Podcasts about latin vulgate

The first Catholic Bible translated from the Latin Vulgate into English was the one known today as the Douay Rheims Bible. This episode covers a brief history of the Bible, English translations, and the Douay.

Welcome to Day 2786 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – The Unintended Consequences of Replacing Yahweh with “God” Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2786 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps!   I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2786 of our Trek.   The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Our current series of Theology Thursday lessons is written by theologian and teacher John Daniels. I have found that his lessons are short, easy to understand, doctrinally sound, and applicable to all who desire to learn more of God's Word. John's lessons can be found on his website   theologyinfive.com.   Today's lesson is titled The Unintended Consequences of Replacing Yahweh with “God”. In the pages of Scripture, the God of Israel reveals Himself by name, Yahweh, a name that marks His identity, His covenant, and His absolute uniqueness among all other spiritual beings. Yet somewhere in the history of Jewish and Christian tradition, this name was quietly replaced. Where once God was named, now He is merely titled. Yahweh became “the LORD.” Eventually, even “the LORD” gave way to “God,” a generic and universal term that can apply to almost any religious conception of the divine. What began as an effort to show reverence or accommodate translation has produced serious theological consequences. The loss of God's name has led to a distorted view of monotheism, erased key distinctions between Yahweh and other spiritual beings, and enabled poor apologetic compromises, such as the claim that “Allah is just the Arabic word for God.” It has also obscured the meaning of the First Commandment and weakened the Church's understanding of its own covenant relationship. This article traces how we got here and why recovering the name Yahweh is essential to restoring biblical clarity. The First Segment is: From Name to Title: How Yahweh Was Replaced. The divine name Yahweh (יהוה), also called the Tetragrammaton, appears over 6,800 times in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus 3:15, God declares, “This is my name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.” Yet despite this, a tradition developed during the Second Temple Period in which Jews refrained from pronouncing the divine name aloud. Instead, they substituted it with Adonai (“Lord”) during public readings. This practice, rooted in caution and reverence, carried over into Greek and Latin translations of the Bible. The Septuagint rendered Yahweh as Kyrios (“Lord”), and the Latin Vulgate followed suit with Dominus. English Bibles later preserved this substitution, using the stylized “LORD” in small caps, often without explaining to readers that a name was being replaced. As Christianity spread into the Gentile world, the name Yahweh virtually disappeared from common use. The God of the Bible came to be referred to simply as “God,” a word that is not a name at all, but a title. And not a unique title either, “God” can refer to any number of deities across religious systems or even to philosophical abstractions. In trying to show reverence or universality, the Church began to erase the very name by which the true God had distinguished Himself. The second segment is: The Problem with “God”: A Category, Not a Character This shift might seem minor, but it represents a profound theological error. In Hebrew, the word elohim is used to...

God is loving and merciful, not judgmental and cruel Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week I began sharing with you what is essentially a book report on the book called That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation by David Bentley Hart, and he's the translator of the New Testament that I've been using. So, last week we got up to page 21 out of this book, and now I'm all the way up to page 85, so we'll see what happened in this latest round of reading. Now, David Bentley Hart's style of writing may not be for everyone. It's very academic, very high-minded and educated and erudite—difficult to follow if you're not accustomed to reading scholastic writing. But I believe his heart's in the right place, and I agree with pretty much everything he says. I will do my best to reinterpret what he is saying in simpler words, in case you're interested in the content, but not in its delivery method. So, picking it up on page 21, Hart says, And what could be more absurd than the claim that God's ways so exceed comprehension, that we dare not presume even to distinguish benevolence from malevolence in the divine, inasmuch as either can result in the same endless excruciating despair? Here the docile believer is simply commanded to nod in acquiescence, quietly and submissively, to feel moved at a strange and stirring obscurity, and to accept that, if only he or she could sound the depths of this mystery, its essence would somehow be revealed as infinite beauty and love. A rational person capable of that assent, however, of believing all of this to be a paradox concealing a deeper, wholly coherent truth, rather than a gross contradiction, has probably suffered such chronic intellectual and moral malformation that he or she is no longer able to recognize certain very plain truths, such as the truth that he or she has been taught to approve of divine deeds that, were they reduced to a human scale of action, would immediately be recognizable as expressions of unalloyed spite. And he's talking about the idea that most everyone and everything is going to hell and will suffer eternal torment. That is an interpretation or misinterpretation of the word brought about by incorrect translation of the original Coptic. Most of our Bible translations come off of old Latin Vulgate translations, and then they've been modernized. But that's how errors are brought forward. And what Hart has done in his New Testament translation is go back to the original, very oldest transcripts, still in Greek, before they were translated to Latin. And he did what he called a pitilessly accurate translation, where Hart was not trying to make the words that are being translated fit into a predetermined doctrine, like everyone going to hell, or like the Trinity, or eternal damnation. These things we've been taught to believe are in the Scripture, but when you actually go back to the original Scriptures prior to the Latin translations, they are not in the Scripture. And so this book that I'm doing the book report on here, That All Shall Be Saved, this is about universal salvation, and doing away with the idea. And he says in this section I just read you, that it is a malevolent idea, unalloyed spite, unalloyed meaning pure spite on the part of God, that's going to send everyone to hell that doesn't get it. And that we have been commanded by the Church over the last 2,000 years to just nod our heads and say, oh, well, it's God's will, or oh, well, how can I presume to distinguish benevolence from malevolence, good intention from bad intention on the part of God, because God is so great and good. We're supposed to be docile believers, to acquiesce, that is, to go along with, to quietly and submissively accept that we don't get it, that we don't understand the depths of the mystery, and someday we will, and that God is good, and God is just, and therefore everyone's going to hell, except for those few preordained elect from before time began. So this book is entirely against that proposition. So moving on, what I did was I read the book through, and I've highlighted the parts that seem worth sharing or very interesting. Now we're jumping to page 35, where he says that certain people, of my acquaintance who are committed to what is often called an intellectualist model of human liberty, as I am myself, [he says], but who also insist that it is possible for a soul freely to reject God's love with such perfect perpiscuity of understanding and intention as to merit eternal suffering. And we can tell from the context that perpiscuity means you get it. So he's saying, how is it even possible for a soul to freely reject the love of God and consign oneself into eternal torment? It just doesn't work. It's not possible. He says, this is an altogether dizzying contradiction. In simplest terms, that is to say, they, [that is, the intellectualists], want to assert that all true freedom is an orientation of the rational will toward an end that the mind takes in some sense to be the good, and so takes also as the one end that can fulfill the mind's nature and supply its desires. This means that the better the rational will knows the Good, and that's a capital G, Good, for what it is, the more that is that the will is freed from those forces that distort reason and lead the soul toward improper ends. The more it will long for and seek after the true good in itself, and conversely, the more rationally it seeks the good, the freer it is. He says that in terms of the great Maximus the Confessor, who lived from 580 to 660, the natural will within us, which is the rational ground of our whole power of volition, must tend only toward God as its true end, for God is goodness as such, whereas our gnomic or deliberative will can stray from him, but only to the degree that it has been blinded to the truth of who he is and what we are, and as a result has come to seek a false end as the true end. In short, sin requires some degree of ignorance, and ignorance is by definition a diverting of the mind and will to an end they would not naturally pursue. So, in other words, we all want what's best for ourself, even in the most selfish sense, even in the most egoic sense. The ego wants what is best for this person that it is part of, that that is the rational end of the ego's striving, what is best, and that there is a thing called good in the absolute sense, and if we realize that, then we would strive toward the good, by definition. Carrying on, page 37, I'm not saying that we do not in some very significant sense make our own exceedingly substantial voluntary contributions to our estrangement from the good in this life. And, see, he's just saying we all screw up. Even if we are seeking the good, we often fall backwards into the bad, okay? Up to a certain point, [he says], it is undeniable, but past that point it is manifest falsehood. There is no such thing as perfect freedom in this life, or perfect understanding, and it is sheer nonsense to suggest that we possess limitless or unqualified liberty. Therefore, we are incapable of contracting a limitless or unqualified guilt. There are always extenuating circumstances. Well, in a sense, that's true of all of us and all of our circumstances. We are a product of our environment, to some extent. But don't forget that in the Gnostic view, we also contain the pure goodness of God, the capital S Self, that reflects the Fullness of God. So we do know what goodness is, even if we are surrounded by badness. Quoting Hart again, page 40, Here though, I have to note that it is a thoroughly modern and wholly illogical notion that the power of absolutely unpremised liberty, obeying no rationale except its own spontaneous volition toward whatever end it might pose for itself, is either a real logical possibility or, in any meaningful sense, a proper definition of freedom. See? He's saying it's thoroughly modern and wholly illogical to think that we have complete freedom of will, and that we can choose to follow any unethical or immoral end that we wish to, because what's it matter? One choice being pretty much the same as another, you see. He goes on to say, in page 40, A choice made without rationale is a contradiction in terms. At the same time, any movement of the will prompted by an entirely perverse rationale would be, by definition, wholly irrational. Insane, that is to say. And therefore, no more truly free than a psychotic episode. The more one is in one's right mind, the more that is that one is conscious of God as the goodness that fulfills all beings. And the more one recognizes that one's own nature can have its true completion and joy nowhere but in Him, and the more one is unfettered by distorting misperceptions, deranged passions, and the encumbrances of past mistakes, the more inevitable is one's surrender to God, liberated from all ignorance, emancipated from all the adverse conditions of this life, the rational soul could freely will only its own union with God, and thereby its own supreme beatitude. We are, as it were, doomed to happiness, so long as our natures follow their healthiest impulses unhindered. And we cannot not will the satisfaction of our beings in our true final end, a transcendent good lying behind and beyond all the proximate ends we might be moved to pursue. This is no constraint upon the freedom of the will, coherently conceived. It is simply the consequence of possessing a nature produced by and for the transcendent good, a nature whose proper end has been fashioned in harmony with a supernatural purpose. God has made us for Himself, as Augustine would say, and our hearts are restless till they rest in Him. A rational nature seeks a rational end, truth, which is God Himself. The irresistibility of God for any soul that has been truly set free is no more a constraint placed upon its liberty than is the irresistible attraction of a flowing spring to fresh water in a desert place to a man who is dying of thirst. To choose not to drink in that circumstance would not be an act of freedom on his part, but only a manifestation of the delusions that enslave him and force him to inflict violence upon himself, contrary to his nature. Do you follow the reasoning there? That boils down to simply saying it is logical. Even Mr. Spock would find it logical for a human to pursue the good in its own best interests, and that it is illogical, illogical all the way to insanity, to refuse the good, to refuse what is best for you. It's a manifestation of insanity, to refuse the love of God. How's that for laying it out? I really appreciate logic, you know, because this is a logical universe. If the laws of physics and chemistry didn't hold true to logic, and that includes math, you see, 2 plus 2 equals 4, etc., all the way through all the difficult math, the quantum physics, and the string theory, and so forth, this is a logical universe based upon the Aeon known as Logos, logic. And so, therefore, to reject logic, it's not smart, it's not clever, it's not freedom. And, by the way, this is about the level of pushback I see in, for example, YouTube comments that reject the gospel. They're pretty much on the order of, oh, yeah, I can die of thirst if I want to, so F off. Okay, well, good luck with that, right? Carrying on, page 43. None of this should need saying, to be honest. We should all already know that whenever the term justice and eternal punishment are set side by side as if they were logically compatible, the boundaries of the rational have been violated. If we were not so stupefied by the hoary and venerable myth that eternal damnation is an essential element of the original Christian message, and then he says in parentheses, which, not to spoil later plot developments here, it is not, we would not even waste our time on so preposterous a conjunction. From the perspective of Christian belief, the very notion of a punishment that is not intended ultimately to be remedial is morally dubious, and he says in parentheses, and I submit anyone who doubts this has never understood Christian teaching at all. But even if one believes that Christianity makes room for the condign imposition, [and condign means proper or fitting], imposition of purely retributive punishments, it remains the case that a retribution consisting in unending suffering, imposed as recompense for the actions of a finite intellect and will, must be by any sound definition disproportionate, unjust, and at the last, nothing more than an expression of sheer pointless cruelty. And of course, I do find that attitude on the part of Christians I talk to and try to explain the idea of universal salvation being Christ's true mission, that all shall be redeemed, every knee shall bow. They'd much rather send people to hell, and when you see their faces as they're saying it, it's not, oh, you know, I'm so sorry that it's this way and my heart breaks, but I'm afraid they're all going to hell. It's not like that at all. It's like, damn straight, they deserve to go to hell. Now, you take that kind of anger and cruelty when you consider that they are advocating unending, excruciating pain and punishment, and then you try to say that that is God's will, that goodness incorporates unending punishment. And Hart's saying, indeed, especially unending punishment that isn't for remediation, isn't to make them a better person, but simply to make them hurt. And who are you punishing? Finite beings with limited time and intelligence and ability to reason with things that happened in their past. Maybe they were brought up by someone very cruel who taught them cruelty, and so they carry on cruelty. And then that the God of all love and the God of all justice would send them to hell for eternal torment. And up until quite recently, even babies who were unbaptized would be sent to hell for eternal torment. And then someone came up with the idea of a baby purgatory where unbaptized babies never get to go to heaven, but they're not going to be eternally punished either. They're just going to go to a baby land where they're held apart from the rest of the redeemed. Well, really? That's hardly any better. I mean, it's somewhat better, but why shouldn't these pure babies who pretty much incorporate the Fullness of the Self and love of God, why wouldn't God want them back? You see, it doesn't make any sense. And if you're a Christian listening to me today who has had niggling doubts about certain things, and one of them being this idea of grandma being in hell and in the midst of eternal torture now because she wouldn't listen to your preaching, you can relax about it. Because we are the sower of seeds, but we are not the harvester. It is Christ who harvests the souls, who brings them all home. Back to Hart here again. On page 47, he says, Once more, not a single one of these attempted justifications for the idea of an eternal hell actually improves the picture of God with which the infernalist orthodoxy presents us. And he uses the word infernalist for like the infernal torments of hell. So an infernalist is someone who believes folks are going to hell for eternity. So he says, Once more, not a single one of these attempted justifications for the idea of an eternal hell actually improves the picture of God with which the infernalist orthodoxy presents us. And it is this that should be the chief concern of any believer. All of these arguments still oblige one to believe that a benevolent and omnipotent God would willfully create rational beings destined for an endless torment that they could never, in any rational calculus of personal responsibility, earn for themselves. And to believe also that this somehow is essential to the good news Christianity brought into the world. Isn't it true? When you're in church and you hear the preacher preaching a very nice, very good message about relationships or about moral virtue, and then there is a plea and a threat at the end that if you are sitting in the congregation and you have not accepted Christ as your personal Savior, you may go out and die this afternoon and go to hell. It's not right. It's contradictory. It is not the pure will of God. Page 47 goes on to say, In the end, there is only one logical terminus toward which all these lines of reasoning can lead: When all the possible paths of evasion have tapered away among the weeds, one has to stop, turn around, retrace one's steps back to the beginning of the journey, and finally admit that, if there really is an eternal hell for finite spirits, then it has to be the case that God condemns the damned to endless misery not on account of any sane proportion between what they are capable of meriting and how he chooses to requite them for their sins, but solely as a demonstration of his power to do as he wishes. Now, by the way, when I read the Old Testament, I see that that is often the attitude that Jehovah has towards his subjects. He commands things because he can, and he wants obedience because he wants obedience. Remember, the Demiurge controls through strong strings. He does not approve of willpower. Willpower is messy. Willpower means not obeying the will of God, and he wants to be the sayer of our souls. But the God Above All Gods, the Gnostic God, outranks the Old Testament God. The God Above All Gods is the Father who begat the Son. The Demiurge keeps chaos at bay by forbidding free will in his subjects And so when Jesus says, I and my Father are one, he's not talking about the Old Testament God. He's talking about the God Above All Gods, the originator of consciousness, of love, of life, of free will. And we are all fractals of that Father. Through the Son, through the Fullness of God, we are fractals of all of those powers of the Father–stepped down, because we're smaller fractals. So we all have to return to the Father in the end. When we loose these mortal coils and we're no longer bound to the material that deludes us, then we can finally return to the Father again. So onward and upward is not a trap. Onward and upward is freedom. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. So back to this idea of the Old Testament God enjoying his omnipotent sovereignty. On page 48, Hart is talking about Calvin and predestination. And he says, in book three of Calvin's Institutes, he even asserts that God predestined the human fall from grace, precisely because the whole of everything, creation, fall, redemption, judgment, the eternal bliss of heaven, the endless torments of hell, and whatever else, exists solely for the sake of a perfect display of the full range of God's omnipotent sovereignty, which for some reason absolutely must be displayed. He goes on to say he doesn't know how to respond to that, because, I know it to be based on a notoriously confused reading of Scripture, one whose history goes all the way back to the late Augustine, a towering genius whose inability to read Greek and consequent reliance on defective Latin translations turned out to be the single most tragically consequential case of linguistic incompetence in Christian history. In equal part, however, it is because I regard the picture of God thus produced to be a metaphysical absurdity, a God who is at once supposedly the source of all things, and yet also the one whose nature is necessarily thoroughly polluted by arbitrariness. And no matter how orthodox Calvinists might protest, there is no other way to understand the story of election and dereliction that Calvin tells, which would mean that in some sense he is a finite being, that is God, in whom possibility exceeds actuality, and the irrational exceeds the rational. A far greater concern than either of these theological defects, either the deeply misguided scriptural exegesis or the inept metaphysics of the divine, it is the moral horror in such language. So that's as far as we're going to go today. In next week's continuance of this train of thought, Hart will talk about the difference between the God Above All Gods, essentially, even though Hart's not calling himself a Gnostic. When he speaks of God, or Goodness with capital G, he is speaking of the God Above All Gods. And when he contrasts it with the God of Calvin and Augustine in the Old Testament, that is the Demiurgic God. I've noticed that many modern people seem to think of God as a yin-yang type of completion, that is, where evil balances good, where darkness is necessary to balance light, where the purpose of humanity, or what happens here in humanity, is that we are instantiating strife and struggle and evil for the teaching of God, for the completion of God. That is not right. That's wrong theology, folks. Our God is all goodness, and there is no evil that emanates from God. Well, where did evil come from then? It's merely the absence of good. So evil is the absence of goodness. The archons are the shadows of the Aeons. And when the light fully comes and fills all of space, the shadows will disappear, and the light comes along with the love. And so that's our job, to realize that universal and ethereal love, and to so let our light shine and our lives shine with love, that the Demiurge will be eventually won over. And as for the shadows, every time we bring light into the world, we're diminishing the power of the Demiurge. We're shining light onto a shadow and evaporating it. Next week, we'll pick this up for part three of That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart. Let me know what you think of this. Send me some comments. Onward and upward. God bless us all. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> Please buy my book–A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In this book you will find the original Christian theology as taught by Jesus before the Catholic Church and the Emperor of Rome got their hands on it. A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is for seekers and scholars alike. The language is as simple and accessible as I could make it, even though the subject matter is profoundly deep. The book is available in all formats, including paperback, hardcover, and kindle. The audio book narrated by Miguel Conner of Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio is also available on amazon. And please request that your local library carry the book—it's available to all libraries and independent book sellers. Buy the book! Available in all formats and prices…

God is loving and merciful, not judgmental and cruel Welcome back to Gnostic Insights and the Gnostic Reformation on Substack. Last week I began sharing with you what is essentially a book report on the book called That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation by David Bentley Hart, and he's the translator of the New Testament that I've been using. So, last week we got up to page 21 out of this book, and now I'm all the way up to page 85, so we'll see what happened in this latest round of reading. Now, David Bentley Hart's style of writing may not be for everyone. It's very academic, very high-minded and educated and erudite—difficult to follow if you're not accustomed to reading scholastic writing. But I believe his heart's in the right place, and I agree with pretty much everything he says. I will do my best to reinterpret what he is saying in simpler words, in case you're interested in the content, but not in its delivery method. So, picking it up on page 21, Hart says, And what could be more absurd than the claim that God's ways so exceed comprehension, that we dare not presume even to distinguish benevolence from malevolence in the divine, inasmuch as either can result in the same endless excruciating despair? Here the docile believer is simply commanded to nod in acquiescence, quietly and submissively, to feel moved at a strange and stirring obscurity, and to accept that, if only he or she could sound the depths of this mystery, its essence would somehow be revealed as infinite beauty and love. A rational person capable of that assent, however, of believing all of this to be a paradox concealing a deeper, wholly coherent truth, rather than a gross contradiction, has probably suffered such chronic intellectual and moral malformation that he or she is no longer able to recognize certain very plain truths, such as the truth that he or she has been taught to approve of divine deeds that, were they reduced to a human scale of action, would immediately be recognizable as expressions of unalloyed spite. And he's talking about the idea that most everyone and everything is going to hell and will suffer eternal torment. That is an interpretation or misinterpretation of the word brought about by incorrect translation of the original Coptic. Most of our Bible translations come off of old Latin Vulgate translations, and then they've been modernized. But that's how errors are brought forward. And what Hart has done in his New Testament translation is go back to the original, very oldest transcripts, still in Greek, before they were translated to Latin. And he did what he called a pitilessly accurate translation, where Hart was not trying to make the words that are being translated fit into a predetermined doctrine, like everyone going to hell, or like the Trinity, or eternal damnation. These things we've been taught to believe are in the Scripture, but when you actually go back to the original Scriptures prior to the Latin translations, they are not in the Scripture. And so this book that I'm doing the book report on here, That All Shall Be Saved, this is about universal salvation, and doing away with the idea. And he says in this section I just read you, that it is a malevolent idea, unalloyed spite, unalloyed meaning pure spite on the part of God, that's going to send everyone to hell that doesn't get it. And that we have been commanded by the Church over the last 2,000 years to just nod our heads and say, oh, well, it's God's will, or oh, well, how can I presume to distinguish benevolence from malevolence, good intention from bad intention on the part of God, because God is so great and good. We're supposed to be docile believers, to acquiesce, that is, to go along with, to quietly and submissively accept that we don't get it, that we don't understand the depths of the mystery, and someday we will, and that God is good, and God is just, and therefore everyone's going to hell, except for those few preordained elect from before time began. So this book is entirely against that proposition. So moving on, what I did was I read the book through, and I've highlighted the parts that seem worth sharing or very interesting. Now we're jumping to page 35, where he says that certain people, of my acquaintance who are committed to what is often called an intellectualist model of human liberty, as I am myself, [he says], but who also insist that it is possible for a soul freely to reject God's love with such perfect perpiscuity of understanding and intention as to merit eternal suffering. And we can tell from the context that perpiscuity means you get it. So he's saying, how is it even possible for a soul to freely reject the love of God and consign oneself into eternal torment? It just doesn't work. It's not possible. He says, this is an altogether dizzying contradiction. In simplest terms, that is to say, they, [that is, the intellectualists], want to assert that all true freedom is an orientation of the rational will toward an end that the mind takes in some sense to be the good, and so takes also as the one end that can fulfill the mind's nature and supply its desires. This means that the better the rational will knows the Good, and that's a capital G, Good, for what it is, the more that is that the will is freed from those forces that distort reason and lead the soul toward improper ends. The more it will long for and seek after the true good in itself, and conversely, the more rationally it seeks the good, the freer it is. He says that in terms of the great Maximus the Confessor, who lived from 580 to 660, the natural will within us, which is the rational ground of our whole power of volition, must tend only toward God as its true end, for God is goodness as such, whereas our gnomic or deliberative will can stray from him, but only to the degree that it has been blinded to the truth of who he is and what we are, and as a result has come to seek a false end as the true end. In short, sin requires some degree of ignorance, and ignorance is by definition a diverting of the mind and will to an end they would not naturally pursue. So, in other words, we all want what's best for ourself, even in the most selfish sense, even in the most egoic sense. The ego wants what is best for this person that it is part of, that that is the rational end of the ego's striving, what is best, and that there is a thing called good in the absolute sense, and if we realize that, then we would strive toward the good, by definition. Carrying on, page 37, I'm not saying that we do not in some very significant sense make our own exceedingly substantial voluntary contributions to our estrangement from the good in this life. And, see, he's just saying we all screw up. Even if we are seeking the good, we often fall backwards into the bad, okay? Up to a certain point, [he says], it is undeniable, but past that point it is manifest falsehood. There is no such thing as perfect freedom in this life, or perfect understanding, and it is sheer nonsense to suggest that we possess limitless or unqualified liberty. Therefore, we are incapable of contracting a limitless or unqualified guilt. There are always extenuating circumstances. Well, in a sense, that's true of all of us and all of our circumstances. We are a product of our environment, to some extent. But don't forget that in the Gnostic view, we also contain the pure goodness of God, the capital S Self, that reflects the Fullness of God. So we do know what goodness is, even if we are surrounded by badness. Quoting Hart again, page 40, Here though, I have to note that it is a thoroughly modern and wholly illogical notion that the power of absolutely unpremised liberty, obeying no rationale except its own spontaneous volition toward whatever end it might pose for itself, is either a real logical possibility or, in any meaningful sense, a proper definition of freedom. See? He's saying it's thoroughly modern and wholly illogical to think that we have complete freedom of will, and that we can choose to follow any unethical or immoral end that we wish to, because what's it matter? One choice being pretty much the same as another, you see. He goes on to say, in page 40, A choice made without rationale is a contradiction in terms. At the same time, any movement of the will prompted by an entirely perverse rationale would be, by definition, wholly irrational. Insane, that is to say. And therefore, no more truly free than a psychotic episode. The more one is in one's right mind, the more that is that one is conscious of God as the goodness that fulfills all beings. And the more one recognizes that one's own nature can have its true completion and joy nowhere but in Him, and the more one is unfettered by distorting misperceptions, deranged passions, and the encumbrances of past mistakes, the more inevitable is one's surrender to God, liberated from all ignorance, emancipated from all the adverse conditions of this life, the rational soul could freely will only its own union with God, and thereby its own supreme beatitude. We are, as it were, doomed to happiness, so long as our natures follow their healthiest impulses unhindered. And we cannot not will the satisfaction of our beings in our true final end, a transcendent good lying behind and beyond all the proximate ends we might be moved to pursue. This is no constraint upon the freedom of the will, coherently conceived. It is simply the consequence of possessing a nature produced by and for the transcendent good, a nature whose proper end has been fashioned in harmony with a supernatural purpose. God has made us for Himself, as Augustine would say, and our hearts are restless till they rest in Him. A rational nature seeks a rational end, truth, which is God Himself. The irresistibility of God for any soul that has been truly set free is no more a constraint placed upon its liberty than is the irresistible attraction of a flowing spring to fresh water in a desert place to a man who is dying of thirst. To choose not to drink in that circumstance would not be an act of freedom on his part, but only a manifestation of the delusions that enslave him and force him to inflict violence upon himself, contrary to his nature. Do you follow the reasoning there? That boils down to simply saying it is logical. Even Mr. Spock would find it logical for a human to pursue the good in its own best interests, and that it is illogical, illogical all the way to insanity, to refuse the good, to refuse what is best for you. It's a manifestation of insanity, to refuse the love of God. How's that for laying it out? I really appreciate logic, you know, because this is a logical universe. If the laws of physics and chemistry didn't hold true to logic, and that includes math, you see, 2 plus 2 equals 4, etc., all the way through all the difficult math, the quantum physics, and the string theory, and so forth, this is a logical universe based upon the Aeon known as Logos, logic. And so, therefore, to reject logic, it's not smart, it's not clever, it's not freedom. And, by the way, this is about the level of pushback I see in, for example, YouTube comments that reject the gospel. They're pretty much on the order of, oh, yeah, I can die of thirst if I want to, so F off. Okay, well, good luck with that, right? Carrying on, page 43. None of this should need saying, to be honest. We should all already know that whenever the term justice and eternal punishment are set side by side as if they were logically compatible, the boundaries of the rational have been violated. If we were not so stupefied by the hoary and venerable myth that eternal damnation is an essential element of the original Christian message, and then he says in parentheses, which, not to spoil later plot developments here, it is not, we would not even waste our time on so preposterous a conjunction. From the perspective of Christian belief, the very notion of a punishment that is not intended ultimately to be remedial is morally dubious, and he says in parentheses, and I submit anyone who doubts this has never understood Christian teaching at all. But even if one believes that Christianity makes room for the condign imposition, [and condign means proper or fitting], imposition of purely retributive punishments, it remains the case that a retribution consisting in unending suffering, imposed as recompense for the actions of a finite intellect and will, must be by any sound definition disproportionate, unjust, and at the last, nothing more than an expression of sheer pointless cruelty. And of course, I do find that attitude on the part of Christians I talk to and try to explain the idea of universal salvation being Christ's true mission, that all shall be redeemed, every knee shall bow. They'd much rather send people to hell, and when you see their faces as they're saying it, it's not, oh, you know, I'm so sorry that it's this way and my heart breaks, but I'm afraid they're all going to hell. It's not like that at all. It's like, damn straight, they deserve to go to hell. Now, you take that kind of anger and cruelty when you consider that they are advocating unending, excruciating pain and punishment, and then you try to say that that is God's will, that goodness incorporates unending punishment. And Hart's saying, indeed, especially unending punishment that isn't for remediation, isn't to make them a better person, but simply to make them hurt. And who are you punishing? Finite beings with limited time and intelligence and ability to reason with things that happened in their past. Maybe they were brought up by someone very cruel who taught them cruelty, and so they carry on cruelty. And then that the God of all love and the God of all justice would send them to hell for eternal torment. And up until quite recently, even babies who were unbaptized would be sent to hell for eternal torment. And then someone came up with the idea of a baby purgatory where unbaptized babies never get to go to heaven, but they're not going to be eternally punished either. They're just going to go to a baby land where they're held apart from the rest of the redeemed. Well, really? That's hardly any better. I mean, it's somewhat better, but why shouldn't these pure babies who pretty much incorporate the Fullness of the Self and love of God, why wouldn't God want them back? You see, it doesn't make any sense. And if you're a Christian listening to me today who has had niggling doubts about certain things, and one of them being this idea of grandma being in hell and in the midst of eternal torture now because she wouldn't listen to your preaching, you can relax about it. Because we are the sower of seeds, but we are not the harvester. It is Christ who harvests the souls, who brings them all home. Back to Hart here again. On page 47, he says, Once more, not a single one of these attempted justifications for the idea of an eternal hell actually improves the picture of God with which the infernalist orthodoxy presents us. And he uses the word infernalist for like the infernal torments of hell. So an infernalist is someone who believes folks are going to hell for eternity. So he says, Once more, not a single one of these attempted justifications for the idea of an eternal hell actually improves the picture of God with which the infernalist orthodoxy presents us. And it is this that should be the chief concern of any believer. All of these arguments still oblige one to believe that a benevolent and omnipotent God would willfully create rational beings destined for an endless torment that they could never, in any rational calculus of personal responsibility, earn for themselves. And to believe also that this somehow is essential to the good news Christianity brought into the world. Isn't it true? When you're in church and you hear the preacher preaching a very nice, very good message about relationships or about moral virtue, and then there is a plea and a threat at the end that if you are sitting in the congregation and you have not accepted Christ as your personal Savior, you may go out and die this afternoon and go to hell. It's not right. It's contradictory. It is not the pure will of God. Page 47 goes on to say, In the end, there is only one logical terminus toward which all these lines of reasoning can lead: When all the possible paths of evasion have tapered away among the weeds, one has to stop, turn around, retrace one's steps back to the beginning of the journey, and finally admit that, if there really is an eternal hell for finite spirits, then it has to be the case that God condemns the damned to endless misery not on account of any sane proportion between what they are capable of meriting and how he chooses to requite them for their sins, but solely as a demonstration of his power to do as he wishes. Now, by the way, when I read the Old Testament, I see that that is often the attitude that Jehovah has towards his subjects. He commands things because he can, and he wants obedience because he wants obedience. Remember, the Demiurge controls through strong strings. He does not approve of willpower. Willpower is messy. Willpower means not obeying the will of God, and he wants to be the sayer of our souls. But the God Above All Gods, the Gnostic God, outranks the Old Testament God. The God Above All Gods is the Father who begat the Son. The Demiurge keeps chaos at bay by forbidding free will in his subjects And so when Jesus says, I and my Father are one, he's not talking about the Old Testament God. He's talking about the God Above All Gods, the originator of consciousness, of love, of life, of free will. And we are all fractals of that Father. Through the Son, through the Fullness of God, we are fractals of all of those powers of the Father–stepped down, because we're smaller fractals. So we all have to return to the Father in the end. When we loose these mortal coils and we're no longer bound to the material that deludes us, then we can finally return to the Father again. So onward and upward is not a trap. Onward and upward is freedom. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. So back to this idea of the Old Testament God enjoying his omnipotent sovereignty. On page 48, Hart is talking about Calvin and predestination. And he says, in book three of Calvin's Institutes, he even asserts that God predestined the human fall from grace, precisely because the whole of everything, creation, fall, redemption, judgment, the eternal bliss of heaven, the endless torments of hell, and whatever else, exists solely for the sake of a perfect display of the full range of God's omnipotent sovereignty, which for some reason absolutely must be displayed. He goes on to say he doesn't know how to respond to that, because, I know it to be based on a notoriously confused reading of Scripture, one whose history goes all the way back to the late Augustine, a towering genius whose inability to read Greek and consequent reliance on defective Latin translations turned out to be the single most tragically consequential case of linguistic incompetence in Christian history. In equal part, however, it is because I regard the picture of God thus produced to be a metaphysical absurdity, a God who is at once supposedly the source of all things, and yet also the one whose nature is necessarily thoroughly polluted by arbitrariness. And no matter how orthodox Calvinists might protest, there is no other way to understand the story of election and dereliction that Calvin tells, which would mean that in some sense he is a finite being, that is God, in whom possibility exceeds actuality, and the irrational exceeds the rational. A far greater concern than either of these theological defects, either the deeply misguided scriptural exegesis or the inept metaphysics of the divine, it is the moral horror in such language. So that's as far as we're going to go today. In next week's continuance of this train of thought, Hart will talk about the difference between the God Above All Gods, essentially, even though Hart's not calling himself a Gnostic. When he speaks of God, or Goodness with capital G, he is speaking of the God Above All Gods. And when he contrasts it with the God of Calvin and Augustine in the Old Testament, that is the Demiurgic God. I've noticed that many modern people seem to think of God as a yin-yang type of completion, that is, where evil balances good, where darkness is necessary to balance light, where the purpose of humanity, or what happens here in humanity, is that we are instantiating strife and struggle and evil for the teaching of God, for the completion of God. That is not right. That's wrong theology, folks. Our God is all goodness, and there is no evil that emanates from God. Well, where did evil come from then? It's merely the absence of good. So evil is the absence of goodness. The archons are the shadows of the Aeons. And when the light fully comes and fills all of space, the shadows will disappear, and the light comes along with the love. And so that's our job, to realize that universal and ethereal love, and to so let our light shine and our lives shine with love, that the Demiurge will be eventually won over. And as for the shadows, every time we bring light into the world, we're diminishing the power of the Demiurge. We're shining light onto a shadow and evaporating it. Next week, we'll pick this up for part three of That All Shall Be Saved by David Bentley Hart. Let me know what you think of this. Send me some comments. Onward and upward. God bless us all. »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»> Please buy my book–A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel. In this book you will find the original Christian theology as taught by Jesus before the Catholic Church and the Emperor of Rome got their hands on it. A Simple Explanation of the Gnostic Gospel is for seekers and scholars alike. The language is as simple and accessible as I could make it, even though the subject matter is profoundly deep. The book is available in all formats, including paperback, hardcover, and kindle. The audio book narrated by Miguel Conner of Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio is also available on amazon. And please request that your local library carry the book—it's available to all libraries and independent book sellers. Buy the book! Available in all formats and prices…

A @Christadelphians Video: Inspiring, thought-provoking and insightful, join us for the first part in our exploration of the monumental 500-year story of the English Bible. This revealing expositional journey uncovers the courageous sacrifices and outstanding scholarship that brought God's Word into the hands of ordinary people. We reflect on how this history shapes our personal responsibility to read, understand and value the Scriptures today.**Chapters:**00:00 - Introduction: The Consequential Book01:19 - Why This History Matters for Us03:37 - The Biblical Ethos: Read for Yourself04:52 - Sources and Commemoration05:20 - The Central Figure: William Tyndale05:39 - Historical Backdrop: The Roman Empire and Jerome's Vulgate06:44 - The Fall of Constantinople and the Flood of Scholarship10:00 - Erasmus and the Greek New Testament12:10 - The Translation Timeline: Wycliffe to Tyndale13:14 - William Tyndale: Early Life and Education14:40 - The ‘Call' at Little Sodbury16:19 - Flight and Translation Work in Europe16:51 - The First Printed Translation and the Cologne Fragment17:36 - Success: The 1526 New Testament18:22 - Tyndale's Later Work, Betrayal and Martyrdom19:53 - Legacy: The King James Version and Beyond20:47 - Conclusion and Reflection**Bible Verse Category:**

I thought today I would share with you a book by David Bentley Hart. Hart wrote that translation of the New Testament that I'm very much enjoying, because it mirrors the same language that the Gnostic gospel uses in the Nag Hammadi codices, particularly the Tripartite Tractate, which is what I share with you here at Gnostic Insights. David Bentley Hart is extremely eloquent and erudite. His prose puts me to shame. He is a great writer and a brilliant mind. He's an Eastern Orthodox scholar of religion and a philosopher. And the deal is, he does seem to love God. So his philosophy and his theology goes through what seems to me to be a very Gnostic heart and orientation on his part. So I'm reading this book now called, That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation, because I could tell from reading the footnotes in his New Testament that he and I agree on this universal salvation. I seem to be coming at it from a different place than he does. My major reason why everyone and everything that's living now will return to heaven is that everything comes from heaven. So if everything doesn't return to heaven in the end, if most of it, as a matter of fact, was thrown into eternal fires of torment, well, God itself would be lessened. The Father would be less than he was at the beginning, and that's an impossibility, because the Father was, is, and ever shall be the same. He is not diminished by the love and consciousness and life that flows out of him. But if that life, love, and consciousness winds up in a black hole at the bottom of an eternal pit of torment, well, there's so many things wrong with that statement, just absolutely wrong. And that's what David Bentley Hart's book is all about, and he has several ways he's going to explain why that can't be so. The reason I say it can't be so is that all consciousness, life, and love come from the Father. So in the big roll-up, if we accept the proposition that there will be an end to this material existence, which is what all Christians and Jews profess, and if everything that emanated from the Father in the beginning, beginning with the Son, which is the first and only direct emanation, and then everything else emanates through the Son, well, if it doesn't return at the end of material time, then the Father and the ethereal plane would be diminished, because it poured out all of this love and consciousness into this material realm, and it all has to return. The Tripartite Tractate says that everything that existed from the beginning will return at the end of time. In verses 78 and 79 of the Tripartite Tractate, it's speaking about the shadows that emerged from Logos after the Fall, and it says, Therefore their end will be like their beginning, from that which did not exist they are to return once again to the shadows. “Their end will be like their beginning,” in that they didn't come from above—they were shadows of the fallen Logos. And so when the light comes and shines the light, the shadows disappear. Furthermore, in verses 80 and 81, the Tripartite Tractate says, The Logos, being in such unstable conditions, that is, after the Fall, did not continue to bring forth anything like emanations, the things which are in the Pleroma, the glories which exist for the honor of the Father. Rather, he brought forth little weaklings, hindered by the illnesses by which he too was hindered. It was the likeness of the disposition which was a unity, that which was the cause of the things which do not exist from the first. So these shadows didn't exist in the Pleroma; they were shadows, they were imitations of the unity which existed from the first, and that unity is the Fullness of God—the Aeons of the Fullness of God. And it is only these shadows that will be evaporated at the end of time, that will not go to the ethereal plane. All living things will, because we're not shadows of the Fall. We are actually sent down from the unity, from the Fullness of God, with life, consciousness, and love. And so all of that has to return to the Father. So that is where I'm coming from, that God can't be lessened, made less than it was at the beginning. So everything will be redeemed and returned. And of course, practically all of Christianity nowadays believes that most everything that was emanated from the beginning will be destroyed, or put into a fire of torment for all eternity. Anyone who wasn't baptized, or anyone who didn't come forward to profess a belief in Christ—and that's most of the other cultures and people of the world. The conventional Christian church doesn't even realize that animals are going to heaven. I often comfort people whose pet has just passed away, and they're missing them so badly, and they love them so much, and it hurts so much, and I say to them in comfort, “Well, your pet is waiting for you in heaven, and you'll be reunited when you cross over, and then you'll have them again, and you'll all be very happy forever together.” That's my basic approach. franny and zoey sunset As a matter of fact, I'm waiting for my pack—that's who I expect to greet me. I'm not waiting for my dead relatives, or my late husband. I'm not expecting them on the other shore waiting for me, although perhaps they will be. Who I really am looking forward to seeing are my dogs and cats, every dog and cat I've ever had. And I figure they're all up there together as a big pack, playing on the beach. So that's what keeps me comforted, and keeps me looking forward. I'm very happy to imagine that that will be what greets me when I cross over. So this morning, what I'd like to share with you are some of Hart's writing that he shares in his introduction that's called, The Question of an Eternal Hell, Framing the Question. So this is before he even gets into his various apologetics of how it is that everyone will be saved. But I really wanted to share this with you. Hart writes in a very high-minded manner, so I'll attempt to translate it for us all. So on page 16, Hart says, And as I continued to explore the Eastern Communions as an undergraduate, I learned at some point to take comfort from an idea that one finds liberally scattered throughout Eastern Christian contemplative tradition, from late antiquity to the present, and expressed with particular force by such saints of the East as Isaac of Nineveh, who lived between 613 and 700, and Silouan of Athos, who lived between 1866 and 1938. And the idea is this, that the fires of hell are nothing but the glory of God, which must at the last, when God brings about the final restoration of all things, pervade the whole of creation. For although that glory will transfigure the whole cosmos, it will inevitably be experienced as torment by any soul that willfully seals itself against love of God and neighbor. To such a perverse and obstinate nature, the divine light that should enter the soul and transform it from within must seem instead like the flames of an exterior chastisement. That's pretty interesting. He's saying that after the final roll-up, the glory of God, or the light of God, will fill all of space and eternity, and that we will be able to see it and experience it. We will stand before the glory of God. But anyone who is hiding from God, or that is a hateful person, will experience that same glory as flames of fire that torment. And so that will be their punishment. But it's not coming from God. God's bringing glory and love and light. But they, because they are resistant, they will experience it as those flames of hell. So Hart goes on to say, This I found not only comforting, but also extremely plausible at an emotional level. It is easy to believe in that version of hell, after all, if one considers it deeply enough, for the very simple reason that we all already know it to be real in this life, and dwell a good portion of our days confined within its walls. A hardened heart is already its own punishment. The refusal to love, or to be loved, makes the love of others, or even just their presence, a source of suffering and a goad to wrath. And isn't that true? That a hateful person views everything that's going on around them, and anything that someone else says, to be irritating, and worthy of punishment, or worthy of disdain, because it doesn't agree with their own opinion. He goes on to say on page 17, and so perhaps it makes perfect sense to imagine that a will sufficiently intransigent in its selfishness and resentment and violence might be so damaged that, even when fully exposed to the divine glory for which all things were made, it will absolutely hate the invasion of that transfiguring love, and will be able to discover nothing in it but terror and pain. It is the soul, then, and not God, that lights hell's fires, by interpreting the advent of divine love as a violent assault upon the jealous privacy of the self. Now, we've talked about that a lot here on Gnostic Insights, and I cover that in my discussions of Overcoming Death. My argument about Overcoming Death primarily comes from the Tibetan Buddhist book known as the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and in that book it describes this passage after life. And, by the way, it's not only when the whole entire cosmos melts away, it's every time we die. When your body passes away, suddenly you're in that non-material state. Your ego goes forward without the attachment of the body, and in that state of not being attached to the material world, it is like, at the end of time, when the entire cosmos goes through the same process and is no longer attached to the material world. At that point, delusion drops away, the confusion of this cosmos and the confusion of our culture and the demiurgic culture that we are surrounded with, as well as the pulls of the material upon our bodies. It's gone, it's lifted, it's no longer there, and your spirit is able to see with clear eyes. As Paul said in the first letter to Corinthians, chapter 13, For we know partially, and we prophesy partially. But when that which is complete comes, what is partial will be rendered futile. When I was an infant, I spoke like an infant, I thought like an infant, I reckoned like an infant. Having become a man, I did away with infantile things. For as yet we see by way of a mirror, in an enigma, but then we will see face to face. As yet I know partially, but then I shall know fully, just as I am fully known. But now abide faith, hope, and love, these three, and the greatest of these is love. And in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it talks about these things called bardos, which are levels of hell, basically, or levels of purgatory that people go through as they are learning to get rid of the mistaken notions that they picked up here during the lifetime. The samskara is stripped away. I would call the samskara the confounding memes that we cling to. We pick up these meme bundles from the people and from the things we read and learn and are indoctrinated into in school and then through the media. Those are memes, meme bundles, and they have to be let go of. You have to drop them in order to get past the ego that's holding on to those memes and rediscover the purity of the Father and the Son in the ethereal plane—rediscover the purity of your true Self. And the longer someone holds on to those memes after death, the more difficult is their passage into purity. And that's explained in depth in the Overcoming Death episode. Well, that Tibetan description of the fires of hell very much resemble the fires of hell that were talked about from these ancient saints of the Christian tradition. By the way, this idea that most everyone and everything is going to hell rather than going to heaven, that is a relatively recent addition to Christianity, but it has been grasped so firmly with the great assistance of the Catholic Church and their doctrines that by now most Christians think that most people won't go to heaven. So even the Protestants who protest Catholicism—that's what the word Protestant means, one who protests—they've lost the original thread of universal salvation that Jesus was teaching. The Anointed came to save everyone, it says, over and over in the New Testament. And in Hart's translation, which comes directly from the original writing rather than down through the Latin that had already been filtered by the Catholics, you don't find the eternal torment of hell. Remember, the word Aeon, which we in Gnostic belief generally translate as ethereal beings or part of the Fullness of God above, Aeon is also translated as a period of time, and throughout most of the translations of the New Testament, which derive from the Latin Vulgate, Aeon is translated as a period of time. And so when it says eternal torment, it's really saying aeonic torment. And in my opinion, it's the torment people bring upon themselves when they return to the aeonic realm. The Aeons aren't the punishers. God is not the punisher. It's our own grasping onto our past lives and the demiurgic culture and the demiurgic memes that we hold onto after death that are experienced like burning flames. But no one's imposing it upon us. It's our own lack of willing to give it up and turn and face the light. The eternal fires of hell are actually the aeonic reckoning that comes at the end of each lifetime and will come at the end of time itself when the material cosmos passes away. At least that's what I think. So when Hart says on page 17 there that “a will, a personal will, sufficiently intransigent in its selfishness and resentment and violence,” intransigence means not giving up, stubbornness, “might be so damaged that even when it comes face to face with glory, it will experience it as torment.” Now, for those of us who have accepted the anointing of the Christ and have come to true gnosis, (that is a remembrance that we come from above and will happily return to the above, that's all you need to know), we will not cling onto this material world. We will not be clinging onto those demiurgic memes that keep us from coming face to face with our aeonic parents in the Fullness of God. We will happily cross over. We will joyfully meet with those who are on the other side, be they family, spouses, or pets, because the grasses and the flowers, the butterflies, the birds, everything that is alive down here on earth will be alive in heaven because all life comes from above. We will not be experiencing that chastening fire—that coming to grips with the lies that we've been holding onto. That's the painful part, coming to grips with our own lies and the harms we have done to other people. If we're not repentant of those harms we have done to other people, we will have to come face to face with those harms after we cross over, and we will see from that other person's point of view what we did to them and how much we hurt them, and that will come back to us. We will experience their pain, and that is the pain and suffering of death, but it's not being imposed by the Father or the Son or our aeonic parents above. On page 18, Hart says, Because Christians have been trained at a very deep level of their thinking, to believe that the idea of an eternal hell is a clear and unambiguous element of their faith, and that therefore the idea must make perfect moral sense. They are in error on both counts, as it happens, but a sufficiently thorough conditioning can make an otherwise sound mind perceive even the most ostentatiously absurd proposition to be the very epitome of rational good sense. You know, there's some big words in that sentence, but I think you can tell by the context what they mean, right? Ostentatiously means open, flaunting. Epitome means the highest. So he's saying that because the Church has taught that everyone's going to hell except those very few, which is an ostentatious point of view, you see, ostentatiously absurd proposition, yet they have been taught that it is the very highest of good sense, and you can't go against it. And so people are conditioned not to question it. And what this book, That All Shall Be Saved, is, is a very thorough and deep description and rationale of how that cannot be true, of how everyone must be going to heaven. I covered my version of why everyone's going to heaven in this episode. Further episodes, I think I'll do a series here, further episodes will each cover chapters in Hart's book, and we'll hear what his rationale is for why everyone is going to heaven. But returning to this page 18 again, he says, In fact, where the absurdity proves only slight, the mind that has been trained most thoroughly will, as often as not, fabricate further and more extravagant absurdities in order to secure the initial offense against reason within a more encompassing and intoxicating atmosphere of corroborating nonsense. In other words, you'll have to spin a bunch of nonsensical rationalizations and excuses about why everyone's going to hell, just to make the story float. Quoting again, Sooner or later it will all seem to make sense, simply through ceaseless repetition and restatement and rhetorical reinforcement. As I'm reading this, of course he's talking about religious ideologies here, but I'm seeing these mechanisms at play in media bias. Do you see that? Just through sheer repetition, over and over, it doesn't matter if things are true or lies. If you say it often enough, people will begin to accept it unquestioningly. And you can see that going on in the politics, can't you? Hart goes on to say, The most effective technique for subduing the moral imagination is to teach it to mistake the contradictory for the paradoxical, and thereby to accept incoherence as profundity or moral idiocy as spiritual subtlety. If this can be accomplished with sufficient nuance and delicacy, it can sustain even a very powerful intellect for an entire lifetime. In the end, with sufficient practice, one really can, like the White Queen (of Alice in Wonderland), learn to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. In my limited attempts to discuss Gnosticism face-to-face with people, I discover this continually, that if I present them with the absurdity of everyone going to hell, for example, they will say, Well, it's a mystery. We can't know the mind of God. It's a mystery. Who are you to presume? And this is the way they cover up that it doesn't work, by just shunting it off to God's incomprehensibility. But our God is rational. Our God is logical. Our God doesn't say one thing and do another. Our God doesn't lie. Our God doesn't say it's all about life and living and love and then enslave and slaughter. That is not the God of Gnosticism. The Father that Jesus spoke of is not that God. Going on with page 19, Hart says, Not that I am accusing anyone of consciously or cynically seeking to manipulate the minds of faithful Christians. The conspiracy, so to speak, is an entirely open one, an unpremeditated corporate labor of communal self-deception, requiring us all to do our parts to sustain one another in our collective derangement. I regard the entire process as the unintentional effect of a long tradition of error, one in which a series of bad interpretations of Scripture produced various corruptions of theological reasoning, which were themselves then preserved as immemorial revealed truths and, at last, rendered impregnable to all critique by the indurated mental habits of generations, all despite the logical and conceptual incongruities that this required believers to ignore within their beliefs. He writes with big words. The gist of this entire paragraph was that the church didn't set out to be deceptive. Well, it may have with the Nicene Council when they stripped the Gnosis out, but from about 600 A.D. onward, it's just become such an ingrained thought that by now it's unassailable. By now you can't even question it. But that's what we're doing here at Gnostic Insights. So stay with me for the next few episodes, and we'll go into depth concerning hell, resurrection, salvation, and the ultimate redemption of all living things by the Christ, the Anointed, that will return us all to that paradise above. With love, onward and upward, and God bless us all. This book puts all of this gnosis together in a simplified form. Gnosis is as easy as you want it to be, or as complicated as you desire. This Simple Explanation will guide you through the often confusing terms and turns of gnostic thought and theology. The glossary alone is worth having on your bookshelf. Now available in paperback, hardback, and ebook/kindle, and an audio book narrated by Miguel Conner. Available at amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore. Please remember to leave a review at amazon if you purchase the book there. We need reviews in order to raise the book in amazon's algorithm!

I thought today I would share with you a book by David Bentley Hart. Hart wrote that translation of the New Testament that I'm very much enjoying, because it mirrors the same language that the Gnostic gospel uses in the Nag Hammadi codices, particularly the Tripartite Tractate, which is what I share with you here at Gnostic Insights. David Bentley Hart is extremely eloquent and erudite. His prose puts me to shame. He is a great writer and a brilliant mind. He's an Eastern Orthodox scholar of religion and a philosopher. And the deal is, he does seem to love God. So his philosophy and his theology goes through what seems to me to be a very Gnostic heart and orientation on his part. So I'm reading this book now called, That All Shall Be Saved, Heaven, Hell, and Universal Salvation, because I could tell from reading the footnotes in his New Testament that he and I agree on this universal salvation. I seem to be coming at it from a different place than he does. My major reason why everyone and everything that's living now will return to heaven is that everything comes from heaven. So if everything doesn't return to heaven in the end, if most of it, as a matter of fact, was thrown into eternal fires of torment, well, God itself would be lessened. The Father would be less than he was at the beginning, and that's an impossibility, because the Father was, is, and ever shall be the same. He is not diminished by the love and consciousness and life that flows out of him. But if that life, love, and consciousness winds up in a black hole at the bottom of an eternal pit of torment, well, there's so many things wrong with that statement, just absolutely wrong. And that's what David Bentley Hart's book is all about, and he has several ways he's going to explain why that can't be so. The reason I say it can't be so is that all consciousness, life, and love come from the Father. So in the big roll-up, if we accept the proposition that there will be an end to this material existence, which is what all Christians and Jews profess, and if everything that emanated from the Father in the beginning, beginning with the Son, which is the first and only direct emanation, and then everything else emanates through the Son, well, if it doesn't return at the end of material time, then the Father and the ethereal plane would be diminished, because it poured out all of this love and consciousness into this material realm, and it all has to return. The Tripartite Tractate says that everything that existed from the beginning will return at the end of time. In verses 78 and 79 of the Tripartite Tractate, it's speaking about the shadows that emerged from Logos after the Fall, and it says, Therefore their end will be like their beginning, from that which did not exist they are to return once again to the shadows. “Their end will be like their beginning,” in that they didn't come from above—they were shadows of the fallen Logos. And so when the light comes and shines the light, the shadows disappear. Furthermore, in verses 80 and 81, the Tripartite Tractate says, The Logos, being in such unstable conditions, that is, after the Fall, did not continue to bring forth anything like emanations, the things which are in the Pleroma, the glories which exist for the honor of the Father. Rather, he brought forth little weaklings, hindered by the illnesses by which he too was hindered. It was the likeness of the disposition which was a unity, that which was the cause of the things which do not exist from the first. So these shadows didn't exist in the Pleroma; they were shadows, they were imitations of the unity which existed from the first, and that unity is the Fullness of God—the Aeons of the Fullness of God. And it is only these shadows that will be evaporated at the end of time, that will not go to the ethereal plane. All living things will, because we're not shadows of the Fall. We are actually sent down from the unity, from the Fullness of God, with life, consciousness, and love. And so all of that has to return to the Father. So that is where I'm coming from, that God can't be lessened, made less than it was at the beginning. So everything will be redeemed and returned. And of course, practically all of Christianity nowadays believes that most everything that was emanated from the beginning will be destroyed, or put into a fire of torment for all eternity. Anyone who wasn't baptized, or anyone who didn't come forward to profess a belief in Christ—and that's most of the other cultures and people of the world. The conventional Christian church doesn't even realize that animals are going to heaven. I often comfort people whose pet has just passed away, and they're missing them so badly, and they love them so much, and it hurts so much, and I say to them in comfort, “Well, your pet is waiting for you in heaven, and you'll be reunited when you cross over, and then you'll have them again, and you'll all be very happy forever together.” That's my basic approach. franny and zoey sunset As a matter of fact, I'm waiting for my pack—that's who I expect to greet me. I'm not waiting for my dead relatives, or my late husband. I'm not expecting them on the other shore waiting for me, although perhaps they will be. Who I really am looking forward to seeing are my dogs and cats, every dog and cat I've ever had. And I figure they're all up there together as a big pack, playing on the beach. So that's what keeps me comforted, and keeps me looking forward. I'm very happy to imagine that that will be what greets me when I cross over. So this morning, what I'd like to share with you are some of Hart's writing that he shares in his introduction that's called, The Question of an Eternal Hell, Framing the Question. So this is before he even gets into his various apologetics of how it is that everyone will be saved. But I really wanted to share this with you. Hart writes in a very high-minded manner, so I'll attempt to translate it for us all. So on page 16, Hart says, And as I continued to explore the Eastern Communions as an undergraduate, I learned at some point to take comfort from an idea that one finds liberally scattered throughout Eastern Christian contemplative tradition, from late antiquity to the present, and expressed with particular force by such saints of the East as Isaac of Nineveh, who lived between 613 and 700, and Silouan of Athos, who lived between 1866 and 1938. And the idea is this, that the fires of hell are nothing but the glory of God, which must at the last, when God brings about the final restoration of all things, pervade the whole of creation. For although that glory will transfigure the whole cosmos, it will inevitably be experienced as torment by any soul that willfully seals itself against love of God and neighbor. To such a perverse and obstinate nature, the divine light that should enter the soul and transform it from within must seem instead like the flames of an exterior chastisement. That's pretty interesting. He's saying that after the final roll-up, the glory of God, or the light of God, will fill all of space and eternity, and that we will be able to see it and experience it. We will stand before the glory of God. But anyone who is hiding from God, or that is a hateful person, will experience that same glory as flames of fire that torment. And so that will be their punishment. But it's not coming from God. God's bringing glory and love and light. But they, because they are resistant, they will experience it as those flames of hell. So Hart goes on to say, This I found not only comforting, but also extremely plausible at an emotional level. It is easy to believe in that version of hell, after all, if one considers it deeply enough, for the very simple reason that we all already know it to be real in this life, and dwell a good portion of our days confined within its walls. A hardened heart is already its own punishment. The refusal to love, or to be loved, makes the love of others, or even just their presence, a source of suffering and a goad to wrath. And isn't that true? That a hateful person views everything that's going on around them, and anything that someone else says, to be irritating, and worthy of punishment, or worthy of disdain, because it doesn't agree with their own opinion. He goes on to say on page 17, and so perhaps it makes perfect sense to imagine that a will sufficiently intransigent in its selfishness and resentment and violence might be so damaged that, even when fully exposed to the divine glory for which all things were made, it will absolutely hate the invasion of that transfiguring love, and will be able to discover nothing in it but terror and pain. It is the soul, then, and not God, that lights hell's fires, by interpreting the advent of divine love as a violent assault upon the jealous privacy of the self. Now, we've talked about that a lot here on Gnostic Insights, and I cover that in my discussions of Overcoming Death. My argument about Overcoming Death primarily comes from the Tibetan Buddhist book known as the Tibetan Book of the Dead, and in that book it describes this passage after life. And, by the way, it's not only when the whole entire cosmos melts away, it's every time we die. When your body passes away, suddenly you're in that non-material state. Your ego goes forward without the attachment of the body, and in that state of not being attached to the material world, it is like, at the end of time, when the entire cosmos goes through the same process and is no longer attached to the material world. At that point, delusion drops away, the confusion of this cosmos and the confusion of our culture and the demiurgic culture that we are surrounded with, as well as the pulls of the material upon our bodies. It's gone, it's lifted, it's no longer there, and your spirit is able to see with clear eyes. As Paul said in the first letter to Corinthians, chapter 13, For we know partially, and we prophesy partially. But when that which is complete comes, what is partial will be rendered futile. When I was an infant, I spoke like an infant, I thought like an infant, I reckoned like an infant. Having become a man, I did away with infantile things. For as yet we see by way of a mirror, in an enigma, but then we will see face to face. As yet I know partially, but then I shall know fully, just as I am fully known. But now abide faith, hope, and love, these three, and the greatest of these is love. And in the Tibetan Book of the Dead, it talks about these things called bardos, which are levels of hell, basically, or levels of purgatory that people go through as they are learning to get rid of the mistaken notions that they picked up here during the lifetime. The samskara is stripped away. I would call the samskara the confounding memes that we cling to. We pick up these meme bundles from the people and from the things we read and learn and are indoctrinated into in school and then through the media. Those are memes, meme bundles, and they have to be let go of. You have to drop them in order to get past the ego that's holding on to those memes and rediscover the purity of the Father and the Son in the ethereal plane—rediscover the purity of your true Self. And the longer someone holds on to those memes after death, the more difficult is their passage into purity. And that's explained in depth in the Overcoming Death episode. Well, that Tibetan description of the fires of hell very much resemble the fires of hell that were talked about from these ancient saints of the Christian tradition. By the way, this idea that most everyone and everything is going to hell rather than going to heaven, that is a relatively recent addition to Christianity, but it has been grasped so firmly with the great assistance of the Catholic Church and their doctrines that by now most Christians think that most people won't go to heaven. So even the Protestants who protest Catholicism—that's what the word Protestant means, one who protests—they've lost the original thread of universal salvation that Jesus was teaching. The Anointed came to save everyone, it says, over and over in the New Testament. And in Hart's translation, which comes directly from the original writing rather than down through the Latin that had already been filtered by the Catholics, you don't find the eternal torment of hell. Remember, the word Aeon, which we in Gnostic belief generally translate as ethereal beings or part of the Fullness of God above, Aeon is also translated as a period of time, and throughout most of the translations of the New Testament, which derive from the Latin Vulgate, Aeon is translated as a period of time. And so when it says eternal torment, it's really saying aeonic torment. And in my opinion, it's the torment people bring upon themselves when they return to the aeonic realm. The Aeons aren't the punishers. God is not the punisher. It's our own grasping onto our past lives and the demiurgic culture and the demiurgic memes that we hold onto after death that are experienced like burning flames. But no one's imposing it upon us. It's our own lack of willing to give it up and turn and face the light. The eternal fires of hell are actually the aeonic reckoning that comes at the end of each lifetime and will come at the end of time itself when the material cosmos passes away. At least that's what I think. So when Hart says on page 17 there that “a will, a personal will, sufficiently intransigent in its selfishness and resentment and violence,” intransigence means not giving up, stubbornness, “might be so damaged that even when it comes face to face with glory, it will experience it as torment.” Now, for those of us who have accepted the anointing of the Christ and have come to true gnosis, (that is a remembrance that we come from above and will happily return to the above, that's all you need to know), we will not cling onto this material world. We will not be clinging onto those demiurgic memes that keep us from coming face to face with our aeonic parents in the Fullness of God. We will happily cross over. We will joyfully meet with those who are on the other side, be they family, spouses, or pets, because the grasses and the flowers, the butterflies, the birds, everything that is alive down here on earth will be alive in heaven because all life comes from above. We will not be experiencing that chastening fire—that coming to grips with the lies that we've been holding onto. That's the painful part, coming to grips with our own lies and the harms we have done to other people. If we're not repentant of those harms we have done to other people, we will have to come face to face with those harms after we cross over, and we will see from that other person's point of view what we did to them and how much we hurt them, and that will come back to us. We will experience their pain, and that is the pain and suffering of death, but it's not being imposed by the Father or the Son or our aeonic parents above. On page 18, Hart says, Because Christians have been trained at a very deep level of their thinking, to believe that the idea of an eternal hell is a clear and unambiguous element of their faith, and that therefore the idea must make perfect moral sense. They are in error on both counts, as it happens, but a sufficiently thorough conditioning can make an otherwise sound mind perceive even the most ostentatiously absurd proposition to be the very epitome of rational good sense. You know, there's some big words in that sentence, but I think you can tell by the context what they mean, right? Ostentatiously means open, flaunting. Epitome means the highest. So he's saying that because the Church has taught that everyone's going to hell except those very few, which is an ostentatious point of view, you see, ostentatiously absurd proposition, yet they have been taught that it is the very highest of good sense, and you can't go against it. And so people are conditioned not to question it. And what this book, That All Shall Be Saved, is, is a very thorough and deep description and rationale of how that cannot be true, of how everyone must be going to heaven. I covered my version of why everyone's going to heaven in this episode. Further episodes, I think I'll do a series here, further episodes will each cover chapters in Hart's book, and we'll hear what his rationale is for why everyone is going to heaven. But returning to this page 18 again, he says, In fact, where the absurdity proves only slight, the mind that has been trained most thoroughly will, as often as not, fabricate further and more extravagant absurdities in order to secure the initial offense against reason within a more encompassing and intoxicating atmosphere of corroborating nonsense. In other words, you'll have to spin a bunch of nonsensical rationalizations and excuses about why everyone's going to hell, just to make the story float. Quoting again, Sooner or later it will all seem to make sense, simply through ceaseless repetition and restatement and rhetorical reinforcement. As I'm reading this, of course he's talking about religious ideologies here, but I'm seeing these mechanisms at play in media bias. Do you see that? Just through sheer repetition, over and over, it doesn't matter if things are true or lies. If you say it often enough, people will begin to accept it unquestioningly. And you can see that going on in the politics, can't you? Hart goes on to say, The most effective technique for subduing the moral imagination is to teach it to mistake the contradictory for the paradoxical, and thereby to accept incoherence as profundity or moral idiocy as spiritual subtlety. If this can be accomplished with sufficient nuance and delicacy, it can sustain even a very powerful intellect for an entire lifetime. In the end, with sufficient practice, one really can, like the White Queen (of Alice in Wonderland), learn to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast. In my limited attempts to discuss Gnosticism face-to-face with people, I discover this continually, that if I present them with the absurdity of everyone going to hell, for example, they will say, Well, it's a mystery. We can't know the mind of God. It's a mystery. Who are you to presume? And this is the way they cover up that it doesn't work, by just shunting it off to God's incomprehensibility. But our God is rational. Our God is logical. Our God doesn't say one thing and do another. Our God doesn't lie. Our God doesn't say it's all about life and living and love and then enslave and slaughter. That is not the God of Gnosticism. The Father that Jesus spoke of is not that God. Going on with page 19, Hart says, Not that I am accusing anyone of consciously or cynically seeking to manipulate the minds of faithful Christians. The conspiracy, so to speak, is an entirely open one, an unpremeditated corporate labor of communal self-deception, requiring us all to do our parts to sustain one another in our collective derangement. I regard the entire process as the unintentional effect of a long tradition of error, one in which a series of bad interpretations of Scripture produced various corruptions of theological reasoning, which were themselves then preserved as immemorial revealed truths and, at last, rendered impregnable to all critique by the indurated mental habits of generations, all despite the logical and conceptual incongruities that this required believers to ignore within their beliefs. He writes with big words. The gist of this entire paragraph was that the church didn't set out to be deceptive. Well, it may have with the Nicene Council when they stripped the Gnosis out, but from about 600 A.D. onward, it's just become such an ingrained thought that by now it's unassailable. By now you can't even question it. But that's what we're doing here at Gnostic Insights. So stay with me for the next few episodes, and we'll go into depth concerning hell, resurrection, salvation, and the ultimate redemption of all living things by the Christ, the Anointed, that will return us all to that paradise above. With love, onward and upward, and God bless us all. This book puts all of this gnosis together in a simplified form. Gnosis is as easy as you want it to be, or as complicated as you desire. This Simple Explanation will guide you through the often confusing terms and turns of gnostic thought and theology. The glossary alone is worth having on your bookshelf. Now available in paperback, hardback, and ebook/kindle, and an audio book narrated by Miguel Conner. Available at amazon.com or through your local independent bookstore. Please remember to leave a review at amazon if you purchase the book there. We need reviews in order to raise the book in amazon's algorithm!

In this episode, we explore the courageous men who paved the way for Martin Luther—followers of Jesus who, long before the Reformation, risked everything to return the church to the authority of Scripture.--The PursueGOD Truth podcast is the “easy button” for making disciples – whether you're looking for resources to lead a family devotional, a small group at church, or a one-on-one mentoring relationship. Join us for new episodes every Tuesday and Friday. Find resources to talk about these episodes at pursueGOD.org.Help others go "full circle" as a follower of Jesus through our 12-week Pursuit series.Click here to learn more about how to use these resources at home, with a small group, or in a one-on-one discipleship relationship.Got questions or want to leave a note? Email us at podcast@pursueGOD.org.Donate Now --Big Idea:Long before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses, God was already stirring reform in the hearts of ordinary believers. From Peter Waldo to John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale, the spark of reformation began not in cathedrals but in the conviction that the Bible—not the pope—was the true authority of the church.Episode OverviewFormation → Conformation → Deformation → ReformationThe first-century church was formed as a grassroots gospel movement led by the apostles (Acts 2).The following centuries saw conformation through creeds and councils that clarified core doctrine.After the fall of Rome, the church experienced deformation—institutional corruption, superstition, indulgences, and a Bible out of reach for the common person.Yet even in the “Dark Ages,” God raised reformers who called His people back to the Word.Key ReformersPeter Waldo (1170 AD)A wealthy merchant who gave up his riches after reading Matthew 19:21.Funded the first vernacular translation of Scripture into French.His followers—the Waldensians—preached repentance, memorized Scripture, and survived centuries of persecution.John Wycliffe (1320s–1384)Oxford scholar who rediscovered the gospel of grace through Scripture.Declared that “Scripture alone, not popes or councils, is the final authority.”Produced the first complete English Bible (translated from the Latin Vulgate).His followers, the Lollards, secretly spread handwritten English Bibles and published the Twelve Conclusions (1395)—early “theses” against corruption, indulgences, and unbiblical traditions.Jan Hus (1369–1415)Czech priest inspired by Wycliffe's writings.Preached the gospel in Czech so people could understand the Bible.Wrote On the Church, teaching that Christ alone—not the pope—is head of the church.Burned at the stake for refusing to recant, proclaiming, “You may roast this goose, but in a hundred years a swan will arise whose song you will not silence.”A century later, Martin Luther would see himself as that “swan.”His followers, the Hussites, became the Moravians, who later influenced John Wesley and the Methodist Revival.William Tyndale (1494–1536)Scholar fluent in seven languages, determined to make Scripture accessible to every English speaker.Translated the Bible...

In this episode, we explore the courageous men who paved the way for Martin Luther—followers of Jesus who, long before the Reformation, risked everything to return the church to the authority of Scripture.--The PursueGOD Truth podcast is the “easy button” for making disciples – whether you're looking for resources to lead a family devotional, a small group at church, or a one-on-one mentoring relationship. Join us for new episodes every Tuesday and Friday. Find resources to talk about these episodes at pursueGOD.org.Help others go "full circle" as a follower of Jesus through our 12-week Pursuit series.Click here to learn more about how to use these resources at home, with a small group, or in a one-on-one discipleship relationship.Got questions or want to leave a note? Email us at podcast@pursueGOD.org.Donate Now --Big Idea:Long before Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses, God was already stirring reform in the hearts of ordinary believers. From Peter Waldo to John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and William Tyndale, the spark of reformation began not in cathedrals but in the conviction that the Bible—not the pope—was the true authority of the church.Episode OverviewFormation → Conformation → Deformation → ReformationThe first-century church was formed as a grassroots gospel movement led by the apostles (Acts 2).The following centuries saw conformation through creeds and councils that clarified core doctrine.After the fall of Rome, the church experienced deformation—institutional corruption, superstition, indulgences, and a Bible out of reach for the common person.Yet even in the “Dark Ages,” God raised reformers who called His people back to the Word.Key ReformersPeter Waldo (1170 AD)A wealthy merchant who gave up his riches after reading Matthew 19:21.Funded the first vernacular translation of Scripture into French.His followers—the Waldensians—preached repentance, memorized Scripture, and survived centuries of persecution.John Wycliffe (1320s–1384)Oxford scholar who rediscovered the gospel of grace through Scripture.Declared that “Scripture alone, not popes or councils, is the final authority.”Produced the first complete English Bible (translated from the Latin Vulgate).His followers, the Lollards, secretly spread handwritten English Bibles and published the Twelve Conclusions (1395)—early “theses” against corruption, indulgences, and unbiblical traditions.Jan Hus (1369–1415)Czech priest inspired by Wycliffe's writings.Preached the gospel in Czech so people could understand the Bible.Wrote On the Church, teaching that Christ alone—not the pope—is head of the church.Burned at the stake for refusing to recant, proclaiming, “You may roast this goose, but in a hundred years a swan will arise whose song you will not silence.”A century later, Martin Luther would see himself as that “swan.”His followers, the Hussites, became the Moravians, who later influenced John Wesley and the Methodist Revival.William Tyndale (1494–1536)Scholar fluent in seven languages, determined to make Scripture accessible to every English speaker.Translated the Bible...

Good morning, and happy feast of St. Jerome! On today’s show, we welcome EWTN’s Dr. Matthew Bunson to talk about the life and holiness of this Church Father and Doctor of the Church, who translated the Latin Vulgate. Jeff Cavins will tell us about the second covenant in Salvation History, the one with Noah, plus Kris McGregor with this week’s selection from the Office of Readings. Fr. Boniface Hicks – Personal Prayer Marlon de la Torre – KnowingIsDoing.org Jeff Cavins – ascensionpress.com/collections/the-bible-timeline-the-story-of-salvation-2025 Fr. Augustine Wetta – Humility Rules Fr. Robert Nixon – Solitude and Silence: The Cloister of the Heart, by Thomas a Kempis Dr. Matthew Bunson – https://www.ewtn.com/tv/shows/doctors-of-the-church Steve Ray – CatholicConvert.com Kris McGregor – DiscerningHearts.com Ken Craycraft – Citizens Yet Strangers Neena Gaynor – ascensionpress.com/mercy Fr. Philip Larrey – Humanity 2.0See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hosts: Ed Gallagher and Brad McNutt  |  Released Wednesday, August 20, 2025 Watch the Video In this episode of Inside the Scholar’s Study, Dr. Gallagher begins a discussion of Jerome’s prefaces found in his Latin Vulgate translation. We want to hear from you! Subscription Links  

This lecture discusses key ideas from the early medieval philosopher and theologian, Augustine of Hippo's work, The Confessions. It focuses specifically on his discussion in book 10 of the type of temptation that is called "the pride of life", or (due to an alternate translation from the Latin Vulgate) the "ambition of the world". This has to do with our desire to feared or loved by others, to set ourselves above others, and wanting others to acknowledge our superiority. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3,500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Augustine's Confessions - amzn.to/3NQ7diK

https://media.blubrry.com/winning_with_the_word/content.blubrry.com/winning_with_the_word/J2025_06_21_Jesus_Christ_Is_Coming_Back_Soon_.mp3 June 21, 2025Hello and Happy Day! This is Dr. MaryAnn Diorio, Novelist and Life Coach, welcoming you to another episode of Winning with the Word. Today is Saturday, June 21, 2025, and this is episode #9 in Series 2025. This episode is titled, “Jesus Christ Is Coming Back Soon!" If you are at all in tune with world events, you very likely have heard mention of an event called the Rapture. If not, let me explain to you what the Rapture is.The Rapture is an event predicted in the Bible whereby Jesus Christ Himself will appear in the air and gather together from the four corners of the earth all those who follow Him. It will be a sudden event and will leave those who are not raptured reeling in shock as to what happened.Let me read to you directly from the Bible as it describes this cataclysmic event in 1 Thessalonians 5: 1-3:"Now about the times and seasons, brothers, we do not need to write to you. For you are fully aware that the Day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, 'Peace and security,' destruction will come upon them suddenly, like labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape." (1 Thessalonians 5: 1-3)Did you catch the words "peace and security"? Have you noticed that those words are being uttered all over the news every day and are being pronounced continually in meetings at the United Nations?Friend, Jesus Christ made this prediction over 2000 years ago, and we are now seeing it being fulfilled right before our very eyes. Should this not cause us to pause and consider?You may be saying, "Well, Dr. MaryAnn, I don't believe in the Rapture. In fact, I don't even believe in Jesus."I would say to you, "You are free to believe what you choose. But what you believe does not change the truth."For example, you could say to me, "Dr. MaryAnn, I'm going to climb up on my roof and jump, but when I do, I will go up instead of down."I would say to you, "I don't think you will go up when you jump off your roof. I think you will go down and possibly get hurt. There is a law of gravity that will cause you to go down when you jump. So, if I were you, I would reconsider my belief. But, of course, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe."But know this, my friend, whatever we believe has consequences. So be prepared to face the consequences of your belief that when you jump off your roof, you will go up.The same is true about the Rapture and the Bible in general. The Bible is God's inspired word. He directed different people in different centuries to write His Word. Despite the fact that those people for the most part didn't know one another and lived centuries apart, they all wrote the same truth expressed in different ways. Doesn't that tell you something?Bottomline, we will believe what we want to believe. But we had better make sure that what we are believing is the truth. Otherwise, we will end up where we don't want to be.There are numerous signs in the Bible of the Rapture. Some will say that the word "rapture" is not in the Bible. Actually, it is. It is found in the Latin Vulgate translation as the word "rapturo." "Rapturo" means "a catching away," which is exactly what the Rapture will be—a catching away of the people of God by Jesus Christ Himself.Lest you think this is far-fetched, so is the concept of aliens far-fetched. Yet, people have no trouble believing in alien invasions. Over the decades, the world has been programmed through movies and books to believe in aliens. In fact, once all Christ-followers have left the earth, their sudden departure will be attributed to an alien abduction of inferior creatures of a lesser consciousness. (As an aside, aliens are fallen angels who rebelled against God with Lucifer, now known as Satan.)Other signs of the imminent Rapture are the world's current focus on Israel and the M...

A @Christadelphians Video: Description: Five short talks introduce the reader to the careful translation of the Bible into English from manuscripts in the original languages. Modern and earlier English Bible versions are briefly reviewed in terms of their availability in printed and electronic formats. The reader is reminded that the Bible message is more important than the means of its production. SummaryThis presentation provides an overview of the origins and evolution of the Bible, tracing its journey from the original languages to the widely available Latin Vulgate translation.Highlights

A @Christadelphians Video: A @Christadelphians Video: Description: Five short talks introduce the reader to the careful translation of the Bible into English from manuscripts in the original languages. Modern and earlier English Bible versions are briefly reviewed in terms of their availability in printed and electronic formats. The reader is reminded that the Bible message is more important than the means of its production. SummaryThis presentation provides an overview of the origins and evolution of the Bible, tracing its journey from the original languages to the widely available Latin Vulgate translation.Highlights

A @Christadelphians Video: A @Christadelphians Video: Description: Five short talks introduce the reader to the careful translation of the Bible into English from manuscripts in the original languages. Modern and earlier English Bible versions are briefly reviewed in terms of their availability in printed and electronic formats. The reader is reminded that the Bible message is more important than the means of its production. SummaryThis presentation provides an overview of the origins and evolution of the Bible, tracing its journey from the original languages to the widely available Latin Vulgate translation.Highlights

This week we will be studying Luke 15:11-32 under the theme “A Parable of Two Sons.” This will be our third straight week hearing Jesus teach on The Banquet. We've heard about a Narrow Door. We've heard about Making Excuses. And now he's teaching about the difference between repentant sinners and self-righteous religious practitioners. We'll explain why the traditional title “The Parable of the Prodigal Son,” which dates back to 16th century English translations and even the Latin Vulgate, is tremendously misleading. This text is as much, or more, about an obedient older brother and how he still stands outside the banquet.How can we pray for you? tinyurl.com/stmarcusprayersFill out our online connection card: tinyurl.com/stmarcusconnectcardIf you'd like to leave an offering or monetary donation to our ministry please click here: https://tinyurl.com/stmarcusgive

Lucifer is one of the most complex and historically misinterpreted figures in Western religious and esoteric traditions. While commonly associated with Satan and the Devil in Christian theology, the name Lucifer, meaning "light-bearer" in Latin, initially referred to the morning star, Venus, in Roman astronomical and literary traditions. This episode examines the historical development of Lucifer, tracing his transformation from a celestial body to a theological symbol of rebellion, pride, and forbidden knowledge.We begin by exploring Lucifer's origins in Greco-Roman thought, where he was poetically invoked as the herald of dawn, with no demonic associations. The shift toward his identification as a fallen angel occurred through the interpretation of Isaiah 14:12 in the Latin Vulgate, where St. Jerome translated helel ben shachar ("shining one, son of the dawn") as Lucifer. Though initially a reference to the Babylonian king's downfall, early Church Fathers reinterpreted this passage in a cosmic framework, eventually merging Lucifer with Satan in medieval theology.This video also examines Lucifer's presence in alternative traditions. In esoteric currents such as Gnosticism, Renaissance Hermeticism, and modern occultism, Lucifer has been reinterpreted as a symbol of enlightenment and spiritual liberation rather than as a fallen adversary of God. The Romantic era further complicated his image, with figures like John Milton and William Blake casting Lucifer as a tragic hero challenging divine authority.Using primary texts and scholarly research, this episode provides an in-depth analysis of how religious doctrine, literary imagination, and cultural shifts shaped the evolving identity of Lucifer. How did an astronomical term become a feared adversary of divine order? And what does Lucifer's ongoing reinterpretation reveal about the tension between orthodoxy and esoteric knowledge?CONNECT & SUPPORT

Welcome to Day 2591 of Wisdom-Trek, and thank you for joining me. This is Guthrie Chamberlain, Your Guide to Wisdom – Theology Thursday – How Many Times Is Jesus Coming Back? – I Dare You Not To Bore Me With The Bible. Wisdom-Trek Podcast Script - Day 2591 Welcome to Wisdom-Trek with Gramps! I am Guthrie Chamberlain, and we are on Day 2591 of our Trek. The Purpose of Wisdom-Trek is to create a legacy of wisdom, to seek out discernment and insights, and to boldly grow where few have chosen to grow before. Today is the 48th lesson in our segment, Theology Thursday. Utilizing excerpts from a book titled: I Dare You Not To Bore Me With The Bible written by Hebrew Bible scholar and professor the late Dr. Michael S Heiser, we will invest a couple of years going through the entire Bible, exploring short Biblical lessons that you may not have received in Bible classes or Church. The Bible is a wonderful book. Its pages reveal the epic story of God's redemption of humankind and the long, bitter conflict against evil. Yet it's also a book that seems strange to us. While God's Word was written for us, it wasn't written to us. Today's lesson is: “How Many Times is Jesus Coming Back?” [Few things in the Bible attract more attention than prophecies about the end times. Even people with only a passing acquaintance with the Bible know that it foretells a second coming of Jesus. Those who study the Bible know the book of Revelation reveals that the second coming brings an end to the reign of the antichrist (the "beast"; Rev 19:11-21). The risen Christ, the incarnation of God, returns to earth not as a suffering Savior, but as the glorious warrior- king. But does the Bible describe an earlier return of Jesus—one that precedes this triumphant arrival? The “Rapture” Some Christians believe that 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 describes how all believers will be taken from earth, dead or alive, at an appearing of Jesus before the second coming described in Revelation 19. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord (1 Thess 4:16-17). This earlier return of Jesus is called the "rapture" by believers who embrace this idea. The term is derived from the Latin word rapiemur (from rapio, meaning "to carry off") used by the translator of the Latin Vulgate for the Greek word harpazõ (drtráw), translated "caught up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Other Christians, however, reject the idea that 1 Thessalonians 4 speaks of a different event than the return of Jesus to earth described in Revelation 19. For them, there will only be one return of Jesus in the future. So, who's right? Harmonizing The answer to the question is "it depends." If we were to read all the passages in the New Testament that speak of Jesus' future return, along with Old Testament passages that speak of a final, climactic visitation by God on earth that will put an end to evil ("the Day of the LORD"), we would notice immediately that they do not agree in the details or descriptions. For example, 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 seemingly has Jesus returning in the air, gathering believers into the clouds, whereas the prophet Zechariah foretold the physical arrival of the pierced Lord on the Mount of Olives...

In this segment (of our 2-part series), Bible teacher Dave Bigler (founder of Iron Sheep Ministries) does an overview of Bible translation theory and covers all major Bible translations from the pre-Christ Septuagint to modern day translations.Watch part 1 on Textual Criticism here: https://youtu.be/UO2FgjZ87r4Talk Outline:00:11 - What is the Goal00:39 - REVIEW - part 1 lecture on Textual Criticism- WHEN, WHY, and HOW were NT spread- Textual Criticism- Confidence in our text- God is sovereign (2 Tim 3:16-17)04:50 - Why are Bible Translations so controversial?06:51 - Why are there translations? Languages change, New manuscripts are found, & Translation theory10:11 - Translation Theory- Formal Equivalence (word for word)- Focus on a literal translation of the words of the text- Dynamic (or Functional) Equivalence (thought for thought)- Paraphrase 12:21 - Ancient translations to today13:10 - Septuagint (LXX - 280 - 100 BC)Earliest translation of the Bible. It is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (before Christ and the NT). 72 translators (6 from each tribe of Israel), translated at the request of the King in Alexandria. The name was eventually shortened from 72, to just 70. Septuagint is Latin for 70.15:47 - Latin Vulgate (VUL 404 AD)Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymusin aka “Jerome” was a student of languages. He was charged by Pope Damasus to complete a translation of the OT and NT into the “common tongue.” Name: Vulgate “common or commonly known.”17:18 - Wycliffe Bible (WYC - 1382)John Wycliffe was an Oxford theologian who wanted the English people to have a Bible in their own language. Wycliffe's Bible was done by hand. It is a word-for-word translation of the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe was heavily criticized by the Church of Rome as well as the Church of England because he taught that salvation was only available through the suffering of Christ, not through the power of the church. Wycliffe was called “The Morning Star of the Reformation.” In 1415, John Wycliffe was condemned as a heretic and in 1428 (44 years after Wycliffe's death) the Bishop of England ordered Wycliffe's remains exhumed and burned and the ashes thrown into the river.22:31 - Gutenberg Bible (1455) 1450 - Johann Gutenberg invented the Gutenberg press23:18 - The Protestant Reformation. Revolt from the abuses and totalitarian control of the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther (Germany), John Calvin (France), Ulrich Zwingli (Switzerland) were foundational in the protestant reformation. 26:03 - Tyndale Bible (1534)28:15 - Geneva Bible (1560)30:29 - King James Bible (1611)35:08 - Modern English translations.36:07 - Interlinear Bible38:53 - New American Standard Bible NASB39:57 - Amplified Bible AMP42:00 - English Standard Version ESV42:56 - King James Version KJV43:18 - What is the received text or textus receptus?45:03 - New King James Version NKJV45:57 - Christian Standard Bible CSB or HCSB47:17 - New International Version NIV49:00 - New Living Translation NLT50:02 - Good News Bible GNB50:44 - The Message MSG53:05 - Bad translations of the Bible53:35 - What is the Thomas Jefferson Bible?55:28 - what is the New World Translation of the Bible?57:45 - What now, what do you do with this information?Resources:https://www.blueletterbible.org/https://www.biblegateway.com/https://www.gotquestions.org/Books used for this talk:Gurry, Peter J.. Scribes & Scripture. Weatonm, IL: Crossway, 2022.Lightfoot, Neil R.. How we got our Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2003.More information on Dave Bigler and Iron Sheep Ministries: https://ironsheep.org

On Ash Wednesday (March 5), the church enters the holy season of Lent, in which we focus on Christ's righteousness, sufferings and death, and the new testament in His blood. Much ink has been spilt over the decision of St. Jerome to translate the Greek "diatheke" as "testamentum" in his Latin Vulgate, which ultimately influenced the King James Version's selection of “testament” as a translation of this term. This, in turn, led to our common division of “Old Testament” (2 Corinthians 3:14) and “New Testament” (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15). However, diatheke can also mean “covenant,” which is how many recent English translations, such as the ESV, render the term (except in Hebrews 9:16–17, where it opts for “will,” as in, “last will and testament”). Lutherans tend to prefer the translation “testament” over “covenant,” since covenants in the Bible sometimes require works on the part of humans. But in no case does a testament (a will) involve the works of the beneficiary — not to mention that it must be put into effect by the death of the testator. As we will see, even “covenant” can be understood correctly — provided that we pay attention to context and keep in mind the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Rev. Carl Roth, pastor of Grace Lutheran Church in Elgin, TX, joins Sarah to talk about the “Searching Scripture” feature in the March 2025 issue of the Lutheran Witness titled “Covenant or Testament?” on Jeremiah 31:31–34. This year, “Searching Scripture” is themed “Opening the Old Testament” and will walk through ways that the Old Testament witnesses to Jesus Christ and His grace, mercy and peace, delivered through the holy Christian church. Follow along every month and search Scripture with us! Find online exclusives of the Lutheran Witness at witness.lcms.org and subscribe to the Lutheran Witness at cph.org/witness.

On Ash Wednesday (March 5), the church enters the holy season of Lent, in which we focus on Christ's righteousness, sufferings and death, and the new testament in His blood. Much ink has been spilt over the decision of St. Jerome to translate the Greek "diatheke" as "testamentum" in his Latin Vulgate, which ultimately influenced the King James Version's selection of “testament” as a translation of this term. This, in turn, led to our common division of “Old Testament” (2 Corinthians 3:14) and “New Testament” (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 9:15). However, diatheke can also mean “covenant,” which is how many recent English translations, such as the ESV, render the term (except in Hebrews 9:16–17, where it opts for “will,” as in, “last will and testament”). Lutherans tend to prefer the translation “testament” over “covenant,” since covenants in the Bible sometimes require works on the part of humans. But in no case does a testament (a will) involve the works of the beneficiary — not to mention that it must be put into effect by the death of the testator. As we will see, even “covenant” can be understood correctly — provided that we pay attention to context and keep in mind the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Rev. Carl Roth, pastor of Grace Lutheran Church in Elgin, TX, joins Sarah to talk about the “Searching Scripture” feature in the March 2025 issue of the Lutheran Witness titled “Covenant or Testament?” on Jeremiah 31:31–34. This year, “Searching Scripture” is themed “Opening the Old Testament” and will walk through ways that the Old Testament witnesses to Jesus Christ and His grace, mercy and peace, delivered through the holy Christian church. Follow along every month and search Scripture with us! Find online exclusives of the Lutheran Witness at witness.lcms.org and subscribe to the Lutheran Witness at cph.org/witness. Have a topic you'd like to hear about on The Coffee Hour? Contact us at: listener@kfuo.org.

In this episode of FACTS, Dr. Stephen Boyce dives into the fascinating textual history of the Book of Esther. Was the original version the shorter Hebrew text or the longer Greek version found in the Septuagint? Exploring the use of the Greek version by early churches, including Clement of Rome, and Jerome's struggle with it in the Latin Vulgate, Dr. Boyce examines the external manuscript evidence, internal textual details, and historical context. From debates over Haman's ancestry to the name of the Persian king, this episode uncovers the complexities of Esther's textual tradition and its significance for biblical scholarship and church history. If you'd like to donate to our ministry or be a monthly partner that receives newsletters and one on one discussions with Dr. Boyce, here's a link: https://give.tithe.ly/?formId=6381a2ee-b82f-42a7-809e-6b733cec05a7 Here's the Longer Version of Esther: https://biblehub.com/sep/esther/1.htm

God's Divine Library from Hebrew Tanakh to the Greek Septuagint (LXX) to the Koine Greek NT to the Latin Vulgate to myriad English translations. And how Chaeg (Feast of) Mashiach (Messiah) became Christmas.

In today's show Dr. Anders tackles questions about the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, what does it means to love God, Mary's gradual knowledge of the mystery of Christ and more.

In today's show Dr. Anders tackles questions about the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible, what does it means to love God, Mary's gradual knowledge of the mystery of Christ and more.

Question: I was very upset by the answer from you about the reason you prefer the KJV.... I need you to please send me several examples of what you consider "serious" errors [in modern translations]. I would also be very appreciative of some reading material that the lay person can understand...or names of some sources....Response: Thank you for your recent letter challenging me regarding my support of the KJV. This question is too complex to deal with in a brief letter, but let me try once again. You asked for sources.The best case against "KJV only" is presented by D. A. Carson in The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. He points out, in "eight key Christological verses (Jn 1:1,18; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; 2 Thes 1:12, Tts 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:1)... the KJV fails to underscore the deity of Christ in four." Most modern translations do as well or better. The NIV scores in seven of the eight. Even Thomas M. Strouse, though strongly criticizing Carson, admits these four KJV failures (Jn 1:18; 2 Thes 1:12; Tts 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1) and explains them as "a textual problem (Jn 1:18) and the other three are translational problems." Even its defenders must admit to some flaws in the KJV.Critics fault the KJV because it comes from a Greek New Testament which was put together by Erasmus in 1516, later improved by Theodore Beza and Robert Stephanus. The latter's fourth edition in 1551 is "substantially the Textus Receptus," according to Jasper James Ray, one of its most fervent defenders. Too late in time, say the critics, and too few manuscripts as its source. Yet this was basically the Greek text that had been accepted by the Greek church in the East for centuries (the Roman Catholic Church in the West used the Latin Vulgate), earlier manuscripts from which the Greek Bible came having been worn out and discarded. Modern translations (some are worse than others, the RSV in particular) come from a Greek text developed by Westcott and Hort (two scholarly heretics) based largely upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which, though older, are clearly corrupted.

Considers the impact of Jerome's translation of the Scriptures into Latin.Produced in partnership with Museum of the Bible.

Considers the impact of Jerome's translation of the Scriptures into Latin.Produced in partnership with Museum of the Bible.

There is nothing like a cup of Turkish Coffee. That's not an opinion. It's an observation of fact. The local Starbucks does not serve Turkish Coffee.That's why I never buy Starbucks for Fr. Paul before his lectures. Why would I? Why would anyone who cares about anything important, meaning Scripture, do something so foolish? I am pretty sure there is a “Stars and Bucks” somewhere in the Middle East (and like any industrious knock-off, I bet they serve Turkish Coffee), but not the local Starbucks. This week, Fr. Paul even mentions the importance of his Turkish Coffee in the morning (with lots of water) before tackling the authorship of the Hebrew and Septuagint texts. Of course, his view goes against scholarly consensus. He also discusses his novel stance on the Book of Sirach, which goes against scholarly consensus.  And his view on the choice of Greek over Latin, which goes against scholarly consensus. And the importance of the Latin Vulgate, which goes against Orthodox consensus, which is not scholarly. And the function of grammatical gender, which goes against, well, everybody but especially theologians. Why, my daughter asked me, is the Bible so negative? The Bible is humorous, I answered. The Bible is ruthless, even cruel. But negative?  I, myself, am a man of optimism. The many puny human gods, I explained, are like tiny cancerous tumors. The Bible, on the other hand, is hopeful, like a doctor who prescribes chemotherapy to a person covered with many tumors. When these puny, toxic little gods are attacked, ridiculed, dismantled, and poisoned by the text of the Bible, the pain is unbearable—but the doctor goes to work against the cancer anyway because he has hope—hope against all hope when there is clearly no hope—that the treatment will bring hope.I call that insane optimism like a Gazan who just lost everything but somehow finds the strength to lift his hands in prayer—like the Olive Tree—which gives thanks only to God. You do not need a Seminary degree to unpack that puzzle. (Episode 319) ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Fr. William Rock, FSSP serves as Parochial Vicar at Regina Caeli Parish in Houston, Texas. He was ordained in October of 2019 and serves as a regular contributor to the FSSP North America Missive Blog and the TAN Direction Blog.     In Today's Show As Catholics, what are we to believe about ghosts? Do they exist? Are they souls? What exactly the role of a Priest is? Did the Blessed Mother have kids after Jesus? If so, how could Mary be ever virgin? What is the best way to explain what saying the Rosary/praying to the Saints is to my daughter?  In light of Traditionis Custodes what advice would Father give to fellow priests who can't celebrate the Latin mass? I now tend to see the Founding Fathers Writings as Deist philosophy to be taken with a massive truckload of salt. Any advice for a Catholic who recognizes the great government they established while distrusting basically all of their writings? The overall violence of nature and the various diseases seem to run counter to the idea that we live with a loving God. What is the best way to think about this topic? I feel as if Jesus is coming back soon, although I know we have no way of knowing that for sure. How do I know if I'm prepared? When we say in the creed that after Jesus ascended into heaven, He is “seated at the right hand of the Father.” What does that really mean? Would Fr. Rock be so kind as to talk about the difference between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint, and how the Latin Vulgate originates? Father, Most Protestants believe you can't lose grace given by God...How can we explain that we can?  There is an ongoing discussion about the Luminous Mysteries. Can I pray the rest of the rosary without them? Please explain to me Luke 14:26 "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, |...| yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Can people who commit suicide receive a Catholic funeral? When we hopefully reach heaven will individuals have different size houses? And what does that mean? The Pope said that hell was empty, is this something we should take as doctrine? Can a Catholic buy a religious statue that is being sold in a flea market, since it may be blessed?   Visit the show page at thestationofthecross.com/askapriest to listen live, check out the weekly lineup, listen to podcasts of past episodes, watch live video, find show resources, sign up for our mailing list of upcoming shows, and submit your question for Father!

TRANSLATING AND REVISING SCRIPTURE, Chapter 3 of As It Is Translated Correctly  Read full chapter here: https://www.blogtalkradio.com/fundamentallymormon/2023/12/31/translating-and-revising-scripture-chapter-3-of-as-it-is-translated-correctly Pages 20 to 41 Too often over-zealous and misinformed preachers of today profess to have a Bible without error. However, any honest Christian scholar will admit mistakes and inaccuracies in all Bible translations. Perhaps the erudite scholars of Bible history said it best when they declared: The need for NT textual criticism results from a combination of three factors: (1) The originals, probably written on papyrus scrolls, have all perished. (2) For over 1,400 years the NT was copied by hand, and the copyists (scribes) made every conceivable error, as well as at time intentionally altering (probably with the idea of “correcting”) the text. Such errors and alterations survived in various ways, with a basic tendency to accumulate (scribes seldom left anything out, lest they omit something inspired). (3) There are now extant, in whole or in part, 5,338 Greek MSS, as well as hundreds of copies of ancient translations (not counting over 8,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate), plus the evidence from the citations of the NT in the writings of the early church fathers. Moreover, no two MSS anywhere in existence are exactly alike. (Biblical Criticism, Harrison, Waltke, Guthrie and Fee, p. 128)

Available at latinvulgate.org --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adayah2real/message

A Visit from an Angel and a Song to Remember Gabriel and Mary Luke 1:26-38 Mary was a teenager who was of low to modest means. Mary's confusion was not due to unbelief but a matter of not understanding “how” it was going to happen. Gabriel confirms the promise to Mary with the testimony of her cousin Elizabeth. Nothing is impossible with God! Elizabeth and Mary Luke 1:39-56 Mary leaves quickly to go see Elizabeth. Joseph may or may not have accompanied her. Elizabeth prophesies to Mary immediately upon hearing her voice. And then, Mary responds with some of the most amazing, inspired words in Scripture—The Magnificat. Verses 46-56 are traditionally called “The Magnificat” because the Latin Vulgate begins with “Magnificat anima mea Dominum” (“My soul magnifies the Lord”). There are easily a dozen references or allusions to the Old Testament in The Magnificat.The post The Messiah Will Come first appeared on Living Hope.

A Visit from an Angel and a Song to Remember Gabriel and Mary Luke 1:26-38 Mary was a teenager who was of low to modest means. Mary's confusion was not due to unbelief but a matter of not understanding “how” it was going to happen. Gabriel confirms the promise to Mary with the testimony of her cousin Elizabeth. Nothing is impossible with God! Elizabeth and Mary Luke 1:39-56 Mary leaves quickly to go see Elizabeth. Joseph may or may not have accompanied her. Elizabeth prophesies to Mary immediately upon hearing her voice. And then, Mary responds with some of the most amazing, inspired words in Scripture—The Magnificat. Verses 46-56 are traditionally called “The Magnificat” because the Latin Vulgate begins with “Magnificat anima mea Dominum” (“My soul magnifies the Lord”). There are easily a dozen references or allusions to the Old Testament in The Magnificat.

Reading more than one translation helps you compare and contrast --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adayah2real/message

Some have cited 1 John 5:7 (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one") as evidence that the Scriptures teach a plurality of persons in the Godhead. To make matters more confusing, many modern translations include the reference to “three witnesses” (NLT) or “three that testify” (NIV), but leave out any reference to the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.Dr. David K. Bernard discusses the history of this verse and how it fits Oneness Pentecostal theology. His answer will enlighten anyone who wants to understand this frequently-debated passage.For further study, see Dr. Bernard's books The Oneness of God and God's Infallible Word. Both titles are available at PentecostalPublishing.com.If you enjoy this podcast, leave a five-star rating and a review on iTunes or your preferred podcast platform. We also appreciate it when you share Apostolic Life in the 21st Century with family and friends.

Questions Covered: 06:47 – I struggle with the Immaculate Conception and the Latin Vulgate. 14:00 – The claim that Jesus started the Catholic Church and that you have to be a part of it to fully be united with him. 20:03 – I don’t like the structure of the rosary and how it has changed. 30:59 – Why do Catholics call priests father, and why can’t priests get married? Also, Mary was a sinner and needed saving. 39:58 – Offering suffering for others troubles me. 48:00 – How do Catholics know Mary is in heaven? …

  Audio Download Questions Covered: 06:47 – I struggle with the Immaculate Conception and the Latin Vulgate. 14:00 – The claim that Jesus started the Catholic Church and that you have to be a part of it to fully be united with him. 20:03 – I don't like the structure of the rosary and how […]

“The followers of John Wycliffe undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 14th century. These translations were banned in 1409 due to their association with the Lollards.[33] The Wycliffe Bible pre-dated the printing press but it was circulated very widely in manuscript form, often inscribed with a date which was earlier than 1409 in order to avoid the legal ban. Because the text of the various versions of the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and because it also contained no heterodox readings, the ecclesiastical authorities had no practical way to distinguish the banned version. Consequently, many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscripts of English Bibles and claimed that they represented an anonymous earlier orthodox translation. In 1525, William Tyndale, an English contemporary of Martin Luther, undertook a translation of the New Testament.[34] Tyndale's translation was the first printed Bible in English. Over the next ten years, Tyndale revised his New Testament in the light of rapidly advancing biblical scholarship, and embarked on a translation of the Old Testament.[35] Despite some controversial translation choices, and in spite of Tyndale's execution on charges of heresy for having made the translated Bible, the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.[36]” Many religionists shame people for not “falling out on the altars.” In religion, going through the motions and not being truly reformed is rampant. There is denominational tribalism, praise and worship tribalism, houses of worship tribalism, popular preacher tribalism, and religious ritualism tribalism. There is what is called “Filthy Rag Theology” within their beliefs, their teachings, their music, their rituals, and their practices. Many of them don't allow The Greatest Commandment to guide all areas of their lives. They are not even comfortable discussing dinosaurs which is saddening to me. Traditionalists are hypocritically outraged over the Queen James Bible, but they celebrate King James even though he was sexually fluid. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

Our Journey from Genesis to Revelations --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adayah2real/message

Reading from both translations --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adayah2real/message

Martin Luther and Huldrich Zwingli were the first of the Reformers in the 16th century. Both were Roman Catholic clergy. Luther was a monk and theology teacher; Zwingli a parish priest. Both of them obtained hot off the press a copy of  Erasmus's  Greek New Testament in 1516. Encountering the raw text of the Bible in Greek helped uncover and correct mistranslations in the Latin Vulgate.  Ultimately Luther was converted as he came to understand Romans 1:17. Zwingli became greatly influenced from preaching through the text of the Gospel of Matthew. After he recovered from near death in the plague of 1519 his breakthrough is recorded in his "plague poem." God's Word is powerful and works the miracle of regeneration and conversion as the Holy Sprit moves in the heart of people.Bible Insights with Wayne ConradContact: 8441 Hunnicut Rd Dallas, Texas 75228email: Att. Bible Insights Wayne Conradgsccdallas@gmail.com (Good Shepherd Church) Donationhttps://www.gsccdallas.org/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJTZX6qasIrPmC1wQpben9ghttps://www.facebook.com/waconrad or gscchttps://www.sermonaudio.com/gsccSpirit, Truth and Grace MinistriesPhone # 214-324-9915 leave message with number for call backPsalms 119:105 Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path.

Utah musician Peter Breinholt and Paul Cardall, raised in the umbrella of Mormonism, and host Paul Cardall explore the history of commercial Mormon music, Latter-Day Saint culture and theology. LDS music is a multi-million dollar industry. ABOUT CO-HOST PETER BREINHOLTWebsite: https://peterbreinholt.com/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peter.breinholt.3Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/peterbreinholt LISTEN TO PETER'S MUSICSPOTIFY https://rb.gy/c6evxAPPLE MUSIC https://rb.gy/5s7g0 ABOUT THE HOST PAUL CARDALLOfficial Website - http://www.paulcardall.comFacebook - http://www.facebook.com/paulcardallmusicYoutube - http://www.youtube.com/cardallInstagram - http://www.instagram.com/paulcardall LISTEN TO PAUL'S MUSICAPPLE MUSIC - https://music.apple.com/us/artist/paul-cardall/4312819SPOTIFY - https://open.spotify.com/artist/7FQRbf8gbKw8KZQZAJWxH2  PART ONEPaul introduces Utah musician Peter Breinholt. Growing up under the umbrella of Mormonism, they discuss the differences in how they were raised. Paul comes from an orthodox home in Salt Lake City where his family was active in all the cultural and theological teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS). Whereas, Peter grew up outside of Utah and didn't have an active family. He moved to Utah, started a band, and evolved into an active Latter-Day Saint.Peter explains that there are Mormons making Mormon-themed music for Mormons sold at LDS bookstores, and then there are popular bands or singers who happen to be LDS. Paul summarizes how popular LDS-themed music has become; it's a multi-million dollar industry. Peter clarifies that in Utah, where LDS headquarters are, because of the social network that the Church provides, when things catch on, it's like a wildfire. There are mega trends in Mormonism.Paul talks about pioneer immigrants who wrote hymns using the contemporary style of their time. They mention that even though there is a commercial music culture, the church itself is rather strict on what they present in worship services called Sacrament Meetings, and full-time missionaries are allowed to listen to. Electric guitars and drums aren't allowed in services. Missionaries were allowed to listen to the Tabernacle Choir and some piano music, like Paul. Today, missionaries can listen to whatever helps them feel the spirit of God, though leaders are still cautious.As the church evolved in the 80s, there was Michael McLean, a songwriter who produced a series of videos promoting church doctrine. Missionaries would take those to those who saw the ad on TV. They talk about Mormon ad campaigns in the 70s and 80s. The songs in the ads were a huge part in persuading people emotionally and had a significant influence on the direction commercial Mormon music proceeded.Peter and Paul talk about the Osmonds, the most popular LDS musicians in the 20th century. Their fifth studio album that was on the Billboard charts is called “The Plan.” Their concept album was an opportunity for The Osmonds to share Mormon theology. There have been people who have joined the church as a result of their love for Donny Osmond. They skip ahead a few decades to talk about another famous band, The Killers, whose lead singer Brandon Flowers is a devout Mormon.In the late 1970s, early 80s, Afterglow was a blockbuster duo whose songs were rich with harmonies. They were one of the first to have a record deal with the church-owned bookstore, called Deseret Book. Their music was overly religious with strict LDS themes. Deseret Book at the time had hundreds of stores along with hundreds of independent stores by people who sold LDS related products. Record labels began to pop up.Peter brings up Kenneth Cope, whose voice was featured in some of those Mormon ads. Kenneth wrote and recorded some of the most successful commercial Mormon music. All of this is happening while Amy Grant in the Christian market or Gospel Music Association was becoming successful, and her Christian-themed music crossed over into the adult contemporary top 40. Greater Than Us All was Kenneth's successful debut with His Hands and Never A Better Hero. My Servant Joseph was another hit album about with songs about LDS founder Joseph Smith. Kenneth takes his responsibilities in the church seriously and when he was called to be a Bishop, in a church with no paid ministry, we didn't hear much from Kenneth Cope until recently. He'd spent 15 years producing a new musical called "Son of Man."Along with Kenneth, Michael Webb recorded similar LDS themed songs and has since left the church. Paul says one of his favorite songs is a new Christian song by Michael Webb. Peter and Paul explore artists Julie De Azevedo, Felicia Sorensen, and other successful female artists who started to emerge in the 90s. Julie is the daughter of Lex de Azevedo, who was successful at writing LDS musicals like "Saturday's Warrior," and "My Turn on Earth." He started a record label that signed Kenneth Cope, Michael Webb, Julie, and others. Julie became a popular therapist and podcast host helping countless LDS women understand their value. They mention Hillary Weeks and move into a conversation about Jeff Simpson, a former Disney producer. Jeff was ambitious in helping take LDS music forward into a more contemporary and overall style. He had a vision to make LDS music part of the broader Christian market under the Gospel Music Association. But Jeff's label Excel was never successful because of the differences. He was successful at creating a film production and distribution entity with the breakout hit "God's Army" by Richard Dutcher. Excel would later sell to Deseret Book. He also created an award show called "The Pearls" honoring LDS music.Before talking about cellist Steven Sharp Nelson, Peter mentions Nashville Producer Jason Deere who created the Nashville Tribute Band, which was country music with LDS themes. Cellist Steven Sharp Nelson, who is now a member of YouTube sensation The Piano Guys, worked on hundreds of albums by members of the LDS faith. Peter shares how he met Steve and began using him in his band. Later, Paul used Steve to orchestrate his music with another brilliant LDS artist, Marshall McDonald. Both Marshall and Steven worked as a team to help dozens of artists. Paul invited Steve to let him produce "Sacred Cello" for Paul's label Stone Angel Music. Steve didn't believe it would be successful, but the album debuted No. 18 on the Billboard Classical Charts. Steve is an artist who shared the burden with artists that occurs in the studio and on the stage. Paul shares with Peter the countless LDS artists who created LDS-themed albums that debuted on the Billboard charts. Deseret Book began reporting sales to Soundscan."Especially For Youth" is the next topic. The weeklong camp on Brigham Young University's campus and dozen other colleges across the United States gathered LDS Youth from all over. EFY gave these LDS teenagers a 12-song compilation that featured a cassette, CD of LDS artists who wrote songs about the camp theme. Every kid received one. EFY music began in 1986 and continued until 2019 before the LDS Church changed the youth program. In the 80s not only did you have Michael McLean, Kenneth Cope, and Julie De Azevdeo, but over the decades, artists evolved out of these produced EFY albums. Why? They were approved by the church since the program was under BYU, a church-owned private university. Not everyone appreciated the songs, but the production was top quality. However, producers and artists were not given the standard music industry fees. Peter wanted to get involved and was at a point in his career where the LDS church listened to him. He recruited Jon Schmidt, Steven Sharp Nelson's partner in The Piano Guys, to produce an authentic album of songs. However, they were restricted by several policies. Peter produced one more several years ago with songwriter Russ Dixon from the Utah group Colors. Concerts were also performed, and youth looked forward to it. Overtime EFY did away with the concerts because leaders felt there was too much attention drawn to the artists. There was one theme song that was the EFY “We Are The World” that brought the popular artists who were LDS together called, “Especially For Youth.” Mormons who go to the Temple make covenants that they'll donate all their time and talents to building up the Church. As a result, artists felt an obligation to do things for free or for very little pay. They discuss firesides, which are special events inside a church building. In the beginnings, Churches wanted firesides, but overtime fewer and fewer musicians were invited to perform their music about God. Peter shares his experience being asked to perform for LDS leaders and bring his band, only they wouldn't pay for anything. Peter would have to pay his band out of his pocket.Peter and Paul share their frustration as an artist who doesn't do LDS themed music. Because he lent his voice to a few LDS themed songs, the music platform's algorithm made him an LDS artist and recommends other LDS artists instead of the Americana Folk artists. Paul also shares his frustration that new material still references artists that the metadata feels is comparable to when Paul started in 1995. Paul talks about doing an album with Steele Croswhite, who was not LDS, and slowly the culture started working with people of other Christian denominations.Paul talks about his experience speaking and performing at a Missionary Fall social attended by Apostles Russell M. Nelson and Elder David A. Bednar. A previous 70s prophecy by President Spencer Kimball invited LDS members to create the very finest artist, particularly because he believed they have all the truth. He showed the apostles the classical Billboard charts that had 5 out of 10 people who were LDS. He showed that his prophecy was being fulfilled. Afterward, Elder Bednar invited Paul to write a song with him. Paul worked with Steven Sharp Nelson and Marshall McDonald to produce Paul and David Bednar's office song "One by One." Paul would later present Elder Bednar with a plaque showing he was part of a No. 1 Billboard charting album. Paul would perform this piece with LDS tenor Nathan Pacheco. Paul discusses the positive experience of doing business with Elder Bednar and the corporate church concerning owning the master rights to their song. Paul learned that Apostles do not take a royalty. If so, it goes directly to the church missionary department.Peter talks about Trina Harmon, a Nashville songwriter who isn't LDS, has helped several Mormons evolve as writers and artists. She complimented LDS members but said she's not yet met an LDS artist who is truly aligned with the mission of the Church. The LDS Church demands a lot of service and rules, leaving artists at odds in creating music. Paul agrees and says that anyone, LDS or not, who creates music that points people to Jesus Christ is important. They briefly discuss Paul Simon who is getting older and producing an album about his relationship with God. Maturing popular artists lean into producing faith-based recordings. Artists need to speak to the struggles. Peter talks about his daughter choosing to go on a mission and his concern that it could go one or two ways. Missionaries lean in or when they return, get out of the church.Paul shares Christian artist Andrew Peterson, who like Peter Breinholt, built a community of artists within a cultural context. In Mormon culture, there's a little bit of reluctance towards charismatic musicians. When Peter was connecting with the youth in a fireside, the leader stood up to make sure the audience understood that Peter is not someone who they need to look up to, but to look up to God. Leaders tend to put down artists. A leader cornered Peter to ask him if he's a kingdom builder or a Peter builder. They discuss Mormon theology about being ordained Kings and Queens, so there's a sense of looking down on those who aren't anointed joint heirs with God. Paul shares that he needed to strip away all the idols and ideology that stood in the way of having a full relationship with Christ. Paul believes in the Four Gospels over any new revelation from those who claim to be God's prophets. The Four Gospels are 4 eye witnesses of the Resurrected Lord who disagree on the details, but they all tell the same story. He goes into talking about the Codex Vaticanus and the other codexes that were used by St. Jerome to give the world the Latin Vulgate. Paul gets into why he doesn't believe in a Church that he loves with all his heart. They talk about Joseph Smith's first vision narrative that the Church has been teaching for hundreds of years, that even LDS scholars say that narrative can't be sustained. It's simply not true. Peter says that artists deconstruct. It's why artists write songs, to say something they can't say with words. They compose how they feel.They discuss challenges in Mormon doctrine. Paul talks about one of the Christian churches he attends called Immanuel Nashville with Pastor TJ Tims. Artists analyze everything.Paul and Peter end by setting up part two. ABOUT PETER BREINHOLTPeter Breinholt is well-known performer in the Salt Lake region and became so largely through word-of-mouth. His debut record became the best-selling independently released CD ever in the state of Utah, and was described a decade after it's release as "an underground classic" by Salt Lake Magazine. Peter has performed for countless sold out crowds in every major concert hall in the state, including Kingsbury Hall, Tuacahn and Sundance. Utah Governor Gary Herbert recently honored Peter with the Governor's Mansion Award for Achievement in the Performing Arts for his influence as a songwriter and performing artist.

Enjoying the journey back to the beginning --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adayah2real/message

Read the readings!! https://bible.usccb.org/bible/readings/090323.cfm Here's what I'm looking at while going through the Latin Vulgate text of Jeremiah 20: https://vulgate.org/ot/jeremiah_20.htm Have you fallen in love with www.greekbible.com yet? And just because: St Therese's poem to The post Tingly Ears: Jeremiah, Peter, and a Huge Lesson appeared first on Love Speaks..

Reading from the Latin Vulgate, The Cepher, and The ERV translations. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/adayah2real/message

Help us spread the message, Donate to the Apostolate Today! » ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://fatima.org/donate/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ An Ask Father session with Fr. Paul McDonald. Watch the video for this podcast: » ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://fatima.org/media/ask-father/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Contact Us: » WEBSITE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.fatima.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » PHONE: 1-800-263-8160 » EMAIL: info@thefatimacenter.com » FACEBOOK: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/Fatima-Center-95998926441⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » YOUTUBE: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/thefatimacenter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » TWITTER: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://twitter.com/TheFatimaCenter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ » INSTAGRAM: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/the_fatima_center/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ The Fatima Center's mission is to ensure that the entire Message of Fatima is fully known, accurately understood, and deeply appreciated so that it may be followed by all. The Fatima Center has been faithful to this mission since it was founded by the late Father Nicholas Gruner in 1978.  The Message of Fatima is the ONLY solution to the crisis in the Church and the world.Is it OK to Not Pray for Myself? | Ask Father

Wednesday, 12 July 2023   So Paul still remained a good while. Then he took leave of the brethren and sailed for Syria, and Priscilla and Aquila were with him. He had his hair cut off at Cenchrea, for he had taken a vow. Acts 18:18   The words are more closely translated as, “Now Paul, having remained many days more, having taken leave of the brothers, sailed away to Syria – and with him Priscilla and Aquila – having shaved the head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow” (CG).   In the last verse, Sosthenes had taken a pounding from the Greeks, right in front of Gallio. With that remembered, it next says, “Now Paul, having remained many days more.”   The exact timeframe is left unstated, but one can get the sense of several months at least. With the matter concerning the accusation of the Jews resolved, along with the pounding Sosthenes received, the times were again favorable for Paul to work unhindered among the Greeks. However, eventually, the time came for him to leave, go to Israel, and then finally come to the church in Syrian Antioch. That departure from Corinth is seen in the continued words, “having taken leave of the brothers.”   Paul eventually had to extend his farewells to the brethren in Corinth. It must have been a difficult thing for him to do, having been there for such a long time, but he would also be pleased that he could leave them to run things on their own. Unfortunately, the context of 1 Corinthians is an epistle being sent to a highly dysfunctional church. However, at this time and under his watchful care, he was able to leave them and journey forth. In having taken his leave of them, it next says he “sailed away to Syria.”   As noted above, this was not a straight sail to Syria, but the final leg of this particular journey. With that, it notes, “and with him Priscilla and Aquila.” Priscilla is noted first. Four times they are seen together, including this verse, Romans 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:19, 2 Timothy 4:19. She is mentioned first three times. There is speculation as to why this is, but no definitive answer is available. Despite this curiosity, it next says, “having saved the head in Cenchrea.”   The question that is raised among scholars is, “Who shaved his head?” The Greek is ambiguous enough to mean either Paul or Aquila. Aquila is the nearest antecedent and it would explain why he was mentioned after Priscilla. However, the context of the overall thought is focused on Paul. Because of this, the words are often taken as parenthetical. Despite this, some translations, such as the Latin Vulgate, say it is Aquila. The Syriac identifies it as Paul.   Either way, the shaving of the head was in Cenchrea. This was the port of Corinth. In other words, the shaving of the head is at the place of departure. Strong's notes that the name Cenchrea is probably from kegchros, meaning millet. As for the act of shaving, it next says, “for he had a vow.”   This is surely not a Nazirite vow as found in Numbers 6, but rather something like what is mentioned by Josephus as ‘is customary for persons in any affliction, viz. to make a vow that, for thirty days previous to that on which they intend to offer sacrifice, they will abstain from wine and will shave off their hair' (Pulpit Commentary).   What seems to be suggested is that the hair was cut as the result of having been safely delivered from the afflictions faced in Corinth. In other words, this is the fulfillment of a vow, not an act to initiate a vow. As Cenchrea was the town at the entrance to the haven belonging to Corinth, Paul (or possibly, but less likely, Aquila) was acknowledging the safe deliverance promised by the Lord. This is why “Cenchrea” and “vow” are specifically mentioned in the same thought.   Though not a Nazirite vow, the same process is seen. After the completion of the vow, the hair is cut off. If this was a Nazirite vow, the hair would have been cut off at the temple in Jerusalem and a set ritual would take place. Nothing of that is noted here or later concerning this vow. In other words, this cutting of the hair was an act of gratefulness to the Lord for something that had been vowed before, similar to what Jacob had said to the Lord in Genesis 28:20-22 –   “Then Jacob made a vow, saying, ‘If God will be with me, and keep me in this way that I am going, and give me bread to eat and clothing to put on, 21 so that I come back to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God. 22 And this stone which I have set as a pillar shall be God's house, and of all that You give me I will surely give a tenth to You.'”   As such, this is a vow of conscience, not a matter of law. The vow was uttered, and in thankfulness for the petition having been granted, the hair is cut.   Life application: The Old Testament has places where vows are spoken of and the necessity to fulfill them. For example –   “When you make a vow to the Lord your God, you shall not delay to pay it; for the Lord your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin to you. 22 But if you abstain from vowing, it shall not be sin to you. 23 That which has gone from your lips you shall keep and perform, for you voluntarily vowed to the Lord your God what you have promised with your mouth.” Deuteronomy 23:21-23   The Psalms refer to vows being fulfilled by the one who made them. A valid question is, “Are Christians allowed to make vows?” Another question is, “Are Christians required to fulfill vows?” The answer to the first is, “Yes.” A person can make a vow between himself and God, himself and a friend, etc. But it must be considered that a vow is something that binds a person to what he has promised.   Borrowing money for a loan is a type of vow. “I am promising to pay back this money.” This vow is usually put into writing as a means of holding the person responsible. As for fulfilling vows. This becomes a lengthy subject depending on the context. If a person makes a vow prior to being saved that is contrary to Christian life, he obviously cannot perform that vow. “I vow to support the edicts and commands of the gang I have joined, up to and including killing our rival gang members.”   In Christ, a new direction must take place. However, if vows are made after becoming a Christian, and remembering that the idea of a “vow” extends to all aspects of our lives, such as marriage, borrowing money, being an employee, and so on, then we need to be responsible and fulfill our obligations in the capacity that we have promised.   This is more certain because Jesus, Paul, and James each refer to a Yes being a Yes and a No being a No. Paul's is less specific, speaking of personal words and actions, but it is a precept that was understood concerning reliability. In other words, we are to be so trustworthy as followers of Christ that when we say Yes, it is a vow in and of itself. Honesty and integrity are to be the guides of our actions before God and men.   Lord God, may we be responsible followers of Jesus, fulfilling the words that come forth from our lips. We know that when we fail, we are forgiven, but help us to not fail in doing what we have promised. Help us in our daily walk to do so. Be glorified in our conduct, O God. Amen.

Revisit Trish and Rob's September 12, 2021 conversation with... Adam Stokes. Professor Stokes has degrees in religion from Duke University and Yale Divinity School. He is the author of from Egypt to Ohio: a Semitic Origin for the Giants of North America and The Latin Scrolls: Selections from the five Megillah translated from the Latin Vulgate. His work has been featured in various magazines and podcasts including Ancient American magazine, Earth Ancients, Expanded Perspectives, Forbidden Knowledge News, Broadcast Team Alpha and She's All Over the Place. He teaches high school Latin and a college course on the Old Testament. https://www.instagram.com/adamthegiantguy2019/