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.