According to Jewish Rabbinical tradition, the reason that Noah didn’t have to have more than two carnivorous animals of each kind on the ark is because they were not carnivores yet but only became so after the flood. Of course, that does not account for all of the grain, etc., that would have had to have been put on the ark for them to eat, but I digress. Anyway, if that were in any way true, then why does the Bible show humans as carnivorous animals already (1) because Noah was actually told to have 7 of each “clean” (edible) animal placed on the ark for food and (apparently the writer of this part never thought about the fact that he made the Mosaic Law predate Moses by so writing) and (2) by the fact that the children of Adam and Eve were already making animal sacrifices way before the flood. They were already killing and consuming animals because almost everyone knows that most sacrifices were not entirely burned but were partially eaten by the participants.

The fact of the matter, as scientists have come to understand, is that very ancient humans could not have survived on a diet only of things grown from the ground but had to also have meat as a mainstay simply because only meat would provide enough calories and nourishment to allow them to survive, especially during winters.

Thus, the Bible itself proves that the story of Noah’s Ark is a made-up fantasy.

On Sunday evening, out of sheer need to find SOMETHING worth watching on TV, I watched a couple of religious programs. Now, please understand before I begin that I typically would not refer to such programs as “worth watching”. But, in fairness, they do often beat other programing even though they are often pitiful and wildly inaccurate. And such was the case that evening, but I still watched a couple of programs. And you know that TV programming has to be really bad for someone to turn to any of these stations in search of something new to watch.

Anyway, before we get to the one mentioned in my title I will begin with “A Study in the Word” on JSM. I regularly watch the “Jim Bakker Show” and “Frances & Friends” just to keep up with the latest idiocy presented on each program and I generally consider the former to be just about as pitiful of a program as anyone could possibly find, with Jim more often than not moaning and groaning about his past issues or incessantly talking about his family. And this is only when he is not yelping about the upcoming presidential election. That said, this airing of “A Study in the Word” was pathetic beyond belief. I don’t know how it compared to other airings, but all they did was go through a hand-full of scripture, alternately reading that along with Swaggart’s notes from his Expositor’s Study Bible before they got off onto Swaggart’s early life; the panel members looking at him as if they were disciples looking at Jesus or something. It made me glad that I don’t tend to try to watch that particular program.

But Jimmy Swaggart said one thing of interest, and that is why I make note of that program here. In speaking about the last days and the Tribulation, naturally they talked a bit about “Matthew 24” and Swaggart said that he had heard that when the Romans came down upon Jerusalem in 70 CE, not a single believer was harmed because they had taken heed of the words of Jesus to flee when they saw the wrath coming and did so. In actuality, as I biblical scholar I can tell you where that came from. Eusebius and perhaps a couple of other early church fathers. Swaggart either does not know or has forgotten the source, apparently.

But worse than this, Swaggart obviously neglected to think before he spoke because that statement all by itself negates the theology of any Christian today who believes in end-times prophecy, including the theology of the Swaggarts. Why? Because, contrary to what they will tell you, Jesus could not have been telling Christians of his own day who would live some 40 years after his death to be ready and flee when they saw approaching armies and at the same time have been projecting this warning to people who live two thousand plus years later! It literally can’t be both! For the record, that simply means that “Matthew 24” cannot and does not apply to today because the warning was clearly for the people of his own day.

Anyway, on to the next program which was entitled, “Before the Wrath” (Ingenuity Films, 2020), narrated by Kevin Sorbo (yes, the guy who played Hercules). As it was about to air it was billed as “proof” of the rapture and of the “fact” that the rapture would take place prior to the Tribulation (before the wrath to come). It was at least implied that “new archaeological evidence” had been found to substantiate everything. Well, I thought, at least I might learn something new here.

Sadly, even from the beginning I could tell that my slight hope was not to be realized except with one or two minor historical details of no real consequence. See the reader may already know that I have studied religion and history extensively over a lifetime and have obtained multiple degrees from accredited institutions of higher education. Not to toot my own horn here as Jim Bakker is wont to do, but I have learned a few things, and some of this education came from Jewish Rabbis (real ones, not Messianic “Rabbis”). So, I really didn’t need to contact any of them to ask them if this or that thing was accurate because the things that I knew were accurate were not new, and the things that were presented as new really make no difference.

And, frankly, the film was a bit cheesy too. After all, it started out with a bearded old man writing what apparently passed as some sort of scripture. It seemed that he was made to look like the Apostle John writing Revelation. But any other such program would at least have shown him writing in Greek. Yet this guy was – I kid you not – writing in English. Well, so much for authenticity.

So, here is the general scheme of the program which, I will state, is not entirely without foundation, although they leave certain things out that would help with an understanding of the things they present, but which would go against their faith. The entire film is based on a Jewish wedding ritual, more specifically, a Galilean one. Thus, the first thing that is posited is that a Galilean wedding was not only different from weddings in other local cultures, but also different from the standard Jewish wedding. So, in this Galilean model, they posit that the bride and groom to be would go to the city gate area and go over the written contract drawn up by the bridegrooms father and that the potential wife had a choice either to accept or reject it based on whether she accepted a cup of wine (probably not grape juice, by the way) from the bridegroom. If she accepted it and drank from it, then a standard year was to pass as both prepared for the actual wedding – the bridegroom building a room onto his father’s house and the potential bride obtaining materials, etc. for her wedding dress and then waiting for the bridegroom to come get her, wearing the dress as she slept with her bridesmaids each night in case he showed up. Personally, I was only hoping that someone washed her dress every day after she slept in it each night. But I digress.

Two key points were made in addition to this. (1) Only the father knew when the bridegroom would be allowed to go get his bride and (2) the bridegroom would go at night to get her. In so many words, even though the standard period of time to elapse was to be a year, it would actually be whenever the father of the bridegroom said it would be and only he knew when that would be. So, even though the bridegroom might be ready well prior to a year, he still might have to wait for his father’s approval. In addition, it would be at night when most people would be asleep, including the bride and her entourage. So, when the time came the bridegroom would blow a Shofar and walk with people who gathered around him through the streets until arriving to the potential bride’s location at which time, having made a litter upon which to carry her, she would be lifted up and taken to the wedding feast (supposed to be symbolic of the Rapture). There, once those who had become “guests” because they were awake and already in the procession would be allowed to come in and take part in the feast. Anyone who came late would be locked out. And the latter were pictured as being wrathful because they had been locked out. So, all of this was supposed to be a picture of the rapture and the “wrath to come”, i.e., the Tribulation foretold by Jesus in “Matthew 24”.

For the most part, so far so good except for at least one crucial issue. NO new “proof” or evidence was presented to support any of this. Not a single thing. There is not a single allusion to anything that could be considered either evidence or proof in the entire program. For a program that purported to provide some sort of “new” evidence, this was quite disappointing to me. But, in reality, it also was not really a surprise because even if they had presented some sort of evidence it might not have been the “proof” that had been promised. You know, any biblical scholar, even me, waits and sometimes searches for some bombshell piece of evidence that will tie everything together or prove that some historical even really happened. And this is not the first time that I have heard someone claim “proof” where there was none.

Anyway, getting back to the actual program, the scenario that was laid out is in fact mostly plausible. I do think that it is a stretch to suggest that a Galilean wedding was somehow fundamentally different from any other local wedding custom. But that such weddings might have been essentially like what was presented in this program is possible. AND, yes, the description provided does go along with the types of things that Jesus said about weddings according to the canonical gospels. So, if one wishes to use such a wedding analogy as a description of future events, such as the rapture and the Tribulation, then that is not really bad theology. In fact, I would suggest that this is, more or less, exactly how Jesus would have intended for his wedding descriptions and parables to be interpreted. So, I fundamentally agree with the premise here even though there is no “proof” presented to back it up.

These things having been said, there still exist some fundamental problems with the things presented in this film. First, as already alluded to, I seriously doubt that they really have “found” the type and level of detail about Galilean weddings that they present here. It seems more likely that someone simply back-engineered the sayings of Jesus and created this scenario from them. Again, no evidence or proof is presented in the film. Surely if they wanted to really prove their point they would present at least something found to support it.

But let’s just say that they are right about all of it and things really did happen in the way presented, at least most of the time. One glaring problem is that in some cases the father might have already been deceased. So, who would be the arbiter then? Also, what if father and son didn’t get along? What if the son no longer resided with his parents?

But, for me, the biggest problem with this scenario is the concept that the couple were supposed to wait a year until getting married, but the father was the only one who could decide when it would take place. It’s not so much that the couple were left in limbo until the father made or expressed his decision. That’s bad enough and I don’t know how many people would have put up with that. But in equating a Galilean wedding with the rapture and the Tribulation anyone can see that the time-frame does not match up. How long were they to wait, a year? EVEN if one is to extrapolate a year being, oh, a thousand years, we are well off course by now. If you took and misinterpreted every prophetic scripture available you could not come up with a scenario that says two thousand plus years.

Another problem is what they, in my view, deliberately leave out. See, there are indeed allusions to weddings and wedding feasts in the canonical gospels which can reasonably be applied to the concepts of the rapture and maybe the Tribulation – maybe. But an even better, even if also scant, source for such a scenario is actually the Gospel of Thomas. This gospel speaks more about weddings and wedding feasts than any of the canonical ones and draws allusions to the spiritual nature of these things all on its own. I won’t detail any of it here because the reader can search for themselves. It’s easy. The point being, if one wanted to understand the spiritual connection of the wedding of Christ and his church, the Gospel of Thomas would be a great source to utilize. I suspect that the producers of this film neglected to do that.

These two things having been stated, it is also obvious, again, that if such weddings were used as an analogy for the rapture and the Tribulation, the two latter events have over time been put too far into the future. Everyone who cites “Matthew 24” always wants to begin with the first verse of that chapter in which the disciples are asking “when will these things be”. They practically never consider, “what things”? Those “things” were detailed in chapter 23, especially vs 37-39, which read (NASB), “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who have been sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. ³⁸ Behold, your house is being left to you desolate! ³⁹ For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, ‘Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

The reader has to especially focus on that last sentence. Jesus is directly stating that those in Jerusalem would not see him again until the day in which they would say, “Blessed is the One who comes in the name of the Lord!” Now, according to the gospels, this happened when Jesus went to Jerusalem during what is termed the “triumphal entry” just prior to his crucifixion. So, all of the things that are detailed in Matthew 23 and 24 were to happen from the time he physically left Jerusalem until the time that he physically returned. Did Jesus not just say in 23 vs 34-36, “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will flog in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, ³⁵ so that upon you will fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. ³⁶ Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation”? He wasn’t talking about a generation two thousand plus years later!

Please understand, the fact that Matthew has the triumphal entry as taking place prior to this event is simply a slight of hand of the writer. Matthew was not written until decades after the crucifixion of Jesus and by that time followers were already busy inventing scenarios to explain why he had not yet returned. If the writer had placed the triumphal entry properly after Matthew 24 at some point, then it would be clear to the reader that Jesus had meant the triumphal entry. But because of the arrangement of events this becomes lost to those who do not carefully read and consider the events in context.

But this still does not illustrate the proper time-frame without even further context. The proper context can be derived from exactly why and when Jesus would have been in Jerusalem to begin with. After all, most of his ministry was done outside of Jerusalem. According to the gospels, Jesus only went to Jerusalem during certain periods of time. Like most other Jewish people, that was once a year. So, it becomes obvious that in Matthew 23 Jesus is literally stating that those in Jerusalem would not see him for another year and at that time they would rejoice at his arrival. And in a carefully choreographed event, Jesus returned riding upon a donkey as if to fulfill messianic prophecy. After that he immediately went to the temple and overturned the tables of the money changers and was soon crucified.

This is also when the “Lord’s Supper” took place. This literally was the wedding feast of the Lamb! This is not the way it was presented in the film, but it is when Jesus and his church, by way of his disciples, were married. But the end of the world was not supposed to take place at that time. They had expected that the Romans would see the commotion and come down on Jerusalem to destroy her at that time and this would be the end of the age, but this did not happen. The physical events did not take place, but one could argue that the spiritual ones did and that the Eucharist is the means by which believers ever after that event also take part in the marriage supper of the Lamb. Therefore, it is not some future eschatological event that is to happen after some rapture, but is an event repeated over and over again as long as history remains.

If the disciples, as Galileans, would have understood the analogies of weddings that Jesus presented and if they had in mind the specific scenario that has been presented in this film, then they also would have well understood that everything was supposed to take place within the time-frame of ONE YEAR. And, for them, that is exactly what happened. If you take the wedding analogies and tie them to Matthew 23 and 24, then you HAVE to come to this conclusion. And that, even though Matthew 24 mentions things that would not even take place for decades afterward because the Romans did not come down upon Jerusalem at that time as expected. But not a single word of it has anything to do with today except for the things that can be taken spiritually.

End-times prophecy is completely false, period.

I just read a comment on social media in which someone responded to a comment from another person who explained that God (meaning the Christian God, of course) sometimes chooses the worst type of people to do his will (in explaining why they would vote for Trump as a Christian). He responded that “I could never worship that God”.

Now, honestly, I have endeavored to not be too overtly political in any of my posts thus far, but this simply needs to be said. See, I have actually been thinking of saying something more or less exactly along those lines for some time. No, I can’t worship that god.

Allow me to explain first by re-stating that I am well versed in Christian theology, having acquired multiple degrees in the subject. So, contrary to many others, I actually do know the many and varied aspects of Christian theology, and am, in fact, also fairly well acquainted with Judaism and a little less with Islam. I really never comment on the latter two except in passing because, frankly, I used to be an ardent Christian but no longer am. In my mind, these things allow me to speak about Christianity with some level of authority and, shall we say, “right”, whereas commenting on the other religions would be less appropriate since I never have been a member of the Jewish or Islamic faith. Suffice it to be said here that I may touch somewhat upon ancient (not modern) Judaism in this article, along with Christianity, but will go no further. For me, all monotheistic faiths have one glaring flaw anyway so that whatever I say about Christianity can be carried forward to the other faiths. That flaw is exactly monotheism and, more specifically, patriarchal monotheism (because matriarchal monotheism is an impossibility). And this is exactly why I am a Pagan and why I insist, to those who don’t seem to understand this, that one cannot be a Pagan monotheist.

Anyway, let’s get back to the politics of the whole thing first. Many people today are genuinely surprised that so-called “Christians” could support someone like Donald Trump. I actually get that. The reason is because I do know where they are coming from exactly because I used to think just like them. See, I WAS a true believer. I was a fundamentalist of fundamentalists, and evangelical of evangelicals! I used to believe that the entire Bible had to be one-hundred percent absolutely unerringly true and factual and perfect and inspired by God. And I WAS a fanatic! I LOVED the book of “Revelation” and the book of Hebrews more than any. My favorite church Father was Tertullian. And I literally ate up everything that either Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart ever said! Billy Graham too. His book, “World Aflame” was my very favorite religious book. Second to that was “Saul of Tarsus” (I’m afraid I forgot the author’s name). I used to read the Bible for hours and also pray for hours. I nearly wore the knees out of my pants praying!

But, even with all of this, my personal faith was centered on the beatitudes. And, so, my Christian outlook was based on the concepts embedded within the beatitudes, such as loving one’s neighbor. I never in my wildest dreams could have imagined that somewhere down the road, ministries like those of Jimmy Swaggart would completely twist the beatitudes, literally, into something that people today don’t really have to follow because, they say, this is a picture of the millennial reign and, after all, it doesn’t have to do with individuals, but it instead has to do with nations and it is all about how the nations treat Israel. That’s how the whole idea of sheep and goat nations developed to begin with, in case anyone is unclear on that. I know enough theology to understand that, OK?

Of course, the beatitudes are really about people, not nations, and the sheep and goats are people, not nations. But you can’t convince them of that! Why? Because for them to admit error here, their whole political theology falls apart. Yes, I said “political theology” because it really is nothing more than politics wrapped up in religious garb. That is why they can follow and support someone with no apparent moral compass and convince others to do the same. Because the end really does justify the means, in their minds. As long as he does what “we” want, then he is someone sent by “God”!

But let’s be really real here. OK? If you read the Bible, with certain exceptions like the beatitudes, it’s all politics anyway. Think about it.

And, therefore, it is also division and an “us vs them” mentality. In Genesis it literally says if you don’t “bless” Israel, then God will curse you! So, any perceived enemy of Israel was, and still is, literally cursed by God Almighty! Naturally, then, we MUST support Israel in anything and everything they do, or we will be cursed! Some televangelist-types are already saying as much – that we have been cursed because we didn’t support Israel enough and we favor a two-state solution and, thus, a division of the land which is, in their minds, against God’s will! Never mind that it is already literally divided. And, somehow, “America” is like Israel in that we have to follow a certain religious standard or God will get mad at us, like he did so many times them, and do all kinds of horrible things to us until we repent! Never mind the other nations. THEY don’t have God’s favor the way WE do because WE are a Christian nation built upon biblical principles. Thus they think, anyway.

They love, and have always loved, to point at Pagans as something that no one in their right minds would really want to be. They tell lurid tales of Pagans sacrificing children in ancient times, among other things, to discourage people from even considering it. And, of course, abortion is a sacrifice to Pagan gods! Don’t believe me? Listen to what they say. Ask them. And, naturally, God is highly offended by this! So, we are on our way to destruction if it isn’t totally stopped! Anyone still wonder why it was the very first thing that was “accomplished” by the Trump administration?

Well, let me cut to the chase here. No Pagan god/goddess ever instructed his/her people to totally annihilate a particular population, including children and even animals – thus committing genocide. No Pagan god/goddess ever condoned the murder of a person and the cutting up of their bodies to be spread at various points in the nation as some kind of sign. Frankly, no Pagan god/goddess ever impugned the entirety of humanity with the stain of original sin because of the rather minor mistake of two people. In fact, no Pagan god/goddess ever destroyed every living thing on earth by water, except for a few who got on a boat, because he just couldn’t stand their sins anymore. No Pagan god/goddess ever destroyed a building, stating that if people could do that then nothing would be beyond their abilities – that silly story of the Tower of Babel. In the meantime, here we are in the modern age having sent humans to the moon and satellites further out into space than anyone could have imagined generations ago. Oh, I forgot – no one knew about space just a few generations ago. They thought it was all somehow very close rather than so vast we could never traverse it even if we had the ability. And, after all, the earth was the literal center of the universe. Pagans never burned each other for saying that the earth was round or that the earth was not central to everything that exists. We didn’t burn witches either! But they are literally instructed to murder witches!

The televangelist-types are always yelping about how “they” (and you know who THEY are, after all) want to manipulate and control people. But there is no person under greater control than someone with a closed religious mind. And the monotheists have always been best at creating exactly that. Why do you think Karl Marx said that religion was the opioid of the people?

And no Pagan god/goddess ever created an eternal hell where people would writhe in exquisite pain and torment forever because of whatever sins they committed while alive on earth just because they didn’t repent and accept a savior!

No, I can’t worship a God who is only political and who would “send” someone without an apparent ounce of decency in him as some kind of American savior, because that is exactly how they see him. He’s the modern-day Cyrus to them. He may as well BE Pagan! They wouldn’t care as long as he did what they want!

You people really think you are preaching some kind of gospel? When you say that some are trying to stop you from preaching about Jesus and the gospel, yet your entire programs are little to nothing other than conspiratorial crap designed to persuade people from voting for anyone other than Trump, you are preaching no gospel. When you insist that it’s all about sheep and goat nations and how they treat Israel, you are preaching no gospel. When you howl about how the world is about to end, but people better buy these food buckets and be ready, you are preaching no gospel. When you insist that the changes in weather patterns are not climate change (because that is a hoax and scientists somehow don’t agree – as if religious experts agree on the Bible) but are instead caused by demonic forces battling it out in the heavens – or that earthquakes will become more and more frequent because, get this, of the combination of solar eclipses, blood moons, and locusts coming out of the ground all at once, you are not only not preaching any gospel, but you are wacko and need psychological help!

If the reader doesn’t think they say these types of things, let the reader listen to them for a week or two. That’s all it will take.

You televangelist-types think people are trying to keep you from preaching Jesus and the gospel. No, they would like for you to stop the conspiracy BS!

No, I can’t worship YOUR god! And when I die, I will be most happy and fortunate for it.

I now understand, after all of these years, that it really was all about politics from the very start. So, it is obvious to me why every word out of their mouths is really political and they THINK it’s gospel instead. I get it. That’s why I can’t be among them. That’s why I can never worship their god. Christianity, at least in the US, has totally strayed from the teachings of the beatitudes and has totally twisted even that into a political framework of its own liking. It’s so simple. So, they will literally follow ANYBODY who delivers their political ends. A small part of me is saddened by this knowledge. But the truth is that I left Christianity and monotheism a LONG time ago and have been totally free of it ever since. There is no going back for the one who is truly free.

Let me try to explain something about these “end-times prophecy” Christian fanatics. The present situation concerning this Israeli-Gaza war has exposed their hypocrisy like nothing before has. See, the final result of the supposed end of the world with the return of Jesus is not to save the world, or to remake the world, or anything else other than this. The goal is that, in the end when Israel thinks it is about to be annihilated by its enemies, the Jewish people will finally call upon Christ and be saved!

But let me take a step back for the moment and explain that Christians actually have differing viewpoints as to exactly what constitutes “Israel” as far as our present time and end-times prophecy are concerned. Some have a viewpoint roughly similar to that which is common among those who follow liberal Judaism today. That viewpoint basically espouses a worldwide vision so that all Jewish people, wherever they may be, are Israel. This is roughly in line with the thinking of many Christians that the Church is “spiritual Israel”. Others, both Jewish and Christian on the more conservative/evangelical side embrace the idea that the concept of “Israel” is inextricably tied to the land that Abraham was promised, according to the Bible. In some respects, then, for these latter folks, those outside of the “land” of Israel don’t really count.

It is worth mentioning that in or about 1947 there was quite a debate as to what the new nation should be called (not to mention where it should be located). Not everyone thought that the name “Israel” was the proper choice. Many preferred “Zion”. I think there might have been other suggestions too. But the name “Israel” was chosen, and the location was accepted, both based, in part, on the Bible, including biblical prophecy. Let it be understood that there actually were some who were determined that this name and location be chosen exactly because they wanted to see it as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Frankly, this episode in history is akin to the debate during the time of Constantine as to exactly which scriptures were to be accepted as canonical for the Christian Bible. Christians are taught that the men who made these decisions were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so, naturally, they got it right. And concerning the establishment of the modern nation of Israel, both Christian and Jew are taught that it was all done according to the will of God. From my perspective as someone who has studied Christianity all of his life, and also studied a fair amount of Judaism at the academic level, but who has rejected both along with any form of monotheism – these were really decisions made by men, period. In my view, there was no inspiration when the canon was created, nor was there any fulfillment of prophecy in the creation of modern Israel.

It is not antisemitic to make such a statement. Many Jewish people would agree (contrary to what most will be told by others) that the modern nation of Israel has little to nothing to do with the ancient nation of Israel. The ancient nation was destroyed by the Assyrians in about 720 BCE and was never revived until modern times. In the meantime, at least nine or ten of the twelve tribes were scattered, most never to be heard from again. Of course, we have the Samaritans who claim (probably correctly) to be descended from some of these peoples. But the only time Christians generally ever refer to Samaritans is when discussing the woman at the well or when using the phrase “good Samaritan”.

Regardless, many Jewish people today don’t really want to move to Israel exactly because they don’t really see the new nation as having any real connection to the ancient one. And they don’t see it as a fulfillment of prophecy. Trust me, I have studied under Rabbis myself. And for the Christian evangelical who is constantly concerned about end-times prophecy, those who are in this category don’t really matter except when they can convert an occasional Jewish person to Christianity. The only ones who really matter to those concerned with biblical prophecy are those who actually reside in Israel. Because THOSE are the ones who will suddenly be saved by Christ at the end of the Tribulation.

Now, this is where the rubber meets the road where evangelical hypocrisy concerning the Israelis and the Palestinians is concerned. See, they focus so much on the nation of Israel and the Jewish people who reside there who, as I have stated, are to be saved at the end of the Tribulation when Christ returns to save them, that they almost totally ignore the fact that there have been Christians residing within the borders of the modern nation of Israel, as well as Gaza and the West bank and other areas, for thousands of years – at least since the time of Constantine. Christians – who just happen to have all kinds of ancestral backgrounds, but very little of it from the ancient Hebrews. These are descendants of various peoples who settled and were settled in that area of the world in ancient times because of the constant change of one empire after another. These include Greeks, Scythians, Romans, Egyptians, and Arabs, as well as others. These peoples mixed to some extent over time and are today generally referred to as “Palestinians” because, following the Bar Kokhba War, the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, renamed the area Syria-Palestina. The name “Palestine” generally stuck until the modern nation of Israel was created. So, when you hear some televangelist or evangelical or end-times doomsayer state that there is no such of a thing as a Palestinian, they may as well say that there is no such of a thing as an American. As we are a “melting pot”, so are those referred to as Palestinians, right? Frankly, so too are the modern Jewish people or any other people we can refer to today. No people have arrived into modern times without becoming a mixture of various peoples from ancient times.

To continue, evangelicals and biblical prophecy people tend to see all of the people of that area, except for the Jewish people, as being Arab or Egyptian (trust me, it’s what they say, not what I say). This is exactly because they generally don’t know much of anything about the history of the area beyond what they may read in the Bible or be told by their favorite pastor or televangelist. They literally know just about nothing about the history of the area beyond that save, perhaps, a bit of Crusader history. But during and after the war of 70 CE, many, many Jewish people were either killed or enslaved and sent to various parts of the Roman Empire and beyond. And after the Bar Kokhba War it was even worse for them. Emperor Hadrian was SO mad about that war that he attempted to eradicate the area of Jewish people altogether. Many historians consider his actions to have been practically genocidal, and I agree. There weren’t many Jewish people left in the area after that war up until modern times. This is just a fact. They did trickle back in over the millennia, but not to any great extent until modern times. And all of that time, neither Israel or Judah/Judea existed as far as a land area or nation is concerned. Of course, there was no real opportunity to create such a nation either because of the domination of one empire after another in the area, culminating with British rule prior to its creation.

But let’s get back to the Palestinian people who, just like any other people on the earth as I have hopefully demonstrated, deserve just as much recognition as any other people on the earth. These people were all Pagan at first, except for the few of Jewish faith among them. Not very many of them became Christian until the time of Constantine and soon thereafter, with many still remaining Pagan for at least decades. I won’t get into how they were literally forced to become Christians just as so many others throughout the Roman/Byzantine Empire were over the course of a couple of centuries. Be that as it may, by the time of the Islamic conquest most of them had converted to Christianity. But the imposition of Islam changed that dynamic so that most afterward became Muslim. I’m not going to spare Islam here either. They also used force to convert people, contrary to what some modern propagandists would like for others to think. But that is simply the way of monotheism anyway.

Regardless, many did and still do remain Christian. And THIS is the point of hypocrisy that is so evident now when looking at the present war when at the same time considering biblical end-times prophecy. You see, these modern Christian doom-sayers ignore the fact that it is estimated that among those of the Palestinian diaspora (yes, the term can be sued for them as well as other peoples along with the Jewish people), up to 500,000 adhere to some form of Christianity. Yes, only a small percentage who reside in either Gaza or the West Bank are Christians – between 1 and 2.5 percent. But does that justify ignoring them? Still, by contrast, Jews who identify as Christians number in the millions. Of course, there are many more persons of Jewish heritage than Palestinian heritage in the world too. I’m not sure what the percentages are for people of Jewish heritage.

But part of the point is that there are already more people of Jewish heritage by far who call themselves Christians than Palestinians. So, one has to ask, then, why it is so important that the Jewish people accept Christ in this end-times scenario. Why indeed does no one seem to care at all about the Palestinians who call themselves Christian, even though they are vastly fewer in number. Does Jesus not care about them too? Well, if you read biblical prophecy, it would seem that the answer is “no”. And that is exactly part of the crux of the matter. See, to the end-times doom-sayer, “Israel” HAS to be the land and the Jewish people who reside in it. They don’t consider the Diaspora of Jewish people (which some of them actually believe started in Roman times, falsely, of course). And they don’t consider any other people who also reside within those borders. The ONLY ones who matter to the prophecy-mongers are those of Jewish faith who also reside within the borders of modern Israel. They are what the end-times and the Tribulation are all about! The culmination of literally everything, from the beginning of the “Church Age” to the end of the Tribulation hinges on Jesus returning to “save” Israel. And, again, they mean the modern nation and the Jewish people who reside there.

In a way, this scenario literally leaves out anyone else who professes to be Christian, as well as all of those who have done so throughout the ages. Because, in the end, they don’t really matter either. Oh, they will be “saved”. But the focus has never been on the gentile convert, after all, if you read biblical prophecy and understand that it is all about Israel anyway. In actuality, literally everything that has taken place was done toward the expectation that whoever would be living in Israel at the end of the Tribulation who was of Jewish faith would be saved when they finally called upon Christ to save them from their annihilation. NOTHING ELSE REALLY MATTERS, if you read biblical prophecy in this way.

Thankfully, some of both faiths, and even within Islam, read all prophecy as allegory. Thus, they do not have to accept this literal and, in my view, damaging, interpretation of world events. Sadly, I don’t see the allegorical interpretation winning out in the end.

In light of recent events, and because certain televangelist-types have again made idiotic comments about who the Palestinians are (or aren’t), I am re-posting this short piece of history (with additions and corrections) which I wrote a few years ago.

The Jerusalem area was first settled about 4500 BCE. It is first mentioned as a city by the Egyptians about 2000 BCE. The Hebrews/Israelites invaded Canaan about 1358/50 BCE, about 650 years after we know Jerusalem already existed. But they didn’t capture Jerusalem because they couldn’t. David conquered Jerusalem in about 1003/4 BCE, about 354 years after the Hebrews/Israelites invaded and settled in Canaan, taking it from the Jebusites. Meanwhile, the capital of Israel had been Shiloh, where the people actually had their first temple (archaeology has proven this). Jerusalem was captured by the Babylonians from the Jewish people in 586/7 BCE and most Jews were deported to other lands. In 538 BCE the Jews were allowed to return and rebuild Jerusalem, making it their capitol again. But, in 332 BCE, Alexander the Great takes Jerusalem without any resistance and it is added to his empire, afterward falling under the purview of the Seleucid Empire. In 164 BCE the Maccabees, a Jewish sect, revolted and managed to defeat the Seleucids, thus taking Jerusalem back. They had a state which lasted about 101 years. But, in 63 BCE the Romans, under Pompey, took Jerusalem. It remained under Roman domination, with the capitol of Judea actually being Caesaria, until the Bar Kokhba Revolt. Bar Kokhba and his forces took Jerusalem in 132 CE and held it for about three years, until 135 CE. Afterward, the territory was renamed “Palestine” by Hadrian and Jerusalem (renamed Conia Aelia Kapitolina) eventually fell under Byzantine domination as the Roman Empire crumbled. But the Persian Sassanids managed to capture that area and place Jerusalem under Jewish control in 614 CE. That lasted about three years, the Jewish leader there being killed and the Sassanids deciding that placing Jerusalem back under Christian control would be a better idea. Then, in 636/7 CE Islamic forces captured Aelia. They held it, more or less, for about 1311 years until the Jewish people were allowed to return under British mandate in 1947/48.

So, for all practical purposes, the Hebrews/Jews had Jerusalem for about 729 (until gaining it back in 1948) years out of its approximately 6518-year history! And it has literally been held by the Muslims for a longer period than by anyone in history.

The Palestinian people are descendants not only of Arabs, but also of Jews, ancient Greeks and Romans. They are not just Egyptians as some in the televangelistic world would tell you. After the Bar Kochba Revolt, most Jewish people were forcibly removed from that territory, and it was renamed “Palestine”. Jerusalem was rebuilt as Aelia Kapitolina and Pagan Romans were settled there. The rest of that territory began to be populated with various peoples. There were already a large number of Greeks there, and Arabs began to move in over time. These peoples – the Romans, the Greeks, and the Arabs, as well as others, along with the few Jews who were left, intermingled over time and became the Palestinian people. And they eventually became mainly Christian. Many have remained Christian to this day.

So, at least get your history straight. If you think that it belongs to the Jews because of “God”, then say that. But don’t say that the Muslims have no historical right to it.

As some of my readers may recall, I was trained as a Christian theologian. That training enabled me to acquire multiple degrees in religious studies from accredited colleges and universities. I state this, not to toot my own horn, but simply to remind the reader that (1) I do know what I am writing about and (2) I do hold degrees in religion, which is more than most televangelists or their associates can say, not to mention many other supposed religious leaders today. Yes, some of them actually hold legitimate degrees, some of which are in religious studies. But very few of them do. Yet many people accept what they say almost without question.

So, these other religious “leaders”, preachers, televangelists, etc. will almost always invariably insist that the Bible is their source of authority on any given subject. And they will insist upon the inerrancy of the Bible – and they mean all of it, not just parts of it. Why do they do this? Simply put, it is an article of faith for most of them. Their denominations teach the inerrancy of the Bible and, if they have any college-level education, they have been trained to accept that. In short, they MUST believe this as an article of faith in most denominations. Therefore, they insist upon this and instruct their flocks to do likewise.

Now, it may come as a shock to some people who do not have any, or who have limited, theological training that their religious “leaders”, whomever they may be, know some or all of the things which I am about to expound here. They have been trained in the history of how the Bible came about just as well as I have been. So, they know most or all of the things I am about to state here, yet they will rarely, if ever, tell you. If that sounds like a recurring theme in my writing, it is. They know, but they literally won’t tell YOU. Yes, they do want YOU to remain uninformed on this manner, as well as a host of others.

Now, I am not going to go into all of the detail I could go into here. It would be too much and would not be necessary in any case. I can easily tell the reader enough to make the point without going into too much detail. If the reader wants more detail on, say, how the Bible was put together over the centuries, that information would be easily found in various places on the internet or in books. It’s too easy to find. That said, I will state a few things in a way that I doubt the reader will find elsewhere.

First, to clarify the subject, the actual “belief”, if you will, is that each book of the Bible is inerrant in its original form and in its original language. Few will go so far as to insinuate that the various translations that we have today are totally inerrant. But some would come disturbingly close to exactly that.

But let’s first deal with original writings. Most people do know that the three languages that the various parts of the Bible were written in were Hebrew, Aramaic (which most state was the language of Jesus himself), and Greek. Therefore, biblical scholars and theologians are required in college or seminary (usually both) to study at least one of these languages, depending upon what their focus may be. And they are expected to become proficient in that language in order to progress in their studies. That already leaves most televangelists in the dustbin because most of them have not done this. Oh, they can take a lexicon and a few other helpful sources and come to basic understandings of the biblical writings, but they are in no way proficient at the level of, say, someone with a PhD in biblical studies. They just aren’t. And, as a matter of full disclosure, I am among those who just aren’t. I struggled mightily with both Greek and Hebrew and managed to pass my classes, but in no way did I become proficient in either. And I didn’t even attempt to take any class in Aramaic. But I repeat this mantra yet again simply to demonstrate the fact that many people will ask some televangelist or one of their associates to explain biblical passages, not truly realizing that they really don’t know the answers. The SBN program, “Frances & Friends” comes to mind. The only “Doctor” they have on the program is Don Paul Gray and, contrary to what most may think, his doctorate is in a subject other than theology.

All that said, one thing that most people today do not seem to realize is that we actually have NO original manuscripts of any of the biblical documents. Not a single fragment of any letter, treatise, book, or sentence has survived from an original writing. Not one! NONE or the original writings have survived the centuries. And, if this even has to be stated, the writings that we do have ARE fragmentary AND are copies made well after the original writings were penned. In addition, what many well-trained biblical scholars don’t even know is that many of these copies have all kinds of notes and extra references written in the margins of said manuscripts, showing that the transcriber sought either to explain something in the margins, or questions something there. And there are examples in which an instructor wrote in the margins, sometimes chiding the student transcriber for making some kind of error. Now, to be fair, such things are found not only among biblical documents, but other ancient documents as well. In short, this was just a common thing to happen. Ancient manuscripts often have all kinds of notes and corrections, etc. in them.

I state all of these things to finally make the point that, even IF the original writings had been so inspired by the Holy Spirit as to be totally inerrant and perfect, they no longer exist. NO ORIGINAL BIBLICAL DOCUMENTS EXIST, NOT A FRAGMENT OR A SINGLE LETTER ON PARCHMENT, PERIOD. And the majority of biblical scholars know that because they have learned that in college and seminary. Of course, that information is in the prefaces to most, if not all, modern Bibles today if people cared to read about it. So, it’s not like they are trying to hide that fact. If someone doesn’t know, it’s because they didn’t bother to read about it. And, believe me, I have listened to people call into “Frances & Friends” asking about exactly this type of thing. This, obviously because the caller never read even the notes in their own Bibles. One has to wonder whether, if someone won’t read the prefaces and the notes, how much they read of the actual Bible itself. Frankly, most questions I hear callers and emailers ask could easily be answered if the person did read their Bibles. But I digress here except to state that the Bible does not have to be inerrant, nor does the reader have to be some expert in one of the ancient languages, for answers to be found within its pages. It’s actually too easy. No one has to ask Frances Swaggart or her panel members anything much. I mean, has any reader seen how they sort-of scramble to answer questions as if they never thought of them before quite often? That’s because they haven’t.

Anyway, the second major point I would like to make here is that IF even the original writings were totally inspired and inerrant in every detail and word, then the writings contained in the Bible today, in their original forms, were the only perfect things in the entire universe! That is, while they still existed. Now, just ponder this for a moment, please. In all of the universe, writings by an assortment of ancient men, most of whom would have been barely educated, if that, somehow turned out to be perfect in every detail. This, because the Holy Spirit ensured that they were. God, who made the entire universe, still made nothing perfect, except these specific writings which humans many, many years later, accepted into a single canon that we today call the Bible. That would literally mean that the only perfect things in the entire universe would be God, the angels that did not rebel (and that is questionable because they still could), and the writings of the Bible. Wow!

People, seriously, if God didn’t make anything else perfect, except MAYBE certain angels, how could the original biblical writings have been perfect? Well, some would say that the earth, for example, WAS perfect before the fall of Adam and Eve, and that they were perfect also prior to that time. Trouble is, the Bible itself does not say that. The book of Genesis states that God saw everything that he had created and that it was “good”, not perfect. Nowhere does even the Bible state that anything God created was perfect. It does state that Satan was “perfect” in all of his ways until iniquity was found within him, but that’s as close as anything in the Bible comes, as far as I can recall. Words that we translate as “perfect” are also used elsewhere, but they also have nothing to do with creation itself. And none of our current biblical writings themselves claim perfection. “Revelation” sort of comes close, but even it doesn’t.

Frankly, even the original writings had to have been imperfect simply because of the fact that fallible man wrote them. I know that most people don’t want to acknowledge that, but it has to be true. Otherwise, one would have to posit that, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, man is indeed able to reach some level of perfection. Sadly, there are some people who would say exactly that. Some churches do actually teach that human beings can live perfect lives after being saved. My own father used to work with someone who constantly harassed him over religious issues such as this. That person truly believed that people could live perfect lives. And, of course, he based this belief on the Bible. My dad eventually got tired of his efforts in this regard, so he asked questions. He said to the man (paraphrasing), so, you believe that a person can be perfect in everything that he or she does, right? The man responded in the affirmative. That’s where my dad already had him! So, he continued with the logical question (again, paraphrasing), so, while a person is doing everything he or she does in a perfect manner, what about all of the things he or she might neglect to do that they ought to have done? Perhaps, in the quest to live a perfect life, one can still neglect to do something that one should have done. Isn’t that imperfection? The man had to back down after that.

And, after all, even the apostle Paul never claimed perfection, for he stated, “the things I hate, those things I do”. Romans 7:15-20 (NASB), “For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.”

I submit that, with such a confession, the apostle Paul would also readily admit that his own writings were imperfect! Therefore, they are fallible and do contain errors. After all, he was a mere man! It doesn’t matter how inspired he may have been, he was still imperfect himself and, therefore, everything he did was, by definition, imperfect. That would include anything he wrote.

But let’s get back to the original manuscripts themselves. Not only do we not have even a single shred of an original piece of writing, but later writings have gone through many revisions and contain many changes, as any truly good biblical scholar can tell you. Every single piece or fragment of any of the earliest manuscripts that DO still exist have differences, some minor, some not so minor. Scholars, as a general rule, try to accept the oldest manuscripts available. But sometimes it is obvious that even the oldest ones are not as good, and probably not as accurate to the originals, as some later manuscripts. So, they don’t always go with the oldest ones that are still available. Now, it’s complicated how scholars can deduce which manuscripts are the best as opposed to those that are not. But, trust me, most scholars are competent enough to do this with proper training. That having been said, what they come up with is still NOT perfect and is NOT infallible. No competent scholar would ever suggest otherwise.

Now, one really does wish that we had at least some original manuscripts, especially if they were all or mostly intact. I myself would relish that. I would greatly enjoy comparing originals to later revisions. I might even take a stab at learning Greek and Hebrew again if such an opportunity were to present itself. If anyone was ever able to find and prove the existence of even one original, I would do my utmost to examine it myself if it were put out for public consumption. But, alas, such a dream is only illusory. I’m not going to state without any reservation that such a document can never be found. But I am going to state that it isn’t going to happen. It just isn’t. They simply do not exist anymore, period.

But this actually brings us to the next problem and to the next major point I have to make here. One really has to question this; if God, through the Holy Spirit, somehow ensured that the original writings, copies of which are in today’s Bibles, were perfect and inerrant, why would God not also have ensured that these perfect documents survive to this day so that no one could dispute what they may or may not have said? In short, why did God go to all that effort just to allow his perfect documents to become lost over time? If it was important enough to create perfection, why let it ever be destroyed? Is it, somehow, that perfection can’t exist in an imperfect world? Well, perhaps that last question is too philosophical, after all. So, we won’t go any further down that road here. The real point, however, is that it really doesn’t make much sense for God to have ensured that certain writings were perfect and infallible only to allow said writings to be destroyed.

The fact that they no longer exist is the main cause of confusion and argumentation concerning the Bible in general and the individual texts otherwise. But frankly, people would argue anyway. They don’t need the originals to prevent that. Even if we had them, some people would argue over what they said. Trust me.

So, let’s be real here. The fact of the matter is that (1) we don’t have any original writings and (2) even if we did, they would contain errors because of human input, and (3) the copies that we do have contain even more errors than the originals would have contained. The original writings were NOT perfect, and our present Bible, no matter which version is used, is also NOT perfect.

How many non-theologians or people who are not biblical scholars know much at all about the process of the formation of the Bible in the first place? The debates as to which books to accept, and which to reject, would make some of our present political debates look like child’s play. Frankly, it’s a wonder that people ever finally agreed to an actual canon. And, even more frankly, they really didn’t! Certain combinations of books have been accepted over the centuries by various different groups for their own purposes. And that has been the case from the very inception of any attempt to create a Bible. Some Bibles had more books than others, in so many words. Some Bibles had this book, while another one wouldn’t, but might contain others. So, frankly, even to this day there is no complete agreement even as to which books properly constitute the Bible.

But let’s just take the Bible that most Protestant churches accept. They will state that THOSE books were inspired, while any other book not contained in their Bibles was not. THOSE books were (are) perfect and without error. Thus, they are inerrant. And Protestant churches base their entire creeds, dogmas, and articles of faith on THAT particular book. It is an article of faith that a person MUST accept all of the books of the Bible – their Bible – as inerrant as a matter of salvation. And they would be shocked at any suggestion that, if the originals might have been inerrant, the copies and translations can’t be! But that is exactly the final crux of the matter.

So, for my final major point I must point out that there actually are some denominations that insist that the King James Version of the bible is every bit as inspired and inerrant as any original must have been. Otherwise, their faith could be called into question. This simply because, whatever they may say, their entire faith is placed solely and completely in a BOOK! Thus, they literally HAVE to believe without reservation ludicrous stories like Noah’s flood and ark, as well as a whole host of others.

The worst part of it is the fact that they really do believe that the original KJV was and is infallible and perfect. Never mind that literally NONE of them even read the original KJV because it was written in very Old English which almost no one CAN even read today. The versions that we have today are NOT the original! Changes have been made so that we CAN read it. Oh, but those changes don’t cause any errors, they will say. Be that as it may (or may not), it is strictly ludicrous to posit that God somehow made sure that original writings were inerrant but allowed them to be lost and further allowed a whole host of errors to creep into all later manuscripts until the King James translation was made, which he somehow ensured would also be inerrant and perfect! And, on top of that, God has ensured that each change made to the KJV was perfect and without error too! I’m not quite sure why God would choose English as the language of choice here. What about all the other translations made in German, etc.? Are they not also inspired and without error? And there is little use in getting into other English translations because, in this scenario, they simply MUST contain errors. This because God would surely never allow different translations of the same language to be inerrant. One has to be perfect, while all others must be imperfect. If anyone reads this and doesn’t see how crazy that is, I really don’t know what to say further.

In the end, many, many Christians, especially conservative evangelical Protestants, have succumbed to actually making their Bible into an idol! It’s really that simple. A single book is their real focus – not Jesus, not God, not the things Jesus actually taught according to the very Bible they worship…. They would hiss at any Pagan, calling statues of the deities “idols”, while they have their own idol! It’s sad, but all too true.

I think it goes without saying that in an enlightened and intellectual society most people would immediately recognize whether a quote was factual and attributable to the person referenced or not. Please don’t get me started on all of the supposed quotes from personages such as Sokrates or Platon (yes, I use the correct Greek names here). Thus, it stands to reason – it actually seems all too obvious – that we do not live in an enlightened and intellectual society. This is obvious because such quotes are rampant, and few have the knowledge to discern whether they are real and properly attributed or not.

This leads us to the quote of the day (actually made a few days ago, but it is still lingering around), made by Sen. Josh Hawley and attributed to Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here”. Not only have fact checkers shown that the quote cannot be attributed to Patrick Henry, but also that the sentiment expressed therein is contrary to what our founders envisioned. But, frankly, what can we expect from someone who gave a power sign to January 6th insurrectionists (albeit prior to their insurrectionist acts), encouraging them and who, by all accounts, can be classed as a Christian nationalist (and who would likely accept that title with pride)?

The frank fact of the matter is that this quote DOES express exactly the sentiment that many hold today because of misinformation – a sentiment which many wish to see as reality in this nation today. Thus, they try to use skewed history in order to facilitate their aims. Please allow me to break it down for the reader.

The first thing they are attempting to do is to skew history in such a way as to have everyone believe that freedom of religion only applies to Christians. Thus, they will state mindless things such as “peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here”. When their rhetoric constantly expresses the belief that our laws and even our Constitution are based on Christianity, this is where they are heading, making everyone who is not a Christian a second-class citizen at best. It is no misstatement that our founders were indeed Christians, for the most part. But the problem lies in the inference that our founders expected everyone to be Christians and that they expected history to follow suit in that everyone would remain Christian. And, frankly, if there were a few people of other faiths, such as Judaism, that would be no issue. Rule by Christians would benefit them too, it is thought. But that is the real point – it is alleged that our founders wanted Christian rule! No one else was to hold any level of political power or societal status, period. And even non-Christians would be fine with this because Christian rule would benefit them too.

To get there they not only misquote founders and others, but they, well, they have quit trying to say that separation of church and state was not a concept and have instead proceeded to say that it was and is a concept, but that it means that the state (i.e., the federal government) cannot interfere in religious affairs, but the Church CAN exert influence over government. And this is exactly what would happen if we had Christian rule. Of course, these people always overlook the fact that medieval and early modern Europe HAD Christian rule. Christian rule is presumed to be moral in their eyes. But an examination of it in European history shows a bit less morality than they wish for most to have knowledge of. The main point being that our founders understood what Christian rule was all about, so they elected to have neither a monarchy or a theocracy.

Let me drill this in just a bit more, please. Most people today – even those who know very little history – understand that we as a nation rejected the notion of monarchy and, thus, established a republican form of government with a president, not a king. For most people, that is not even a question. Sadly, there are a few today, however, who would establish a monarchy here – or, better put, a dictatorship, because that is what a monarchy really is, after all. They would allow the branches of government to remain, but all real power would be vested in the executive branch and the President if they had their way, trust me. Why? Because that is the way it always was, with very few exceptions, all the way from Constantine to the ending of the medieval world. Ever notice that democracy is just not a concept in the Bible? See, “God’s” form of government is kingship. Never mind that he supposedly told the Israelites that they would regret having a king. The only form of government being considered was in fact kingship. And that is exactly why medieval Europe always had either kings or emperors. They followed the biblical model.

But to twist history even further, some pseudo-historians have even begun calling the time of the Judges in Israel their period of so-called “democracy”. In so many words, these pseudo-historians would have everyone believe that it was not, in fact, the Greek Athenians who invented democracy, but it was instead the Israelites during the period of the Judges. I kid you not! Yet, these same pseudo-historians still adhere to the notion of a theocracy, which is, in fact, what the time of the Judges, more or less, was. It was, in short, a theocracy without a king. But once Israel selected a king, then it became a full theocracy. And THAT is what we had in medieval Europe! Those who don’t understand our history today do actually look to medieval Europe as a sort of standard. They don’t understand that our founders saw the flaws of theocratic government and shunned it in favor of a government by and for the people.

OK, so, again, their first priority has been to skew history so that most people today won’t understand that our founders were establishing a republican form of government exactly so that we would NOT have a king. Now, this leads directly to the concept of separation of church and state. Let me begin by asking a question. What would be the point of establishing a democratic form of government based on a certain religion – any religion or even the concept of religion to begin with? Put another way, how could a theocracy be created without a king or an emperor to keep it established? The point being that establishing a theocracy would make no sense at all if it was not coupled with strong leadership centered in one person who would keep it intact. In case no one has noticed, theocracies don’t work without a king or an emperor. They can’t hold together and continue to function. Why? Because inevitably rule by the many means that there will always be differing opinions and differing beliefs which will sometimes come into conflict. Thus, if you have, say, Pentecostals and Catholics in the same government they are naturally going to differ quite often. But if you have a Christian king or emperor, everyone has to acquiesce to him at all times no matter their beliefs.

Let me repeat again, please, theocracies do not work without strong rulers. Now, one may point out that, for example, the Roman Republic was a theocracy, and they would be correct. It was indeed a theocracy – and it was politically weak too. Its strongest point was its military. So, what happened? A military general – Gaius Iulius Caesar – took the reins of power over and above the objections of the Senate, thus solidifying rule by one person, a dictator, and making the Senate even weaker than it already was. He was both Pontifex Maximus and, in reality, sole ruler, albeit briefly. But his chosen successor, Octavian, was able to consolidate everything and make it all work. The Roman Republic was politically weak and could not have continued as a theocratic state without the establishment of an emperor. For better or for worse, that is what happened. The concept of separation of religion and state never occurred to the Roman. Freedom of religion did, but separation did not. And, in fact, no state or nation in all of recorded history had ever – ever – existed without an established religion until our founders made it so here!

So, the fact of the matter is that, knowing these things, our founders established a republican form of government WITHOUT establishing a religion! Our founders did not want an established religion of any kind in this country and, so, they effectively separated church and state even if no documents actually used the phrase. If they had wanted an established religion that would have been simple enough for them to have done. Even IF they had said that Christianity, in whatever form it would take, was to be the established religion, they would have understood from history that in order to do so they would have had to have established a kingship also. The point being that if they had wanted a theocracy, they would inevitably have established a kingship. There literally is no way around this. But instead, they made the executive branch of government the weakest branch! Really, the only real power the President had at first was as Commander in Chief. Not so today. I have often said that the President has too much power today and I stand by that statement regardless of the circus that the other branches often can be.

So, we should now understand that our founders did NOT want a theocracy any more than they wanted a kingship. In short, they did not want religious rule which logically means that they did not want Christian rule only. Yes, they did want government and the populace to adhere to good Christian morals and values, but not because they would be imposed by “Christian” government officials.

But another part of the reason that separation of church and state is a valid concept, and that it DOES mean that the state cannot impose a religion on the populace, is that it was already happening in the Colonies. Well, at least most of them. But some Colonies, such as North Carolina, did not have an established religion, so no particular form of worship was being imposed on the population there. Many, many, people left Virginia for the Carolinas exactly for this reason. Colonies such as Virginia were already effectively theocracies. When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were being formed, this issue was naturally in the minds of those who were selected as delegates. No other state wanted to have the religion of another state imposed upon it and its citizens. Thus, the entire concept of a state religion, whether it was to have to do with individual states or the entire country, was effectively wiped out here. Notice that following the Revolution no state actually had a state religion, at least for long. Contrary to the way certain pseudo-historians would have everyone believe, no religion was being imposed in any way upon the populace. Theocracy in this nation ceased, period. The only thing left to do was to state that “Congress” could not impose religion upon anyone AND to establish that no religious “litmus test” could be used to determine the worthiness of any political candidate. They didn’t have to reiterate that states could not impose their own religions.

Pseudo-historians will point out that many state constitutions referred to God and to religion. But they fail to mention, for example, that even in Tennessee until this very year ministers of the gospel were barred from serving in the state legislature! But sadly, they changed that by vote this year.

Now, let us please proceed to the concept of state’s rights. To some degree, I actually agree with this concept in principle. That is, to the extent that the federal government cannot enforce laws contrary to the laws of a given state within the borders of that state. So far, the concept has worked fairly well, with some exceptions – the main exception being with reference to slavery – and we know how that turned out. As it turns out, freedom has to be for everyone, not just some.

Still, the pseudo-historian will apply the concept of state’s rights to religion, and this is where it will get really interesting if I am not mistaken. See, even if “Congress” cannot pass any law establishing a religion, the pseudo-historians are already implying that states can! In their conceptual world, any given state could, in fact, make laws that state that ONLY Christians could run for public office, be teachers, or any number of other things. And they could conceivably go even further by mandating that only certain kinds of Christians in any given state would be acceptable. Thus, even some Christians would be left out! So, in their world, not only can any given state make abortion illegal, but they could make being a Christian a prerequisite for holding public office, etc. In such a world, inevitably, only Christians would be elected to positions in the federal government too because they would have already been vetted by their states. Thus, Christian rule would be imposed upon the entire nation, not by Congress directly, but by the laws of each individual state. And then, my friends, we would have a theocracy. But, of course, we would need a strong leader to keep it all together and functioning now, wouldn’t we? Enter those who would have the President function effectively as a dictator and it all comes together.

When you hear televangelist-types talk about a certain politician, ahem, stating how great he has been for Israel and for Christianity and at the same time stating that they literally don’t care about his morals (and they do say this) because of all the good he has done in both realms, realize that they are not about the gospel, they are only about politics and that he is their chosen Christian dictator who would impose their views on everyone else. All of them have the very same agenda – the televangelist-types, the pseudo-historians, the fake journalists, and the wacky politicians. They want a theocracy here in THIS nation and they will literally do and say anything to make that happen!

Well, recently Brazillians democratically voted to oust their former ultra-conservative leader, President Jair Bolsonaro (whom evangelicals compared to Trump), replacing him with a much more liberal new president, Lula da Silva. Now, I really don’t get into South American politics, per se, and am only concerned with it to the extent that I, like many, prefer to see more democratic governments across the globe. That said, there are a host of others whom one might think would prefer the same thing, but they don’t. To put it another way, one might expect most Christians, especially American Evangelicals, to prefer democratic governments over authoritarian régimes. But, sadly, if their supposed “leaders” are any indication, they generally don’t. The reason for this is that a relatively new errant theology has been developed which allows these types of Christians to see dictators as good so long as they supposedly support “Christian values”. In short, Christian dictators (even if they really aren’t, but still support evangelical causes) are perfectly OK with these people. This errant theology, then, refers to any nation that has such a leader as a sheep nation, while all the rest are referred to as goat nations. So, if you follow this theology, then the natural conclusion here is that Brazil has suddenly become a goat nation, bound to be judged harshly by Christ when he returns! And, frankly, the US is in the same boat, in their view, after electing President Biden, whom some repeatedly refer to as evil and bound toward deliberately destroying this nation.

But where could such an errant theological construct come from? It comes from Matthew 25: 31-46. In this passage it is explained that upon Christ’s return he will separate people, some on one hand and some on the other. Those on his right hand are referred to as sheep, and those on his left hand are referred to as goats. Tracking so far? If you replied, “not really”, good for you! Why? Because this is exactly why I refer to their theological construct as errant. See, the passage states, in part, ³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left” (NASB). Notice that the passage, in verse 32, clearly states that he will separate the “people” into two groups, not the nations. But, those who hold to this theology take the reference to nations earlier in verse 32 as meaning entities with national boundaries like we have today. But any real biblical scholar will tell you that the word translated as “nations” here does NOT mean that. It means all of those people and tribes who are outside of Israel. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with national boundaries, modern or otherwise.

The Greek word used here is (ἔθνη) “ethne”, from which we get the words ethnic, ethnicity, etc. It could also be translated as “race” or “races”. The τὰ ἔθνη were the Gentiles so often referred to. Any foreigner – any non-Hebrew of non-Jew was a foreigner and, therefore, τὰ ἔθνη. Frankly, I have always felt that the word would better be translated as “foreigner” or “foreigners” in all passages. But that’s just me.

Regardless, the passage is clearly speaking of people, not nationalistic borders with people in them. And, therefore, they are not being separated according to national borders, but according to their works. Because the passage further states, ³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. ³⁵ For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, ³⁶ I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me'”, etc. No one is being judged because of what their national leader may or may not have done. This is an individual judgment.

Just like Matthew 24, evangelicals, especially the televangelists, have developed and perpetrated this errant theology so much that most who are a part of the evangelical movement have come to accept this without actually READING it. Evangelical leaders and televangelists have totally misconstrued both chapters for purely political reasons to keep their “sheep” on the ultra-conservative side, to their own detriment and to the detriment of everyone else.