Hanukkah is a Biblical Holy Day

I've seen one random online forum filled with Christians really offended by the notion that Jesus was observing Hanukkah in John 10:22-23.  "And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.  And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch."

They insist Jesus could not have been observing a Holy Day never actually ordained in The Hebrew Bible.  That Daniel foretells the history that produced Hanukkah isn't enough for them.

They insist this "dedication" refers either to the second of Adar when the Second Temple was first dedicated.  Or to how Solomon originally Dedicated the Temple with an expansion of Tabernacles to 14 days, and feel that's backed up by this following John 7-9.

The latter requires expanding the definition of Winter, (maybe so does the former, but sometimes Adar can fall during a pretty cold period).  But the point is it doesn't say the anniversary of the dedication, it said the Feast of Dedication was being observed.  The 25th of Kislev is the only Feast the Jews ever celebrated by that name.

Also I firmly believe the Expansion of the Festival Solomon did was the prior week not the following Week, since it clearly defines the 22nd as the day the Festival ended, and the 23rd as the day everyone went home.  Also 2 Chronicles 7:9 says "And in the eighth day they made a solemn assembly: for they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days." Which clearly defines the extra 7 days as coming first.

The only objection offered to it being the prior week is the assumption of Yom Kippr being a Fast Day.  The Bible never links the word Fast to Yom Kippur, in fact God expressed disapproval of annual Fast Days in Zachariah.  The basis for making Yom Kippur a fast day is that the people were to "afflict your souls", fasting is a way to do that but not the only way (Jesus was afflicting His soul without fasting in Gethsemane).  Either way it would be merely the 2nd or 3rd day of a two week festival being toned down by people doing whatever they feel is best to keep that command.  Besides with what is supposed to go on in The Temple that day I could easily see it being treated as part of the Festival.

As far as the lack of Old Testament precedent they complain about, leaving Daniel aside for a moment.

Haggai 2:10-23 is a revelation God gave to Haggai on the 24th of Kislev, and it foretells that very day being a time to rededicate the Temple.  Reading 1 Maccabees chapter 4 (it's at the end pretty much) it would seem the 24th was the day they were actually done rebuilding and cleansing everything, the 25th was the day the new Sacrifices were made.

The whole "Menorah burning for 8 days on 1 day's worth of oil" is a made up fairy tale from much later tradition.  2 Maccabees 10:1-8 tells us it was an 8 day festival because it was done in the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles.  Some have conjectured the original logic was a counterpart for Tabernacles of the Second Passover law from Numbers 9.  One reason to make it two months later rather then one would be the Eight Month's affiliation with The Feast of Jeroboam.  But if that was the only factor it'd have been on the 15th not the 25th.  Haggai's prophecy I'm convinced is why this was when it was whether they knew it or not.  Actually the text of Haggai in question discuses the same issues that make Second Passover necessary in Numbers 9, and since Haggai's previous vision was during Tabernacles, it seems valid to interpret him as validating a Second Tabernacles Law.

The Hebrew word Hanukkah (Dedication) first appears in The Bible in Number 7:84&88 ("Dedicating" was used twice much earlier in the same chapter) this Chapter is about the original Dedication of the Tabernacle and may be one likely drawn on at the first Hanukkah.  That right after this Aaron is instructed to light The Menorah could be the original reason The Menorah became important to Hanukkah.

Also if you do the math in Genesis, the 26th or 27th of Kislev is when the 40 days of rain that caused the Flood stopped.  And it's been popular to see the Nine Candle Menorah of Hanukkah foreshadowed by Zechariah 4.

Back to Daniel, some people, especially those who want to late date Daniel but knowing they can't make it too late due to DSS manuscripts.  Will insist it discuses Antiochus Epiphanes and his persecution, but not the Maccabees actual victory.

Daniel 11:32 "And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits."  One Bible I have in it's marginal footnotes suggests "Take Action" as an alternate translation of "do exploits".

But more directly relevant to the idea of The Re-dedication being Biblical is Daniel 8:13-14.

"Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?  And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred mornings and evenings; then shall the  sanctuary be cleansed."

The Number 2300 mornings and evenings (1150 days) is the main reason this verse in it's details I feel applies more to Antiochus then The Antichrist, I like Chris White's explanation of it, It does fit to say the time from Antiochus' Abomination first being set up until the Maccabees rededicated The Temple.  But it's pretty hard to make it line up perfectly with Revelation where it's always 1260 days or 42 months being mentioned.

The point is, that the Cleansing of The Temple in 164 BC was part of Bible Prophecy.

Josephus talks about the origin of Hanukkah in Antiquities of The Jews, Book 12, Chapter 7 in section 6 and 7, the last part of the chapter.  He there directly links it to Daniel's Prophecy, which I will admit the Books of Maccabees failed to do.

An argument might also be made that John 10 doesn't tell us Jesus was celebrating or observing Hanukkah, He just happened to be there at that time.

During His ministry I find it interesting that Jesus was in Jerusalem only on Holy Days, with John in particular linking Holy Days to anytime He was even in Judea.  In fact in the entire Gospel account of his life the only time we are told He was in Jerusalem when it wasn't specifically a Holy Day was to fulfill the Torah's law about being presented in The Temple 40 days after His Birth.

I'm convinced every detail of Scripture is there for a reason, and The Holy Spirit wanted us to take note of the fact that Jesus was in Jerusalem during Hanukkah.

I rant more against anti-Hanukkah Christians here.  But in that old post I do express certain views I don't hold anymore, especially on Eschatology.

I also found a site online called "Why Yahshuah Refused to Celebrate Hanukkah".

First of all "Yahshuah" is an interpretation of how to properly render Yeshua affiliated with a peculiar brand of the Sacred Name movement.  So be warned.

First this site claims John 7 is about Hanukkah, (it talks about the connection between Tabernacles and Hanukkah that I talk about above), then says the John 10 reference is just continuing the same narrative.  However an unqualified reference to Tabernacles always means the Tishri celebration just as an unqualified reference to a Feast of Dedication means the Kislev one.  And John 10:22-23 stylistically is clearly the start of a new incident that clearly dates itself to a different time then what came just before.

This site actually claims The Jews of this period stopped observing Tishri Tabernacles all together and just replaced it with Hanukkah.  There is no evidence of that, 2 Maccabees 10:6-7 says it was observed in the manner of Tabernacles but in no way says it replaced that feast.

Josephus has I'm pretty sure made clear references to Tabernacles still being observed in Tishri at this time.   When Josephus describes the origin of Hanukkah which I mentioned above he doesn't mention the link to Tabernacles that only 2 Maccabees directly makes (Josephus seemed to only know 1 Maccabees) and only called it the Festival of Lights.  So it's highly unlikely Josephus ever meant that any time he refereed to Tabernacles.

After making that argument they make a thing out of Jesus refusing to go up to the Feast when it started.  Then says when He did show up He condemned them for not following The Law.

Read John 7 more carefully, He did go up at the same time his brothers did more or less, but was simply in secret till the midst of the Feast.  And what Jesus talks about at this time the site misrepresents completely.  He was observing that Feast as much as He was Passover during the Passion Week, where he also argued with the Pharisees and Sadducees.

When Jesus was 12?

Earlier this year in my post on Age of Consent and Adulthood I argued against using Luke 2:42 as evidence for in any sense considering Adulthood to begin at age Twelve.  And while doing so suggested that maybe the Passover of this story is the first Passover after Herod Archelaus was removed in AD 6.

Again, it's a big IF on even assuming Jesus wasn't brought with for prior Passovers, but if it is the intent to imply this is the first time they brought Jesus with, it's notable to remember that Matthew 2:22 Archelaus being in power was the reason they didn't want to bring Jesus to Jerusalem.

It seems that some place the removal Archelaus very early in AD 6 having that year's Passover be the one that happens after his removal.  Remembering that there is no year Zero that counts us backwards to a Nativity in 8 or 7 BC.  But if it was instead the Passover of AD 7 then that puts the Nativity in 7 or 6 BC.  Either way fits the Census of Luke 2:1-2 being the 8 BC Census when Saturninus was governor of Syria as Tertullian claimed.

I haven't made up my mind on the Chronology of The Incarnation yet, this is just one possibility I'm considering.

King James only Baptists baffle me

I myself am very sympathetic to the King James Onlists on certain matters, like which source texts to use and which books, chapters and verses are and are not Canon, and the biggest issues I have with the KJV aren’t fixed by newer translations but often made worse.  I even consider the KJV compatible with certain doctrines many assume you have to reject the KJV to support like Universal Salvation.

The most Extreme KJV Onlists tend to be Baptists or younger sects of partially Baptist origin (Like Millerites and Pentecostals).

Baptists are at their core Hyper Congregationalists, yet part of the agenda behind the King James Bible was doubling down on High Church Translation decisions of the Geneva Bible like translating Ekklesia as Church, Episcopas as Bishop and Diakonos as Deacon.

KJV onlyists get around these issues by simply repeatedly saying that “Church in the Bible just means a gathering of believers”, and that is accurate to what the Greek word Ekklesia means, but that’s not what the English word Church means.  In its origin the English word Church refers to a type of building.  Words can change meaning over time, some of my issues with the KJV are words that were correct at the time but not anymore.  You can’t however simply force it to happen, the word Church still first and foremost puts the idea of either a religious building or a hierarchical organized religion in people's minds.

William Tyndale used the word Congregation for Ekklesia which is why our position on Ecclesiastical Polity is called Congregational Polity. But perhaps an even better English translation would be Assembly, that’s how Ekklesia is usually translated when discussing the word’s use in Secular Greek Politics where it means the gathering together of the Citizenry of a Polis to discuss an issue and then Vote.  But nowadays the word Assembly in politics is used by some bodies of Representatives rather than Direct Democracy, but the same has happened to the root of Congregation thanks to Congress.

As a Christian Weeb the word I would suggest if consulting on a Japanese Bible is Shukai.

Episcopas means Overseer and Diakanos means Servant or Minister or Messenger, I think even Secretary could work.

Bishop and Deacon are hard to call absolutely wrong when they are technically just evolutions of the original Greek words.  But it’s precisely their lack of nativeness to the English Language that makes them sound like grander positions of prestige than the Scriptures themselves intended.  Further reinforced by all the High Church baggage attached to them by Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and Episcopalian usage where Bishop has come to mean the clerical Monarch of at least an entire City.

KJV Only Baptists don’t usually use the word Bishop outside of directly quoting Scripture because they know the word doesn’t to most people mean what they want it to.

Priest is a uniquely Biblically awkward word since it etymologically derives from the Greek Presbyter but in modern English Bibles isn't used to translate that word instead being used in the Hebrew Bible for Kohen (and the Hurrian loan word Komer) and in the Greek New Testament for Hiereus. All the more reason to just not use it at all anymore.

As someone who does believe in honoring the Hebrew Roots of the faith in certain contexts I would just use Kohen to translate Kohen (and Kehuna for Priesthood) and for Hiereus when it’s referring to the Israelite Priesthood as well as that of Melchizedek and All Believers. 

And to add some Anti-Papist flavor I’d use Pontiff for Komer and the Hiereus of Dios/Zeus/Jupiter in Acts 14:13.  But since a Japanese Bible isn’t likely to want to be so directly Anti-Catholic it should just use words for Shinto Priests and Priesthood for Komer and Acts 14:13.

Translating Presbyter as Elder isn’t really wrong in any way, but I do feel connotatively many readers will first think a Fifty at the youngest type of Elder.  The alternative Senior has a similar problem but at least most people remember it being associated with High School Students.  As I’ve said before I very much like identifying Presbyter with Senpai and Newtron with Kohai for Japanese.  Senpai however is in the English Urban Dictionary now so is not out of the question for an English Translation, and lacks the potential misunderstanding as a word that refers inherently to someone grandfather aged. Presbuterion I would just translate depending on context either Elders or Council.

1 Timothy 4:14 is the only time Presbuterion is used among Believers, the other two times it’s of the Judean Sanhedrin.  So I imagine this verse plays a role in debates between Congregationalists and Presbyterians.  I don’t know how most Baptists explain this but I feel it’s just a reference to the believers doing the laying on of hands being older than the person receiving.  Nothing here to justify a committee meeting of elders who lead different congregations meeting in a Sanhedrin like fashion.

However I identify as a Congregationalist principally because of my belief in Ecclesiastical Direct Democracy.  In terms of the Localism vs Regionalism aspect of where Congregationalists and Presbyterians differ, I kind of fall between them.  There is no Biblical support for a single City having more then one Ekklesia, remember an Ekklesia means the entire citizenry of a Polis a City.  Fortunately thanks to Galatians 3:28 we know the Ekklesia of Christ does not exclude Women, Slaves or Ethnic Foreigners.  When all Believers regardless of location are referred to as one Ekklesia like 1 Timothy 3:15 that's the Ekklesia of the Heavenly Zion/New Jerusalem of Hebrew 12:22. Revelation 3:12, 20:9, and 21-22.

Calvin and Zwingli were also only ever devising Church Governmental structures for City-States, the Swiss regional Synods came after Calvin died and the formation of the Dutch Reformed Church and Church of Scotland came even later then that.  But I still think even on a city level their models were too organized and hierarchical, there should be no Council with a fixed membership, when the different congregations in a city need to meet they should send representatives chosen for that specific meeting.

Of course we also need to consider how much bigger many modern cities are then even the largest of Ancient Cities.  The Anime Durarara!! Is set in Ikebukuro, Ikebukuro is part of Toshima which is part of Tokyo.  The greater Tokyo Metropolitan Area has a population probably larger even then first century Galatia much less Ephesus.  In this Anime it sure seems like Ikubukuro alone could be an entire Classical Greek Polis.

I am more Congregationalist even then most Baptists because I don’t believe in there being a single Episcopas even for a local congregation of less than 70 people.  I reject the very notion that the primary structure of a gathering of believers is one person giving a speech and everyone else just nodding in agreement, the picture 1 Corinthians paints involves lots of people talking.  The Overseer(s) of a given meeting oversee it, nothing more.  Sermons have a place, but that’s not what the weekly gathering is for.

Going back to the word Church I actually would consider using it to translate a New Testament Greek word, Naos.  There are three Greek words translated Temple in the KJV, one accounts for only one KJV appearance of Temple and is like the Hebrew Beth a word for House so I'd just translate it House.  The main two are Hieron and Naos.  Hieron is the broader term that can refer to indoor Temples and outdoor Temples and complexes that contain both, that’s the word I’d keep translating as Temple.  Naos however very specifically means an enclosed structure containing a god or a representation of one.

It is Naos that is used of the all believers being God’s Temple doctrine in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19, 2 Corinthians 6:16, Ephesians 2:20-22 and Revelation 3:12, as well each individual believer's Body, and when John 2 calls Jesus’s Body “this Temple”.   In The Hebrew Bible I’d likewise translate Dybir as Church which is a rarely used word for the building that contains the Holy of Holies in Solomon’s Temple. 

But for a Japanese Bible I’d translate Dybir and Naos as Honden.

The Adopted Son of Joseph Son of David

Another objection to the Genealogy of Jesus as presented in Matthew and Luke is that Jesus couldn't become an Heir to the Throne of David by Adoption.  Now I still stand by my past arguments for Luke's genealogy actually being Mary's, and even without that nothing anywhere says Mary wasn't a descendant of David.  But considering the value I place on Adoption both morally and theologically, it's about time I said "so what".  Because after all there must be a reason we're given Joseph's genealogy in at least Matthew.

But first, before I even get into that argument. I should address what may sometimes be an internal debate among Christians.  Does Jesus qualify as even an adopted son of Joseph?

Because in the story at the end of Luke 2 when Mary finds Jesus she refers to Joseph as His father, but some people like to say what Jesus goes on to say about doing His Father's business as correcting her.  That has it's origin as an over reaction to how some seek to use what Mary said here against The Virgin Birth.

I feel many American Conservative Christians have dug their heels in on that because of their obsession with the modern nuclear family.  They feel an Adopted or Step father is only needed if the physical sire is a deadbeat or just plain dead, because you can't have "two daddies" that would be horrible.  This is also why so many commentaries refuse to acknowledge that Jacob is referring to Leah as Joseph's mother in Genesis 37.

Luke 4:22 and John 1:45 clearly show that Jesus was legally regarded as a Son of Joseph.

In the past I'd focused more on Luke's Genealogy because even though I've always valued Adoption I felt that Jesus had to be a Blood descendant of everyone Prophecy required Him to descend from so that by His shed Blood gentiles can become Abraham's Seed and mortals can become Sons of God.  And I still think He was, but I've come to realize that Jesus is himself an adopted Son for a reason.

Now when this comes up as a Jewish objection to Jesus, it's not because Jews oppose Adoption or anything, The Torah clearly says anyone Circumcised who follows The Torah is to be considered an Israelite.  It's a claim that Royal Inheritance specifically has to be biological.

II Samuel 7:12 does specifically say Seed.  But it'd be hypocritical to use that against Jesus since these objectors to Jesus often reject dual fulfillment elsewhere.  The immediate context of that verse was clearly the Seed of David who took the throne right after David died.  What's interesting is verse 14 talks about this Son of David being an adopted Son of God.  So the New Testament brings it full circle, The Son of God becomes an adopted Son of David.  And that is why David calls The Messiah his Lord in Psalm 110.

The last verse of Jeremiah 33 seems to say that Israel won't be ruled by the Seed of David anymore when they return from Captivity.  The Root in Isaiah 11 is of Jesse rather then David.  Some Psalms speak of David's Seed, but there is room for interpretation there too.

I stumbled recently unto an online book by a Jew who argues that The Messiah will not be a Son of David but David himself Resurrected, arguing that the Branch is an idiom for a Resurrected Body and looking specifically at Ezekiel 34&37.  As a Christian I obviously disagree with that overall premise, but I do agree that Ezekiel is describing David himself Resurrected as the future Nasi, not using the name David as a code for Jesus as some Christians prefer to look at it.  

I think David himself would take offense at excluding adopted sons from Royal Inheritance, since he was a Son but not by blood of Saul.  In 1 Samuel 24:9-11 David calls Saul "father" and in 1 Samuel 24:16 and 26:17-21-25 Saul calls David his Son.

Now David's Kingship ultimately came from God choosing his line over Saul's.  But likewise the Son of God incarnate doesn't need descent from any specific mortal to be the rightful ruler of The World.  David became a Son of Saul regardless.

Now you may respond that David was the Son in Law of Saul because he married Michal.  To which I first would say, "like how Christian apologists argue Luke's genealogy sometimes means Son in Law when it says Son".  This is also a good time to bring up The Bride of Christ, who is also the Daughter of Zion The City of David.

But another reason David was a Son of Saul was 1 Samuel 18:1-4 where David's Blood Covenant with Johnathon made him Johnathon's joint heir.

What Moses says of Joseph in Deuteronomy 33 is one of the foundations of the Messiah Ben Joseph doctrine that's become popular in Rabbinic Judaism.  It's the basis for saying it's the Son of Joseph not David who will be killed and then Resurrected.  Something I brought up in my Human Sacrifice in The Torah post, which in turn referenced back to my Nazareth post where I suggested that Mary could have been of the Tribe of Manasseh.  For the sacrificial offering alluded to in that blessing it's being a Maternal Firstborn that mattered, the first to Open the Womb.

But the Messiah Ben-Joseph doctrine also needs it to be a Son of Joseph who's pierced in Zechariah 12:10, even though the context of that verse is all about the House of David.  Chapter 12 begins with a new "The Word of YHWH came unto me saying" so no it's not a continuation of the previous three chapters where Joseph and Ephraim came up a lot.  These three chapters seem to be strictly about the Southern Kingdom.  So the only way the one Pierced can be a Son of Joseph, is if he's a Son of Joseph adopted into the House of David.

The Curse on Jeconiah was reversed

 In Jeremiah 22:28-30 Yahuah puts a Curse on Jeconiah, calling him Coniah.

Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?  O earth, earth, earth, hear the word of Yahuah.  Thus saith Yahuah, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

And this gets used to say clearly Jesus (and his half siblings) are not eligible to inherit The Throne of David.

Now it makes some sense to me for Atheists to use this as a criticism of The Biblical record as a whole.  But as I'm about to show using this as a Jewish objection to Jesus doesn't really think things through.

Jeremiah is the only Biblical Author to mention this Curse.  And he's the Prophet who explains that Yahuah reverses His Blessings and Curses based on obedience in places like Chapter 18.  Ezekiel, the other major Prophet of that time, not only doesn't seem to view Jeconiah as Cursed but seems to never regard Zedekiah as a rightful King at all since he dates events of Zedekiah's reign as if Jeconiah was still King.

Earlier in Jeremiah 22 setting the stage for this Curse Yahuah says in verse 24.

As I live, saith Yahuah, though Coniah the son of Jehoiakim king of Judah were the signet upon my right hand, yet would I pluck thee thence;

Compare this to Haggai 2:23 where Yahuah says of Coniah's grandson Zerubabel.

In that day, saith Yahuah of hosts, will I take thee, O Zerubbabel, my servant, the son of Shealtiel, saith Yahuah, and will make thee as a signet: for I have chosen thee, saith Yahuah of hosts.

So that's clearly a reversal, exactly what Jeconiah lost according to Jeremiah 22 Zerubabel has back according to Haggai.  And other Prophets of this time like Zechariah speak similarly of Zerubabel.

And indeed the line of Exilarchs acknowledged by Rabbinic Judaism as the heirs of David in Exile all descended from Zerubabel.

People making this objection often also claim it has to be strictly Pater-Lineal descent, so that leaves out the lines coming through Hillel The Elder who was a Benjamite, his Davidic descent was though his Mother, and through a son of David even further removed from Solomon then Nathan was.

So without the house of Zerubabel, we have no known descent from the Royal Line.

Possible Hasmonean ancestry of Jesus

I've already explained why Heli is the Father of Mary.  That combined with my hunch that the solution to the Kenen issue is that Kenen was Selah's older brother by some 15 or so years and Selah married Kenen's daughter.  Leads me to conclude that Luke 3's genealogy sometimes records the descent through a woman, but keeps it patriarchally expressed by listing the woman's husband as the son in law of her father.  Joseph is distinct because he is the only one who is NOT a biological ancestor of Jesus, thus he alone lacks the Greek definite article.

This can also explain the issue regarding the father of Shealtiel.  I think a daughter of Neri married Shealtiel son of Jechoniah, then he died without an heir and so she married his brother Pedaiah and had Zerubbabel.  There is also the issue that neither New Testament son of Zerubbabel is named in his Old Testament genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:19.   

Matthew is definitely skipping generations sometimes, so Abiud could be a grandson or great grandson or further (the possibility that Abiud is a weird Greek form of Akkub of 1 Chronicles 3:24 has entered my mind).  And in the context of what I'm arguing here about Luke's genealogy, 1 Chronicles 3:19 does say Zerubbabel had a daughter, Shelomith, so I think she married Resha.

So my theory is when Heli is called a Son of Matthat it could mean son in law, and so on, but not always of course.

An interesting name in Luke 3:24 is Janna.  Janna is a very rare Hebrew name, and the only recorded example of the name around the time this Janna would have lived is the Hasmonean King Alexander Jannaeus.  Again I suspect the Joseph he's described as the son of could be his wife's father.

The only known wife of Alexander Jannaeus was Queen Salome Alexandra (Shelomtzion or Shlom Tzion).  Josephus tells us nothing about her family, but rabbinic traditions recorded in the Talmud say she was the sister of Simeon bar Shetah, Simeon's father was Shetah bar Yossei.  Since the Talmud is oral traditions written down at least 300 years after Salome's time it could be the nature of her relation to this family had slipped by a generation, making Simeon her nephew and Shetah her brother.  Since Yossei is a different form of Joseph, that would make Alexander Jannaeus a son in law of a Joseph.  Actually I can't help but suspect the Shetah generation is made up entirely since no Shetah was ever Nasi of the Sanhedrin but a Jose ben Joezer was, (however another candidate for the Joseph Luke 3:24 is Jose ben Jochanan).

Epiphanius of Salamis in Panarion Book 1 in the section discussing the Nazarenes seems to identify the marriage of Alexander and Salome as uniting the Aaronic and Davidic lines.

This family was one of the leading families of the Sanhedrin, from what I know about other leading families of the Sanhedrin (like the House of Hilel which came later), they often had Davidic ancestry.  And once the Hasmoneans started ruling as Kings it would make sense they'd want to marry into the House of David.  And the two Husbands of Alexandra were the first two to rule as Kings.  So Yossei being a descendant of Nathan Ben David is reasonably plausible.  But I have a hunch the mother Alexander & Aristobolus and wise of Hyrcanus I was also of Davidic descent.

Actually another good reason for Hasmonean leaders to marry daughters of David was perhaps simply because they were the High Priests.  Aaron's wife was Elisheba, the sister of Nashon who was a prince of Judah and direct ancestor of Boaz and thus David.  Much later Jehosheba was a daughter Jehoram and sister of Ahaziah, king of Judah of the House of David, who married the Priest Jehoiada.

Salome and Jannaeus had two sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristoblus II.  From then on with few exceptions all the Hasmoneans are known only by Greek names, but I suspect most also had Hebrew names that Josephus simply neglected to record.

But Melchi may not even be the main Hebrew name of whoever is meant, it derives from the Hebrew word for King.  Both sons had been Kings, though I feel Aristobulus II was more likely to have used Melek as an alternate name.

Aristobulus II had two sons and two daughters one of whom was named Alexandra (not to be confused with the Alexandra who married her brother Alexander).  Himself, his son Matthias Antigonus II, and his daughters are recorded as being taken to Rome by Pompey after he captured Jerusalem in 63 BC according to Josephus (Antiquities of The Jews Book 14 Chapter 4, at the end of the chapter).  They later returned to Judea, after the death of Aristobulus II in 48 BC they were protected by Ptolemy Bar Mennaeus according to (Antiquities Book 14 Chapter 7, at the very end).  Phillipon the son of Ptolemy married Alexandra, but later Ptolemy killed him and married Alexandra himself.  The unnamed daughter after Antigonus died held the Hyrcania Fortress till just before Actium in 31 BC.

I suspect the unnamed sister is more likely to have possibly been married to a Levi, (or perhaps that name just signified marrying a Levite or a Levitical priest).

Robert Graves started a fringe theory that involved Matthias Antigonus II as the Matthat of Luke 3:24 (a theory defended in a book called Herodian Messiah).  His scheme however did not match a strict literal interpretation of Scripture and so I do not intend to support it specifically at all.

Janna was a rare name which is why I think it could be significant.  Matthat/Matthias/Matthew was very common however, so that's not as significant.  Still hypothetically if this Matthat was Antigonus II, we know pater-lineally only one generation comes between him and Jannaeus, so it would mean he married either his niece or a first cousin once removed.  Neither of which are included in The Bible's incest restrictions, so it would be perfectly legal.

Matthias Antigonus is known to have had at least one daughter.

The Herodian Messiah theory alluded to above is dependent on confusing the two wives of Antipater.  Mariamne III who was a daughter of Aristobulus IV, and an unnamed wife who was a daughter of Matthias Antigonus.  The Herodian Messiah theory makes Antipater the husband of Mary and father of Jesus.  My theory makes a daughter of Antigonus possibly Mary's mother, not Mary herself.

Antipater is a Greek name, so Antipater son of Herod could have had an additional Hebrew or Aramaic name that history hasn't recorded.  Herod was not an Idumean.

It's possible this woman wasn't the only daughter of Antigonus II.  And it's also possible she was already a widow when she was married to Antipater, if Antigonus himself had ever arranged a marriage for her it wouldn't be likely to have been to a Herodian.

I think one factor in why Luke laid out this genealogy how he did was because of the potential significance in the numbers.  Luke's genealogy has Jesus as the 77th from Adam and 70th from Enoch.

Solomon was the youngest son of Bathsheba

People keep referring to Solomon as the oldest surviving son of Bathsheba, and Nathan as the second.

All three verses that list the sons of David and Bathsheba list Solomon as the last of the four and Nathan third.  2 Samuel 5:14, 1 Chronicles 3:5 and 1 Chronicles 14:4.

"And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:"

Also I don't believe the four listed here are only the "surviving" ones, I think even the one that died at birth was given a name, and that name was Shimea.

Among the things said by critics to attack the idea that Jesus had any claim to the Throne of David from Luke's genealogy is that the Throne could only be inherited through Solomon.  Solomon is relevant to II Samuel 7 because he is the near fulfillment, but nothing in Scripture says the Messiah must be descended from Solomon. On top of that go back to the account of the division of The Kingdom in I Kings 11.  It says Solomon's sons will never rule a United Kingdom, only Judah.  The Messiah will rule all of Israel.  Meanwhile Zachariah 12:12 makes a reference to the House of Nathan that is interesting.  And 2 Kings 23:11 has a mysterious reference to a "Chamber of Nathan-Melech" Melech meaning King.

Heli of Luke's genealogy is the father of Mary

I hold that common view, but I don't argue it in the more common way that view is presented.  It's not about Heli being Joseph's father in law, at least it's not only that.

In the Greek of Luke 3:23, first of all the order of words are different.  Secondly the entire genealogy in Greek only says "son of" once, and that's before the "as was supposed" which is put in parentheses.

In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article with one exception: the name of Joseph. Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that he was not really part of the genealogy.  I actually believe the parentheses in English should be expanded to include his name.

So I would render it.

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed of Joseph) of Heli,

Thomas Aquinus also said that Luke says Jesus was the Son of Eli (Heli is a Hellenization of Eli) though he didn't explain why.  Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, p. IIIa, q.31, a.3, Reply to Objection 2.

In both Greek and Hebrew the word for Son can mean Grandson or any descendant.

Tribal identity in Israel was usually determined strictly pater-lineally.  But in the case of bastards where the father was unknown, or a proselyte marrying an Israelite woman and fathering children by her, the pater-lineal tribal identity of the mother would determine the tribal identity of that offspring.

Another example of a bad argument to use on this issue is the Talmudic reference sometimes cited as saying Heli was the father of Mary (Chag. 77,4).  This reference only seems to say this when a Christian is quoting it, so independent verification is wanting, and it has been cited by adversaries of this view as saying something different.  

We should not build doctrine on Apocrypha, but the Infancy Gospel of James is interesting.  At first glance it would seem to contradict this view by clearly naming the father of Mary as Joachim.... But....

Joachim is a variant form of the name Jehoiakim.  There is only one Jehoiakim in The Bible, he was a King of Judah of the House of David.  The Infancy Gospel doesn't specify Joachim's ancestry, but it does call Mary a Virgin of the daughters of David.  

King Jehoiakim was also known by the name Eliakim.  Those names not only look similar in how they end, but they have effectively the same meaning, just using a different name of God to communicate the meaning.  "He whom God has kept".  So it's probable any Jehoiakim could have also been called Eliakim, especially if a later one was named after the King.

Eli could very easily serve as a shortening of Eliakim.  And as I already said Heli was a Hellenization of Eli.

Yet the Infancy Gospel wouldn't have done it this way if it was seeking out to say the Biblical Heli is Mary's father.  While plenty in the Infancy Gospel is clearly false, being the prototype of Catholic Marian doctrines.  It may have been influenced by some real history that was passed on.

Leftists should stop talking about Taxing The Rich

The YouTube Channel Tribunate has a good video on the Grain Dole of Ancient Rome.  There is a lot that’s misunderstood about it including over stating just how progressive it actually was.  But regardless it was upon introduction a massive relief to the Poor and Working Class.

And the Rich did not in any way pay for it, it was paid for unfortunately by the exploitation of the conquered people of the Colonies.  Not a single Grain of it was paid for by Taxing the wealthy.  Yet Rome’s Aristocratic Patricians hated it anyway, they despised it and never stopped trying to undermine and destroy it.  Because the more Desperate the poorest in a society are, the easier they are to exploit.

And that fact is even more true under modern Capitalism than it was in ancient economies.  

There are now a number of good YouTube videos on Modern Monetary Theory or MMT.  The fact is Modern States with Currency Sovereignty like the United States create the money they spend and do not need a source of income to have enough money.  One of 1dime's videos on the subject is about how wrong it is to claim social programs are funded by Taxing the Rich.

However 1dime said one thing in that video I do disagree with, he said we should still Tax the Rich for “moral reasons”, well in my opinion as a theologically conservative Christian doing things for “moral reasons” is the height of immorality actually, it’s founded upon an Idealist rather then materialist framework.  Morality should be based on reducing harm and benefiting society.

These videos do explain why some Taxation is still needed for the Government Backed Currency to have it’s objective value.  But once we understand that the Rich will oppose social programs like UBI and Free Healthcare and so on regardless and that how much money the Government has doesn't actually matter, I say we should stop giving them the excuse of perceived victimization, because however hallow to us online Leftists that is, America’s ruling ideology has made most even working class Americans very sympathetic to the idea of wanting to keep what you think you’ve earned.

And another added benefit is that if CasualHistorian is right about Lowering Taxes being the only truly unifying principle of the Republican Party, then once self proclaimed Communists stop pretending we need to tax the rich to achieve even our short term goals we can start trying to run in primaries even when only the Republican Party is having one.  Their Primaries are easier for a GrassRoots candidate to win anyway, and the right kind of Communist can build a coalition based on being pro Gun Rights and being  Libertarian on Social Issues and the non interventionist Anti-War wing of the Party.

I wish I understood this MMT stuff 4 years ago when I tried to argue something similar for after the 2020 Election.

A lot of Leftists like to use Austerity as a scare word, as a core embodiment of the Capitalist Economics they oppose.  Well the actual way to be the exact opposite of Austerity is to propose increased spending and lowering taxes at the same time.

We need to start making it more clear that our objective is for the masses to have more, not inherently for anyone to have less.  

But if the existence of the Ultra Wealthy bothers you that much, I believe what they have will naturally start to diminish once the masses are less exploitable, we don’t need to attack them directly.

Marriage in The Resurrection

I shall have to set up some context before getting to the passage I really intend to explain here.

First, what passage of Genesis ordains Marriage?  

If you have a positive view of marriage as a mutual co-equal partnership you are likely to answer Genesis 2:18 & 23-24.  Where the word for “help meet” or Helper is a word also used of God in his relationship with Humanity in Exodus 18:4 and Deuteronomy 33:7-26-29 and where how the union happens is if anything seemingly Matrilocal.

But if you have a more cynical view, if the marriage you mean is the marriage that Marx and Engels wanted to abolish, you are likely to answer Genesis 3:16 where Patriarchy is born.

In Hosea 2:16 we read “And it shall be at that day, saith YHWH, thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali”.  

Both of these are Hebrew words for Husband.  Ishi is the word for Husband (or man in the KJV) used in Genesis 2:23 which is based on the same root as the word for Wife/Woman while Baali also means Lord or Sovereign or ruler.  

The levirate marriage was an ancient custom in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 where if a husband died before producing a heir the wife would marry a near kinsman (brother if available) and the son conceived would be considered a of the dead husband in addition to his biological father.  This concept is also relevant to Genesis 38, The Book of Ruth and explaining apparent genealogical contradictions involving Zerubbabel.

What fascinates me about this law is how while there are no references to Polyandry in The Hebrew Bible the logic behind this law can certainly open the door to it.  What if a husband becomes unable to reproduce but is still alive?  But in the time of Jesus the Pharisees were still dominated by the Shammai school for whom such a permissive reading would have been unthinkable.

And so with those at first seemingly barely related subjects laid out I shall not interpret Matthew 22:23-30 and Mark 12:18-25, and more different from the others Luke 20:26-37.

The Sadducees seek to discredit the promised future Bodily Resurrection of The Dead by bringing up the Levirate Marriage and implying that would result in Polyandry.

Jesus first says “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. The Greek word translated Power here is Dunamis which gets translated a number of ways including “abundance”.  Jesus is identifying their core error as an underestimation of God not an overestimation of the long term existence of marriage.

Next Jesus says “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven”. “Given in marriage” is one word in the Greek, Jesus uses two verbs not the actual word for marriage itself.  

Who the “they” means in the context of what the Sadducees were talking about is key to understand here, they are thinking in the framework of marriage being a means by which a woman is possessed by her husband “whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her”.  It is women who Jesus is saying will no longer be passed around from one family or husband to another like a possession.

Luke’s version has a part about the Resurrected being “children of God” but that’s the same Gospel that called Adam the Son of God.  In Luke 17:27 Jesus also refers to marrying and “given in marriage” as part of what the people drowned in the Flood of Noah were doing.  Genesis 6 described their core Sin as Violence.

None of what Jesus said here can be interpreted as saying the Marriage of Genesis 2 where it was never about one party owning the other is discontinued.  In my view the “angels in heaven” are life forms living a Genesis 2 existence not the immaterial sexless phantoms Platonist Christian want them to be.

In the KJV the word Paradise only appears in the New Testament, that's because that Greek word is used for the Garden of Eden in the LXX and Revelation 2:7 confirms that’s still what it refers to.  That Paradise is in “Heaven” currently according to 2 Corinthians 12:4 but in Revelation 21-22 it returns to Earth as part of the New Jerusalem in the New Creation, which is also called The Lamb’s Wife. 

There is no marrying or giving in marriage in the Resurrection because the Body of Christ is a Polycule.

The Early Church agreed with me on Soul Sleep

1 Clement casually refers to the dead as Asleep just like the New Testament.  Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians makes no reference to any After Life, only the promise of Resurrection, same with the Rule of Faith and Old Roman Symbol.  

Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho 80:9 says that those who teach you to go to Heaven when you Die and deny the Bodily Resurrection are not Christians.  Defenders of the Intermediate State insist the point of this is only the later and the former is only wrong when it’s paired with the later. But to me the point is that they innately go together.

There are two Justin Quotes they then cite as in support of the Intermediate State, both are also from Dialogue with Trypho, one in chapter 5 and the other in chapter 6.  In both cases it is the other person not Justin himself talking, but still someone who is almost right just getting his Soul/Spirit distinction terminology off.  The Spirit Returns to God when the Body dies, but the Soul or Psyche in Greek is where Conciseness lies and is only awake when Body and Spirit are united. 

I think chapter 5 is using the word “place” in an abstract sense.  The righteous may be sleeping soundly then the unrighteous but both are still asleep.  The title of chapter 5 is “the Soul is not in itself immortal”.

What Justin says in response critiques the Platonism of their perspective.

Then chapter 18 and 20 of the First Apology are quoted.  Chapter 18 is about him reminding the Pagans and Philosophers reading what they already believe.  And in Chapter 20 all he conceded Christian belief to have in common with that is the word “sensation”.  In neither of these is explaining the Christian view of the Afterlife the objective  Again my view is that the Soul is Asleep not Dead.

Tatian who was influenced by Justin but also became heavily Platonized still held to the Soul not being Immortal. In Address to the Greek Chapter XIII even the Souls of believers are Dissolved until the Resurrection.

Athenogaras in On The Resurrection Chapter XVI lays out a Soul Sleep view quite clearly.

Now I’ve seen Athenogaros quoted in support of Soul Sleep using A Plea for The Christians chapter 31.   On The Resurrection is what he wrote specifically to clarify what he saw as the Christians on these issues, this apology written to a Pagan Audience naturally runs a greater risk of being misunderstood.

Yet still he speaks only of living a better life after this one, and calls it Heavenly not located in Heaven.  He says we will be near God because that’s what New Jerusalem will be.  

Marcu Minucius Felix in a dialogue titled Octavius Chapter XXXIV  presents Soul Sleep as the presumed common opinion of all Christians.

The first version of an intermediate state to emerge among Christians wasn’t about anyone going to “Heaven” but about Abraham’s Bosom being part of or right next to Hades deep inside the Earth.  This is the more logical conclusion to draw about Abraham’s Bosom when you take the Luke 16 Parable literally.  

We see this in Irenaeus Against Heresies 5.31.2 and the Discourse to the Greek Concerning Hades often attributed to Hippolytus.  Tertullian mostly followed them but had only the Martyrs go right to Heaven when they died.  Even Origen, the first real enemy of Soul Sleep, had to admit that Biblically Paradise is located within the Universe not outside of it, even Garden being moved to the ‘Third Heaven”  traditions would have still originally mean within the Universe, Heaven just meant the Sky and Outer Space to the Ancients.

The people who kept believing in Soul Sleep while the Greek and Latin Churches started moving away from it were various Semitic Christians.  It was Arab Christians Origen went after.  And then Aramaic Christians continued to teach Soul Sleep into the 4th and 5th Centuries like Apharat, Ephrem and Narsai.

Baptists are the most Ironically named type of Christian

I often get the sense that Secular people who don’t fully get internal Christian disagreements assume those called Baptists must be the ones with the most extreme views on Baptism.  But actually the difference in how Baptism is practiced by Baptists and before them Anabaptists that caused others to call them by those names is directly a result of seeing Water Baptism as not metaphysically important.

To a large extent what they actually see as most important is the belief in Separation of Church and State and the autonomy of the Local Congregation.  Now the second of those is a value they nominally share with Congregationalists, but there is a perception that this was watered down in the Congregationalists when they started wielding actual state power during the English Revolution and in the New England colonies.

I’m not a Landmark Baptist in the strictest sense, I certainly don’t think there needs to be an unbroken continuity of Believers Baptisms or “True Churches” going back to the Apostles.  And I disagree with Novatianism and Donatism.  But I do believe people who informally practiced Low Church Congregational Polity worship in defiance of the mainstream Church and State Authorities have always existed to some extent, sometimes they were also correct on Baptism and sometimes they weren’t.

The first Church was the Jerusalem Church, Eusebius' list of supposed Monepiscpal Bishops of Jerusalem up to the Bar Kokhba revolt is 15, 15 in barely over 100 years and when the first two he definitely has span all of the First Century AD. He’s clearly trying to impose Episcopal Polity onto a Church that didn’t have it. I think all of the last half of that list were people still alive when Hadrian banned Jews from the City. 

Epiphanius of Salamis conceded the Nazarenes of Aleppo and Bashan descended from that Jerusalem Church even though he was critical of their practices.  These Nazarenes were certainly Credo-Baptists given they continued the practice of Infant Circumcision.

Philadelphia has no traditional list of Bishops till Nicaea.  For Caesarea after attempting to identify a Biblical figure as its first Bishop Eusebius has no one till Theophilus in 189, and that’s when talking about his own Bishopric.

I talked about the origins of the Waldenses in the Smyrna post on my new Prophecy Blog

And I have a post on the evidence that some of the Brythonic Christians (particularly near Wessex) were Baptists. For possible continuity between them and 17th Century Congregationalists and Baptists in England and America look into this list of names. 

Lollardy

Walter Brute

John Clanvowe

John Badby

John Oldcastle

Hawise Mone

Thomas Harding

William Tyndale

Puritans

John Penry

William Wroth

Walter Cradock

Vavasor Powell

William Erbery

Jenkin Jones

Olchon

Howell Vaughn

Thomas Perry

John Reese Howell

William Vaughan among the first Baptists of Newport Rhode Island

Thomas Dungan a student of William Vaughan founded first Baptist Church in Pennsylvania

Elias Keach Baptized by Thomas Dungan and founded Pennepack Baptist Church in Pennsylvania

Isaac Eaton was raised in the Southampton Baptist Church which was a daughter of Pennepack

John Gano was Baptized by Isaac Eaton at Hoppewell

Midland Connections

Edward Wightman of Burton upon Trent near Shrewsbury

Daniel Wightman of the Second Baptist Church of Newport Rhode Island

George Wightman grandson of Edward immigrated to North Kingston Rhode Island in 1660

Stephen Mumford and his wife Anne of Tewkesbury immigrated to Newport Rhode Island in 1664 and founded the first Seventh Day Baptist Church in America

Valentine Wightman son of George first Pastor of a Baptist Church in Connecticut 

Wait Palmer baptized and ordained by Valentine Wightman

Shubal Stearns baptized and ordained in 1751 by Palmer in Connecticut

Vaughn/Vauhan are different forms of the same Welsh name, my theory is the William of Newport was a relative of the Howell of Olchon and that it was possibly also him who Baptized John Clarke and Ezekiel Holliman (who Baptized Roger Williams).  And I think Hansred Knolls became a Baptist before leaving New England under the influence of John Clarke.

I am highly skeptical of the claim that John Gano Baptized George Washington, that is not why I considered him a notable figure to mention here.

With William Kiffin one of the contradictions in his biographical timeline is how some say he was still in Henry Jersey's congregation till 1644 while others say he was leading his own already in 1641.

John Penry does seem the most Proto-Baptist of the 1593 Puritan martyrs, here's a Quote I copy/pasted from A brief Baptist Church history.

"The Church I believe to be a company of those whom the world calleth saints, which do not only profess in word that they know God, but are also subject to his laws and ordinances in deed. With his Church, I do believe that the Lord of his mere favour hath entered into a covenant that He will be their God and they shall be His people. The seals of the Covenant are only two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. The Church on earth I do not believe to be perfect, although in regard to the order which the Lord has appointed it for the same it must be absolute, but to have many faults and wants in it; yet I assuredly believe that all the true members thereof shall, at the day of judgement receive their perfect communion by Jesus Christ and be crowned with Him with eternal glory, of His mere grace and not for any merit of their own."

I think his influence may be overlooked.

Infant Baptism wasn't practiced by the Very Early Church.

The Didache is often considered the earliest Extra Biblical Writing.  Chapter 7 is its instructions for Baptism.

“And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.”

And we also see a description of how Baptism works in Justin Martyr’s First Apology chapter 61.

“I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. John 3:5 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it. Isaiah 1:16-20

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.”

In both cases clearly only Baptism of Adults are being described.  If Infant Baptism already existed then some distinctions for how that would obviously work differently would need to be made.  But none of these instructions would need to be different for Adults raised in the Faith after reaching a certain rather than Converts.

Pedo-Baptists try to infer Infant Baptism in various things said by Irenaeus or the Martyrdom of Polycarp or the Shepherd of Hermas but they are all things with other explanations.  

Largely they are tied to assumptions about Water Baptism that Credo-Baptists dispute, but I do think those eros actually came first and Infant Baptism is the symptom.  Treating every Biblical reference to Baptism as about Water Baptism when the most important are not about that.  And misunderstanding Colossians as saying Circumcision replaces Baptism when in fact Paul's point is that for both the physical ritual is merely a symbol.

The earliest provable unambiguous references to Infant Baptism are in the Third Century, Tertullian and Origen, then Cyprian was the first to really stress it as obligatory.

I agree that the Novatians were Credo-Baptists even though I disagree with them on their defining doctrine, but not the Donatists.

At least some of the Britons were still Credo-Baptists as late as the early 7th Century.

Chie Oneesama, Personified Wisdom

The Book of Proverbs particularly Chapter 8, Matthew 11:19 and Luke 7:35 are the primary Biblical Basis for the concept of a Divine Personified Wisdom.  Both the Hebrew Chokmah and the Greek Sophia are grammatically Feminine hence personified Wisdom being often depicted as a Feminine Human.

Proverbs 7:4 tells us to call Wisdom our Sister.  The two Jesus quotes refer to Believers as children of Wisdom which some use to instead make Sophia a Mother figure.  But the word for Children used there is not the standard Greek word for Son or Daughter or the word for Offspring used in Acts 17, it’s much more vague about the actual familial relationship being implied and often doesn’t inherently imply one at al being just the basic Greek word for child, but it does here due to the possessive pronouns.  It would not be inappropriate in my view for referring to the younger siblings of an older sister.

Chie is a grammatically Feminine Japanese word for Wisdom and Oneesama is the most prestigious of words one would use to address an older sister.  In Anime it’s most often used in a Class S context, as in not a biological relative but a term of endearment for a Senpai you particularly admire.  Hence my Weebified title for this post.

The main internal debate within Christianity about Wisdom is if this title refers to The Holy Spirit or Jesus, Jesus eventually became the mainstream assumption hence bad Septuagint translations of certain Proverbs 8 verses being used to justify a Pre-Incarnate begetting of The Logos before the Creation of the Cosmos.  But one of the first Extra-Biblical expressions of The Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch defining it as The Father, The Logos and Sophia.  Also both Theophilus and Irenaeus seme to identify the Holy Spirit with Sophia in how they interpret Psalm 33:6.

Previously on this Blog I strongly favored The Holy Spirit view, but I don’t think it actually matters that much and Theophilus of Antioch is someone I have mixed opinions on.  So I want to look into it deeper.

First I want make clear that The Holy Spirit has a Feminine aspect whether they’re Wisdom or not The Hebrew word for Spirit is also Grammatically Feminine, the Greek word is technically Gender Neutral but by ending with an A sound it leans towards sounding Feminine especially to Semitic Language trained ears.

The Holy Spirit's Feminine references are so well known that some some think she's only ever Feminine but the title of Parakletos is Masculine.

Jesus also has a Feminine side whether He is Wisdom or not.  He is the Desire of Nations of Haggai 2:7 which is Feminine in the Hebrew.  Isaiah 53:7 confirmed to be about Jesus in Acts 8:32 also uses Grammatically Feminine language (in fact one of the words for Lamb/Sheep is identical to the name of Rachel).  The Sun of Righteousness of Malachi 4:2 is also a grammatically feminine title in The Hebrew.   Also Jesus is called The Image of God which Genesis 1:27 and 5:1-2 define as both Male and Female.  Also a prominent Hebrew word for Salvation is the Feminine form of the name Yeshua.  Luke 2:21 does clearly tell us Jesus’s Incarnate Body (Which He still has) was Assigned Male at Birth, but his Identity is both Male and Female.   And I have argued Shulamith is a type of Jesus not The Church in the Song of Songs.

The main argument against Jesus being Wisdom would be those quotes I mentioned at the start where He refers to Wisdom in the third person.  But there are other times where He refers to a Title or Aspect of Himself in the Third Person, like all the Son of Man verses.

The verses cited to prove Jesus is Wisdom are 1 Corinthians 1:24 and 30 and 1 Corinthians 2:7 (or the entirety of 1 Corinthians 1:17-2:13) and Colossians 2:3, from what I've found so far at least.  However I don’t get that sense that the Proverbs 8 Personified Wisdom is the point of any of those, in Context Paul is using the word Wisdom explicitly in relation to Greek Philosophy, which it may surprise you to learn didn’t really have a Divine Personified Wisdom concept yet, not in Platonism or Stoicism and certainly not Epicureanism, the Gnostics got that from their Judeo-Christian sources.

It’s also important to remember that the Incarnate Jesus was the Vessel of The Holy Spirit while he walked the Earth and is who sent the Comforter which Proceeds from The Father to us at Pentecost.  So aspects of The Holy Spirit can be said to come from Jesus or be manifested in Jesus.

A lot of my past argument for supporting the Holy Spirit view was verses from The Pentateuch and Isaiah 11:2 that speaks of there being a Spirit of Wisdom and making the Spirit of YHWH the source of Wisdom.  The Pentateuch verses are Exodus 28:3, 31:3, 35:31 and Deuteronomy 34:9. 

However it’s important to remember that God as a whole is Spirit (Spirit in 1st Century Greek and Biblical Hebrew did not mean Immaterial) as shown by John 4:24.  In fact Isaiah 11:2 can be interpreted as a Trinitarian Formula calling each person of The Trinity a Spirit of YHWH.  

But I do think the Spirit of YHWH with a Definite Article typically refers to the Third Person of the Trinity and Revelation 1:4 and 4:5 seem to imply The Holy Spirit has a further Sevenfold division only three of which were singled out in Isaiah.  And Isaiah 11:2 listed the Spirit of Wisdom and Understanding first rather than second or third.

So that leads me to still favoring the Holy Spirit view, but it is ultimately unclear. 

The Sign of The Son of Man

So I recently encountered a Full Preterist arguing that because Jesus called his Resurrection a Sign in Matthew 16:1-4 the General Resurrection isn’t materially the same because it’s not a Sign of something else.

This is one of those arguments I find kind of silly, but I want to respond to it anyway.

First of all I have argued that the “Sign of the Son of Man” in Matthew 24:30 is the General Resurrection of that Dead because of how Jesus used that language back in chapter 16 to refute Pre-Tibbers who argue Matthew 24’s Parousia can’t be the same event as “The Rapture” of 1 Thessalonians 4 and 1 Corinthians 15 because there appears to be no Resurrection there.

But more importantly Jesus does not call His Resurrection a Sign to define it as merely a Sign, the only Sign that generation received is Him doing exactly what He came to do, He’s not doing anything JUST to prove Himself.

I could also get semantical about how the Sign of the Prophet Jonah here is strictly speaking not the Resurrection itself but the time period between death and resurrection being three days.

The entire point of 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus' Resurrection is NOT a mere Sign but exactly what The Gospel is.  What makes it a true Evangelion, true Good News, is that it’s not just Jesus, as Jesus was risen so will all those who are Christ’s at his Parousia and ultimately absolutely everyone.

Corporate Body View of the Resurrection

This is a view I’ve seen held by Full Preterists as an alternative way to explain how the General Resurrection of The Dead promised by 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 20 and other Passages is already Fulfilled.

Now it seems from those I’ve looked at so far to still functionally lead to the exact same Metaphysical conclusion, that our Individual promise of Immortality is as “Spirits” in “Heaven” not our current Fleshy Bodies being made Immortal.  However I could see the exact same Tactics being used by modern Sadducees to deny any kind of After Life at all.

The core argument is taking the Body of Christ Doctrine, particularly how it's expressed in 1 Corinthians 12 and insisting the “Body” discussed in 1 Corinthians 15 is only that Body not individual Bodies.

First of all it is a Lexical Fallacy to insist the word Body must still only refer to the same thing it did earlier, Paul is focusing on a different topic in Chapter 15.

But regardless of that what Paul means by all Believers being the Body of Christ is specifically our Physical Bodies, our Flesh.  That’s why his argument against Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16 is that the Members of Christ should not be joined to a Harlot.  Each individual Body is a Member of the Body of Christ the same way our Limbs are Members of our individual bodies.  Romans 12:4-5 says the same thing.

The Body of Christ Doctrine is derived from the Bride of Christ Doctrine, we are One Flesh with Christ the same way Husband and Wife are One Flesh.

And it’s also tied to us being The Temple of God which Paul starts laying out in 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 and returns to in Chapter 6:19-20.  In John 2:21 the individual Incarnate Body of Jesus is called “the Temple of His Body”.  In Paul both each Individual body is the Temple of God and all of our Bodies are Collectively The Temple of God.  2 Peter 1:13-14 also refers to each individual body as a Tabernacle as does Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4.

So The Corporate Body of Christ can only be said to be risen if Each and Every Individual Body is Risen.

They also focus on the fact that the word Body is only ever used in a singular form in 1 Corinthians 15.  This is a misunderstanding of how Language works, Paul is keeping most of the language Singular so each individual can feel like they are being individually spoken to on some level.  It is a message for everyone which means each individual.

To simply read 1 Corinthians 15 and try to force it to only be using the word Body in some legal sense and not about carnal bodies being buried and then risen is absurd.  That is not the natural impression any of this Language gives no matter how Paul used the word Body earlier.

Flesh Will Inherit The Kingdom of Heaven Actually

Luke 3:6 says that all Flesh shall see the Salvation of God.

I know many of you are thinking I just explicitly disagreed with 1 Corinthians 15:50.

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."

But that's a verse that is commonly misunderstood because of people proof texting it out of context.  Starting with how they even drop the last part of that verse about Corruption and Incorruption.

The next verse talks about how we will be Changed at the General Resurrection, and the verse after that saying we'll be raised Incorruptible and Changed.

Verse 53-54 say.

"For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.  So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."

So placing verse 50 in the context of all that, what is clearly meant is that bodies of MERE Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the Kingdom.  The difference between our future Resurrected Bodies and how our Bodies are now is entirely a matter of what will be added we currently lack not anything being taken away

This is also why II Corinthians 5:2-3 refers to us as currently Naked because we lack our true Spiritual clothing.  We are not Spirits trapped in Bodies but Bodies that lack Spirit.

That Flesh and Blood cannot inherit the kingdom is the problem the Incarnation is meant to solve.

People will also use selective quotations of verses 35-38 and 42-46 to say "the Body raised isn't the same Body that was buried", ignoring how Paul is saying all of this in the context of an allegory of planting a Seed or Grain in the Earth and then a much larger Plant growing out of it.  It is being called a different body because of how it's nature has changed, not because there is no material biological continuity.  The fact is if it's a completely new body being created from scratch there is no reason to use the word "raised".

Also Paul's use of "Celestial" in this Chapter means "Heavenly" as in the Sky and Outer Space, no one in Paul's times used the word "Heaven" to mean some non Material world of Forms, Pre-Christian Platonists called that a place beyond Heaven.  Same with Spirit, it did not mean "non Material" too any first Century Greek speakers.

Again a good visual metaphor for what I think our change at the Resurrection will be like is a Transformation sequence from a Magical Girl Anime.

Biblically Orange isn’t a real Color

The word “Orange” does not occur anywhere in the King James Bible or to my knowledge any other English Translations either.  The modern Hebrew word for the Color Orange is Katom but like a lot of modern Hebrew words it is a recent addition to the language.

Hebrew isn’t the only Language however where acknowledging Orange as a distinct color is a recent development.  Even English didn’t name a color Orange till like 500 years ago, the Color was named after the fruit not the other way around.  And the Japanese Language didn’t have any word for Orange till it’s modern Westernization started.

How we classify and think about Colors is to a large extent culturally constructed, that doesn’t mean different cultures are literally not seeing the same things we see.  But it does mean how we think about and classify them isn’t always the same.

Now a lot of people make a lot of mistakes when choosing Blue to be the color they focus on for talking about this, Blue is actually one of the oldest Colors to get a word it in most languages, and I’ve seen at least one person spreading this “Ancients didn’t see the color Blue” myth say Blue isn’t in The Bible even though anyone as Biblically literate at me knows that the Veil of the Temple basically has the color scheme of the Bisexual Flag.  The Hebrew word for Blue is Tekhelet, Red is Edom, Purple is Argaman, Greek is Yereq and Yellow is Tsahab.  

I really started thinking about the subjectiveness of the very existence of Orange as a distinct color when I was watching MandJTV’s video about Pokémon Colors.  Pokémon Home’s official Color designations for Pokémon can be subjectively disagreed with for many reasons.  But a big part of it is them not having the color Orange at all, every Pokémon you are likely thinking of as an Orange Pokémon is classified as either Red or Brown.

The thing about calling Nintendo Officially wrong on this however is that the list of “Orange” Pokémon officially classified as Red includes Charmander and Charizard, Charizard is Iconically the Box Art Mascot of Pokémon Red and FireRed in both Japan and the West and that is why they are often paired with the Human Character officially named Red.

As I thought about this I began to notice other ways in which Orange as a distinct color seems to be ignored in Japanese Media.  There has never been an Orange Power Ranger to my knowledge because there has never been an Orange Sentai, at least not one called Orange.  Now Purple Rangers are also rare but that’s because Japan associates Purple with Shadows and Darkness and so that color is often reserved for Villains or at least Antiheros.  There is an Anime literally called Orange, but I haven’t watched it yet so I have no idea what to expect, it could be named after the Fruit rather then Color given how there is an Anime called Citrus.

When I was first taught about Colors in School as a kid I was taught that Red, Blue and Yellow are the primary colors while Green, Purple and Orange are the secondary colors each made from combining two of the primary colors.  That’s based on how paints are made, in terms of how Light and our Eyes work it's actually a misleading system.

In our eyes the three Primary Colors are actually Green, Red and Blue with everything else deriving from how they interact.  Yellow is in fact the product of combining Red and Green while Orange is an imperfect Yellow that is more Red.

Besides the Fruit which the Color is now synonymous with, everything else you can think of as being Orange is more anciently culturally associated with either Red, Brown or Yellow.  Fire, the Sun, sand and deserts, ect.  Meanwhile Brown is really just Dark Orange and has itself been anciently associated with Red (Biblically many think the Red associated with Esau and David was probably Brown).  Also think about how often people called Gingers (Red Haired) really have Orange hair.

I spent much of my life thinking I was mildly Color Blind where the Color Orange is concerned for struggling to distinguish that color from Yellow or Red. I didn’t even notice that Charmander and Charizard were technically not Red till I watched this video a few days ago.  But now I know that both God and Anime see that color the same way I do.

Napoleon Restored the Revolution of 1789

The notion that Napoleon’s 18 Brumaire Coup represented the complete undoing of everything the French Revolution fought for is the greatest misnomer in all Historical Discourse.

The radical even by modern standards political visions of the Girondins, Colliders, Jacobins and Enrages had already been dead for years but were themselves the product of the Revolution moving beyond its original goal.  After half a decade of rule by the Centrists devoid of any real political vision Napoleon was supported by multiple key leaders of the original Revolution.  

Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes was the original ideological leader of the Revolution, his “What is the Third Estate” was the Declaration of Independence of the Bourgeoisie.  He had faded into the background when the Revolution was radicalized and then became a vital backer of Napoleon’s Coup.

Of course he and a lot of the well known spokesmen of Bourgeoisie ideology were not strictly speaking of the Bourgeoisie themselves.  Someone who was would be Claude Perier who played an overlooked material role in starting the Revolution in 1789, was not fond of the Radicalism of 1792-94 and then was another vital backer of Napoleon and was among the founders of the Bank of France.

Even when Napoleon later became Emperor he was embodying the Pre-Revolution concept of the Enlightened Monarch.

This is the problem I have with Peter Coffin’s “Leftism is the Left Wing of Capitalism” nonsense.  The French Revolution started and ended as a Bourgeoisie Revolution because of its Right Wing.

The Enrages were Proto Marxist-Leninists the Conspiracy of the Equals were proto Libertarian Socialists.  The Girdondins may not have been Socialist enough to fit an official definition but they would have been enough for the CIA to overthrow them in a Coup during the Cold War.

Am I a Marxist?

Marxism is strictly speaking not a Socio-Economic or Political Ideology but a way of looking at History.  That can have implications on how one looks towards achieving their political goals, but you can in theory agree with a Marxist analysis of history while having politics that are the opposite of Marx’s.

At its broadest most basic sense Marxism is viewing history as primarily driven by Class Conflict and Material Conditions.  And in that I am essentially Marxist.  And my political goals are also the same, I am a Communist who desires a Moneyless, Classless Stateless Society.

However I view a lot of the specifics of how Marx and Engels framed their History of Class Conflict as gravely mistaken, which many contemporary Marxists and especially MLs still cling to dogmatically.  The division of eras simplistically into Primitive-Communism then “Slavery” then “Feudalism” then Capitalism being where we are now is very problematic in how biased towards a Western Perspective it is.  But even within that Western Perspective is still an oversimplification and tied to now outdated terminology.  The Socio-Economic Mode of Production of the Middle Ages is better defined as Manorialism not “Feudalism” for one example.

I have prior posts on this Blog already talking about aspects of all that.  But for further understanding of how wrong both the Marxist and common Liberal understanding of “Feudalism” and the Middle Ages is I recommend reading the book Those Terrible Middle Ages Debunking The Myths by Regine Pernoud and/or watching the YouTube videos on this Playlist I made.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4CWxmx4wepgNS9Ql6ZQfxjbA5XkJ4OSP

Marxism is an Apostate child of Hegelianism.  Hegelianism was all about viewing History as driven by Conflicts, New Atheists are very Hegleian in their devotion to the discredited Science vs Religion Conflict thesis.  But I say Apostate because while keeping a form Conflict in his view of History Marx also rejected the Idealism that Hegel inherited from Kant and Plato preferring to see things Materialistically like an Empiricist or Epicurean or Aristotelian or Stoic.  But Marx and Engels were not the first Materialist Worker focused Socialists, before them came Flora Tristan and Moses Hess.

TIK ignores the ways in which Marx Apostatized from Hegelianism in building his little Ideological Genealogy.  He recognized Aristotelianism as ultimately independent of Platonism in-spite of how Aristotle started as a student of Plato, well Marx is to Hegel as Aristotle was to Plato.

However the Marxists have brought this on themselves by not rejecting all the Hegelian terminology they should have.  “Dialectical Materialism” is an Oxymoron, Dialectics is definitionally an idealist concept having its roots in Pythagorean Dualism.  It no longer means what it originally meant in how Marx and Engels use the word, but modern Marxists fall right back into Hegelian Idealism for example in how Slavoj Zizek refuses to see a third option existing for anything including Gender.

Being a Communist and being a Zionist on the Internet are very similar.

I can explain how I'm a Communist because I believe in Collective Ownership of the means of production while working towards the goal of a Moneyless, Classless, Stateless Society.  Or that I’m a Zionist because I support the Israelis right to self determination in their Ancient Homeland.  And for every response that does attempt to engage with what I said I support there are far more than just go “look at the obviously evil things done by this Nation-State” which has nothing to do with those principals.

So let me make myself clear, I am no apologist for the actions of Israel especially not recently, or of Modern China or North Korea or the Soviet Union for most of its history.  Now Cuba, Vietnam and Laos I do think are reasonably successful Communist experiments, but they aren’t hills I’m willing to die on either.

Also as an American Citizen I firmly oppose the U.S. getting involved in any Middle East conflict on either side, in any way, either Military or Financially.

Even if a given Nation-State’s ruling ideology has no significant differences on paper from the specific form of Communism or Zionism I espouse, that would still not make every action that State took a reflection of the ideology.

However, that's not the case.  I’m a Labour-Zionist, and yes a lot of Israeli Prime Ministers were too, but their Labour party was diluted not unlike the British Labor Party.  Israel isn’t the only Capitalist State to ever have nominal Socialist Prime Ministers, even Japan had one briefly in the mid 90s.  But now Israel has for nearly 30 years been dominated by Likud, the Israeli equivalent of the LDP, an Authoritarian Socially Conservative and Economically Capitalist Party.

And with Communism every Communist State has been not just specifically Marxist but more specifically Leninist.  Lenin was actually already controversial within Marxism, both in Russia and outside of it, before even the 1905 Russian Revolution happened.  So no Bolshevism didn’t become what makes it distinct from other Marxisms as a result of being a ruling party.  Rosa Luxemburg predicted why Lenin’s Vanguardism would prove inherently corrupt and what happened vindicated her completely.  

One of her main points was the innate spontaneity of a true Popular Revolution, something Lenin refused to accept after the February Revolution spreading conspiracy theories that it was an Allied plot (his Revolutionary Defeatism” was always just an excuse for siding with the Central Powers, he was no true Pacifist).

Another of her main points was about Bureaucracy, which Lenin mocked people for being concerned about.  This is why Trotskyism, as sympathetic to Trotskyists as I sometimes am also fails, you can’t pretend you are rejecting only Stalin not Lenin when Lenin mocked you in advance.

I don’t claim to have all the answers to figure out how to do either Communism or Zionism correctly.  But I do know good Zionism needs to also respect the right to self determination of the other people living west of the Jordan.  And any desire to expand Israel’s border East of the Jordan is unacceptable.

Soul Sleep and Christian Mortalism are not the same

 And yet they’re stuck sharing the same Wikipedia Page.

Soul Sleep and believing the Soul is just as dead as the body between physical death and physical resurrection have a lot in common, both reject the Platonist/Pythagorean/Essene/Origenist view of The Soul that has become the mainstream popular view. One definitely does and the other still could involve a lack of any concise state between death and resurrection.  

But Soul Sleep allows more wiggle room, it could allow Souls in Sheol/Hades/The Grave to be in a sort of Dreamlike state, same with the Martyrs under the Altar in the Throne Room in Revelation 6 at the 5th Seal and later washing their robes in chapter 7.  Which gives me flexibility in how to deal with passages that seem to imply a pre resurrection afterlife.

But more importantly the idea that the Soul is just dead is what Annihilationists tend to believe.

What Jesus says in Matthew 10:28 is important here.

“And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Annihilationists like Lex Meyer seem to think this verse proves their position even though it contradicts it.  If the Soul simply dies when the body dies then anyone who can kill the body can kill the Soul.  Instead killing the Soul is something only God can do, and Jesus goes on to assure us God never would do that.  And in John 11:26 Jesus promises us that we will NEVER die.

The New Testament refers to the dead as asleep multiple times.  That’s why I consider Soul Sleep the face value Biblical View and the burden of proof is on those who reject it.  And the verses they most cling to I've already addressed here.

https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2019/09/do-we-have-promise-that-we-will-be-with.html

It’s also the most ancient traditional view being implied in Justin Martyr and explicitly taught by Athenagoras.  It was also the View of the Smyrna-Lyon tradition of Polycarp-Irenaeus and possibly compatible with what Tertullian taught.  Some who actually believe in Soul Sleep may have unwittingly used more Mortalism based language, so I remain unsure what to think of Tatian, Octavius or Marcus Minucius Felix.

The fact that so many mainstream Christians now treat Soul Sleep as a damnable heresy shows how far we’ve fallen into Platonist Error.

Soul Mortalism is still closer to the Biblical Truth then the mainstream view, but I do want the difference to be known as well as that Soul Sleep is where I stand.

Update October 22nd 2024: This Article by a John Anderson provides a large list of times The Dead are referred to as Asleep.

https://www.fulcrum7.com/apologetics/2021/1/29/fifty-four-texts-that-describe-death-as-sleep#:~:text=The%20Bible%20calls%20death%20%E2%80%9Csleep,the%20Mount%20of%20Transfiguration%20(Mat.

That Author probably holds other Beliefs I disagree with, I haven't read the entire website and even in this article takes the ill advised Tactics of quoting Ecclesiastes  at face value, and clearly doesn't seem to believe in Universal Salvation.  But regardless it's a good resource.

So I'm gonna copy/Paste the list of Verses from that article here, he doesn't say which Translation he used but I'm confident the KJV agrees with all of these..

Deuteronomy 31:16: “The Lord said to Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers.”

II Samuel 7:12:  “When thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers.""

I Kings 1:21:  “When my lord the king shall sleep with his fathers.”

I Kings 2:10:  “David slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 11:21:  “David slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 11:43:  “Solomon slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 14:20: “Jeroboam...slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 14:31:  “Rehoboam slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 15:8: “Abijam slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 15:24:  “Asa slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 16:6:  “Baasha slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 16:28:  “Omri slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 22:40:  “Ahab slept with his fathers.”

I Kings 22:50:  “Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers.”

II Kings 8:24:  “Joram slept with his fathers”

II Kings 10:35:  “Jehu slept with his fathers”

II Kings 13:9:  “Jehoahaz slept with his fathers”

II Kings 13:13:  “Joash slept with his fathers”

II Kings 14:16:  “Jehoash slept with his fathers”

II Kings 14:22:  “The king slept with his fathers”

II Kings 14:29:  “Jeroboam slept with his fathers”

II Kings 15:7:  “Azariah slept with his fathers”

II Kings 15:22: “Menahem slept with his fathers”

II Kings 15:38:  “Jotham slept with his fathers”

II Kings 16:20:   “Ahaz slept with his fathers”

II Kings 20:21:  “Hezekiah slept with his fathers”

II Kings 21: 18:  “Manasseh slept with his fathers”

II Kings  24:6:  “Jehoiakim slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 9:31:  “Solomon slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 12:16:  “Rehoaboam slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 14:1:  “Abijah slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 16:13:  “Asa slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 21:1:  “Jehoshaphat slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 26:2:  “The king slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 26:23:  “Uzziah slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 27:9:   “Jotham slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 28:27:  “Ahaz slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 32:33:  “Hezekiah slept with his fathers”

II Chron. 33:20:  “Manasseh slept with his fathers”

Job 7:21:  “Now shall I sleep in the dust”

Job 14:12:  “They shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep”

Psalm 13:3:  “Lest I sleep the sleep of death”

Psalm 90:5:  “Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep”

Psalm 146:4  “His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.” 

Daniel 12:2:  “Many of they that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake”

Jesus described death as “sleep”:

Matthew 9:24:  “The maid is not dead but sleepeth.”

Mark 5:39:  “The damsel is not dead but sleepeth”

Luke 8:52:  “She is not dead but sleepeth”

John 11:11:  “Our friend Lazarus sleepeth”

At Jesus’ crucifixion: 

Matthew 27:52: “Many bodies of the saints which slept arose”

Luke reiterates I Kings:

Acts 13:36:  “David...fell asleep, and was laid unto his fathers”

Paul describes death as sleep:

I Cor. 15:20:  “Christ is risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that sleep”

I Cor. 15:51:  “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed”

I Thess 4:13:  “I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren,  concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope”

I Thess. 4:14:  “If we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus”

And in the comments section 2 Peter 3:4 is added.