If we look more closely at the list of the twelve apostles mentioned in Mark chapter three, we see that Levi the tax collector is not mentioned. However, in Matthew 10:3, we are told that Matthew was the tax collector. Are Levi and Matthew the same person as is traditionally said? Let's look at each gospel account.
Mark chapter two says Levi is the "son of Alphaeus" and a tax collector. He follows Jesus. Jesus eats with him. The name Levi is no where else in Mark. In chapter three, Matthew is named as one of the twelve, but Mark does not say Matthew was a tax collector. Matthew is nowhere else in the book of Mark. Oddly enough, The author calls another one of the twelve "James the son of Alphaeus." Were James and Levi brothers? There is no mention of Alphaeus again in the book of Mark.
Matthew chapter 10 mentions Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Matthew does not mention the name Levi at all in the whole book. He tells the same story of the tax collector, in chapter 9, but uses the name Matthew instead. The author of Matthew does not call the tax collector the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is not mentioned any more in the rest of the book of Matthew, neither is Alphaeus. You would think that if the book of Matthew was actually written by Matthew, he would have injected himself into the story more.
Luke speaks of Levi the tax collector in chapter five. He is not called the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is mentioned as one of the twelve in chapter six, but is not called a tax collector. James the son of Alphaeus is listed as one of the twelve. Alphaeus is not mentioned again in Luke, neither is Levi or Matthew.
Acts chapter one also names the twelve apostles. It does not mention the name Levi. It names Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus. There is no other mention of Matthew or Alphaeus in Acts. There are no other instances of Levi the tax collector, Matthew, or Alphaeus in the whole rest of the New Testament. Paul does not mention any of them either.
Now let's look at another of the twelve mentioned in Mark 3, Thaddaeus. In the KJV, Matthew 10 says his name was Lebbaeus with the last name of Thaddaeus. The NIV and other translations only say Thaddaeus. Neither Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus are mentioned elsewhere in the bible. Luke 6 lists a "Judas SON of James" in the NIV instead of Thaddaeus, and so does Acts chapter one. The KJV calls this person in Luke and Acts "Judas the BROTHER of James." The Greek actually looks like "Judas of James." It seems that Judas's relationship to James is actually unclear. Most commentaries tend to assume that all these names, Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, and Judas were the same person.
A Judas is also mentioned in Matthew 13:55 as one of the brothers of Jesus. Some people think this Judas is the same person as above and the author of the book of Jude. Though that seems problematic to me, considering Judas and Thaddaeus are supposed to be the same person and Thaddaeus is mentioned in Matthew 10.
A Judas is mentioned once more in John 14:22. This Judas asks Jesus why he will reveal himself to just the apostles and not the whole world. This Judas is also assumed to be the apostle. Paul does not mention any Judas.
Are we confused yet?
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Mark part four
We are in the second half of Mark chapter two. Jesus now has five disciples, Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Levi. Levi is a tax collector. In verse 15, we find Jesus at Levi's house eating with many tax collectors and "sinners." Three times sinners are mentioned in this passage and all three times the word is put in quotation marks with no explanation for that. My study bible also says that these sinners were "notoriously evil people" like adulterers and robbers. It is also unclear how that conclusion was arrived at.
The pharisees apparently saw Jesus eating with these social outcasts and criticized it. How did they see that? Was everyone eating outside? Were the Pharisees looking in the windows? Jesus's defense against the pharisees charges was that he was not there to call the righteous, but the sinners.
Next, we are told that John's disciples and the pharisees were fasting, which probably made them cranky. The story doesn't say the occasion of the fast, but it was presumably religious. People wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples were not fasting. Jesus uses a metaphor to say they don't need to fast because he is with them, when he is gone then they will fast. He's special. Then Jesus makes another metaphor about old wine skins and new wine skins, which, to me, makes no sense at all in this context.
The next story takes place on a sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are walking through grain fields and the disciples begin picking heads of grain, presumably to eat. The pharisees, who must have been walking with them, tattle to Jesus, saying what the disciples are doing is unlawful on the sabbath. Jesus then gives an example of David breaking the mosaic law when he was hungry. He says "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Yeah, right. That is why god gave a death penalty for breaking the Sabbath. The story of David breaking the law and getting away with it only proves that no one was willing to kill him for that transgression, if it actually happened. In fact, throughout history, Jews have been reluctant to carry out all the various death penalties mentioned in the law of Moses.
Chapter three tell us that "another time he went into the synagogue and a man with a shriveled hand was there." Jesus was watched carefully to see if he would heal the man on the sabbath. Of course, Jesus bucked convention and healed the man's hand with a great deal of show. Apparently these healings did not impress the pharisees, because they began to plot Jesus's death. I wonder how the pharisees would have told this story. Did they think Jesus was a charlatan? Or were they actually so mean hearted as to prefer Jesus's death over his miraculous healings?
In chapter 3, verses 7-12, Jesus is being followed by crowds of people from all over the region, because of the healings. Demon possessed people are falling down before him and calling him the son of god, but he is adamant that they should not tell anyone. It does not say he exorcised all those demons. If he did, why would he have to tell them to shut up? Because of all the crowds, Jesus had a boat ready to take him away, at the sea of Galilee.
In verse 13, Jesus decides to take a few select people with him up on a mountainside. There he selects his twelve apostles. We've only read of five up to now. The twelve are Simon, who we are told Jesus names Peter, which means "pebble." Does this say something about Peter's personality? There are also James and John, who Jesus calls "the sons of thunder." Then we have, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, another James, Thaddeus, another Simon, and Judas Iscariot, who is said to have betrayed Jesus. There is a little foreshadowing there.
More to come.
The pharisees apparently saw Jesus eating with these social outcasts and criticized it. How did they see that? Was everyone eating outside? Were the Pharisees looking in the windows? Jesus's defense against the pharisees charges was that he was not there to call the righteous, but the sinners.
Next, we are told that John's disciples and the pharisees were fasting, which probably made them cranky. The story doesn't say the occasion of the fast, but it was presumably religious. People wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples were not fasting. Jesus uses a metaphor to say they don't need to fast because he is with them, when he is gone then they will fast. He's special. Then Jesus makes another metaphor about old wine skins and new wine skins, which, to me, makes no sense at all in this context.
The next story takes place on a sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are walking through grain fields and the disciples begin picking heads of grain, presumably to eat. The pharisees, who must have been walking with them, tattle to Jesus, saying what the disciples are doing is unlawful on the sabbath. Jesus then gives an example of David breaking the mosaic law when he was hungry. He says "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Yeah, right. That is why god gave a death penalty for breaking the Sabbath. The story of David breaking the law and getting away with it only proves that no one was willing to kill him for that transgression, if it actually happened. In fact, throughout history, Jews have been reluctant to carry out all the various death penalties mentioned in the law of Moses.
Chapter three tell us that "another time he went into the synagogue and a man with a shriveled hand was there." Jesus was watched carefully to see if he would heal the man on the sabbath. Of course, Jesus bucked convention and healed the man's hand with a great deal of show. Apparently these healings did not impress the pharisees, because they began to plot Jesus's death. I wonder how the pharisees would have told this story. Did they think Jesus was a charlatan? Or were they actually so mean hearted as to prefer Jesus's death over his miraculous healings?
In chapter 3, verses 7-12, Jesus is being followed by crowds of people from all over the region, because of the healings. Demon possessed people are falling down before him and calling him the son of god, but he is adamant that they should not tell anyone. It does not say he exorcised all those demons. If he did, why would he have to tell them to shut up? Because of all the crowds, Jesus had a boat ready to take him away, at the sea of Galilee.
In verse 13, Jesus decides to take a few select people with him up on a mountainside. There he selects his twelve apostles. We've only read of five up to now. The twelve are Simon, who we are told Jesus names Peter, which means "pebble." Does this say something about Peter's personality? There are also James and John, who Jesus calls "the sons of thunder." Then we have, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, another James, Thaddeus, another Simon, and Judas Iscariot, who is said to have betrayed Jesus. There is a little foreshadowing there.
More to come.
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Mark part three
We are still in chapter one at verse 35. In this book, we don't know how long after Jesus was baptized that he started preaching, or how old he was, but it was after John was put in prison. The last few events have been depicted as happening in rapid succession. The appearance in the synagogue, the healings at Simon's house, and now we are told that "early in the morning, while it was still dark" Jesus got up, left the house, and went out to pray alone. His other companions went to find him because everyone was looking for him. He wanted to leave that place and travel around to teach and drive out demons.
In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.
Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims? Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend, or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.
Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man" This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?
In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.
More to come.
In chapter two, a man with leprosy begged to be healed. Jesus healed him then told him not to tell anyone but to go to the priest and make the required sacrifices. Naturally the man told everyone and Jesus was mobbed by people, even though he tried to hide. "A few days later" Jesus went back to Capernaum. I'm assuming he stayed at Simon's house again. The house he was in was also mobbed by people, so that there was no room for any more. A hole was dug in the roof (probably made of mud and straw) so a paralyzed man could be lowered in to Jesus. Jesus was impressed by his faith and told the man his sins were forgiven. Some teachers of the law were thinking to themselves that this was blasphemy because only god could forgive sins. If course Jesus knew what they were thinking and asked them which was easier, to tell a paralyzed man his sins were forgiven or to tell him to get up and walk.
Then he tells the man to get up and walk, and he did, in full view of everyone. They were amazed and praised god, saying, "we have never seen anything like this!" Well, now, that must have been a true miracle, right? Let me ask you some questions. Has anyone ever been fooled by fake faith healers? Has anyone ever exaggerated faith healing claims? Has anyone ever manufactured faith healing experiences? If your answer is yes, what makes you think there couldn't have been fake faith healers in the first century? How do you know this account is accurate? How do you even know it actually happened? And if it did, how do you know whether or not the "paralyzed" man was faking his condition? The author of the book of Mark is telling a story about Jesus, he does not claim to have seen any of this. He either got it second or third hand, or it was an urban legend, or someone told him a tall tale, or he is telling a tall tale himself. There are many possibilities more likely than that a paralyzed man was instantly healed by faith.
Mark tells us that this event happened so that "you may know the son of man has the authority to forgive sins." It is assumed that the "son of man" refers to Jesus himself. This may be a reference to Daniel 7:13-14, where Daniel has a vision of a person who looked like a "son of man" This person was given authority by god and was worshipped by all nations and given an everlasting kingdom. The phrase son of man literally means a human male. It is also important to remember that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel and is most likely a work of fiction. Did Jesus know that?
In Chapter 2:13, at some undetermined future time, Jesus was again beside the lake (the sea of Galilee) teaching large crowds of people. As he walked along, he saw Levi (later known as Matthew) sitting in a tax collectors booth. (There were tax collector booths by the lake? ) My study bible says this may have been like a toll booth on a main road. Jesus told Levi to follow him and he did. Disciple #5.
More to come.
Thursday, December 20, 2018
Mark part two
We are in Mark chapter one, at verse twelve. Jesus has just been baptized by John the baptist who was said to have been in a desert area. The spirit, which has descended on Jesus sends him "out into the desert," which must have been nearby. Jesus stayed in the desert forty days (magical number) being tempted by Satan. Mark says he was with wild animals and angels attended him. This story is much shorter than the similar event recorded in other gospels. It includes very few details. Notice that no one else was with him as a witness. So, if this was Jesus's claim, everyone who heard it would have had to take his word that he was telling the truth. Can you think of any reason why he would lie?
From there, the text jumps to John the baptist being in prison, after which Jesus went into Galilee telling people to repent because the kingdom of god was near, they were to believe the good news (aka gospel). Do you see that? Jesus didn't start preaching till AFTER John was out of the way. John could not publicly contradict Jesus's claims if he wanted to. Also, the "good news" here was the approaching kingdom of god. It feels like there are so many different gospels in the new testament.
When Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a lake) he recruited Simon (later called Peter) and his brother Andrew by telling the two fishermen that he would make them "fishers of men." How punny. Naturally, they dropped everything and followed him. In this same way, he also recruited James and John, who were just about to go out to fish in their father's boat. Now there are four disciples. Disciple just means student.
They all went to Capernaum. On the Sabbath (Saturday), Jesus taught in the synagogue. This is not anything special. I'm pretty sure any male Jew was allowed to get up and say something in turn. However, the text claims that what Jesus said impressed everyone, but it does not record his words on the occasion. While he was speaking, a man possessed by an evil spirit starts yelling at Jesus. He accuses Jesus of coming to destroy them and says he knows who Jesus is..."the holy one of god." (What if it was actually just some guy yelling, "Hey, I know who he is." Then the story got stretched. It could have happened that way.) Jesus commands the spirit to be quiet and come out of the man, which it does with a shriek. Good cinema. In fact, if this actually happened, who's to say Jesus didn't plant the man in the audience. That kind of thing happens today.
The people were sogullible amazed that they began gossiping about this guy who taught like he knew what he was talking about and could exorcise demons. Naturally the news spread quickly. The five of them then went to the home of Simon and Andrew, where Jesus got rid of Peter's mother-in-law's fever. Then she began to wait on them, 'cause that's what women were expected to do after recovering from a fever and they needed someone to wait on them. Jesus did all this stuff on the Sabbath. The mother-in-law also waited on the men on the Sabbath. Was it just men who were not supposed to work on the Sabbath? Or was waiting on men not considered work?
After sunset, when it was no longer the Sabbath, people began to bring all their sick and demon possessed to Jesus to be healed. He apparently healed a lot of people with "various diseases" and exorcised many demons. (I wonder if had the same success rate modern faith healers have.) However, he didn't let any of the demons speak "because they knew who he was." Ha. That's kind of funny if you think about it. People who knew who Jesus was were not allowed to speak and were said to have demons. Hmm. There is definitely more than one way to look at that.
More to come.
From there, the text jumps to John the baptist being in prison, after which Jesus went into Galilee telling people to repent because the kingdom of god was near, they were to believe the good news (aka gospel). Do you see that? Jesus didn't start preaching till AFTER John was out of the way. John could not publicly contradict Jesus's claims if he wanted to. Also, the "good news" here was the approaching kingdom of god. It feels like there are so many different gospels in the new testament.
When Jesus was at the Sea of Galilee (which is actually a lake) he recruited Simon (later called Peter) and his brother Andrew by telling the two fishermen that he would make them "fishers of men." How punny. Naturally, they dropped everything and followed him. In this same way, he also recruited James and John, who were just about to go out to fish in their father's boat. Now there are four disciples. Disciple just means student.
They all went to Capernaum. On the Sabbath (Saturday), Jesus taught in the synagogue. This is not anything special. I'm pretty sure any male Jew was allowed to get up and say something in turn. However, the text claims that what Jesus said impressed everyone, but it does not record his words on the occasion. While he was speaking, a man possessed by an evil spirit starts yelling at Jesus. He accuses Jesus of coming to destroy them and says he knows who Jesus is..."the holy one of god." (What if it was actually just some guy yelling, "Hey, I know who he is." Then the story got stretched. It could have happened that way.) Jesus commands the spirit to be quiet and come out of the man, which it does with a shriek. Good cinema. In fact, if this actually happened, who's to say Jesus didn't plant the man in the audience. That kind of thing happens today.
The people were so
After sunset, when it was no longer the Sabbath, people began to bring all their sick and demon possessed to Jesus to be healed. He apparently healed a lot of people with "various diseases" and exorcised many demons. (I wonder if had the same success rate modern faith healers have.) However, he didn't let any of the demons speak "because they knew who he was." Ha. That's kind of funny if you think about it. People who knew who Jesus was were not allowed to speak and were said to have demons. Hmm. There is definitely more than one way to look at that.
More to come.
Tuesday, December 18, 2018
Mark part one
Let us begin reading Mark. Right away I notice there is no virgin birth story. There is no mother Mary and father Joseph. No divine conception of Jesus by the holy spirit. So, if Mark stood alone, we would have to assume Jesus was conceieved and birthed in the normal human way. The first chapter begins by telling us that the gospel of Jesus Christ began in Isaiah with a prophecy about a messenger who will prepare the way for the lord. And that messenger was John the baptizer. Did Mark not know of the supposed prophecy of a virgin giving birth? Wouldn't that have been a pertinent part of Jesus's back story? If Mark was the first gospel writer, did Matthew and Luke each make up their Jesus origin stories? Both of their stories are very different after all.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
Beginning in verse 4, John the baptist is described as a man dressed in camel hair clothing who preached out in the desert. He was telling the Jews who came to him that they needed to be baptized with a baptism of repentance for the remission of their sins. Basically that means they were given a ceremonial bath to show that they were cleansing themselves from past sins. They may not have actually done anything that we would consider wrong, like theft or murder. "Sins" are committed whenever god's laws are broken. They could have included any number of innocuous things, like cooking on the Sabbath or not tithing properly. Who knows what these people were repenting of.
At that time, the Romans had control over Israel, and many Jews were very concerned about this state of things. Just like today, there would have been religious people blaming the undesirable conditions on a state of moral laxity and religious decay. A call to repent is ubiquitous throughout religious history.
While John was out in the desert baptizing, he told people someone more powerful than him was coming, someone who would baptize the people with the holy spirit instead of water. Hmm, it sounds like John was saying holy spirit baptism is superior to water baptism. That's not what I was taught.
Then along comes Jesus from Nazareth. He was baptized by John in the Jordan river. When he came up out of the water, "he saw heaven being torn open and the spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: You are my son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased." Look at that. The text does not say that John knew who Jesus was when he came to be baptized. It also does not say anyone else but Jesus himself was witness to this miraculous voice. Oh my nonexistent god! Jesus here is having an experience like Paul claims to have had on the road to Damascus. There are no other witnesses claimed for this event. Wouldn't it have been important for Mark to include witnesses, if there were any?
Note that there is no mention of Bethlehem, wise men following stars, Herod killing children, censuses, or genealogical descent from David. In fact, so far, this story is not anchored in time.
My previous series on the nativity begins here.(link)
More to come.
Friday, December 14, 2018
Mark, introduction
After some debate with myself, I decided the next thing we would study is the book of Mark. I have not gone completely through any of the so-called gospels yet on this blog. According to Wikipedia, most scholars now consider Mark to be the first of the four gospel books. It may have been written just before the fall of Jerusalem. Its authorship has traditionally been attributed to John Mark who is said to have been influenced by Peter. In reality no one actually knows who wrote the book of Mark. It was originally considered inferior to the other gospels as a summary or abridgment because it is more concise.
A few years ago, a claim was made that a 1st century manuscript of Mark had been found. That claim has since been revised to late 2nd, early 3rd. Here is what Bart Ehrman has to say about it. This is one of the earliest existing pieces of the book. Just as with all the rest of the bible books, there is no original.
I will now make my regular disclaimer that I am not a professional Bible scholar. I will be reading through the text and making personal comments and observations based on easily available resources and my personal experiences as a former fundamentalist Christian. I usually use the NIV translation of the bible, web sites such as Bible Hub and Bible Gateway, plus Strong's concordance, and a Greek interlinear New Testament.
Till next time.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Resurrection part four.
We are still in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Verse 29 says, "if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" Good question. In fact I've got another question. Why are Mormons the only people I know of who baptize for the dead. Why doesn't all of christendom practice this? It's biblical.
If we move on to verse 35, Paul tells us what resurrection is like. According to him, there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Earthly bodies that die are metaphorically like seeds that are being sown. The body that is sown is perishable, but what rises up after death is imperishable. "It is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body." Here is Paul's logic for that: Adam was made a living being, then he was given a spirit. That means spiritual stuff comes after natural stuff. Therefore spiritual bodies come after natural bodies. Duh!
Further proof of spiritual bodies, offered by Paul, is this: Adam, who was the first man, came from the earth. All earthly men are like Adam. The second man (Jesus?) came from heaven. All men are going to be like the second man. As usual, no women are mentioned. Further more, Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.....we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Paul promises the Corinthians immortality. He says nothing here about judgment on that day, or what happens to non-believers.
In Philippians 4:10-11, Paul says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection, so he can also attain resurrection some day. In Hebrews 6, the author says the resurrection of the dead is one of the elementary teachings about Christ, along with repentance, faith, baptism, and eternal judgment." In Hebrews 11:35 tells of those who were tortured for their faith and refused to be released so that they might have a better resurrection. (!!) That is so messed up.
1 Peter chapter one speaks of a hope of an eternal inheritance for the suffering faithful being kept in heaven and the coming salvation of souls in the last times. This hope comes through the resurrection of Jesus. 1 Peter chapter three tells the reader that baptism with water saves people by the resurrection of Jesus.
Finally, we come back to Revelation 20, where we read of a first resurrection of Christian martyrs and a second resurrection of the rest of the dead, from the sea and Hades. Then comes judgment and second death for anyone whose name is not written in the lambs book of life.
Does this give you a sense of why Christians are so keen on martyrdom? It should also show you that these beliefs are what many Christians believe they are living for, an eternal reward of an imperishable body, for the price of faithfullness. Any alternative is unthinkable to so many. It's hard not to feel sorry for them, wasting so much precious time and thought on a delusion.
If we move on to verse 35, Paul tells us what resurrection is like. According to him, there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Earthly bodies that die are metaphorically like seeds that are being sown. The body that is sown is perishable, but what rises up after death is imperishable. "It is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body." Here is Paul's logic for that: Adam was made a living being, then he was given a spirit. That means spiritual stuff comes after natural stuff. Therefore spiritual bodies come after natural bodies. Duh!
Further proof of spiritual bodies, offered by Paul, is this: Adam, who was the first man, came from the earth. All earthly men are like Adam. The second man (Jesus?) came from heaven. All men are going to be like the second man. As usual, no women are mentioned. Further more, Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.....we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Paul promises the Corinthians immortality. He says nothing here about judgment on that day, or what happens to non-believers.
In Philippians 4:10-11, Paul says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection, so he can also attain resurrection some day. In Hebrews 6, the author says the resurrection of the dead is one of the elementary teachings about Christ, along with repentance, faith, baptism, and eternal judgment." In Hebrews 11:35 tells of those who were tortured for their faith and refused to be released so that they might have a better resurrection. (!!) That is so messed up.
1 Peter chapter one speaks of a hope of an eternal inheritance for the suffering faithful being kept in heaven and the coming salvation of souls in the last times. This hope comes through the resurrection of Jesus. 1 Peter chapter three tells the reader that baptism with water saves people by the resurrection of Jesus.
Finally, we come back to Revelation 20, where we read of a first resurrection of Christian martyrs and a second resurrection of the rest of the dead, from the sea and Hades. Then comes judgment and second death for anyone whose name is not written in the lambs book of life.
Does this give you a sense of why Christians are so keen on martyrdom? It should also show you that these beliefs are what many Christians believe they are living for, an eternal reward of an imperishable body, for the price of faithfullness. Any alternative is unthinkable to so many. It's hard not to feel sorry for them, wasting so much precious time and thought on a delusion.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Resurrection part three
We are still in the books of Acts. In chapter 23, Paul is in Jerusalem and has been taken into custody by some Roman soldiers because some Jews are supposed to have caused a riot in objection to Paul's presence in the temple. The Roman commander doesn't understand why there is such animosity towards Paul. (He's been preaching about Jesus.) So, the commander takes Paul to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body. Paul plays off the fact that there are both Pharisees and Sadducees in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees believe in a resurrection, Sadducees do not. Paul shouts out that he is a Pharisee and is on trial because of his belief in a resurrection. Of course that is part of the truth, but not the whole truth. The Pharisees and Sadducees present get into a violent argument. Paul has to be removed from there by the commander.
In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise. He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.
We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.
Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?
More to come.
In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise. He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.
We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.
Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?
More to come.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Resurrection part two
We are still in the book of John. In chapter 11, Jesus' friend Lazarus has died. His sister Martha is distraught. She is convinced that if Jesus had come sooner, Lazarus would not have died. In verse 23, Jesus tells Martha Lazarus will rise again. Martha says, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus replies, " I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Jesus asks Martha if she believes this and she says she does. Martha goes and tells her sister Mary that Jesus has arrived. Mary runs and tells Jesus the same thing Martha had, that Lazarus would still be alive if Jesus had come sooner. This time however, Jesus does not give his resurrection spiel. He responds to Mary's distress in a more emotional way. He weeps. Why? Presumably he knows he's going to raise Lazarus from the dead. Even if he waits till judgment day, Lazarus is guaranteed to live again, right? Unsurprisingly, that is no consolation to the living. It rarely is.
So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead. There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?
Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.
In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.
In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)
In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.
More to come.
So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead. There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?
Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.
In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.
In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)
In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.
More to come.
Thursday, December 6, 2018
Resurrection part one
I feel like we need to cover resurrection in the bible as a natural segue to the study of heaven. First I want to note that the word resurrection does not appear at all in the Old Testament. What do you make of that? In the New Testament, the Greek word usually translated resurrection is anastasis, which according to Strong's concordance, means "standing up again" or a literal resurrection from the dead. It can also be used in a figurative sense. We will see how that works as we go through the scriptures.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
We first encounter the word resurrection in Matthew 22. Verse 23 tells us that the Jewish sect of the Saducees did not believe in a resurrection. That would make sense, since the Hebrew scriptures do not contain the word. In verse 28, Jesus is asked a trick question about marriage after the resurrection by the Saducees. Jesus replied, "silly Saducees, marriage is not for the resurrected." Instead, Jesus goes on to say, the resurrected dead will have bodies like angels. Jesus's proof of the resurrection is that god said he is the god of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Since god is not the god of the dead, but the living, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, must be alive. How can they be alive, unless they are resurrected? Gotcha! Does this mean Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were already resurrected, before the final judgment? The book of Revelation skipped that part. Does this mean they were resurrected before Jesus? I thought he was supposed to be the first.
In Matthew 27:51-53, after Jesus died on the cross, there was an earthquake. "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. (Before Jesus?) They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people." Strangely, there is no other record of this extraordinary event.
Mark chapter 12 also tells the story of the Sadducees asking about marriage for the resurrected. So does Luke chapter 20. Luke adds that the resurrected will no longer die and they are god's children. Luke also adds that to god, everyone is alive, which is interesting. If everyone is alive to god, what's the resurrection for?
In Luke 14:13-14, Jesus says, "when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous." Did Jesus appeal to empathy and say that all people need to eat and that it's good to feed those less fortunate, because if they were in that situation, the listeners would need food also. No, he did not. Instead, he appealed to their selfishness. They would get a reward from god...eventually.
We are now at John chapter 5. Here we get new resurrection information. Jesus tells the Jews who are persecuting him that he is the son of god the father. Verses 21-22 say, "Just as the father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the son." In Revelation 20:11 is unclear about who s sitting on the throne of judgment. It says things like "he who is seated on the throne." Revelation 22 calls it the throne of god and the lamb, as though the two are melded together.
John 5:24-29 goes on to say, "whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Sounds a bit metaphorical there.) ...a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the son of god and those who hear will live....Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." Wait, no baptism requirement?
More to come.
Tuesday, December 4, 2018
Church of Christ statistics
In case you are new here, I attend a church of Christ congregation with my family. My husband is the only one of them who knows I am an atheist. We don't talk about it because it upsets him. Recently, over on the Patheos blog Roll To Disbelieve, there has been a conversation about the decline in Christianity. I got curious and did some simple research on the churches of Christ in the United States.
This article in the Christian Chronicle, a church of Christ newspaper, gives an historical overview up to 2009. The statistics are routinely compiled by 21st Century Christian, a Church of Christ publishing company: https://christianchronicle.org/church-in-america-marked-by-decline/
This article in the Christian Chronicle, a church of Christ newspaper, gives an historical overview up to 2009. The statistics are routinely compiled by 21st Century Christian, a Church of Christ publishing company: https://christianchronicle.org/church-in-america-marked-by-decline/
Notice that the decline began after the peak in 2003, when it is reported that the group keeping the statistics decided to become hard-nosed and eliminate instrumental congregations from the ranks. This would not fully account for the decline in the number of congregations, but maybe a large number of attendees, because a few of the rare mega churches in the denomination are instrumental. Even when only non-instrumental congregations were counted, the numbers were still creeping down through to 2009, as shown in the article.
According to an addendum to the article, in 2012, the decision to dismiss instrumental churches from the ranks was reversed. However that reversal was obviously not permanent. The 2018 report includes only a cappella congregations. That is found here: https://www.21stcc.com/pdfs/ccusa_stats_sheet.pdf
After reviewing the statistics freely available, I have found that number of counted congregations has shrunk by about 9% since the 2003 peak, at an average rate of about 79 a year. The number of total members, which means baptized believers on the rolls, has decreased by about 12% over the last 15 years. The number of total adherents on the congregations' rolls, which includes non baptized children, has also decreased by about 13%.
The average attendance over just the last three years, state by state on this document, https://www.21stcc.com/pdfs/PDF_Sample_1.pdf has decreased by as low as 3% in bible belt areas to up to 8% in places like California and Colorado. The attendance in Maine was down 15%, but its churches are historically small.
These numbers seem to show that most of the gains since 1980 have been lost. If this trend continues, in another decade church of Christ numbers could approach the levels seen about 1950. I have no doubts at all that this decline is due to the effects of the expansion of the internet, the effects of social media, and the politicization of religion.
(I previously commented about these statistics on the Roll to Disbelieve blog.This post is a cleaned up version.)
The average attendance over just the last three years, state by state on this document, https://www.21stcc.com/pdfs/PDF_Sample_1.pdf has decreased by as low as 3% in bible belt areas to up to 8% in places like California and Colorado. The attendance in Maine was down 15%, but its churches are historically small.
These numbers seem to show that most of the gains since 1980 have been lost. If this trend continues, in another decade church of Christ numbers could approach the levels seen about 1950. I have no doubts at all that this decline is due to the effects of the expansion of the internet, the effects of social media, and the politicization of religion.
(I previously commented about these statistics on the Roll to Disbelieve blog.This post is a cleaned up version.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)