Book Review: The Great Agnostic by Susan Jacoby

I recently finished reading The Great Agnostic, which is a biography of Robert Ingersoll. Mr. Ingersoll was a politician, orator, freethinker, and unabashed atheist, in the 19th century.  He was popular, in spite of his nonbelief. Ms. Jacoby does a good job convincing us that he should be remembered and honored for his contributions to modern free thought. The man was, by all accounts, self taught,  kind, generous, humorous, loyal, and plain spoken. Of course he was human and made errors in judgement at times, but he was also a man of sensitivity and understanding. He showed himself to be far ahead of his time in his humanism, especially his thoughts on the lives women and minorities, and treatment of women as equals. Now I am interested in reading some of Ingersoll's writings for myself.

Ephesians chapter 1, part 2

Starting at verse 15:

*Paul tells the recipients of the letter that he gives thanks for them continually because of the faith he heard they have. If this is a chain letter, how does he know what churches will be reading it and what their faith level is? Why does he say he "heard" about their faith, when he is supposed to have lived in Ephesus?

*Let's look at the scriptures that mention Paul in Ephesus (in Turkey). First, Acts 18: There Paul is said to have arrived in Ephesus with Pricilla and Aquila. He went to a Jewish synagogue to reason (argue?) with the Jews. He was asked to stay but left, saying he would be back, if it was God's will. He sailed back to Caesarea, which is in Israel, then travelled from there to Antioch, Galatia and Phrygia, and made his way back to Ephesus. It appeared to be in God's (Paul's ) will after all.

*While Paul was gone, a Jew named Apollos, from Alexandria (in Egypt), who knew only the baptism of John, arrived in Ephesus.  He was very knowledgable in the scriptures and began to speak boldly in the synagogue. Pricilla and Aquila were still in Ephesus and took Apollos to their home to "teach him the way of God more adequately." I find it interesting that Apollos seems to have had no idea about Jesus, the crucifixion, or the resurrection, just John the baptist and his practice of baptism. This would be at least two decades (NT timeline) after the death of Jesus. Why hadn't Apollos heard "the good news" before?

*Apollos went to Corinth, which is in Greece. Meanwhile, Paul took the road through Turkey and arrived back in Ephesus. There he found some disciples. These disciples had not been there his first visit? Disciples of whom? These disciples had never heard of recieving the holy spirit and the had been baptised with John's baptism for repentence, not the baptism into the lord Jesus. Okay, what is the difference between one dunking in water and another? -Belief in Jesus and the magic words recited when it is performed. Plus, it helps if Paul puts his hands on you so you can get the elusive Holy Spirit along with the ability to speak in tongues. Twelve men recieved the spirit this way. Ooh. Do you suppose that the number twelve is significant here? There were twelve tribes of Israel after all.

*According to Acts, Paul spent three months in Ephesus speaking in the synogogue, arguing about the kingdom of god. Some of them (Jews) refused to believe him. Good for them. So, Paul left with his disciples and had daily discussions in the lecture hall of Tyrannus. "This went on for two years, so that all the Jews and Greeks who lived in the province of Asia heard the word of the Lord." However, not one of them wrote a single word about Paul or the new teachings. There are no contemporaneous writings about this revolution in religious thought, from that time or region That seems a little odd to me.

*It is even more odd that there are no extrabiblical records, when Acts says that extraordinary miracles were performed through Paul. (Acts19:11-12). Some Jews tried to exorcise evil spirits by invoking the name of Jesus. The evil spirits knew the difference between them and Paul and beat the Jews up. Naturally, this caused some consternation among the inhabitants of Ephesus, not to mention terror. Believers came out of the woodwork and confessed their past associations with sorcery. Then there was a public scroll burning of extremely valuable magic texts. Too bad Paul didn't just simply tell them their magic books had no power to do anything, evil or good. But he couldn't do that, could he? He had set himself up as having powers greater than  theirs.

To be continued.

Ephesians chapter 1, part one

*The book of Ephesians starts off with a greeting "to God's holy people", supposedly by Paul. A footnote says that the phrase "in Ephesus" is not in the oldest manuscripts.

*The first paragraph tries to establish that christians are indeed chosen to be God's holy people and that they were chosen before the creation of the world, or "predestined" to be his children through Jesus. Before we talk about predestination, I want to point out that this is totally contrary to the Jews' belief and scriptures, which teach that their people are the ones chosen to be God's children. The author also takes this chosenness back to before creation, earlier than the Abrahamic promise,  another strike against Jewish chosenness. This cannot be anything but deliberate.

*The author goes on to say that, through Jesus's blood, Christians are given redemption and  forgiveness of sins, things that were previously supplied by the Jewish system of sacrifices. He also states that they are given knowledge of the mystery of God's will. This appears to be another oblique stab at the Jews, implying that they were not supplied with some hidden knowledge that christians now possess.

*Paragraph two (1:11-14) continues with the predestination theme. This and the previous passages are fundamental to the Calvinist christian belief system. In Calvinism, predestination is basically the idea that God has chosen ahead of time who will or will not be unconditionally saved through Jesus. "God has unchangeably ordained whatever comes to pass." This leaves little room for the idea of free will choice and a lot of room for fatalism.

*In other christian faiths it is the plan of salvation that is predestined, not individuals' salvation. In this way, it is that all who accept salvation through jesus are predestined to be saved. Even though God supposedly knows what the outcome will be, he is not the one who chooses which individuals will be saved. They are responsible for that themselves. If you ask me, it is a very fine difference, considering that if God knows what will happen, can the outcome be changed?

*According to verses 13 and fourteen,  those who have heard the message of salvation through christ, and believed it, are the ones included in this plan. They are given the holy spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing future redemption. There is one problem...no one is quite sure exactly what the holy spirit is and how you can tell if someone has it. There are probably  as many ideas of the holy spirit as there are believers. Many of them prefer to avoid the subject altogether, maybe because there is no demonstrable reason to believe it exists and does anything that can't be explained by natural means.

Introduction to Ephesians

I've decided to look at the book of the bible called the Epistle to the Ephesians. It is just after Galatians, which we looked at earlier. I happen to be attending a bible class on Ephesians right now, so it will help me keep on track. I still go to a church with my family, to keep my husband from feeling like it is the end of the world.


Read about the book of Ephesians here. Remember that I usually read the NIV study bible and I try to use a plain reading and do not try to interpret  meaning that isn't there into the writings. At times I do go a little deeper when we are comparing what the bible says to the reality of history and science.

It is traditionally thought that Paul wrote this letter while in prison in Rome, because he calls himself a prisoner for the Lord in Eph. 3:1 and 4:1. He says he is an ambassador in chains in  6:20. However, it should be noted that those passages could also be metaphorical. It is hard to tell.

There is a dispute over whether Paul actually wrote this letter. Many older versions do not include Ephesus in the greeting of 1:1. This leads some scholars to think it was a chain letter, not actually meant for just the Ephesians. There is no mention of Ephesus in the main body of the letter and no personal greetings to people who live in that city, as contained in other letters of Paul. There are also no particular personal issues addressed. If it was not written by Paul, it was probably composed between 80 and 100 CE.

Religious survey report

A link to a recent religious survey report showing the demographics of religion in America:

https://www.prri.org/research/american-religious-landscape-christian-religiously-unaffiliated/

Update and shepherds wrap up.

Hi, our family recently rescued and abandoned 5-6 week old kitten. He has been taking up a lot of my time and I've had to readjust my daily schedule. Plus school has started and kids need a mom who is available, no matter how old they are. When I returned to see where I left off, I groaned. I'm tired of the shepherd question. So, I will summarize what I learned and be done:

*Shepherds are not called unclean in Hebrew or Egyptian literature. They were a common occupation in ancient times. Egyptians owned and herded sheep, ate mutton, and used wool.

*Shepherds were considered common laborers and looked down on by the elite wealthy Egyptians and elite rabbinical Hebrews. However, they were not "the lowest of the low."

*Egyptians had a sheep headed god named Khnum. The symbols of Egyptian royalty included a shepherds crook and a flail, which encompass animal husbandry and agriculture.

*Shepherds were required to keep their flocks out of the city and in designated or approved grazing areas. This was for practical reasons and not because they were "banished."

*There is a nuanced distinction between those who merely tend sheep and those who own the flocks. I am not talking of Philo's metaphor here but of the reality of life. The picky laws and commentary in the Talmud make this distinction for legal purposes, not as social commentary. Some rabbis stated that shepherds who owned their flocks might let them accidentally graze on land that was not theirs. Therefore they were technically thieves or robbers, because they benefitted from stolen goods, whatever the sheep ate. Even if they tried their best to keep their sheep from straying on to other's property, they could not be certain it would never happen. Those who merely tended sheep for wages were not guilty of theft, because they recieved no profit when the sheep ate from fields that did not belong to the owner of the sheep.

Thieves and robbers, even imaginary ones, were disqualified from serving as witnesses in legal cases. They also disqualified many other professions such as sailors, potters, shop keepers, camel drivers, and of course, all women. One rabbi in the Talmud admonishes his fellow rabbis not to let their children enter one of these professions, because it would disqualify them from serving in the jewish legal system.

Even though the hired hand shepherds were not automatically considered robbers, they still could not serve as witnesses in court. There were other qualifications which included being educated in Torah and being land owners. Sounds like the rabbis and the religious elite, the ones who made the rules, were the ones who got the privileges. Go figure.

*In one place, there was an odd rule that three shepherds could testify together, but that was disputed. I also seem to remember a story in the Talmud about a rabbi who used to be a shepherd.

*I never saw any indication that shepherds were any more despised than any other ordinary people of the first century.

The end. Next time we will get back to the bible.