Circumcision is Good Actually

Anti-Circumcision rhetoric can be found all over the political spectrum, but I shall in the secular part of this post mainly be thinking of Left Wing opposition to the practice since I am Left Wing and consider Conservatives and "Libertarians" people who's opinions on such matters shouldn't be taken seriously in the first place.

The first problem to complicate the perception of Circumcision is how Female Genital Mutilation is often incorrectly called Female Circumcision.  FGM is both in terms of what it does and why it's done not in any way similar to Circumcision, it should be called Female Castration because that is far more parrel to what's actually being done.  

There is I suspect a direct connection to that barbaric practice being wrongly equated with Circumcision and the way many people decided to start describing Circumcision as "cutting part of your dick off".  The Forsaken is part of the dick in the same way hair is part of your head or fingernails part of your hand.  But the best comparison is actually the ambilocal cord, both serve a function while in the Womb but are obsolete as soon as the infant is born.

It angers me to see so many of the same people chanting "Believe the Science" when the Science seems to be contradicting something religious people believe in, will then ignore the endless scientific studies that have proven the health benefits of Infant Circumcision.  There are many health benefits to Circumcision in general but what's most directly relevant to Infant Circumcision is Urinary Tract Infection, Uncircumcised AMAB children have a significantly increased risk of developing UTI before they even turn 2 years old.  It is absurdly hypocritical how some of the same people who support mandatory vaccinations of children even when the parents are uncomfortable with it to also then turn around and try to ban allowing parents to circumcise their children.

The Science has shown that the benefits of Circumcision far outweigh the hypothetical risks. In addition to the UTI issues it also reduces risk of STDs and HPV and cervical cancer  Now I've seen people seek to respond to all these health arguments with a weird little slogan of "wash your dick", thinking it's that simple is clear evidence of having the privilege of being Cut your whole life.  

Science has also debunked the notion that Circumcision effects male sexual enjoyment one way or the other.

The only Anti-Circumcision claim that has any statistical validity at all is the claim that it has a negative psychological effect and even that is inconclusive.  But the thing is even if that is true that is Socially Constructed.  We live in a society that conditions people of every gender but especially Cis-Males to place much of their self worth in their sex organs, and then idiots start telling Circumcised people that they had part of their dick cut off when they were a baby.  Putting all that value on a piece of vestigial skin because it can technically be considered "part of the dick" is pure Toxic Masculinity.

There is also an obvious overlap between anti-Infant Circumcision arguments and the arguments of TERFs and other Transphobes, this idea that anything related to the natural state of a child's reproductive system is sacrosanct and shouldn't be allowed to be altered until they are unambiguously an adult.  Puberty Blockers weren't even originally created for Trans People but for the rare condition of young girls starting puberty way too early.  The foreskin being technically "natural" doesn't make it not harmful.

But the real bigotry behind Anti-Circumcision rhetoric is Anti-Semitism.  It fascinates me how many things are considered Anti-Semitic dog whistles online simply for being something also believed by some past Anti-Semites.  But all this demonizing of a ritual custom that has been foundational to Jewish cultural identity since the first book of The Bible is apparently fine.  But it's not just Jews, it's also part of the cultures of a number of indigenous peoples of the Americas and Australia and other places.

I still remember the first Anti-Circumcision webpage I ever stumbled upon.  I was reading it genuinely sympathetic to the author's concerns, but then they just casually inserted an unsourced claim that "Rabbis lick the blood off the circumcised Baby's penis" and my jaw just dropped, that's literally an allusion to the Blood Libel and they just dropped it in there and moved on like it was nothing.

But if you really want to see just how insanely conspiratorial Anti-Circumcision people can get, watch this video on the Silent Hill Wiki.

That's the secular arguments, now I shall get to specifically Christian attitudes towards Circumcision.

Everything Paul says that sounds Anti-Circumcision is in the context of his opposing those who want to make it mandatory for Adult Gentile Converts.  But those I call Reverse-Legalists abuse these passages to claim Circumcision and other Jewish Customs are outright sinful for Christians to engage in.  

Paul also talks about how the true Circumcision is spiritual, but he does the same with Baptism often in the same passages and no one argues that the physical Water Baptism ritual is abolished by those verses [correction there are sects like The Quakers that do basically argue that, but they're outliers].  

In Acts 16 Paul helps Timothy get Circumcised, so he was clearly not entirely agaisnt doing it even for adult gentile converts.  

First Century Christians were still a sect of Judaism, and Jewish Paulian Christians like the Nazarenes continued practicing it at least into the late Fourth Century.

The Torah failed it's own Prophet Test

I obviously do not believe that, I'm saying it Rhetorically.

You see, these Hebrew Roots people insisting The Torah says it will last forever have a problem, it didn't.

You see the verses that say something will last for Olam or "All of the Days", are not saying simply that's how long this will be Yahuah's preferred way or doing things.  They are saying that is how long it will last.

At the latest The Torah stopped being practiced in 70 AD, but a lot of these Torah only people insist the true Torah system was abandoned well before that, when The Temple replaced the Tabernacle at the latest.  That is a subject I'll probably discus in future posts, not sure which Blog I'll put it on.

So you can't just pick and choose which parts of these verses to apply the most extreme interpretation to.

Especially when it comes to the Aaronic Priesthood, that was a Promise to Aaron and his Sons that they wold be Priests, not simply that only they were allowed to be, because as I remind you Yahuah never shut down Jethro's Priesthood.  Today the descendants of Aaron have nothing other then special Synagogue reading privileges.  So if Yahuah's promise to Aaron was FOREVER then He failed to keep it.

"But doesn't the foretold Captivity imply a temporary ceasing of the system?"  You may ask?

1. I believe the true Captivity didn't fully begin till the 130s AD.  Everything before was just lesser warnings.

2. During the time between the first and second temples the Elephantine Temple was functioning in Egypt.  In 66-73 AD the Egyptian back up Temple was also shut down.

3. Since I believe The Torah was only for an Olam, I believe the Captivity begins after that Olam ends.

Do we use the phrase "The Ten Commandments" incorrectly?

It's not uncommon to see people claim this.  I myself had been under similar misconceptions in the past, and had to edit some mistakes out of the post I made earlier today.

Now it's true the narrative presented in the 1956 film The Ten Commandments is garbled.  I mean it arguably undermined the moral of the narrative that they change it so the people hadn't received the Commandments yet when they engaged in the Golden Calf orgy.  DeMille kind of anticipated the Godfather Baptism montage by having them break the Commandments as God writes them.

It is true that they are not being written in Stone when God first gave them in Exodus 20, there they are spoken by Yahuah to the People directly, without even using Moses as a middle man.

It is true that The Bible does not use the exact three word phrase "The Ten Commandments" in Exodus 20, or Deuteronomy 5 where they are repeated.

Exodus 34:28 says of Moses "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.".  The context of this Chapter, is kinda unclear about exactly what that means.  It may be, given the issues of translating, that there should be an "and" between "words of the Covenant" and "The Ten Commandments".  I say this based on the fact that the "words of the Covenant' arguably refers to Exodus 20:22-23:33, and the Covenant is then ratified in chapter 24.

At any-rate Exodus 34:28 is about the second set of Stone Tablets, the first set are mentioned in the last verse of Exodus 31, verse 18.  It could be on the original Tablets were only written the information relied in 25:1-31:17.  Israel's breaking of the Covenant with the Golden Calf as these were written, changed things.  Originally the contents of Exodus 20:22-23:33 were written on a scroll as Exodus 24 records.  But that is unclear.  It could have been all three sets of instructions. 

However the people claiming that phrase refers to a mostly completely different set of rules, are ignoring that the phrase appears twice more in Deuteronomy, in 4:13 and 10:4.  Deuteronomy 10:4 defined what that phrase refers to more clearly then any other verse.

"And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which Yahuah spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and Yahuah gave them unto me."

That clearly describes the commands given in Exodus 20, Moses is also repeating the wording of how he described that event in Deuteronomy 5:4.

Now one article you'll find online (and I agree with their political point about it violating the Establishment Clause to put the Commandments on Government buildings), gives a list of ten different commands, well at least three overlap, saying that's what Exodus 34:28 called 'The Ten Commandments".  This list is arbitrarily taking 10 of the commands given earlier in Exodus 34, as a warning not to make a covenant with the Canaanites, and they aren't even consecutive.  They are, first is verse 14 worded incorrectly, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25 is split into two commands, and then so is 26.  Just reading chapter 34 you would not see that as listing of ten commands.

Perhaps they would simply argue Deuteronomy is contradicting Exodus.  But even on it's own, you have to draw some flimsily conclusions to think Exodus is calling that list of more then 10 instructions the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 34 defines what was written on the second Tablets as the same thing written on the first.

New Testament quotes of and refrences to The Old Testament.

The "Sola Scriptura" tag of this Blog has a spent a lot of time justifying my rejection of the Canonicity of certain books.  Perhaps it's time I treated this blog with a similar attitude to my Blog where I talk about my opinions on modern fiction, where I prefer to defend what I like rather then attack what I don't.

I have already said some things addressing those who limit Canon to the Torah, or to the words of Jesus.  In particular where that involves a desire to reject Paul.  And will likely be returning to those subjects in the future.

But this post is more addressing those who may want to use NT quotes to determine what is or isn't valid in the OT Canon.

This article says there are ten books of the Old Testament never directly quoted in The New Testament. 

1. Judges

2. Ruth

3. Ezra

4. Esther

5. Ecclesiastes

6. Song of Solomon

7. Lamentations

8. Obadiah

9. Jonah

10. Zephaniah

They explain this is limited to direct quotes, where the context defines it as a quote.  And doesn't include allusions or parallel wording.  As such Revelation, which is built entirely on Old Testament allusions but has no direct quotes by this standard.  This author does not argue these books aren't Canon for this reason, it's simply a fact they are pointing out.

I used to follow Alan Krushner who did a whole thing on Ecclesiastes including New Testament allusions to it.  I agree that Romans 8 could maybe be viewed as thematically a summery.  But I feel a possibly overlooked direct reference is in Ecclesiastes 12:11.

"The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd."

Most people think when Jesus says "it is hard for thee to kick against the goads/pricks" when he called Saul latter known as Paul, he was quoting Euripides play Bacchants.  (Or skeptics would say Luke was quoting it) but this is actually a common expression, the only think that references from Acts has in common with that Greek play is it being in Plural when it's usually said singularly.  But still, if the intent was to quote that play I'd expect more of it's context to be included.  I feel like this verse from Ecclesiastes provides a decent Biblical precedent for using this expression.  The full quote from Euripides is "Why dost thou continue tor age and kick against the goads, a man against a god?".

Ruth is mentioned by name in the genealogy of Jesus given in Matthew 1.  Ruth's name is only in the Hebrew Bible in the book of Ruth, the genealogical information given about David in places like 1 Chronicles mention her husband, son and grandson, Boaz, Obed and Jesse, but not her.  So clearly the book of Ruth was a source of information Matthew was using.  Also the spelling Matthew and Luke used for Salmon comes from Ruth, Chronicles spells it Salma.

Jonah is referenced in some of the most famous of Jesus' references to the Old Testament.  Referring to three days and nights in the belly of the Whale, and referring to the men of Nineveh as gentiles who believed.

It is Lamentations 1:9&16 that provides the Old Testament basis for Comforter as a title of God or the Messiah, (The Talmud quotes it as a justification for Menahem being a name for the Messiah).  John's Gospel and first Epistle use this title of both Jesus and The Holy Spirit, though it being of the Holy Spirit is the most well known reference.

This page on a different site confuses me a bit.  It is clearly using a different standard then the above article, yet I still can't make sense of it.  It says there are only five books the NT doesn't quote Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.  They say they aren't less Canon because of that.  The thing is, the chart of quotations it then provides, fails to list any from Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Obadiah, Zephaniah or Nahum.

References to the person of Joshua son of Nun are not quite proof of that book being considered canon or even a source the person referencing him knew, since Joshua son of Nun appears in The Torah (and is referenced at the beginning of Judges).  It is Hebrews and James mentioning the story of Rahab the Harlot that I find to be the blatant evidence that New Testament authors used Joshua as a source of information.  The narrative surrounding the fall of Ai I think is thematically echoed in the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Jesus as well as the Sixth Seal in Revelation 6.

However the only basis for a direct quote of the book of Joshua in Scripture is Hebrews 13:5 referencing Joshua 1:5.  But that itself was of Joshua referencing back to Deuteronomy.

 People from the book of Judges are also mentioned in Hebrews.

Ya know what should really shock all these "The Torah is The Bible of The Bible" types?  Numbers is never quoted by Jesus and barely in the New Testament at all.  By the standards of the author of the first article for a clear quotation, only Numbers 9:12 is quoted in John 19:36, but that is only Numbers repeating something from Exodus 12.  According to the second link provided, the only reference to Numbers in the Gospels is 27:17 which is paraphrased by the narrative voice in Matthew 9:36, and then Numbers 16 is referenced in 2 Timothy 2:19.

When Jesus references the Brazen Serpent is a pretty solid reference to Numbers.  Balaam also comes up in Jude and the letters to the 7 Churches.  Korah's rebellion is mentioned as well in Jude.  And I think Paul had Numbers 13 and 14 in mind in Hebrews 6.

Still, if you want to use the New Testament to decide what you consider Canon, referencing events isn't the same as quoting it as Scripture.  The New Testament arguably references many events not recorded in any canonical book of Scripture.

However I definitely think any Prophecy the book of Revelation clearly references is meant to be viewed as a Canonical Prophecy, since Revelation exists to tie all of Prophecy together.  That includes material from Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel and more.

Now, "that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet" in Matthew 27:9 is not a contradiction, first off there is a connection to Jeremiah 32:6-9.  Second, chapters 9-14 of Zachariah unlike the earlier chapters do not begin with Zachariah identifying himself, it's possible he was recording additional prophecies of Jeremiah that he gave after his own Book was finished, and that weren't scribed by Baruch accounting for a different literary style.

If you choose to divide Daniel between it's Hebrew and Aramaic portions.  It's interesting that only Hebrew Daniel is directly quoted, but Aramaic Daniel is more so what Revelation draws on.

The author of the first link also calculates Psalms to be the most quoted book, and Isaiah second.  But most curious is in 3rd place is Deuteronomy as the most quoted of The Torah.  But since Deuteronomy mostly repeats and revisits stuff from earlier, much of that could be iffy.  However what Jesus calls the greatest commandment is definitely a quote of Deuteronomy 6.  And the Prophet like Unto Moses prophecy and the Song of Moses are two subjects unique to Deuteronomy that come up in the New Testament, the later in Revelation. 

I've always been of the opinion that Esther is just as important as Exodus 12 to understanding how the Passion week fulfilled the Old Testament, particularly my belief that the Resurrection/First Fruits of 30 AD was on the 17th of Nisan.  But I can hardly indisputably prove the New Testament authors intended that.

The apparent lack of New Testament verification for the Song of Solomon is rather disappointing to me, given one of the agendas I have on this blog.

Some people might argue certain books being kept in the same Scroll in the old Hebrew Canon means Jesus probably endorsed the entire scroll if he quoted any.  For the most part that is pretty arbitrary, considering we don't even know when the arrangement we're familiar with started, (Josephus seems to refer to a different number of scrolls, and said the Torah was 7 books not 5).  Lamentations was also written by Jeremiah, so it being in Jeremiah's scroll isn't a coincidence.  The Minor Prophets being in the same scroll is a pretty arbitrary thing to make a point out of however.

If you're a Jesus words only person, you potentially have to throw out even more.  The second link I've provided in this post says Jesus only quoted 24 books. 

Jesus makes references historically to David and Solomon and Elijah, and debate-ably to the Zechariah killed in the Temple in 2 Chronicles.  But nothing that fits the first link's standards of a direct quote of any of the dual books of Samuel, Kings or Chronicles (which were all 1 book originally).  In fact they are only quoted directly in the New Testament because of Paul, in his epistles and in what he says in Acts 13.  So all these people rejecting Paul because they love the Hebrew Bible so much, are unwittingly opening the door to reject much of the Hebrew Bible.  This is interesting because there are a lot of people out there who want to reinterpret David as a villain, some while still seeing themselves as consistent with New Testament Christianity.

Fortunately, Jesus quotes both so called First Isaiah and the so called Second Isaiah and attributes them to Isaiah.

Ezra and Nehemiah are interesting.  They shared the same scroll, and for good reason, Nehemiah is clearly a sequel to Ezra's narrative, so it's difficult to consider Nehemiah canon without considering Ezra Canon.  Both links agree the New Testament never quotes Ezra, but the first says Jesus quotes Nehemiah 9:15 in John 6:31.  However that same verse of John is also cited as quoting Psalm 78:24.  My reading of the three verses in question leads me to conclude Jesus was not exactly quoting either, but the source material could easily have been just the Psalm.

Jesus says in John 4 that the second Temple had some form of Divine presence at that time (that ended at Pentecost when The Church become God's Temple).  But the books themselves admit the Second Temple never had the full Shekinah Glory that the Desert Tabernacle and Solomon's Temple had.  So perhaps even if these book are canonical as an account of history, we should perhaps second guess the authority of decisions made by felible men in this period.

Which is important considering that a website I know of arguing against interracial marriage says "The Messiah upheld the rulings of Ezra and Nehemiah", which is not the case, even if the verse from John 6 did have Nehemiah in mind, it's just Jesus drawing on Nehemiah's wording to describe an event of the wilderness wandering.  It cannot count as an endorsement of Nehemiah or Ezra's opinions on how to interpret the Torah.  In The Torah God being fine with Moses marrying a Cushite woman proves he was fine with Hamites marrying Semites.

On my Prophecy blog I did a post on Nehemiah's quotation of Deuteronomy 30.  Where I showed the view of that held by Anti-Zionist Christians can't allow them to agree with Nehemiah's.  And I also expressed that I think the Second Temple was built both on the wrong location and had the wrong shape.

The problem with wanting to limit one's Canon to what Jesus or the New Testament quoted is that when Jesus quoted something as Scripture calling it Scripture he was referring to something the Jews at the time already considered canon. Second Timothy 3:16 also infers a Canon that was already agreed upon.

The thing is it's alleged the Hebrew Canon didn't become what we know it as now till the Council of Jamnia in the 90s AD.   However that conclusion is debatable.  The Mishna and Talmud refers to this council as some people wanting to question what was already considered canon.  With the Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes being two that were called into question.  That context implies they were considered Canon in Jesus time, and so if Jesus was upholding the then upheld Canon, it can be inferred to include them.

Also the Kariates seem to have agreed to the same Hebrew Canon even thought they reject the Rabbis.  In fact it is primarily Karaites who preserved the Masoretic text that most today base their Hebrew Bible on, including the KJV.

However one could also argue that Jesus summarized the Hebrew Bible as just "The Law and The Prophets", and so see the lack of quoting the other Historical books as noteworthy. However Jesus clearly quoted the Psalms as Scripture, with Psalm 110 being the most quoted chapter of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and Jesus attributes it to David.   But Acts 2 calls David a Prophet.

Does God Change?

The Hebrew Roots movement is filled with people rhetorically asking this question even though they think they already known the answer is NO based on their partial citing of Malachi 3:6 "I am Yahuah, I change not".

The problem is Augustine was a Gnostic because he felt an emotional God  who changed like the Yahuah of the Hebrew Bible must be Evil, and it was someone convincing him he could allegorize and explain away those changes that lead to Augustine becoming an "Orthodox" Christian and laying the foundations of Catholic and Calvansit heresy.

That God changes in terms of what man can and cannot do based on various factors is shown without even leaving the Torah.  Capital Punishment and permission to eat meat where introduced after The Flood.  Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17 and the Sabbath as a command in Exodus 16.  The came Sinai, where this Meme I created is relevant.

Either God's attitude towards Incest changes, or maybe  Leviticus 18 isn't prohibiting Incestuous Marriage, you can't have it both ways.

The context of Malachi 3:6 is clear, just read the whole verse.

"For I am Yahuah, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed."

Because Yahuah's promises are unconditional Jacob will not be consumed.  And according to Genesis 48 the Fullness of the Gentiles are considered part of Jacob eventually.  Yet many of these same people want to say biological descent from Jacob is irrelevant because of their disobedience.

The Torah itself does not teach The Law is forever, that is simply an erroneous KJV translation.

The word translated "Everlasting" or "Forever' or "Eternal" when referring to things like the Levitical Priesthood, The Sabbath and the Holy Days is Olam, which means age or eon, it does not actually mean forever. Whether it's Exodus 40:15, or Leviticus 16:34, or Leviticus 24:8, or Numbers 25:13.  Same with Exo 21:6, Exo 27:21, Exo 28:43, Exo 29:28, Lev 6:18, Lev 6:22.

In Deuteronomy 33:27, Olam is used of the "everlasting arms" but a different word is used to call God Eternal.

 Likewise the phrase "all the days", which is introduced about time periods that have an end in Genesis 3:14-17.  And again in Genesis 5.  And it's also used of the Nazarite vow in Numbers 6.  If "all the days" is being used of something that is also defined as an Olam, an Age, then it clearly means all the days of that age, just as it can also mean all the days of someone's life.  Taking the phrase to inherently mean all the days of eternity, it wishful thinking.

Exodus 19:5-6 foretells there will be a time when all of the Nation will be Yahuah's Priests. The temporariness of The Torah is implied in The Torah.

See also today's post on my Prophecy Blog, and the Priesthood of all Believers post.

Even the foreigner that shall dwell among you

People like to use the passages in The Torah that say even foreigners, even people not by Blood descended from Abraham, living among you need to be Circumcised and follow other parts of The Law, against Paulian theology (or to reinterpret Paulian theology).

Those verses are about Nationality/Citizenship.  The Nation of Israel were given special privileges by Yahuah, one of which was the right to live in the Land that He gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  People could become citizens of that nation without needing to be literal genealogical descendants of Jacob, but that required following the rules he gave that Nation.

But that does not mean Salvation, or even the ability to please Yahuah and be considered righteous, was limited to that Nation, or people living by that Nation's rules.

Circumcision was introduced in Genesis 17.  So it's significant that we can clearly infer Jethro's family/priesthood did not practice Circumcision (I don't believe he descended from Abraham, we have to go outside the Torah to find him called a Kenite, but he was still in the Torah only said to be a priest in Midian, not a Midianite).  Moses had married Jethro's daughter and lived as one of them for 40 years before the Burning Bush, and yet still hadn't Circumcised his son.  In fact Zipporah seemed rather disturbed by the practice.

Deuteronomy 2 has God telling the Israelites he's NOT giving them any land of Edom, Moab or Ammon, saying he gave those lands to those nations.  They may have had Circumcision, Edom almost certainly did, but not the rest of the Torah.

That includes The Sabbath, I did a post already on my Prophecy Blog about how The Sabbath as a custom was introduced in Exodus 16.  The precedent may have been set by Genesis 1-2, but there is no evidence of the Patriarchs in Genesis or Israelites in Exodus before this practicing it.

God promised Abraham that in his Seed shall ALL the Nations and Families of the Earth be Blessed.

So those are all points for Torah only and heavily Torah centric people.  Going to the rest of the Hebrew Bible.  Did Jonah Circumcise all the men of Nineveh?  Did the Queen of Sheba follow all of the Law?  Obviously not, but Jesus clearly refereed to them as Saved.  And God also calls Cyrus his Anointed in Isaiah 44/45.

Amos 9:7 is a verse that implies there are even other nations Yahuah might have had similar relationships with.

First it says the children of Israel are like the children of the Cushites to Him.  Isaiah 18 and Zephanaih also have verses taken to imply the Cushites were like the Israelites.  And then there was Moses Cushite wife, and Ebedmelech who was an Ethiopian in Jerusalem who was friends with Jeremiah.  And the Ethiopian eunuch reading Isaiah in Acts 8.

Then He says He brought Israel out of Mizraim like he brought the Philistines out of Caphtor and the Arameans out of Kir, a location in northern Mesopotamia.

This is one of a few verses that seems to say the Philistines came from Caphtor, which causes people to think the usual interpretation/translation of Genesis 10:14 must be wrong in saying they came from Casluhim.  But if this Amoz verse is comparing their relation with Caphtor to Israel's with Mizraim, then perhaps they genealogically descended from the Casluhim but had sojourned for a time in Caphtor?

Throughout the Torah and even down to the time of David, Aram was mostly associated with northern Mesopotamia, parts of Turkey, Syria and northern Iraq on the other side of the Euphrates.  Harran is repeatedly called a land of Aram.  I think Hadadezer son of Rehob of Zobah might be a king of the Assyrian King's List.  The origin story of Aram Damascus is interestingly told in 1 Kings 11, and Yahuah is claiming credit for it there.

It's been speculated that the comparison of Cush to Israel here means Cush too was brought out of Mizraim.  Interestingly the origins of the Kingdom of Kush/Nubia that later became the 25th Dynasty can be estimated to be contemporary with Amoz (the reigns of Uzziah and Jeroboam II).

But Salvation isn't even limited to those righteous Gentiles either.  Ezekiel 16 clearly teaches that even Sodom will be restored.

Are Sacrifices Prohibited on this side of The Cross?

 [[Update April 10th 2018:I kind of regret making this post, you should probably just ignore it.]]

Incest and The Law of Moses

My previous Incest in The Bible post I still want to be my definitive discussion of the topic.  What I'm going to argue here I'm not definitively arguing for.  It's somewhat Rhetorical.  But I can't say I entirely don't actually agree with it either.  It's a complicated matter.

In my discussions with those who strongly believes Christians are still supposed to follow the Law of Moses.  I see them misusing Malachi's "God doesn't Change" quote.

Which bugs me because Augustine of Hippo, when he was a Manichean still, cited the fact that the Old Testament depicted an Emotional God who changes as what he was mainly uncomfortable with, and why he was drawn to sects that depicted that God as Evil.  It was Ambrose convincing him those changes could be allegorized away that convinced him to convert to "Orthodox" Christianity.  And thus Augustine because the chief popularizer of many Quasi Gnostic heresies I've been fighting on this Blog.

Malachi's point had nothing to do with whether or not what God permits us to do can change.  It mostly has to do with that He keeps His Word.  God repents of things often in the Old Testament (Repent means a change of mind), but when He swears an oath He won't Repent.  The immediate context was promising the children of Jacob they will not be consumed.

So to point out the absurdity of this misuse I created the following Image via Meme Generator.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7329/27275013204_7f6d7bfc96_o.jpg

That was the most shocking example.  I also brought up the evidence that Capital Punishment and eating meat wasn't allowed before the Flood but were after.  Arguing God's laws had changed a few times before we even left the Torah (or more strictly speaking before we reached it).

On those latter two issues however they had arguments against the notion that those things were treated differently before the Flood.  I forget what the argument on Capital punishment was.  But for the eating meat they basically felt the allusions to Animal Sacrifice in the Pre-Flood world implied eating Meat.  And I think there was an appeal to the heretical Book of Enoch.  I was and still am unconvinced of those arguments, but at least they made fairly Biblically based arguments.

On the Incest issue however they just cited the common argument from my fellow Young Earth Creationists that the supposed Genetic Risks from Inbreeding simply weren't a factor till many generations after the Flood.  And while I'm as inclined as ever to agree with that argument scientifically.  It's not a directly Biblical argument.

And either way it doesn't change that God's Law apparently changed.  It changing with a reason doesn't undermine the comparison to things changing at the Cross and/or Pentecost.  That event is what all History revolves around according to our world view.  There was as good a reason then as there ever was to change some things.

Now to get to the main topic of this post.  As I was laughing to myself at their failure to even make an argument.  I went and came up with an argument for them.  This has been in my mind for months, over a year actually, I just kept putting off making a post on it.

The wording in Leviticus 18, 20 and Deuteronomy on the Incest restrictions is strictly speaking about Sex not Marriage.  And I have shown Biblically that not all Sex Outside Marriage is a Sin.  And that it's mostly potentially reproductive Sex God puts restrictions on.

So one then could make the argument that when you marry someone your relation to them legally changes, and they are now your Wife not your distant-Cousin-as-a-fellow-descendant-of-Noah or Sister.

Now I know that sounds kinda like a Loop Hole.

My argument about the very differently worded verses alleged to condemn all Homosexuality also get accused of being a Loop Hole, but they're not.  The issue there is that only someone with a very modern way of thinking about Sexuality would read that as condemning all Same-Sex affection to begin with.  When dealing with other commands in the Torah, all both Jewish and Christian scholars agree if there is a qualifying statement, it's condemning only where the qualifier applies.  "Don't boil a kid in it's mother's milk" is not condemning all boiling or even all boiling of kids (nor does it condemn Cheeseburgers as some Rabbis think).  It's condemning a specific Canaanite practice that we now know quite a bit about thanks to the Ugarit texts.

But even if it is a Loop Hole.  If God's Word has Loop Holes they are there for a reason.  When I look at Chuck Missler's argument about how God worked around the Curse on Jechoniah, it sounds like God loves taking advantage of his own loop holes.

I've done a post on why Amnon's Sin was mainly Rape, and the incestuous part was incidental.  And I even then talked about how what Tamar says in II Samuel 13:12-13 seemingly ignores that marrying your Sister is supposed to be illegal.  Now I am iffy on building doctrine on something a girl says to ward off unwanted advances.  But it is still there in the text that theoretically David might have let Amnon marry Tamar if he simply asked.  It kinda parallels an aspect of what God via Nathan says to David when exposing his Sins against Uriah The Hittite.

More interesting however is the second witness I have.

Now much has been written about how in the Song of Solomon, The Beloved poetically called Shulamith his Sister.  I've seen people argue "Sister" is simply a misleading translation, and that I don't buy.

I am NOT about to argue they were literally Brother and Sister, I stand by my earlier post on the Song of Solomon where I argue Shulamith is Shelomith daughter of Rehoboam and Granddaughter of Solomon, and The Beloved a humble Shepard not of Royal Blood.

I am aware that some of the arguments against them being actually Brother and Sister could be explained away by them being half siblings, same father and different mothers.  But my ultimate conclusion remains the same as it was in those posts, largely because I see no evidence of the Beloved being Royalty.

The key factor is Song of Solomon Chapter 8 Verse 1, where Shulamith is talking.  This verse tells us a few things.

"O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother! when I should find thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, I should not be despised."

It clearly says they are not brother and sister.  But at the same time she says she wishes he was?  Like it would easier if he was?  And it makes sense with her being Royalty and him not since patriarchal societies tend to be less tolerant of women marrying below their station then men.  Princesses are usually either married into other Royal families, or if incest is allowed they marry within their own.  Egypt isn't the only ancient Monarchy to practice Royal Incest, they were just different in making it almost completely required.

There is kind of a New Testament passage I could mention, but it's very iffy to build doctrine on since it partly depends on bringing in sources outside of The Bible.   Acts 25 starting in verse 13 through to the end of chapter 26.

If Acts was our only source of information on these people, you'd never know that Agrippa and Berenice were brother and sister, you would assume Berenice was Agrippa's wife though she's not explicitly called that either, it reflects that she was being treated as Agrippa's Queen.  Still their Incestuous relationship would have been fairly well known to Luke's initial first century audience.  So that no judgment is passed on it is interesting, in fact Paul tells Agrippa that he knows Agrippa is learned in the Scriptures and believes the Prophets.

A lot has been speculated on concerning Luke's relationship to Josephus, those late dating Luke say it must have depended on Josephus, others say they must have used some common sources.  And the subject of Agirppa and Berenice is part of that discussion.  Josephus is quite condemning of them, but I can't help but wonder how much even that was more his Greco-Roman Audience's attitudes towards Incest then a Jewish one.  Luke in addition to being not so harsh to them is also kinder to Felix and Drusilla in Acts 24 (Drusilla was another sister of Agrippa and Berenice) then Josephus was.

This all happens to fit in well with a post I did in September 2015 on my Prophecy Blog on the subject of The Man Child being The Church.  [However now that September 2015 post is kind of defunct cause of how my view of The Bride of Christ has changed.]

Mainly my point here is, to Hebrew Roots Christians, either argue that Marrying your Brother or Sister isn't prohibited, or stop the "God Never Changes his laws" argument.  You can't have it both ways.

The Law of Moses and Christianity

There are two extremes on the issue of keeping the Law of Moses in the Church.  There is the "God never changes" so keeping the Law is just as Important as ever crowd.  Some may even argue it's stricter now.  And then there is the full on it is BAD for Christians to keep the Law, even the Holy Days, camp.

The latter is absurd, to suggest it's bad to follow Jesus example by keeping the Feast of Tabernacles.  The only way it would ever become bad is if you try to force it on others.

The extremists of the former camp come in varieties.  I have said already about all I care to regarding those who want to reject Paul as a false Prophet.  Or anyone else who will deny Faith Alone and Eternal Security.

To those like Rob Skiba, who I greatly respect.  The key issue I want to ask is, did Paul mean what he said when he said "all things are lawful to be, but not all things are beneficial" in Corinthians?  All the issues you can point out about the health benefits of not eating Pork are relevant to the beneficial part of that statement, but they do not undermine the lawful part.

I believe in Eternal Security.  I believe there are different judgments for Believers and Unbelievers.  I believe only Believers will receive rewards and only Unbelievers will receive punishments.  But some Believers will get no rewards as the Bema account in Corinthians shows.  There are five different Crowns we can win, I don't want to go in depth on them here.  But the point here is that one is a reward for not sinning, maybe one or two others are also relevant to the law.  But Martyrs have a guaranteed crown no matter how they lived their Christian life up to that point.

One of the arguments for suggesting the Law is now stricter for Christians is to say that because now all Believers are "Kings and Priests" that laws unique to the Priests and Kings in the Torah now apply to all Believers.

Leaving aside the issue that the Priesthood in question here is not the Aaronic one, but of Melchizedek (it may surprise you to learn that even Rabbis have taught that the Priesthood of Melchizedek in a sense includes all believers).  What the New Testament actually teaches is that we all have the opportunity to be Kings and Priests.

Apostates, as I have argued before, lose their citizenship in the Kingdom (but not their Salvation).  So they certainly won't become Kings of it.

I would hesitate to argue you are a King by winning any Crown, since there are two different Greek words for Crown used in the NT.  But I would advise that if you want to be a King in the Kingdom then it would help to follow the instructions God gave the King (which Solomon failed to follow) in Deuteronomy.  But that does not make it a Sin to not follow those instructions.

My point is keeping the Law is good, as long as you're not doing it thinking it contributes to your Salvation.  My objection to much of what I hear from the Torah observing community lies only in my opposition to making other Christians feel obligated to do anything.

Rob Skiba complains about strawmen he's accused of.  But he's engaging in one when he says things like "I'm just saying it's a good idea to obey God".  I believe we should obey God, but I believe God's commands are different for each of us, we are to be lead by The Holy Spirit.  When Jesus said "Those who love Me obey My commandments" in John it's right before he talks abut sending the Comforter, that is not a coincidence.

I feel the most important command God has given me personally is to never tell other people what to do, and to politely and respectfully as I can oppose those who do tell others what to do.  That is why I spend so much time on the Homosexuality issue even though I'm mostly Straight myself, and why regardless of economic disagreements I tend to vote Libertarian.  But on the Homosexuality issue  I show it's not condemned in the Torah either, practicing Homosexuals can keep perfectly Kosher.

And yes I know Rob insists he's not telling anyone what to do.  But so much of the what he says in context easily comes off that way, intentionally or not.

I know it is popular now to suggest every use of the word Sin should be defined by 1 John 3:4 "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."  But I say perhaps the word "Law" should be defined by Galatians 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which I have a second witness for in how Jesus defined the two greatest commandments.  As well as James 2:8.

Sabbath posts

The Sabbath is considered a morality dispute to many Christians.  But for various reasons I tend to wind up discussing it on my Prophecy Blog, because anything about The Calendar is potentially Prophetic.  So I figured I'd share some posts here.

In which I argue against the notion that The New Testament calls for Sunday Worship.

In which I address the SDA desire to connect it to The Mark.

In which I argue against those saying Jesus rose on The Sabbath not Sunday.

In which I address the Lunar Sabbath theory.

In which I revisit my view on The Sabbath's role in the Passion narrative.

In which I discus The Sabbath's connection to The Manna.

The last half of those I made within the last week.  They may be subject to some editing in the near future.

Update October 28th 2016:  And now I have made on on this Blog.

 Using The Interne ton The Sabbath.

Update April 2016: And I did a follow up on the Lunar Sabbath issue.

Update June 2024: As that Prophecy Blog is Retired now I'm gonna need to redo the more important of those, mostly on this Blog probably rather then Materialist Eschatology.

I've changed The Lord's Day is The Sabbath not Sunday quite a bit, abandoning tangents I don't feel like supporting anymore and adding some new material.

For Sin is the Transgression of The Law

1 John 3:4

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law."

This verse is popular with the people who insist they're not Legalists but sure talk like they are.  Who feel as long as they aren't saying it's necessary for Salvation they don't qualify as Judiazers.   Problem is I know too many people who started out that way and then slowly slid into full blown legalism.

They usually only quote the second half.  In context an argument can be made this means every Sin is a transgression of the Law, but not every transgression of The Law a Sin.  At the very least the cause and effect they have reversed, they like to say if there is no Law there is no Sin.  In fact The Law exists to tell us what is sinful, Paul said in Romans 1 the Romans were without excuse even though they were Pagans who never knew the Law of Moses.

And they insist this verse should tell us what Paul means by Sin every time he used the word, even though this isn't a Paulian Epistle.  Regardless of the validity of that lexical assumption, there is a deeper issue.

There is this popular Video online of a Pastor putting a row of kids on stage to demonstrate a deconstructive chain reaction that begins with saying there is no Sin without The Law.  The full testimony of the New Testament, (however you view this verse of 1 John) says that The Law exists to help us know when we're Sinners (Romans 7:7, Galatians 3:19).  So that destroys his entire chain reaction, The Law exists because of Sin not the other way around.

They think the word "Law" must mean the Law of Moses every time it's used even in the New Testament.  Forgetting that the Book of Esther spends a lot of time talking about Laws that aren't Hebraic at all.

But they insist on defining ever use of the word Sin based on this verse, how about we define every use of Law based on Galations 5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.".  Which has a second witness in what Jesus said about the two greatest commandments.

Jeremiah 31 foretells a new Covenant coming, and says in verse 33.

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."

Now to this day Rabbinic and other Jews insist this refers to merely a re-instituting of the Mosaic Covenant.  But Paul clarifies this in the Book of Hebrews. In Chapter 8 where he explains that the Law of Moses was always imperfect, and the New Law is written on our Hearts not in Stone.

Romans 13:10 refers to the Law of Love.  James 1:25 and 2:12 refer to the Law of Liberty.

In 1 Corinthians 6:12 and 10:23 Paul says "All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me," and then the following statement is different.

I can again recommend reading Romans 14.

But I keep hearing people equating saying we're not under The Law of Moses to Christians arguing we don't have to Obey God.  It is important we obey God, but his instructions come from The Holy Spirit now.  The Word is still a useful guide to help The Holy Spirit in instructing us, but it is not a means for us to Judge other people, fellow Believers or not.

But still the word Obey never occurs in John's Gospel.

Now people like to quote John 14:15

"If ye love me, keep my commandments."

What is ignored is the very next verse where He promises to send the Comforter (The Holy Spirit), the Commandments He means by that are those which come from The Holy Spirit.

A Believer letting The Holy Spirit lead them while following The Golden Rule and what Jesus called the Two Greatest Commandments should have little trouble keeping from doing the most obviously evil things.

But there are grey areas, and areas where His instructions may be different for different believers depending on the different plans God has for them.

Things like the Dietary Laws, and Keeping the Sabbath and the Holy Days are by no means a vital issue worth being divisive over.

Now I am also against the Reverse-Legalists as I like to call them.  Independent Baptists and others who think keeping Jewish Holidays and getting Circumcised as an adult is somehow now a Sin.

It is certainly never a Sin to do what Jesus did because Jesus was without Sin, and He observed Tabernacles in John 7 and Hanukkah in John 10.

Choosing to keep The Law under no delusion that it effects Salvation can be good for spiritual Growth, so long as you don't try to impose it upon others or think it makes you better (more right with God) then anyone else.

I close with 1 Timothy 1:8-9.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,".

Judaizers are not the only Legalists

So I watched a sermon from the pastor I don't like to name, where he was defending Christmas.  I agree essentially with what he was saying.  But he then went on to condemn celebrating Jewish Holy Days.

This reminded me of stuff I already covered slightly.

I know there is a Hebrew Roots movement out there calling for trying to put Christians back under the Law, and that is wrong.

But we also have counter to that a new kind of Legalisim, that says no matter what the reason it's a sin period for a Christian to get Circumscribed, or follow the dietary laws, or keep the Sabbath, or observe Jewish Holy Days.  All the passages they are drawing on for this are about Judiazers.

It's wrong to teach you need to follow The Law to obtain Salvation, or to keep Salvation, or to prove Salvation.  Or in my view even that it's needed to lead a good obedient rewarding Christina Life.  The Law is written on our Hearts now, it's between each individual and The Holy Spirit how he lives.

He started his Christmas sermon with Romans 14, I love Romans 14.  But he pretty much makes it sound like the specific context of Romans 14 is about Vegetarianism.  It's not, Romans 14 like most of what Paul was dealing with in Romans came down to disputes between the Jewish and Gentile Christians living in Rome.  It's about the dietary laws, he is saying it's ok to eat non kosher foods, and also ok not to.  But if EITHER side tries to judge the other that is wrong.

Colossians 2:16 is often misused.  "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:"  It's saying let no one Judge you concerning them, but it gets taken as saying it's bad to observe them.

Zachariah 14 and Ezekiel 45 both show that the Holy Days and the Sabbath will be apart of the future when Jesus Reigns on Earth.  And I believe Ezekiel 40-48 is the New Creation not the Millennium.

Jesus we know during His life kept the Passover and Tabernacles, and Hanukkah.  No matter what your excuse, no matter what your view on The Law or dispensations is.  To say it's a Sin to do something Jesus did is absurd.

Now I also think it's wrong to require people to do anything Jesus did, especially for Salvation.  He lived a perfectly Sinless life FOR US so we don't have to.  But he did nothing that can be considered a Sin.

Acts references numerous times the Early Church observed Old Covenant customs.  I've spoken elsewhere against the Sunday replacing The Sabbath myth.

Also right after the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 Paul goes and gets one of his new gentile converts circumcised.  Now that gets abused by Rob Skiba to say you don't need circumcision for Salvation but you still need to do it to obey God.  That is wrong, but it does show if someone wanted to purely for like it's health benefits to be circumscribed Paul was not gonna throw everything he said in Galatians at them.

This Pastor says that any holiday he celebrates is going to be about Jesus (though elsewhere in the Sermon he offhandedly mocks those calling Thanksgiving bad).

Messianic Jews and other Christians who keep the Jewish Holy Days make them about how they point to Jesus and The New Testament.  Because all Scripture points to Jesus.

During the Passover Seder they draw on how Jesus is the Passover Lamb, and tie that into Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53, and I think Esther is more relevant to Passover then people realize.  And of course they quote from The Last Supper.  On First Fruits they are reminded how Paul called Jesus our First Fruits.  On Shavout they talk about Acts 2 and the end of Joel 2, to me Revelation 6 and 7 should also be thrown in.

Basically the Nisan Holy Days are when we should be observing the "Easter" Holy Week, and the Feast of Weeks (Shavout) when we should observe Pentacost, (Karaite reckoning rather then Rabbinic) as opposed to the convoluted Catholic reckoning.  Still I would not call it a Sin to observe them on the Catholic dates (or Rabbinic reckoning, or the Samaritan one for that matter), since we're not bound by the Law at all anyway, commemorating the Passion is good even if it's not actually on the right day.  But the Pagan traditions that filtered into it (including the name "Easter" itself, we should call it Resurrection Sunday and/or First Fruits) like the Bunny and the Eggs I would recommend dropping.

If one wants to adapt them to our modern Solar Calendar for convenience sake but not using the Catholic method.  First I'd say still begin each day the previous Sunset.

My recommendation would be to have April 6th (or the Thursday closest to it) function as the 14th of Nisan, with the previous Sunday (or April 2nd) as Palm Sunday/The Triumphal Entry and the following Sunday as Resurrection Sunday/First Fruits.  Then the Sunday 7 weeks from First Fruits would be Pentecost and the Thursday a week and a half before that Ascension Thursday.  And if you wanna do something for Second Passover that'd be May 6th.  March 6th would be the fast of Esther, the 7th and 8th would be Purim and the 10th Yom Adar.  And the New Year would be March 24th.  And the last day of Unleavened Bread (Nisan 21) would be April 13th.

An alternative method would be to make Nisan 14 equal March 25th and Nisan 17 equal March 25th, I actually like using those days for The Annunciation and the Visitation.  Along with June 24th or 25th for the Birth of John The Baptist and the Summer Solstice for the marriage of Mary and Joseph.

If one wants a similar adaptation to our Calendar for the Tishri Holy Days.  Simply having September equal Tishri can be convenient, since September literally means 7th month.  But if you want Hanukkah to fall on Christmas then you'd rather have October be Tishri.  People who support a September 11th 3 BC birth of Jesus have reason to make that day the first of Tishri.  I however believe between the Yom Kippur and Tabernacles following that is when John The Baptist was conceived (Sunset September 20th to Sunset September 24th).  I have an eschatological hypothesis that involves Yom Teruh being Sunset September 25th to sunset September 26th in 2033 AD.

The Fall Feast Days tend to be viewed as Eschatological in how they apply to Jesus.  I think The Rapture is very relevant to the Feast of Trumpets and maybe also Yom Kippur.  The 7th Trumpet will sound on Tishri 1st I believe, and Yom Kippur may be the Bema Judgment as well as much later the White Throne Judgment, and I see Tabernacles as when New Jerusalem will descend.

But Tabernacles could also be just a good excuse to read John 7, and I think 8, 9 and the beginning of 10 were on Tishri 22.  I also think the First of Tishi was when the Star of Bethlehem was first observed, But the Magi arrived in Jerusalem a year and three months later.  I think Yom Kippur is possibly the day Gabriel appeared to Zachariah.  But at the very least it's a great time to talk about the significance of The Veil being torn when Jesus was on The Cross.  Many of course look to the Tishri Holy Days for the Birth of Jesus, but I don't anymore.

Some also think the Transfiguration happened on Tabernacles, I do not believe that chronologically works.  But seeing a thematic connection to Tabernacles is still valid.

Purim can be used as a great time to show how the Book of Esther points to Jesus.  Mordecai was honored and Haman hanged on the 17th of Nisan, the same day as The Resurrection.  And I've talked about the significance in Haman and his sons technically dying the same way Jesus did.

Of course he doubles down on Hanukkah saying it isn't even ordained in the Old Testament.  I have refuted that notion elsewhere too.

How does one make Hanukkah about Jesus?  Those who say Jesus was born on a Fall Feast Day often place His Conception during Hanukkah (first of Tevet most likely) making that the time of the Annunciation and Visitation, I supported that in the past but not anymore.  Some who are among the minority defending the traditional date for Christmas think Jesus was born during Hanukkah.  I however have argued that the December 25th Jesus was born on was late in Tevet.  That would make it one of those years where Hanukkah fell near Thanksgiving.  There is evidence the early origin of Thanksgiving (which was not originally in November) was The Pilgrims observing a form of Tabernacles.  And Hanukkah has been called a sort of Second Tabernacles based on 2 Maccabees 10:1-8.  1 Maccabees 4:44-59 does talk about "Sacrifices and Thanksgivings" being offered in some translations.

At the very least Hanukkah can be a good excuse to get people to read John 10.  Many also seeing how it revolves around The Menorah (being often called The Festival of Lights) as a good time to talk about all the New Testament symbolism it has, the 7 Lamp stands surrounding The Throne in Revelation 4, the Seven Fold Spirit.  As well as Jesus being the Light of The World.

Hanukkah is about history that we know is a type of the End Times, Antiochus Epiphanes is a type of The Antichrist.  So it's a good prompter to studying Bible Prophecy.

Oh, that's right, this Pastor had in another Sermon ranted on how he rejects the notion of Antiochus Epiphanes having anything to do with Daniel, people like him are the straw-man Preterists cling to to make all Futurists look bad.

His logic was that you shouldn't have to read anything else to understand The Bible.  Only The Bible is God's Word, but part of the purpose of Prophecy is to authenticate God's Word, therefore proving from secular historical documentation that Bible Prophecies have been fulfilled is vital.

But showing his hypocrisy again he brings his understanding of New World Order conspiracy theories into his view of Bible Prophecy, a lot of extra Biblical sources are needed to make that work.

Tokens of Virginity

Deuteronomy 22:13-21 is a passage I had struggled with recently, but not so much anymore.

It is today a well documented scientific fact that the whole notion that a woman is supposed to bleed the first time she has sex is a myth.  Just do some basic web searches on the subject and you'll find many articles on it.  Sometimes women bleed when they have sex whether a virgin or not, often that can be a sign of something medically wrong, but other times just from being nervous.

In addition to all the biology I can't explain well, they mention how because of this prevailing myth many girls on their wedding night snuck in either a razor of some animal blood to put on the sheets in-case they didn't bleed.

These articles however tend not to be kind to Deuteronomy 22 if it comes up.

Sadly many Fundamentalist Christians feel the need to still believe this myth, and teach doctrines about Marriage being a "Blood Covenant", and tying it into the Bride of Christ doctrine saying at that wedding it'll be the Groom's Blood on the sheets.

But there is no Biblical basis for calling marriage a Blood Covenant.  More then one witness is needed to build doctrine, and Deuteronomy 22 is in fact the only place in the entire Bible this myth seems to be acknowledged much less endorsed.

The Song of Solomon is the one book that's entirely about Sex and Marriage.  The consummation happens in chapter 4, if I'm understanding it correctly.  But the entire book never references blood at all, no occurrences of the words blood, bleed, bled, bleeding, or any related words.  And yes I am going off the KJV for that.  Same with Psalm 45 that many see as linked to the Song of Solomon.

Blood is a major theme in The Bible, and I agree with the KJV onliers who consider one of the many reasons modern Bibles are bad to be how many occurrences of the word Blood they remove.  The Blood of Jesus is at the heart of The Bible's message. So for any entire book to have no references to Blood at all, and for it be 8 chapters, not one of the really short ones that often fit on one page, I consider quite significant.

Also the words Virgin and Blood never occur in the same verse.

Why is this in Deuteronomy 22?  First of all The Law of Moses was imperfect.  God allowed certain things He didn't really like like Slavery because Human society was simply not ready to reject them.

As I said, most women throughout history made sure they had Bloody sheets regardless, and God knew that.  I'm willing to bet no woman was ever actually killed or convicted by this law.

And it's notable in that context that it allows no wiggle room for the husband to suggest that the bloody sheets are fraudulent.  The evidence is provided by the very family he's seeking to slander and the option of questioning it isn't provided.  The intent here is really to protect the women.

I think this is here somewhat as a formality even, how likely is it this would even happen?  Why would a husband try this when he knows his wife's father has the sheets?  And if he knows there were no sheets why wait so long to decide he cares?

As far as other reasons why people criticize this part of Deuteronomy 22.
http://www.tektonics.org/af/brideslander.php
I actually exchanged some emails with the author of this, when I was still struggling with this subject.

It's a much larger myth that the passage indicates that a woman is "supposed" to bleed at that time.

Ancient law codes like Deuteronomy were didactic, or case law. They gave typical examples.  

So if for some reason a woman did not bleed after her first sexual encounter, that would be brought up in any proceeding and considered.

I still felt that was inadequate however, he still seemed unaware that it is scientifically atypical if she does bleed.  If this wasn't happening right after the wedding night, the proceeding would certainly question why the husband didn't care till now.  But if it was happening right away the concern people have is the woman wouldn't be believed.  But what I have now come to is that in-spite of how it looks nothing in this chapter or any other Bible passage actually says a woman will bleed.

(Update Edit: He says in a new email he did understand.)

At any-rate many Bible critics don't even get that the lack of Virginity itself isn't what makes this hypothetical crime a potentially capital offense, that is addressed later.  It's the lying about it.

Now to many Feminists the very concept of Virginity exists only because of this broken hymen myth.  So they feel The Bible endorses it by even using the word at all.  It's mostly a modern thing in the post enlightenment world to try to define Virginity purely clinically.

The concept of Virginity need not require a physical change, it's just a term that means a lack of a certain kind of sexual experience.

What's viewed as sexist is that until very recently only women were perceived as losing something when they have sex.  And The Bible in the Old Testament is kind of consistent with that.

Ancient law codes like the Law of Moses were more cornered with the sexual chastity of women because of how reproduction works, you're always certain who the mother is, certainty of who the father is is dependent on the wife's fidelity.  It's unfair but that's how it works.  In the modern world we can fortunately do DNA tests.

The other major reason why Female Virginity is so important in Scripture is for The Doctrine of The Virgin Birth.  The purpose of which is only to demonstrate the Supernal nature of the Incarnation, it is not all to suggest a only a Virgin would worthy to bear The Messiah.

But is male virginity really completely unheard of in The Bible?  Revelation 14 says poetically/symbolically of the 144,000 in verse 4

These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.

I do not agree with the view that there are no women in this group because I tie the 144,000 into the end of Joel 2 and Pentecost in Acts 2, where there are Sons and Daughters.  But the grammar is rare for The Bible in defining virgins as people who haven't had sex with women.  But this isn't a literal verse, it's describing Resurrected believers, you do not need to be an actual virgin whether male or female to qualify.

In the study where I defend that the word Almah mean Virgin, I point out there there is a rare masculine form of Almah used twice in 1 Samuel of unmarried young men.

The Law of Moses was imperfect

Hebrews 8:7

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second."

James 1:25 called the "Law of Liberty" perfect, that is our New Covenant.

Christians point this out a lot addressing Soterology, Salvation by Faith Alone.  But ignore it in Apologetics, feeling they need to defend every single imperfect part of the Torah's Civil Law code for Ancient Israel against modern skeptics.  Instead of simply simply acknowledging that it was a Law Code written under God's guidance but still for imperfect people in an imperfect world.

So yes, it has a lot of problems when it comes to laws related to slavery and rape and virginity.

 It does not deny the infallibility of God's Word to acknowledge that.  The Masoretic Text of The Hebrew Bible remains a perfectly infallible record of what The Law of Moses was.

Rape in The Bible

Did you know The Bible actually depicts and condemns an example of Female on Male Rape?  People miss it because they go into it with their Rape Culture "Men can't be Raped" attitude.  But Lot was Raped by his own Daughters.  Yet people commonly treat it like it's just about Incest.

Lot did not "Get drunk and impregnate his daughters" as some describe it.  His daughters got him drunk and made him impregnate them.  And they premeditated doing it.  Genesis 19:32 "Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father."

You may be assuming his daughters were very young.  Their age isn't specified, but there is reason to suspect they were born before Lot ever came to Sodom.  Even if they were born soon after, Lot had been in Sodom for probably over 20 years before this happened.

Some people also have it in their head The Bible doesn't condemn anyone's actions in this story just because the narrative voice doesn't stop to say "and what they did was wrong".  The Bible often does things that way, especially in Genesis.

The Bible condemns examples of Rape various times.  But the part of The Law of Moses that is the civil law code of Israel is like plenty else in The Law imperfect in how issues are addressed.  Because while given by God it's still a Law Code for an imperfect fallen world.

Anyone who studies Jewish attitudes to their Law knows the intent of The Law matters.  And Besides murder every capital offense in The Torah is only meant to be viewed as a maximum penalty not a minimum one.

Only if a Woman is betrothed or married would her having any sex outside marriage be a capitol offense.  And we see with how Joseph handled Mary's situation that the Groom/Husband is fully allowed to simply drop the charges.

Deuteronomy 22:24 is attacked because people read it as "All the Rapist has to do is cover her Mouth and he'd get away with it".  That's not the intent, the intent is clear that if It's Rape she shouldn't be executed.  And He wouldn't get away with it, he gets killed no matter what.

If I wanted to I could attack Deuteronomy 22:25-27 from the other way.  It seems to be an exception to the usual rule of needing two witnesses.  A betrothed Damsel could just say some random guy raped her in the field and no proof is needed, he'd just be dead.  If we take this law at face value.  Today it's politically incorrect to suggest a woman would ever make a false Rape accusation, and the way this law is set up suggests to me the Bible's authors might have agreed with modern SJWs on this.  The only false Rape accusation in The Bible is what lands Joseph in prison in Egypt, and that was a woman far more privileged then most.  If The Bible mentions something only once, you can't build doctrine on it.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is repeatedly refereed to as if it not only explicitly included Rape but was specifically about Rape.  (That's partly because it's mistranslated in versions other then the KJV).  And that it's saying a unbetrothed woman who's raped is forced to marry her Rapist.

First of all it doesn't in this case even address if it's Rape, and the point is not about the Woman but about the Man's responsibly to a Woman who's virginity he takes.  I think most Rabbis would agree that it's implied neither the woman or her father is required to do anything, and that if he refused to accept the Silver no marriage happens.

Deuteronomy means the second giving of the law, almost every law in it is repeated from earlier.  This specific situation is a less detailed repeat of Exodus 22:16-17.

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.  If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

When it's acknowledged at all, an annoying perception exists on one site that Deuteronomy is specifically about rape and Exodus is specifically about if it's consensual. But use common sense, even the law codes that are the worst on Rape have never made a Rape victim more guilty then a woman who has sex consensually.  The problems come from people refusing to acknowledge rape.

Both these passages are clearly different wording expressing the same thing.  And it's purely the modern world's fixation on attacking the Bible that has made Deuteronomy's version more famous.  This part of Exodus is where any good study of The Law should begin.  It's repeated at all only to ensure it's importance is understood.

The word translated entice in the KJV is sometimes translated "seduce".  Many ancient languages used the same words for seduction and rape.  Both this Hebrew word and the one rendered "lay hold" in Deuteronomy includes according to Strongs an implication of deception in their meaning.

In the case of Amnon's rape of Tamar however she does reference back to this Law and condemn him for not obeying it.  Modern women I know can't possibly relate to the idea that a woman would want to marry the man that raped her.  But women 3000 years ago were in a very different situation.  They mostly needed to be married to even survive.  That's why Jesus said that a man forces his Wife to commit Adultery by remarriage if he divorces her.

New Testament Legalism is just as bad as Old Testament Legalism

Alan Kurschner did a Pod Cast on the Hebrew Roots movement.

I agree that the Blood Moon theory is bunk.  And I agree that it's vitally important to stress how we are not Bound by The Law anymore.  And not just Ceremonial Law but Moral Law too, the Sabbath, Circumcision, Decalogue, Leviticus 18-20, all of it..  While there are lots of nuances to his approach I may not like, I agree with what he was trying to say, until he started defining the "Law of Christ".

He defines the Law of Christ as an even heavier standard to meet then the Law of Moses was.  That could not be more of an insult to Christ.  Jesus said in Matthew 11:30 "For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."  And in Matthew 23:4 condemning the Pharisees.  "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers."

The Basis for Alan's error would be a common misunderstanding of The Sermon on The Mount's intent. I too used to love observing how Jesus in fact makes each Law he address more difficult to obey, not easier.  But I've learned from that error, and will quote the Sermon study from the Grace Thru Faith blog.

A Bible Study by Jack Kelley
Matt. 5:21-48 is a part of the Sermon on the mount that has always bothered me. It’s not what Jesus taught that’s a problem for me, but how it has been perceived.

I grew up learning that in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus was giving us a guide for holy living . But I no longer believe that was entirely the case. I believe in Matt. 5:21-48 He was expanding on His statement in Matt. 5:20 that “unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
For all their faults, the Pharisees and teachers of the law were men who devoted their lives to keeping even the smallest details of the Law. They thought by doing this they were earning a righteousness that would gain them admittance to God’s kingdom.  But Jesus said that even as obsessive as they were about the Law, they had fallen hopelessly short of the mark and would certainly not enter the Kingdom.
I believe what He said after that was a series of examples showing what it would take for them to attain the level of righteousness necessary to enter the kingdom in their own strength. I think He chose the first two examples because they were straight from the 10 commandments and were something no self respecting Pharisee would never dream of doing.

The "Law of Christ" is a term The Bile uses only once, in Galatians 6, I prefer the term Law of Love, which is founded on many more Bible verses like Romans 13:10, and the words of Jesus himself, and Johns Epistles.  Or "Law of Liberty" used by James.  That's Semantics however.

The Law of Love has only Two Commands.  Matthew 22:35-40 (Parallels in Mark 12 and Luke 10).

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?"  Jesus said unto him, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."  This is the first and greatest commandment.  And the second is like unto it, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."  On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

 That is it. Christians should not be Legalistically judging each other on how well their behavior matches the Sermon on The Mount, or Paul's Epistles, or anything else.  As long as we're walking in the Spirit and trying to obey these Two Commands we will do well.

The point of the New Covenant is that The Law is Written on our Hearts.  Not in a book, not even The Book (Jeremiah 31:33, Romans 2:13, Hebrews 8:10 and 10:16).  As Commander William Riker once said "When has justice ever been as simple as a rulebook"

I won't accuse Alan of failing to understand Salvation by Faith Alone.  But it seems he is accusing anyone who chooses to keep any of The Law.

He does make a point to say he's all for Studying Judaism, including Rabbinic sources.  (I think Christians should be very weary of Rabbinic sources.)  But Studying is all. 

This may not be his intent, but it seems like he's accusing any Christians who Observe the Sabbath, or Jewish Holy Days and any other aspects of Mosaic Law of rejecting The Gospel, no matter what their mindset in doing so is.  He's Forgetting Romans 14.  Paul makes clear we are not to Judge other Christians who choose to or feel called by The Holy Spirit to follow Mosaic Customs, including even the Dietary Laws.  And a careful study of Scripture makes clear New Testament Christians absolutely kept the Sabbath and Observed Jewish Holy Days.  It wasn't doing these things at all Paul was condemning in those passages Alan so enjoyed citing.  Judging brethren for engaging in Jewish Customs at all is itself a form of Legalism.

Libertarianism and The Bible

I'm not writing this to defend myself, being a Biblical Fundamentalist who often calls himself a Libertarian,  I'm doing it as a general guide to help other Bible believers. While I do call myself a Libertarian from time to time, I do also question if I really qualify.

 I'm certainly closer then a number of Libertarians in the public eye, like Glenn Beck and other Fox News Libertarians, who call themselves Libertarians without any hesitation even though their really just slightly more mild Neo-Cons at worst and Paleo-Conservatives at best.

I'm not sure what else to call myself, "Constitutionalist" is meaningless today, since every American thinks their beliefs match the Constitution, and the so called "Constitution Party" too often falls inline with the Republican party on Social Issues.   I love Ron Paul but I have a few disagreements with him, as well as with Gary Johnson and Chuck Baldwin, both of whom I've also voted for.

The Bible on politics is complicated.  The New Testament doesn't feature any clear

instruction manual for government, certain passages like Romans 13 are misused and abused in support of bind loyalty to the State, when their really only stating that the State does have a valid role to play and therefore we shouldn't be anarchists (I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's material on Romans 13).  The Hebrew Bible's detailed rules we know from Acts 10, 15 and Galatians and Hebrews shouldn't be strictly legalistically followed by Christians, or at-least we shouldn't feel obligated to do so. So strictly speaking a Christian isn't quite required to hold any specific political philosophy.

The Covenant Code (Exodus 20:19-23-33), The Deuteronomic Code and parts of Leviticus and Numbers deal with the Civil Laws and Government of ancient Israel. Their obviously not a Libertarian law code. No nation has ever been truly Libertarian, and Ancient Israel wasn't even as close as our Constitution was/is.   But, this was the Law for God's Chosen people, who he had a special relationship with.

Roger Williams, a seventeenth-century Christian minister and founder of Rhode Island, interpreted several passages in the Old and New Testament to support limiting government interference in religious matters. Williams published The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, describing his analysis of why a civil government should be separate from religion according to the Bible. Williams believed that Israel was a unique covenant kingdom and not an appropriate model for New Testament Christians who believed that the Old Testament covenant had been fulfilled. Therefore, the more informative Old Testament examples of civil government were "good" non-covenant kings such as Artaxerxes {and Cyrus}, who tolerated the Jews and did not insist that they follow his state religion. James P. Byrd, The challenges of Roger Williams: Religious Liberty, Violent Persecution, and the Bible (Mercer University Press, 2002) http://books.google.com/books?id=M4FK-j35y...=gbs_navlinks_s(accessed on Google Book on July 20, 2009)

But even then, The Law of Moses is surprisingly more Libertarian then you might think. And was so on the very matters that often keeps Christians from being Libertarian, Libertarians believing vices shouldn't be outlawed.  The Law Code of Moses never outlaws Prostitution, (not in general only temple prostitution), or drinking/drunkenness, and both are clearly painted as sinful.  And Alcohol is the only narcotic it addressed at all.

I have a separate article on Capital Punishment.  I believe despite it's being in The Torah that New Testament believers should oppose it on this side of The Cross.

The Bible has a lot to say about Private Property but I won't get into that here.

1 Chronicles 21 condemns David for attempting to carry out a Census.

Many Atheist Libertarians are inclined to distrust Christian Libertarians in actual positions of power, they fear no matter how much they want to be against theocracy inevitably their faith will subconsciously influence them. Well I'm not claiming my Libertarian tendencies are in-spite of my faith, they're because of it.

 For one I firmly believe the New Testament is against Organized religion all together, The Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us,  It is a doctrine of my faith to oppose institutional religion. And a State religion is by definition organized, and as we Libertarians know that's the worst organizer of all.

Jesus defined Satan as the "Ruler of the world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) Paul affirms that in 2 Corinthian 4:4. When Satan tempted Jesus he offered him all the kingdoms of the world, and Jesus didn't deny he had the authority to do that. Ephesians 6:12 and Daniel 10 show that Fallen Angels and Demonic forced control the nations behind the scenes. And we see in David and Solomon even the best leaders can be corrupted by power.

In a sense, someone who has a very strict moral code can even easier come to the Libertarian conclusion that the state can't regulate Morality. Since even our thoughts can be sinful, and "All have sinned". The issue is where to draw the line, I'm firmly Libertarian on "social issues" for Federal, State and Local governments. Now it doesn't turn out that way with many Christians of course, but that's an argument I recommend Libertarians make to Christians.

I've seen some Christians claim there is no such thing as a "Victimless Crime" while their arguments for saying that are nice philosophical points to make when discussing Moral or Ethical behavior, it does not contradict the Jeffersonian principle that unless what you're doing violates or hinders the right to Life, Liberty or Property of someone else, the state has no business telling you that you can of can't do it.