A Short Note on Baptism

In a recent post on a Mormon related board I made the following comment…

“In fact, baptism for the remission of sin was indeed unheard of in the OT. The tradition of Tvilah or immersion in a Mikvah for ritual cleansing or purification due to contact with some impurity such as a corpse of blood was part of the ritual. John the Baptist used baptism as a sacrament in his Messianic movement, but its antecedent was not really connected with his practice.”

Someone rightly pointed out this was not the teaching of the LDS Church for which I quickly agreed, but simply looked at the issue in the light of OT theology. In response I wrote…

“It is true that modern revelation has revealed more of the nature of baptism and it’s efficaciousness, but the fact remains that the earliest uses were not for an remission of sin (in like manner the baptisms of John as mentioned by Matthew were also not for the remission of sin, but for the purpose of repentance causing the hearer a change of behavior. Later, Jesus ostensibly would baptize with fire and spirit thereby completing the necessary fullness of baptism for remission) but a particular sin such as uncleanliness. As outlined in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (Freedman, D. N. (1996). Vol. 1: The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (583). New York: Doubleday.) the phenomenology of baptism is described as…

Quote
Rites of immersion were not uncommon in the world in which early Christianity developed. One type of symbolism with which they were frequently connected was that of purification: from sin, from destruction, from the profane sphere before entering an holy area, from something under a taboo, etc. See, e.g., Lev 16:4, 24 (the high priest before and after the rites of atonement); Leviticus 15 (on menstruating women); 1 QS 3:5–9 (cleansing from sins); Sib. Or. 4.165 (a baptism of repentance); Joseph. Ant. 18.117 (on John’s baptism); Joseph. Life. 11 (on Bannus’ ablutions for purity’s sake); Apul., Met. 11.23 (purification at the initiation into the Isis mysteries); b. Yebam. 47 ab (on proselyte baptism).
Such cleansings can take place when one stands on the verge of a new state in life or is entering into a new community or upon a new phase of life, etc. Thus they can function as rites of initiation or as rites of passage. Depending on the way in which one regards the situation being left behind and the one being entered, such rites can be connected with ideas of a new birth, of a new life, or of salvation as contrasted to nothingness, chaos, death, or destruction.

The latter highlighted sections shows that Jesus might have been following this path because John’s baptism was unique because a) not self administered such as that practiced in the Mikvah b). no specific connection to Jesus nor c). to the promise of the Holy Ghost. What is most significant about John’s baptism is that it was designed to prepare the way for the “coming one” similar to the ritual purifications by self-immersion of the Essenes. Therefore, such a baptism while novel was probably not unique to any observer such as Pharisees. As is previously mentioned by others baptism followed in many ways the eschaton of the Essenes.”

Any comments…

Is God Good?

To ask if God was acting morally in the OT is to question how ancient man saw God. Rather than defining God by inward thinking of good and evil he saw the gods or God in a exterior relationship with man. In fact, early man had little interest in knowing how God thought only how God acted in his benefit. J.Bottero states In “Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia”., “…our insistence on isolated propositions somewhat deadens, in fact deforms, the thought of those people who had neither the need for logic nor our demands for clarity.”
Therefore, the question was not whether God acted justly, but did he administer justice for those on Earth? In other words what has God done for me? In Job we are confronted with this conundrum. Job is a good man, but God agrees to the adversary to his torture. What was God’s motivation? Job didn’t consider it. He only saw the exterior results around him. Had he sinned? Disobeyed God in some way? It didn’t matter: ““NakedI came from my mother’s womb, and naked I will return there.The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.May the name of the Lordbe blessed!” In all this Job did not sin, nor did he charge God with moral impropriety.”
And finally he acknowledges God with “As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives,
and that as the lasthe will stand upon the earth.And after my skin has been destroyed,yet in my flesh I will see God”
Did God act in anger or was he unjust? Job never answer this, but to admit that life is unfair, but in the end we will know that God lives, He is our redeemer and we will see Him face to face.
God or the gods were praised for their power and strength, I Chronicles 16, but not for their goodness. Except for a few scriptures such as 2 Chronicles 30:18:
“The majority of the many people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun were ceremonially unclean, yet they ate the Passover in violation of what is prescribed in the law. For Hezekiah prayed for them, saying: “May the Lord, who is good, forgive.”
and Psalms 136:1 :
“Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his loyal love endures.”
God was seen as possessing strength, power and majesty.
In 1 Chronicles 16:4-7 Asaph is chosen to give thanks to God in which he sees God initially in Psalms 72 where good is simply the absence of pin and suffering, but in the end he can delare that , “Certainly God is good to Israel,and to those whose motives are pure!” God is good to those who serve Him: Verse 28 , “But as for me, the nearness of God is my good; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, That I may tell of all Thy works.”
Man wasn’t interested in God’s inner motivation only his outward demonstrations.
“For Yahweh the standard is the Yahweh own character, therefore making it impossible for him to do evil_good is defined by what he does.”
Finally evil itself was not the purview of God, but of demons. God himself was interested only that human act towards each other in a just manner as long as they maintained their cultic devotions to God and maintained a social order. Amongst themselves the Heavenly Council could act in any manner they felt justified.

Congratulations to Daniel O. McClellan

Congrats to Dan for not only getting his masters from Oxford U., but also winning an award for best dissertation in Oxford’s Master of Studies in Jewish Studies. His dissertation was named “Anti-Anthropomorphism and the Vorlage of LXX Exodus.” Good going.

Dominion or Exploitation?

I am long time Californian growing up along the Monterey coast. I grew up in symbiosis with the sea and its creatures. It is this realization that makes me worried about the future of our environment. The Gulf Coast is reeling under the recent oil spill and I, for one, am wondering what is our obligation in this. The most recent Time Magazine states that Americans share a portion of the blame for such a spill because of our “greed” for oil. On the other hand we live on the need for oil. Everything we use is based on petroleum products. Yet, how does this jive with the spiritual concerns of pollution and gluttony for more.
In Genesis 1:28 it reads, “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” It says we should “subdue” the earth. The imperative here translate we should “conquer” the earth as to enslave it. Yet, I don’t think this makes much sense in context of the passage. This is not to be adversarial given the passage right before it which states that we should be “fruitful and multiply” meaning we are to share with God the responsibility of creating and nurturing life on this planet. We serve as co-regents with God not only in creation but also in seeing to the welfare of all life including the fuels which we are given.
Therefore, the imperial imperative seems to indicate we are harness the earth’s potential and use what we can for our good. JS teaches that through the priesthood we are to have dominion, i.e., rule over the earth and to replenish it, meaning to give back the natural resources which we use. In the case of plant and animal it is not a problem, but with minerals it is a far greater problem.
Brigham Young comments on this further in a quote from Hugh Nibley

As Brigham Young explains it, while “subduing the earth” we must be about “multiplying those organisms of plants and animals God has designed shall dwell upon it,” 4 namely “all forms of life,” each to multiply in its sphere and element and have joy therein.”

If we fail to heed this admonition then we have a result the Earth pulling away from us. Again from H. Nibley.

Man’s dominion is a call to service, not a license to exterminate. It is precisely because men now prey upon each other and shed the blood and waste the flesh of other creatures without need that “the world lieth in sin” (D&C 49:19-21). Such, at least, is the teaching of the ancient Jews and of modern revelation…
One of the best-known teachings of the Jews is that when man (Israel in particular) falls away from God, all nature becomes his enemy. 47 Modern revelation confirms this: when all the people became wicked in Enoch’s day, “the earth trembled, and the mountains fled; . . . and the rivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness” (Moses 7:13). Just so, in the last days “all the growing things will be blighted by the . . . great lawlessness, and plagues will come over all creatures of all the earth.” 48 Where people refuse the gospel, according to Brigham Young, “that land eventually . . . will become desolate, forlorn, and forsaken,” as nature refuses her bounties. 49

17 – 18The explanation of this all-out hostility is simple. “The animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms abide the law of their Creator; the whole earth and all things pertaining to it, except man, abide the law of their creation,” while “man, who is the offspring of the Gods, will not become subject to the most reasonable and self-exalting principles.” 50 With all things going in one direction, men, stubbornly going in the opposite direction, naturally find themselves in the position of one going the wrong way on the freeway during rush hour; the struggle to live becomes a fight against nature. Having made himself allergic to almost everything by the Fall, man is given the choice of changing his nature so that the animal and vegetable creation will cease to afflict and torment him, 51 or else of waging a truceless war of extermination against all that annoys him until he renders the earth completely uninhabitable. From Man’s Dominion, or Subduing the Earth
This article was printed as “Subduing the Earth” in Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 85-89; it also appeared as “Man’s Dominion,” New Era 2 (October 1972): 24-31, and New Era 11 (January-February 1981): 46-53.

In conclusion what options do we have left with our ever increasing need for fossil fuels? Nuclear? Wind? Water? A combination? Oil has ceased to be the answer to our needs.

Memorial Day 2010

When I was a small child no more than four years old I remember going to the airport with my dad and standing at the terminal door watching him board an airplane for France. It was a cold wet day and I was a bit confused. I remember the voices behind me telling me to wave goodbye, but yet I was uncertain where my dad was going and for what reason. I only knew he would be gone a long time. And he was. Since then he had many other deployments overseas; Korea, Germany, etc., and each time I stood there and waved and said my goodbyes. On this Memorial Day I am thinking of all the men and women and families who have said their goodbyes. Some temporarily, others permanently. In America’s long history of warfare there is a lot to remember and be thankful and sometimes be sadden for; the men and women of America’s past, of our Civil War, the war of Independence, WWI and II, Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan, the kids in my classes who fathers never did return home, the crying of my mother over the long hours my father put into the military, the service of my father in law, but most of all I am thankful and very memorable of my dad. He gave his best and he did it well. Rest well sergeant.

A Little Lesson from Gilgamesh

I was struck the other day while reading the following passage in Gilgamesh of its similarity with a passage from Ecclesiastes.
Gilgamesh is nearing the end of a long journey on a personal path of immortality when he runs into Siduri, a tavern keeper who gives him the following advice…
“Gilgamesh, whence do you direct yourself?
You shall not find the life you seek,
For at the creation of mankind
The gods allotted Death to men.
They retained life in their own hands.
Gilgamesh, let your belly be full,
Make you merry by day and by night.
Make everyday a day of feasting and of rejoicing
Dance and play, by day, by night,
Let your clothes be sparkling and fresh
Wash your hairBathe your body
Attend to the babe who holds you by the hand
Take your wife and let her rejoice in you.For this is the lot of mankind to enjoy
But immortal life is not for men.”
I was surprised to realize that this paralleled almost exactly the “Preachers” advice in Ecclesiastes which reads:
“9:7 Go, eat your food with joy,
and drink your wine with a happy heart,
because God has already approved your works.
9:8 Let your clothes always be white,
and do not spare precious ointment on your head.
9:9 Enjoy life with your beloved wife during all the days of your fleeting life
that God has given you on earth during all your fleeting days;
for that is your reward in life and in your burdensome work on earth.
9:10 Whatever you find to do with your hands,
do it with all your might, because there is neither work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave,
the place where you will eventually go.”
While initially I felt I had stumbled across something unique upon further study it seems that this has been examined often and originally by a scholar named Hubert Grimme who saw the parallels between the two texts. So the questions:
1. Did the author of Eccliastes have a familiarity with Gilgamesh?
2. Moreover, did the author have at some time sojourned in Mesopotamia perhaps as a part of the Jewish diaspora?
While the evidence for the former is more likely true there is little to suggest beyond the text that the Eccliastes author was in Mesopotamia. Moreover given the substantial comparison made by Ecc to that of Gilgamesh it would be hard to argue that there wasn’t an assimilation of the two texts.
Beyond the above thematic parallels there are a couple other that show a conflation of ideas.

1. Parallels with God and wind.

In the Gilgamesh version it reads,
“Who is there, my friend, can climb to the sky?
Only the gods dwell forever with the Sun-god.”
In Ecc. it reads in 5:2 on Gods station in the heavens, “Do not be rash with your mouth or hasty in your heart to bring up a matter before God, for God is in heaven and you are on earth! Therefore, let your words be few.” Among many comparisons.

2. Gilgamesh reminds us

“As for man, his days are numbered, whatever he may do, it is but wind”
Ecc. makes a similar statement in 5:16
“This is another misfortune:
Just as he came, so will he go.
What did he gain from toiling for the wind?”
And
“1:6 The wind goes to the south and circles around to the north;round and round the wind goes and on its rounds it returns.” (see also Ecclesiastes 1:6, 14, 17, 2:11, 17, 26)
While this has little to do with the original corpus it does ironically parallel a Buddhist imagery when discussing the transcendence of man. In the Heiki Monogatari it reads
“The knell of the bells at the Gion temple
Echoes the impermanence of all things.
The colour of the flowers on its double-trunked tree
Reveals the truth that to flourish is to fall.
He who is proud is not so for long,
Like a passing dream on a night in spring.
He who is brave is finally destroyed,
To be no more than dust before the wind.”

3. The triple knot

The Sumerian version of Gilgamesh gives us a traditional saying: “The towed boat will not sink, a tow-rope of three strands shall not be cut.” In Ecclesiastes 4:12 it reads: “A threefold cord is not easily cut.” While such an analogy seems to be fairly obvious and clearcut the deeper meaning of a triune knotting is not so evident and can probably be laid to a later analysis. For now it is sufficient to point out its usage in both the Mesopotamian passage and biblical passage.
One aspect of the admonition is the clearcut message to “Take your wife and let her rejoice in you” This is consistent with the admonition of the preacher in Ecc. who states, “Enjoy life with your beloved wife during all the days of your fleeting life” The Zohar makes a further interesting comment on this in its commentary on Ecc.:
“This verse has been thus esoterically explained. ‘Enjoy life’ is an allusion to the life of the world to come, for happy is the man who is privileged to gain that life in its fullness.” Commenting on the next verse, “What­soever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy strength…” (Ecclesiastes 9:10), the text continues: “‘by thy strength’ alludes to the wife mentioned above, she being a source of strength for both this world and the world to come.” (See R. Simeon, The Zohar, II:196b,
In further evidence of the eternal nature of marriage The Gnostic Gospel of Philip states that “Because of this, Christ came to repair the separation, which was from the beginning, and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation, and unite them. But the woman is united to her husband in the bridal chamber. Indeed, those who have united in the bridal chamber will no longer be separated.” Furthermore we learn that “If anyone does not receive [eternal marriage] while he is in this world, he will not receive it in the other place”.
Throughout the Book of Mormon such “Wisdom Literature” is scattered throughout. To be sure Alma is replete with advice from a father to a son and to others. More importantly and certainly germane to the point is Lehi’s comments, “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy” (2 Ne. 2:25) which shows some similarity with Ecc.
Finally, Joseph Smith shows the same propensity of wisdom when he proclaims, ““It is the duty of a husband to love, cherish, and nourish his wife, and cleave unto her and none else [see D&C 42:22]; he ought to honor her as himself, and he ought to regard her feelings with tenderness, for she is his flesh, and his bone, designed to be an help unto him, both in temporal, and spiritual things; one into whose bosom he can pour all his complaints without reserve, who is willing (being designed) to take part of his burden, to soothe and encourage his feelings by her gentle voice. “
In summary, while not an earth shattering parallel it is still amazing to see that what was once is true and true again.

Whence Cometh Eve? or Adam’s Rib?

Where did Eve come from? Was it a rib or what? I have some thoughts I would like to share and I have read some fascinating things of late that shed some light on this.
1. The actual term is that Eve was created from Adam’s tsela or side. The actual passage is, “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs (or side), and closed up the flesh in its place.” If one looks at tsela one will find it has many meanings. In each case it means an item that extends out. And before everyone gets excited I am NOT heading in that direction.
Zeony Zevit, an teacher at the American Jewish University of Los Angeles has suggested in a paper published in the American Journal of Medical Genetics in 2001 entitled “Congenital Human Baculum Deficiency” by Scott F. Gilbert and Ziony Zevit that the tsela in question was actually the baculum or literally a bone present in all but male humans and spider monkeys in aiding intercourse. The absence of this bone would certain give rise by obvious observation to the exclusion of this part of the anatomy and the speculation among early peoples in the speculation of how Eve came about, i.e., tsela equates to the baculum. In addition, the passage in Genesis continues with another etiological detail… Zevit writes,

Quote
Genesis 2:21 contains another etiological detail: “The Lord God closed up the flesh.” This detail would explain the peculiar visible sign on the penis and scrotum of human males—the raphé . In the human penis and scrotum, the edges of the urogenital folds come together over the urogenital sinus (urethral groove) to form a seam, the raphé. If this seam does not form, hypospadias of the glans, penis, and scrotum can result. The origin of this seam on the external genitalia was “explained” by the story of the closing of Adam’s flesh. Again, the wound associated with the generation of Eve is connected to Adam’s penis and not his rib.

My intent was not to be indiscreet but informative on how legend sometimes creeps into doctrine to make up our understanding of the scriptures.

2. On a more literary note, the ancient Mesopotamians believe that the rib motif is actually from a much older text in Sumerian that reads…

Quote
Ninhursag: “My brother what hurts thee?”
Enki: “My side hurts me.”
Ninhursag: “To the goddess Dazimua I give birth for thee.”

Ninhursag: “My brother what hurts thee?”
Enki: “My rib hurts me.”
Ninhursag: “To the goddess Ninti I give birth for thee.”
(Kramer, Sumerian Mythology 58)

Samuel Kramer writes,

Quote
Now the Sumerian word for “rib” is ti (pronounced “tee”). The goddess created for the healing of Enki’s rib, therefore was called in Sumerian Nin-ti, “the lady of the rib.” But the very same Sumerian word ti also means “to make live.” The name Nin-ti may thus mean “the lady who makes live,” as well as “the lady of the rib.” In Sumerian literature, therefore, “the lady of the rib” came to be identified with “the lady who makes live” through what might be termed a play on words. (Kramer, Mythologies 103)
Kramer suggests that the passage in Genesis where Eve, “the mother of all living” is taken from Adam’s rib may be an echo of this Sumerian pun. Enki felt a pain in his rib or side which is identical to the word life. To relieve Enki Ninhursag created a new god named Ninti or “Lady of Life or Rib”. Both Ninhursag and Eve are composite creations.

3. An old story of the rib is told by Rabbi Joshua:

Quote
“God deliberated from what member He would create woman, and He
reasoned with Himself thus: I must not create her from Adam’s head, for
she would be a proud person, and hold her head high. If I create her
from the eye, then she will wish to pry into all things; if from the
ear, she will wish to hear all things; if from the mouth, she will talk
much; if from the heart, she will envy people; if from the hand, she
will desire to take all things; if from the feet, she will be a
gadabout. Therefore I will create her from the member which is hid,
that is the rib, which is not even seen when man is naked.” translated from the Ethiopic (1882) by Malan. This was first translated by Dillmann (Das christl. Adambuch des Morgenlandes, 1853), and the Ethiopic book first edited by Trump (Abh. d. Münch. Akad. xv., 1870-1881)

Original Sin

After some thought I can only surmise that what is written by Paul regarding “original sin” by Adam is a radical remake of the connotation between sin and redemption. I believe Paul is indicating, something he designed, that since we are born through a sin initiated by Adam then we need a propitiation of that sin through Christ. To my knowledge this is not indicated in either the gospels or the OT. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It seems that to understand Paul’s reckoning here is to understand his concept of the OT and the need for a salvific redeemer as well as the state of mankind.
It is truly ironic that while Paul considers mankind inherently good I Tim 4:4

For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving.

he also considers man to be in a fallen state awaiting the final redemption(Romans 8:20, “Against its will, everything on earth was subjected to God’s curse.”. Therefore, we become will not to God who makes everything good, but to a personal Satan who makes everything cursed and evil. There is no neutrality where man can work towards goodness, we are simply overwhelmed by this active and dynamic evil energy of Satan who perverts the very will of God. God ceases to be God of this world to replaced by the Devil. I consider this to be antithetical to the teachings of Jesus and his apostles and to the nature of the OT. For this reason the laws of Moses are unnecessary because they are of zero efficaciousness and only through the redemptive power of Jesus can we be saved. No works and truly not even through faith can we be saved. Only through the salvific redemption of Jesus.
It is correct that people die, but they die because the body wears out. The cells entropy and die. This, however, is not because of sin, but because of natural consequence of being born and living. Adams eating of the fruit did cause the immediate death of Adam. In fact, Adam continued living for a great while longer. It caused the death of his paradise and of the lifestyle in which he was accustomed. In this sense not only does he die a physical, but ultimately a spiritual death.

The Hebrew text (“dying you will die”) does not refer to two aspects of death (“dying spiritually, you will then die physically”). The construction simply emphasizes the certainty of death, however it is defined. Death is essentially separation. To die physically means separation from the land of the living, but not extinction. To die spiritually means to be separated from God. Both occur with sin, although the physical alienation is more gradual than instant, and the spiritual is immediate, although the effects of it continue the separation.
the NET Bible

Because of that we have a unique spiritual separation from God. Jesus taught the way to heal this rift. To make a permanent and everlasting At-one-ment.

Dem bones!

It was announced today that the bones of Paul were discovered in all places, his historical grave site.

Pope: Scientific analysis done on St. Paul’s bones By NICOLE WINFIELD – 1 day ago

ROME (AP) — The first-ever scientific tests on what are believed to be the remains of the Apostle Paul “seem to conclude” that they do indeed belong to the Roman Catholic saint, Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday.

Archaeologists recently unearthed and opened the white marble sarcophagus located under the Basilica of St. Paul’s Outside the Walls in Rome, which for some 2,000 years has been believed by the faithful to be the tomb of St. Paul.

Benedict said scientists had conducted carbon dating tests on bone fragments found inside the sarcophagus and confirmed that they date from the first or second century.

“This seems to confirm the unanimous and uncontested tradition that they are the mortal remains of the Apostle Paul,” Benedict said, announcing the findings at a service in the basilica to mark the end of the Vatican’s Paoline year, in honor of the apostle.

Paul, along with Peter, are the two main figures known for spreading the Christian faith after the death of Christ.

According to tradition, St. Paul, also known as the apostle of the Gentiles, was beheaded in Rome in the 1st century during the persecution of early Christians by Roman emperors. Popular belief holds that bone fragments from his head are in another Rome basilica, St. John Lateran, with his other remains inside the sarcophagus.

The pope said that when archaeologists opened the sarcophagus, they discovered alongside the bone fragments some grains of incense, a “precious” piece of purple linen with gold sequins and a blue fabric with linen filaments.

Vatican archaeologists in 2002 began excavating the 8-foot-long coffin, which dates from at least A.D. 390 and was buried under the basilica’s main altar. The decision to unearth it was made after pilgrims who came to Rome during the Roman Catholic Church’s 2000 Jubilee year expressed disappointment at finding that the saint’s tomb — buried under layers of plaster and further hidden by an iron grate — could not be visited or touched.

The top of the coffin has small openings — subsequently covered with mortar — because in ancient times Christians would insert offerings or try to touch the remains.

The basilica stands at the site of two 4th-century churches — including one destroyed by a fire in 1823 that had left the tomb visible, first above ground and later in a crypt. After the fire, the crypt was filled with earth and covered by a new altar. A slab of cracked marble with the words “Paul apostle martyr” in Latin was also found embedded in the floor above the tomb.

Monday is the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, a major feast day for the Roman Catholic Church, during which the pope will bestow a woolen pallium, or scarf, on all the new archbishops he has recently named. The pallium is a band of white wool decorated with black crosses that is a sign of pastoral authority and a symbol of the archbishops’ bond with the pope.

At the end of Sunday’s service in the warm basilica, the 82-year-old Benedict lost his balance slightly as he slipped on a step on the altar, and was steadied by one of his assistants who was by his side.

Paul

C14 testing confirmed the bone fragments found dated to around the 1st or 2nd century ACE. Further testing showed they were the bones of a middle aged man. Adjacent to the tomb and church where Paul was eventually laid was discovered the oldest known image of Paul that dates to around the year 400 ACE.
On a more critical note what does the board representation feel about the influence of Paul’s teachings in the early church? Was he…
1. An usurper who integrated pagan ideals into a Jewish setting?
2. A revolutionary who saw beyond the provincialism of Jewish Christianity?
3. An apostle?
4. A heretic?
5. Something else?

“Oh, My God!”

I was listening to the Dennis Prager show this morning and he was discussing the use or more aptly the abuse of using God’s name is social discourse. Many people reject the use of interjecting the word, ‘god’ in their grammar because they feel it is using God’s name in vain. Dennis explained…
QUOTE
Because religion can be the greatest tool for goodness, it can also be the greatest tool for evil. And those who use it for evil commit the worst of sins. The second/third (depending on your enumeration) of the Ten Commandments reads, “Thou shall not take the name of God in vain, for God will not hold
him guiltless that takes His name in vain.”This commandment prohibits much more than merely frivolously saying the word “God.” What it really prohibits (and describes as essentially unforgivable) is committing evil while acting religious. Or, as the original Hebrew literally reads, “carrying” God’s name in vain.

Specifically, he stated that the Hebrew word for ‘using’ God’s name, na’sa, or carry means we should not do evil and invoke the name of God in that invocation. This seems to make some sense given the next part of this passage which states that this shall not be done in vain or shav (שָׁוְא ) a command which seems to prohibit the use of the name for any frivolous or insincere reason.

Secondly, since we know that term god is not an actual name but simply an appelation are we really using God’s name (Jehovah, Elohim, YHWH, etc.) in vain?