Divine Impassability and Divine Immutability

Are two doctrines that I had mistakenly conflated with each other in some of my past posts mentioning Divine Impassability on this blog. But they are related.

Divine Impassibility is the position that God did not suffer when Jesus was on Th Cross, it doesn't deny the Divinity of Christ, but holds that it was only in His Humanity that He Suffered.  Divine Immutability is the position that God doesn't change.  They tend to go together because Suffering is often both the cause and effect of some kind of Change.

The three way dispute between Chalcedonian, Nestorian and Miaphysite Christologies from the 5th and 6th Centuries is arguably pure semantics since all three were/are Nicene Trinitarians who view Christ as both Fully Divine and Fully Human.  The Nestorians held that Christ has two Natures, Divine and Human, that are not in any way mixed.  The Miaphysite position is that Christ has One Nature that is both Divine and Human.  The Chalcedonian position is that Christ had Two Natures, Divine and Human, that are mixed in the Incarnation.  The Bible doesn't directly address any of that, but my understanding of the Biblical Metanarrative leads me to favoring the Chalcedonian position, even if there are some details of the Chalcedonian Confession I don't like.

Thing is what makes these disputes a little less semantical are the other issues tied into them.  My greatest affinity with Nestorianism is that I don't like calling Mary Theotokos.  However since the technical accuracy of the term is not my issue with it, it's really irrelevant to the actual dispute Nestorius, Cyril and others were having 15 centuries ago.

While Divine Impassability is affirmed by theologians in all three camps, it was the Nestorians for whom it was the core of their position, and they alone who accused both other camps of rejecting Divine Impassability whether they would have self identified as doing so or not.  That is why in-spite of my respect for the Ancient Church of the East and how much I prefer the Antiochene School's approach to Scripture over the Alexandrian, I have to reject Nestorian Christology.

Thing is the Nestorians were not wrong to suggest that it's rather illogical to claim Divine Impassability if you believe the Divine and Human Natures were fully United in the Incarnation.  Cyril of Alexandria's attempts to justify himself on this involved a lot of Platonist Philosophical nonsense.  And that is why I unapologetically reject Divine Impassability.

But I still oppose misrepresenting Nestorius or the Ancient Church of The East, they did and still do believe Christ was one Person/Personality.  But the Miaphysites also get misrepresented, they were NOT Monophysites.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council affirmed the Theopaschite formula in it's 10th Canon.  And yet Impassability has still been affirmed by theologians belonging to Churches that nominally uphold that Council, thanks to Augustine's influence in the West and Cyril's in the East, so that canon gets ignored.  When the Fifth Council is brought up today it's only to debate what/who it did or did not condemn, never what it affirmed.  But getting the Theopaschite Formula affirmed was the whole point of the Council at the time, Justinian thought that would be the key to mending the Chalcedonian schism.

The fact that I agree with Justinian on the Theopaschite formula doesn't change that I despise him as a Ruler.  His obsession with trying to force everyone to agree only made them dig their heels in deeper.

Another issue related to the Divine Impassability v Theopaschite debate is Patripassianism, did The Father also suffer?  I would argue He Suffered in the way any Father watching His Son Suffer would Suffer, but that is distinct from feeling the Physical pain.

Augustine of Hippo used to be a Manichean Gnostic, and the whole reason he once held a Gnostic attitude towards the God of the Old Testament was because he was uncomfortable with the idea of God being so Emotional.  It was Ambrose telling he can just allegorize away all of those verses that finally enabled Augustine to abandon Gnosticism and become "Orthodox".  To me it is Augustine being someone who doesn't want an Emotional God that is the source of everything wrong with this Theology.

While strictly speaking the word Impassibility refers to is Suffering, to some this doctrine refers to God not feeling Pleasure as well.  To me this rejecting of God being an Emotional being at all is pure Platonic/Pythagorean heresy and utterly in conflict with The Hebrew Bible and The New Testament which teaches that God Is Love as the experience of Love tends to involve both Pleasure and Pain.

On the subject of Divine Immutability, it depends what you mean by it.  Malachi 3:6 is what most gets abused here as people keep quoting it while ignoring it's context.  That God keeps His Promises doesn't change, that He Is Love won't change, therefore He will NOT allow His People to be Consumed.  That Core aspect of Who God Is does not change.  It's the same with Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same Yesterday, Today and Forever" the context is about Grace and Jesus being a Sacrifice offered for us, it's about His essential character not some absolute declaration that nothing can ever change, as Romans 8:35 and it's context make clear.

But The Bible also refers to God Repenting (See Exodus 32:14 and Numbers 14:12-20; Jonah 3:10; Amos 7:3-9; Jeremiah 26:3), repent means to change one's mind.  And I feel the whole point of the Incarnation is that Humanity and Divinity are both permanently changed by being United in Christ.  The Hyper Immutability that is favored by Nestorius, Cyril and Augustine is again a heresy based on the Greek and Roman Churches' infatuation with Platonic and Pythagorean theology, not Scripture.

Divine Immutability doesn't begin with Plato or Pythagoras however but with Xenophanes.

There is also the matter of one of the most vital passages to defining God in all of scripture.  The famous "I Am that I am" statement, many scholars have argued a more accurate translation would be "I Am who I Am Becoming" or "I Will Be whom I Will Be", meanings that imply change even if in a paradoxical way due to God's knowing the future.  I personally have grown to like "I Am whom I Will Be", "Watashi wa watashi ga dare ni naru ka".

Update September 2022: I bought Robert C. Gregg and Dennis E. Groh's Early Arianism - a view of salvation for the purpose of research on the Arian controversy I'm doing for the sake of a possible future post.  But two things I didn't expect to learn were. 1. Arius had a fixation on Divine Impassability similar to the future Nestorians.  2. The Arians used Divine Immutability against the Nicenes by proving the changeability of The Son.  And this was kind of their greatest strength because Athanasius was unwilling to abandon Divine Immutability.

The Changeability the Arians the argued for The Son was for Improvability, which you may at first think doesn't correlate to the Changeability I am here arguing for The Godhead, but from a certain point of view it is.  God incarnating and becoming fully Human made Him a better God.  Hebrews stresses how Jesus faced all the Temptations normal humans face yet never sinned.  Not sinning is easy when you aren't even tempted, it is facing Temptation and beating it that is a true accomplishment.

I reject calling Mary Theotokos because it's UnBiblical

To me that's what should matter to Sola Scriptura Christians. It's technical accuracy or one's opinion on other issues related to the Nestorian Schism should be irrelevant.  If you want to call Mary a title it should be something Scripture directly says of her.

This issue is not my only area of affinity or at least sympathy with Theodore of Mopsuesta, Nestorius and the Ancient Church of The East.  The main thing that makes me hesitant to simply identify as a Nestorian is that they like Cyril and Augustine strongly stress the Platonic doctrine of Divine Impassibility and are thus hostile to the Theopaschite Formula.  To me that it was the "Fullness of the Godhead" and not merely a Man suffering on The Cross is what makes the Atonement truly work, regardless of what theory of Atonement you take.  But I'm not prepared to make a full post on that topic yet.

I've seen people use Luke 1:43 as Biblical support for Theotokos as a title for Mary, where Elizabeth says.

"And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"

Problem is if you want to use this verse as your defense of a Greek title for Mary it should be the Greek words used in this verse.  Which are Meter and Kuriou not Theos or Tokos.  

So yes I'm kind of rejecting even the Tokos part as well.  We tend to translate this phrase as "Mother of God" (and Nestorius's alternative Christtokos as "Mother of Christ") but that's not truly accurate.  Tokos is a very technical term for the act of carrying a baby, you could equally apply it to a incubator.  Meter is the familial title of Mother which I think is far more fitting to describe Mary's relationship to Jesus.

But back to what people are usually disputing.  Using this verse to defend Theotokos is based on assuming every use of a form of Kurios in the New Testament must be merely the Jewish custom of using it to stand in for the Tetragramaton, the Holy Name of God, Yot-Heh-Vav-Heh which I prefer to pronounce Yahuah.  However I believe that assumption is never correct of any occurrence of "my Lord", I believe "my Lord" is always a translation of the Hebrew Adoni which in pre-masoretic texts is sometimes difficult to distinguish from Adonai.

Psalm 110 in the KJV begins with "The LORD said unto my Lord" which in the Hebrew is "YHWH said unto Adoni".  All three Synoptic Gospels quote this with the "my Lord" being in reference to Melchizedek as a type of Christ.

I want to mention the Peshita briefly.  Luke's Gospel is one of the many NT books where I consider there to be no basis for Peshita primacy, the book was definitely originally in Greek.  But looking at it as a witness to how Early Semitic Speaking Christians translated it can still be useful.  For Kurios verses the Peshita uses Mar-Yah whenever it's a stand in for YHWH but simply a form of Mar when it's merely a form of Adon.  This verse in the Peshita uses Mari (my Lord) not Mar-Yah (but the Peshita does use Mar-Yah in reference to Jesus elsewhere).

So the Greek title for Mary I would construct from this verse is one using a form of Kurious and a form of Meter.  But as a Weeb I think I'll go with AkaaSan-no-Sama, or I could use Mikoto instead of Sama but that is a bit more obscure a reference for westerners.

I agree with the Theology and Christology of the original Nicene Creed including Homousian.  However while The Bible supports Jesus being God in a Trinitarian sense, The New Testament is far more interested in stressing Him as Christ, The Lord and most importantly the Son of God.  That's Peter's essential dramatic Confession, and Martha's in John 11 and what the first verse of Mark says, and what 1 John 4:15 says anyone who confesses that God Dwells in them.  

So I do think it's bothersome how often modern Western Christianity obsesses over Jesus as God and forgets to stress that The Trinity is a Family that we are being Adopted into.  The relationship between God and Jesus is that of a Father and Son.  

And as a Weeb I like to refer to The Holy Spirit as Onee-Sama.  Proverbs 7:4 is the basis for calling Wisdom(Sophia) a word for Sister and I've argued elsewhere for her being The Holy Spirit.

Monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update November 2019: Energy or Action?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Incarnation of The Logos and Divine Impassibility.

There are a number of disputes within Christianity where I take what can be labeled the "Compromise" position.  There is a natural tendency to think the "Compromise" is least likely to be true, and maybe that's the case when it comes to Political and Economic policies.  But when it comes to debating The Bible I've come to feel many major ongoing disputes within Christianity are based on both sides agreeing on something that is actually wrong, that wrong assumption creates contradictions where there are none, and so they fight over how to reconcile that.

For example my taking what can be considered a "Mid-Trib" position on The Rapture.  You see Post-Tribers and Pre-Tribbers actually agree that Revelation 19 depicts the Parusia (Second Coming) while I have observed that chapter 19 has nothing in common with any description of the Parusia.  Post-Tribbers will see The Parusia in the same passages of Revelation I do, and then will garble it's chronology to make them happen at the same time as Revelation 19.  While Pre-Tribbers will separate the Rapture from the Second Coming thus defining it badly and refusing to see it in Revelation at all.

Arminians and Calvansits both agree that not everyone will be saved, and so they both take opposing routes to reconcile that with how God can be both All Powerful and All Loving.

Hebrew Roots people and "YHWH is Satan" people both agree that if The Law was a curse that must say something bad about the God who wrote it.  So one side denies that Paul said The Law is a Curse, and the other says an Evil God wrote it.  I however simply conclude that The Law was a "Curse" that served a purpose.

I've been trying to decide what side to take in the Chalcedonian v Miaphysite v Nestorian dispute about the Nature of the Incarnation of Jesus.  All three agree with the Nicene view of The Trinity, and that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine.

Nestorius and Cyril were the opposites here, but the Council of Chalcedon happened after Cyril died so Calcedonian denominations consider Cyril a saint and deny that his theology was more Miaphysite even though Miaphysites defined their position entirely on what Cyril taught.

Cyril taught that Jesus had One Nature that was both Divine and Human somehow.  Nestorius taught that Jesus had two Natures that were entirely separate.  And the position agreed on at Chalcedon was that Jesus has two Natures that are mixed.

I lean towards that third position, but to a certain extent consider it all semantics that is certainly not essential to understanding The Gospel.  And I know that both Nestorians and Miaphysites have had their position misrepresented a lot by those who disagree with them, so I want to be careful talking about them.

The position taken at Chalcedon seems like a middle ground reached once Cyril and Nestorius were both no longer around.  So the question I asked was, is there a wrong assumption that Cyril and Nestorius both shared?  For awhile I couldn't think of one, but then I read this article about Cyril.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/henrykarlson/2017/10/jesus-christ-god-son-without-human-person/

St. Cyril consistently discussed the differences between Jesus’ divinity and humanity, affirming those differences as continuing after the incarnation, so he would be able to say the one Lord Jesus Christ, God, died on the cross, suffering only in relation to his humanity while being impassible in his divinity.

The sentiment that it was only the Humanity and not the Divinity that Suffered was also expressed by the Nestorians that I'd read a few times before this and was always uncomfortable with, the main thing really that kept me from embracing the Nesotrian position since I have a lot of sympathy for them looking at what happened at Ephesus and during Jusitnian's Reign.

And I'm not the first person to note that Cyril and Nestorius agreed on this, calling it Divine Impassibility.
http://www.drurywriting.com/john/GodTastedDeath.pdf

It seemed intuitively obvious to all parties involved that if God suffered, then God would cease to be God.

I feel inclined to consider this wrong, I believe the Incarnation was partly about God becoming Man and experiencing what we experience.  That's what I feel Hebrews is actually saying.  Revelation 5 has The Lion of Judah at the Right Hand of The Father in the form of "A Lamb as it had been slain".

It can be interesting to compare this dispute to the one I mentioned earlier, because Calvanists love to identify themselves with Augustine and Arminains somewhat more reluctantly identify with Pelegius.  Allies of Pelegius joined forces with Nestorius while Cyril had ties to Augustine.
https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2013/09/05/original-sin-and-ephesus-carthages-influence-on-the-east/

The concept of Impassibility comes from Plato and Artistole's views of God, YHWH in the Hebrew Bible is a very emotional God.

But I should again stress that most people called Nestorians do not necessarily believe the fullness of what Nestorius taught, and Nestorius own views were often misrepresented.  In fact a Patriarch of the "Nestorian" Church during the reign of Justinian accepted Theotokos as a title of Mary.

Update April 2019:

I should stress that I'm aware of arguments that Cyril's Christology wasn't really Miaphysite and perfectly compatible with the later Chalcedonian Confession.  Even if that's true Miaphysite Christology still emerged as an extreme reaction to Nestorianism that had it's roots in extreme rhetoric Cyril used in opposing Nestorius.  And while both sides of the Chlacedonian Schism claim Cyril, the Miaphysites are clearly way more invested in Cyril.

I know that most Christians we call Nesotrian are not really all that interested in the peculiar Christology of Nestorius but simply a Communion of Churches that split off from Imperial Christianity at Ephesus (and perhaps to same extent people who split off a the Fifth Council later joined them) because they didn't agree with condemning Nestorius as a Heretic.

I wonder how much the same is true of Miaphysite Churches, particularly the Coptic, Nubian and Eritrean Churches in Africa which may have nominally become Miaphysite simply because it was through Egypt they entered Communion with Roman Christianity.

The Issue of Semitic Primacy for the New Testament

One of the issues to emerge out of the Hebrew Roots movement is attempting to argue the entire New Testament was written in either Hebrew and/or Aramaic rather then Greek.

As an opponent of how much Platonic and Aristolen Philosophy seeped into the Church via the Greco-Roman perspective of the "Early Church Fathers" I sympathize.  But I can't ultimately support this agenda, for the most part.

Yes all but one of the New Testament's Human Authors were Jewish.  But Acts 2 shows that Jews living outside Judea did not speak Hebrew all that well anymore, it would have been entirely Jews in the audience, people attending the Feast of Shavuot., but the reason the Gift of Tongs was needed was because their native languages were now those of the Gentile regions they lived in.  Following the conquests of Alexander, Greek was the International Language of the Eastern Mediterranean.  So even in places where both Greek and Aramaic were spoken, native Semites who knew Greek outnumbered Greeks who knew any Semitic language.

Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, multiple Early Church sources affirm that.  But they affirm that as something that makes it distinct from the others, at least the other Gospels.

I personally think Hebrew Matthew was possibly Q, a common source for both Greek Matthew and Luke.  Some Early Church comments about Hebrew Matthew imply it was only a collection of Sayings of Jesus making it fit the Q mold even better.

Luke was a Macedonian, writing his Gospel and Acts to a Theophilus, possibly partly as back ground information for Paul's trial before Nero (Nero was a total Hellenophile and so would have had no trouble reading/understanding Greek).  Luke and Acts were certainly written in Greek.

All of Paul's Epistles but maybe Hebrews would have to have been written in Greek (here is an article on why Romans wasn't in Latin).  Likewise with Revelation which was written to Seven Churches in the same region as three of Paul's letters, and 1st Peter was written to that region as well.  Paul wrote to three cities in Greece, to three men with Greco-Roman names, and to staunchly Greek parts of Asia Minor.  Acts itself reminds us how Greek the city of Ephesus was being devoted to Artemis.  Pergamon was the capital of a Hellenic Kingdom, and Laodicea was founded by a Seleucid ruler.

I'm very open to possible Aramaic Primacy for Mark.  As well as Hebrew or Aramaic Primacy for Hebrews, James, Jude and 2 Peter.  For Hebrews I'd consider Hebrew more likely and for 2 Peter Aramaic more likely.  Jude and James would be 50/50.  The Gospel and Epistles of John I still think are Greek, I'll return to that later.

For any books that I'm open to Aramaic Primacy, I strongly favor the Peshita (http://www.thearamaicscriptures.com/) over Old Syriac manuscripts like the the Four Gospels found on Sinai, an origin that parallels one of the Alexandrian Greek Texts.  Basically the Peshita should be viewed as the Textus Receptus of the Aramaic tradition.  The Peshita of Mark contains none of the common Alexandrian deviations for Mark, and yes that means it has all of Mark 16, however the Peshita versions of some other books do echo Alexandrian corruptions.

My reason for being interested in an Aramaic origin for Mark is that Mark is said by Papias to have been written based on what Peter preached.  Later traditions corrupted that to be in Rome but Papias originally didn't mention Rome. Peter was in fact in Mesopotamia, where Aramaic had been the main language since Neo-Assyrian times, and indeed Aramaic is the Language of the Peshita because it's The Bible of the Assyrian Church.  The first interesting implication I've noticed for the Peshita possibly being closer to the original for Mark is Simon The Leper being instead called Simon the Jar Maker.

The Gospel according to John and the Three Epistles that likely have the same author I also feel were likely to have been in Greek. Things like their stopping to explain certain Semitic key words to the reader.  Cepha/Kefa was a word both Hebrew and Aramaic had, it wasn't necessary to explain, same with Messiah since Christ is Meshika in the Peshita, and Rabbi is basically Aramaic in origin.  Now you might think that argument is hypocritical because of Revelation 9:11 identifying both a Hebrew and Greek name, but in that verse neither Name is used outside of being tied to it's language.  John says a Semitic word and then explains it in Greek.  The Peshita of John simply doesn't have the explanation in these verses which allows one to argue the translator added them, but our Greek of Matthew and Mark doesn't do that for "Messiah" or Peter's new name.  Matthew 1:23 is interpreting a name from Isaiah 7:14 that most Jews probably interpreted differently at first.  Mark 15:22 in the Peshita gives an Aramaic equivalent for the Hebrew Golgotha, likewise with Mark 15:34.

The Peshita of John 8 lacks the story of the Adulteress and for 1 John lacked it's declaration of The Trinity.  Disputed passages I plan to make defenses of in future posts on this blog.

Also, based on the little bit of Aramaic that pops up in the Hebrew Bible, I feel that Memar/Memra should be the Aramaic equivalent of Dabar and Logos.  But the key Logos verses in the Peshita of John use Miltha.  Though the emphasis some Peshita proponents make on Miltha being Feminine is interesting in light of another study I'm working on, Memra could just as easily be said in a Feminine form.

I haven't yet done enough research into the Peshita versions of texts I'm open to an Aramaic origin for.  So I'm cautious to in any way sound like I'm strongly endorsing it.

But one major issue is the Peshita lacks two of those books, 2 Peter and Jude.  2 Peter could have been written to Peter's usual audience rather then the specifically identified Greek audience of 1st Peter.  And it being originally in a different language could help explain why it seems to scholars like Peter's Epistles can't have the same author.  The name of Tartaros being in 2 Peter may be odd if it wasn't originally in Greek, but it could have mentioned a Mesopotamian equivalent.  The most possibly distinctly Greek detail in Jude is referring to "Wandering Stars" a Greek astronomical term, equivalents of which may have existed elsewhere but likely wouldn't translate to that directly.

One website on the subject of Semitic Origins for the New Testament I used to visit a lot is www.Ancient-Hebrew.org but I can't agree with everything there.

More recently is the Nazarene Judaism website.  It's a peculiar form of the Hebrew Roots movement that I've mentioned before.  Again I can't agree with them on everything.

On the subject of Aramaic Texts they side against the Peshita unlike me.  They are similar to me on the subject of existing Hebrew texts for Matthew however, except they are not quite as strongly anti Shem-Tov as I am.

The Shem-Tov is more like the Aramaic Targums of the Old Testament then a proper Hebrew version of Matthew.  I think the key to figuring out the original Hebrew of Matthew is the DuTillet, Muster and Cinuarbres manuscripts.  There is also a Muster text of Hebrews.

But again, I mention these with caution since I really can't study them directly and haven't read enough of what has been studied.  My strong support of the Textus Receptus over the Sinaticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus for the Greek texts still means that even books that might not have been originally in Greek were preserved well in the Textus Receptus.  Any difference in these Semitic texts that effects major doctrines I have to be very hesitant to accept.  Also the very same quotes from Eusebius about Clement saying Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew also say it was Luke who made the Greek translation, so in that context I trust Luke to have translated it right.

What I've heard about Hebrew Matthew's version of the "Eye of the Needle" expression, and Matthew 24 saying "The Last Generation" (saying  L'Dowr Acharown from Psalms 48, 78 and 102, which English Bibles usually don't translate accurately but Jewish ones will say "The Last Generation"), only help support how I already interpret those verses as they appear in the Greek.

I have a number of questions I'm curious about if anyone who does know a lot about them stumbles upon this.

1. Might the Hebrew Matthew references to Simon The Leper also agree with the Peshita saying Jar Maker?  Or maybe something else entirely?

2. Are all appearances of Aion/Aionios/Aionion some form of Olam in the Hebrew texts?  And can the Aramaic words used in the Peshita also mean Age/Eon?  The Aramaic Scriptures Website translated Eternal in the key Eternal verses but doesn't phonetically tell me what the Aramaic word was.

3. Similarly with the "Hell" words.  In this case I'm confident the true Hebrew should say Sheol for Hades and in some way identify the Valley of Hinomm where Gehenna appears. 

4. Which of the at least 5 different Hebrew words for "South" is used when Jesus calls the Queen of Sheba the Queen of the South?  If it's Teman, Yamin, or Yam that could further verify Sheba is in Yemen, but if it's Negev that would help how Velikvoskians use that verse.  If it's Darowm that wouldn't help clarify the issue at all, but Darowm is what I would half way expect of a Hebrew translation of the Greek.

5. Matthew 21:43, in the KJV "The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Other translations will sometimes render this "a fruitful nation".  British Israelists and Two Hosue Theologists often want to imagine Jesus said the name of Ephraim here, but Ephraim means "double fruit".  It may help a developing pet theory of mine if He said Ephratah but it's not something I want to build a vital doctrine on.  So do the Hebrew Matthew texts use either of those words here?

6. When Jesus says Ego Eimi in Matthew 14:7 ("It is I" in the KJV) is that Ehyeh (I Am) in the Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew?  I already know it's Ena-Na in the Peshita.

I may be editing this in the future to add more such questions.  New Questions would be added above this sentence not to the P.S. section.

P.S.  Hell in the Peshita?

For the Peshita on Gehenna I did verify it's transliterated as Gihana in all three Mark 9 verses.  While James 3:6 has simply dropped Gehnna out of it (the Greek refers to Fire of Gehenna but the Peshita just to fire).  Maybe an Aramaic Primacy supporter could theorize Gehenna got added to the Greek in James because of a marginal note connecting it to the Gehenna Fire of Matthew.  Is this verse of James one that's different in other Greek texts?

Hades doesn't appear in any books I consider plausible for Aramaic primacy, none the less it looks like The Peshita renders Hades as Sheul.

While Revelation isn't in the Peshita an Aramaic text of it has popped up that some think could represent an Aramaic Original.  A problem for an Aramaic origin for Revelation is in fact Revelation 9:11, clearly the Language of the book wouldn't be left out of that list of names?  Does this Aramaic Revelation add an Aramaic name like how some Catholic Bibles add Exterminans?  And does it say Sheul for Hades like the Peshita?

Update: I have learned that the Peshita, even the books I'm open to Aramaic primacy for, uses the Greek word Evangelion (rendered Evangeliun).  How do Peshita Primacy supporters explain that?

There was Greek presence in first century Mesopotamia, like the city of Seleucia which was always predominantly Greek.  So it's not impossible texts written there could have been written in Greek.  But also not impossible for some Greek to wind up in Aramaic texts written there.

2020 Update: So an issue with specifically Peshita Primacy is that's a specific dialect of Aramaic that is very Mesopotamian.  So of books I'm open to Aramaic Primacy for only 2 Peter and Mark originated in the part of the world where it would have been that form of Aramaic.  And 2 Peter isn't part of the preserved Peshita.  I have considered that maybe 1 Peter had both a Greek and Aramaic form given the broad range of regions it was directed to.

For Mark the appearance of the word Evangeliun in the first verse of the Peshita is evidence that text is a translation.  However that is specifically a Latin for of the word Euangelion, and some have argued for Mark being originally written in Latin, and Latin texts do use forms of Evangelion.  So maybe the Peshita version of Mark is a translation of a Latin text?

Do Universalists need to throw out certain books of The Bible?

I just found a website attacking Universal Salvation that acknowledges the Antiochian School taught it, and then says.

It was not without reason that the Antioch School refused to canonize the books of II Peter, II and III John, Jude and Revelation. The doctrine of the Universal Salvation could be easily refuted by these five books which contained so many verses on eternal judgment as to render them irrepressible:

I'm a proponent of Universal Salvation who is not at all afraid of these books.  The very verses from Jude they go on to cite are cited by me to prove "Eternal Fire" can't mean endless torment in both KJV Universal Salvation and Words Translated Eternal, because it's used of the fire that destroyed Sodom and in Ezekiel 16 Yahuah promises Sodom will be restored.  And I recently wrote a blog post on how Revelation points to Universal Salvation, and addressed The Lake of Fire in my posts on Gehenna and the Baptism of Fire.

As far as second Peter goes, they cited two verses referring to Judgment on Sinners, none inherently saying it'll be endless or even Aionion.  God's punishments are for Correction (Habakkuk 1:12 and Proverbs 3:11) and not endless (Matthew 5:26, Luke 12:59 and Matthew 18:34).  And again one of them was about Sodom and Gomorrah, which again we know will be restored because of Ezekiel 16.  2 Peter 3:9 is one of my favorite Universal Salvation proof texts, he says God is "not willing" that any should perish.

They didn't even cite anything from II or III John, those short books deal with Believers behaving badly which makes them attractive to those who say Salvation can be lost or that we need to be on guard for fake believers.  But nothing in those books refers to endless torment or annihilation as being their Punishment.  In III John it's clear the bad Christian we're to be concerned about is the one trying to kick others out.

This came up later in an article mainly opposing the Semitic New Testament theory, since the Aramaic Peshita lacks exactly the books listed above, and the Church of the East emerged largely from the Antiochene School.  I mostly agree with them that the original Language of most of The New Testament was Greek, I'm going to be doing a post on that in the near future.

They accuse Universal Salvation of being Gnostic by associating it with Clement, Origen and Diodore.  But they left out Gregory of Nyssa.  The Predestination doctrine of Augustine is what was condemned as Gnostic Hersey by the Pre-Nicene fathers, both Origen and Methodius of Olympus (who on many other issues disagreed with Origen) wrote books on the subject.

This website decided to just accept the worst slanders against Nesotrius and Theodore of Mopsuestia uncritically.  Theodore did NOT teach a from of Adoptionism, he wrote whole books on the Incarnation.

At any rate dispute on some of these books existed already before Nicaea, it used to be opponents of Pre-Millenial Eschatology just rejected Revelation altogether, like Eusebius of Caesarea, it was Augustine who enabled them to allegorize it away.

The Muratorian Fragment fails to mentions Either of Peter's Epistles or James or Hebrews and apparently includes only two of John's.  But it did include Jude.  And it adds the Apocalypse of Peter which affirms Universal Salvation.

I doubt this website approves of the Book of Enoch being added to the Canon, which I mention because the ancient arguments against Jude's inclusion were because it seemingly quotes Enoch.  So no, it being a problem for Universal Salvation was not the reason.

I do support the 27 Book New Testament as preserved by the Textus Receptus.  I just pointed out these facts to provide some context showing that Universal Salvation could not have been the issue.

Some of my allies give Enoch part of the blame for the development of the Endless Torment doctrine.  But while I definitely don't consider Enoch Canon, I do consider what it says about the fate of Azazel and his armies consistent with how I interpret the nature of the Lake of Fire.

 And he said unto me, “These are being prepared for the armies of Azazel, in order that they may take them and cast them into the abyss of complete condemnation, and as the Lord of the Spirits has commanded it, they shall cover their jaws with rocky stones. Then Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel themselves shall seize them on that great day of judgment and cast them into the furnace (of fire) that is burning that day, so that the Lord of the Spirits may take vengeance on them on account of their oppressive deeds which (they performed) as messengers of Satan, leading astray those who dwell upon the earth.”

It said "on account of their deeds" meaning the Punishment will fit the Crime.  Meanwhile the first 8 verses of the Book sound pretty Universalist.

In Richard Laurence's Translation "for ever" must be a bad translation (or the Ethiopic was a poor translation).   Chapter 10 Verse 8 describes a condition as "for ever" that the very next verse says will one day end.  And then verse 15 says "till the judgment that will last forever be completed"???????.  Repeatedly the imprisonment of the Angels is said to be "for ever" even though it's also defined as 70 Generations.

Enoch 22:13-14 is what most seemingly opposes Universal Salvation in the book.  But it is also a big problem for those who want to make it Canon, it explicitly says the Souls of Sinners won't rise from where they currently are on the day of judgment, this is explicitly contradicted by Revelation 20, 1 Corinthians 15, John 5 and Daniel 12.   It might be possible to argue all Jude was even vaguely endorsing was the first part of the book and not this later proto-Dante's Inferno.  Or this could be another textual corruption or translation issue and that verse meant to say their souls won't be destroyed or released from their prison until the Day of Judgment.

Origen was pretty fine with Enoch even though we know he supported a form of Universal Salvation.

Could Islam have had Nestorian origins?

I talked once before about the possibility of an Ebonite origin for Islam.  Back then I was pretty skeptical of comparing Nestorains to Islam, but things have changed.  Much of what I said there I still stand by in a sense.

It is frequently assumed that there is no basis for Jesus/Isa being in any way divine in the Quran or Islamic thinking.  However Jesus is called a Kalimah "Word" from Allah (Sura 3:39, 3:45 and 4:171), and also said to be a Ruh "Spirit" of Allah (Sura 4:171, 21:91 and 66:12).  These are unique to Jesus not said of any other Prophets including Muhammad himself.  The Quran also affirms Jesus alone among all humans to have been without Sin, never touched by Satan.  It is possible to argue the Quran gives Jesus a divine quality, but wants to keep it compartmentalized from the Human.  Here is a Christian website talking about the implications of these titles.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/5c.html

Some background on the Nestorians.
http://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/nestorianism-and-church-of-east.html

The Quran speaks very highly of Mary the mother of Jesus, being the only Woman mentioned by name in the Quran.  But the Quran also condemns the Mary worship that had already developed among many Christians.  In one verse doing so in a way that has caused people to think it's confused on what the Trinity Doctrine is.  Since the Quran repeatedly affirms Jesus as Al-Masih (The Messiah/Christ) it could be said that the Quran supports Mary as the Christokos but not Theotokos.

Bahira aka Sergius is a monk said to have influenced Muhammad, who's sometimes speculated to have been a Nestorian.  And sometimes so is the relative of Muhammad I talked about in the Ebonite post.

Here is an article arguing that much of the Quran could be flawed Arabic translations of Aramaic Christian Liturgy.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2012/12/the-christian-origins-of-islam
I don't think all of it is though, many of the Median Suras were definitely the sayings of a man who's made himself king of his own little kingdom trying to rewrite how Arabian society functions.  This theory also suggest they were being critical of Miasyphite and Monophysite theology which the Nestorians certainly were.

Nestorius strongly taught Divine Impassability which is also part of Islamic theology.

It is also a misunderstanding that leads people to think the Quran says Jesus didn't die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_Jesus'_death#Earliest_reports
The interpretation that these verses are about saying Allah took his life and not that he was killed by whatever appeared to be the physical cause of his death, also makes sense in a Christian context, just look at John 10:17-18.

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.  No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Jesus is saying He lays down His Life, no one else could kill him.

On the subject of the Quran seemingly knowing only one Gospel.  There was said to have been an Aramaic harmonized Gospel written by the heretic Tatian, and there exists a text of what is believed to be an Arabic translation of that Harmonized Gospel.

Or Muhammad could have been combining Nestorian ideas with the ideas of some Hebraic-Christian groups and just used only an Aramaic version of Matthew or maybe Mark, or possibly John.  But I think Luke would be the least likely.

Some sources say Nestorius and some of his friends were exiled to Petra in Arabia in 435 briefly before later going to Egypt.  Flavian II of Antioch would also be banished to Petra after being accused of Nestorianism.

Chris White has shown how Islamic Eschatology derives from ideas popular in Eastern Christian Eschatology during the same centuries.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOULuQdve-M

The Book of The Bee is a Nestorian text that clearly proves the Nestorians for a long time believed in that same basic model of Eschatology.

I don't think even the earliest form of Islam would have been in proper Communion with the Church of the East however.  Muhammad definitely broke with proper Nestorian thinking in many ways.  Especially his denial of the Fatherhood of God. I disagree with many aspects of how David Wood chooses to deal with Islam, but his Psychology of Islam/Faith of the Fatherless series of videos I do think are pretty good.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLVQDuplCV7iZkSqORRYgaDEaG67nYGQHG

Now I want to state that I believe Muhammad existed.  However I've learned some interesting facts about history studying those saying he didn't.  I have come to agree with Robert Spencer (author of Did Muhammad Exist?)'s theory in that I think Islam was originally a sect of Christianity and remained so till at least the early 700s, and the Quran wasn't really written down in a form like we now know until about then, and continued being edited even after that.  (Spencer is also someone who's politics I don't agree with.)

But there is room for a Historical Muhammad in that, if he was originally just like many charismatics calling themselves Prophets today, then those who followed his movement wouldn't have made it about him at first.  And I'll agree that the word Muhammad may have originally been a title applied to Jesus or perhaps many prophets and not necessarily the Quran's author as an individual.  But it's often forgotten that the official view of Islamic history doesn't claim Muhammad was his birth name.

But I've already discussed on this Blog how The Quran says Israel belongs to the Israelites.  So that's a problem for Spencer saying the entire Quran was the political agenda of an Empire that had already ruled Israel for a century or two.

Here are two YouTube videos on the subject I watched.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6bBeyaRjac
His debate with David Wood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXf7uP9lhE8

Now my reasons for believing Muhammad existed are not what David Wood's main reason is.  I'm not impressed by the "Criterium of Embarrassment" because I'm an aspiring writer myself, so I know that if I'm gonna invent a character I won't make him flawless, especially if I want him to seem plausible.  If I was gonna create a fictional Prophet in the style of an Old Testament Prophet, I'd look at how flawed the Old Testament prophets were and imitate that.

On the subject of "the Satanic Verses", it could be that Sura was originally a Pagan Arabic Prayer predating even the presumed time of Muhammad that this new Monotheistic Arabic Empire appropriated.  And after the reference to the goddesses was edited out people later sought to invent a story to explain there being two versions of the Sura.

I think Muhammad existed first because of the Doctrina Jacobi, it was written between 636 and 640 AD depicting events supposed to have happened in 634 AD.  It refers to an unnamed Prophet among the Arabs.  Now some want to use this against the historicity of Muhammad, saying this Prophet is alive still after Muhammad traditionally died (632 AD) and implying he was personally part of the Arab invasion of Palestine.  But it doesn't matter if the details don't line up, it proves a charismatic Arab Prophet was known to have precipitated the Arab invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire.  This is a fictionalized account so of course it may get some things wrong.  And there is also a 5 year discrepancy on the traditional date of King Arthur's death, his existence isn't doubted because of that discrepancy but because of no reference that is this contemporary, since I think an Arthur did exist it'd be hypocritical of me to question the existence of Muhammad on these grounds.  Of course it could be the "Prophet" himself is here being confused with the second or third Calif.

And a second witness is the seventh Century Armenian Bishop Sebeos a couple decades latter, he mentioned a Mahmed by name.  But these sources do not depict him as starting a whole new religion, but present him as advocating for an already existing Abrahamic Faith.  Sebeos also mentions Umar(Amrh) by name as well as Mu'awiya.

And then there is the Chronicle of 741, which was written sometime between that year and 750. It refers to Muhammad by name, but says he lead an Arab rebellion within the the Eastern Roman Empire, and says he was only called a Prophet posthumously by his followers.  And it's the first written down reference to the name of Mecca, but strangely places Mecca in Mesopotamia.
http://www.academia.edu/6485616/_The_Chronicle_of_741_

I actually think the Mesopotamian Mecca of that reference could be Karbala, which the fourth Shiite Imam said was a more ancient Holy Place then the Kaaba.  It's located directly due West of Babylon.

The second reason is because of the evidence I've been convinced of that the original Mecca was actually Petra.  A theory proposed by Dan Gibson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOxZl60MyqE

There are other theories proposing a different location for the Mecca of Muhammad's life.  I first watched this video from Tom Holland.  He doesn't say exactly where he places it here but I know elsewhere he proposes Avdat in modern Israel south of Beersheba.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDQh2nk8ih4

And this article proposing a Sinai Peninsula location.  It depends on Mt Sinai and Kadesh being traditionally placed there.  I don't think that's where Kadesh was, but them being believed to be there was firmly entrenched by Muhammad's time, or at least Sinai was.
http://www.christianhospitality.org/resources/original-christian-quran-online/content/original-quran15.html

Diodorus Siculus referred to the Temple revered by all Arabs as being in Northern Arabia in Book 3 chapter 44.

The references to Al-Lat, Al-Uzza and Manat in the biography of Muhammad also support a more northern location.  They were Nabatean goddesses, not well known that far south in Arabia outside their association with stories from Muhammad's life.  And they're not limited to the controversial Satanic Verses story either.  David Wood also loves to mention an account where someone tells someone to "suck the Clitoris of Al-Lat".

It is also said that at some point (sometimes said to be 400 years before Muhammad, sometimes seemingly far older then that) a Hubal idol was placed on top of the Kaaba.  Hubal was also a Nabatean god.

And there is even Ancient evidence for something being called a Kaaba in Petra.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaabou

I don't know if Dan Gibson would agree with Tom Holland's view that the Mushrikun of the Quran were Monotheists not Pagan Polytheists.  But in the context of combining those views, I could see the Miaphysites and/or Chalcedonians being called Mushrikun by Nestorians easily.  And the Ghassanid Arabs who controlled much of northern Arabia in Muhammad's time were predominately Miayphysites.  (But I could also see the Ghassanids being called Sabians because of their Yemenite origins.)  The Coptic Church was also Miayphsite.

A recently discovered site in Petra could very well be the exact site of the original Kaaba.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upOPc0Yl12M

Josephus in Antiquities Book IV Chapter 4 section 7 refers to Petra as the Metropolis of the Arabians, Metropolis is a combination of the Greek words for Mother and City so the Qur'anic title "Mother of Cities" is an equivalent title.  Later in chapter 7 Josephus also tells us an alternate name for Petra was Arecem which also occurs in the Koran.  He also talks about Petra being once inhabited by Amalekites but then later supplanted by the Midianites, which fits some Muslim traditions about the History of Mecca.

Going back to how this effects the main point of this post.  The closer we get to the immediate outskirts of the Eastern Roman Empire, the more likely it is Nestorians could have had a presence.

Isaac of Nineveh was an ethnically Arab Nesotiran Bishop who lived from 623-700 AD, mostly in Mesopotamia after it had all been conquered by the Arabic Empire.  He never discuses Islam in his writings at all.

Back to the Word of God as a title of Jesus in the Quran.  Since the links I've provided in this post provide much documentation of how the Quran has been changed.  Maybe originally this title was said with more of a definite article then how it reads now.

My goal is not to smear either the Quran or Nestorians by associating one with the other.  While I do strongly disagree with the final product of the Quran on a lot of theology, I have come to think my own understanding of how the Divinity and Humanity of Christ relate may be a little Nestorian.  But the Quran is the result of a Nestorian theology that was distorted over time.  [Update 2025: I'm definitely not considering agreeing with Nestorianism anymore, regardless I do consider them fellow Christians].

Nestorianism and The Church of The East

My previous post on the subject of the Nestorian Schisim was a bit mistaken.  The actual Council of Calchedon happened after Cyril of Alexandria and Theodosius II had died.  And Miaphysite Christians tend to identify themselves as being the true followers of Cyril.

YouTuber Ryan Reeves has a series of informative videos on Church History, but they reflect his bias as a Protestant of the Reformed tradition.  He also reflects the very Western Bias in how we tend to view Church History, including when he talks about Nestorius as if the opposing side was the one vindicated by History.  Because the Church that did not condemn Nesotrius may well have actually been larger then all of Calchedonian Christendom at some points during the Middle Ages.

Catholic Apologists will often attempt to smear Protestants by associating them with Nestorianism, chiefly because of the refusal to call Mary by the title Theotokos (Mother of God or God Bearer).  Protestants will respond by saying something like "Nesotrius was disputing the title's technical accuracy while we're concerned with quasi deification".  The thing is it's not like the Nesotrian controversy was already raging and then the Theotokos dispute was a symptom, it was the inciting incident, that's how it started.  And there are other ways in which Nestorians have been compared to Protestants.

In my opinion the core disagreement between Calchedonians, Miaphysites and Nestorians is semantical.  They all view Jesus as both Divine and Human, and as not being one more then He is the other.  Critics of Nestorius have greatly exaggerated the implications of what he taught, there is nothing "Schizophrenic" about the Nestorian view of Jesus because the issue in mind is His Nature(s) not His Personality.  Still, if I had to choose, the Nestorian position on this is the least likely to be the one I'd take, I prefer to think of Deity and Humanity as united or made one in Christ.  So I'm going to defend Nestorians not out of intellectual agreement but out of respect for their Labor for The Gospel.

Ryan Reeves seems to feel that the Nestorian view is a problem for the doctrine of Salvation, specifically of Jesus dying as our substitute. Jesus was our substitute because He was of Adam's flesh and blood, but was without Sin, He was tempted but never sinned.  And it was only His Divinity that made that Sinslessness possible.  The semantic technicalities of how they relate are irrelevant to that.  So no, what Nestorius taught was not inherently related to the Pelagian Hersey.  It is also wrong to suggest that Nestorius believed in something bordering on Adoptionism as Ryan Reeves makes it sound.

The Ancient Church of the East or Assyrian Orthodox Church, does not really call themselves Nestorian.  They refused to condemn him as a Heretic and for that reason rejected the 3rd and all following Ecumenical Councils, but his teachings are not considered core defining doctrines of their Church.  Now there are people who would call themselves Nestorians both within and without that Church, but that position is not the definition of the Church itself.  And I've seen Church of the East followers say they agree that the doctrine that was condemned at Ephesus 1 was Heresy, they just view it as wrong to attribute that to Nestorius.

Before the Council of Ephesus even happened the Christians who were east of what the Roman Empire controlled were already becoming isolated from the Roman Church, partly because the persecutions they faced from the Persian Government were often politically justified by their being associated with a foreign rival nation.

The Council of Ephesus in 431 was really two Councils, one lead by Cyril, who started it before most Bishops likely to be sympathetic to Nestorius arrived, that excommunicated Nestorius without him even being there.  And then when the other Bishops arrived they held their own council that excommunicated Cyril.  The Anti-Nestorius ruling became the official position of the Roman Church essentially because Theodosius II decided they were the valid one, because his sister was good friends with Cyril sharing her immense hatred of The Jews.  So the Christians outside the Roman Empire had very good justification to simply reject those proceedings altogether.

Christianity had reached Iraq and Persia very early on.  Acts 2:9 lists Jews and Proselytes of Mesopotamia, Elam, Media and Parthia as present at Pentecost.  I also firmly believe Peter was exactly where he said he was when he wrote his First Epistle, and in response to some criticism of that I am going in the future to argue he may have wrote it there before 41 AD.  I also have my theory that Helena, Izates II and Monobaz II of Adiabene may have been Christians.  And Osroene/Edessa was definitely a Christian region before 200 AD because of the Conversion of Abgar VIII also sometimes called Abgar IX.  Traditions also say Simon Zelotes and Thaddeus/Jude of the 12 may have come to Edessa and other parts of Mesopotamia.

So the Christian Communities that rejected Ephesus had deeper roots then those in Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople.

And then the Fifth Ecumenical Council/Second Council of Constantinople's condemnation of the previously consistently viewed as Orthodox Theodore of Mopsuestia as well as certain writings of Theodoret and Ibas of Edessa for their tenuous association with Nestorius, further drove many more Christians of the Schools of Antioch and Edessa out of the Roman Church.  If any Ecumenical Council was the product of the then Roman Emperor asserting his will it was this one.  Justinian had the idea in his head that the way to bring the Calchedonian and Miaphysite Churches back together was to crack down even harder on the Nestorians, it of course didn't work, it only created more divisions.

Antioch was kind of Paul's base of operations in the Book of Acts.  But it's also interesting how the region where Antioch is was part of the Assyrian Empire in the time of Isaiah.  So one could argue it's Antioch and Mesopotamia becoming Christian that partly fulfilled the later part of Isaiah 19.

Nestorianism is thought to have had some presence in Pre-Islamic Arabia, with figures in the biography of Muhammad sometimes said to be either Nestorians or Ebonites depending on who you read.
 http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Retribution/retribution26.htm
But one figure of the Church of the East who definitely was born in Arabia was Isaac of Nineveh, born in the region of Beth Qatraye in Eastern Arabia in 613 AD, three years after Muhammad has his first vision.  He lived to the year 700 AD.

Actually it may be much of the reason for this association is how many Christian Communities of Arabia were moved to Mesopotamia by early Caliphs.  So they became part of the Assyrian Communion and basically merged with them making their background also part of the Eastern Church's background.

I recommend this YouTube Video.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhdLKBKNf0I

It talks about a Monument in China erected in about 780 AD commemorating Christians of the Church of the East coming to China in about 635 AD.  One thing it suggested was that by the time this monument was erected the Church of the East may have been twice the Size of the Western Church.

Claims of the Church of the East reaching Japan are more controversial.  They tend to get tied into speculation about the Hata Clan which in turn gets tied into Lost Tribes coming to Japan theories.  Those theories I have an interest in, but the thing left out is that the Hata Clan arrived and become prominent in Japan before when the Nestorians reached China according to the above video.

Also difficult to investigate are the claims of a Maru Toma who was in Japan during the time of Prince Shotoku (574-622).

However a claim I do find fairly plausible is that a Persian Missionary known as Rimitsui arrived in Nara in 735 AD during the reign of Emperor Shomu (724-749) and that his wife Empress Komyu might have converted.  However these Christians were probably always a small Minority in Japan just as the Catholics have been since they arrived.

Another important factor in the History of Nestorian Christianity in Asia were the Keraites, a Turkic-Mongol Tribe who converted about 1000 AD.  For a time they were the dominant political force in what we today call Mongolia until they were conquered by Genghis Kahn.  The adoptive father of Genghis Kahn Toghrul was a ruler of the Keraites.

So if either side of the 431 Schism should be viewed as the Heretics who broke off from the true Church, it would be the Roman side.

Early Christian Schisms on the Nature of Christ

This blog Post is partly my thoughts on Extra Credits series of YouTube videos on the Subject of Early Christian Schisms.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5A2WfrnfPglTL_ZCPDN_rDT

They made that series partly to provide background for their earlier series on Justinian and Theodora.  My own opinion on Justinian isn't nearly so positive as theirs.

They covered this subject from a Secular perspective, not really interested in which position in these disputes The Bible agrees with.  And that's fine, an outsider perspective on Christianity can be very useful.  So I'm going to take it on myself to provide my Biblically influenced personal perspective.  Though the issue central to the last episode, episode IV, is primarily what I'll be talking about.

The first three episodes are all about disputes where who won in the end I feel is pretty strongly agreed to be the Biblically supported position.  Most Christians speaking negatively of the Council of Nicea do so from not knowing what that Council actually debated.  Last month I did posts on The Council of Nicea and the Homoousion Doctrine partly in preparation for this post.

I feel they should have had another episode between the Council of Nicea episode and the Nestorian controversy episode (Episodes III and IV) on the Pelegian controversy.  The chief opponent of Pelagius was Augustine of Hippo, a man I have little fondness for.

Some people think what Pelagius taught has been misrepresented by his opponents.

Recent analysis of his thinking suggests that it was, in fact, highly orthodox, following in the tradition established by the early fathers and in keeping with the teaching of the church in both the East and the West. ... From what we are able to piece together from the few sources available... it seems that the Celtic monk held to an orthodox view of the prevenience of God's grace, and did not assert that individuals could achieve salvation purely by their own efforts...^{[ Bradley, Ian (1993) The Celtic Way. London: Darton, Longman and Todd; p. 62]}

Free Will is definitely a Biblically supported Doctrine.  Theodore of Mopsuestia wrote "two tomes against him who asserts that sin is inherent in human nature." Which was no doubt an attack on Augustine of Hippo.

The controversy central to the final video of this series was a three way dispute about how Jesus Divine and Human natures relate to each other.

1. The Chalcedonian position, that Jesus had two different but unified or mixed natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

2. The Nestorian position, that Jesus had two distinct and separate natures, a Divine Nature and a Human Nature.

3.  The Monophysite position, that Jesus had one single Nature that was both Divine and Human.
   (Monophysite was often used broadly to include other groups that wouldn't have called themselves that.  I personally find the best form of Monophysitism to be Miaphysitism.)

All three agree that Jesus was both Divine and Human, and not in a Greek demigod half-god/half-man sense, but fully Divine and Fully Human.  I personally find the differences between these three views to be quite semantical and not a big deal.  Especially since I'm not sure what my own view is.  But it seems in Christianized Rome is was a pretty big deal.

Last month I expressed support for Traducianism on the issue of how most Human Soul/Spirits are created. Even that doesn't settle the issue.  At fist glance it would seemingly help the Chalcedonian position, a Human Nature inherited from Mary mixed with a Divine Nature provided by the Holy Spirit.  But a Monophysite or Miaphysite would retort that we don't refer to most Humans as having two natures, a Paternal one and a Maternal one, but as having one.  Perhaps the Nestorian position would be the hardest to make compatible with Traducianism, but I don't think impossible.

Pretty much all major Christian denominations in the West are considered nominally Chalcedonian (Catholicism, Greek Orthodox, all major Protestants denomination as well as Baptists, Pentecostals, and Evangelicals).  Even though I don't think most average Christians or even Pastors in America have ever actually thought about what their position on this debate would be.

One reason why I think Protestants and Evangelicals should take a second look at this History is because of how much the inciting incident was Nestorius (and it seems even some Monophysites) objected to calling Mary "Theotokos" (God Bearer) a Title that definitely plays into her quasi-Deification.  And it seems Nestorius may have inherited this from his mentor Theodore of Mopsuestia.

As someone who likes to draw attention to overlooked Historically important Women, I wish the Extra Credits video on his controversy had talked about some of the Women who were important to these events.  Theodosius II's sister Pulcheria worked with Cyril of Alexandria strongly supporting the Chalceodnian position, and was a strong supporter of calling Mary Theotokos.  While his wife Aelia Eudocia was a Monophysite who opposed calling Mary Theotokos.

I'm not sure why the Monophosytes would oppose that title for Mary, I mean as an Evangelical I can see why even some Cahcledonians wouldn't like it.  But as far as it being used as a rallying point in this dispute, I don't really get it.

If the Chalcedonian position is correct, it's unfortunate it had such horrible representatives during this time period.  Cyril of Alexandria was very Anti-Semtic and generally in support of persecuting non-Believers.  However as I expressed before, I blame these negative traits more on his belief in Eternal Damnation.

So again I'm not entirely sure what my position is.  I'll stick with being Nominally Chalcedonian for the time being.  Nesotrianism can be the most interesting historically to look into, and I may definitely have more to say about that subject on this Blog in the future.

KJV Only Universal Salvation!!!

I've already done a post on the Words Translated Eternal.  But that is obviously not going to matter to the most absolute KJV onlyists.  And this remains the top reason that KJV onlyists are among the most difficult to convince of a Universalsit argument.

This post isn't just for KJV only people however, but anyone who refuses to accept the specific Translation Error arguments that Universal Salvation proponents make.  These issues all have their roots in the Vulgate and were inherited by Luther's German Bible and all early English Bibles, and probably also French Bibles.  So I can understand refusing to accept that the True Gospel was inherently incompatible with the only Bibles the Western Church had for well over a Thousand years.

The KJV says "Endless" only twice, in neither does it refer to judgment or punishment or torment. 1 Timothy 1:4 is about genealogies and Hebrews 7:16 is about Endless Life.  And it is only things like Jesus' Kingdom that are described as being "without end".

It is still in the KJV that "Hell" is cast into the Lake of Fire and yet elsewhere the Lake of Fire seems to be what is called "Hell".   There is more then one Bethlehem in he KJV, and more then one Kadesh.  So likewise there can be more then one place called "Hell".

What we've overlooked is that there are different ways to define "Eternal" and Everlasting which is a synonym for Eternal in the KJV.  I've seen many non Universalist Christians (like Chuck Missler) define "Eternity" as being not unlimited or endless time but as being outside of time.  And so remembering how I showed back before I was a Unviersalsit that the fire of the Lake of Fire comes from God.  Perhaps there is room to define the Fire of Gehenna and the coming Judgment as Eternal because it comes from Eternity, and not as an indication of how long it lasts.

Which can again be backed up by how the KJV translates Jude 7.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

That Fire is not still raging in the Dead Sea area today.  And again Ezekiel 16 assures us that Sodom will be restored.  And Jude 6 uses Everlasting of the angels' chains while also telling us that imprisonment will have an end.

If it's the Fire being described as Eternal or Everlasting, that's because the Fire is from God in Revelation 14, God is a Consuming Fire.  But Malachi 3 explains the fire is to purify and purge, same as 1 Corinthians 3.

And in some verses maybe the key to the Universal Salvation interpretation isn't even how Aionion is translated but how to understand other words in those passages.  Take the KJV of Matthew 25:46.

"And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

This verse doesn't even mention fire or Gehenna it just says the Punishment (for other verses remember Damnation meant judgment or punishment in 1611) is everlasting.  Well in the Ancient world a common Punishment was Exile or Banishment.  Which is consistent with my argument that "Outer Darkness" means outside New Jerusalem.  Now the fire is mentioned earlier in verse 41, but again sometimes exile or banishment was in addition to a more brief physical chastisement.

Other options for the Punishment or Judgment could be a loss of Citizenship or inheritance, or maybe losing a reward you'd previously earned.  Whatever it is it needs to be understood in the context of the KJV telling us in Habakkuk 1:12 that God's Judgment is for Correction, and Psalm 30 that his anger is for but a moment.

Even in the KJV no Torment or Torture is ever directly described as Eternal or Everlasting.

And the only place where "for ever and ever" is used in connection to the judgment of normal humans is Revelation 14:11 where it says the Smoke goes up forever, terminology also used of the Judgment on Babylon in Revelation 19:3 drawing on Isaiah 34:10 showing it can be used of a temporal judgment.   It is in Revelation 20:10 only used directly of the Devil's sentence to the Lake of Fire, though The Beast and False Prophet being there is mentioned.

And a lot of popular Universalist Proof texts I absolutely default to quoting in their KJV version, from Romans 5&11 to the things Jesus said. And as such my other posts on this blog tend to use the KJV when I quote them, or I had the KJV in mind if I only referenced them without directly quoting.  In fact with 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4 the KJV version is the most explicitly Universalist version, other translations of those verses try to allow some wiggle room, but the KJV says God "Will have All Men to be Saved" and is "not willing that any should perish" no ifs ands or buts about it.

Luke 2:14 is also very Universalsit in the KJV in a way that's undermined by how others say it should be translated.

KJV onliers who oppose Universal Salvation arguably have a little hypocrisy on this issue.  Because most KJV onliers, especially if they're also Baptists, teach that we're not under The Law anymore, that it was done away with because it was Fulfilled by Jesus.   But the KJV of the Pentateuch and other parts of the Hebrew Bible tend to say The Law and the Aaronic Priesthood and the Feasts and the Sabbath will be "forever" or "perpetual".  The Hebrew uses Olam, the Hebrew equivalent of Aion which means Age, and so many of us point that out, but the KJV onliers can't do that.  But the KJV in the New Testament has Jesus say that the Law and the Prophets were until John, and Paul says that we're now in the age or dispensation of Grace not the Law, and that the Law was a curse and imperfect.

Maybe God's Judgment/Punishment/Damnation(Which meant Judgment in 1611) on Sinners is described as seemingly forever for the same reason The Law was?  A Judge can issue a Life sentence that is latter commuted, but that doesn't make it wrong to say the sentence was for life.

Or if you argue all those Torah Laws are still Forever because they are Fulfilled in Jesus, then the entire point of the Penal Substitutionary view of Atonement is that all the ordained Punishment for All Sin is fulfilled in full in what Jesus suffered on The Cross.

And I find it interesting in this context that the post Reformation revival of Unviersalsit thinking largley started in the English Speaking world, after the KJV was published.  With men like Gerrard Winstanley.  Many claim the Geneva Bible was still popular during this era, but being as that was a Calvinist production I highly doubt it translated Aionion/Aionos or the Hell verses differently then the KJV.

[Update December 2024: I've defended form a Universalist perspective the use of the word Lake.]

So, I think a Universalist interpretation of even specifically the KJV is perfectly viable.

Everything below this point is really not the main topic of this post and is really a giant Post Script.