Colossians part 4

We continue on in chapter two verse 6.  The Colossians are told that since they accepted Jesus as lord, they are to continue living in him, as they were taught. What does it mean to live in Christ? Paul has not yet covered that in this letter. So far, all it encompasses is faith.

Verse 8 contains another warning about people who could take the Colossians "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy." But not Paul. He wouldn't do that. Paul's philosophy is based on christ. Again, what does that mean in practical terms? It seems to mean rejecting "human tradition and the basic principles of this world."

In verse 9, we are given another theology lesson about christ. All the fullness of the deity lives in him in bodily form. Notice the present tense. Paul worships a living christ. Jesus's physical body contains the deity, and not on earth. How does that work? The Colossians have "been given fullness in christ." Whatever that means. Christ "is the head over every power and authority." Even over those that have never heard of him or don't believe? Even over yahweh?

In verse 11, things get weird again. Paul tells the Colossians that in Jesus, they are circumcised. Not with real circumcision, but imaginary circumcision done by christ. Why? Remember Paul is a Jew. Circumcision was declared to be an everlasting covenant in the Hebrew scriptures. If you aren't circumcised, you don't belong to yahweh. Solution: metaphorical circumcision. When does this metaphorical circumcision take place? At baptism.

Verse 12 gives us the theology of baptism. A person who was metaphorically dead in their sins is literally buried in the water and metaphorically raised from the dead. The person's sinful nature was then considered circumcised ( cut off?). The person was no longer metaphorically dead, now they were metaphorically, and literally, alive with Christ. Christ forgave all their sins. He cancelled the written code with its regulations. You heard it here folks. Paul basically says the law of Moses is null and void for a baptised person.  Jesus took it away and nailed it to the cross. Metaphorically speaking, of course. What I'm wondering is if the old law is gone, why the circumcision language? Wouldn't any kind of circumcision, even metaphorical, be unnecessary?

Verse 15 says Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities, and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." That's not the way the story is told in the gospel books, is it. There, Jesus is meek and submissive, dying pretty quietly and quickly. Where is the public spectacle made of the authorities? Where is the triumph over them? Where is the disarming of authorities?  Or is this a metaphorical spectacle and disarming? My how the metaphors are flying fast and thick. You would almost think none of this stuff is real.

More to come.

Colossians part 3

We are at verse 20 in the first chapter. There it says that through Jesus god reconciled to himself all things "by making peace through his (Jesus's) blood shed on the cross." So god had a falling out with his creation and he patched it up by having Jesus bleed on the cross? Does this make sense to you?

Paul goes on to say that the Colossians used to be alienated from god because of their evil behavior. Basically, god was shunning them. That's all over now because the death of christ's physical body has made them holy - IF they keep the faith in the hope of the gospel. The gospel they heard has been preached to every creature under heaven. That's an outright lie. If everyone had heard the gospel, then Paul's work was done. There was no need for him or anyone else to travel anywhere else to spread the gospel. Paul died in the 60's CE. Did the gospel get to North America, South America, Australia, the Pacific Islands, and more, before he died? Not a chance. There is more than a chance that Paul didn't even know those places existed.

In verse 24, Paul says he rejoices in what was suffered for them. He's glad that Jesus bled on a cross so they could be reconciled to god. This is weird stuff. It gets weirder. He says he fills up in his flesh "what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions." So it wasn't enough for Jesus to suffer? It sounds like Paul might be practising self mortification of some kind.

Paul goes on to say he has become the servant of Jesus's body, the church, by the commission god gave him. God gave him this commission in visions and revelations that no one else heard or saw. Everyone had to take his word for it. Christianity requires you and I to take his word for it. Why should we?

Next he talks of "the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints," by Paul. So, god kept all this  secret for thousands of years. Nobody knew, not even the Jews. "God has chosen to make known among the gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery which is christ in you." That's the mystery out of the bag--christ is in them. The job of Paul and his cohorts is to work hard at teaching and admonishing, so they can present everyone perfect in christ. Poor Paul. He must have been very frustrated trying to do that, people being what they are.

In chapter two, Paul tells the Colossians he wants them to know how hard he struggles for them and the Laodiceans, and for all he has not met. Struggle? Doing what? He wants them to have complete understanding of the mystery of god, in other words, christ. That's kind of impossible because this mystery was born in Paul's brain. Paul says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in hidden christ. What are they how will they find them? By listening to Paul. In verse 4, Paul warns them about others who may have "fine sounding arguments." They are decievers. Not Paul. Paul is so happy to hear that the Colossians are good boys and girls, orderly and firm in their faith. Even though he is not there in the flesh, he is there in spirit.

I used to like Paul. Not so much anymore.

More to come.

Colossians part 2

Before we continue, take a look at this chapter called "The Idea of Salvation in Greece and Italy" from an old book. It does an interesting job of discussing the ways in which Roman and Greek ideas of salvation and punishment after death were eventually synchronized  with those of Christianity, even though they were very different to begin with.

Now we turn to verse 15 of Colossians chapter one. This starts a theological description of the person Jesus Christ. "He is the image of the invisible god." What exactly does that mean? The Greek word for image here is the same word from which we get the modern word icon. It is a representation or likeness. A statue or painting of a god would be the god's icon. In ancient times the priests treated the icons (idols)  as if they actually were the god the represented. Does that mean Jesus was as much god as an ancient statue of a god was that god?

Next we are told Jesus was "the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.......all things were created for him and by him." Being the firstborn in Jewish society means he is the favorite and the heir. This creation bit seems quite blasphemous if you are Jewish. The god of the Hebrews was supposed to be the creator. Why didn't he previously mention any first born by which he created everything? God supposedly had a couple thousand years to tell them, yet he never mentioned it. And how exactly did an invisible god have a son, plus use the son to create stuff?

Verse 18 tells us "He is the head of the body, the church..." This body symbolism is prevalent in Christianity. The church (universal) is often called the body of Christ. Christ being the head obviously means he is above the body, the one in charge and in control. Except what exactly does he do? People tend to control their own lives, for the most part, unless they are under a visible authority. Invisible authorities can't do much on their own, so they need visible ones to enforce the rules. There are plenty of people eager to assume authority in order to "help" the invisible god. It sounds like Paul was one.

Next Paul says Jesus is "the beginning and the first born from among the the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy." So, Jesus is first at everything, even at being raised from the dead. But what about Lazarus or Jairus's daughter or the widow's son? Paul's letters were most likely written before the gospel accounts were ever penned. Beside that, he prided himself on getting his info about Jesus directly from revelation, not from people. His work shows that he knew next to nothing about the actual activities and teachings of Jesus, as represented in Matthew Mark, Luke, and John. Perhaps Paul meant first  at being made into a heavenly being after being resurrected. Those people Jesus raised had to live out the rest of their lives and die again. There was no guarantee that they would be resurrected after their second death.

Verse 19 says "god was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." So, if all god's fullness dwelt in Jesus then was god still omnipresent? How is it possible to be everywhere yet have all of your being in a single container? I say it's not. If god dwelt in Jesus, was Jesus just a god container, not the god himself? We end up back in icon territory. Is the physical representation of a god a god itself? This would explain why ancient gods were territorial. They only existed for the people where there were icons made specifically for those gods. Yahweh of the old testament did not allow his people to create an icon of himself. He lived where he chose to live, in a cloud, a pillar of fire, a burning bush, a temple, but he was still not omnipresent. He belonged to the nation of Israel alone.

More to come.

Introduction to Colossians And part one

Hello. Our next study will be wading through the book called Paul's letter to the Colossians. Also take a look at the area called Colossae. The letter is traditionally accepted as genuine, with objections cropping up in the  modern era. Because of certain references, it is thought that Paul wrote this letter from prison in Rome. However, the exact location is actually unknown.

The letter starts off with a greeting from Paul, who calls himself an apostle, and Timothy "our brother." It is to "the holy and faithful brothers in christ at Colosse." Here we have a definite identification of the sender and receiver of the letter, not like in 3 John. We also have the brotherhood language, but the type of brotherhood is clearly identified. Everyone is a believer in Christ.

The body of the letter begins with effusive compliments on the reputation of recipients' faith and love. They have hope stored in heaven that they heard about in the word of truth, aka the gospel. The gospel is spreading throughout the world. The Colossians learned it from a fellow named Epaphras, who works for and with Paul in spreading the word. We find out later, in Colossians 4:12, that Epaphrus is a Colossian, and he is currently travelling and working with Paul. He is also mentioned in the book of Philemon as a co-prisoner with Paul.

Since Epaphras has told Paul about the Colossians' love, he prays for them to be filled with the knowledge of God's will, so they can live a life worthy of the lord. He uses a lot of words to tell them how much he prays for them. That prayer description sounds a lot like a sermon. I don't understand how anyone being prayed for by Paul could possibly go wrong. He claims to know the will of god. If someone else didn't, I'm sure he was willing to tell them what god's will was.

Paul starts theologizing around verse 12. Where we learn that the Colossians "share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light." How? He rescued them from the "dominion of darkness" and brought them into the  kingdom of the son he loves. Where is the dominion of darkness? Where is the kingdom of light? Your guess is as good as any body's. Paul says it is in the son of god that the Colossians have redemption and the forgiveness of sins. Redemption from what?  Where does the idea of sins come from? I'm guessing Paul borrowed his notion of sin from Judaism. 

Did the gentiles (Greeks/Romans) have a theology of sin? Let's see what Encylopedia Brittanica says about sin here. It seems obvious that Greeks and Romans would not have had the same concept or theology of sin as Jews and Christians. For one thing, the Greeks and Romans were not concerned with breaking the law of Moses or offending Yahweh. They also did not subscribe to the teachings of Jesus. They had their own gods and their own famous teachers. The Greek and Roman gods weren't exactly paragons of virtue either. Zeus probably never threatened those who committed adultery with fire and brimstone, seeing as how he was guilty of the same many times over. In order for a Greek or Roman to be convicted of sin in the Christian manner, he would have to have been first convinced of the truth of of the existence and supremacy of Yahweh, the authority of the scriptures, and that Jesus's death on the cross was a necessary remedy for sin.

More to come.

3 John, part three And wrap up.

In the last post, I made some major errors when recording verse numbers. They have hopefully been fixed.

We continue on with verse 12. There, the author speaks of a Demetrius who is "spoken well of everyone-- and even by the truth itself." How does "the truth" speak? It speaks when the author speaks. The next sentence is "We also speak well of him, and you know that our testimony is true." This Demetrius is an obvious contrast to the evil Diotrephes. The only other Demetrius mentioned in the bible is a silversmith who opposed the christians in Acts 19.

Last, the author says he's got a lot to tell the recipient, but he wants to do it in person, not in a letter. Then he sends greetings to unnamed friends.

So, to wrap up. This letter was written by an unknown person in an unknown location to a person named Gaius, also in an unknown location at an unknown time. There is no claim of inspiration. There is no mention of heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, or miracles. There is no mention of Jesus, his birth, life, teachings, death, or resurrection. This brings doubt to the claim that it is a christian letter, in my mind. There is no mention of any old or new testament events, places, or people. There is no glimpse into the author's theology other than words like brother, church, truth, the name, and god. Nothing ties those particular words definitively  to the early christian church. They could be applied to Jews and perhaps even Greeks. The word god (Theos) in this letter does not specify which god, it is a generic Greek word for god.

Because of the ambiguous wording that could have been used by Christians or Jews, or anyone literate in Greek. I suggested a couple possibilities for the provenance of the letter. 1. A Jewish sect, early christian or other, vying for place in the Jewish community. 2. A christian sect vying for dominance among other christian groups. Who knows? I could be wrong on those. However, my point is that there really is no way to know for sure.

One thing is for sure, it does not add anything vital to the Christian scriptures.

3 John part two

Today we are going to backtrack a little. Let's talk about Gaius. The name is probably of Latin origin, which may mean Gaius was Roman. There are three other mentions of the name Gaius in the new Testament. In Acts 19:29, Gaius was Paul's travelling companion from Macedonia (Greece). Just a few verses later, in Acts 20:4, a Gaius with Paul is from Derbe, which is in Turkey. Paul mentions a Gaius in Romans 16:23, and 1 Corinthians 1:14. From those letters, it seems that Gaius was an hospitable Corinthian, and a disciple of Paul. There is no way to know if the Gaius in 3 John is any of those or none.

Let's address some of the wording in 3 John that might make modern day English readers think this is written to Christians. We must remember that christianity came out of Judaism. Much of its vocabulary and practice was borrowed from Jewish concepts 1. The word elder. Jews had elders. 2. The word brother. People in the same religious community, even Jews, called themselves brothers. 3. The word for church (ekklesia) This was a generic term for a religious assembly or congregation, connected to a synagogue, that was later co-opted by Christians. Jews had those too. 4. The word pagans. This was actually a word that meant gentiles/ gentile nations, or ethnically non-Jews. The only other place it is used in the bible is in Matthew, where is is clearly referring to ethnically non-Jews. There were no Christians in the time period Matthew was writing about. So, it couldn't have been referring to non-christians. Christianity is not an ethnicity or nationality.

Let's now continue on to verse nine. It says, "I wrote to the church, but Diotrophes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us." This is kind of confusing. What church is he talking about? Is it the same church that the brothers reported to about Gaius? That wouldn't make any sense. And who is "us?" I could almost believe this letter was written by Paul to his Corinthian friend/disciple Gaius. This Gaius is hospitable and is a disciple of the letter's author, just like Paul's Gaius. Imagine Paul and his associates going from synagogue to synagogue, trying to teach in the assemblies about his Jesus visions/revelations and what he thought they meant. I imagine there were many Jewish synagogue leaders who would want nothing to do with Paul, his teachings, and his followers.

Verse ten says, "So, if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us." We have only one side of the story here. Diotrophes cannot defend himself. From what I have read of Paul's letters, this seems typical Pauline whining against the opposition. Can you even blame the opposition from trying to curtail what would be considered a  heresy to practicing Jews? Whether or not, this was Paul, I'm sure many synagogue leaders were wary of the new christian sect, or any sect.

Verse ten  continues, "Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church." Diotrophes does not intend to let anyone from this group (whatever group it is)  get a foothold in his congregation.

Verse eleven says, "Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God." The clear implication is that Diotrophes is evil.

It has occurred to me that another possibility is that this letter is about an established christian church rejecting an even newer controversial christian sect and teaching, after the Pauline era. Who knows? The author gives us no specifics.

Edited for major errors in verse numeration.

3 John introduction, and part one

Next we take a look at the book of the bible called the  Third Epistle (letter) of John. This letter was not written about by the authors of the earliest known christian literature. It was disputed as authentic in the 3rd century and was not even accepted into the bible canon until the fifth century. The author and date of writing are unknown. However, a few similarities to the other writings attributed to John, lead some to believe it had the same author and was written in the same time frame.

The letter begins just like 2 John with "the elder" indicating the author is a person of some authority in a church. It is addressed to his dear friend Gaius, of whose identity or location we have no clue. The author hopes his friend is healthy and his soul is well. The author has been pleased to get a good report from "some brothers" about Gaius and how he is continuing to "walk in the truth." The nature of this truth is not explained. The identity of the brothers is not revealed. The author refers to Gaius as his child. I'm assuming this is metaphorical and Gaius is a student, disciple, or convert of the author's. The author told his church about Gaius.

These brothers were treated well by Gaius, even though they were strangers to him. The author suggests that Gaius send them on their way "in a manner worthy of god." I assume this means to be generous with resources. These particular brothers are said to have gone out "for the sake of the name." What is this name? You might think it is Jesus, however, it could very well be the Jewish god Yahweh.

According to my bible commentary, many Jews today call god by a phrase that means "the name." Jews considered the name of god holy. In order to keep from breaking the commandment about using god's name in vain, they resorted to euphemisms for god. In fact, after doing a quick scan of this letter, I realize Jesus is not even mentioned or alluded to in the whole letter. Could this be another possible case of a letter written by a Jew being taken for a christian document? I'm beginning to think so.

When these brothers (fellow Jews or Jewish christians?) went out for the sake of the name, they received no help no help from the pagans. They were probably proselytizers, commonly called missionaries. Either that, or perhaps they were trying to drum up monetary support for displaced Jews during the diaspora. Just speculation.

More to come.

Who wrote the bible? New Testament

Now let us look at the New Testament Authors.

Matthew: attributed to Matthew, author(s) actually unknown.
Mark: attributed to Mark, author(s) actually unknown.
Luke: attributed to Luke, author(s) actually unknown.
John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
Acts: attributed to Luke, author(s) actually inknown.
Romans: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
1 Corinthians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed with some contested content.
2 Corinthians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed, refers to Corinthian letters not in the bible.
Galatians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed
Ephesians: attributed to Paul, highly disputed.
Philippians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
Colossians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
1 Thessalonians: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed with some contested content.
2 Thessalonians: attributed to Paul, often disputed.
1 Timothy: attributed to Paul, very highly disputed.
2 Timothy: attributed to Paul, very highly disputed
Titus: attributed to Paul, very highly disputed.
Philemon: attributed to Paul, generally undisputed.
Hebrews: often attributed to Paul, author(s) actually unknown.
James: attributed to a James whose specific identity is disputed.
1 Peter: attributed to Peter, very highly disputed.
2 Peter: attributed to Peter, very highly disputed.
1 John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
2 John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
3 John: attributed to John, author(s) actually unknown.
Jude: attributed to a Jude whose identity and authorship is disputed.
Revelation: attributed to a John whose identity and authorship are disputed.

I got most of this information from Wikipedia. If you have any questions about a particular book, I suggest you research it yourself. How many books of the New Testament do most scholars consider undisputedly authored by definitively known persons? Going by this list, seven, maybe eight. Those are all written by Paul. 7/27= approx. 26%. Paul says he recieved all his info about Jesus from personal revelation. How reliable is that? How many people would you believe if they told you they had a revelation from a god, and that you should obey it? Why should you believe them if you have not had the same revelation?

The majority of the content of the New Testament comes to us from people without credentials. A geat deal of it is contradictory. Most of its events have no, contemporary to that time, extra-biblical evidence to support that they actually happened. Most of the people mentioned in its pages have no, contemporary to that time, extrabiblical evidence that they actually existed. Not one of the books themselves claims to be divinely inspired or the  word of a god. Why should we take these writings so seriously that we would give our time and resources to promoting them as divinely inspired/authored? Not to mention condemning those who don't.

Who wrote the bible? Old Testament.

Before we move on to 3rd John, I thought I would do some posts about the authors of the bible. Christianity never really addresses a major issue with the bible texts. That is that most of the authors of the 66 books of the bible are actually unknown. Lets take a look at the Old Testament.

Genesis: attributed to Moses, author/authors actually unknown.
Exodus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Leviticus: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Numbers: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown.
Deuteronomy: attributed to Moses, author(s) actually unknown
Joshua: sometimes attributed to Joshua, author(s) actually unknown
Judges: author(s) unknown.
Ruth: sometimes attributed to Samuel,  authors(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Samuel: Sometimes attributed to Samuel, Gad, and Nathan, author(s) actually unknown.
1 &2 Kings: sometimes attributed to Jeremiah,  author(s) actually unknown.
1 & 2 Chronicles: sometimes attributed to Ezra, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezra: attributed to Ezra, disputed because it appears highly edited
Nehemiah:  originally attached to the book of Ezra, sometimes attributed to Ezra and/or Nehemiah,         author(s)actually unknown.
Esther: sometimes attributed to Mordecai, author(s) actually unknown.
Job: sometimes attributed to Moses,  author(s) actually unknown.
Psalms: generally attributed to David (disputed), multiple Psalms reference other authors as well.
Proverbs: generally attributed to Solomon (disputed), references other authors,  an anthology.
Ecclesiastes: attributed to Solomon, disputed
Song of Songs: attributed to Solomon, author(s) actually unknown.
Isaiah: attributed to Isaiah, a portion possibly authentic, appears to have more than one author.
Jeremiah: attributed to Jeremiah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Lamentations:attributed to Jeremiah, author(s) actually unknown.
Ezekiel: attributed to Ezekiel, portions possibly authentic but highly edited.
Daniel: attributed to Daniel, very highly disputed, possible fake.
Hosea: attributed to Hosea, possibly authentic?
Joel: attributed to Joel, portions possibly authentic, but highly edited and borrowed from others
Amos: attributed to Amos, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Obadiah: attributed to Obadiah, possibly authentic but unconfirmed
Jonah: sometimes attributed to Jonah, author(s) actually unknown.
Micah: attributed to Micah, portions possibly authentic but highly edited and borrowed from others.
Nahum: attributed to Nahum, possibly authentic, though  almost nothing is known about Nahum.
Habakuk: attributed to Habakkuk, possibly authentic, almost nothing is known about Habakkuk.
Zephaniah: attributed to Zephaniah who is not mentioned anywhere else, in the bible or history.
Haggai:attributed to Haggai, possibly authentic?
Zechariah: attributed to Zechariah but appears to have more than one author.
Malachi: attributed to Malachi which may not even be the name of an individual, disputed, unknown.

*"Borrowed from others" means there are phrases that are direct quotes of, or allusions to, passages in other bible books, or extrabiblical writings. The information here is what I could glean from the Wikipedia article on each book. You can examine other sources if you wish.

Not one of these books is known for sure to actually be the unedited writing of the author that it is attributed to. At least 17 out of  39 of the books' authors are absolutely unaccounted for. In my opinion that should be 39/39 but I'm being generous. Is this a book you want to trust with your life? Do you have reason to believe it is the inspired word of a god when the authors can't even be vouched for?

2 John, part 5 And wrap up.

Today is the third anniversary of this blog! A great big thanks to all my readers. I don't know who you are, but you keep me going. More people from more countries visit the blog each week.

We are continuing on from verse 8. "Watch out that you do not lose what you have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully." What have they worked for, and what will the reward be? We aren't told.

Verse 9: "Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have god; whoever continues in the teaching has both the father and the son." The running ahead appears to mean going beyond, or leaving the teaching behind. Once you have been in the cult, if you leave you are doomed.

Verses 10-11: "If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take him into your house or welcome him. Anyone who welcomes him shares in his wicked work." There you go. All nonbelievers are not welcome in christian homes and are deemed wicked. Is that Love? Is that Agape? My bible commentary says "This does not prohibit greeting or inviting a person in for conversation." According to the commentary, the injunction was only against feeding and lodging. But that's not what it says, is it? That sounds like the attempt to find a loophole in the command. What should a christian do about nonchristian family members who want to come for a visit?

Verses 12-13 just express the author's desire to visit the unknown readers. Then he closes with "The children of your chosen sister send their greetings." This could mean a christian woman or a church congregation.

There you have it. This letter does not mention: heaven, hell, angels, demons, Satan, miracles, life after death, Jesus's birth, life experiences, teachings, death, or resurrection. It does not mention the names of any bible books, places, events in history, or people, except for Jesus and god. It does not mention the Jews, the gentiles, or the word "church."

It boils down to: God is the father. Jesus is the son. God commanded the readers to love one another and obey his commands. Jesus came in the flesh. Anyone who does not acknowledge that is an antichrist. Do not let an antichrist into your home. This letter is extraordinarily generic and pretty pointless. Is the author trolling? (Trying to stir up trouble in the community)

It is interesting to note that the term antichrist appears nowhere else but in the epistles called 1st and 2nd John.  In 1 John 2:22, it is defined as the one who denies the father and the son.

2 John part 4

 Last time I talked about what hubris the author of the gospel of John must have had to effectively have made himself the mouthpiece of god. Then I got to thinking. Most of the bible writers had to have been charlatans, mentally ill, or deluded. They set themselves up as authorities about the words and actions of a god  that cannot be verified (the god, the actions, or the words) and we must take their word for it that they are telling us the truth or know what they are talking about.

Let us continue with verse 7.   "Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." This is what you call group insurance. No one wants to be called a deceiver or an antichrist. This puts a person in an uncomfortable position if they just don't believe. There is no room to wiggle here. This is the attitude of a cult. What if you are in a community or a family of believers? You may have no option but to pretend belief.

Commentators say that this passage is in response to something called the "Gnostic heresy." Gnosticism is supposed to have said that "the son of god did not become flesh, he temporarily came upon the man Jesus between his baptism and crucifixion." It doesn't really matter. If Jesus Christ is not acknowledged, in way whatsoever, this scripture is used to condemn. I'm sure many first century Jews did not believe or accept that any actual son of god appeared in the flesh. Many people all over the world still do not accept it, including me.  Some people don't even believe that any Jesus Christ, in any form, ever existed. According to this verse, that makes us the antichrist.

This verse is also compared to one in 1 John, to try to prove that they have the same author:

1 John 4:2-3,  "This is how you can recognize the spirit of god: every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from god. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is in the world." Notice the wording is similar but not precisely the same. Again, it may or may not have been written by the same person. Neither the John epistles, nor the gospel, state who the authors are in the text.

Notice the condemnation of anyone who does not acknowledge Jesus. Clearly, at that time, there must have been enough people denying the existence of Jesus, whether in the flesh or in the divine, to warrant an attempt to curb the spread of such teaching. Basically, the readers of these letters are being told to cover their ears and yell "LA, LA, LA, LA, LA" when anyone tries to convince them they are wrong. Such a person would not be from god. Where would they be from? We shudder to think.

These are the kinds of passages that scare many christians into refusing to  read, listen to, or even associate with, nonbelievers. The religion comes with built in safeguards to prevent members from questioning too hard or learning too much. Anyone who does not acknowledge belief in Jesus, is automatically suspect and is often disregarded as any kind of expert or authority on any subject that touches the fundamentalist christian's beliefs about history, science, and even their perception of reality. The opinions of nonbelievers on all sorts of subjects do not matter to the "true believer."

2 John, part 3

We move on to verse 6. "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love ( noun, agape)."  Here we have the author's definition of love: walking in obedience god's to commands. What commands? The ones that say walk in love. Walk in love by obeying the command to walk in love. Say what? This is the definition of a circular argument.

This verse is another that is compared to ones in 1 John and the gospel of John to identify the authors as being the same. Let's take a look at them.

1 John 5:3- "This is love for god: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome." That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same. And isn't the fact that god's commands were burdensome part of the reason Jesus was supposed to have come, to relieve us of that burden?

John 14:23- "Jesus replied, 'If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.'" That's it. Yes, it is similar in a way, but it is not the same at all. Really, I wonder about these "scholars" who determine that things are written by the same people if they just happen to have two or more of the same words in a sentence that conveys similar meaning. If these are things taught by the same community, wouldn't all the people in the community begin to sound alike? Today we call it "christianese." That is when you use christian buzz words and phrases that identify you as part of the tribe. Even particular denominations have their own
Identifying speech. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone say, "guide, guard, and direct us" during a prayer, I'd be a millionaire. Does that make them all the same person? There are even times when I sit in a worship service and can predict the next sentence out of a preacher's mouth.

Let's think about the hubris of the author of John. The book was written half a century or more after Jesus died, if he even existed. Yet, the author is putting words in Jesus's mouth telling the readers that they need to follow the teachings of Jesus to be on god's good side. Not only that, the reader is told in the next few verses that the words of Jesus are literally the words of god transmitted through Jesus. Where are those teachings found? In John's book. John is in effect making himself the mouthpiece of god, if you think about it. Also, if those words of Jesus were literally the words of god, they would be super important to remember and transmit, right? Why didn't John write them down sooner, like fifty years before. What took him so long?

More to come.