I’m not a proponent of using criminal law to enforce a particular version of Christian Nationalism. I’m proposing using Christianity to understand our traditional criminal law. In an extremely pro-religious liberty state like Virginia, “blasphemy” wasn’t really a separate statute after the 1790s but “blasphemy” laws as a category are not typically called blasphemy laws. They are usually called things like “using abusive language” (Va. Code § 18.2-416), “disturbing the peace” (Va. Code § 18.2-415), or “obscenity” (Va. Code §§ 18.2-372 through 18.2-384). And why shouldn’t Christianity inform and direct what”abusive language” is, what “the peace” is, how that peace should not be allowed to be “disturbed,” and what “obscenity” is?

You’re confusing the rule with a rod of iron, mentioned only in Revelation 2:27 (in the future tense), Revelation 12:5 (in the future tense), and Revelation 19:15 (indicating the beginning of the rule with a rod of iron) with the millennial reign of Christ. The millennial reign of Christ is happening now. It is evidenced by the date of “2026 Anno Domini Nostri Jesu Christi” or “In the Year of Our Lord Jesus Christi.” That’s an old style “in the year of the king” date which starts the year after the death of the previous “king of the Jews, Herod the Great, which occurred in 1 BC. Herod made Caesar the executor of his will, and Jesus was named king by the emissary of Caesar on April 3, 33 AD, before his crucifixion. By naming Jesus king of the Jews, he became BOTH the legal heir (in Roman and worldly eyes) of that throne in a worldly sense and ALSO became the rightful recipient of that authority that started with Abraham, was given to Judah, and confirmed in the line of David, according to scripture. By being the king of the Jews AND the ruler of Heaven AND the ruler earth, he replaced the rule of “the god of this world” 2 Corinthians 4:4 and “the ruler of this world” mentioned in John 12:41, 14:30, and 16:11, who is Satan. He was deposed because his acts were exposed on the cross, where an innocent man (Jesus) was cursed by a group of people “doing the will of your father the devil,” as Jesus describes in John 8:44. The rule with a rod of iron begins at the second coming, which has not yet happened. As for the video, my best guess about what that correlates to is Revelation 20:9-10: “And they marched up over the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, but fire came down from heaven and consumed them, and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Whoa. Dude. What does “died for us as a baby” even mean? I can see you have something specific in mind, but the question lacks sense. Are babies capable of preaching to Israel as was the calling of Jesus? Can they even speak? Are babies capable of predicting their own deaths multiple times in the lead-up to their deaths? Are babies capable of doing signs and miracles to prove to the masses who they really are? Are babies capable of following the law of Moses, including by going to the temple (which Jesus apparently did not do until he was 12, per Luke 2:41-52) likely due in large part to his father’s fear of Archelaus (mentioned in Matthew 2:22)? Are babies capable of calling apostles who will then establish a church that will be sanctified by their apostolic teaching? Are babies capable of deliberately choosing to not speak at their trials when they are wrongfully accused? Are babies capable of being “hanged on a tree” which makes them “cursed” according to the law (per Deut. 21:23), which is what allowed Jesus to be even though he did no wrong? Is a baby able to be, per Isaiah 53:3, “rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces” who was “despised”? Are babies capable of being joined together with their bride, which is necessary to accomplish the redemption available through the law of Moses in Numbers 30, which allows a husband to free his bride from the consequences of a rash vow like “We have no king but Caesar” and “Let his blood be on us and upon our children”? Etc., etc. All that to say: Jesus did so much more than “die for us,” and the reason his death for us is beneficial is not MERELY that he died “for us,” but also because of all the other stuff that happened around his death and in his life. As such, this is, unfortunately, a ridiculous question.

I’m just not convinced that “shepherding” is a carefully defined thing in the Bible. It’s a metaphor for a group of things. Yes, “shepherding” is a part of what elders and overseers do, but it is not an umbrella term for all that elders and overseers do. This is evidenced by the fact that in Ephesians 4:11-12, it says: [11] And he [God] gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, [12] to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, “Shepherds” is towards the end of the list, and it is not an umbrella term for apostles, prophets, evangelists, and teachers. Even if it was, we have NT evidence for female prophets (Luke 2:36). Prophesy isn’t “teaching,” because if it was, why would there be female prophets in the gospel of Luke with a prohibition of women teaching in 1 Timothy 2:12? In the same way, “shepherds” are not “teachers,” because why would there be two words used in this list? And are we also to say that women cannot be an “evangelist”? Who’s going to condemn the woman at the well in John 4? I think it’s totally fine to say that women can be “shepherds” (in biblical terms), even though women can’t be WHAT BAPTISTS CALL “pastors” (which are actually elders and overseers). That’s because “shepherd” is not a Biblical title. It’s a description of an activity that everyone (to some extent) MUST do to some extent to obey the commands of scripture. This is not a promotion of egalitarianism. This is my critique of Baptist terminology which I don’t think really aligns carefully with the Bible.

Answer: Because the ability to communicate a thought in a language that is not your own (gift of tongues) and the ability to hear and understand languages that are not your own (gift of interpretation) are to completely different skill sets. We don’t understand this because we teach both of these skills in a single classroom, grouped by language. But there were no “classrooms” to trach these things in thr first century. You just had to have a knack for picking up and understanding languages. I personally am able to communicate plenty of thoughts in other languages, because I’m verbally gifted, and I just memorize the vocabulary and put it in an appropriate grammatical structure. But I can barely understand a single word being spoken to me in another language. I have a minor gift of tongues. I also have met people who went to university in foreign countries and even became doctors where all th classes are English. They can understand every single word you say to them, but they are either too shy or unable to articulate their thoughts in English. They have only the gift of interpretation. These (seemingly) natural abilities are called “gifts,” because they arent the result of efforts. They are “spiritual” because unlike muscles or other physical processes, they are unseen. Hence: spiritual gift of tongues and spiritual gift of interpretation.

Thank you for raising the issue, but if you think that’s a simple statement of Jesus in John 18:36, you are wrong. The ruler of this world (per John 12:31, 14:30, and 16:11) and the god of this world (per 2 Corinthians 4:4) is Satan. But now, after the resurrection (per Matthew 28:18), all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus Christ. Jesus is also (per Revelation 1:5) the “ruler of the kings of Earth” and (per Revelation 17:14 and 19:16) the “King of Kings,” which is a title that in the Old Testament was only given to the king of Babylon. But Babylon, per Revelation 18, is fallen. And our weapons are “not of this world,” in much the same way that the force, a lightsaber, the infinity stones, or whatever other metaphor you want to use is “not of this world.” Just because something is “not of this world” (like Jesus, as he explains in John 8:23) that doesn’t mean it can’t exercise dominion and/or conquer this world. “The world” - in every sense of the word - is precisely the thing that Jesus Christ is capturing. That’s not a statement of pacifism. All orders of society (including the ministers of God in Romans 13 who wield the sword and individuals who exercise self-defense in their individual capacities) are being conquered by spiritual means by Jesus Christ. When such orders are conquered, (including the ministers of God who offensively wield the sword), they rightfully use their powers in the service of God and against Satan, who will be crushed underneath our feet, per Romans 16:20. Most people are not in a societal order (like the police, the military, or a person faced with violence, creating the need for self defense) that requires violence to crush the head of Satan underneath our feet. But that doesn’t mean that violence is prohibited when crushing the head of Satan underneath our feet.

Close, but note quite. You are right that Job is a variation on Jobab, but the correct “Jobab” is not the one mentioned in Genesis 36. The correct Jobab is the one mentioned in Genesis 10:36, who is the son of Joktan. That Jobab had many brothers, just as is mentioned in the book of Job (6:15, 19:13, 22:6, 42:11), and the names of those brothers in Genesis 10:36 (Sheba, for instance) and directly referenced in the story of Job (See Job 6:19). We should also keep in mind that Job has to be that Genesis-10-Jobab, because of his age. He lived 140 years AFTER he encountered these troubles, which is AFTER he already had 10 adult children. It is also noteworthy that the things discussed by the friends (the Tower of Babel and the flood in Job 12:13-25) are things that happened very recently in Genesis-10-Jobab’s history, but which are positively ancient (nearly 1000 years prior) in Genesis-36-Jobab’s history. But it’s not that simple that this Job “is” that Jobab, because the book of Job is a PLAY written BY MOSES. It is a drama, and the characters of Job’s friends are REPRESENATIVES of the nations and peoples living around the Israelites during the time of Moses. That play-on-names is n it an accident. It’s purposeful (which explains and incorporates the footnote to Job in th Septuagint). After all, take note of the names of the friends: Job 2:11 [11] Now when Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that had come upon him, they came each from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite. They made an appointment together to come to show him sympathy and comfort him. When you search for those names in the Bible, you will see that a man named Eliphaz is actually the FATHER of Teman, who is one of the descendants of Esau. So it doesn’t make sense for “Eliphaz” to BE a Temanite. Instead, Eliphaz is the CHARACTER’s name who REPRESENTS the Temanites. Same with the others.