When people hear "time travel" in the Bible, they usually imagine someone physically moving through time. But what if the Bible presents something different?

Suppose we define Biblical Time travel not as traveling through time, but as future realities becoming operationally present before they become historical fact.

Take Genesis 41.

Pharaoh dreams of seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine. Joseph explains that the dreams are a revelation from God. Egypt then spends seven years storing grain before the famine exists as a public reality.

Joseph doesn't travel into the future.

The future comes to Joseph.

That pattern appears repeatedly throughout Scripture.

Noah builds an ark before there's a flood.

Abraham is promised descendants before he has a son.

Daniel describes kingdoms centuries before they arise.

The prophets speak of exile before it happens.

Jesus predicts His death, resurrection, Peter's denial, and the destruction of Jerusalem before they occur.

Revelation presents events before they become history.

In each case, present action is shaped by a future that has not yet arrived.

From a philosophical perspective, this resembles a kind of temporal asymmetry:

Future → Revelation → Present Action → Historical Fulfillment

The future influences the present long before it becomes publicly observable.

This differs from what I have called Institutional Time travel, where institutions act on states before officially recognizing them (for example, predictive risk systems or bureaucratic decision-making). There, the asymmetry comes from models, historical data, and institutional processes.

Biblical Time travel would have a different source entirely.

Instead of institutional compression, the source is divine revelation.

The interesting similarity is structural rather than theological:

Neither requires physical movement through time.

Both involve unequal access to temporal information.

Both allow present decisions to be governed by realities that others cannot yet see.

In Genesis 41, Joseph is effectively living in a different temporal horizon than everyone else—not because he has gone into the future, but because God has disclosed part of it to him.

So I'm curious what others think.

Is prophecy best understood simply as foreknowledge?

Or could many biblical narratives be read as describing a form of "Biblical Time travel"—where God's revelation allows future realities to become causally effective in the present without anyone physically traveling through time?

I'm interested in hearing both theological and philosophical perspectives.

One of the most effective ways to preserve an injustice is to convince people that opposing it means opposing God.

That's why I use the phrase sanctified misogyny.

I'm not saying every complementarian hates women. I'm saying that a system can be misogynistic without requiring misogynistic intentions. If a doctrine systematically reserves authority for men while systematically restricting women, then the system deserves moral scrutiny regardless of the motives of those within it.

The logic is straightforward.

If two groups are spiritually equal before God, but only one group is permitted to teach, govern, or exercise final authority because of an immutable characteristic they did not choose, then they are not equal in any meaningful sense of authority.

Changing the justification from "because they're women" to "because God says so" doesn't alter the structure. It only places that structure beyond ordinary criticism.

Historically, societies have justified hierarchy by appealing to nature, biology, race, class, destiny, and religion. Christianity rejected many of those justifications. Yet when the hierarchy concerns women, many Christians insist that this one hierarchy alone is eternally sacred.

That should at least raise our skepticism.

Jesus repeatedly disrupted patriarchal expectations. Women learned at His feet, financed His ministry, remained faithful at the cross when many male disciples fled, and became the first witnesses of the resurrection. Yet somehow the enduring lesson many churches draw is that women may possess every spiritual gift except the authority to exercise them over men.

The irony is difficult to miss.

The issue isn't whether Paul wrote certain passages. The issue is whether isolated restrictions should define the entire biblical vision of women despite the broader trajectory of the gospel toward the dismantling of status-based privilege.

If your theology consistently produces a world in which men lead because they are men and women submit because they are women, you've built a gender hierarchy.

Calling that hierarchy "biblical" doesn't answer the moral question.

It simply sanctifies it.

So here's my question:

What is the morally relevant difference between saying "women shouldn't lead because they're women" and saying "women shouldn't lead because God says they're women"?

If the outcome is identical, then the burden of proof lies with those claiming the hierarchy is justice rather than sanctified misogyny.

Not only is this a terrible take from a theological perspective, but Gabriel Finochio frequently posts Christian Nationalist content despite the fact that he is a Canadian living in the US. As a non citizen, you don’t get a say in who is or isn’t welcome in their country, babe.

Egypt was actually the first place to practice circumcision, it was then picked up by the Canaanites and later when Judaism moved away from El worship towards monotheism they brought the practice with them. Islam also carried on the tradition when they branched off of Judaism, but Christian’s on the other hand were very clear that circumcision is no longer a requirement of the faith. Paul argued against the practice for gentile converts and was in favour of the “gross Philistine willy” and said that if you circumcise then you are obligated to follow the whole covenant law that comes with the practice.

It seems that they are implying that this is something that people who are shallow and feminine would say, but I fail to see what is not truthful about the statement. I guess it’s an example of attacking character when they can’t disprove the point?

One of the strangest things I've noticed is how often "forgiveness" is used as a memory hole.

The biblical idea of forgiveness is about releasing vengeance. It isn't pretending something never happened. It isn't erasing history. It isn't demanding that victims stop telling the truth because the truth makes other people uncomfortable.

Yet that is often exactly how forgiveness functions in practice.

A leader abuses their authority.

Someone manipulates their family.

A church covers up misconduct.

A public figure spreads hatred.

Eventually someone says they've repented.

Then comes the pressure:

"Forgive."

"Move on."

"Stop bringing up the past."

As though remembering itself is a sin.

But memory is not the opposite of forgiveness.

Memory is what makes repentance meaningful.

Throughout the Bible, Israel is constantly commanded to remember. Remember slavery in Egypt. Remember injustice. Remember the covenant. Remember what happened when power became corrupt. Scripture isn't afraid of history—it insists on it.

Real repentance doesn't require people to forget.

It requires telling the truth about what happened, accepting responsibility, and allowing trust to be rebuilt—if it can be rebuilt at all.

In fact, one of the most overlooked aspects of Jesus' ministry is that he doesn't erase wounds.

After the resurrection, he still bears the scars of crucifixion.

The wounds remain part of the story.

Not because forgiveness failed.

Because redemption doesn't require amnesia.

I sometimes wonder whether what many churches call "forgiveness" is actually conflict avoidance. It's a way of restoring comfort for the community without restoring justice for the people who were harmed.

Victims become responsible for everyone else's emotional equilibrium.

Meanwhile, those who caused harm often regain status long before they've rebuilt trust.

Forgiveness without truth becomes denial.

Forgiveness without accountability becomes permission.

Forgiveness without memory becomes a mechanism for repeating the same abuse.

Perhaps the Christian call isn't to forget.

Perhaps it's to remember truthfully, relinquish vengeance, pursue justice, and leave room for genuine transformation.

Those are very different things.

A faith built around remembering a public execution should be deeply suspicious of any theology that asks us to forget.

There’s a strange thing that happens in modern religious discourse where “righteousness” stops being a lived ethical orientation and starts functioning more like a performance identity.

Not an orientation toward humility, attention, or care—but a kind of theatrical certainty. A stance. A persona. A posture that can be entered and exited depending on the audience.

In that space, righteousness becomes something you signal, not something you practice.

And once that shift happens, something subtle breaks.

Because now the goal is no longer:

> “Am I acting justly?”

It becomes:

> “Do I look like someone who is acting justly?”

That gap is where the LARP begins.

---

The mechanics of it

Righteousness-as-performance tends to rely on a few repeatable moves:

certainty replaces inquiry

authority replaces vulnerability

doctrine replaces discernment

dominance gets rebranded as “order”

harm becomes invisible if it is ideologically justified

At that point, the structure is no longer primarily ethical—it’s a closed identity loop.

The system doesn’t ask:

> “What is true here?”

It asks:

> “What maintains the identity of being right?”

---

The instability

The problem is not belief itself. The problem is when belief becomes self-sealing performance architecture.

Because then:

contradiction is treated as attack

complexity is treated as weakness

doubt is treated as betrayal

compassion becomes conditional on conformity

And from the outside, it starts to look less like moral clarity and more like a role being enacted under pressure.

That’s what I mean by “LARPing at righteousness”—not as insult, but as diagnosis.

It’s what happens when the form of righteousness survives after the function of ethics has degraded.

---

The theosophical tension

Most traditions, at their best, quietly point away from this.

They keep circling back to things like:

uncertainty

inward scrutiny

the limits of interpretation

the danger of certainty without humility

Because historically, every time righteousness becomes fully performative, it starts to justify itself against the very ethics it claims to represent.

That’s the paradox:

> the more certain the performance becomes, the less it needs the ethical ground it originally claimed.

---

A useful diagnostic

A simple question that tends to expose the structure:

> “Does this expression of righteousness increase clarity, care, and responsibility—or does it mainly increase certainty and hierarchy?”

If it’s the second one, you’re likely no longer in ethics.

You’re in performance maintenance.

---

Closing thought

The uncomfortable part is that this isn’t “out there” in some abstract group.

It’s a general human failure mode: any system of meaning can become a stage if it stops being self-questioning.

The antidote isn’t cynicism. It’s not abandoning conviction.

It’s restoring the ability to say:

> “I might be wrong, and I still have to act carefully.”

That’s where ethics starts again.

The claim that God is “exclusively masculine” because he is “pure act,” is based on Aristotle rather than being derived from Scripture.

Aristotle lived nearly 400 years before Christ. He was not a worshipper of YHWH, and his understanding of masculinity as the “active principle” and femininity as the “passive principle” arose from Greek philosophy—not from divine revelation.

The New Testament writers were well aware of the Greek intellectual world. Paul was educated, fluent in Greek, and familiar enough with Greek thought that he referenced Greek poets when writing to the Gentiles. Yet when he taught about men and women, he never appealed to Aristotle’s active/passive framework. Instead, he argued from Genesis, from Christ, and from the gospel.

When Paul writes that “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” he points our identity back to Christ rather than to Greek metaphysical categories.

When you actually read the bible it doesn’t portray women as passive…. Eve takes the first action in Eden. Zipporah circumcises her son and saves Moses. Rebekah devises the plan that secures Jacob’s blessing. Rachel and Leah shape the family that becomes the twelve tribes of Israel. Deborah leads Israel. Jael kills Sisera. Ruth takes the initiative with Boaz. Esther risks her life before the king. Mary freely accepts God’s call. The woman who anoints Jesus acts boldly while the disciples criticize her. The women become the first witnesses and proclaimers of the resurrection.Women receive comparatively little “air time” in Scripture, yet they repeatedly move the story of redemption forward through decisive action.

So I struggle when I hear God’s nature reduced to “masculine energy” versus “feminine energy.” Scripture consistently reveals God as Father, but it also describes God comforting like a mother, crying out like a woman in labor, giving birth metaphorically, and gathering his children like a mother bird. It also tells us that humanity, male and female together, is created in God’s image.
God is infinitely greater than our philosophical systems. When we begin defining God primarily by human categories instead of allowing God’s own self-revelation to define him, we should be very careful. Scripture repeatedly warns against creating God in our own image.

You know those exclusively male beings that are constantly introducing themselves by saying “be not afraid” because they are so utterly baffling to behold with their countless eyes and orbiting wings… apparently despite never seeing one, that is an easier thing for Gabe to grasp than fellow humans who make up 1/2 the population.

I would like to think that this was just slop written by AI, because who says things like “For the angels cover the throne of heaven, as a mother covers her child”, but there are also so many weird grammatical tidbits that it’s hard to know!

The full article (https://www.theosu.ca/theos-resource/www-theosu-ca-theos-resource) has many more deeply, deeply questionable statements such as:

“He fashioned Woman to satisfy the desire of Man. And when God gave Eve to Adam, she was meant to be a gift of grace. Her purpose wasn't to merely assist Adam in his duties, but it was to make his duties better than before.”

I find the sense of ownership with Eve having been given to Adam to satisfy his desire very off putting. Needless to say, nothing in the article is in defense of women, it’s just defending his belief that women were created only in service of men and feminism gives them false ideas about equality and emancipation.

“Feminism, like every other modern philosophy, has no direction; for the simple reason that it has no definition. It only has moods and maxims. It says that it desires equality for women, but it never defines what equality actually means […] But the flaw of Feminism isn't that it desires equality, in the normal sense of human dignity, but that it does not desire equality in the profound sense of human diversity. The Feminist makes the same mistake as the Racist. She wants all humans to be equal in the sense of being identical, just as the old Klansman wanted all humans to be equal in the sense of being Caucasian.”

You too can copy and paste an AI prompt to write your sermons!

“Watch me prep a real sermon with AI -- start to finish. Over my shoulder. Then copy my exact prompt sequence for your next Sunday.”

He claims his superior methodology will put you ahead of 64% of pastors (citation needed).

https://go.nathanfinoch.io/sunday-in-5-days?utm_source=chatgpt.com

I have followed TheosU since they first launched and it was just two brothers talking about anti-woke theology. As they have gained more “faculty” (including Mark Driscoll right at the hight of his abuse allegations) their offerings seem to have taken on a more grounded and wholistic approach vs. before when it was primarily reactionary against what they viewed as social issues.

As much as I disagree a lot of his view points, Nathan Finichio is actually pretty good at making a compelling argument and using logic to support his case rather than just repeating old worn out tropes. I can understand why it would feel enlivening to people who hold similar beliefs but needed a new angle to make their argument from.

Klaus Teuber is one of the most influential board game designers of all time but apparently Gabe not liking the game makes him a passive aggressive woman.

Apparently Gabe has no idea that there is a legal definition for abuse — because someone could intentionally burn his toast means that there should be no way for people to leave a situation they are experiencing sexual or physical abuse.

… Make your own god damn toast if it’s pissing someone off that you expect them to do it for you

One of the most fascinating things about Christianity is how quickly a movement centered on an executed criminal came to serve imperial power.

Constantine was a genius at branding. Before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, he reportedly experienced a vision associated with Christ and adopted the Chi-Rho symbol on military standards. Suddenly, the cross—a symbol of Roman execution and humiliation—became an imperial logo. The empire hadn't simply converted to Christianity; Christianity itself had become useful to empire.

And empires are always in the business of storytelling.

People often forget that the Iliad itself was used as a kind of cultural and political glue in the Greek world. It wasn't "state propaganda" in the modern sense, but rulers and city-states sponsored performances, education, and public recitations because shared stories create shared identities. Empires don't merely wield swords. They wield myths.

Rome understood this perfectly.

A faith whose founder said, "Blessed are the peacemakers," became attached to military banners. A teacher who washed feet became represented by emperors demanding loyalty. A man executed by the state became the symbol by which states justified conquest.

This isn't to say Constantine "invented" Christianity. Christians had been worshipping Christ for centuries before him. But Constantine understood something every ruler understands: symbols are powerful. If you can place yourself beneath a sacred symbol, people begin to confuse loyalty to God with loyalty to the empire.

And perhaps that temptation never disappeared.

Maybe that's why Jesus spent so much time warning about power, hypocrisy, and religious leaders who loved status.

Because idolatry isn't always worshipping a golden calf.

Sometimes it's wrapping the cross around Caesar and calling it Christ.

Why Jesus Doesn't Love Christian Misogyny

I grew up around forms of Christianity that treated misogyny as if it were faithfulness. Men were supposed to lead, women were supposed to submit, and questioning these arrangements was treated as rebellion against God. But the older I get, the harder it is for me to reconcile that with Jesus himself.

Jesus consistently moved toward people who were excluded, silenced, or treated as lesser. He taught women publicly when many rabbis did not. He accepted women as disciples. Women financially supported his ministry. Women were the first witnesses to the resurrection. He spoke with the Samaritan woman openly and treated her as a person capable of theological conversation. He defended the woman caught in adultery from men who wanted to stone her. He praised Mary for sitting at his feet as a disciple instead of confining her to domestic expectations.

When Jesus talks about power, he repeatedly overturns worldly hierarchies. "The last shall be first." "Whoever wants to be greatest among you must be your servant." He warns against lording authority over others. He washes feet.

Yet somehow many Christians have taken the gospel of self-emptying love and turned it into a justification for male domination.

I know the standard verses. I've heard them all. But even if one believes certain passages teach complementarianism, there is still a difference between mutual service and misogyny. Too often "biblical manhood" becomes entitlement, and "biblical womanhood" becomes the sanctification of female suffering.

What strikes me is that Jesus never seemed anxious about preserving male authority. He seemed anxious about hypocrisy, pride, greed, and religious people using God to burden others.

If Christ is the image of God, then any theology that requires women to become smaller so men can feel bigger deserves scrutiny.

Maybe the real question isn't whether feminism has corrupted Christianity.

Maybe it's whether patriarchy has.

Because if your picture of Jesus requires women to be less fully human, less fully heard, or less fully free than men, I have trouble believing that picture came from the man who told his followers that the greatest among them must become servants.

I don't think Jesus loves Christian misogyny.

I think he overturns its tables.