Bible Discussion

Download podcast file.

Christianity and Pharmaceuticals

The Greek words pharmakon, pharmakos, and pharmakeia are usually rendered “sorcerer” or  “sorcery” in the King James Version of the Bible.  That version was translated by 1611, and ever since then most theologians have followed in its footsteps, and have kept the interpretations of the medieval Englishmen of that time, while the rest of the world has become “modern”, and has updated its language.  Or have we?

Here are the definitions of those words, from Liddell & Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford University Press, Impression of 1999, First edition 1889.  I will supply English transliterations in place of all of the original Greek words:

pharmakon: “a drug, medicine, Homer etc.: the pharmaka applied outwardly were christa, egchrista, epichrista (ointments), and pasta, epipasta, kataplasta (plasters), Theocritus, Aristophanes; those taken inwardly brosima, and potima, pota, pista, Aeschylus, Euripides, etc… 2. In bad sense, an enchanted potion … so a charm, spell, enchantment … also a drug, poison … II. a remedy, cure, Hesiod …. ”

pharmakeia: “the use of drugs, potions, spells, Plato. 2. poisoning, witchcraft … Demosthenes. II. remedy, cure, Aristotle.”

pharmakos: “a poisoner, sorcerer, magician, N.T.”

Christianity and Pharmaceuticals, Part 2

A few days ago I put out an article of this title, and many people have made further inquiry, or were even upset, because they have already been captivated by the pharmaceutical industry by one means or another. Yet I shall stand by my article, even if it does not address the immediate needs of people in general, as being wholly Scriptural. However here I will attempt to put some things into perspective: for those who are currently victims of the medical/pharmaceutical complex need not do anything rash.

Paul told the Corinthians: “ A bondman, you have been called? It must not be a concern to you, but then if you have the ability to become free, rather you use it. 22 For he who is called a bondman in the Prince is a freedman of the Prince; likewise he who is called free is a bondman of Christ.” (I Corinthians 7:21-22, CNT )

There will probably be those who will scoff at any reference to the three books of Adam And Eve, but it should be pointed out from the start that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd books of Adam And Eve are mostly allegorical and prophetic in nature, and cannot be taken in a literal sense. If they are taken at their face value, less than 5% can be comprehended. I will give you an example of such a case. In the 27th chapter of the first book of Adam And Eve we read the following: “1 When Satan, the hater of all good, saw how they continued in prayer, and how God communed with them, and comforted them, and how He had accepted their offering — Satan made an apparition. 2 He began with transforming his hosts; in his hands was a flashing fire, and they were in a great light. 3 He then placed his throne near the mouth of the cave because he could not enter into it by reason of their prayers. And he shed light into the cave, until the cave glistened over Adam and Eve; while his hosts began to sing praises. 4 And Satan did this, in order that when Adam saw the light, he should think within himself that it was a heavenly light, and that Satan’s hosts were angels; and that God had sent them to watch at the cave, and to give him light in the darkness. 5 So that when Adam came out of the cave and saw them, and Adam and Eve bowed to Satan, then he would overcome Adam thereby, and a second time humble him before God, 6 When, therefore, Adam and Eve saw the light, fancying it was real, they strengthened their hearts; yet, as they were trembling, Adam said to Eve:— 7 ‘Look at that great light, and at those many songs of praise, and at that host standing outside that do not come in to us, do not tell us what they say, or whence they come, or what is the meaning of this light; what those praises are; wherefore they have been sent hither, and why they do not come in.’”

Many so-called Bible scholars attempt to draw a distinction between the phrase “put away” and the word “divorce”, to assert that these two words mean something different, when in reality they are both often used in relation to the act of a man divorcing a wife. And by making a distinction between these two terms, many of these men even take it so far as to justify divorce, as if it were an acceptable practice. At the same time, those same men also often misconstrue the relationship of marriage, divorce, and remarriage that Yahweh has with his people Israel in the Old and New Covenants.

Being a student of the Bible, one must realize that he cannot possibly know or study everything associated with all that is necessary in order to gain a truly thorough understanding of the entire book and the history of our race.  So on calendrical issues I usually defer to others - when their propositions are sensible - even though I myself have not done an in-depth study all of the details. 

However certain things are perfectly clear without much study.  The first is that the Feast of Weeks (first fruits), being anchored to the Passover by seven weeks and a day, must occur at the same time every year, or the calendar makes absolutely no sense from an agricultural perspective.  And it is perfectly clear from the nature of the required feasts that the calendar centers on agriculture.  So the correct calendar cannot possibly be the lunar calendar of the jews of today, which swings wildly from year to year and whereby the crops would either be rotting in the fields, or would not be harvestable at all in given years. 

Pork Is Not Food

Pastor V.S. Herrell recently posted an article, “A Kraut of Krauts”, which not only condones, but even promotes the consumption of swine, using poor translations and interpretations of several New Testament passages in order to do so. In the article he also slanders all those who may disagree with him, by labeling them with the “Judaizer”, “mongrel” or “jew” epithets as a cunning device in order to somehow discredit his adversaries before they could even reply. Now Herrell may be full of tough talk, but if he called me a “mongrel” or a “jew” to my face I’d be willing to go out into a back lot with him at any time to settle the matter man to man. I’m not attempting threats of violence or a display of boasting or zealous bravado here, but would only like to get one thing straight up front: I will not be intimidated by Herrell’s arrogance. And my ancestors having come from a small village in the Rhineland, I am just as much of a “kraut” as he is. Herrell’s article makes many other mistakes concerning the history of the White race, and also ridiculously associates the issue of swine with race and aesthetics, as if insinuating that all beautiful White people must eat pork, or one cannot possibly be beautiful or White! However those other errors shall not be addressed here.

This debate has come up around me several times this week, and I thought I'd share a few notes on the topic. [This document was edited on December 27th, 2012 - WRF]

All definitions below are from either The American Heritage College Dictionary, 3rd edition, or Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, or The New College Latin & English Dictionary, depending on the language of the word being defined. They are abridged, and some of my own comments are added.

While it would take a volume of print to prove some of the assertions which are going to be made here this month, we have already presented much of that in Christreich, our commentary on the Revelation of Yahshua (Jesus) Christ.

There is only one woman in the eyes of Yahweh our God, allegorically speaking, and that woman is the twelve tribes of Israel collectively. In her obedience to her God, she is the bride, and she is promised rewards both earthly and heavenly. But in her disobedience she is a whore, and she is punished with an earthly punishment for her whoredoms. The proof is also, as our New England ancestors used to say, in the pudding: For the things from Scripture which are about to be expressed here are not only relative to the events of today, but they are the only way in which such events can be understood.

December 17th, 2009:  Those who believe that Yahshua Christ descended through the tribe of Ephraim are liars and fools, and followers of the Talmud.   I have recently challenged some of them to disprove the conclusions of this paper that I wrote in 2003, and they cannot do so.  Russell Walker's incompetent response is found as an addendum at the bottom of this article.

THE EPHRAIM-SCEPTER HERESY, #5

 This is the fifth in a series on this subject, and you might not fully understand this paper unless you have read the first four. The proponents of this theory claim that the entire Tribe of Judah are corrupted with satanic seed and that the Messiah came from the Tribe of Ephraim. They manipulate many Biblical passages entirely out-of-context to contrive such an end. With this paper, we are going to address one passage they use in their malevolent agenda. That passage is Revelation 5:5, and William Finck has the following to say on the topic: 

Of all the Greek words which describe wine or similar grape products, only οἶνος and γλεῦκος appear in the New Testament. Of these, οἶνος is the common Greek word for wine and was always used by Greeks to describe fermented products. The word γλεῦκος is only found in Acts 2:13. All other occurrences of the word "wine" in the New Testament are from οἶνος, or from compound words having οἶνος as their root.

Now γλεῦκος may refer to "grape juice", or to wine in the early stages of fermentation, called "new wine". There are a couple of other words for wine, which are not used in the New Testament, and they are included in the list below. There is one other Greek word which more explicitly describes "grape juice", and that is τρύξ.

If the apostles meant to describe "grape juice", they should always have used the word τρύξ. If perhaps the apostles had always used the word γλεῦκος, then religious teetotalers, or those who think that Christ and the apostles were teetotalers, might possibly hold an argument.

But since the apostles always - except on one occasion - used the word οἶνος, the argument by the teetotalers defies reality. 
 

Primarily, that is because by arguing that Jesus and the apostles did not drink wine, one is making the assumption that the apostles did not know the meanings of these basic Greek words.