Apparently Kevin upset a lot Christians by airing a video by Hillman on his stream giving airtime to Hillman’s channel called Lady Babylon. Hillman is pushing the divine feminine which he believes has been suppressed by the “patriarchal church”. People need to wake up and understand that this is an agenda just like Madonna’s Whore of Babylon tour and the push to feminize society and turn all men into women with “bonus holes” (lolz). It is essentially a Gnostic or Kabbalist agenda.
Hillman does not quote original sources: Considering how controversial this book is, why did you not include a list of bibliographic references at the end in order to point your objectors directly to the first hand evidence in their own doctrine? Was it just a matter of the cost of printing? I did better than that. At the request of my editors I submitted footnotes with sources for my major assertions and the direct quotes used in the body of the text for the first manuscript. So why didn't the notes make the final cut? Ronin Press is well aware that footnotes, endnotes and references scare people away from books, and they knew that the findings of "Original Sin" were so important that they should be made available to the public at large — rather than the dozen or so academics who would have bothered to purchase a heavily referenced dissertation of the subject; if I had provided an analysis of all my sources, the fact that the early Christians ritually sodomized children would have been completely ignored. Ronin Press wanted the findings to reach the public; and I think they were right. This is what Hillman says under the video:
Catechetical School of Alexandria was supposedly founded by John Mark the writer of the Gospel of Mark and thought to be the young man who fled naked from the Garden of Gethsemane:
And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.(Mark 14:51-52)
So John Mark is key to Hillman’s accusations as he was supposedly cruising in the Garden for an encounter. Hillman courts controversy and gets his ideas from the “Secret Gospel of Mark” mentioned exclusively in the Mar Saba letter, a forgery, which is said to have been written by Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150–215). Just like Dan Brown, the author of the Da Vinci Code who bases his fictive accounts on Gnostic gospels. So, once again it is Alexandria a center for Gnosticism that comes into focus and once again it is quasi-Gnostic writings that form the basis of these stories (about homosexuality etc). We know that research into the Nag Hammadi writings was funded by Rockefeller. This is all an agenda to discredit and destroy Christianity.
Christianity was under attack by elements of Judaizing Gnosticism from the start. The Bible calls them the Synagogue of Satan and Paul lamented that all those of Asia had turned against him. He warned about false brethren and sabotage. Jew and christian originally worshiped together in the same Synagogues, but the Roman Wars accelerated the parting of the ways. See my commentary where I cite James Dunn who observes; “The crisis of 70 CE did not settle the matter, then. There is other evidence, however, which strongly suggests that the following period, the period between the two Jewish revolts (66-70 and 132-131) was decisive for the parting of the ways. I believe that the icing on the cake and what settled the division between Judaism and Christianity (the parting of the way) once and for all was the Council of Nicaea (which was attended by Cyril of Jerusalem).
The child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church (and some other churches) is a sign of institutional corruption not of doctrinal acceptance. It must be rooted out , punished and condemned. The teaching of Scripture roundly condemns it. The child abuse scandal is subversive and deliberate just like the inundation of society with porn. We all know who is behind that.
John Mark was Peter’s biographer or interpreter he was also related to Barnabas. The mention of a “linen cloth” may perhaps supply a link of a sort. Linen was normal wear of the priests, and John Mark is known to have been related to Barnabas who was a Levite (Col.4:10; Acts 4:36). There was a falling out between the apostle Paul and John Mark over the matter of the Gentiles which made them part ways. The matter was later resolved and John Mark wrote the Gospel. The issue is dealt with in my article Food for thought.
That the Greek word “hold fast” or seize should occur in Mark 14 five times is not a coincidence, nor the fact that the same word is picked up in Hebrews, particularly with reference to key word like “lie” and comfort (παράκλησιν paraklēsin) which is related to the sending of paraklétos or the comforter in John 14:16 who would guide them into all truth (enlighten) as opposed to the wisdom offered by the serpent.
That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation (paraklēsin), who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us (Hebrews 6:18)
The contrast is with John Mark (the relative of Barnabas) fleeing the Garden after his garment is seized (lay hold=same word). With the warning of Christ not to loose your garment and be found naked. So Barnabas is using Mark’s failure to “hold fast” and “seize” his faith as an example (of what not to do). The courage of John Mark failed as did that of Peter. Peter should have held fast during the challenge at the trial of Jesus and he should have held fast in the face of the Judaizers. Both Peter and his biographer John Mark failed and backed down. HOLD FAST
"Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession" (NKJ Hebrews 4:14).
John Mark lost his linen garment but in the next chapter it is found as the burial shroud of Christ. It is obviously not the same cloth, but we are meant to make the mental (intertextual) connection that John Mark who lost his covering (righteousness/faith) etc is only to be found in the crucifixion event. The authorities attempted to hold fast/take Christ and they tried to seize Christian faith (Mark’s garment) but in the end the linen was transformed by the burial and resurrection of the Christ.
On Barnabas being the Author of Hebrews see John A. T. Robinson Redating the New Testament.
Edmundson. goes on to argue that what the writer himself calls his ‘word of exhortation’ (13.22) fits admirably this Greek-speaking Cypriot Jew, with relatives in Jerusalem and a Levite by descent.82 The nickname given him by the apostles meaning ‘son of exhortation (Acts 4.36), betokens one with a gift for this form of synagogue ex¬ position,83 or perhaps, as R. O. P. Taylor has argued,84 the ‘born’ trouble-shooter, the ‘one called in’ to sort things out. For the letter is both a reprimand and an eirenicon (Heb. 12.14; 13.1, 20), from one who previously had proved himself a natural mediator in the church (Acts 9,26-30; 1 1.22-30; 15.22-39), with a view to healing a breach that had already inflicted such crippling damage on the Christian community in Rome. If we are right in supposing that one of the main ‘roots’ of this ‘bitterness’ (illustrated by the ‘worldly minded’ Esau who ‘sold his birthright for a single meal’; Heb. 12.1517) was the temptation to allow business attachments to override Christian associations, Barnabas would have been exceptionally strongly placed to administer rebuke. [p.218]
In Contrast to this in his exposition of Acts Harry Whittaker argues that Barnabas was the “rich young man” (also called Jesus and the rich ruler) an episode in the life of Jesus recounted in the Gospel of Matthew 19:16–30, the Gospel of Mark 10:17–31 and the Gospel of Luke 18:18–30 in the New Testament. Priests were not supposed to own land in Israel because God was their portion and they were supported by the tithes but Barnabas (a priest) had circumvented the the letter of the law (not the spirit) by owing land in Cyprus. So when he asked Jesus what he “should do to inherit eternal life” because he kept the law impeccably, Jesus told him to give up all his possessions. We are told he went away sorrowful because the demand was too great but later he responded:
"And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of exhortation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet" (Acts 4:36-37).
So, Barnabas listened to the exhortation and responded. He was the ideal trouble shooter because he led by example.
The statement in Heb. 2.3 that ‘those who heard [the Lord himself] confirmed it to us’, which has quite illegitimately been taken to mean ‘a second-generation Christian’86 and therefore to argue a postapostolic date, would suit Barnabas admirably. For he was among those in Jerusalem who had ‘heard the message’ from the apostles Peter and John (Acts 4.4) and in those pentecostal days had seen it ‘confirmed’ by God, who, as the writer says, ‘added his testimony by signs, by miracles, by manifold works of power, and by distributing the gifts of the Holy Spirit at his own will’ (Heb. 2.4) . Moule87 makes the same point, but applies it to Stephen. But I confess I do not see the close connection with the movement and theology of Stephen, for which W. Manson in particular argued.88 Our author belongs to the Pauline circle, as the traditional attribution of his epistle attests, and as the reference to Timothy as his travelling companion shows (13.23). Yet Paul is not mentioned. Moreover, Timothy has ap¬ parently been in prison. We seem to be in a situation later than that of I and II Timothy or Philippians, for otherwise we might have expected this to be listed in Timothy’s ‘record ... in the service of the Gospel’ (Phil. 2.22). Where too the writer is we cannot tell, unless indeed it be (as Montefiore argued) in the Ephesus area, where both Apollos and Priscilla (included among ‘those from Italy’?) and Timothy were last heard of (II Tim. 4.9—1 9). But that on our reckoning was nearly ten years earlier. Meanwhile the mantle of the Aposde has in part fallen upon the writer himself. He can address his readers with a pastoral authority superior to that of their own leaders and with a conscience clear of local involvement (Heb. 13.17, and yet with no personal claim to apostolic aegis. [page 219]
The language of Hebrews is more fitting to a priest (Barnabas) who had been a rich landowner and wage-payer than a Rabbi like Paul with his focus on law.
Those addressed in Hebrews were also evidently men of possessions (10.34), with a generous record of Christian aid (6.10). But now they have to be told: Do not live for money; be content with what you have’ (13.5), and ‘Share what you have with others’ (13.16). The writer’s metaphors too seem calculated to appeal to those who thought naturally in terms of profit and loss. God himself is a wagepayer’ (μισθαποδότης) (11.6), and this word or its cognates appears four times in Hebrews and nowhere else in biblical literature. Moses, he says, had ‘his eyes . . . fixed upon the coming day of recompense (ἀπέβλεπεν γὰρ εἰς τὴν μισθαποδοσίαν ) , when he reckoned the stigma that rests on God’s Anointed greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt’ (11.26), and the readers are commended for having made the same calculation (10.35). His main metaphor for salvation is drawn not, as with Jesus, from the family, nor, as with Paul, from the courts, but from the world of property: coming into, or getting possession of, an inheritance (1.2,4,14; 6.12, 17; 9.15; n.7f.; 12.17). Even obedience to their leaders is commended in the language of commerce: ‘Obey your leaders ... as men who must render an account’ (λόγον ἀποδώσοντες ) ‘Let it be a happy task for them, and not pain and grief, for that would bring you no profit’ (ἀλυσιτελὲς, again, uniquely here in biblical literature) (13.17). We are unlikely to be wrong then in guessing that (not for the first or last time) the Jewish community in Rome had a strong business sense, which was reflected in its Christian members. Their temptation was to allow racial and economic connections to outweigh the commitment of their Christian faith.51 In W. Manson’s phrase, they sought to shelter under the ‘protective colouring’ of the religio licita of Judaism.52 Our author’s appeal to them is to prefer like Moses (11.25) ‘hardship with the people of God’ to the solidarities of this world... [page 212]
I have previously written an article arguing that the destination of the Epistle to the Hebrews was to the mixed Jewish-Gentile community at Ephesus that was experiencing problems with Judaizing Gnostic elements. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Here is the video by Hillman:
Sacred Sodomy: Church Cover-Up EXPOSED (21 min)
Here is my response (28 mins)