We continue on with verse 5 which says "and now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another." This is a deceptively simple command, until you question from what beginning, what is love, and who are the one another. Are the "one another" fellow Christians, fellow Jewish Christians, or all people everywhere?
The word love here is derived from the Greek root verb agapao. You may have heard of the related noun agape, which, for Christians, represents a special self-sacrificial, divine, Yahweh love. The noun form, agape, appears to have been first used in the greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It was apparently derived from the verb. The verb forms, as in this passage, were common in secular ancient Greek writings. The ancient Greeks used it to simply mean having affection or preference for someone or something. Most Christians that I am acquainted with do not differentiate between the religious noun and the common verb. It's all the same to them.
This verse is one of a list of verses that my study bible says correlates to verses in 1 John and the gospel of John, which supposedly proves they have the same author. Lets see how they match up.
1 John 2:7- "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard." This passage does not come right out and state what the command is. It is only implied, up until 1 John 3:11. A quick scan of 1st John shows me that the love one another in that book is being applied to fellow Christians or "brothers."
John 13:34-35- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another." These are supposed to be the words of Jesus. 1 John and 2 John appear to be referring back to this passage. They seem saying the command is not new, because it was supposed to be new when Jesus gave it. That is possibly the "beginning" referred to in the other two verses.
As I was writing this, a question came to mind about whether Paul ever preached "love one another" as a command of Jesus. The only place in Paul's writing in which I found the specific phrase "love one another" is Romans 13:8. It says "let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." Here Paul seems to be saying that to love one another is a universal obligation for all humanity which also fulfills the law of Moses. (The Old Testament makes it clear that the love that fulfilled the law was directed at fellow
Jews and was not necessarily universal.) Paul never mentions love one another being a separate command given by Jesus to his disciples. For Paul the beginning of the command was the law. Other Pauline letters do stress the importance of love, but do not present it as a direct command of Jesus, as far as I can tell.
I want to add that this seems rather hypocritical of Paul, since not all the writings attributed to him show a universal love for all of humanity. He displays some marked instances of dislike for particular people and groups of people. It is interesting to note that the letters attributed to Paul were probably written well before any of the letters attributed to John and even before the gospel of John.
Beside all that, how easy do you think it is to have affection for all of humanity? Most people have a hierarchy of affection, starting with their immediate family and moving outward to friends, acquaintances, countrymen, etc. should we be obligated to have the same level of affectionate feeling for everyone? Is it possible? Christians often say that this agape has nothing to do with how you feel, but with how you treat others. I'm not convinced. I don't think that is what love is. That is altruism. It's not the same, in my opinion.
Friday, June 29, 2018
Wednesday, June 27, 2018
2 John, introduction and part one
For my next study, we will look at the book of 2nd John. Why? Because it's nice and short. I don't think it is necessary to have read 1st John first, as we will see. I might even continue on to 3rd John after that.
You can read about 2 John here. This book of the bible is in the form of a letter. Its author is usually assumed to be "John the evangelist" or the apostle John, one of Jesus's original twelve chosen disciples. Because of that, it is also assumed that the book was written in the first century. Because it contains a few sentiments very similar to those found in the books labelled 1 John, 3 John, and the gospel of John, it is assumed they all have the same author and were written in the same general time period, 85-95 BCE. Note that it is more than 50 years after the supposed date of Jesus's supposed death on the cross.
Let us be quite clear. None of the books of the bible attributed to this John bear John's name in the text. None. They could have been written by anyone. Each could have been written by separate authors, each author copying the style of the first. The point is no one actually knows the authors or the dates of the books labelled with John's name. They are guessing. You are not told that in Sunday school.
The letter begins with "The elder, to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth--and not I only, but also all who know the truth-- because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever." No names are given. The elder is unknown, yet assumed to be John. The chosen lady is also unknown. The possibilities of her identity have been said to include 1. The christian church at large 2. A specific church congregation 3. A revered individual lady 4. Mary, the mother of Jesus. The last seems to me to be nearly impossible. If this letter was written 85-95 years after Jesus's birth, Mary would most likely have been long dead. The author does not state the exact nature of the truth which the lady and her children know.
Verse 3 says "Grace, mercy and peace from god the father and from Jesus Christ, the father's son, will be with us in truth and love." It seems to be a standard greeting and identifies Jesus as god's son. However, it does not claim Jesus is god in the flesh, or is equal to god.
Verse 4 says, "It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the father commanded us." Who are the children? Don't know. What is this truth? Don't know. When, where, and by whom, was this command of the father received? Don't know. There is no context to answer these questions. Most Christians, however, would use other books of the bible to get the answers. A common christian strategy is to "let the bible interpret the bible." However, we need to remember that the bible as a collection of christian scriptures didn't exist when this letter was written. Each writing needs to be looked at separately and examined as a stand alone document.
More to come.
You can read about 2 John here. This book of the bible is in the form of a letter. Its author is usually assumed to be "John the evangelist" or the apostle John, one of Jesus's original twelve chosen disciples. Because of that, it is also assumed that the book was written in the first century. Because it contains a few sentiments very similar to those found in the books labelled 1 John, 3 John, and the gospel of John, it is assumed they all have the same author and were written in the same general time period, 85-95 BCE. Note that it is more than 50 years after the supposed date of Jesus's supposed death on the cross.
Let us be quite clear. None of the books of the bible attributed to this John bear John's name in the text. None. They could have been written by anyone. Each could have been written by separate authors, each author copying the style of the first. The point is no one actually knows the authors or the dates of the books labelled with John's name. They are guessing. You are not told that in Sunday school.
The letter begins with "The elder, to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth--and not I only, but also all who know the truth-- because of the truth, which lives in us and will be with us forever." No names are given. The elder is unknown, yet assumed to be John. The chosen lady is also unknown. The possibilities of her identity have been said to include 1. The christian church at large 2. A specific church congregation 3. A revered individual lady 4. Mary, the mother of Jesus. The last seems to me to be nearly impossible. If this letter was written 85-95 years after Jesus's birth, Mary would most likely have been long dead. The author does not state the exact nature of the truth which the lady and her children know.
Verse 3 says "Grace, mercy and peace from god the father and from Jesus Christ, the father's son, will be with us in truth and love." It seems to be a standard greeting and identifies Jesus as god's son. However, it does not claim Jesus is god in the flesh, or is equal to god.
Verse 4 says, "It has given me great joy to find some of your children walking in the truth, just as the father commanded us." Who are the children? Don't know. What is this truth? Don't know. When, where, and by whom, was this command of the father received? Don't know. There is no context to answer these questions. Most Christians, however, would use other books of the bible to get the answers. A common christian strategy is to "let the bible interpret the bible." However, we need to remember that the bible as a collection of christian scriptures didn't exist when this letter was written. Each writing needs to be looked at separately and examined as a stand alone document.
More to come.
Tuesday, June 26, 2018
Philippians part 7 And wrap up.
We continue on in chapter 4, verses 10-20. Paul rejoices in the Philippians concern for him. Epaphroditus had brought gifts for Paul from the Philippians. It appears that in previous times, the Philippians had also given Paul aid when he was in need. They had previously done that when other churches did not. Paul doesn't actually thank them, but he shows his appreciation for the effort. Though technically speaking, he would have managed just fine without their help, says he. Paul has learned how to be content in all circumstances because his god gives him the strength to endure. He looks on the Philippians' gift as a kind of offering, or sacrifice, pleasing to god. But god didn't use the gifts, Paul did, just like the priests with the Israelites' sacrifices of old.
In verse 19, Paul tells the Philippians his god would meet all their needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. I wonder how that worked out for the Philippians. Also, why didn't the gloriously rich god meet all Paul's needs? Verse 16 clearly says he had been in need.
The letter ends with greetings to the Philippians from "the brothers" who are with him, especially those who belong to the household of Caesar. This is why it is assumed Paul was writing from Rome.
Now, what have we learned from this letter? It does not claim to be the word of god or to give the Philippians a particular message from god. It is basically a personal letter of encouragement, sermonizing, and thanks. It says nothing about angels, demons, Satan, or hell. It says nothing about the birth, life events, or teachings, of Jesus. It mentions not one single person from the four gospels and none of the other apostles. It mentions no events from Paul's travels, except that he has been hungry and in need. The only places it mentions are Macedonia and Thessalonica, but no things that happened there. The only person mentioned in the letter who has been mentioned in any other book of the bible, besides Jesus, is Timothy. There are no miraculous occurrences mentioned in this letter.
What it says about Jesus: he made himself nothing, took the nature of a man, had a human likeness, suffered, was obedient to death on a cross, and was resurrected from the dead. It does not say Jesus and god are the same being. According to Paul, Jesus has also been given the power to transform earthly bodies into indestructible heavenly ones. (I wonder if the earthly bodies have to be intact. Also, where did Paul get his info?) Paul does not explain WHY god needs Jesus, or why we need Jesus to save us from destruction. Why is it our belief in Jesus that saves us? Why does our non-belief doom us to destruction?
What does this letter say about god? God gives grace and peace. God can testify on Paul's behalf (1:8) How he does that is a mystery. God saves people from destruction. (1:28). He exalted Jesus to the highest place and gave Jesus a name above all names*. (2:9-10). God had mercy on Paul and Epaphroditus by letting him live. (2:27) If Christianity is true, wouldn't have been far better for Epaphroditus to die? Wouldn't it be better for any Christian to die and be resurrected with an indestructible body? In 3:14, Paul says god has called him heavenward in christ Jesus. So, presumably, god is in heaven. In 4:18, god is pleased with the Philippians' sacrifice . In 4:18, Paul says god will meet all their needs. That's it. We don't learn much about god from this book. There is no mention of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.
*Even above the name of god?
In verse 19, Paul tells the Philippians his god would meet all their needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. I wonder how that worked out for the Philippians. Also, why didn't the gloriously rich god meet all Paul's needs? Verse 16 clearly says he had been in need.
The letter ends with greetings to the Philippians from "the brothers" who are with him, especially those who belong to the household of Caesar. This is why it is assumed Paul was writing from Rome.
Now, what have we learned from this letter? It does not claim to be the word of god or to give the Philippians a particular message from god. It is basically a personal letter of encouragement, sermonizing, and thanks. It says nothing about angels, demons, Satan, or hell. It says nothing about the birth, life events, or teachings, of Jesus. It mentions not one single person from the four gospels and none of the other apostles. It mentions no events from Paul's travels, except that he has been hungry and in need. The only places it mentions are Macedonia and Thessalonica, but no things that happened there. The only person mentioned in the letter who has been mentioned in any other book of the bible, besides Jesus, is Timothy. There are no miraculous occurrences mentioned in this letter.
What it says about Jesus: he made himself nothing, took the nature of a man, had a human likeness, suffered, was obedient to death on a cross, and was resurrected from the dead. It does not say Jesus and god are the same being. According to Paul, Jesus has also been given the power to transform earthly bodies into indestructible heavenly ones. (I wonder if the earthly bodies have to be intact. Also, where did Paul get his info?) Paul does not explain WHY god needs Jesus, or why we need Jesus to save us from destruction. Why is it our belief in Jesus that saves us? Why does our non-belief doom us to destruction?
What does this letter say about god? God gives grace and peace. God can testify on Paul's behalf (1:8) How he does that is a mystery. God saves people from destruction. (1:28). He exalted Jesus to the highest place and gave Jesus a name above all names*. (2:9-10). God had mercy on Paul and Epaphroditus by letting him live. (2:27) If Christianity is true, wouldn't have been far better for Epaphroditus to die? Wouldn't it be better for any Christian to die and be resurrected with an indestructible body? In 3:14, Paul says god has called him heavenward in christ Jesus. So, presumably, god is in heaven. In 4:18, god is pleased with the Philippians' sacrifice . In 4:18, Paul says god will meet all their needs. That's it. We don't learn much about god from this book. There is no mention of omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.
*Even above the name of god?
Thursday, June 21, 2018
Philippians part 6
We continue on at verse 12. Paul now gets humble and says he hasn't yet attained the goal he is striving for. He isn't perfect yet. However, he has put the past behind him and is forging ahead. He wants that ultimate prize: heaven. "All of us who are mature should take such a view of things" says Paul. In other words, everyone should be just like him, so much for humility. If they think differently, God will make it clear to them. Paul is right, just you wait and see.
Verse 17 makes it clear that Paul is serious about the Philippians following his personal example. Apparently, he even gave them a pattern to live by. He knows best. Those who live as enemies of the cross of Christ (representing self sacrifice and suffering) are doomed to destruction. The nature of this destruction is not clear. Paul seems to mean the decay of the physical body as opposed to a bodily resurrection. Because some people preferred to live in the present and take care of their present needs, and not bank on a heavenly future, Paul condemns them. They are citizens of the earth, he is a citizen of heaven. In heaven, says Paul, Jesus will have the power to transform the lowly bodies of the saved into a glorious heavenly version, presumably indestructible. Therefore, the Philippians should be firm in their convictions, or at least in Paul's convictions.
Moving on to chapter four. Paul pleads with Euodia and Syntyche to agree with each other. These are apparently two christian women who don't get along. Imagine that. They once worked with Paul and others, spreading the gospel, in spite of being women. Paul next repeats his exhortation for the Philippians to rejoice, twice. Then he tells them the lord is near, so they shouldn't worry about anything. They should present their requests to god. Paul doesn't say god will give them what they ask for, but they will supposedly get god's peace. That should be good enough, right?
Verse 8 is actually an admirable sentiment for anyone, from christian to atheist, no gods required: "Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, what ever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-- think about such things." Of course, opinions as to what types of things qualify for those descriptions may differ from person to person, culture to culture. Thinking about good things does help ones state of mind.
In verse 9, Paul again exhorts the Philippians to do what HE would do. None of this WWJD stuff for them. It's WWPD. Whatever they learned, saw, or heard from him, that's what they are to practice. Then the god of peace will be with them. Paul's way is god's way, or the way to god.
More to come.
Verse 17 makes it clear that Paul is serious about the Philippians following his personal example. Apparently, he even gave them a pattern to live by. He knows best. Those who live as enemies of the cross of Christ (representing self sacrifice and suffering) are doomed to destruction. The nature of this destruction is not clear. Paul seems to mean the decay of the physical body as opposed to a bodily resurrection. Because some people preferred to live in the present and take care of their present needs, and not bank on a heavenly future, Paul condemns them. They are citizens of the earth, he is a citizen of heaven. In heaven, says Paul, Jesus will have the power to transform the lowly bodies of the saved into a glorious heavenly version, presumably indestructible. Therefore, the Philippians should be firm in their convictions, or at least in Paul's convictions.
Moving on to chapter four. Paul pleads with Euodia and Syntyche to agree with each other. These are apparently two christian women who don't get along. Imagine that. They once worked with Paul and others, spreading the gospel, in spite of being women. Paul next repeats his exhortation for the Philippians to rejoice, twice. Then he tells them the lord is near, so they shouldn't worry about anything. They should present their requests to god. Paul doesn't say god will give them what they ask for, but they will supposedly get god's peace. That should be good enough, right?
Verse 8 is actually an admirable sentiment for anyone, from christian to atheist, no gods required: "Finally brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, what ever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy-- think about such things." Of course, opinions as to what types of things qualify for those descriptions may differ from person to person, culture to culture. Thinking about good things does help ones state of mind.
In verse 9, Paul again exhorts the Philippians to do what HE would do. None of this WWJD stuff for them. It's WWPD. Whatever they learned, saw, or heard from him, that's what they are to practice. Then the god of peace will be with them. Paul's way is god's way, or the way to god.
More to come.
Tuesday, June 19, 2018
Philippians part 5
I would like apologize for not posting recently. My father was very ill in the last few weeks and he passed away the first week of June. Everything that goes along with that has been stressful for me.
We have come to chapter three of Philippians. In verse one, Paul tells the Philippians to rejoice in the lord. It's okay if he repeats himself, it is insurance that they get the message. Verse two tells them to watch out for " those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Make no mistake, he is referring to Jews, possibly Jewish Christians. He doesn't like them very much does he?
Mutilation of the flesh refers to circumcision, which was a prerequisite to becoming a Jew, one of Yahweh's chosen. In the old testament circumcision is called " an everlasting covenant" between the Jews and Yahweh. In spite of that, Paul says those who worship by the spirit of God, glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh are the true circumcised people. Paul is doing what many today do with old testament scriptures, going metaphorical with them. They are in fact following Paul's example. Everything physical becomes spiritual.
Even though Paul takes no stock in circumcision, or his birthright as an upstanding Jew, he parades it out in verses 4-7 to make a point. His point is that none of that matters to him as much as knowing Christ Jesus. Let us remember that the only way he knows Jesus is through personal revelation, revelation that he alone received. So, we have to take his word for it. He goes on to say that he has lost all those things for Jesus's sake. He considers them garbage, because righteousness does not come from following the law but by faith. Paul wants to know Christ by sharing in his sufferings and becoming like him in his death. This is why Paul was happy to be persecuted and taught that others should rejoice in it too. His ultimate goal is resurrection from the dead, like Jesus. Paul wants to live forever. The fact that he was once a Pharisee has primed him to believe in the resurrection of the dead.
There are questions that always return to me. At what exact point in history did all believers in Jesus gain the gift of resurrection? What happened to all the people that didn't, from before and that point onward? If there were no more than a few thousand believers at the time of Paul, that's an awful lot of leftover people who who would go to hell. I'm not even sure what Paul preached about hell, if anything. However, it is clear he doesn't believe they will be with him in the resurrection.
More to come.
We have come to chapter three of Philippians. In verse one, Paul tells the Philippians to rejoice in the lord. It's okay if he repeats himself, it is insurance that they get the message. Verse two tells them to watch out for " those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh." Make no mistake, he is referring to Jews, possibly Jewish Christians. He doesn't like them very much does he?
Mutilation of the flesh refers to circumcision, which was a prerequisite to becoming a Jew, one of Yahweh's chosen. In the old testament circumcision is called " an everlasting covenant" between the Jews and Yahweh. In spite of that, Paul says those who worship by the spirit of God, glory in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh are the true circumcised people. Paul is doing what many today do with old testament scriptures, going metaphorical with them. They are in fact following Paul's example. Everything physical becomes spiritual.
Even though Paul takes no stock in circumcision, or his birthright as an upstanding Jew, he parades it out in verses 4-7 to make a point. His point is that none of that matters to him as much as knowing Christ Jesus. Let us remember that the only way he knows Jesus is through personal revelation, revelation that he alone received. So, we have to take his word for it. He goes on to say that he has lost all those things for Jesus's sake. He considers them garbage, because righteousness does not come from following the law but by faith. Paul wants to know Christ by sharing in his sufferings and becoming like him in his death. This is why Paul was happy to be persecuted and taught that others should rejoice in it too. His ultimate goal is resurrection from the dead, like Jesus. Paul wants to live forever. The fact that he was once a Pharisee has primed him to believe in the resurrection of the dead.
There are questions that always return to me. At what exact point in history did all believers in Jesus gain the gift of resurrection? What happened to all the people that didn't, from before and that point onward? If there were no more than a few thousand believers at the time of Paul, that's an awful lot of leftover people who who would go to hell. I'm not even sure what Paul preached about hell, if anything. However, it is clear he doesn't believe they will be with him in the resurrection.
More to come.
Wednesday, June 6, 2018
Philippians, part 4
Today, let's look at the rest of chapter two, starting in verse 12. After telling them how humble and servant-like Jesus supposedly was, Paul tells the Philippians to continue to obey, even though he is not there. Who exactly are they obeying anyway? Paul or god? Is there a difference at this point? They are to "work out their salvation with fear and trembling." God is supposedly working in them when they decide to act according to his purpose, or the purpose Paul has told them is god's purpose. So much for the faith only crowd. Here is a clear admonition to work for salvation.
In verse 14, the Philippians are told to do everything without arguing or complaining. This will make them like shining stars in a dark world. It will also boost Paul's bragging rights in the hereafter. That's what it says. Even though he is suffering, it is combined with the Philippians' faithful sacrifice and service. Therefore he is glad and rejoices with them, they should also rejoice with him. It's all about Paul.
In verse 19-24, Paul speaks of Timothy, who he hopes to send to the Philippians. Timothy is just as concerned about them as Paul is. Timothy has proved that he is not selfish. He looks out for the interests of Jesus Christ. (Actually, he looks out for the interests of Paul.) Timothy has been just like a son to Paul, serving him in the work of the gospel. As soon as he figures out what his future holds, Paul will send Timothy to the Philippians. Then he will come himself. There is no way to know if Paul actually did that. Paul's life may have ended soon after the writing of this letter. There is only speculation.
Verses 25-30 speaks of a man named Epaphroditus. Paul is sending him back to the Philippians. Apparently, that is where Epaphroditus was originally from. The Philippians had sent him to Paul to help him in his work and to take care of him. Epaphroditus is homesick and wants to return to Philippi. Apparently, he had also been physically ill for a time. He almost died. Paul is happy to send Epaphroditus back home. He will have less anxiety then. ( It's still all about Paul.) Paul ends this passages by telling Philippians to give Epaphroditus a hearty welcome home, "because he risked his life to make up for the help you could not give me." I wonder if Paul is poking at the Philippians there.
An interesting side note. Epahroditus means "beloved of Aphrodite." I wonder if that name stuck in Paul's throat every time he said it.
On to chapter three next time.
In verse 14, the Philippians are told to do everything without arguing or complaining. This will make them like shining stars in a dark world. It will also boost Paul's bragging rights in the hereafter. That's what it says. Even though he is suffering, it is combined with the Philippians' faithful sacrifice and service. Therefore he is glad and rejoices with them, they should also rejoice with him. It's all about Paul.
In verse 19-24, Paul speaks of Timothy, who he hopes to send to the Philippians. Timothy is just as concerned about them as Paul is. Timothy has proved that he is not selfish. He looks out for the interests of Jesus Christ. (Actually, he looks out for the interests of Paul.) Timothy has been just like a son to Paul, serving him in the work of the gospel. As soon as he figures out what his future holds, Paul will send Timothy to the Philippians. Then he will come himself. There is no way to know if Paul actually did that. Paul's life may have ended soon after the writing of this letter. There is only speculation.
Verses 25-30 speaks of a man named Epaphroditus. Paul is sending him back to the Philippians. Apparently, that is where Epaphroditus was originally from. The Philippians had sent him to Paul to help him in his work and to take care of him. Epaphroditus is homesick and wants to return to Philippi. Apparently, he had also been physically ill for a time. He almost died. Paul is happy to send Epaphroditus back home. He will have less anxiety then. ( It's still all about Paul.) Paul ends this passages by telling Philippians to give Epaphroditus a hearty welcome home, "because he risked his life to make up for the help you could not give me." I wonder if Paul is poking at the Philippians there.
An interesting side note. Epahroditus means "beloved of Aphrodite." I wonder if that name stuck in Paul's throat every time he said it.
On to chapter three next time.
Sunday, June 3, 2018
Philippians, part 3
We now continue on in chapter two of Philippians, at verse 5. We are told that our attitude should be the same as that of Jesus Christ. Verses 6-11 are a poetic description of Jesus's supposed attitude. It is thought that they may have been an early Christian hymn.
Verse 6: "Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," Of course not, why grasp at what you already have? I don't think most Christians consider how strange it is to say that Jesus was god but not god.
Verse 7: "but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant," That's a bunch of baloney. The gospels do not show Jesus actually being anyone's servant. He called no one master. He was not shown to have actually worked at anything. He appeared to be a free man, able to travel about and do what any other man of that socioeconomic class did. Plus, he had power. Power to heal diseases, exorcise evil spirits, raise people from the dead, turn water into wine, feed 5000 people, and calm storms. How many servants can do that? On the contrary, he often told other people what to do. He argued with political and religious leaders, and spoke with authority. The only servant-like thing I remember him doing was washing the disciples feet.
Verse 8: "And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!" He looked like a guy. He let himself be killed. So what? He had the power to do whatever he wanted. He spent a measly three days (actually much less if you count the hours) dead. So, as they say, he had a bad weekend. Now he's back where he started none the worse for wear.
Verse 9: "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place, and gave him the name that is above every name." What was he before? Chopped liver? Plus if Jesus was essentially God, how could he get any higher?
Verse 10: "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It hasn't happened yet. Christians say that it will at the final judgment. We shall see. Or maybe not. Who is going to be bowing Under the earth?
Verse 11:"and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father." About god the father, he seems to have been moved into the background, if Jesus is Lord. It's true, christianity focuses more on the name Jesus then on the formerly Jewish god Yahweh. If god the father is almighty, what did he need Jesus for? How does saying Jesus is lord bring glory to Yahweh? Doesn't it just bring glory to Jesus?
Let us notice some things. There is nothing said about any of the events of Jesus's life, his miracles, or his teachings, except that he died on a cross. Jesus is not called the "only begotten son of God" or even just "the son of god." There is a spiritual relationship of some unspecified kind, but no physical relationship. Oddly enough, Jesus's resurrection is also not specifically mentioned. There is no mention of the holy spirit.
Verse 6: "Who being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped," Of course not, why grasp at what you already have? I don't think most Christians consider how strange it is to say that Jesus was god but not god.
Verse 7: "but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant," That's a bunch of baloney. The gospels do not show Jesus actually being anyone's servant. He called no one master. He was not shown to have actually worked at anything. He appeared to be a free man, able to travel about and do what any other man of that socioeconomic class did. Plus, he had power. Power to heal diseases, exorcise evil spirits, raise people from the dead, turn water into wine, feed 5000 people, and calm storms. How many servants can do that? On the contrary, he often told other people what to do. He argued with political and religious leaders, and spoke with authority. The only servant-like thing I remember him doing was washing the disciples feet.
Verse 8: "And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death-- even death on a cross!" He looked like a guy. He let himself be killed. So what? He had the power to do whatever he wanted. He spent a measly three days (actually much less if you count the hours) dead. So, as they say, he had a bad weekend. Now he's back where he started none the worse for wear.
Verse 9: "Therefore God exalted him to the highest place, and gave him the name that is above every name." What was he before? Chopped liver? Plus if Jesus was essentially God, how could he get any higher?
Verse 10: "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth." It hasn't happened yet. Christians say that it will at the final judgment. We shall see. Or maybe not. Who is going to be bowing Under the earth?
Verse 11:"and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the father." About god the father, he seems to have been moved into the background, if Jesus is Lord. It's true, christianity focuses more on the name Jesus then on the formerly Jewish god Yahweh. If god the father is almighty, what did he need Jesus for? How does saying Jesus is lord bring glory to Yahweh? Doesn't it just bring glory to Jesus?
Let us notice some things. There is nothing said about any of the events of Jesus's life, his miracles, or his teachings, except that he died on a cross. Jesus is not called the "only begotten son of God" or even just "the son of god." There is a spiritual relationship of some unspecified kind, but no physical relationship. Oddly enough, Jesus's resurrection is also not specifically mentioned. There is no mention of the holy spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)