*Now that the Galatians know what the acts of the sinful nature are, Paul tells them "if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." This brings many questions to my mind. Are there spiritual and non spiritual christians? Can a christian lose their spirituality? Is a christian who has lost their spirituality still a christian? How do you get spirituality back, if you have lost it? What if the person can't be restored gently? How do they "carry each others burdens?"
*Next Paul issues warnings to the Galatians to be on guard, lest they are also tempted. They musn't think themselves immune from the sinful nature, just because they are spiritual. Constant vigilance of ones own actions is necessary. "Each one should carry his own load."
*That's quite a load these christians had to carry around, each other's burdens plus their own load. How wearisome and paralyzing that must have been. Surely Paul meant that and wasn't contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Why do I envision a group of people continuously watching each other to see who will slip up first, all the while taking care not to do anything that might draw attention to themselves.
*Next Paul says "anyone who recieves instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor." Let's see, who has just shared instruction in the word? Why you have, Paul. Could it be that you are hinting for a handout?
*Paul goes on to imply that God's no fool, noone can take advantage of hm, people get what they deserve. They "reap what they sow." If someone sows to please the sinful nature, he will reap destruction. If someone sows to please the spirit (like Paul), he will reap eternal life. They shouldn't get tired of doing the right thing (bearing all those burdens), because eventually they will reap eternal life. (After they are dead)
Therefore (it naturally follows), as we have opportunity (like right now), we should do good to all people ( Even the Judiaizing teachers?), especially those who belong to the family of believers (like Paul.) After all, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Eternal life is a curious concept. I wonder if those who desire it actually think about what they are getting. What will there be to do for never ending time? Certainly not any acts of the sinful nature. What will be the use of self control in eternity, if there is nothing to control oneself from doing? Will there be a need for love, kindness, or goodness if no one needs anything? What is the benefit, where is the pleasure, in pure existence?
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Friday, April 28, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 4
We will finish up the fifth chapter of Galatians with the "fruit of the spirit." The spirit in this passage is capitalized and seems to refer to god, though Paul does not define what the spirit is. If you live by this spirit, you will produce love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. "Against such things there is no law." Of course not. But what do they have to do with a mystical spirit? There are followers of many religions, and even no religion, who possess many to all of these qualities. Do they have the spirit of god? Then why become a christian?
Paul contrasts this spirit with the "sinful nature." He say those who belong to christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Then why are so many professing Christians found practicing the acts of the sinful nature mentioned previously? Are they not true christians? It seems to be pretty hard to find one of those true christians nowadays. I'm pretty sure many Buddhists exhibit more fruits of the spirit than some of the christians I know.
Paul does some fancy footwork and says, "since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the spirit. Is it possible to live by the spirit and not keep in step with the spirit? I think Paul is really saying, "Get right, church. And don't embarrass me."
Paul contrasts this spirit with the "sinful nature." He say those who belong to christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Then why are so many professing Christians found practicing the acts of the sinful nature mentioned previously? Are they not true christians? It seems to be pretty hard to find one of those true christians nowadays. I'm pretty sure many Buddhists exhibit more fruits of the spirit than some of the christians I know.
Paul does some fancy footwork and says, "since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the spirit. Is it possible to live by the spirit and not keep in step with the spirit? I think Paul is really saying, "Get right, church. And don't embarrass me."
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 3
We are still looking at the "acts of the sinful nature."
6. Discord: I think this means "does not play well with others," the opposite of being in accord. Discord has to do with whether someone is in agreement or at least has pleasant attitude toward the people they interact with. Of course a person can be in discord with mean people. In that case they would be in the right, unless they are acting just like them. Causing discord can also refer to causing confusion.
7. Jealousy: admittedly an often unhealthy emotion. Wanting what you don't or can't have can lead to harmful behaviors, such as theft, murder, and destruction of other's property. It can lead to your own psychological harm as well, undermining your self esteem, if you place importance on the number, quality, or size of your posessions compared to others. Being possessive of people in your life is another form of jealousy that can do harm to relationships. It's wierd that the bible spends a lot of time saying god is a jealous god. Does god have a sinful nature?
8.Dissensions and factions: these seem to be very similar to causing discord, but in groups or cliques. There are many legitimate reasons to dissent, as we are seeing in the current political climate.
9. Envy: See jealousy.
10. Drunkenness: Surely we all know drunkenness has the potential to do great harm, to one's self and others. Personally, I prize my brain cells too highly to risk destroying any of them. I'm also not fond of feeling nauseated or not in control of my faculties. I don't understand why others might enjoy getting drunk. I missed that part of the "sin nature." However, as long as a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and precautions against harming others, what can anyone say, except to express their own opinion. Notice this passage does not say don't drink at all.
11. Orgies: this is a subject I know very little about and am not particularly interested in. I'm certainly not going to google it. I would think any thing that can be said has already been mentioned in the last post under Sexual immorality.
I think it's strange that Paul does not mention things like lying, theft, murder, rape, abuse, libel, slander, genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks his list covers all the important things in a round about way. He does say that the people who live according to this "sinful nature" will not inherit the kingdom of god. What exactly is the kingdom of god?
The idea of the sinful nature is predicated on the existance of a god who makes rules and has wishes about how things should be done. Ignoring those wishes means getting out of god's grace. Since I don't believe in any gods, I also don't believe in sinning against them. But I think we can sin against our fellow humans, by being hurtful or destructive in a large number of ways. I think we can sin against our selves in a way by self harm or unhealthy behaviors. To some extent that is our own business, untill it affects the well being of others, like second hand cigarette smoke. However, consequences arise naturally, and depend on the circumstances. Life just happens and people behave in ways that people have behaved for millenia. Some people have better luck, some people have better genes, some people have better self control, some people learn how to change the behaviors they want to change.
I'm not sure I covered this topic adequately but we will move on to the "fruit of the spirit" tomorrow.
6. Discord: I think this means "does not play well with others," the opposite of being in accord. Discord has to do with whether someone is in agreement or at least has pleasant attitude toward the people they interact with. Of course a person can be in discord with mean people. In that case they would be in the right, unless they are acting just like them. Causing discord can also refer to causing confusion.
7. Jealousy: admittedly an often unhealthy emotion. Wanting what you don't or can't have can lead to harmful behaviors, such as theft, murder, and destruction of other's property. It can lead to your own psychological harm as well, undermining your self esteem, if you place importance on the number, quality, or size of your posessions compared to others. Being possessive of people in your life is another form of jealousy that can do harm to relationships. It's wierd that the bible spends a lot of time saying god is a jealous god. Does god have a sinful nature?
8.Dissensions and factions: these seem to be very similar to causing discord, but in groups or cliques. There are many legitimate reasons to dissent, as we are seeing in the current political climate.
9. Envy: See jealousy.
10. Drunkenness: Surely we all know drunkenness has the potential to do great harm, to one's self and others. Personally, I prize my brain cells too highly to risk destroying any of them. I'm also not fond of feeling nauseated or not in control of my faculties. I don't understand why others might enjoy getting drunk. I missed that part of the "sin nature." However, as long as a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and precautions against harming others, what can anyone say, except to express their own opinion. Notice this passage does not say don't drink at all.
11. Orgies: this is a subject I know very little about and am not particularly interested in. I'm certainly not going to google it. I would think any thing that can be said has already been mentioned in the last post under Sexual immorality.
I think it's strange that Paul does not mention things like lying, theft, murder, rape, abuse, libel, slander, genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks his list covers all the important things in a round about way. He does say that the people who live according to this "sinful nature" will not inherit the kingdom of god. What exactly is the kingdom of god?
The idea of the sinful nature is predicated on the existance of a god who makes rules and has wishes about how things should be done. Ignoring those wishes means getting out of god's grace. Since I don't believe in any gods, I also don't believe in sinning against them. But I think we can sin against our fellow humans, by being hurtful or destructive in a large number of ways. I think we can sin against our selves in a way by self harm or unhealthy behaviors. To some extent that is our own business, untill it affects the well being of others, like second hand cigarette smoke. However, consequences arise naturally, and depend on the circumstances. Life just happens and people behave in ways that people have behaved for millenia. Some people have better luck, some people have better genes, some people have better self control, some people learn how to change the behaviors they want to change.
I'm not sure I covered this topic adequately but we will move on to the "fruit of the spirit" tomorrow.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 2
*So, Paul says, "live by the spirit." Define this spirit for us Paul. Is this the holy spirit? According to Paul, we have this thing called a "sinful nature" that desires what is contrary to the spirit. The sinful nature amd the spirit are in conflict with each other and keep you from doing what you want. This is kind of confusing. Do we want to do good things and are stopped by our sinful nature? Or does the sinful nature make us want to do bad things and we are stopped by the spirit? Paul says if the Galatians are led by this mysterious spirit, they are not under law. Well, Paul, they weren't under law to begin with. They were Gentiles! Me thinks Paul spends a lot of time projecting.
*Next, Paul lists "the acts of the sinful nature:"
1.Sexual immorality: Is this not following the sexual mores laid out by god in the biblical law, or not following the sexual mores laid out in culture? Those were/are often two very different things. How were the Galatians to know what Paul considered sexual immorality? Surely not by the law of moses, which he rejects? Sexual mores are complicated, even today. Humanists have tried to come up with a priciple that could work across cultures. It is the basic idea that whatever happens between consenting adults, and does not cause unwanted harm is their own business. The key words being consenting and adult.
2.Impurity: What is impurity anyway? Is that the same thing as uncleanness? Is it defined by the law? If it is, why should we worry about it?
3. Debauchery: According to Google, this means excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Maybe addictions to drugs, food, drink, sex? I would venture to say that it is unhealthy to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure, but part of the "sinful nature" in us? Not every one is susceptible to that kind of thing. Does that mean some of us don't have sinful natures? The only thing I am personally prone to over indulge in is chocolate. Blast those Aztecs! Actually, today, science has found that this kind of thing is a result of chemicals working in our brain to make us feel good. Everything that makes us feel good is a result of evolutionary biology. Man found ways to harness and concentrate those chemicals even before he knew that's what he was doing. When life is harsh and unpleasant, feel good remedies become something to live for, for some people. Some people seem to have biologically addictive natures, others don't. There are ways to deal with addictions that don't shame by calling the person sinful. Of course, those who are destructive or harmful because of their addictions must be restrained by society in some way, for the safety of the rest of us. But care must be taken to treat them humanely.
4. Idolatry and witchcraft: make believe and nonsense. The harm these do is all in how they make their adherents treat other people. If the adherents do no bodily or psychological harm to people or property, there is no reason to care what they practice. Many of the modern versions are quite harmless and even pleasantly benevolent. It can be quite pleasant to think of the world and the way things work as though they are magical in some way, but it can also be quite scary. Sinful nature though? How can something that must be learned or imagined be part of our nature?
5. Hatred: hatred is such an all encompassing word for feelings of ill will toward others. I believe it must be learned and is not part of our nature. For much of my life, I could not understand hatred. I guess that shows how lucky I have been in my life. I didn't know if it was possible for me to hate until about a decade ago when I was watching "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time. I felt such a burning disgust at the mean character Mr. Potter that it overwhelmed me. I realized that was hatred. I can't watch that movie any more. I know now that I am capable of hatred, especially in the presence of injustice. Is that a bad thing? I hear christians saying they hate the devil, but that appears to be acceptable hatred. In fact they seem to be permitted to hate the "acts of the sinful nature" in this list as well. Funny. It appears that hate may be complicated. Maybe we should measure its harm by how destructive it is. Some hatreds may have the power to cause people to act for the betterment of humanity. Some obviously do not. I think all hatred is based in fear, justified or not.
To be continued:
*Next, Paul lists "the acts of the sinful nature:"
1.Sexual immorality: Is this not following the sexual mores laid out by god in the biblical law, or not following the sexual mores laid out in culture? Those were/are often two very different things. How were the Galatians to know what Paul considered sexual immorality? Surely not by the law of moses, which he rejects? Sexual mores are complicated, even today. Humanists have tried to come up with a priciple that could work across cultures. It is the basic idea that whatever happens between consenting adults, and does not cause unwanted harm is their own business. The key words being consenting and adult.
2.Impurity: What is impurity anyway? Is that the same thing as uncleanness? Is it defined by the law? If it is, why should we worry about it?
3. Debauchery: According to Google, this means excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Maybe addictions to drugs, food, drink, sex? I would venture to say that it is unhealthy to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure, but part of the "sinful nature" in us? Not every one is susceptible to that kind of thing. Does that mean some of us don't have sinful natures? The only thing I am personally prone to over indulge in is chocolate. Blast those Aztecs! Actually, today, science has found that this kind of thing is a result of chemicals working in our brain to make us feel good. Everything that makes us feel good is a result of evolutionary biology. Man found ways to harness and concentrate those chemicals even before he knew that's what he was doing. When life is harsh and unpleasant, feel good remedies become something to live for, for some people. Some people seem to have biologically addictive natures, others don't. There are ways to deal with addictions that don't shame by calling the person sinful. Of course, those who are destructive or harmful because of their addictions must be restrained by society in some way, for the safety of the rest of us. But care must be taken to treat them humanely.
4. Idolatry and witchcraft: make believe and nonsense. The harm these do is all in how they make their adherents treat other people. If the adherents do no bodily or psychological harm to people or property, there is no reason to care what they practice. Many of the modern versions are quite harmless and even pleasantly benevolent. It can be quite pleasant to think of the world and the way things work as though they are magical in some way, but it can also be quite scary. Sinful nature though? How can something that must be learned or imagined be part of our nature?
5. Hatred: hatred is such an all encompassing word for feelings of ill will toward others. I believe it must be learned and is not part of our nature. For much of my life, I could not understand hatred. I guess that shows how lucky I have been in my life. I didn't know if it was possible for me to hate until about a decade ago when I was watching "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time. I felt such a burning disgust at the mean character Mr. Potter that it overwhelmed me. I realized that was hatred. I can't watch that movie any more. I know now that I am capable of hatred, especially in the presence of injustice. Is that a bad thing? I hear christians saying they hate the devil, but that appears to be acceptable hatred. In fact they seem to be permitted to hate the "acts of the sinful nature" in this list as well. Funny. It appears that hate may be complicated. Maybe we should measure its harm by how destructive it is. Some hatreds may have the power to cause people to act for the betterment of humanity. Some obviously do not. I think all hatred is based in fear, justified or not.
To be continued:
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 1
Back to Galatians:
*Paul tells the Galatians that it is for freedom that christ has set them free (from what?), they are not to let themselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery. Wait. The Galatians are gentiles. They weren't under the yoke of slavery to the law to begin with. I do think Paul has a point when he says they should not try to be justified by the law. But, he says it would alienate them from christ and make them "fall from grace," which is nonsense.
*Again, Paul goes back to stressing that faith is the important thing. Apparently the Jews who were trying to teach these Galatians were advocating circumcision which Paul is adamantly against, because it is part of the slavery of the law. He says circumcision has no value one way or another, if you are in Christ. "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Nice sentiment, but the faith part is not even necessary. People can be loving without it.
*Paul goes on to tell the Galatians they were doing so well until someone (judaizers) kept them from obeying the truth (Paul's version). He says that kind of persuasion doesn't come from "the one who calls you"--presumably christ. How would they have known they were called if Paul didn't give them his version of salvation? He goes on to say that the one who is throwing them into confusion will pay the penalty. But he doesn't say what that penalty is. He also implies that he is being persecuted (by the Jews?) because he doesn't teach circumcision. If he did, noone would be offended at the preaching of the cross. Then, in a fit of pique, Paul wishes those agitators that are promoting circumcision would "go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
*Paul tells the Galatians they were called to be free (again, from what?). They should use their freedom to serve one another in love, because the entire law can be summed up in one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Really? Paul, have you read the entire law? Where is all the love?
If the Law means that, then why are you against following it? Why does it need to be dismissed? Why have you compared it to slavery? Why does anyone need to be freed from it?
To be continued.
*Paul tells the Galatians that it is for freedom that christ has set them free (from what?), they are not to let themselves be burdened again by the yoke of slavery. Wait. The Galatians are gentiles. They weren't under the yoke of slavery to the law to begin with. I do think Paul has a point when he says they should not try to be justified by the law. But, he says it would alienate them from christ and make them "fall from grace," which is nonsense.
*Again, Paul goes back to stressing that faith is the important thing. Apparently the Jews who were trying to teach these Galatians were advocating circumcision which Paul is adamantly against, because it is part of the slavery of the law. He says circumcision has no value one way or another, if you are in Christ. "The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love." Nice sentiment, but the faith part is not even necessary. People can be loving without it.
*Paul goes on to tell the Galatians they were doing so well until someone (judaizers) kept them from obeying the truth (Paul's version). He says that kind of persuasion doesn't come from "the one who calls you"--presumably christ. How would they have known they were called if Paul didn't give them his version of salvation? He goes on to say that the one who is throwing them into confusion will pay the penalty. But he doesn't say what that penalty is. He also implies that he is being persecuted (by the Jews?) because he doesn't teach circumcision. If he did, noone would be offended at the preaching of the cross. Then, in a fit of pique, Paul wishes those agitators that are promoting circumcision would "go the whole way and emasculate themselves!"
*Paul tells the Galatians they were called to be free (again, from what?). They should use their freedom to serve one another in love, because the entire law can be summed up in one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Really? Paul, have you read the entire law? Where is all the love?
If the Law means that, then why are you against following it? Why does it need to be dismissed? Why have you compared it to slavery? Why does anyone need to be freed from it?
To be continued.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
What happened on Sunday morning part 3
What final messages did Jesus give to the disciples after his resurrection?
*Mark: (not in earliest manuscripts) when he appeared to the eleven as they were eating (in Jerusalem)-" Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." In Jesus's name they would drive out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up snakes, drink poison, and heal sick people.
*Matthew: (on the mountain in galilee?) Jesus said "go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Surely I am with you to the very end of the age."
*Luke: (in Jerusalem) Jesus said "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations...I am going to send you what my father has promised but stay in the city intil you have been clothed with power from on high." (No baptism mentioned.)
*John:(by the sea of Tiberias after eating a breakfast of fish) Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep then prophesizes about Peter's future. Then he says "follow me!" Nothing about preaching to all nations, miracles, or baptism. He also implies that he will return from an unspecified location.
What was the last sight of Jesus?
*Mark: After the final message, Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of god. How does the author know this? Does god have hands?
*Matthew: No mention of anything at all happening to Jesus after his final message.
*Luke: Jesus led the disciples from Jerusalem to the vicinity of Bethany and was taken up into heaven.
*John: No mention of anything happening to Jesus after his final message.
Acts, supposedly a continuation of Luke, has Jesus sticking around for forty days before he is taken up and hidden by a cloud. Then two men in white, presumably angels, tell the disciples Jesus is in heaven, but he will come back. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not speak of a return. Other New Testament books speak of Jesus being raised from the dead but give no details. Many passages in the gospels show that the authors believed in resurrection of the dead and have Jesus talking about the resurrection of the righteous, but they also show there were factions of Jews who did not believe this.
What does an empty tomb mean? Only one thing: there is no body there. It doesn't tell you how, when, where, or why. The story in John actually gives the most likely explanation, if a man Jesus actually died and was laid in a tomb. "They took his body and didn't tell us." Christians like to say nobody else's tomb is empty, but that's not true at all. Plenty of tombs are empty for various reasons, usually becuse the body was moved. As simple as that.
Things to remember about these stories: They do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses or to be inspired by god. We don't know who wrote them. There is no knowledge or indication of the year this happened, so it can't be pinned down in history. The stories are written in the third person, told as if these things happened to other people. They have a limited omnicient perspective, being able to show the actions words and feelings of separate people in separate places, but they don't know exactly when or how Jesus was "raised from the dead." That part is left mysterious and magical..
Where is Jesus's tomb supposed to have been?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_Tomb
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb
More: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
Edited
*Mark: (not in earliest manuscripts) when he appeared to the eleven as they were eating (in Jerusalem)-" Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." In Jesus's name they would drive out demons, speak in new tongues, pick up snakes, drink poison, and heal sick people.
*Matthew: (on the mountain in galilee?) Jesus said "go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. Surely I am with you to the very end of the age."
*Luke: (in Jerusalem) Jesus said "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations...I am going to send you what my father has promised but stay in the city intil you have been clothed with power from on high." (No baptism mentioned.)
*John:(by the sea of Tiberias after eating a breakfast of fish) Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep then prophesizes about Peter's future. Then he says "follow me!" Nothing about preaching to all nations, miracles, or baptism. He also implies that he will return from an unspecified location.
What was the last sight of Jesus?
*Mark: After the final message, Jesus was taken up into heaven and sat at the right hand of god. How does the author know this? Does god have hands?
*Matthew: No mention of anything at all happening to Jesus after his final message.
*Luke: Jesus led the disciples from Jerusalem to the vicinity of Bethany and was taken up into heaven.
*John: No mention of anything happening to Jesus after his final message.
Acts, supposedly a continuation of Luke, has Jesus sticking around for forty days before he is taken up and hidden by a cloud. Then two men in white, presumably angels, tell the disciples Jesus is in heaven, but he will come back. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not speak of a return. Other New Testament books speak of Jesus being raised from the dead but give no details. Many passages in the gospels show that the authors believed in resurrection of the dead and have Jesus talking about the resurrection of the righteous, but they also show there were factions of Jews who did not believe this.
What does an empty tomb mean? Only one thing: there is no body there. It doesn't tell you how, when, where, or why. The story in John actually gives the most likely explanation, if a man Jesus actually died and was laid in a tomb. "They took his body and didn't tell us." Christians like to say nobody else's tomb is empty, but that's not true at all. Plenty of tombs are empty for various reasons, usually becuse the body was moved. As simple as that.
Things to remember about these stories: They do not claim to be written by eyewitnesses or to be inspired by god. We don't know who wrote them. There is no knowledge or indication of the year this happened, so it can't be pinned down in history. The stories are written in the third person, told as if these things happened to other people. They have a limited omnicient perspective, being able to show the actions words and feelings of separate people in separate places, but they don't know exactly when or how Jesus was "raised from the dead." That part is left mysterious and magical..
Where is Jesus's tomb supposed to have been?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Garden_Tomb
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb
More: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_of_Jesus
Edited
Monday, April 17, 2017
What happened on Sunday morning part 2
What was the response when the women told people about finding Jesus gone from the tomb?
*Mark: WhenMary Magdalene told the mourners Jesus was alive, they did not believe her story.
*Matthew: The disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted. Previous passages say nothing about a mountain,
*Luke: when the women told the disciples, they did not believe and thought they were talking nonsense. Peter got up and ran to the tomb, saw the linen grave clothes, and wondered what happened.
*John: Peter and "the other disciple" raced to the tomb at the news. The other disciple got there first. He saw the grave clothes. They believed Jesus was gone but didn't understand that he had risen from the dead.
What are the reports of initial Jesus sightings after that?
*Mark: Jesus appeared in a different form to two of the mourners while they were walking in the country. They returned and reported it to the rest, but they did not believe them.
*Matthew: the eleven disciples went to the mountain in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted.
*Luke: That same day, two disciples, one named Cleopas, encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize him when he talked to them. They talked together, travelled together, and sat down to eat together. When Jesus broke the bread and gave thanks, they finally recognized him. As soon as they recognized him, he vanished. They went right back to Jerusalem, where they told their story to the eleven who also had a story of Jesus appearing to Simon (Peter?)
*John: After Peter and the other disciple went home. Mary remained at the tomb weeping, then saw two angels in white seated where the body had been. They asked her why she was crying. She said it was because Jesus's body had been taken and she didn't know where. Then she turned around and saw someone she thought was the gardener but who was actually Jesus. He spoke her name. She cried out "Teacher!" He told her not to hold on to him because he had not yet returned to the father, God. She was to tell the disciples. And she did. No response at the news is indicated. This is a different sequence of events than the other stories.
What are the reports of further Jesus sightings?
*Mark: Jesus appeared to the eleven while they were eating and rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
*Matthew: none
What are the reports of initial Jesus sightings after that?
*Mark: Jesus appeared in a different form to two of the mourners while they were walking in the country. They returned and reported it to the rest, but they did not believe them.
*Matthew: the eleven disciples went to the mountain in Galilee where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshipped him, but some doubted.
*Luke: That same day, two disciples, one named Cleopas, encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus. They did not recognize him when he talked to them. They talked together, travelled together, and sat down to eat together. When Jesus broke the bread and gave thanks, they finally recognized him. As soon as they recognized him, he vanished. They went right back to Jerusalem, where they told their story to the eleven who also had a story of Jesus appearing to Simon (Peter?)
*John: After Peter and the other disciple went home. Mary remained at the tomb weeping, then saw two angels in white seated where the body had been. They asked her why she was crying. She said it was because Jesus's body had been taken and she didn't know where. Then she turned around and saw someone she thought was the gardener but who was actually Jesus. He spoke her name. She cried out "Teacher!" He told her not to hold on to him because he had not yet returned to the father, God. She was to tell the disciples. And she did. No response at the news is indicated. This is a different sequence of events than the other stories.
What are the reports of further Jesus sightings?
*Mark: Jesus appeared to the eleven while they were eating and rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
*Matthew: none
*Luke: While Cleopas and the other follower of Jesus were talking to the eleven, Jesus appeared in their midst. They thought he was a ghost and were startled. He told them to touch him and see that he had flesh and bones. He showed them his hands and feet. He ate some food to prove he was alive. He opened their minds so they could understand scripture.
*John: It was still resurrection Sunday, in the evening, when Jesus appeared to the disciples in a locked room. He said "Peace be with you." He showed them his hands and feet. He breathed on them and said, "recieve the holy spirit." Thomas was not with the disciples at that time. (That makes ten, not eleven present.) Whe he heard the story, he doubted and said he would have to touch Jesus to believe. A week later, Jesus appeared in the locked room again. This time, Thomas was there and he got to see and touch Jesus. Afterward, Jesus appeared again to his disciples by the sea of Tiberious where he helped them catch fish, and had breakfast with them, and talked to Peter.
Now we see the stories clearly diverging in details, especially Matthew and John. Matthew has the disciples going to a mountain in Galilee, that's it. Is Jesus a spirit or flesh and blood? John includes a fish story. Notice the element of doubt introduced in each story. More to come...
*John: It was still resurrection Sunday, in the evening, when Jesus appeared to the disciples in a locked room. He said "Peace be with you." He showed them his hands and feet. He breathed on them and said, "recieve the holy spirit." Thomas was not with the disciples at that time. (That makes ten, not eleven present.) Whe he heard the story, he doubted and said he would have to touch Jesus to believe. A week later, Jesus appeared in the locked room again. This time, Thomas was there and he got to see and touch Jesus. Afterward, Jesus appeared again to his disciples by the sea of Tiberious where he helped them catch fish, and had breakfast with them, and talked to Peter.
Now we see the stories clearly diverging in details, especially Matthew and John. Matthew has the disciples going to a mountain in Galilee, that's it. Is Jesus a spirit or flesh and blood? John includes a fish story. Notice the element of doubt introduced in each story. More to come...
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Celebrate life.
Even though I am not a believer, I enjoy Easter Sundays. Not the mandatory gruesome story of unneccessary torture, but the celebration of life. The sun is out. The windows are open. Everything is greening up and warming up. Children are laughing and anticipating fun and sugar highs. I know, I'm lucky to be living in this place and this time, even if things can't always be the way I want them to be.
Maybe things aren't quite so rosy for you. I wish I could dispense good feelings like chocolate. I have experienced harder and more painful times, but I always appreciated just being alive. Maybe I'm wired that way.
Stop what you are doing. Take a moment to look around and find something beautiful, anything, even a flowering weed or the color of your own eyes. Watch an ant crawl across a sidewalk. Feel yourself breathing. Find your pulse. You are alive right now. Celebrate.
Maybe things aren't quite so rosy for you. I wish I could dispense good feelings like chocolate. I have experienced harder and more painful times, but I always appreciated just being alive. Maybe I'm wired that way.
Stop what you are doing. Take a moment to look around and find something beautiful, anything, even a flowering weed or the color of your own eyes. Watch an ant crawl across a sidewalk. Feel yourself breathing. Find your pulse. You are alive right now. Celebrate.
Saturday, April 15, 2017
What happened on Sunday morning? part 1
Last year, on the Saturday before Easter, I posted "What happened on Saturday?" Today, I want to look at the events of "resurrection Sunday" as recorded in the Bible. We will look at Mark 16, Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20. We will also try to see what passages outside the gospels might say about the resurrection.
First, all four gospels record what happened on the morning ofthe first day of the week.
*Mark: very early just after just after sunrise
*Matthew: at dawn
*Luke: very early in the morning
*John: early, while it was still dark
Who went to the tomb?
*Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bringing spices for the body.
*Matthew: Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" to look at the tomb
*Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women, taking spices.
*John: Mary Magdalene
How was the tomb opened?
*Mark: the large stone in front of the tomb was already rolled away from the entrance
*Matthew: there was a violent earthquake because of an angel coming down from heaven to roll away the stone.
*Luke: the stone was already rolled away
*John: the stone was already removed from the entrance
What people or things did the women see at the tomb?
*Mark: a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side as the women entered the tomb. He said Jesus was not there, he had risen and was going ahead of them to Galilee.
*Matthew: an angel of the lord was sitting on top of the stone. His appearance was like lightening, his clothes as white as snow. He said Jesus was not there he had risen. The tomb guards were so afraid they were shaking and unable to move. The angel told the women to go tell Jesus's disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.
*Luke: two men in clothes that gleamed like lightening suddenly appeared. The men said Jesus was not there, he had risen.
*John: no people or things mentioned
What did the women do when they found Jesus was gone?
*Mark: 16:8 says the women said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. 16:10 (not found in the earliest manuscripts) contradicts that and says Mary Magdalene went and told those who had been with Jesus who were mourning.
*Matthew: the women ran to tell the disciples. On the way, Jesus appeared and spoke to them. They clasped his feet and worshipped him. He reiterated the command to tell the disciples to go to Galilee where they would see him.
*Luke: the women told everything to the eleven remaining disciples and "all the others."
*John: Mary ran to Peter and the disciple "Jesus loved." She said, "they have taken the lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they have put him!" No supernatural explanations have been provided yet.
So far, I see that Luke and Mark have many similarities, but are not exactly alike in details. Matthew is kind of like Mark and Luke smashed together then embellished with many extra details. It is much more dramatic and wordy. John's story is very quiet and down played, with very little detail and nothing of a supernatural nature yet.
First, all four gospels record what happened on the morning ofthe first day of the week.
*Mark: very early just after just after sunrise
*Matthew: at dawn
*Luke: very early in the morning
*John: early, while it was still dark
Who went to the tomb?
*Mark: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bringing spices for the body.
*Matthew: Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" to look at the tomb
*Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women, taking spices.
*John: Mary Magdalene
How was the tomb opened?
*Mark: the large stone in front of the tomb was already rolled away from the entrance
*Matthew: there was a violent earthquake because of an angel coming down from heaven to roll away the stone.
*Luke: the stone was already rolled away
*John: the stone was already removed from the entrance
What people or things did the women see at the tomb?
*Mark: a young man dressed in a white robe, sitting on the right side as the women entered the tomb. He said Jesus was not there, he had risen and was going ahead of them to Galilee.
*Matthew: an angel of the lord was sitting on top of the stone. His appearance was like lightening, his clothes as white as snow. He said Jesus was not there he had risen. The tomb guards were so afraid they were shaking and unable to move. The angel told the women to go tell Jesus's disciples that Jesus was going ahead of them to Galilee and they would see him there.
*Luke: two men in clothes that gleamed like lightening suddenly appeared. The men said Jesus was not there, he had risen.
*John: no people or things mentioned
What did the women do when they found Jesus was gone?
*Mark: 16:8 says the women said nothing to anyone because they were afraid. 16:10 (not found in the earliest manuscripts) contradicts that and says Mary Magdalene went and told those who had been with Jesus who were mourning.
*Matthew: the women ran to tell the disciples. On the way, Jesus appeared and spoke to them. They clasped his feet and worshipped him. He reiterated the command to tell the disciples to go to Galilee where they would see him.
*Luke: the women told everything to the eleven remaining disciples and "all the others."
*John: Mary ran to Peter and the disciple "Jesus loved." She said, "they have taken the lord out of the tomb and we don't know where they have put him!" No supernatural explanations have been provided yet.
So far, I see that Luke and Mark have many similarities, but are not exactly alike in details. Matthew is kind of like Mark and Luke smashed together then embellished with many extra details. It is much more dramatic and wordy. John's story is very quiet and down played, with very little detail and nothing of a supernatural nature yet.
Friday, April 14, 2017
Galatians chapter 4 part 2
*In verses 21-31, Paul is trying to redeem his metaphor of God and God's relationship to the jews and gentiles by comparing it to Abraham's relationship to his two sons, born of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was a slave, Sarah was a free woman. Abraham's son by Hagar was "born in the ordinary way." That is Abraham consented to have sex with his wife's slave, at his wife's urging. Whether the slave consented doesn't enter into the matter. The child that was born would have been a slave also. The children of slave women, even by their masters, were slaves. This has been a fact of slavery even up to the age of American enslavement of Africans. Let's be clear, "Biblical slavery" was not any different than the slavery that was fought against in more modern times. It certainly wasn't a kinder more humane slavery. Slaves were only treated as well as their masters wanted to treat them.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Galatians chapter 4
After reading chapter 4:
*Verses 1-7. Paul says that Galatians previously had the status of children who have not reached the age of inheritance. Under aged children are still like slaves to their father. (In that day and age) So the Galatians were like slaves under the basic principles of the world. Time passed and god sent his son, "born of a woman, born under law" to redeem those under the law (the Jews) that they might recieve the full rights as sons. To me, the analogy breaks down here because children don't need to be redeemed by other children to inherit from ther fathers. It happens naturally. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, here we see god as the father and an unnamed human mother as parents of "the son." Paul never names Jesus's mother in any of his writings.
*After the son redeemed the slaves/children (which are they?), they became the recipients of the full rights as sons (of god). Because the Galatians are sons of god, (when did that happen?), god sent the spirit of his son into their hearts. Now they are no longer slaves but sons and heirs. Aren't sons still sons/heirs even when they are underage? This whole metaphor feels leaky: A child is like slave-- you were like children-- therefore you were slaves, not sons. Someone, who was a son, redeemed you and you became sons too. Because you are now a real son, now can you call god your daddy (abba). Now god will make you his heir. Of what?
Plus is Paul talking Jews, Gentiles, or both, in these passages?
*Verses 8-11 seem to be clearly speaking to gentile Galatians. He talks about when they previously participated in non-Yahweh religious practices, observing special days, presumably pagan rituals. Paul says they were once enslaved by their old practices, do they want to go back to that lifestyle? Maybe they did. Maybe it didn't feel like slavery to them. Religious syncretism was a common thing. Paul wonders if he has wasted his time and effort on them.
*In verse 12, Paul begs them to become like him because he became like them. He was very ill when he was in that part of the world and they took extra good care of him. So he preached the gospel to them while he was there. Apparently they recieved it with joy (or they were humoring him.) They May have just been really nice people that would have listened to anyone's stories of religious salvation. We don't have the Galatian's side of the story.
*Paul complains about the people who are trying to teach the Galatians different things than Paul did. Those nice Galatians appear to be willing to go along with the newcomer's teachings, too. He doesn't want the Galatians to be zealous for their teachings but for his teachings instead. The other teachings are "for no good." Paul is confused and wishes he were there to sort things out. He implies that christ is not fully formed in them, and it's causing him pain for them like a mother giving birth to her children. So, Paul thinks of the Galatians as his children in the faith, and he wants them to be obedient to him.
Edited.
*Verses 1-7. Paul says that Galatians previously had the status of children who have not reached the age of inheritance. Under aged children are still like slaves to their father. (In that day and age) So the Galatians were like slaves under the basic principles of the world. Time passed and god sent his son, "born of a woman, born under law" to redeem those under the law (the Jews) that they might recieve the full rights as sons. To me, the analogy breaks down here because children don't need to be redeemed by other children to inherit from ther fathers. It happens naturally. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, here we see god as the father and an unnamed human mother as parents of "the son." Paul never names Jesus's mother in any of his writings.
*After the son redeemed the slaves/children (which are they?), they became the recipients of the full rights as sons (of god). Because the Galatians are sons of god, (when did that happen?), god sent the spirit of his son into their hearts. Now they are no longer slaves but sons and heirs. Aren't sons still sons/heirs even when they are underage? This whole metaphor feels leaky: A child is like slave-- you were like children-- therefore you were slaves, not sons. Someone, who was a son, redeemed you and you became sons too. Because you are now a real son, now can you call god your daddy (abba). Now god will make you his heir. Of what?
Plus is Paul talking Jews, Gentiles, or both, in these passages?
*Verses 8-11 seem to be clearly speaking to gentile Galatians. He talks about when they previously participated in non-Yahweh religious practices, observing special days, presumably pagan rituals. Paul says they were once enslaved by their old practices, do they want to go back to that lifestyle? Maybe they did. Maybe it didn't feel like slavery to them. Religious syncretism was a common thing. Paul wonders if he has wasted his time and effort on them.
*In verse 12, Paul begs them to become like him because he became like them. He was very ill when he was in that part of the world and they took extra good care of him. So he preached the gospel to them while he was there. Apparently they recieved it with joy (or they were humoring him.) They May have just been really nice people that would have listened to anyone's stories of religious salvation. We don't have the Galatian's side of the story.
*Paul complains about the people who are trying to teach the Galatians different things than Paul did. Those nice Galatians appear to be willing to go along with the newcomer's teachings, too. He doesn't want the Galatians to be zealous for their teachings but for his teachings instead. The other teachings are "for no good." Paul is confused and wishes he were there to sort things out. He implies that christ is not fully formed in them, and it's causing him pain for them like a mother giving birth to her children. So, Paul thinks of the Galatians as his children in the faith, and he wants them to be obedient to him.
Edited.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 4
*Now we finish the chapter, starting at verse 26. The Jews have been released from the prison of the law, what about everyone else? Now, Paul says, every single person who has faith in christ is a child of god. Everyone who has been baptized has clothed themselves with christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." Paul is saying that distinctions of ethnicity, social status, and gender don't matter. "If you belong to christ, you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)