The Showbread and The Eucharist

So a few years ago I did a post on the Biblical Hebrew Precedent for The last Supper, and said the Bread representing the body was the one piece of the puzzle I didn't have.  Well I think I have a handle on that now.

I mentioned how Christians tend to view the beginning of the Bread and Wine theme as Genesis 14, but I had ignored the significance people like Chuck Missler saw in Genesis 40.  Where the two fellow prisoners Joseph interprets dreams for are Pharaoh's "Butler"(winebibber) and Baker.  The Baker winds up "Hung on a Tree".  So here Bread is associated with a body dying the same basic kind of death Jesus will.

But I shall go deeper then that and say the Showbread/Shewbread also prefigures the Bread of the Eucharist.  What appears in English Bibles as a single word is actually the Hebrew phrase "lechem haPānīm" which means "bread of the presence" or "bread of the faces" or "bread of The Face" or even "Face-Bread".  This Bread was not eaten while it was kept in the Holy Place, every Sabbath it was replaced with new fresh Bread and then what had just been removed could be eaten as happens in 1 Samuel 21:6.  And there were 12 Loaves of the Showbread, representing the Tribes of Israel.

This Bread was the most significant piece of Organic Matter kept in the Holy Place, it makes sense to me to speculate it was always meant to represent the physical incarnation of YHWH whether that was understood at the time or not.  Christians at some point started doing on Sunday what was originally for The Sabbath, so connecting the Showbread to the Eucharist makes a lot of sense.  In the Torah usually only the Priests could eat the recently removed Showbread (David and his men were a special case) but the New Testament has the doctrine of the Priesthood of all Believers.

Also the word translated "cakes" in Leviticus 24 can also mean "punctured" or "pierced", being a form of the word for "wounded" in Isaiah 53:5.

The Table of the Showbread had at least four kinds of vessels kept on it according to Exodus 25:29-30, 37:16 and Numbers 4:7-8.  The KJV calls them "dishes", "spoons", "bowls" and "covers".  Why four types of vessels when only one kind of food was kept on it?  "Spoons" is the most probably inaccurate translation, this Hebrew word is often used of types of Perfume jars, they probably were for containing the Frankincense Leviticus 24 says to put on the Showbread and/or Incense for the Altar of Incense.  The word for "covers" means something for pouring and "covering" or "cover withal" means pouring and in it's other uses is mostly associated with drink offerings of wine, though also sometimes of pouring Oil as well, which could also apply to the Oil for the Menorah.  The Strongs describes the word for "bowls" here as a container for carrying Blood, meaning this may refer to what The High Priest used to carry the Blood of the Sin offering into The Holy of Holies on Yom Kippur as instructed in Leviticus 16, the word is not the same as that chapter but seems like it could come from the same root as the word for the bowls used in Exodus 24:6.

The Mosaic Table and it's Vessels like the Mosaic Menorah and Altar of Incense were never in Solomon's Temple, Solomon created new versions of them according to 2 Kings 7:48 and 2 Chronicles 4:19.  Only The Ark in Solomon's Temple had also been in the Tabernacle of Moses.  The last we hear of the Tabernacle of Moses it was at Gibeon in the early chapters of 2 Chronicles which has been associated with Nob, both locations in Benjamin.  There is a theory out there that Nob is the location known in The New Testament as Bethphage which I now think is correct.

Shishak King of Mizraim never took anything in the Holy Place, Rehoboam's willing submission to him was to prevent something that bad from happening.  And everything taken out by Nebuchadnezzar was returned by Cyrus, so at first the Second Temple had (minus maybe the Ark) the same Sacred Relics as Solomon's Temple.  In the Apocrypha 1 Maccabees 1:21-24 (also II Maccabees 5 but less specifics of what was taken) we are told they were taken away by Antiochus Epiphanes to his homeland, probably referring to Antioch.  I'm suprised there isn't more speculation on what happened to these relics taken to Antioch?  Could they still be seen there during the events Acts and Galatians tell us happened at Antioch?

1 Maccabees 4:47-49 tells us Judas Maccabeus had a new Altar and Menorah and Table of Showbread made.  These were probably still the ones in the Holy Place when Pompey entered it and all through the New Testament's history, and were then taken away by Titus after he captured Jerusalem and destroyed The Temple in 70 AD to be carried in his Triumph in Rome in 71 AD after which they were placed in the Temple of Peace (Pax in Latin).  The Arch of Titus erected by Domitian to commemorate Titus's deification in 81 AD depicts the Menorah and the Table of Showbread and some fire-pans and the Silver Trumpets, but the Altar of Incense appears to be missing, maybe there just wasn't enough space.  What fascinates me is when you look close at the depiction on the Arch, specifically at the Table, it has a Bowl of some kind on it, could that be the Bowl that carried the Blood of the Sin Offering? or the Showbread itself?

They remained in the Temple of Peace until 455 AD when the Vandals "sacked" Rome under Gaiseric who then carried them back to North Africa.  Decades later when Balisarius conquered the Vandal Kingdom for Justinian he takes these relics from a ship attempting to carry them off.  They were paraded in Belisarius's Triumph in Constantinople in 534 AD.  Meanwhile in 531 Justinian had began some major construction projects in Jerusalem following the end of the Bar Sabar revolt, the most significant of which was the Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos which Porcopius clearly described as being meant to echo Solomon's Temple.  So Justinian had these relics of the Second Temple returned to Jerusalem where I suspect they eventually wound up in the Nea which was completed in 543 AD.

What's interesting here is that the early 530s AD is contemporary with the traditional time-frame of King Arthur.  The Annals Cambraie placed Badon in 516 and Camlan in 537, but later Geoffrey of Monmouth and the Brute Tyslo would date Arthur's demise to 542.  In Chretien de Troyes Percival the first appearance of the Grail in literature, it is not yet specifically the Cup, it is thematically associated with the Eucharist but with the Communion Wafer rather then the Wine, and there is no claim it was actually used at the original Last Supper.  And I've theorized before that this part of Percival is modeled after David during the reign of Saul with the Fisher King as Ahimelech and the Communion Wafer in mind here the Showbread, a Candelabra was also in the procession which could have been inspired by the Menorah.  That would also make the Grail Sword the Sword of Goliath, and the Grail Spear perhaps the Spear of Goliath.  However in the Sixth Century there was also a claimed Spear of Longinus in Jerusalem.

What happened to these Second Temple relics following all the events of the Seventh Century is uncertain.

Update 4/4/2020: Since I first wrote this I've done some more research on the Showbread issue, and it's Table.

What's really interesting is how I decided to watch some YouTube videos on how to make homemade flatbread.  I was suprised how simple it was, I watched a few different recipes.  And what I noticed is how it starts with flower which has a consistency kind of like dirt, and then becomes dough which is a lot like clay.  So it's a good symbolic representation of how God made Adam's flesh in Genesis 2, which I view as also echoed in how Jesus heals the blind man in John 9, essentially creating new eyes from clay.  So the logic of Bread representing the Body now makes perfect sense.

[Note: after trying it myself it's not as easy as they made it look.]

The common statement I repeated above and in the past that in Chretien the Grail is the plate with the Communion Wafer is a mistake, the Grail and the plate are separate objects borne by separate Maidens.  All we know about the Grail in Chertien is that it's called the Grail, or Graal originally.  It's not even called Holy.  [Update 2022: Another correction, Chertien does call the Grail "A Holy Thing" I was simply looking for the exact two word phrasing of "Holy Grail".]

Graal is a French word believed to come from Grazel which comes from Gresal.  It's believed to originate from the Medieval Latin Gradalis or Gradale which comes from the Ancient Latin Crater or Cratus which in turn comes from the Greek Krater.

In the Greek New Testament Crater is not used of the Cup of the Last Supper, instead it's Porterion which is also used of the Cub referenced in Genesis 40:11 in the Septuagint.  In the Latin Vulgate this Cup is a Chalice.  However the Vulgate does use Crater of one of the vessels on the Table of Showbread in Numbers 4:7.  It is also used of the bowls containing the Oxen blood in Exodus 24:6.  And it's the word for "Goblet" used in Song of Songs 7:2.

It's also maybe interesting that in Numbers 4:7-8 the Table itself is instructed to be covered with a Blue cloth but the vessels on it to be covered with a Scarlet cloth.

A True Leftist should try running in a Republican Primary

That sounds like an insane proposition, but hear me out.

First of all it simply is easier for a grassroots campaign to win the Republican Primary.  If the Republican Primary was nearly as rigged against populists as the Democratic one is then Trump would not have been nominated in 2016, even in the primary he didn't get 50% of the popular vote.

The Republican Party has far more ideological diversity within it.  I know Sanders supporters feel like the difference between him and Biden is night and day, but from the outside all internal Democratic party disputes look like merely a mater of degrees and methods. And even then that is only two opposing camps.

However the Republican party even to outsiders looks like a pretty chaotic coalition, Libertarians and John Birch Society style Paleo-Conservatives, Neo-Cons, Dominionist Evangelicals who practically openly want to create a Theocracy, Rockefeller Republicans, the Tea Party and most recently the Alt-Right.

In 2008 lots of Republicans voted agaisnt the Bank Bailout, there is plenty of room within the Republican party for resentment of Wallstreet types.  Eisenhower ran on upholding the New Deal in 52, Nixon created a lot of programs Progressives like and Regan defined himself as an FDR Democrat.  The Rockefeller Republicans were the ones Goldwater most wanted driven out of the party.

Casual Historian did a YouTube Video on how the Republican Party has always been a single issue party, only one issue actually unifies all these otherwise diametrically opposed ideologies, it's just that what that issue is has changed over the decades.

Currently that issue is lowering Taxes.  And because of how unrealistically simplified Taxation disputes have become in America that makes Progressives and Socialists seemingly the only people who can't join the Republican coalition.  But during the French Revolution it was the Left who argued for abolishing the oppressive taxes that the Monarchy had burdened the peasantry with.

Today a Leftist, especially one more Anarchist rather then Marxist leaning economically speaking, is ideally placed to expose how the Republican party has never lowered Taxes for the working class in any meaningful way.  We can propose implementing a Wallstreet Sales Tax as a way to replace the Income Tax on Hourly Wages.  Or at least promise not to raise any while focusing on lowering the payroll tax.

The original founding issue of the Republican Party was opposing Slavery.  A Leftist can point out how that battle isn't over, that the Thirteenth Amendment's loophole makes our Prison System a slave system.  And our position on the Free Trade Agreements puts us in line with the Protectionist phase of the Republican Party as well.

I do think the only kind of Leftist who would win in a Republican Primary is one with Karl Marx's position on Guns, Anarchists are also fully prepared to go to the right of moderate Republicans on the Gun Rights issue.  And when justifying why they're running as a Republican instead of a Democrat just be honest about why and add how the Gun issue alone makes winning a Democratic Primary impossible for them, Sanders can't even get slack for this being the one issue he's slightly moderate on.

We could appeal to a lot of Libertarians by stressing our non-Interventionist foreign policy, and desire to end the the War on Drugs and also legalize Prostitution, as well as being Pro-Choice and for abolishing Copyright Laws.

If we do this during a cycle when there is no Democratic Primary and the sitting DemPres is a "moderate" Neo-Liberal, which will be 2024 if Biden somehow wins this Election, then this Leftist Republican candidate can combine this internal coalition with alienated Progressives and Leftists joining open primaries.

Against Monolatry

Monolatry is a term for a theology that is sort of a blurred line between Monotheism and Polytheism.  The idea is the Worship of only One God is allowed but others still exist.  There are a number of people in modern Apologetic circles like InspiringPhilosophy who are taking the position that The Bible's theology is Monolatry, but clarifies a form of it where the God you worship is the Supreme Creator, a "True God" in a way none of the lesser gods are.  Basically the "other Elohim" are Angels, Demons ect.

Now I am all for accepting that Christianity maybe doesn't qualify as true Monotheism because of The Trinity, the words Mono and Theos are never Biblicaly used together that way so if you can't be convinced Nicene Trinitarianism is Montheistic then so be it I'm not attached to the term.  But this post isn't about that, in the sense that The Trinity is a Single Deity, I believe that The Trinity is the only Deity that exists.

Christian Monolatry can easily become a Gateway drug to Arianism.  Once you deem it acceptable to refer to Angels as gods it becomes easy to argue The Word being called God is just a very special Angel.

This discussion often begins with The First Commandment.

I am Yahuah thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.  Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That wording strictly speaking doesn't say other Elohim don't exist, in fact it has been taken as implying they do.  Thing is if you want to be nit-picky then that wording doesn't even entirely rule out the worship of other Elohim, it just says Yahuah must always come first, but later in the Torah we see worshiping these other gods at all is forbidden.  This verse's wording is ultimately neutral to if they exist or not.

A lot of verses that seem like they are conceding other gods exist can be taken rhetorically, like when Elijah is speaking to the Priests of Baal.  Atheists sometimes talk to us about our God as if He exists, and I will refer to the "God of Calvinism" but I certainly don't think that @$$hole exists.

The verse in the Exodus narrative that seemingly refers to the "gods of Egypt" I believe is a result of corrupted Masoretic vowel indicators.  The context makes more sense referring to "trees of Egypt".

The real question is does the existence of Angels make the Bible Monolatry?  Depends what you think about Angels.  If you think the Angels already existed prior to the Creation of the Material world, that is a very Platonist Monolatry.  If you think Angels are included in the "let us make man in our image" that is also an error, that is The Trinity talking, or if you want to reject Trinitarianism then it's some sort of ancient Hebrew "royal we".  In my view whatever the Angels are they didn't predate Adam's Creation.

Let's use our old friend Tolkien as a comparison.  The Theology presented in the Ainulindale, Valaquenta and Quenta Silmarilion is Monolatry because of the Ainur, especially the Valar but even the Maiar are fairly divine in my opinion, particularly Melian.  However something like the Elves would be a different matter, people that are kind of like what Man would be if Man hadn't fallen.

My first theory for an origin story for entities like that would be Genesis 2:18-20, I think the normal Animals were created before Adam in Genesis 1 and this is the Creation of creatures that are Sapient enough to be potential mates for Adam, they include The Serpent in the next chapter, the Cheirbium/Seraphim and are perhaps the basis for the Lilith tradition as well.

A second could be the idea of there being more time between Genesis 2 and 3 then we usually assume.  Maybe Cain and Abel weren't Adam and Eve's firstborn and they had prior children unaffected by The Fall?  This is a bit less likely and more conjectural but Daniel does describe Gabriel using words for Human.  I admit the main thing that made me think of this idea was George MacDonald's Lilith which I haven't even properly read yet, but it seems like this must be the origin of Mara, but obviously a 19th Century fantasy novel is not something to build doctrine on.

I also reject the idea of a Divine Council, Heaven is an Absolute Monarchy not a Constitutional Monarchy.

Deuteronomy 32 reads "sons of Israel" in both the Masoretic and Samaritan texts, those groups diverged from each other long before the Qumran Community formed, so what they agree on certainly takes priority over a single DSS fragment which could also just be a scribal error.  And even so, since I've argued BeniElohim means believers in Genesis 6 and everywhere else the two terms don't even mean different things.  Christians should see this as explained by Paul in Romans 11.  Also the Qumran community were Platonist heretics if they were indeed a group of Essenes so I fundamentally don't trust them.

Psalm 82 is the real heart of arguing the "Divine Council" idea is Biblical.  In John 10:34 Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 clearly showing that "ye are gods" refers to the Israelites, and He expected that application of that verse to be one none of these Pharisees would object to.  But Michael Heiser is unimpressed by that, he believes secular scholarly theories about the "Ancient Near Eastern context" needs to trump The Lord Himself telling us what He meant.

Isaiah 41 also uses "ye are gods" in a context no one disputes is about mortal human beings.

Even leaving New Testament quotes out of it, Psalm 82 was a Psalm of Asaph, Asaph we are told was a Prophet (2 Chronicles 29:30, Seer is a synonym for Prophet according to 1 Samuel 9:9).  His mission was not to tell us what went on between Yahuah and other beings in Heaven, it was to tell Israel what messages Yahuah has for Israel.  

Psalm 82 starts with Yahuah standing in the midst of the Congregation, not a council, this is essentially the Hebrew word translated Ekklesia(Church).  In verse 6 Yahuah is speaking as if He's referring to something He said before, which explains why Jesus also seemed to claim He was quoting The Torah, this is referencing back to the BeniElohim doctrine of the Pentateuch, Exodus 4:22-23 and Deuteronomy 14:1.  Also in Exodus 7:1 Yahuah says He will make Moses a god to Pharoah.

The confusion comes from verse 7, people feel saying "like men" means these people aren't men.  The word for men here is Adam so it could be like how Genesis 6 distinguished sons of God from daughters of men. Or it's about how these people have gotten so arrogant they think they're no longer mere mortals like the Nagyim of Tyre in Ezekiel 28.

This is God rebuking Israel for their cultural sins like he does in Ezekiel 16, that is clear when you just read what it's actually saying in the verses that don't use controversial to translate nouns.  Making it some scene in a Fantasy novel distracts from that clear message.  Which matters because I feel this is a message God still has for many modern Christians.

I think the "gods" of Psalm 138 are probably the same as Psalm 82.

In 1 Corinthians 8 Paul says that the idols are nothing.  He does seem to acknowledge there being others called gods and lords, but they are not actually gods.  He is NOT saying there are other gods but only One matters.

The only beings outside of The Trinity who The Bible ever considers worthy of being called Elohim or Theos in the right circumstances are Humans. We were made in the Image and Likeness of God and made a Living Soul by the Breath of God, and then the Word of God incarnated as one of us and gave us the ablity to become Sons of God, granting us His authority, and now the Holy Spirit of God indwells within those of us who believe making us The Temple of God and Body of Christ.  But we are currently still in our fallen state, at the Resurrection we will be perfected.

Here are some prior posts I made about Angels before fully forming the position I argued for in this post but are still posts I agree with (mostly).

The Torah and Angels.

The Nephilim and the Sons of God.

What kind of Christian am I?

One minute I'm talking about how I can't entirely endorse any of the Ecumenical Councils, the next I'm talking about areas where I might agree with Catholics over Protestants.  There is no denomination I agree with on everything, no Church who's Statement of Faith doesn't include something I object to, most mainline Protestant denominations include the Pseudo Athanasian Creed among their creeds.  My Soterlogy is not part of an official confession of any major denomination, and the main opinion I originally started this blog to promote is considered an excommunication worthy offence on it's own by most Evangelicals.

However if we started looking at things more broadly, define each denomination on what they were founded on or most known for, often the issue they were named after, then I might be able to qualify as part of many rather then none.  This is the same logic of course behind considering New Testament Christians to be Pharisees because of our Belief in The Bodily Resurrection in-spite of how it was mostly the Pharisees Jesus was criticizing.

I agree with the Baptists on Baptism, Independent Baptists that the Church should be Local [a form of Congregational Polity], Congregationalists and/or Presbyterians on Church Government and Clergy, and the House Church movement (Non Church Movement in Japan) on what church should be, and Pentecostals in that I'm a Continuationist on the Spiritual Gifts.  Perhaps claiming affinity with the Hebrew Roots Movement is the most questionable since I accept Paul at face value, but if you considered Chuck Missler close enough then so am I, the roots of our Faith are Hebrew and so I do see value is keeping that perspective in mind.

Those are forms of Christianity that have a significant presence in the modern West.  So I feel more informed on where I am and am not with them then I do the examples I shall list below.

Historically, if refusing to condemn Theodore of Mopsuesta as a Heretic in 553 makes me Nestorian then so be it, I don't consider Babai's Christology all that different from Chalecedon's anyway and I do renounce calling Mary Theotokos.  I'm with the Lollards in that the Scriptures should be made available in every language, I'm a Hussite on the Ultraquist issue, and I'm with the Taborites, Anabaptists and Diggers on their Communism.

Perhaps this is good, it can be beneficial to be foot in multiple worlds.

The Last Ecumenical Council

The Anglican Church is the only major Protestant Church that upholds all Seven Ecumenical Councils.  Coincidentally this isn't the only quality they have in common with the Eastern Orthodox, the way their founded on the King being the head of the Church fits the Emperor's role in Byzantine Christianity.

For most Protestants this is the only Ecumenical Council they really go out of their way to criticize. Calvin expressed general agreement with the first 4, ignored the next 2 and then went hard on the 7th.  Martin Luther himself didn't approve of iconoclastic tendencies, but still never specifically addressed any Ecumenical Councils after Chalcedon.

I perhaps have more sympathy for this council then most American Evangelicals and Protestants.  Literal Idolatry is not as pressing a concern under the New Testament, civil leaders are no longer judged chiefly on how zealous they are about shutting down Polytheistic worship.  So I'm not an Iconoclast since I don't even believe in going out of our way to destroy actual Pagan Idols, like Roger Williams I feel NT Christians should follow the example the Religious Tolerance of Cyrus and Artaxerxes.

Still, Old Testament applications of the Second Commandment definitely include Images that were supposedly of YHWH, the worship of the Golden Calf was called a Feast to YHWH in Exodus 32:5 and Jeroboam's Idols were identified with YHWH, Jehu is depicted as a devout YHWH onlyist and yet he too was guilty of the Sins of Jeroboam.

I do believe certain things changed at The Cross, so the implications of the Incarnation on this issue should be considered.  NT passages that present Idolatry as still a concern are in the context of what Paul taught the Corinthians, it's about belief more so then actions.  This issue remains ambiguous because nothing in the New Testament either specifically condones Images of Jesus or prohibits them.  There is New Testament support for using symbols instead, like how Paul verbally uses The Cross as a symbol.

Ryan Reeves and others have pointed out how the Early Church used Art but didn't artistically depict Jesus even for awhile after Nicaea, Images of Jesus don't start to show up till the late 5th Century and increased in popularity during the reign of Justinian and again in the 7th century.  The Synod of Elvira was a Pre-Nicaea council that expressed a harsh view of using images.

The first "Iconclast" Emperor Leo III did not actually engage in any active persecution of those who insisted on keeping their Icons, it was his successors who started going that far.  Wikipedia says that poorer regions of the Empire generally supported Iconoclasm more then the wealthier regions.

The overturned pro-iconoclasm council was the ONLY early Church council to epxliclty affirm endless torment in hell and anathematize any who reject that doctrine.  That doesn't seem directly relevant to the issue at hand, unless the Iconophiles typically believed in Universal Salvation, like Gregory of Nyssa who the seventh council proclaimed a father of the fathers.  That would be a reason for me to feel inclined towards the Iconophiles, but I won't let that shade how I critique everything else.

Saying the Iconoclasts are wrong is one thing, but outright Anathamatizing the act was based on saying it is sinful agaisnt God to destroy an Image of God.  And that is the start of what makes this council Idolatrous.

But they went beyond just condemning the destruction of Icons.  One of the Anathamas reads "Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images", I don't care how you distinguish "salute" from "worship", telling me I'm accursed for not respecting your images makes you just as much of a judgmental zealot as the ones breaking them.  I for the record consider even Saluting the American Flag to be idolatry.

This council also affirmed the Veneration of Mary and the Saints and Images of them, not just of Jesus, and refers to praying to Mary.  This distinction Catholics insist on making between Veneration and Worship is amusing to me.  If you went back in time to before Christianity even existed and tried to explain to someone how your praying to a famous person who died before you were born isn't worshiping them, they would laugh at you.  It is solely Christians trying to justify un-Biblical behavior that has created this distinction.

The Council even affirms sacred relics in Canon 7 even saying you can't have Churches without them (The New Testament teaches that a church is any place where two or more believers gather together.).  The Brazen Serpent is a symbol of Jesus yet it had to be destroyed when The Israelites started "venerating" it.  And no I don't think The Ark's role in the Temple is a comparable kind of Veneration, because it was there to be the thing a proper cult Idol would be standing or sitting on top of in a normal Temple. 

This is as good a time as any to state that I disapprove of calling Mary "Theotokos", the technical accuracy of the term isn't the point, the title isn't Biblical, calling her The Virgin Mary is enough.  I agree with 100% of the gist of the Chalcedonian definition, and have no objection to 90% of the details, only this word, "before all ages" and I would say "Scriptures" in-place of "Fathers" at the beginning and end.

I've tried not to take the anti Theotokos position since I respect a lot of Greek Orthodox believers.  But there is no getting around it anymore.

The Morning Star of The Revolution

John Wycliffe is often called "The Morning Star of The Reformation" because of how much of what he taught was similar to what would become Protestant Doctrine (though the actual core of Protestantism arguably wasn't quite there yet).

John Ball is someone who was condemned as a Heretic by the Organized Church in 1366, over a decade before Wycliffe.  His teachings (the ones we know about at least) do not seem interested in traditional Protestant concerns.  Instead he anticipates the Taborites, Petr Chelčický, Thomas Muntzer and other Anabaptists, and then Gerrard Winstanley and the Diggers of the English Revolution.

John Ball's preaching was a major inspiration for the Peasants' Revolt of 1381.  Here are the most important Quotes.

• My good friends, things cannot go on well in England, nor ever will until everything shall be in common, when there shall be neither vassal nor lord, and all distinctions levelled; when the lords shall be no more masters than ourselves. How ill they have used us!… They have wines, spices and fine bread, when we have only rye and the refuse of fine straw; and if we drink, it must be water. They have handsome seats and manors, when we must brave the wind and rain in our labours in the field; but it is from our labour they have the wherewith to support their pomp.… Let us go to the king, who is young, and remonstrate with him on our servitude, telling him we must have it otherwise, or that we shall find a remedy for it ourselves.
  • Typical sermon, described in the Chronicles of England, France, Spain, and other places adjoining by Jean Froissart

• When Adam delved, and Eve span, who was then the gentleman? From the beginning all men by nature were created alike, and our bondage or servitude came in by the unjust oppression of naughty men. For if God would have had any bondmen from the beginning, he would have appointed who should be bond, and who free. And therefore I exhort you to consider that now the time is come, appointed to us by God, in which ye may (if ye will) cast off the yoke of bondage, and recover liberty.
  • Sermon at Blackheath (12 June 1381), quoted in Annals, or a General Chronicle of England

So indeed I think John Ball can perhaps be called the Morning Star of the Revolution.

The first confirmed documented references to the figure of Robin Hood are from the 1370s, during this same era of social upheaval.  It's always speculated he could have been an Oral Folk Hero for ages before then, but given this cultural context it would make sense to me if the concept was in fact born then.  One detail of Robin Hood often ignored in modern depictions is his Anti-Clericalism, while still a very Pius Christian.

Occasionally a Conservative or Libertarian will try to say that "Robin Hood didn't steal form the rich and give to the poor, he stole from the King and gave the money back to the Tax Payers".  This of course is a very inappropriate application of modern ways of looking at things to Medieval Feudalism.  Not the only time they do this, they love to equate "King" with "State" to make Feudalism seem more similar to Socialism then Capitalism.  However the modern Conception of a Nation State is a product of the post Reformation phase of the Renaissance.  The Kings of Medieval Europe simply were the highest level of Feudal Nobility, they were wealthy Lander Owners, the Kingdom was the Domain of the King, like the Pharaoh's of Egypt all land was basically his personal property.

So in fact the concept of Robin Hood fits in well with what John Ball was preaching.  Whether the figure is actually older or not I think this era's climate definitely played a role in the story's popularization.

Existentialism is basically Atheistic Arminianism

I'm not going to similarly compare any secular Determinist Philosophy to Calvanism because what being Predetermined means is fundamentally different under an Atheist model.

But the way Existentialism stresses Free Will while molding Morality around that concept makes a fascinating comparison to Arminianism.

The Passion of The Nerd's videos about Buffy The Vampire Slayer on YouTube often stress Whedon's Existentialism, the main introduction to the subject is in the video on Lie To Me (Season 2 Episode 7).  I also watched a video about Man of Steel being Existentialist, I think that was on VIMEO.  There is also a YouTube video on Batman and Existentialism.

One of the things about how this applies to Buffy is that it often manifests in villains denying their Free Will, saying they didn't have a choice but the moral judgment of the story rejects that excuse insisting they did.  This is why I'm pretty sure Peter Coffin is not an Existentialist, he rejects that doctrine of personal accountability considering it inherently Capitalistic.

I'm pretty sure this is the basic moral outlook of a lot of people making media analysis and critique on YouTube whether they'd know to use the term or not.  I say this because that's clearly the frame work of feeling Kylo Ren was somehow beyond redemption after The Last Jedi, that once he chose to continue on The Dark Side after no longer having Snoke's manipulations as an excuse he crossed a line that you shouldn't be able to come back from.

That is basically exactly how Arminian Christians justify their Reprobate doctrine, like the Pastor I do not like to name.  That Pastor doesn't consider himself an Arminian but he's a non Calvinist who believes Hell is endless torment, broadly speaking that makes you Arminian whether you agree with every detail of an Amrminian Confession or not.  He argues that once a person rejects the Gospel after fully understanding it, having no more excuses, they become no longer eligible for Salvation, and things like Homosexuality are evidence of being such a Reprobate and thus he calls for them to be executed by the government.  Now most Arminians do not go to that extreme, but the gist of it is the same.

I also believe in Free Will in a sense, that's why I'm not a Calvanist, not even one single point.  However no one in the Ancient World defined Free Will how we do today.  The Ancient understanding was that Sin was man's natural state, and it was only through Divine Grace man ever has the Freedom to not Sin.

In a way that makes my Christianity in agreement with Nhilism, which sees that many factors of the natural world make it impossible to truly hold anyone entirely responsible for their bad choices (this is something Digibro has ranted about).  It's just that Christians unlike Atheist Nihilists believe we have a Savior who has come to give us True Freedom.

Matthew 9:10-13 tells us to view Sin as an illness that needs healing, not a choice that needs to be punished.  And that is why I agree with Brad Jersak, as well as Thought Slime.

What Specifically does being Libertarian mean?

In the United States of America the term Libertarian tends to refer to people that are hyper Capitalists, Anachro-Captialism, often overlapping with adherents of Randian Objectivism or Paleo-Conservatism.  In Europe however it tends to be associated with very Anti-Capitalist ideologies like Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Socialism.  The latter definition is in fact the older one, it was them who first coined the term Libertarian in early 19th Century France, chiefly Joseph Déjacque.

I am someone who used to be a Ron Paul Libertarian but has since starting this blog become a Progressive to the Left of Bernie Sanders and an advocate of Christian Communism.

The reason I still like to call myself a Libertarian is because of what I believe these seemingly diametrically opposed ideologies have in common.  Because for the most part all I've really changed my mind on is Economic Policy.

What being a Libertarian refers to in my mind is being for the decriminalization of Drugs, Prostitution and Gambling, as well as defending the individual's right to own guns.  The principal that no victimless crimes should actually be illegal.  That everyone should be allowed to live however you want if you aren't hurting anyone.  That prohibition only makes whatever you're trying to stop worse.  It also helps that both kinds of libertarians tend to be Anti-War and and for abolishing Copyright laws and are usually though not always Pro-Choice.

When some American Libertarians try to say "most people are Libertarians they just don't know it yet" their basis for that is how most Americans feel on these issues, that same silent majority is not as garunteed to support AnCap Economic Policy.

In America it's well known that not all Capitalists are inclined to be with me on those things.  Conservatives like making "immoral" things illegal and Liberals want restrictive Gun Laws, meanwhile both want interventionist foreign policy simply disagreeing on where to drop the bombs.  But sadly other Communists fail to be Libertarian as well, some want to keep Prostitution illegal because it's "exploitative".  And Peter Coffin who I'm a fan of in one video complains that Loot Boxes in Video Games should be illegal because of how they qualify as Gambling.

In general, Libertarian or Anarchist Socialists are the Communists who don't like to be called Marxists even if they do respect some  or even a lot of what Marx said.

My Libertarianism is my Core, my "Origin" to put things in Nasuverse terms.  It's my views on Economic issues that have changed and may continue to change because frankly the Economy is complicated and difficult to understand.  But I doubt I will ever go back to being a Capitalist because of how strongly I now consider Capitalism incompatible with True Biblical Christianity.  And because I now view access to Food, Shelter and Healthcare as among those individual rights I consider so important.