  I looked at all four verses and in each one simply translating Madinah as "The City" still allows the verse to make sense. 

Apparently the name of Yathrib is in Surah 33:13.  Which is probably the same name Ptolemy refereed to as Iathrippa.

I think the name of Yathrib might come from Jetur a son of Ishmael.  In the past I'd gone along with Jetur being the Iturians, but I now see Yathrib as much closer, but the idea of both being connected isn't impossible.  Yathrib seems to have been founded by people who migrated there from further north following the conquests of Nebuchadnezzar.

Upon a closer reading of Surah 33, it's not impossible that Yathrib was being mentioned as a name of a city or tribe that's part of Muhammad's "confederacy" (Confederates is the name of the Surah) but not necessarily his base of operations.

I also mentioned in that prior post Sebeos being among the oldest historical references to Muhammad we have.  And looking at that account again I noticed something interesting.

Twelve peoples representing all the tribes of the Jews assembled at the city of Edessa. When they saw that the Persian troops had departed leaving the city in peace, they closed the gates and fortified themselves. They refused entry to troops of the Roman lordship. Thus Heraclius, emperor of the Byzantines, gave the order to besiege it. When the Jews realized that they could not militarily resist him, they promised to make peace. Opening the city gates, they went before him, and Heraclius ordered that they should go and stay in their own place. So they departed, taking the road through the desert to Tachkastan Arabia to the sons of Ishmael. The Jews called the Arabs to their aid and familiarized them with the relationship they had through the books of the Old Testament. Although the Arabs were convinced of their close relationship, they were unable to get a consensus from their multitude, for they were divided from each other by religion. In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Mahmed, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God’s command, was revealed to them, and Mahmed taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from on High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father–Abraham. Mahmed legislated that they were not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: “God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when God loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."

Scholars usually see this event as correlating to the event traditional Islamic history knows as the second pledge at al-Aqabah.   Except the destination of this joint campaign is the Biblical Holy Land under Roman rule not Mecca, which I feel is consistent with the original "Mecca" being Petra.  In this context, the city where this alliance was made I doubt is actually as far south as Yathrib.

What "Arabia" meant in antiquity was often a little broader then we'd define it today.  Damascus was considered part of Arabia, in Galatians Paul seems to refer to his time in Damascus as being in Arabia, he also implied the city was under the control of Aretas at the time.  Damascus is the city that wound up becoming the civil capital of the Umayyad Caliphate.

But another interesting candidate is Tayma/Tema, an Ishmaelite city that is known to have had a major Jewish population in Pre-Islamci Arabia and was an important stop on the trade routes.  And yet seems missing from the traditional history of Muhammad and the Rashidun Caliphate.   It is arguably just as close to Khhyabar as Yathrib is but in the opposite direction.  And one of the first places Muhammad sought to conquer after establishing his rule of Medina was Dumah, a location much closer to Tema then it is Medina.

The potential of the letters M and B to become confused in Semitic languages suggests Taybah and Tabah could be names based on Tayma and Tema.

Update January 16th 2021: However I have another theory now.

Upon reading Sebeos closer, the connection to Edessa and Mesopotamia is only that these Jews were there before Heraclius made them leave.  

In fact the location Sebeos seems to identify as equivalent to Medina is "Moabite Rabbath" at the borders of Reuben.

According to Al Kindi Medina was a city in ruins when Muhammad came there inhabited mostly by displaced Jews, which could fit this being the old Rabba near the Greco-Roman/Byzantine Areopolis.  There are also Nabatean ruins there.

I should note here that The Bible never seems to refer to Moabite Rabba/Rabbath by that name, in the Bible those names are only used of the Ammonite Rabbath which is modern Amman, Moab's Rabba however is the city named Rabba in modern Jordan.

Jeremiah 48:24:41 and Amos 2:2 mention a Moabite city named Kerioth who's remains are not identified and some scholars think didn't exist or is a scribal mistake since Kerioth is a form of a Hebrew word for City.  Since Medina/Madinah is an Arabic word for City, they line up pretty nicely.  Other Bible passages refer to the chief Moabite city as Ar another Hebrew word for City.  Numbers 21:15&28, Deuteronomy 2:9&18 and Isaiah 15:1.  And I think the Greek name Areopolis could be interpreted to mean City of Ar.

Moabite Rabbath was on the King's Highway which I feel makes it match the importance of this Kerioth pretty well. 

The Bible itself supports the Land of Moab becoming Ishmaelite.  Psalm 83 prophetically refers to Ishmaelites in Moab, Jeremiah 48 foretells Moab the people to be carried away into captivity.  Nehemiah 4:1 refers to Arabs where equivalent passages of earlier periods would have said Moab.  During the Persian Period the Moabites were gone and the land was inhabited by Kedarites and Nabateans. 

I'm also now thinking the role traditionally played by Khaybar could be Machaerus in Perea.  Machaerus is in the right place to be Biblical Beker, and has a similar enough name given how B and M are sometimes swapped when dealing with Semitic Languages.  Beker was a Levitical city and one of the Jewish Arab Clans with ties to both Khaybar and Medina was a Kohen clan called the Banu Nadir.

The Wikipedia page for the year 622 AD seems to support that being the year Heraclius captured Edessa.  Some think Sebeos is placing what happened at Edessa here after 629/630, but Sebeos is not being purely chronological, after describing Heraclius's victories over Sassanid Persia he then starts chapter 30 by backing up to give the background of the Arab invasion.

I do also think Sebeos's perspective on things may at times be off.  Sura Ar-Rum shows that the Arabs or proto-Muslims were rooting for Rome at this time.  Jews coming to this region from Edessa may have actually been fleeing Sassanid persecution since Khosrow had turned on his initial alliance with the Jews in 617.  And some Nestorian Christians may have been with them as they were also being persecuted by Persia at this time, Edessa was a center of Nestorian Christianity and much of it's Gentile population was Ethnically Nabatean.

Further Update: I should note that Dan Gibson himself believes Medina is still Yathrib.

https://nabataea.net/explore/founding_of_islam/what-about-medina-q-a02/

And elsewhere while arguing Muhammad did exist (which I agree with) he refers to this passage from Sebeos but argues it refers to the battle of Mutah in 629 which was also in Biblical Moab.  That is however a distinctly different location, farther from the border with Reuben.  And that incident was not an alliance between Ishmaelites and the Jews.

What interests me most about his Medina argument is that he points out how Mecca always attacked Medina from the north.  So that doesn't fit Rabba but it could fit Tema.  

However an oath taken before Muhammad's Migration to Medina is commonly called the Second Pledge of Aqabah supposedly named for a location 5 kilometers from Mecca.  Could this actually have had something to do with Aqaba in Jordan?

I'm starting to think the role Medina plays could be an Amalgamation of different locations conflated by the later oral traditions.

Saying "One Flesh" does not rule out Polygamy.

I went pretty in depth on Anti-Polygamy arguments awhile ago.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/08/just-accept-that-bible-doesnt-condemn.html

What really annoys me though is how often I see people argue simply that a Man and Woman becoming "One Flesh" when they are united (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:8 and Ephesians 5:31) in marriage somehow proves only Monogamy is valid.  It boggles my mind how people think this statement rules out Polygamy. 

They are operating under an assumption that you can only legitimately become "One Flesh" with one other person, even though nothing in Scripture says that.

In fact the New Testament actually teaches that the Entire Church is supposed to be One Flesh, we are The Body of Christ because we are the Bride of Christ and thus made One Flesh with Christ.

Paul even directly connects these ideas in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, where he argues that the reason Believers shouldn't have sex with prostitutes is because the members of Christ shouldn't become "One Flesh" with the Members of a Harlot.

People keep misunderstanding what Jesus said about marriage and the Resurrection in his response to the Sadducees in Matthew 22, he's not saying there will be no more sex or marriage, that would undermine it being a return to Genesis 2.  When that time comes there will be only one Marriage that matters, we will all be married to each other in Christ.

So yes I am arguing that in a sense The Church should view itself as a giant Polyamorous group marriage.

The context of what Jesus said when He made the One Flesh reference was about condemning divorce (meaning He was willing to directly condemn something Moses allowed if He wanted to) and so would include a Husband with two wives wanting to divorce one because he decided to be Monogamous, if the relationships were consummated he was "one flesh" with each of them.

Why I say Universal Salvation NOT Apocatastasis

The problem with the term Apocatastasis is that as it was used during Church controversies of the era of the Ecumenical Councils it became as strongly tied to (in my opinion wrong) ideas of what Salvation even is as it was to being about who gets Saved.

Especially when tied to Origen it is about a Platonic Notion of the Pre-Existence of Souls, and that our "Salvation" is that we eventually become one with God losing our individuality, like the After Life presented in Star Wars, becoming one with the living Force.  It was this heresy condemned by the 543 Synod of Constantinople and addressed by the 15 Anathemas often linked to Constantinople II in 553.

My position on the creation of Souls is currently Traducianism, which is a rare example of me agreeing with Augustine of Hippo, but before Augustine it was Tertulian's view but I don't always agree with him either.

Now I don't disagree with Origen because Councils condemned him, I don't care what they do.  I firmly disagree with Constantinople II's condemnation of The Three Chapters and Ephesus's condemnation of Nestorius.  I do agree with the Chalecondian Definition on how the Divine and Human natures of Christ relate, but what those men taught is not sufficiently different enough to be heretical, same with the Miaphysites who disagreed in the opposite direction, only Eutyches was guilty of Monopysitism.

I've read all 15 Anathemas and nothing comes close to being like what I believe.  Anathema 14 is primarily addressing this wrong idea of what Salvation is, not who gets Saved.

I don't know how many Councils can be said to have addressed "Apocatastasis" in some fashion, but the only one to explicitly affirm Endless Torment and Anthamatize any who disagree with Endless Torment is the 754 Iconoclast council that was later overturned and repudiated by Nicaea II the Seventh and final Ecumenical Council, the same council that made a point of declaring Gregory of Nyssa the Father of the Fathers, someone who unambiguously taught Universal Salvation.

"(18) If anyone denies the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment, and the condign retribution to everyone, endless torment and endless bliss, etc."

Robin Parry makes the argument that Endless Torment and Annihilationism make God the ultimate Iconoclast, destroying His own Image.

None of this changes that I can't approve of the Iconophiles either.

I believe in Universal Salvation because I believe in a literal Bodily Resurrection of the Dead for EVERY person who ever has or ever will die.

So still much of what separates me from other Universalists of either the Evangelical or Orthodox variety is that I have no desire to claim affinity with Origen, I prefer to claim affinity with Gregory of Nyssa and the "Nestorians" and Gerrard Winstanly.

Why do we ignore Gerrard Winstanley when talking about the lineage of people who've taught Universal Salvation?

At least those talking about it in Modern America.  I've watched a lot of stuff from the recent conference held at the Denver Sanctuary, and I've read Robin Parry and David Bentley Hart's responses to "The Devil's Redemption".  And when people talk about the history of Universal Salvation proponents they'll talk about Gregory of Nysaa who should perhaps always be the first we mention, they'll talk about Origen in-spite how problematic he is, they'll talk about George MacDonald who's main claim to fame was as a writer of fiction.  But never Gerrard Winstanley?

I can't help but suspect that it's because so many of them come out of American Evangelicalism and are thus still a little tied to American Political Conservatism.  So the fact that the person who introduced this Gospel into the English Speaking world was also one of the founding fathers of Communism isn't something they want to emphasize.

But it's a natural connection to make in my view, so many of the points from Jesus' parables about how God isn't a respecter of Persons or of Meritocracy which definitely imply Universal Salvation when applied Metaphysically, also utterly condemn the foundational logic of Capitalism when applied to this life.  And I feel both those applications are important to what Jesus wanted us to take from them.

When Peter Hiett is preaching on Revelation and explaining what "Pornea" that Book is really condemning, it's like he's coming so close to arguing that the Whore of Babylon is Capitalism, but can't quiet go all the way.

Yet the failure to connect these two things also happens on the other end, "Liberation Theology" seems to have become a Sadducean tradition, so they aren't bringing up Gerrard Winstanley either.

Update: In a Facebook group I was provided these links.
https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=eebo;idno=A66686.0001.001

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/winstanley/1652/law-freedom/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR1uKpsJgwVUx4X_QePIUn1pgVfU4A5etY3442A8agt4NDSm_dMtc9uOnZs

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A66685.0001.001?view=toc&fbclid=IwAR2sBqz1nB3kXAYL85fMQ0lFUgmzc8RWI3z-WfHPjWWV8wC5LQlHCnmanno

http://www.diggers.org/diggers-ENGLISH-1649/NEW-LAW-OF-RIGHTEOUSNESS-1648-Winstanley.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2mb_Z_awI2FP9M3UEkqdRj5xKRqXRESlIMUHziASp5F2WOb26Z6iHtx24

Emperor Constans, The Homosexual Champion of Trinitarian Christianity.

There are numerous forms of Christianity today that for one reason or another feel The Church marrying The Roman Empire was overall a net negative.  And I myself am still largely of that way of thinking.  But I also understand the nuances and complexities of Ancient History enough that I really can't agree with how strongly these traditions tend to demonize Constantine himself.

Constantine wasn't perfect, but neither was David.  I oppose human Monarchy on principal, but if it's possible for Ancient Israel to have relatively good Kings, and for a Pagan King like Cyrus to be spoken of very positively in Scripture, then it's possible for some Roman Emperors to be at least okay.

I think the Milvian Bridge Vision story is fictional, but I think that because I think he was raised a Christian by his mother Helena (who I theorize descended from the Abgars of Osroene) and the conversion myth simply made a better story.

Some websites talking about the History of Imperial Christianity's persecution of Jews will claim it started with Constantine himself, but these claims are quite vague and unsourced.  The truth is the Edict of Milan granted Freedom of Religion to all religions, and Constantine stuck by that, the reason some accuse him of embracing the Arian Heresy in his last days is mainly just because he wasn't persecuting them.

But I'm not making this post to talk about Constantine, instead my interest today is the youngest of his three sons.

Constantine wanted his sons and his nephews to inherit The Empire together, but after he died in 337 AD the nephews were massacred.  You'll often see this incident described as if all three of Constantine's sons were equally culpable in it, but when this happened two of them were already over 20 while Constans was only 13 or 14, so clearly one is less morally accountable for what happened then the others.

The firstborn son Constantine II inherited France, Britannia, the Iberian Peninsula and a little bit of North Africa, the Straight of Gibraltar basically.  Constantius II got what we would call the Eastern Empire.  And the youngest Constans got Italy, Dalmatia and most of North Western Africa.  But because Constans was still a minor Constantine II was also his protector.

Constantius II embraced the Arian Heresy (though some will argue he was really more Semi-Arian) and proceeded to depose and exile Athanasius.  He was also the first Christian Emperor to use Caesar's sword against the Jews, indeed his persecution of The Jews provoked their first open rebellion against the Empire since the defeat of Bar-Khocba.  It was also under him that oppression of the Pagans began.

Constantine II felt like he should have got more then he did as the firstborn, and when Constans became of legal age he basically tried to kill him but it failed and he died in 340 AD resulting in Constans having the entire West.

Constans passed a law banning some Pagan Sacrifices, but he was Tolerant of the Jews.  And he championed the Nicene faith creating a conflict with his brother in the East.

Constans was a Homosexual, which created some conflicts even with the Nicene Clergy he supported since Platonist Homophobia was already taking hold in the Greco-Roman Church.  And I think this is the sole reason some accounts of this Emperor speak badly of him.

A Usurper's rebellion against him resulted in his death in February of 350 AD, Constantius II then went to war against the Usurper and for a time ruled the Entire Empire.

Later about 380 is when the Prophecy attributed to the Triburtine Sybil is believed to have first emerged, the earliest form of the Last Roman Emperor tradition.  I find it interesting that in this original from it was the name Constans not Cosntantine that was given to this future Emperor.  I think the common people of Nicene Christianity continued to view Constans as a Hero even as the establishment sought to either smear or forget about him.

While Tyranny in the Imperial Church began with an Arian Emperor, later Nicene ones would prove no better.  Theodosius (both I and II) and Justinian are the ones far more worth condemning as the Tyrants who turned The Church into an instrument of oppression.

Monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council

The Sixth Ecumenical Council, also known as the Third Council of Constantinople, condemns two "heresies", Monoenergism and Monothelitism, and in turn affirmed Duoenergism and Duothelitism.  In laymen's terms, they decided that Christ had two Energies (Divien and Human) and two Wills (Divine and Human), and condemned teaching He had only one of either of those.

This is probably the least talked about of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.  The first two are about the beginning of Christianity as the mainstream religion of Western Civilization and a State Religion, the next two are about Schisms that still exist to this day.  The fifth exists in the context of those schisms and the internet's favorite Byzantine Emperor and is often alleged to be relevant to the debate about Universal Salvation. And the Seventh and Final one is a dispute the protestant reformation reignited.  However the sixth is about things modern English speakers have trouble even comprehending what they're talking about.

It seems people who do comment on it feel this decision was the logical follow up to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon, where it was decided Christ had two Natures (Divine and Human).  However the Calcedonian Definition also says Christ is one "Person", as in "Personality". indeed Chalcedonians and Miaphysites base their condemnation of Nestorious and Theodore of Mopsuesta on the accusation that they split Jesus' Person in two, that accusation however is false.

While it might be correct to assume one's position on Christ's "Energy" should be the same as His Nature (I have no idea what "Energy" even means in this context).  I feel one's "Will" is definitely part of their Person not their Nature.

Both these controversies had their origins during the reign of Heraclius and his Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius.  Monoenergism came first, and indeed when arguing for it Sergius added that the doctrine of two energies could lead to the erroneous belief that Jesus has two conflicting wills.[9] Suggesting that the default position before anyone disputed it was Jesus having One Will.

I stumbled upon an Orthodox Blog insinuating that Calvinism basically teaches a form of Monothelitism (while assuming it's condemnation as Heresy was valid).  However I feel both Calvinism and Arminianism are founded upon an erroneous assumption that Divine and Human Will conflict with each others, and only disagree on which Will prevails in the end.

In my view Jesus has One Will, that All shall be Saved.

Update November 2019: Energy or Action?

Doing some more reading on this I've seen "Energy" in reference to this dispute being alternatively translated "activity" or "operation".  As if while one issue is about Christ's Will, the other is about how He Acts on said Will.

If that's what it's about then I definitely feel I should take the same stance on Monoenergism as I do on Monotheletism.  Like Duoenergism is how Arminians can agree with me that God Wills everyone to be saved but can still act in opposition to that will because of Human Will.

But again I'm unsure what "Energy" ever meant in these contexts.

Update August 2020: If however "Energy" means the same thing Sailor Moon is talking about when it talks about Energy, that it would make sense to take the same position on as you would Christ's Nature.

Update October 2020: from looking at the New Testament's usage of various forms of this word and how it gets translated the Activity and Operation meaning seems to be correct.  

So I have to say I'm willing to identify as both a Monothelite and a Monoenergist.

Biblically Jesus died the Death of an Oppressor

Galatians 3:13 tells us the Crucifixion of Jesus fits Deuteronomy 21:32 “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.”  And the Author of The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls, probably a Jew who lived before Jesus was born, also saw Roman style Crucifixion as fitting that.

Many Christians have stressed this connection, but failed to fully paint the picture that comes from tracing the history in the rest of the Hebrew Bible of times individuals died this death.

Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and in chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them.  These were the tyrant Kings of the Canaanites that Joshua is leading the Israelites in liberating the Promised Land from.

In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree.  Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab.  They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone for Saul's sin against them, because he had oppressed them.

When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian customs and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.  That's possibly the most famous oppressor in The Hebrew Bible.

Jesus died for the Sins of ALL, I have argued against Limited Atonement on this Blog and that is still my position.  But he died the Death of an Oppressor for a few obvious reasons.  One being that is the worst Sin, Paul called himself the Chief of Sinners in 1 Timothy 1:15, his Sin was being an oppressor, oppressing a religious minority.  And also because it is the powerful who's sins often go unpunished in this life, the ones I named above didn't, but many have.  Meanwhile everyone who's poor and oppressed has probably suffered more then enough in this life for whatever their sins are.

Even though I am absolutely a Leftist in my politics, I have a few things against "Liberation Theology", one was addressed in this blog's previous post.  The other is that they are kind of Calvinists, at least 1 point Calvinists in that they seem to believe in a kind of Limited Atonement, Jesus Died and Rose only for the Oppressed and not their Oppressors.

You see rather then using Scripture to Interpret Scripture they are going off what Crucifixion meant to Rome and those Rome conquered, it was a form of Execution generally carried out on defeated rebels (I believe Barabbas and the two men executed next to Jesus were such rebels, "thief" is an incomplete translation).

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:23 "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness".  It was foolishness to the Greeks (Paul means Gentiles in general here) because they had none of the Biblical context, to them it was a form of execution designed to humiliate the defeated, what God would die like that or allow their Son to?  But the Jews had the context they needed but just couldn't quite piece it together.  They were not against The Messiah dying or being killed by their enemies, they expect that to happen to Messiah Ben Joseph.  The reason a Crucified Messiah was a problem for them was because they knew that kind of Death as a judgment on their enemies who oppressed them.

And now mainstream Christianity has spent centuries making that worse by oppressing The Jews in the name of Christ Crucified.  Calling them "Christ Killers" when Jesus said of all those guilty of persecuting Him (Jew and Roman) "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

I am a Christian Leftist, but I am not a Leftist Christian

I believe that Communism is not just compatible with The New Testament but to some extent called for by it.

But The Gospel itself is not a Political Message, it's the message that every person, every sinner no matter how bad, will be Literally Bodily Resurrected to live forever on this Earth in the New Creation.

What I've sadly found is that those who say they're a Leftist first seem to want to make The Gospel itself the same Gospel Karl Marx preached, and that misses the point.

Jesus had plenty to say to the rich and the ruling class.  But he kind of attacked the Pharisees the most, and something a lot of people don't get is they were NOT the ruling class of that time, the Priesthood was controlled by the Sadducees and the Herodian Dynasty favored the Essenes.  Those rebelling against Rome in 66-73 AD all came out of the Pharisees, the Zealots and Sicarii were both offshoots of the Pharisees, and contrary to how some want to paint it those groups were NOT looking for a Messiah, they were explicitly anti Monarchial.

One thing I've noticed that a lot of Christians on both the Left and the Right don't want to accept is that the New Testament is NOT very anti Rome.  In Acts the Roman authorities are constantly the good guys, the ones making trouble for the early Church were local mobs and businesses, sometimes Jewish and sometimes Pagan, but the Roman authorities were always trying to keep the peace.  Pilate is portrayed very sympathetically, the few times a modern depiction gets that right everyone loses their minds.  And Jesus also praised a Roman centurion for having greater Faith then any of the Jews.

Besides how you interpret the Book of Revelation (I view the Beast is Rome but it's prophetic of the future when Rome became Christian, it's not condemning Pagan Rome), the only thing in The New Testament that makes Rome or Caesar seem bad is when in John 19 those calling for the Crucifixion said "we have no King but Caesar".  So the State is only spiritually bad when you're choosing it over your true King Jesus.

When Jesus said to "Love your Enemies" and "Pray for those who Persecute you" the specific cultural context was Him talking to an indigenous people being oppressed by European colonizers.  But modern Wokeism want to make it seem like Jesus was doing the Opposite of that.

So I was watching one YouTube video where two Leftist Christians were saying they had a Universalist phase but as they became more Leftist they became uncomfortable with letting the Evil they see in the World go "unpunished" and so are now basically Sadducees, allegorizing away our future Hope.

I'm going to say something really radical, if you truly have a Christ Like Heart, then you desire the Salvation of Adolf Hitler just as much as you desire the Salvation of Anne Frank.

All the Evil that the tyrants and capitalists have done will be undone by Jesus, so demanding "Justice" is utterly pointless.  The only true Forgiveness is forgiving the unforgivable.

A Synagogue was Vandalized by Nazis in my Home Town.

https://journaltimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/graffiti-found-on-racine-synagogue-several-anti-semitic-vandalism-incidents/article_45092379-e7e4-5d6f-a62e-7dd91eb13836.html

This really upsets me.

I probably won't be able to attend the Inter-Faith service they're having on September 29th (which happens to be Michalemass, a holiday I think might be connected in origin to one of the Fall Holy Days).  I have family issues going on, and it's on the other side of town and my transportation options are limited.

But my Prayers shall be With Them, I teach on this Blog that Hate is the truly worst Sin and that The Messiah of Israel is still the Messiah of Israel first even though He has also Saved All The Nations.

"Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin"

The modern left and liberals repeatedly calls this common mantra of modern American Evangelicalism a hollow meaningless distinction.

When the Christian saying this believes Endless Fiery Torment is how God punishes Sin, then I agree, it is utterly nonsensical to claim you "love the Sinner" or that God does in your theology.

Now I don't consider Homosexuality or Homosexual acts as Sinful, same with cross-dressing or identifying as a gender other then the one you were assigned at birth, and a lot of other things that are often the specific "sins" in mind when this subject comes up.

But I still want to defend the true meaning of this statement, it may not exactly come from The Bible but neither does Homousian.  

I do believe God Hates Sin, but His anger is for but a moment (Psalm 30) long enough to judge and purge the Sin.  God Is Love and His punishments come from His Love as our Father.

Jesus said the whole of the Law is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. Therefore I conclude that the chief Sin that God so vehemently Hates is Hatred.  Even Esau, the one specific person The Bible seemingly says God "Hated" (past tense) is described as Hating his brother Jacob in Genesis 27.  And Judas Iscariot, the "Son of Perdition" behaved hatefully towards Mary of Bethany.

This is an important opportunity for me to really stress that I believe in Universal Salvation and Affirming Homosexuality.  If there are other Universal Salvation teachers who agree that Homosexuality isn't a Sin, they aren't publicly stressing it. It's as if they want to maintain as much credibility as possible with conservative Evangelicals.  Well I believe I qualify as an Evangelical, since I preach the Evangelion, The Resurrection of The Flesh.

Some of you might be thinking "if they don't think anyone goes to Hell for Eternity, what does it matter if they technically think Homosexual acts are a sin".  Because we do believe God's punishments are for Correction, so I don't want Gay and Trans people thinking that means God is going to simply rewrite an important part of who they are, that he's going to Burn the Queerness out of them.  And it can also still lead to supporting things like Gay conversion therapy, which is basically psychological torture.  So it is important to me to stress that what God seeks to correct is hateful and harmful behavior, not Love.

My arguments regarding Homosexuality and Universal Salvation happen to be intimately linked to each other, because of my view of Romans, particularly how Chapter 11 contextualizes Chapter 1, is vital to both.

I agree with the view that Romans 1:18-32 is a rhetorical rant largely drawing on works like the Wisdom of Solomon and possibly Philo of Alexandria, and that the rest of Romans is refuting the people who say things like that.

The "Clobber verses" from this section speak of something being "against nature" (Para Phusis), and then verse 28 talks about God giving sinners up to a reprobate mind which is the basis for the Baptist doctrine that some people are beyond saving.

But in Romans 11 "against nature" (Para Phusis) is used of what God does grafting people who do not biologically descend from Jacob into the family of Israel, showing that acting "against nature" (Para Phusis) can't be inherently bad.  And then after the fullness of the Gentiles are grafted into Israel, All Israel shall be Saved.  God Consigned ALL to Disobedience so that he might have Mercy on All.

Update: I later wrote this post on what "Sin" properly even means.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2021/09/hamartia-what-does-sin-actually-mean.html

Do we have a Promise that we will be with God as soon as we die?

We are definitely promised to be with God in Eternity.  My issue here is with the timing some people stress, often people tying this to rejecting a Physical Bodily Resurrection and/or Premillennialism.

As I've said in past posts about the issues of Soul Sleep and Annihilationism, I have become undecided on if we have a conscience state between physical death and Resurrection.  There is Biblical evidence that can go either way.

This post is partly my desire to respond to something I read recently on an article specifically against Premillennialism that cited the following verses as promises we will be with God as soon as we "die" and viewing this doctrine as being in conflict with Premillennialism.

(Luke 23:42-43; John 14:2-4; 17:24; Phil. 1:22-23; 2 Cor. 5:6-8; Heb. 12:22-24; 2 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 6:9-11; 14:1-5; 15:2; 18:20; 19:14)

I don't really feel like there necessarily is a conflict between this idea and Premillennialism, but I looked into these verses and I don't feel they make that argument.

But first, I want to respond to how this article refers to this "promise" as being "the central Hope of the Christian Faith", it most certainly is not.  The Gospel is the Resurrection, 1 Corinthians 15 doesn't talk about where we go when we die, neither did the Old Roman Symbol or the "rule of faith" cited by Tertullian and Ireneaus, nor did either the Nicene Creed or the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.  The Pre-Nicene Creeds even specifically stressed it as a carnal Resurrection.  I don't think the people at this website are necessarily intending to deny a bodily Resurrection, but claiming where our souls go when we die rather then the Resurrection is our central blessed hope shows how this idea can be a gateway to undermining The Resurrection.

Now as far as talking about these verses go, I want to save the Revelation ones for last since they are a special case.

First is what Jesus said to the Thief on the Cross.  I agree with Lex Meyer that the English Translations of this verse should move the comma.  "Verily I say unto thee to day, thou shalt be with me in paradise".  First off the thief probably wasn't even dead within 24 hours, Jesus died as soon as he did for a number of reasons, but standard crucifixion took days.  And Jesus didn't go directly to paradise either but descended into Sheol/Hades.  The "this day" timing referring to Jesus saying giving this promise not when it is fulfilled.

The Mansions in Heaven verse in John doesn't tell us when we enter those Mansions, I believe those Mansions are in New Jerusalem, the context talks about when he comes again, not when we die.  Hebrews 12 likewise is about New Jerusalem.

It's similar with most of these verses, they are about our promise to be with God but don't actually say anything about when that happens, these people quoting them as doing so are like Pre-Tribbers thinking every reference to there begin a Rapture proves their imminence doctrine.

The verses from Philippians and 2 Corinthians are perhaps best understood in the context of what InspiringPhilosophy explains about how Paul uses those terms in 1 Corinthians 15.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rffmrioFnBY

2 Corinthians 5's statement about "absent from the body and present with the Lord" is completely misquoted and taken out of context, it is not actually saying that is what happens at physical death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWDrOYi1UKA&fbclid=IwAR0Nb0wYGCCnEbWUPkPl5d3lrlSBNxSKugsibqEpoohHKlAm8-mM14UpVyE

1 Peter 1:11 explicitly refers to the Glory that follows the Suffering of Christ, that's clearly The Resurrection.

Before I go onto Revelation, one verse not cited on this list that I think is relevant is when Jesus said those who Believe in Him will Never Die.  That's why the term "Soul Sleep" is popular, Paul repeatedly refers to currently physically deceased believers as being "Asleep".  In which case if we simply wake up at the Resurrection, it will still functionally seem the same as being with God as soon as we died.

Now onto the Revelation verses.  It's funny because as a non Premillennial this website clearly isn't taking all of Revelation literally at face value, but when it suits how they prefer to see things they will.  I suppose however to some extent there is no view of Revelation that can't be accused of to some extent picking and choosing where to take it literally.  So I won't throw stones in that regard, I'll just make my case.

Revelation 6:9-11 is the Fifth Seal.  Now as someone who tries to take Revelation as literally as I can, I really don't think this verse is telling us that all the Martyrs are literally dwelling under an Altar.  When we understand what the purpose of the Altar of Incense was in the Tabernacle, and connect this to what happens after the Seventh Seal is opened in Revelation 8, I think this is mainly about the Altar having their Prayers that they Prayed as they suffered for Christ.

Verse 11 also says they shall rest a little while longer.

The rest of their Revelation verses start in Chapter 14, I could actually add at least one from Chapter 13.  The end of Chapter 11 and beginning of Chapter 12 is where I place The Parusia/Rapture, that's why there are no Saints dwelling in Heaven.  Revelation 14 specifically uses language of the Resurrection like being the First Fruits and Redeemed of The Earth to describe the 144,000.

So indeed, none of these verses contradict the possibly that we are asleep between bodily Death and Resurrection.

Semi-Arianism and the Second Ecumenical Council

The first Canon of the First Council of Constantinople is commonly read as follows, emphasis mine.

The Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm.  And every heresy shall be anathematized, particularly that of the Eunomians or [Anomæans, the Arians or] Eudoxians, and that of the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachi, and that of the Sabellians, and that of the Marcellians, and that of the Photinians, and that of the Apollinarians.

However some variants read "Macedonians" instead of "Semi-Arians" and most scholars believe that is probably the original reading.  The context and grammar here clearly intends to use this name as a synonym for the Pneumatomachi who were founded by a Macedonius, and every other Hersey on this list is identified by it's founder.  Macedonius may have also qualified as a type of Semi-Arian but the heresy he's uniquely associated with is denying the Divinity of The Holy Spirit.

Also the term "Semi-Arian" was probably not actually used at the time of the Council, it seems like a term scholars made up later to refer to various attempted compromises between the Nicene position of Athanasius and proper Arianism.

There were different forms of Semi-Arianism, many opposed the term Homusian as much as the proper Arians, but others did not.  Indeed some were specially trying to make their Semi-Arianism compatible with the Nicene Creed.  Meletius of Antioch was the main example of this variety, many will deny he qualified as Semi-Arian but he was opposed by Athanasius and within Antioch by the students of Eustathius.

The basic gist of Semi-Arianism is believing Jesus was Begotten before or at the beginning of Creation.  That in essence He did already exist as the Word of God before then, but this Begetting was the beginning of His existence as a distinct Person.

People constantly present the history of the Second Ecumenical Council as when even Semi-Arianism was condemned as no longer compatible with Orthodoxy.  But the additions to the Nicene Creed tied to this Council are mainly focused on addressing other heresies with a different focus, particularly issues related to The Holy Spirit.

In fact, if anything, Semi-Arianism is more compatible with the Nicene-Constantinople Creed then it was the Original Creed.  Both versions refer to Jesus being "Begotten not Made", but in the original Nicene Creed it's entirely possible to interpret the Begetting as being in reference to His being Begotten in Mary's Womb at the Incarnation, in fact I hope that was exactly the intent.  The Constantinople version however declares that Jesus was...

 "Begotten of The Father before all Aions(Eons/Ages, commonly mistranslated Worlds)".

That declaration is not only compatible with Semi-Arianism, but I would argue is inherently Semi-Arian.  The only way to make this compatible with proper Athanasianism is to say that The Word already had a distinct personality before this Pre-Creation Begetting, but why would that be the case?  What's the point of this Begetting in that case?

Just take a look at this Arian Compromise Creed proposed by the 359 Council of Seleucia.

We confess then, and believe in one God the Father Almighty, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of things visible and invisible. We believe also in his Son our Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten of him without passion before all ages, God the Word, the only-begotten of God, the Light, the Life, the Truth, the Wisdom: through whom all things were made which are in the heavens and upon the earth, whether visible or invisible. We believe that he took flesh of the holy Virgin Mary, at the end of the ages, in order to abolish sin; that he was made man, suffered for our sin, and rose again, and was taken up into the heavens, to sit at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour has denominated the Comforter, and whom he sent to his disciples after his departure, according to his promise: by whom also he sanctifies all believers in the church, who are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Those who preach anything contrary to this creed, we regard as aliens from the catholic church.

It is awfully close to the Nicene-Constantinople Creed on this issue at least with the only significant difference being the lack of Homoousion.

My study into the history of Emperor Theodosius I implies to me a compromise settlement is what he was going for on the Arian debate, but not one that could be seen as in any way a rejection of Nicaea.  His support of Meletius of Antioch is evidence of that.  Also the second canon of the council explicitly tolerates the Arianism of the Council of Rimmi which was that of the Germanciii Barbarians, and the later Theodsian Code further upheld that.  Theodosius was politically motivated by wanting peace with the Barbarian Arians.

The Scriptural Basis usually cited for this Pre-Creation Begetting is Proverbs 8:22-29 and sometimes Psalm 45:1.  The idea that Proverbs 8 refers to a Pre-Creation Begetting of Jesus goes back at least as far as Tertullian in Against Praxeas Chapter 5. They've also used Psalm 110:3 and Psalm 2.

Building Doctrine on something you can only find even alluded to in Poetic books is very shaky.  Especially ones written by the highly suspect Solomon.  But these Greek Christians were also basing this on the Septuagint Greek Translations of these chapters, the Masoretic/KJV/YLT readings don't support this interpretation, Psalm 110 doesn't say "begat" in the Hebrew.  Also I believe Wisdom in Proverbs 8 is The Holy Spirit not Jesus.  Regardless Psalm 110:3 actually supports my view by specifically referring to the Womb in all versions.

As far as Jesus being called the "Firstborn of Creation", the Firstborn is a status sometimes given in the Hebrew Bible to individuals who were not literally the Firstborn like Joseph.  It is only because of the Incarnation that Jesus qualifies as being "born" at all, but he's The Firstborn because of Who He Is not when He was born.

Jesus was called the Beginning, but that doesn't mean He had a Beginning, it just means that Creation Began with His actions, as I talked about a few days ago.  When Jesus said "Before Abraham was I Am" even if you question that as a direct reference to the I Am of the Torah, it implies not just preexistence but a lack of beginning, He didn't just say He existed before Abraham.  I've also already talked about how John 1:3 proves Jesus isn't a created being, if He created everything that was created then He Himself wasn't created.

So if they wanted to rule out even Semi-Arianism, they should have done the opposite of what they did on the Begetting issue and clarified Jesus's only Begetting was in the Womb of Mary, while affirming Him as Co-Eternal with The Father.

The Calcedonian Definition also contains this Semi-Arian statement "before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead", this issue is not really relevant to the main issue Chalcedon was discussing, but still, Chalcedonian Christianity is officially Semi-Arian.

I want to further show that the begetting of Jesus can only be in The Womb of Mary.

Hebrews 11 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "Only Begotten" (same Greek term used in John 3:16) Son at the time of the Offering of Isaac in Genesis 22.  The Author of Hebrews (who I believe was Paul who talked about Hagar in Galatians, but regardless of that) clearly knew enough about Genesis to know Ishmael was alive at this time.

Judges 8 refers to the 70 sons of Gideon's Wives as being Begotten but not Abimelech the son of the Concubine.

So contrary to what we at first assume, being a Begotten Son at least in part technically depends on having the right Mother, of being the Son of a Wife rather then a Concubine.  YHWH's Wife is Israel, Mary is an Israelite.  So Jesus is the only Begotten Son of God because He is The Son of an Israelite.

Every Old Testament example of Jesus being called a Son either of God or of Man or of David is prophetic including Psalm 2, as is any reference to Him being Begotten, in the present tense the Second Person of The Hebrew Bible's Trinity is The Word of YHWH and The Angel of YHWH.  

John 1 likewise doesn't use Monogenes till it describes the Incarnation in verse 14.

Other Platonic Heresies also factor into this.  With both early Patristics and modern Christian Philosophers arguing that since God does not "Change" then The Father was always a Father and The Son was always a Son.  However this way of defining God is incompatible with Hebrew Theology, The Hebrew Bible tells us that YHWH "repented' a number of times.  That God Is Love is what doesn't Change.  The Father was already Father in The Hebrew Bible because He was a Father to Humanity and to Israel.  But the Logos was not yet The Son.

Update September 30th 2020: So the Nicene-Constantinople Creed was not actually formally a part of the Second Ecumenical Council, it was in fact unheard of until Chalcedon in 451, the Council of Ephesus 20 years earlier was still using the original Nicene Creed.

The Doctrine in question was still partially popularized by that Council since it indirectly affirmed the Creed of Rimmi as acceptable which includes the same clause, and it was also taught by Cyril of Alexandria.  It's possible this Creed was before Chalcedon just a Creed used locally in the area of Constantinople.  It actually seems like it's possibly a hybridization of the original Nicene Creed and the Creed of the 360 Council of Constantinople.

And the thing is this "begotten before all ages" doctrine was part of how Arius expressed his theology from the beginning, it was in his Profession of Faith from 320 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arian_creeds

The decision not to include it in the original Nicene Creed must have been intentional, unfortunately we don't have the minutes of the council to document for us if it was discussed.  And we don't have the minutes of this Council either.

The fact is too many people have it in their heads that Homousian is the core of the Arian Controversy when originally that word wasn't a factor at all.  That's why now I've seen Catholic and Orthodox blogs discussing this phrase as if it's inherently Anti-Arian even though Arius himself taught it.  

The root of the Arian Heresy is the Platonic Theology of Timaeus where The Monad is the original supreme God but a lesser Demiurge who emanates from the Monad is the Creator.  Arius used the word Monad in his Profession of Faith, but didn't use Demiurge since that term had come to be associated with the Gnostics.  Philo of Alexandria referred to his version of the Demiurge as The Logos and identified it with The Angle of The Lord, Third Century Neoplatonists also used the word Logos in a similar way.  The Heretic Cerinthus was perhaps the first Christian Heretic to teach a version of this.  But Arius's ideas probably more directly descended from Origen's.

I've decided this statement is no longer my only objection to the revised Creed.  The "One Baptism" comment also contradicts Scripture.  And the "One Apostolic Church" comment is technically acceptable but I know what they meant by it is something I don't like.

I still support all the additions about The Holy Spirit (but not the Western Filioque) and the "Kingdom Shall Have no End" statement.  But I also wish that like the Old Roman Symbol and Apostles Creed it included a clarification that the Resurrection is Bodily/Of The Flesh.