Continuing on with the "do nots" in Matthew's version of the sermon:
Matt. 7:1-5, "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged..." Seems pretty clear. The passage continues on to talk metaphorically about how hypocritical it is to judge when you also have issues. "First take the plank out of your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
This passage is repeated in Luke's version sermon (Luke 6:37-42) but with modifications and additions. After saying do not judge, Jesus goes on to say "Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." This actually sounds quite lovely, a kind of divine karma, the root of the prosperity gospel. Too bad it doesn't always work. Very often, people don't get good for good. I don't think that means we shouldn't do good and give to those in need. We just shouldn't expect to reap a windfall from our charitable deeds. Be good for goodness sake. Collective goodness makes the world a more pleasant place.
Matt. 7:6 "Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls before pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." (This is not found in Luke) What in the world does Jesus mean here? My study bible commentary says that it is connected to the "do not judge" because you can judge whether a person is a "dog" or not by their character. You just can't be hypocritical about it. Personally, I think Jesus's "brother" in the judge not passage is a fellow Jew. In my opinion, dogs and pigs are metaphorically representative of Samaritans and gentiles. Later, in Chapter 15, Matthew recounts a story of a Canaanite woman who asked Jesus for help. He basically called her a dog, but he ended up helping her because he liked her sassy reply. Actually, this "do not" passage, with the dogs and pigs, does not seem to fit the rest of the sermon's theme and style.
Matt. 7:7-12, there are no more "do nots." Now Jesus tells his disciples to "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened." Wow! That's quite a promise. And it doesn't appear to come with any caveats. In fact Jesus goes on to say that god will give good gifts to those who ask him. That is the reason given for doing to others what you would have them do unto you. God does it, so should you. Again, prosperity gospel preaching. No conditions given.
This passage is repeated in Luke 11:9-13. (Not in the sermon) However, it is at the end of a parable about a man who needs something from a friend but the friend is in bed and his door is locked. The man is bold and persistent and gets what he needs. This is shown to be a metaphor for how a person should ask god for things. It makes a lot more sense in Luke's context.
Matt. 7:13-14, gives us the wide gate and broad road to destruction, and a small gate for the narrow road that leads to life. Only a few will find it. This comes after telling us how generous god is. Apparently he is not generous enough to keep all of humanity from destruction. In Luke 13:24, Jesus speaks of a narrow door into the house of salvation. There is also an interesting passage in Isaiah 35:8-10 that talks of a "highway of holiness." Maybe Matthew got the idea from that.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part eight
Continuing on with the "do nots" in the book of Matthew:
*6:25-33 Do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or what you will wear. God knows what you need. If you seek his kingdom first, he will take care of you. "These things will be given to you." This is horrible advice. First of all because it is not true. There is no invisible being in the sky making sure you have everything you need. Things like food and clothing don't just happen. Plenty of religious people live without adequate food and clothing, including children, who are dependant on adults. Food and clothing are the result of someone's labor. Money represents human hours of labor. If you don't think about how you can either make or pay for the things you need, you won't have them, unless you steal or live off the generosity of others. If you do that on purpose, you are a sponger. Many evangelists, missionaries, and monks, are professional spongers. (Not all)
Part of Jesus's reasoning is that birds don't need to worry about their food and flowers don't need to worry about what they will wear. God takes care of them. No he doesn't. Birds and flowers are a natural part of earth's interconnected evolved ecosystem. Humans have developed ways to transcend and exploit the ecosystem. Birds and flowers die daily from disease, drought, and being eaten. Have you ever watched a bird feeding its young, or seen one that was angry or frightened? Birds are not carefree. Of course flowers are worry free. They have no consciousness! Every conscious being concerns itself over its next meal. That's how they stay alive.
This passage is repeated in Luke 12:22-31, which is not part of Luke's similar sermon.
*Matt. 6:34 "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." This ends the above passage about clothing and food. It too is a bad idea, especially in the modern world. We need to think and plan for the future, unless we want to be homeless. Some translations have anxious in place of worry, which gives the passage a different connotation. Anxiety is often unproductive. However, caring what happens to you is not the same as debilitating anxiety. It motivates you to accomplish things.
Luke ends the similar passage differently. (12:32-34) He says, "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted..." If you want to sell your possessions and give to the poor, fine. Just don't make yourself become someone that other people must support. There won't be any treasures in any afterlife. Besides, what would you do with treasure in heaven? If it is physical, you won't need it. If it is "spiritual" what will you do with it? Maybe the treasure is heaven itself? In that case, I would need to be convinced that such a place exists and that I would want to be there.
I find it interesting that my study bible claims Jesus is only talking about undue anxiety, not a legitimate concern to provide for one's daily needs. This is something I hear echoed in church. However, Jesus did not say, "It's totally okay to be a little concerned about your daily needs, just not a lot." Did he? How much concern is too much? Also, Paul, who wrote his letters earlier than Matthew and Luke were written , was concerned when people were not willing to work for their subsistence. (2Thessalonians 3:6-12) It's also interesting that Paul doesn't seem to have been aware of most of Jesus's teachings.
*6:25-33 Do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or what you will wear. God knows what you need. If you seek his kingdom first, he will take care of you. "These things will be given to you." This is horrible advice. First of all because it is not true. There is no invisible being in the sky making sure you have everything you need. Things like food and clothing don't just happen. Plenty of religious people live without adequate food and clothing, including children, who are dependant on adults. Food and clothing are the result of someone's labor. Money represents human hours of labor. If you don't think about how you can either make or pay for the things you need, you won't have them, unless you steal or live off the generosity of others. If you do that on purpose, you are a sponger. Many evangelists, missionaries, and monks, are professional spongers. (Not all)
Part of Jesus's reasoning is that birds don't need to worry about their food and flowers don't need to worry about what they will wear. God takes care of them. No he doesn't. Birds and flowers are a natural part of earth's interconnected evolved ecosystem. Humans have developed ways to transcend and exploit the ecosystem. Birds and flowers die daily from disease, drought, and being eaten. Have you ever watched a bird feeding its young, or seen one that was angry or frightened? Birds are not carefree. Of course flowers are worry free. They have no consciousness! Every conscious being concerns itself over its next meal. That's how they stay alive.
This passage is repeated in Luke 12:22-31, which is not part of Luke's similar sermon.
*Matt. 6:34 "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." This ends the above passage about clothing and food. It too is a bad idea, especially in the modern world. We need to think and plan for the future, unless we want to be homeless. Some translations have anxious in place of worry, which gives the passage a different connotation. Anxiety is often unproductive. However, caring what happens to you is not the same as debilitating anxiety. It motivates you to accomplish things.
Luke ends the similar passage differently. (12:32-34) He says, "Do not be afraid, little flock, for your father has been pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted..." If you want to sell your possessions and give to the poor, fine. Just don't make yourself become someone that other people must support. There won't be any treasures in any afterlife. Besides, what would you do with treasure in heaven? If it is physical, you won't need it. If it is "spiritual" what will you do with it? Maybe the treasure is heaven itself? In that case, I would need to be convinced that such a place exists and that I would want to be there.
I find it interesting that my study bible claims Jesus is only talking about undue anxiety, not a legitimate concern to provide for one's daily needs. This is something I hear echoed in church. However, Jesus did not say, "It's totally okay to be a little concerned about your daily needs, just not a lot." Did he? How much concern is too much? Also, Paul, who wrote his letters earlier than Matthew and Luke were written , was concerned when people were not willing to work for their subsistence. (2Thessalonians 3:6-12) It's also interesting that Paul doesn't seem to have been aware of most of Jesus's teachings.
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part seven
Next in Matthew's sermon on the mount, Jesus gives his followers a list of "do nots."
6:1- Do not do acts of righteousness publicly, in order to be noticed. You get NO rewards from god if you do that. This encompasses a few of the following do nots as well.
6:2-4 Do not publicly announce your charitable acts, so you can be honored. Don't make a show of helping the needy. Give in secret. Then god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. How many Christians follow this command? This is not found in Luke.
6:5-6 Do not pray publicly, to be seen. Go into a room and pray to god who is unseen. The god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. This command of Jesus is broken daily by Christians all over the world. This is not found in Luke, or anywhere else.
6:7-15 Do not babble on and on when you pray. Make it short and sweet. (We all know this one is often ignored.) God already knows what you need. Then Jesus gives them an example prayer which has become known as "The Lord's prayer." The prayer is also found in Luke 11:2-4, in a totally different context. It is also worded differently. It does not say "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." It also does not say "deliver us from the evil one." Prayer is useless. There is no virtue in praying.
6:16-18 Do not act like a gloomy Gus when you are fasting. Act normal. No one needs to know. God who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Listen closely all you public observers of Lent.) This is not found in Luke. Fasting is unnecessary, unless it is for medical reasons. It Is not a virtue.
6:19-24 Do not accumulate wealth or possessions. Those things don't last. Store up everlasting treasures in heaven. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also....You cannot serve both god and money." Part of this is echoed in Luke 16:13, in a totally different context. "No servant can serve two masters...You cannot serve both god and money." Does Joel Osteen know? Seriously, there are so many popular preachers who are wealthy that it's ridiculous. Some tele-preacher guy asked his congregation to give him money to buy an airplane! So he can serve the lord, of course.
It is interesting to note that my study bible has a foot note on this passage that says the New Testament is full of verses about the dangers of being wealthy. Then it gives a list of them. After that, it says "Nowhere are they (riches) condemned in and of themselves. What Jesus condemns here is greed and hoarding of money." This is what I have heard preached so many times. It's not the money that's the problem it's the "heart." You can be rich, just don't be greedy. Those bible editors know which side their bread is buttered on. But is that what Jesus actually teaches? Where does he say, "Don't get me wrong, it's totally okay to be wealthy, if you've got the right attitude?" In Luke's sermon on the mount, (6:24) Jesus says, "woe unto you who are rich." Luke 18 and Mark 10 both tell the same story of a wealthy man who Jesus told to give all his wealth to the poor. This made the man sad. Then Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. However, he later adds that what is impossible with men is possible with god. This is the part that Christians grab hold of. See! It's not impossible, just hard. God can get us to heaven, even if we are wealthy. How much wealth is too much?
As an atheist, I am conflicted about these teachings. Clearly most Christians are hypocrites when it comes to following Jesus's teachings here, but how useful are the teachings in real life? I don't think virtue comes from poverty or wealth. I think how you treat others says more about you than what you believe, and wealth can be used to help a lot of people. It also sets a good example when others see you giving freely, or lavishly as many celebrities do. Sure, they often get publicity and honors, but they also give a lot of people pleasure from their acts of generosity. I find myself unwilling to cast judgment on people like Oprah and Bill Gates. What would I do in their shoes? I don't know. What I do know is that, no matter what, any benefits, rewards, or punishments, I get will be here on earth, not in a nonexistent afterlife.
6:1- Do not do acts of righteousness publicly, in order to be noticed. You get NO rewards from god if you do that. This encompasses a few of the following do nots as well.
6:2-4 Do not publicly announce your charitable acts, so you can be honored. Don't make a show of helping the needy. Give in secret. Then god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. How many Christians follow this command? This is not found in Luke.
6:5-6 Do not pray publicly, to be seen. Go into a room and pray to god who is unseen. The god who sees what is done in secret will reward you. This command of Jesus is broken daily by Christians all over the world. This is not found in Luke, or anywhere else.
6:7-15 Do not babble on and on when you pray. Make it short and sweet. (We all know this one is often ignored.) God already knows what you need. Then Jesus gives them an example prayer which has become known as "The Lord's prayer." The prayer is also found in Luke 11:2-4, in a totally different context. It is also worded differently. It does not say "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." It also does not say "deliver us from the evil one." Prayer is useless. There is no virtue in praying.
6:16-18 Do not act like a gloomy Gus when you are fasting. Act normal. No one needs to know. God who sees what is done in secret will reward you. (Listen closely all you public observers of Lent.) This is not found in Luke. Fasting is unnecessary, unless it is for medical reasons. It Is not a virtue.
6:19-24 Do not accumulate wealth or possessions. Those things don't last. Store up everlasting treasures in heaven. "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also....You cannot serve both god and money." Part of this is echoed in Luke 16:13, in a totally different context. "No servant can serve two masters...You cannot serve both god and money." Does Joel Osteen know? Seriously, there are so many popular preachers who are wealthy that it's ridiculous. Some tele-preacher guy asked his congregation to give him money to buy an airplane! So he can serve the lord, of course.
It is interesting to note that my study bible has a foot note on this passage that says the New Testament is full of verses about the dangers of being wealthy. Then it gives a list of them. After that, it says "Nowhere are they (riches) condemned in and of themselves. What Jesus condemns here is greed and hoarding of money." This is what I have heard preached so many times. It's not the money that's the problem it's the "heart." You can be rich, just don't be greedy. Those bible editors know which side their bread is buttered on. But is that what Jesus actually teaches? Where does he say, "Don't get me wrong, it's totally okay to be wealthy, if you've got the right attitude?" In Luke's sermon on the mount, (6:24) Jesus says, "woe unto you who are rich." Luke 18 and Mark 10 both tell the same story of a wealthy man who Jesus told to give all his wealth to the poor. This made the man sad. Then Jesus said it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. However, he later adds that what is impossible with men is possible with god. This is the part that Christians grab hold of. See! It's not impossible, just hard. God can get us to heaven, even if we are wealthy. How much wealth is too much?
As an atheist, I am conflicted about these teachings. Clearly most Christians are hypocrites when it comes to following Jesus's teachings here, but how useful are the teachings in real life? I don't think virtue comes from poverty or wealth. I think how you treat others says more about you than what you believe, and wealth can be used to help a lot of people. It also sets a good example when others see you giving freely, or lavishly as many celebrities do. Sure, they often get publicity and honors, but they also give a lot of people pleasure from their acts of generosity. I find myself unwilling to cast judgment on people like Oprah and Bill Gates. What would I do in their shoes? I don't know. What I do know is that, no matter what, any benefits, rewards, or punishments, I get will be here on earth, not in a nonexistent afterlife.
Tuesday, February 20, 2018
Sermon on the mount, part six
We continue on with Jesus outlining how to be more righteous than the pharisees, in the sermon on the mount.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
In Matthew 5:38, Jesus refers to the Exodus 21:23-25 command from Moses, god's proxy, to take an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, when injury occurs from fighting, basically instating and permitting blood feud. However, Jesus says not to resist an evil person. "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Is Jesus saying the law was wrong? His suggestion here is diametrically opposed to what is seen in Exodus, not just an extension of its principles. My personal opinion is that this teaching was contrived to keep its listeners/readers out of trouble with their Roman overseers or their slave masters. He is advocating non-resistance, as is seen in the next couple of statements which tell his followers to give up their possessions to those who ask for them with or without implied force. It is basically a survival strategy. Also, this teaching of Jesus's advocates complete non-resistance and "going the extra mile" or giving more than what is asked of you. Make no mistake, this is not the passive resistance or civil disobedience of Ghandi and MLK. Are most Christians today practicing this kind of nonresistance?
In 5:43, Jesus goes on to discuss a saying of "love your neighbor and hate your enemy." This combination is not actually found in the Old Testament scriptures. There is absolutely no command to "hate your enemy." However, many times in the OT scriptures, the Israelites were encouraged to do horrible things to the so called enemies of god, who became their enemies as well. Leviticus 19:18 does say, "Love your neighbor as yourself." However, in that context the neighbor appears to be a fellow Israelite. In Mark 12:31, Jesus says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is the second greatest commandment. In Luke 10:27-28, Jesus agrees with a man who says "Love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the things you must do to inherit eternal life, even though eternal life is not mentioned as a reward in the Old Testament.
In 5:44-47, Jesus continues, saying that not only must you not hate your enemies, you must also love them and pray for them. It is not anything special to only love those who love you. This sentiment, along with turning the other cheek and giving more than asked for, is echoed in the Luke sermon (6:27-36) However, Luke puts everything in a different order and adds, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Matthew ends the how to be more righteous passages with Jesus saying, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect." Luke ends the one similar passage with Jesus saying, if you do these things "You will be sons of the most high, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful as your father is merciful." But is that true? Is the god of the bible perfect? Is he kind to the ungrateful and wicked? Is he merciful? Since when?
Let's do a thought experiment. As a general rule, what do you think would happen to you and your life if you gave over every single thing that was asked of you, and more, without question or resistance, without expectation of repayment? Do you actually know anyone who does this? The only example I can think of is the sister of Corrie Ten Boom in The Hiding Place. She ended up in a Nazi gas chamber.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
The sermon on the mount, part five
After telling his disciples to be more righteous than the pharisees, who make a point of obeying the law, Jesus explains how to do that by going one step further. He also covers some points of law that are not included in the ten commandments, but are found in the broader context of the many rules and regulations god supposedly gave to Moses, apart from the ones carved in stone. He starts with a point of law, then expands the requirements necessary to avoid hell/damnation.
*First (Matt. 5:21-22), is murder, found in the ten commandments. Not murdering anyone is not enough though. You also must not get angry with anyone (some manuscripts say without cause, a little loophole.) or face judgement. This is not found in Luke.
*Second, saying "raca" (Apparently a grievous insult that insinuates someone has nothing between their ears) to anyone can land you in front of the sanhedrin, the Jewish court. However, Jesus says even calling someone a fool, presumably a lesser offense, can land you in the fires of hell (gehenna). This is not found in Luke.
*Third, it's not enough to give a sacrificial gift to god, you must first go and make sure you correct any relationship issues first. Wise advice. After that, you won't even need to go make your sacrifice. Not found in Luke.
*Fourth is practical advice to settle monetary disputes out of court if you don't want to end up in jail. Not found in Luke.
*Fifth is adultery, found in the ten commandments. It is not enough to never commit adultery physically. A man must also never look at a woman (presumably one he is not married to) lustfully. This is deemed equivalent to the actual act of adultery. It occurs in the "heart" instead of the body. The body, however, seems to take the blame. A man would be better off without eyes than to look, lust, and land in hell. He would also be better off without his right hand, too. What's his hand got to do with it? Shall we read between the lines? Have you noticed yet that these these teachings are directed primarily at men? This is not found in Luke.
*Sixth is divorce. Jesus says "It has been said, anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." The old testament law doesn't actually say that. It is what the Jews came up with from reading Deuteronomy 24:1-2. It says, "IF a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her (basically he thinks she was not a virgin Deut 22:12-14), let him write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her and sends her from his house, and after she leaves his house if she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband....writes a certificate of divorce...the first husband is not allowed to marry her again....That would be detestable in the eyes of the lord." There is no command to give certificates of divorce, unless you want to quibble with semantics, but there is an inference that certificates of divorce are the standard procedure.
Anyway, Jesus says in Matt. 5:31-32 that anyone who divorces his wife , except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is echoed in Luke 16:18, but is not part of the comparable sermon. There, it is more of an afterthought stuck in between two parables. Matthew reapeats himself in 19:7 and Mark also chimes in with similar words in Mark 10:4. Those last two references are in a context of Jesus having a discussion about divorce. We will not go into a broad discussion of divorce here. The basic idea is any man is an adulterer if he marries a divorced woman, and a divorced woman is an adulterer no matter who she marries. There are no guidelines for a woman who wants to divorce her husband.
More to come.
*First (Matt. 5:21-22), is murder, found in the ten commandments. Not murdering anyone is not enough though. You also must not get angry with anyone (some manuscripts say without cause, a little loophole.) or face judgement. This is not found in Luke.
*Second, saying "raca" (Apparently a grievous insult that insinuates someone has nothing between their ears) to anyone can land you in front of the sanhedrin, the Jewish court. However, Jesus says even calling someone a fool, presumably a lesser offense, can land you in the fires of hell (gehenna). This is not found in Luke.
*Third, it's not enough to give a sacrificial gift to god, you must first go and make sure you correct any relationship issues first. Wise advice. After that, you won't even need to go make your sacrifice. Not found in Luke.
*Fourth is practical advice to settle monetary disputes out of court if you don't want to end up in jail. Not found in Luke.
*Fifth is adultery, found in the ten commandments. It is not enough to never commit adultery physically. A man must also never look at a woman (presumably one he is not married to) lustfully. This is deemed equivalent to the actual act of adultery. It occurs in the "heart" instead of the body. The body, however, seems to take the blame. A man would be better off without eyes than to look, lust, and land in hell. He would also be better off without his right hand, too. What's his hand got to do with it? Shall we read between the lines? Have you noticed yet that these these teachings are directed primarily at men? This is not found in Luke.
*Sixth is divorce. Jesus says "It has been said, anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce." The old testament law doesn't actually say that. It is what the Jews came up with from reading Deuteronomy 24:1-2. It says, "IF a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her (basically he thinks she was not a virgin Deut 22:12-14), let him write her a certificate of divorce, give it to her and sends her from his house, and after she leaves his house if she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband....writes a certificate of divorce...the first husband is not allowed to marry her again....That would be detestable in the eyes of the lord." There is no command to give certificates of divorce, unless you want to quibble with semantics, but there is an inference that certificates of divorce are the standard procedure.
Anyway, Jesus says in Matt. 5:31-32 that anyone who divorces his wife , except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. This is echoed in Luke 16:18, but is not part of the comparable sermon. There, it is more of an afterthought stuck in between two parables. Matthew reapeats himself in 19:7 and Mark also chimes in with similar words in Mark 10:4. Those last two references are in a context of Jesus having a discussion about divorce. We will not go into a broad discussion of divorce here. The basic idea is any man is an adulterer if he marries a divorced woman, and a divorced woman is an adulterer no matter who she marries. There are no guidelines for a woman who wants to divorce her husband.
More to come.
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
The sermon on the mount, part four
The next section of the sermon on the mount is Matthew 5:17-20. Here, Jesus says he did not come to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. "Until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the law until everything is accomplished." There are many disagreements in christendom as to what that means. Heaven and earth have not disappeared. Does that mean the law of moses is still in effect? Some would say yes. However, others would say Jesus accomplished everything/fulfilled the law when he died on the cross. Now there is a new law, the law of the heart. The old law is dead. What do you think is the true meaning of this passage?
Jesus goes on to say that anyone who breaks the commandments, or teaches someone else to break them, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (But do they still get to be part of the kingdom?) "Whoever teaches and practices the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven...I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and teachers of the law, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (That answered my question.) It seems clear to me that Jesus wanted people to obey the law of Moses. Was that teaching just for those people there on the mountainside, or for everyone, for all time?
What about those pharisees and teachers of the law? My study bible says that they were excessively legalistic, following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Frankly, I question the existance of a spirit of the law. It is not evident in the Old Testament. The phrase "spirit of the law" does not exist in the whole bible. Plus, isn't it even more legalistic for Jesus to insist that his followers become more righteous than even the Pharisees are? How is it less legalistic? He says you won't get into the kingdom of heaven otherwise! I wonder what those faith vs. works people think of this passage.
Luke slightly echoes this in 16:16-17, which is not part of the comparable sermon. It says, "The law and the prophets were proclaimed until John (the baptist). Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of god is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (??? What does that mean? How can someone force their way into the kingdom?) It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law." This statement comes after Jesus has berated some pharisees, telling them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but god knows your hearts." Again, he has raised the standard. It is not enough to do right, you must think right as well.
As far as I can tell, this is not in Mark or John.
Jesus goes on to say that anyone who breaks the commandments, or teaches someone else to break them, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. (But do they still get to be part of the kingdom?) "Whoever teaches and practices the commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven...I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the pharisees and teachers of the law, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." (That answered my question.) It seems clear to me that Jesus wanted people to obey the law of Moses. Was that teaching just for those people there on the mountainside, or for everyone, for all time?
What about those pharisees and teachers of the law? My study bible says that they were excessively legalistic, following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. Frankly, I question the existance of a spirit of the law. It is not evident in the Old Testament. The phrase "spirit of the law" does not exist in the whole bible. Plus, isn't it even more legalistic for Jesus to insist that his followers become more righteous than even the Pharisees are? How is it less legalistic? He says you won't get into the kingdom of heaven otherwise! I wonder what those faith vs. works people think of this passage.
Luke slightly echoes this in 16:16-17, which is not part of the comparable sermon. It says, "The law and the prophets were proclaimed until John (the baptist). Since that time, the good news of the kingdom of god is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (??? What does that mean? How can someone force their way into the kingdom?) It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the law." This statement comes after Jesus has berated some pharisees, telling them, "You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but god knows your hearts." Again, he has raised the standard. It is not enough to do right, you must think right as well.
As far as I can tell, this is not in Mark or John.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
The sermon on the mount, part three
Many people don't realize it, but the so called sermon on the mount, or Luke's sermon on the plain, contains more than just the so called beatitudes. Jesus is not done sermonizing. We will continue to compare the sermons in Matthew and Luke.
*Matthew 5:13 calls the disciples (or the jews?) the "salt of the earth." But if salt loses its saltiness, it isn't good for anything and needs to be thrown out and trampled by men.
*Luke does not say this in his comparable sermon. However, he does say something very similar much later, in Luke 14:34-35. There, it is in the context of the cost of being disciple of Jesus. The author says, "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil, nor the manure pile; it is thrown out."
*Mark 9:50 also says something very similar in a very different context. After talking about it being better to remove body parts than to be cast into hell where the fire is not quenched, the author says, "Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."
Can salt lose its saltiness? Well, yes and no. Answer in link. Does this metaphor make any sense in its various contexts? To me, it seems to make the most sense in the Matthew context. The other two instances seem very random and disconnected to the context. Also, salt has never been good for soil. Does Luke not know that? What does it mean to be salted with fire? I think Mark was mixing his metaphors. The only other mention of salt in the New Testament is Colossians 4:6 where Paul says, "Let your speech be gracious and seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." This actually makes sense, because salt is a flavor enhancer. Matthew's salty verse seems to be referring to that as well.
*Next in the sermon as recorded in Matthew 5:14-16 is a continuation of Matthew's theme of the disciples being an enhancement to the world. He tells them they are the "light of the world." They need to let their light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven. "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl, instead they put it on a stand and it gives light to everyone in the house."
*Luke 8:16 has a similar verse, but it is not in the comparable sermon. It comes after the parable of the sower and says, "No one lights a lamp and hides it under a jar, or puts its under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." we can see that the reason for the lamp is very different in Luke's passage. The concept of divine hiddenness is given by Jesus earlier in the chapter, when he tells the disciples secrets of the kingdom are given to them, but he talks about the kingdom to everyone else in parables to keep them in the dark, so to speak. "Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing they may not understand." That doesn't seem quite sporting of Jesus.
More to come.
*Matthew 5:13 calls the disciples (or the jews?) the "salt of the earth." But if salt loses its saltiness, it isn't good for anything and needs to be thrown out and trampled by men.
*Luke does not say this in his comparable sermon. However, he does say something very similar much later, in Luke 14:34-35. There, it is in the context of the cost of being disciple of Jesus. The author says, "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil, nor the manure pile; it is thrown out."
*Mark 9:50 also says something very similar in a very different context. After talking about it being better to remove body parts than to be cast into hell where the fire is not quenched, the author says, "Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."
Can salt lose its saltiness? Well, yes and no. Answer in link. Does this metaphor make any sense in its various contexts? To me, it seems to make the most sense in the Matthew context. The other two instances seem very random and disconnected to the context. Also, salt has never been good for soil. Does Luke not know that? What does it mean to be salted with fire? I think Mark was mixing his metaphors. The only other mention of salt in the New Testament is Colossians 4:6 where Paul says, "Let your speech be gracious and seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." This actually makes sense, because salt is a flavor enhancer. Matthew's salty verse seems to be referring to that as well.
*Next in the sermon as recorded in Matthew 5:14-16 is a continuation of Matthew's theme of the disciples being an enhancement to the world. He tells them they are the "light of the world." They need to let their light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven. "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl, instead they put it on a stand and it gives light to everyone in the house."
*Luke 8:16 has a similar verse, but it is not in the comparable sermon. It comes after the parable of the sower and says, "No one lights a lamp and hides it under a jar, or puts its under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." we can see that the reason for the lamp is very different in Luke's passage. The concept of divine hiddenness is given by Jesus earlier in the chapter, when he tells the disciples secrets of the kingdom are given to them, but he talks about the kingdom to everyone else in parables to keep them in the dark, so to speak. "Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing they may not understand." That doesn't seem quite sporting of Jesus.
More to come.
Monday, February 12, 2018
The Sermon on the mount, part two
Continuing on with the beatitudes:
Matthew: Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Not in Luke
Matthew: Blessed are you when people insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew is being unusually direct here.)
Luke: Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the son of man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
These two passages appear to have the same basic meaning: Don't let a little persecution stop you. In fact, you've got perks for being insulted and rejected. This is a horrible teaching. It makes christians believe that if their teachings are being rejected they are doing something right. This encourages them to say and do the most outrageous things in the name of god and jesus. This is exactly the reasoning of groups like the Westboro Baptists. It's also the reasoning of otherwise good people who needlessly risk their lives, and the lives of their children, trying to give christianity to people who don't want it. This is why christians won't stop meddling in the lives of other people. They know there will be push back, and in their minds that push back is a good thing. It means they get reward points toward heaven.
That is the end of the blessings in Matthew and Luke. However, Luke contains some woes or curses to balance out the blessings. Matthew does not.
Luke says, "Woe to you who are rich, for you have already recieved your comfort." Notice how this curse is the opposite of Luke's first blessing in 6:20. In fact, all the woes directly echo the blessings. Matthew has none of it. Again, I'm guessing Matthew wasn't keen on advocating giving up wealth and position. This passage is not read in many sermons today. Why do you think that is? I've heard many preachers say god is not actually against people being rich, he just wants them to use their wealth for good and not make it an idol. But that is not what this says, is it?
The next woe is, "Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry." There are going to be a lot of hungry Americans in the afterlife.
Then we have, "Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep." Really? Ha ha. Is Christian comedian Tim Hawkins doomed? Not only does he laugh, he makes thousand of people laugh almost daily. The guy's a menace. Stay away if you want a happy afterlife.
Next is "Woe to you when all men speak well of you. (???) For that is how their fathers treated the false prophets." This is a set up to make people believe that true prophets are the ones that get treated badly. How many preachers/prophets do you know who are treated badly and have bad things said about them? Those are the ones you should be listening to, if you believe this passage. Plus, you are in big trouble if most people like you. Maybe you should fix that.
Matthew: Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Not in Luke
Matthew: Blessed are you when people insult you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew is being unusually direct here.)
Luke: Blessed are you when men hate you, when they exclude you and insult you and reject your name as evil, because of the son of man. Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heaven. For that is how their fathers treated the prophets.
These two passages appear to have the same basic meaning: Don't let a little persecution stop you. In fact, you've got perks for being insulted and rejected. This is a horrible teaching. It makes christians believe that if their teachings are being rejected they are doing something right. This encourages them to say and do the most outrageous things in the name of god and jesus. This is exactly the reasoning of groups like the Westboro Baptists. It's also the reasoning of otherwise good people who needlessly risk their lives, and the lives of their children, trying to give christianity to people who don't want it. This is why christians won't stop meddling in the lives of other people. They know there will be push back, and in their minds that push back is a good thing. It means they get reward points toward heaven.
That is the end of the blessings in Matthew and Luke. However, Luke contains some woes or curses to balance out the blessings. Matthew does not.
Luke says, "Woe to you who are rich, for you have already recieved your comfort." Notice how this curse is the opposite of Luke's first blessing in 6:20. In fact, all the woes directly echo the blessings. Matthew has none of it. Again, I'm guessing Matthew wasn't keen on advocating giving up wealth and position. This passage is not read in many sermons today. Why do you think that is? I've heard many preachers say god is not actually against people being rich, he just wants them to use their wealth for good and not make it an idol. But that is not what this says, is it?
The next woe is, "Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry." There are going to be a lot of hungry Americans in the afterlife.
Then we have, "Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep." Really? Ha ha. Is Christian comedian Tim Hawkins doomed? Not only does he laugh, he makes thousand of people laugh almost daily. The guy's a menace. Stay away if you want a happy afterlife.
Next is "Woe to you when all men speak well of you. (???) For that is how their fathers treated the false prophets." This is a set up to make people believe that true prophets are the ones that get treated badly. How many preachers/prophets do you know who are treated badly and have bad things said about them? Those are the ones you should be listening to, if you believe this passage. Plus, you are in big trouble if most people like you. Maybe you should fix that.
Saturday, February 10, 2018
The Sermon on the Mount, part one.
I'm not ready to plunge into a study of heaven and eternal rewards, so I thought we might look at the so called "sermon on the mount." This sermon of Jesus is found in Matthew 5:1-7:29 and Luke 6:12-6:48. Luke's version is significantly different than Matthew's, plus it is much shorter. I think a side by side comparison should be interesting. This sermon is not found in Mark or John. John should have been there. Why didn't he remember it?
First the setting: The author of Matthew tells us Jesus went up on an unnamed mountainside because of the crowds of people that had been following him around the region. This mountainside could have been anywhere from Galilee to Jerusalem. Jesus sat down on the mountainside and began to teach his disciples. Then we get the extensive lesson in the supposed words of Jesus.
On the other hand, the author of Luke tells us Jesus had gone up an unnamed mountainside to pray all night. The next morning, he gathered his disciples and chose the special twelve whom he also designated as apostles. Matthew neglects to mention this, and he was there, according to Luke, who wasn't there. Confused? After that, Jesus went down the mountain to a level place, where there were crowds of people who were all trying to touch him. Then he began to speak to his disciples.
The first section of his speech is called the "beatitudes" in Matthew and called the "blessings and woes" in Luke. Those phrases are not part of the text, but the designations given by the people who formatted my bible. Beatitude is just another word for blessing. Woes are curses. Let us begin.
Matthew: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Luke: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kindgom of god."
Luke's version appears to me more directly addressing the audience. Matthew's seems to imply that it is humility vs. the lack of worldly goods that gets you the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps Matthew wasn't keen on being poor for god.
Matthew: ""Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted."
Luke does not have this phrase, but it does say, "Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh." Matthew is more abstract. Luke is more concrete.
Matthew: "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." Luke does not say that, but there is something similar in Psalm 37:11.
Matthew: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
Luke: "Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied." That's quite a difference if you think about it, a spiritual desire vs. a physical need. Again, abstract vs. concrete.
Matthew: "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." (Even merciful athiests?)
Not found in Luke.
Matthew: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see god." Is anyone pure in heart according to god's standards?
Not found in Luke.
Matthew: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of god." What about the warmongers? What will happen to them, hmm?
Not found in Luke.
More to come.
First the setting: The author of Matthew tells us Jesus went up on an unnamed mountainside because of the crowds of people that had been following him around the region. This mountainside could have been anywhere from Galilee to Jerusalem. Jesus sat down on the mountainside and began to teach his disciples. Then we get the extensive lesson in the supposed words of Jesus.
On the other hand, the author of Luke tells us Jesus had gone up an unnamed mountainside to pray all night. The next morning, he gathered his disciples and chose the special twelve whom he also designated as apostles. Matthew neglects to mention this, and he was there, according to Luke, who wasn't there. Confused? After that, Jesus went down the mountain to a level place, where there were crowds of people who were all trying to touch him. Then he began to speak to his disciples.
The first section of his speech is called the "beatitudes" in Matthew and called the "blessings and woes" in Luke. Those phrases are not part of the text, but the designations given by the people who formatted my bible. Beatitude is just another word for blessing. Woes are curses. Let us begin.
Matthew: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
Luke: "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kindgom of god."
Luke's version appears to me more directly addressing the audience. Matthew's seems to imply that it is humility vs. the lack of worldly goods that gets you the kingdom of heaven. Perhaps Matthew wasn't keen on being poor for god.
Matthew: ""Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted."
Luke does not have this phrase, but it does say, "Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh." Matthew is more abstract. Luke is more concrete.
Matthew: "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." Luke does not say that, but there is something similar in Psalm 37:11.
Matthew: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled."
Luke: "Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied." That's quite a difference if you think about it, a spiritual desire vs. a physical need. Again, abstract vs. concrete.
Matthew: "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." (Even merciful athiests?)
Not found in Luke.
Matthew: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see god." Is anyone pure in heart according to god's standards?
Not found in Luke.
Matthew: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of god." What about the warmongers? What will happen to them, hmm?
Not found in Luke.
More to come.
Wednesday, February 7, 2018
Jesus Burning part 5, wrap up.
We continue on in Luke. In chapter 16, we come to the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Lazarus was a poor beggar who was never helped by the rich man. They both died. The rich man went to hell hades) and was in torment. Lazarus went to a place far way, but not so far that the rich man couldn't see him with "Father Abraham." (You remember Abraham, the lying, deadbeat father of Ishmael who was willing to kill his son Isaac.) The rich man begged Abraham to send Lazarus with water to cool his tongue because he was in agony in the fire. This looks to me like the only time in the bible that hades, not gehenna, is said to be the fiery tormenting place. Plus, they went there right after death, which leaves out the gathering of souls and final judgement.
Abraham tells the rich man that he just got what he deserved, a kind of divine karma. Plus, Lazarus couldn't deliver water if he wanted to. An uncrossable chasm has been fixed between the two realms. However, they seem to be able to see each other. Lovely.
In chapter 19, we have a version of the parable of the talents that we saw in Matthew 25. This time the money the master (god figure) doled out is in minas. A talent was 60 minas. The master/king in this story is not quite as wealthy as the last one. Anyway, again, one servant did not invest the money he was given and increase it for the master. The money was taken away from that servant and given to a servant who had made interest on his minas. The king then says, "To everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Remember that this king is supposed to be a representation of god. This parable is supposed to represent divine judgement.
There are a few more vague references to judgement in the book of Luke, but nothing obvious. Next we look at John. I could find no obvious references to a final judgement/condemnation, until I reached chapter 12. Verse 48 says,"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him in the last day." There are no specifics about how what condemnation entails.
The next reference is in chapter 15. There Jesus calls himself the true vine. Unproductive branches, those that don't remain in the vine, are pruned off and cast into the fire and burned, an obvious reference to divine punishment. Believe it or not, that seems to be it. We are at the end of our study of damnation and hell. There may be a few more scattered references, but I'm tired of this topic.
What have we learned? It appears that the modern generic version of the christian hell is a muddled mash up of all the elements we have found scattered throughout the bible. If I were to try to create a sythesis with as few internal contradictions as possible, I would say that after death, everyone goes to hades/sheol, which is underground. In hades, there may be separate places for good people and bad people separated by a chasm. The bad people are those who did not help the poor and needy, those who did not follow jesus's teachings, and those who were unproductive for god. They may or may not be thrown into a pit (which may be tartarus/abaddon) or a fire in hades. The good people may or may not get to be with Abraham. Some stories seem to imply that the dead are still possessors of physical bodies that feel pain or pleasure. Some people get to be resurrected early. They have priveledges. At the last judgement, everyone still in hades comes out to get their eternal reward or punishment. Everyone is judged according to what they have done. The sinners, unbelievers, Satan, and hades, are all thrown into a lake of fire (of unknown location), the second death, which may or may not be Gehenna. They may or may not be tortured forever. If the parables acurately represent god, he will have no qualms at meting out the consequences of his divine wrath. Jesus and the saved may or may not watch the punishment of the damned. Is this what you believe? Why?
Abraham tells the rich man that he just got what he deserved, a kind of divine karma. Plus, Lazarus couldn't deliver water if he wanted to. An uncrossable chasm has been fixed between the two realms. However, they seem to be able to see each other. Lovely.
In chapter 19, we have a version of the parable of the talents that we saw in Matthew 25. This time the money the master (god figure) doled out is in minas. A talent was 60 minas. The master/king in this story is not quite as wealthy as the last one. Anyway, again, one servant did not invest the money he was given and increase it for the master. The money was taken away from that servant and given to a servant who had made interest on his minas. The king then says, "To everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. But enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me." Remember that this king is supposed to be a representation of god. This parable is supposed to represent divine judgement.
There are a few more vague references to judgement in the book of Luke, but nothing obvious. Next we look at John. I could find no obvious references to a final judgement/condemnation, until I reached chapter 12. Verse 48 says,"There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him in the last day." There are no specifics about how what condemnation entails.
The next reference is in chapter 15. There Jesus calls himself the true vine. Unproductive branches, those that don't remain in the vine, are pruned off and cast into the fire and burned, an obvious reference to divine punishment. Believe it or not, that seems to be it. We are at the end of our study of damnation and hell. There may be a few more scattered references, but I'm tired of this topic.
What have we learned? It appears that the modern generic version of the christian hell is a muddled mash up of all the elements we have found scattered throughout the bible. If I were to try to create a sythesis with as few internal contradictions as possible, I would say that after death, everyone goes to hades/sheol, which is underground. In hades, there may be separate places for good people and bad people separated by a chasm. The bad people are those who did not help the poor and needy, those who did not follow jesus's teachings, and those who were unproductive for god. They may or may not be thrown into a pit (which may be tartarus/abaddon) or a fire in hades. The good people may or may not get to be with Abraham. Some stories seem to imply that the dead are still possessors of physical bodies that feel pain or pleasure. Some people get to be resurrected early. They have priveledges. At the last judgement, everyone still in hades comes out to get their eternal reward or punishment. Everyone is judged according to what they have done. The sinners, unbelievers, Satan, and hades, are all thrown into a lake of fire (of unknown location), the second death, which may or may not be Gehenna. They may or may not be tortured forever. If the parables acurately represent god, he will have no qualms at meting out the consequences of his divine wrath. Jesus and the saved may or may not watch the punishment of the damned. Is this what you believe? Why?
Friday, February 2, 2018
Jesus burning part 4
Now let's look at Jesus's words of damnation in Luke, that we haven't visited before.
As I go through the book, at first I see very little outright condemnation and descriptive punishments, eternal or otherwise. I do see some warnings to "be on your guard", "woe unto" various groups of people, and suggestions that things won't be so good for some people. Then we get to 12:5, which says, " But I will show you whom you should fear: fear him who after killing the body, has power to throw you into hell (gehenna). Yes, I tell you fear him." I find it interesting that this one verse could be left out of the passage and it would make more sense. The surrounding context of the passage is an encouragement to Not fear. It's not even clear who we are expected to fear in verse 5. If it is god, then this passage also contradicts those who say god does not throw people in hell.
In Luke 12, We find a repeat of the Matthew 24 parable in which a servant abuses other servants while the master is away. Here, when the master returns and cuts the bad servant into pieces, he assigns him a place with the unbelievers, not with the hypocrites as in Matthew. This passage continues on to say that the servant who knows his master's will and doesn't do it "will be beaten with many blows." However, the servant that doesn't know the master's wishes and does some things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows."
Wow. First of all, it is wrong for the servant to beat other servants, but not wrong for the master to beat a servant? Who is the hypocrite? Actually, I'm being too hard on the master here. It's all about property rights and who is allowed to beat who. The law of Moses allows masters to beat their slaves, but a slave clearly has no right to beat other slaves whom he doesn't own. What a minute, you say, this passage calls the person a "servant" not a slave. The word in Greek translated as the English word servant in this passage is doulos. It appears to have one meaning in greek, slave, or a person who is owned by another person and who has no personal property rights himself. That it was translated as servant, giving modern audiences the impression that this person was employed for pay, is thoroughly dishonest and misleading on the part of the translators.
Second, after this parable, the author clearly implies that there are gradients of punishments that will be meted out when Jesus returns. It also implies that doing wrong when you are ignorant of what is wrong is not as bad as wrongs committed with full knowledge. I would mostly agree. It also seems like the author of Luke is trying to soften the blow of this parable. The punishment gets downgraded from getting cut in pieces, to merely being beaten, which is objectively better for one's health.
In chapter 13, Jesus is asked, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" Good question. Jesus answers by telling them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house (god) gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading. 'Sir, open the door for us.'.....He will reply, 'I don't know you.....Away from me you evildoers!' There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of god, but you yourselves thrown out. This is the only case of simultaneous weeping and gnashing of teeth outside of Matthew.
More to come.
As I go through the book, at first I see very little outright condemnation and descriptive punishments, eternal or otherwise. I do see some warnings to "be on your guard", "woe unto" various groups of people, and suggestions that things won't be so good for some people. Then we get to 12:5, which says, " But I will show you whom you should fear: fear him who after killing the body, has power to throw you into hell (gehenna). Yes, I tell you fear him." I find it interesting that this one verse could be left out of the passage and it would make more sense. The surrounding context of the passage is an encouragement to Not fear. It's not even clear who we are expected to fear in verse 5. If it is god, then this passage also contradicts those who say god does not throw people in hell.
In Luke 12, We find a repeat of the Matthew 24 parable in which a servant abuses other servants while the master is away. Here, when the master returns and cuts the bad servant into pieces, he assigns him a place with the unbelievers, not with the hypocrites as in Matthew. This passage continues on to say that the servant who knows his master's will and doesn't do it "will be beaten with many blows." However, the servant that doesn't know the master's wishes and does some things worthy of punishment will be beaten with few blows."
Wow. First of all, it is wrong for the servant to beat other servants, but not wrong for the master to beat a servant? Who is the hypocrite? Actually, I'm being too hard on the master here. It's all about property rights and who is allowed to beat who. The law of Moses allows masters to beat their slaves, but a slave clearly has no right to beat other slaves whom he doesn't own. What a minute, you say, this passage calls the person a "servant" not a slave. The word in Greek translated as the English word servant in this passage is doulos. It appears to have one meaning in greek, slave, or a person who is owned by another person and who has no personal property rights himself. That it was translated as servant, giving modern audiences the impression that this person was employed for pay, is thoroughly dishonest and misleading on the part of the translators.
Second, after this parable, the author clearly implies that there are gradients of punishments that will be meted out when Jesus returns. It also implies that doing wrong when you are ignorant of what is wrong is not as bad as wrongs committed with full knowledge. I would mostly agree. It also seems like the author of Luke is trying to soften the blow of this parable. The punishment gets downgraded from getting cut in pieces, to merely being beaten, which is objectively better for one's health.
In chapter 13, Jesus is asked, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?" Good question. Jesus answers by telling them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house (god) gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading. 'Sir, open the door for us.'.....He will reply, 'I don't know you.....Away from me you evildoers!' There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of god, but you yourselves thrown out. This is the only case of simultaneous weeping and gnashing of teeth outside of Matthew.
More to come.
Thursday, February 1, 2018
Jesus Burning part 3
We continue with Jesus's words that reference a severe afterlife punishment.
In Matthew 25, we come to the parable of the "talents." A talent was a coin, not a special ability an individual has. In this parable, a master (symbolic of god) left his money in the care of his servants while he went out of town. Everyone invested the money and made more, except for one servant who was afraid of losing money and being punished for it. When the master got back, he called that servant wicked and said, "Take the talent from him and give it to the one that has ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have , even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Wow. Sounds a bit like prosperity gospel, doesn't it. Can't you see some preacher guilting someone into "investing in the work of the lord" or facing damnation? Then, what will happen to the money will be the lining of the preachers pockets. This parable is told slightly differently in Luke 19, with a king instead of a master. It end with the king (symbolic of god) saying "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them....bring them here and kill them in front of me."
In the same chapter, we see the parable of the sheep and the goats. At the end times a king (representing Jesus/god) separates people into sheep on the right and goats on the left. The sheep were generous and benevolent to the poor, the sick, and imprisoned. The goats were not. The goats were told "depart from me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Also "they will go away to eternal punishment." This sounds suspiciously like Matthew has read Revelation. Plus, don't many atheists, and people of other beliefs, practice generosity and compassion? Does that mean they would get to heaven before christians who don't practice those things? This parable is not told elsewhere.
That finishes Matthew, the author of weeping and gnashing of teeth. For some reason, I used to think it was weeping and "wailing" and gnashing of teeth. Now let's look at passages in Mark that we have not covered before.
Mark 3:29 says " Whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven, he is guilty of an eternal sin." I think the holy spirit is a fraud.
Other than telling the disciples to cut off body parts to keep from going to hell (gehenna), the only remaining verse of condemnation is 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." There is no outer darkness, and no weeping and gnashing of teeth mentioned in the whole book.
Next time we look at Luke.
In Matthew 25, we come to the parable of the "talents." A talent was a coin, not a special ability an individual has. In this parable, a master (symbolic of god) left his money in the care of his servants while he went out of town. Everyone invested the money and made more, except for one servant who was afraid of losing money and being punished for it. When the master got back, he called that servant wicked and said, "Take the talent from him and give it to the one that has ten talents. For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have , even what he has will be taken from him. And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Wow. Sounds a bit like prosperity gospel, doesn't it. Can't you see some preacher guilting someone into "investing in the work of the lord" or facing damnation? Then, what will happen to the money will be the lining of the preachers pockets. This parable is told slightly differently in Luke 19, with a king instead of a master. It end with the king (symbolic of god) saying "those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them....bring them here and kill them in front of me."
In the same chapter, we see the parable of the sheep and the goats. At the end times a king (representing Jesus/god) separates people into sheep on the right and goats on the left. The sheep were generous and benevolent to the poor, the sick, and imprisoned. The goats were not. The goats were told "depart from me, you who are cursed into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Also "they will go away to eternal punishment." This sounds suspiciously like Matthew has read Revelation. Plus, don't many atheists, and people of other beliefs, practice generosity and compassion? Does that mean they would get to heaven before christians who don't practice those things? This parable is not told elsewhere.
That finishes Matthew, the author of weeping and gnashing of teeth. For some reason, I used to think it was weeping and "wailing" and gnashing of teeth. Now let's look at passages in Mark that we have not covered before.
Mark 3:29 says " Whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven, he is guilty of an eternal sin." I think the holy spirit is a fraud.
Other than telling the disciples to cut off body parts to keep from going to hell (gehenna), the only remaining verse of condemnation is 16:16, "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." There is no outer darkness, and no weeping and gnashing of teeth mentioned in the whole book.
Next time we look at Luke.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)