We are at Mark 9:38. John tells Jesus that the disciples saw someone casting out demon's in Jesus's name and they told that person to stop. Remember Jesus's name was the same as Joshua of the old Testament. He surely wasn't the only person in first century Israel with that name either. Could people have been trying to cast out demons in the name of Joshua without realizing there was a specific living person with that name who might claim a monopoly on exorcisms? Jesus told John not to stop the people who were doing that, because if they could do a miracle in Jesus's name, they had to be on his side. "Whoever is not against us is for us." Tell that to all the "true christians" who think that just being for Jesus is not enough.
The next part is weird. Jesus starts talking about children again, giving a curse to anyone who would cause one to sin. That last dialog with John had to have been inserted later. Next, Jesus talks about body parts that cause one to sin, saying it would be better to remove the offending body part than to end up in hell. Expendable parts include eyes, hands, and feet. It's a good thing most versions of christianity never took this seriously. Then there is a bit about salt losing its saltiness, which makes no sense.
We are now at chapter ten. The disciples are on the move again, into the region of Judea across the Jordan. Across the Jordan from what? The last place the text said they were was Capernaum. Look at this map and see if verse 10:1 makes sense.
Jesus attracts crowds of people, including pharisees. They ask him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. Jesus asks, "What did Moses say?" (Notice it was not "What did god say?") Apparently the law of Moses said a man could write a certificate of divorce and send his wife away, if..."he finds something indecent about her." What was considered indecent is not specified. Also, a woman did not have the same privilege of divorcing her husband and sending him away. In fact, a woman who was on her second marriage was "defiled," but not the man. (Deut. 24:1-4)
Now Jesus qualifies the law of Moses. He says the only reason Moses let the people divorce was because their hearts were hard, which generally means they were stubborn. So divorce was let slide, even though it hurt women's social/economic/religious standing. But picking up sticks on the Sabbath was punishable by death, even though it hurt no one. Then Jesus says, "At the beginning of creation god made them male and female. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one. Therefore what god has joined together, let man not separate." This teaching of Jesus's was directly addressing men and divorce. He is telling the men they can't just get rid of their wives whenever they want. Yet many christian groups have a percentage of divorced members that is not far off that of the general population. In spite of Jesus's admonition, Christians have been getting divorced for centuries. Thankfully, today's christian women have just as much right as a man to divorce.
This passage of Jesus's is also used to define marriage in today's fundamentalist circles as one woman and one man. The polygamy of the patriarchs is never addressed in the new testament. Does that mean god has no problem with a man having many wives? Can a man be "one flesh" with more than one woman? The Deuteronomy passage makes it clear that a woman having more than one husband makes her defiled, but the only reason she would have had more than one husband is if her first husband divorced her. So, technically, it's not her fault, right?
We won't address the creation of men and women here. You all do know that the creation story of Adam and Eve is a myth, right? Male and female creatures existed long before humankind evolved. They had sexual union to procreate, yet they did not have a social institution called marriage and life went on. Marriage was invented by humans.
Thursday, January 31, 2019
Wednesday, January 30, 2019
Mark chapter sixteen
We are at Mark 9:28. It has been implied that Jesus has just healed a boy from a demon (seizures), but all I see is him helping the kid up after a fit is over. Later, the disciples ask Jesus why they couldn't drive out the demon. He replied that that kind only came out through prayer. Huh? Jesus didn't pray the spirit out, He commanded it. Are demons discriminating as to how they are exorcised?
Jesus and the disciples went on the move. Jesus was again trying to be incognito, supposedly because he was training his disciples. If you ask me, he may have been avoiding people who would know that the people he "healed" had relapsed. I'm having a bit of respect for the author of this book. If it had stayed the only gospel account available, Jesus wouldn't measure up to his current reputation. Told in a spare way, with comparatively few embellishments, and a publicity avoiding Jesus, I can see in this story the unwillingness of the author to completely commit to the notion that Jesus was supernatural. If there was a Jesus of Nazareth, I imagine Mark, as the earliest, has the account that is closest to the reality.
In verse 31 Jesus predicts that the son of man (presumably a reference to himself) will be betrayed and killed and rise after three days. The disciples were afraid to ask him what that meant. Later, they were in a house in Capernaeum, maybe Peter's? Jesus asked the disciples what they had been arguing about on the road. They had been jockeying for hierarchical position in the group. Jesus told them "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." This is good psychology on Jesus's part. Now they will be trying to outdo each other in acts of service.
Jesus had a little child stand in front of the disciples, and holding the child close, said "whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." Wow. What a lesson for today. Christians take note! Children had no authority or power, they often were the household servants, which I think was the point. He was eliminating cultural hierarchy with this statement, telling the disciples that they weren't any greater than a child. If he wasn't a charlatan, I could like this version of Jesus.
Matthew's (18:1-5) version of the story does not include the concept of service or becoming servants. Instead he focuses on humility, which is more abstract. The disciples are told to be humble like children to be the greatest in the kingdom. (Mark's version does not mention the kingdom at all. It was a more earthly discussion.) The thing about humility is you don't actually have to do anything to be commended for it. It's a negative virtue, all you have to do is refrain from overtly saying or acting like you are better than anyone. You don't necessarily have to actively serve them. Plus, this conversation doesn't eliminate earthly cultural hierarchy. Matthew tries to make up for it by having Jesus put a curse on anyone who would harm a child. We all know how well curses work.
Mark and Matthew have this story happening in a house in Capernaeum, but in Luke there is very little context. Luke has Jesus read the disciple's minds instead of them telling him what they were thinking. Luke 9:46-48 has no discourse on humility or servitude or the kingdom. He just tells them to welcome that child in his name. "For he who is the least among you all--he is the greatest." The way it reads, Jesus could be telling them that particular child was the greatest among them. In Luke's version Jesus also does not tell the disciples to be like a child/children in any way. I like the Mark version best.
This was fascinating to me because, in all my years as a christian, I never caught that this dialog happened in a private home and not out among the multitudes.
Jesus and the disciples went on the move. Jesus was again trying to be incognito, supposedly because he was training his disciples. If you ask me, he may have been avoiding people who would know that the people he "healed" had relapsed. I'm having a bit of respect for the author of this book. If it had stayed the only gospel account available, Jesus wouldn't measure up to his current reputation. Told in a spare way, with comparatively few embellishments, and a publicity avoiding Jesus, I can see in this story the unwillingness of the author to completely commit to the notion that Jesus was supernatural. If there was a Jesus of Nazareth, I imagine Mark, as the earliest, has the account that is closest to the reality.
In verse 31 Jesus predicts that the son of man (presumably a reference to himself) will be betrayed and killed and rise after three days. The disciples were afraid to ask him what that meant. Later, they were in a house in Capernaeum, maybe Peter's? Jesus asked the disciples what they had been arguing about on the road. They had been jockeying for hierarchical position in the group. Jesus told them "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all." This is good psychology on Jesus's part. Now they will be trying to outdo each other in acts of service.
Jesus had a little child stand in front of the disciples, and holding the child close, said "whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." Wow. What a lesson for today. Christians take note! Children had no authority or power, they often were the household servants, which I think was the point. He was eliminating cultural hierarchy with this statement, telling the disciples that they weren't any greater than a child. If he wasn't a charlatan, I could like this version of Jesus.
Matthew's (18:1-5) version of the story does not include the concept of service or becoming servants. Instead he focuses on humility, which is more abstract. The disciples are told to be humble like children to be the greatest in the kingdom. (Mark's version does not mention the kingdom at all. It was a more earthly discussion.) The thing about humility is you don't actually have to do anything to be commended for it. It's a negative virtue, all you have to do is refrain from overtly saying or acting like you are better than anyone. You don't necessarily have to actively serve them. Plus, this conversation doesn't eliminate earthly cultural hierarchy. Matthew tries to make up for it by having Jesus put a curse on anyone who would harm a child. We all know how well curses work.
Mark and Matthew have this story happening in a house in Capernaeum, but in Luke there is very little context. Luke has Jesus read the disciple's minds instead of them telling him what they were thinking. Luke 9:46-48 has no discourse on humility or servitude or the kingdom. He just tells them to welcome that child in his name. "For he who is the least among you all--he is the greatest." The way it reads, Jesus could be telling them that particular child was the greatest among them. In Luke's version Jesus also does not tell the disciples to be like a child/children in any way. I like the Mark version best.
This was fascinating to me because, in all my years as a christian, I never caught that this dialog happened in a private home and not out among the multitudes.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Mark part fifteen
We are now at Mark 9:2. The text tells us that six days (Luke 9:28 says eight days) after Jesus predicted his own death, Jesus, Peter, James, and John, went up a high mountain, in an unspecified location. They were all alone. There were no other witnesses. Jesus was "transfigured" before the others. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than the whitest white. (Maybe Jesus put a lantern in his robe.) They also saw Moses and Elijah talking with Jesus. How did they know what Moses and Elijah looked like?
Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.
After the voice, Peter, James, and John, couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.
The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6, " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.
My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.
The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.
Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.
Peter, being frightened, said the first thing that came into his head. He thought it might be a good idea to set up three altars, one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Then a cloud surrounded them and obscured their vision. They heard a voice in the cloud say, "This is my son whom I love, listen to him!" The presumption is that this was the voice of god. If you were on a foggy mountainside and heard a voice speaking from the fog, would that necessarily mean it was a god speaking? It very well could have been Jesus himself, for that matter, if it happened.
After the voice, Peter, James, and John, couldn't see Elijah and Moses any more. They all went back down the mountain and Jesus told the other three not to tell anyone what they had seen until after the son of man (presumably referring to himself) had risen from the dead. The rising from the dead thing puzzled them. Plus, there Jesus goes being secretive again. He's also hedging his bets. If he never rose from the dead, these disciples would never tell the story, maybe.
The three disciples asked why the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first. First in relation to what? And why did the teachers of the law say that? It Is from Malachi 4:5-6, " See I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers ; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse." Jesus then tells the three that Elijah has already come and they (who?) have already done to him everything they wished, just as it was written. Elijah is assumed to be a metaphor for John the baptist, though it doesn't actually say that. Plus, there never was anything written concerning how this "Elijah" would be treated.
My study bible has an interesting note suggesting that John the baptist's life mirrored Elijah's in that he dealt with a weak king (Ahab/ Herod Antipas) and his wicked Queen (Jezebel/ Herodias). However, John the baptist was imprisoned and beheaded. Elijah rode a chariot of fire up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Now, in verse 14, they are back with the other disciples who were arguing with the teachers of the law. Jesus wanted to know the nature of the argument. A man in the crowd said his son was possessed by a spirit which made him mute and gave him seizures. The disciples hadn't been able to drive out the spirit. (Maybe because it wasn't a spirit?) This news made Jesus exclaim that he was frustrated with that "unbelieving generation." I wonder what he would think of this generation.
The child was brought to Jesus and when "the spirit" saw him, it threw the boy on the ground in a fit. The father informed Jesus that the spirit had been in his son for quite a while and had tried to kill him by throwing him in the fire or in water. Poor kid. If he existed, it is probable that he had a neurological condition like epilepsy. Jesus tells the father, who wants his son cured that every thing is possible for him who believes. (Spoiler:no it's not.) The father says something heart-wrenching, "I do believe, help me overcome my unbelief." To me this shows the father had serious doubts and was trying to overcome them by sheer willpower.
Jesus commanded the evil spirit to come out of the boy and it left with a shriek and violent convulsion. In other words, the boy shrieked and convulsed. Then he lay as still as a corpse and people thought he was dead. (He either passed out or the seizure passed and he was exhausted.) Then Jesus pulled him up to stand. The text never actually says the child was fully cured or able to speak.
Helping someone up after a seizure does not amount to a cure.
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Mark part fourteen
We are now at Mark 8:14. After Jesus has told the Pharisees that he won't give them a sign from heaven, he and the disciples get in the ever present boat and cross the lake again. The disciples forgot about bringing food and had only one loaf of bread. To which Jesus says, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and that of Herod." Since we have just encountered Pharisees looking for a sign, I'm assuming Jesus is chiding them for not trusting him to provide for them, which he sees as the influence of the Pharisees. This is further born out in his discussion of the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand, after which he says, "Do you still not understand?" It seems that the disciples had not seen those events as miraculous, and they were there.
Next they were in Bethsaida. Jesus healed a blind man with his spit, but for some reason it took two tries. Not only that, Jesus took the man out of the village to heal him, and after he was healed, he told him not to go back to the village. Doesn't that sound odd? Years later, if anyone asked the people of Bethsaida if Jesus had healed anyone there, they would say no. Then a follower could say that's because it happened outside the village.
Next Jesus and the disciples went to the villages "around" Caesarea Philippi. (No specifics to pin anything down.) On the way there, Jesus went fishing, metaphorically speaking. He asked the disciples what people thought of him. They replied that some people thought he was (the resurrected) John the Baptist. Others thought he was Elijah or one of the other old testament prophets. Then Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was. Peter said he was the Christ. Note that this does not mean Peter thought Jesus was a literal son of god, but rather the "anointed one" or ruler/leader/messiah that the Jews had come to expect from their interpretation of their scriptures. Of course, Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone about him. Makes you wonder how the author was able to find any sources for this book. Plus, Jesus didn't actually tell Peter that he was correct.
Next, Jesus told the disciples that "the son of man" must suffer many things, be rejected by all the important Jews, be killed, and rise again after three days. Presumably he was referring to himself. Peter thought so and took Jesus aside to rebuke him for saying those things. Jesus then Said, "Get behind me, Satan." Which is not a very nice thing to say to someone who is concerned for your welfare.
Then Jesus tells everyone around him that if they want to follow him, they have to deny themselves and take up their cross. This would have made no sense to people who had no idea what a cross would eventually mean to christians, unless they understood it as a call to willing martyrdom. Then Jesus says, "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it." This seems to be a clear call for voluntary martyrdom. Not only that, it elevates those who choose that path, which is sick. What is this gospel Jesus wants people to die for? So far, the book of Mark (1:14,15) has only told us that the gospel/good news is the message that the kingdom of god is near. That's it.
After encouraging people to die for him and his message, Jesus asks the crowd, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world , yet forfeit his soul?" The implication is that if a person is on team Jesus, team die-for-the-gospel, they get to keep their soul forever. If they are not, sure they might have a long, happy life, full of good things. But when it's all over, bam!, bye bye soul. And this is supposed to be a reason to give up everything for Jesus. The crowd is also told that if anyone is ashamed of him and his words (He's looking at you, Peter), then the son of man will be ashamed of that person "when he comes in his father's glory with the holy angels." I find it hard to believe that anyone in that day and age could get away with saying something like that in public and not get stoned.
Last, Jesus says that some of those standing there would not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come. Well. They are all dead now, so what is the kingdom of god? Is it the one we read about in Revelation, the one up in the sky that comes down and settles on earth? That hasn't happened yet. It can't be it, can it? The churches of Christ say that the earthly church (true christians) is the kingdom that Jesus was talking about. However, it seems to me that this is a reference to that time when Jesus is supposed to come back in his father's glory. That kingdom was what was supposed to be near. In that case, Jesus was a liar or a lunatic.
Next they were in Bethsaida. Jesus healed a blind man with his spit, but for some reason it took two tries. Not only that, Jesus took the man out of the village to heal him, and after he was healed, he told him not to go back to the village. Doesn't that sound odd? Years later, if anyone asked the people of Bethsaida if Jesus had healed anyone there, they would say no. Then a follower could say that's because it happened outside the village.
Next Jesus and the disciples went to the villages "around" Caesarea Philippi. (No specifics to pin anything down.) On the way there, Jesus went fishing, metaphorically speaking. He asked the disciples what people thought of him. They replied that some people thought he was (the resurrected) John the Baptist. Others thought he was Elijah or one of the other old testament prophets. Then Jesus asked the disciples who they thought he was. Peter said he was the Christ. Note that this does not mean Peter thought Jesus was a literal son of god, but rather the "anointed one" or ruler/leader/messiah that the Jews had come to expect from their interpretation of their scriptures. Of course, Jesus warned his disciples not to tell anyone about him. Makes you wonder how the author was able to find any sources for this book. Plus, Jesus didn't actually tell Peter that he was correct.
Next, Jesus told the disciples that "the son of man" must suffer many things, be rejected by all the important Jews, be killed, and rise again after three days. Presumably he was referring to himself. Peter thought so and took Jesus aside to rebuke him for saying those things. Jesus then Said, "Get behind me, Satan." Which is not a very nice thing to say to someone who is concerned for your welfare.
Then Jesus tells everyone around him that if they want to follow him, they have to deny themselves and take up their cross. This would have made no sense to people who had no idea what a cross would eventually mean to christians, unless they understood it as a call to willing martyrdom. Then Jesus says, "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it." This seems to be a clear call for voluntary martyrdom. Not only that, it elevates those who choose that path, which is sick. What is this gospel Jesus wants people to die for? So far, the book of Mark (1:14,15) has only told us that the gospel/good news is the message that the kingdom of god is near. That's it.
After encouraging people to die for him and his message, Jesus asks the crowd, "What good is it for a man to gain the whole world , yet forfeit his soul?" The implication is that if a person is on team Jesus, team die-for-the-gospel, they get to keep their soul forever. If they are not, sure they might have a long, happy life, full of good things. But when it's all over, bam!, bye bye soul. And this is supposed to be a reason to give up everything for Jesus. The crowd is also told that if anyone is ashamed of him and his words (He's looking at you, Peter), then the son of man will be ashamed of that person "when he comes in his father's glory with the holy angels." I find it hard to believe that anyone in that day and age could get away with saying something like that in public and not get stoned.
Last, Jesus says that some of those standing there would not taste death before they see the kingdom of god come. Well. They are all dead now, so what is the kingdom of god? Is it the one we read about in Revelation, the one up in the sky that comes down and settles on earth? That hasn't happened yet. It can't be it, can it? The churches of Christ say that the earthly church (true christians) is the kingdom that Jesus was talking about. However, it seems to me that this is a reference to that time when Jesus is supposed to come back in his father's glory. That kingdom was what was supposed to be near. In that case, Jesus was a liar or a lunatic.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
Mark part thirteen
We are now at Mark 7:24. Have you noticed that in Mark, each event seems to happen immediately after the last, in quick succession. There is no real sense of how much time has actually passed since Jesus started preaching. There is also quite a bit of vagueness as to specifically where Jesus was. We get regions and vicinities, as in this next passage. Jesus is said to have left "that place" (what place?) and to have gone to the vicinity of Tyre. Keep in mind that Tyre is not Jewish territory. Jesus was the outsider there. We are told he tried to keep his presence there a secret, but we are not told why. Also wouldn't he have known that wasn't going to work?
While Jesus was in the vicinity of Tyre, a Greek Syro-Phoenician woman (a native of that area) came to Jesus to beg him to drive a demon out of her daughter. Here is another Gentile with a demon. Now comes an extraordinary dialog. Jesus tells the woman, "First let the children eat all they want, For it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." This is quite shocking because the clear implication is that the "children of Israel" are more precious to god and deserving of healing than this woman's daughter and her people. He is calling them dogs, a clear insult. This is a definite example of prejudice, and by Jesus. Unbelievably, the woman replies, "Yes Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Jesus is impressed with the woman's sassy answer and heals her daughter long distance. So, the only thing Jesus did in Tyre was heal a little girl that he never saw, of a demon that she probably didn't have, while trying to remain incognito? And how did the author of Mark come to know this story? How could anyone have known if it was true?
Then Jesus left that area and into the region of the Decapolis, Gentile territory again. There he heals a deaf and mute man. First he takes the man away from the crowd. Why? Wouldn't these miracles be more believable the more people saw them? Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears, then spit, then touched the man's tongue. Ewww. Jesus then looked up to heaven, heaved a big sigh, and said, "Be opened!" Very dramatic. Of course the man began to hear and speak again or we wouldn't have the story. Jesus commanded the people present not to tell anyone, which of course was futile, as he should have known. They spread the news about how wonderful Jesus was. Again, from where did the author of Mark get this story? And how could anyone know if it was true?
We get to chapter eight and another vague time reference, "During those days, another large crowd gathered." We are not told anything about the location, except that it is remote, again. Again, the people needed to be fed. Again, the disciples ask about how to feed them. Again, Jesus asks how many loaves the disciples have. Last time they had five loaves and two fish. 5+2=7. Seven is a magic number. This time there are seven loaves and a few small fish. This time there were seven baskets of leftovers. Four thousand males were present.(100x40, 40 being another magic number) Again, females don't count. Again, what was done with the leftovers, which were presumably edible?
Afterward Jesus and his disciples got in the boat (Wait! What boat?) and headed to "the region" of Dalmanutha. Funny, There is no reason to believe Dalmanutha ever existed. Here is one man's take on the subject. (Link) The pharisees just happened to appear there to question Jesus. Those Pharisees got around. However, they don't seem to have been around in the places Jesus is supposed to have performed miracles. They asked Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus blew them off with a non-insult insult. "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given it." (Get out of here, I'm not going to show you my gun.) The Pharisees were skeptics, good for them.
After that brief encounter the disciples amd Jesus all pile back in the boat and cross the lake again.
While Jesus was in the vicinity of Tyre, a Greek Syro-Phoenician woman (a native of that area) came to Jesus to beg him to drive a demon out of her daughter. Here is another Gentile with a demon. Now comes an extraordinary dialog. Jesus tells the woman, "First let the children eat all they want, For it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to the dogs." This is quite shocking because the clear implication is that the "children of Israel" are more precious to god and deserving of healing than this woman's daughter and her people. He is calling them dogs, a clear insult. This is a definite example of prejudice, and by Jesus. Unbelievably, the woman replies, "Yes Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Jesus is impressed with the woman's sassy answer and heals her daughter long distance. So, the only thing Jesus did in Tyre was heal a little girl that he never saw, of a demon that she probably didn't have, while trying to remain incognito? And how did the author of Mark come to know this story? How could anyone have known if it was true?
Then Jesus left that area and into the region of the Decapolis, Gentile territory again. There he heals a deaf and mute man. First he takes the man away from the crowd. Why? Wouldn't these miracles be more believable the more people saw them? Jesus put his fingers into the man's ears, then spit, then touched the man's tongue. Ewww. Jesus then looked up to heaven, heaved a big sigh, and said, "Be opened!" Very dramatic. Of course the man began to hear and speak again or we wouldn't have the story. Jesus commanded the people present not to tell anyone, which of course was futile, as he should have known. They spread the news about how wonderful Jesus was. Again, from where did the author of Mark get this story? And how could anyone know if it was true?
We get to chapter eight and another vague time reference, "During those days, another large crowd gathered." We are not told anything about the location, except that it is remote, again. Again, the people needed to be fed. Again, the disciples ask about how to feed them. Again, Jesus asks how many loaves the disciples have. Last time they had five loaves and two fish. 5+2=7. Seven is a magic number. This time there are seven loaves and a few small fish. This time there were seven baskets of leftovers. Four thousand males were present.(100x40, 40 being another magic number) Again, females don't count. Again, what was done with the leftovers, which were presumably edible?
Afterward Jesus and his disciples got in the boat (Wait! What boat?) and headed to "the region" of Dalmanutha. Funny, There is no reason to believe Dalmanutha ever existed. Here is one man's take on the subject. (Link) The pharisees just happened to appear there to question Jesus. Those Pharisees got around. However, they don't seem to have been around in the places Jesus is supposed to have performed miracles. They asked Jesus for a sign from heaven. Jesus blew them off with a non-insult insult. "Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given it." (Get out of here, I'm not going to show you my gun.) The Pharisees were skeptics, good for them.
After that brief encounter the disciples amd Jesus all pile back in the boat and cross the lake again.
Saturday, January 19, 2019
Mark part twelve
I've been think about the feeding of the five thousand, and all the leftovers. Why didn't Jesus let the people keep the left over food? Wouldn't it have been kinder and more practical? What use did he have for twelve basketfuls of scraps? What did the disciples do with those twelve baskets of food, take them on the boat? Throw them away? The only reason I can think of for the twelve baskets is so that the story could be magnified to make it seem a spectacular miracle, and to include the magic number twelve. It may symbolically represent god's care for the needs of the twelve tribes. In reality, it could be that all the people present (not likely to have been 5,000) just shared the food they had brought with them. Jesus needn't have performed any miracle at all. In fact the text doesn't actually say that he did.
On to the end of Mark chapter six, where we are told that Jesus's fame spread so that people all over the region brought their sick to wherever he was. Everyone who touched him was healed. And yet, no person living at that time wrote about him.
In chapter seven, some Pharisees from Jerusalem see some of Jesus's disciples eating food without first ritually washing their hands, according to Jewish tradition. This was a symbolic cleansing of an abstract notion of "impurity" not a precursor of concrete germ theory as some modern christians may claim. This passage may have been written as a natural segue to Jesus being touched by so many people, many of whom were almost certainly ritually unclean. Those with certain illnesses, menstruating women, and even non Jews, were automatically unclean. The pharisees questioned Jesus as to why his followers were not living according to tradition.
Jesus replied to the pharisees with a quote from Isaiah 29:13, which accuses people of just paying god lip service and worshipping god with man made rules. This was meant to burn. Then Jesus mentions a command given by Moses (Ironically, if he ever existed, Moses was just a man.) that the pharisees do not observe. This command is to honor one's father and mother. Presumably part of that honoring would be to take financial care of them in their old age. Yet the Pharisees have allowed/encouraged people to give whatever money they would have used to support their parents to god. (Who doesn't need money. Where does the money go?) That is indeed a lousy thing to do. Much worse than not washing hands before eating.
Jesus used this as a teaching tool, and probably as an added embarrassment for the Pharisees. He told the crowd hanging around that "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." This can be taken symbolically or literally, as we shall see. In the literal sense, it clearly shows that Jesus had no knowledge of bacteria and viruses. Jesus implies that in the literal sense things come out of the body, like blood, pus, vomit, semen, urine, and feces, were unclean, not things that went into the body from the outside, like food and drink. However, there is also a metaphorical sense. To emphasize this, Jesus says food goes into a persons stomach and then out of his body. It doesn't go into his heart. (The author of Mark says this means Jesus declared all foods clean. That is clearly his personal interpretation.)
The disciples didn't get what Jesus was trying to say, so Jesus had to spell it out for them privately, after first calling them "dull." It's the heart that matters, according to Jesus. We are not talking about the actual organ of the heart, but that something we might call the soul, the conscience, our essence, the seat of our emotions, or some other abstract concept which denotes our personality or psyche. Jesus says," what comes out of a man makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils cone from inside and make a man unclean." Jesus is not talking about bodily fluids and literal uncleanness, but spiritual uncleanness. He's taking uncleanness to another level, a level which makes it even more difficult to know if one is "clean" or not.
On to the end of Mark chapter six, where we are told that Jesus's fame spread so that people all over the region brought their sick to wherever he was. Everyone who touched him was healed. And yet, no person living at that time wrote about him.
In chapter seven, some Pharisees from Jerusalem see some of Jesus's disciples eating food without first ritually washing their hands, according to Jewish tradition. This was a symbolic cleansing of an abstract notion of "impurity" not a precursor of concrete germ theory as some modern christians may claim. This passage may have been written as a natural segue to Jesus being touched by so many people, many of whom were almost certainly ritually unclean. Those with certain illnesses, menstruating women, and even non Jews, were automatically unclean. The pharisees questioned Jesus as to why his followers were not living according to tradition.
Jesus replied to the pharisees with a quote from Isaiah 29:13, which accuses people of just paying god lip service and worshipping god with man made rules. This was meant to burn. Then Jesus mentions a command given by Moses (Ironically, if he ever existed, Moses was just a man.) that the pharisees do not observe. This command is to honor one's father and mother. Presumably part of that honoring would be to take financial care of them in their old age. Yet the Pharisees have allowed/encouraged people to give whatever money they would have used to support their parents to god. (Who doesn't need money. Where does the money go?) That is indeed a lousy thing to do. Much worse than not washing hands before eating.
Jesus used this as a teaching tool, and probably as an added embarrassment for the Pharisees. He told the crowd hanging around that "Nothing outside a man can make him unclean by going into him. Rather it is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean." This can be taken symbolically or literally, as we shall see. In the literal sense, it clearly shows that Jesus had no knowledge of bacteria and viruses. Jesus implies that in the literal sense things come out of the body, like blood, pus, vomit, semen, urine, and feces, were unclean, not things that went into the body from the outside, like food and drink. However, there is also a metaphorical sense. To emphasize this, Jesus says food goes into a persons stomach and then out of his body. It doesn't go into his heart. (The author of Mark says this means Jesus declared all foods clean. That is clearly his personal interpretation.)
The disciples didn't get what Jesus was trying to say, so Jesus had to spell it out for them privately, after first calling them "dull." It's the heart that matters, according to Jesus. We are not talking about the actual organ of the heart, but that something we might call the soul, the conscience, our essence, the seat of our emotions, or some other abstract concept which denotes our personality or psyche. Jesus says," what comes out of a man makes him unclean. For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, envy, slander, arrogance, and folly. All these evils cone from inside and make a man unclean." Jesus is not talking about bodily fluids and literal uncleanness, but spiritual uncleanness. He's taking uncleanness to another level, a level which makes it even more difficult to know if one is "clean" or not.
Friday, January 18, 2019
Mark part eleven
We are at Mark 6:45, which says, "Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray." When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake. They had made good time. However, now the disciples weren't getting anywhere because they were rowing against a strong wind. I would have thought Jesus would have known that was going to happen before he sent them out. He could see them from the land yet did nothing until "the fourth hour of the night."
The fourth hour of the night is a phrase for the three hour period just before dawn, about 3-6am. These guys must have been rowing in the boat all night, about nine to twelve hours, getting nowhere fast. It seems a little ridiculous to me. The lake is 8 miles wide and 13 miles long. Why didn't they just go back to the shore and wait out the wind, when they first saw that it was futile to go on? And these are supposed to be men experienced with boats. Does the author of Mark actually know anything about this area?
So, what does Jesus do? He walks right out onto the lake and is about to walk past them when the disciples yell with fright because they think he is a ghost. Not only that, they must have been utterly exhausted and the mind plays tricks on you when you are tired. He told them not to be afraid and identified himself. He got in the boat and the wind died down. The text says they were amazed "for they had not understood about the loaves (aka miraclulous feeding) and their hearts were hardened." Harsh.
Reading this story makes me think it actually could have happened, but not the way we are meant to think it did. Let's try looking at it this way: Suppose Jesus did send the disciples across the lake and they got to the middle fairly quickly but a strong wind came up. By that time, it was evening and getting dark, but it was still light enough for Jesus to make them out on the water, especially if he was on high ground. Let's suppose that he also saw that they gave up trying to fight the wind and decided to head back. Then night fell. Remember, this is the first century, no electricity, no flashlights, no matches. Have you ever been in a remote place after dark? What about when there is cloud cover and no moon? What about on the water at night with no light at all? How far can you see? Yeah. Same here.
I don't know if this boat had sails. It definitely had oars, and must have been big enough to hold twelve people. I don't even know how sail boats work. How much can you do in pitch black, in a high wind, on any boat? It's my guess that you would hunker down and ride it out, hoping for the best, bailing water as fast as you can, if need be. Maybe they rowed in the direction the wind was pushing them, just hoping to reach land quickly, not knowing for certain exactly what spot they would end up at. We aren't even told exactly where they began. What was Jesus doing in the dark and the wind? Any normal human being would have found shelter and had a snooze, if possible. He surely wasn't standing on the hillside watching the disciples struggle with the boat for nine hours.
The hours between 3-6am are when the sky begins to lighten and visibility improves as dawn approaches. Jesus heads for the shore. By the time he gets there, he can see the boat rocking on the waves, anchored just off shore, with the crew of exhausted men limp and dozing. The wind has died down but they hardly notice. The tide is low, so Jesus walks out to the boat. There is a light morning mist hovering on the water. Someone is startled awake, sees Jesus appear to be gliding above the water, and yells. Everyone wakes up. Jesus looks ghostly in the early morning light. He laughs and says, "Relax, it's just me." He gets in the boat and they all realize the wind has died down, so they easily cross over and landed at Gennesaret, which is not where they had been heading the first time, but maybe it was the closest place, and they were probably hungry.
It could have happened that way.
The fourth hour of the night is a phrase for the three hour period just before dawn, about 3-6am. These guys must have been rowing in the boat all night, about nine to twelve hours, getting nowhere fast. It seems a little ridiculous to me. The lake is 8 miles wide and 13 miles long. Why didn't they just go back to the shore and wait out the wind, when they first saw that it was futile to go on? And these are supposed to be men experienced with boats. Does the author of Mark actually know anything about this area?
So, what does Jesus do? He walks right out onto the lake and is about to walk past them when the disciples yell with fright because they think he is a ghost. Not only that, they must have been utterly exhausted and the mind plays tricks on you when you are tired. He told them not to be afraid and identified himself. He got in the boat and the wind died down. The text says they were amazed "for they had not understood about the loaves (aka miraclulous feeding) and their hearts were hardened." Harsh.
Reading this story makes me think it actually could have happened, but not the way we are meant to think it did. Let's try looking at it this way: Suppose Jesus did send the disciples across the lake and they got to the middle fairly quickly but a strong wind came up. By that time, it was evening and getting dark, but it was still light enough for Jesus to make them out on the water, especially if he was on high ground. Let's suppose that he also saw that they gave up trying to fight the wind and decided to head back. Then night fell. Remember, this is the first century, no electricity, no flashlights, no matches. Have you ever been in a remote place after dark? What about when there is cloud cover and no moon? What about on the water at night with no light at all? How far can you see? Yeah. Same here.
I don't know if this boat had sails. It definitely had oars, and must have been big enough to hold twelve people. I don't even know how sail boats work. How much can you do in pitch black, in a high wind, on any boat? It's my guess that you would hunker down and ride it out, hoping for the best, bailing water as fast as you can, if need be. Maybe they rowed in the direction the wind was pushing them, just hoping to reach land quickly, not knowing for certain exactly what spot they would end up at. We aren't even told exactly where they began. What was Jesus doing in the dark and the wind? Any normal human being would have found shelter and had a snooze, if possible. He surely wasn't standing on the hillside watching the disciples struggle with the boat for nine hours.
The hours between 3-6am are when the sky begins to lighten and visibility improves as dawn approaches. Jesus heads for the shore. By the time he gets there, he can see the boat rocking on the waves, anchored just off shore, with the crew of exhausted men limp and dozing. The wind has died down but they hardly notice. The tide is low, so Jesus walks out to the boat. There is a light morning mist hovering on the water. Someone is startled awake, sees Jesus appear to be gliding above the water, and yells. Everyone wakes up. Jesus looks ghostly in the early morning light. He laughs and says, "Relax, it's just me." He gets in the boat and they all realize the wind has died down, so they easily cross over and landed at Gennesaret, which is not where they had been heading the first time, but maybe it was the closest place, and they were probably hungry.
It could have happened that way.
Thursday, January 17, 2019
Mark part ten
We are at Mark 6:7. Jesus is travelling around teaching. He also sent his disciples out to teach in pairs, giving them the authority to cast out demons. They also performed faith healings. Jesus gave them specific instructions which sound like a religious commitment to poverty, similar to other mendicants throughout history. They were to take no food, no money, and no extra clothing with them. They were to rely on the hospitality of the townspeople, performing a kind of curse if they were not welcomed. ("Shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.")
Basically, they became a kind of "holy" beggar. Their message was that people should repent, but repent of what?
Jesus started to become well known and King Herod heard about him. This is not the Herod (the great) that was supposedly king when Jesus was born, but Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the great. Some people were saying Jesus was John the baptist resurrected, that's why he could do miracles. (Was John the baptist also known for miracles?) Remember, Mark has Jesus's ministry starting after the death of John. This is all significant because this Herod was responsible for John's death. John the baptist had told Herod it was not lawful to marry his brother's wife, Herodias, so Herod had locked him up. Herodias was enraged, and cooked up a sneaky plot. With her daughter's help, she tricked Herod into executing John and bringing his head to her on a platter.
Herodias had an interesting family. Her parents were first cousins. Her father was killed by her grandfather, Herod the great, when she was a child. She was married to her father's half brother Philip, then divorced and married to her other half uncle, Antipas.
Here we have the book of Mark's secular anchor in time. The events are now taking place after Herod took up with Herodias and before Herod was in a war with his first wife's father, in 36 CE. Herod was exiled in 39 CE because of the war. Herod had divorced his first wife to marry Herodias. John the baptist was supposed to have been beheaded after that. Jesus started preaching after John's death. Herod's first wife's father declared war on Herod as soon as he had his daughter safely back home. Common christianity says Jesus died around 33 CE. I think if Jesus lived and taught at the time Mark said he did, that date may be a little off. What do you think?
We are at Mark 6:30. After the apostles have been out teaching, they reported back to Jesus. They all tried to meet in a solitary place, but were recognized and followed by a crowd. So, Jesus began to teach the crowd. Along about dinner time, the apostles advised Jesus to send the people away to get something to eat. Jesus said, "you give them something to eat." The disciples were shocked that Jesus would ask them to spend the amount of money it would take to feed all the people. When Jesus asked how much food the disciples had on them, they replied, "five loaves and two fish."
Jesus had the people sit down in groups of hundreds and fifties. He looked up at the sky and gave thanks. Then he broke up the food and had the disciples distributed it. Everyone got enough to eat and there were twelve baskets full of leftovers. (Magic number alert) "The number of MEN who had eaten was five thousand." Because only men count. Get it? Did you notice that one hundred times fifty is five thousand?
More to come.
Basically, they became a kind of "holy" beggar. Their message was that people should repent, but repent of what?
Jesus started to become well known and King Herod heard about him. This is not the Herod (the great) that was supposedly king when Jesus was born, but Herod Antipas, a son of Herod the great. Some people were saying Jesus was John the baptist resurrected, that's why he could do miracles. (Was John the baptist also known for miracles?) Remember, Mark has Jesus's ministry starting after the death of John. This is all significant because this Herod was responsible for John's death. John the baptist had told Herod it was not lawful to marry his brother's wife, Herodias, so Herod had locked him up. Herodias was enraged, and cooked up a sneaky plot. With her daughter's help, she tricked Herod into executing John and bringing his head to her on a platter.
Herodias had an interesting family. Her parents were first cousins. Her father was killed by her grandfather, Herod the great, when she was a child. She was married to her father's half brother Philip, then divorced and married to her other half uncle, Antipas.
Here we have the book of Mark's secular anchor in time. The events are now taking place after Herod took up with Herodias and before Herod was in a war with his first wife's father, in 36 CE. Herod was exiled in 39 CE because of the war. Herod had divorced his first wife to marry Herodias. John the baptist was supposed to have been beheaded after that. Jesus started preaching after John's death. Herod's first wife's father declared war on Herod as soon as he had his daughter safely back home. Common christianity says Jesus died around 33 CE. I think if Jesus lived and taught at the time Mark said he did, that date may be a little off. What do you think?
We are at Mark 6:30. After the apostles have been out teaching, they reported back to Jesus. They all tried to meet in a solitary place, but were recognized and followed by a crowd. So, Jesus began to teach the crowd. Along about dinner time, the apostles advised Jesus to send the people away to get something to eat. Jesus said, "you give them something to eat." The disciples were shocked that Jesus would ask them to spend the amount of money it would take to feed all the people. When Jesus asked how much food the disciples had on them, they replied, "five loaves and two fish."
Jesus had the people sit down in groups of hundreds and fifties. He looked up at the sky and gave thanks. Then he broke up the food and had the disciples distributed it. Everyone got enough to eat and there were twelve baskets full of leftovers. (Magic number alert) "The number of MEN who had eaten was five thousand." Because only men count. Get it? Did you notice that one hundred times fifty is five thousand?
More to come.
Tuesday, January 15, 2019
Mark part nine
We are at Mark 5:35. Jesus had been on his way to heal Jairus's daughter but got sidetracked by the woman who had supposedly been bleeding for twelve years. Now someone runs up and tells Jairus his daughter is dead. Jesus tells him to not be afraid, just believe. Only Peter, James and John were allowed to accompany Jesus to Jairus's home. When they got there, the mourners were in full cry. Jesus told them they needn't make so much noise, the child was only sleeping. They laughed at him.
Jesus took only the father, mother, and his three disciples, into the child's room. He grabbed the child by the hand and told her to get up, and she did. Then "he gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this." Which was probably the best way to get the news spread. On the other hand, it's an excuse, when someone says they never heard this story from Jairus, or anyone else. Then a christian could say, of course not, jesus swore him to secrecy. My study bible claims it is because Jesus didn't want to "precipitate a crisis" before his ministry was complete. That is assumed. It is not actually in the text.
By the way, just like the woman in the previous story bled for twelve years, this little girl was twelve years old. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't. Twelve is one of the Bible's magic numbers.
We are now in chapter six. Jesus goes to his hometown with his disciples. He teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath, amazing his neighbors with his wisdom and miracles. Jesus is a carpenter. He worked with his hands, which would most likely mean he had no formal religious training. The people knew his mother Mary, his sisters, and his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. His father is not mentioned. It seems that Jesus came from a large family.
Let's talk about Jesus's family. It may have no significance, but I find the names of his family members interesting. If you look at the original text, his mother has the same basic name as Moses's sister, Miriam. His brother James is actually Jacob, the name of the founding father of Israel. This is thought to be the James mentioned in Paul's letters and the one that wrote the book of James. His brother Joseph has the name of one of Jacob's sons, as does Judas (Judah) and Simon (Simeon). Jesus himself is actually named Joshua, the name of the man who led the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan, also the name of a mystical high priest in the book of Zechariah. Another coincidence? Maybe. One thing the bible is good at is reusing names, or using names with specific meanings to the context. It may also just reflect the cultural popularity of those names.
Anyway, the text says Jesus's neighbors were offended by him. To which Jesus makes that famous statement, "Only in his hometown...is a prophet without honor." We are told Jesus was not able to work many miracles there, just heal a few sick people, because of the people's lack of faith. (He's got a built in holy spirit meter.) Can you blame them? What would you think if the local plumber in your town, whom you had known since he was a child, suddenly stopped working and became an itinerant preacher and faith healer? Do you realize that since he is no longer being productive, he must get his food/lodging/clothing from somewhere? That's where you come in. People are expected to physically support "men of god." Nice work if you can get it. Jesus couldn't get it there. You would think he wasn't god in the flesh, or something.
Another interesting thing, even though we are studying Mark as a stand alone book: In the book of Luke, and only the book of Luke, at the age of twelve (there is that number again), Jesus was amazing people in the temple with his wisdom. Yet, in Mark's story, we see no sign that Jesus ever gave his neighbors previous reason to believe he was special.
More to come.
Jesus took only the father, mother, and his three disciples, into the child's room. He grabbed the child by the hand and told her to get up, and she did. Then "he gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this." Which was probably the best way to get the news spread. On the other hand, it's an excuse, when someone says they never heard this story from Jairus, or anyone else. Then a christian could say, of course not, jesus swore him to secrecy. My study bible claims it is because Jesus didn't want to "precipitate a crisis" before his ministry was complete. That is assumed. It is not actually in the text.
By the way, just like the woman in the previous story bled for twelve years, this little girl was twelve years old. Do you think that was a coincidence? I don't. Twelve is one of the Bible's magic numbers.
We are now in chapter six. Jesus goes to his hometown with his disciples. He teaches in the synagogue on the sabbath, amazing his neighbors with his wisdom and miracles. Jesus is a carpenter. He worked with his hands, which would most likely mean he had no formal religious training. The people knew his mother Mary, his sisters, and his brothers James, Joseph, Judas, and Simon. His father is not mentioned. It seems that Jesus came from a large family.
Let's talk about Jesus's family. It may have no significance, but I find the names of his family members interesting. If you look at the original text, his mother has the same basic name as Moses's sister, Miriam. His brother James is actually Jacob, the name of the founding father of Israel. This is thought to be the James mentioned in Paul's letters and the one that wrote the book of James. His brother Joseph has the name of one of Jacob's sons, as does Judas (Judah) and Simon (Simeon). Jesus himself is actually named Joshua, the name of the man who led the Israelites in the conquest of Canaan, also the name of a mystical high priest in the book of Zechariah. Another coincidence? Maybe. One thing the bible is good at is reusing names, or using names with specific meanings to the context. It may also just reflect the cultural popularity of those names.
Anyway, the text says Jesus's neighbors were offended by him. To which Jesus makes that famous statement, "Only in his hometown...is a prophet without honor." We are told Jesus was not able to work many miracles there, just heal a few sick people, because of the people's lack of faith. (He's got a built in holy spirit meter.) Can you blame them? What would you think if the local plumber in your town, whom you had known since he was a child, suddenly stopped working and became an itinerant preacher and faith healer? Do you realize that since he is no longer being productive, he must get his food/lodging/clothing from somewhere? That's where you come in. People are expected to physically support "men of god." Nice work if you can get it. Jesus couldn't get it there. You would think he wasn't god in the flesh, or something.
Another interesting thing, even though we are studying Mark as a stand alone book: In the book of Luke, and only the book of Luke, at the age of twelve (there is that number again), Jesus was amazing people in the temple with his wisdom. Yet, in Mark's story, we see no sign that Jesus ever gave his neighbors previous reason to believe he was special.
More to come.
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Mark part eight
We are now in Mark chapter five. Jesus and his disciples are still in the boat. " They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes. When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil spirit came from the tombs to meet him." This guy had super human strength and couldn't be controlled by anyone. He was also strong enough to break any restraints. "Night and day...he would cry out and cut himself with stones." Frankly, if this person existed, he is more likely to have had a mental illness than a demon. Also, the fact that he is alive means that he is receiving some kind of basic sustenance from somewhere.
When the man saw Jesus, he fell on his knees in front of him. Jesus ordered the evil spirit to come out. The man yelled, "what do you want with me, Jesus, son of the most high god. Swear to god you won't torture me." So, the evil spirit didn't immediately obey Jesus. First it tried to bargain with him. Jesus ask the spirit what its name was. It said, "Legion, for we are many." Sounds like Schizophrenia.
The demons begged Jesus to allow them to go into some nearby pigs. Jesus "gave them permission." The spirits came out of the man and into a large herd of pigs. About 2,000 pigs ran down a steep bank into the river and drowned.
Interestingly, there actually wasn't any region of the Gerasenes with ten miles of the lake (Sea of Galilee) which Jesus is supposed to have just crossed. It's like the author of Mark doesn't know the region very well. Second, the story suddenly jumps from the lake to a river, possibly the Jordan. Also, this is the east side of the lake, or river, gentile territory, as seen by the herds of pigs. What is Jesus doing here any way? Not to mention, he is now responsible for the death of about 2,000 pigs owned by some sure to be angry pig farmer(s).That's a lot of dead pigs in the river.
The news got out and people came running to see what had happened. They saw the formerly demon possessed man dressed and in his right mind. (This version never says the man started out naked.) The people were told the story and clearly were not happy, because they begged Jesus to leave. Jesus got back in the boat. The cured man wanted to come with him but Jesus ordered the man to go and tell his family how the lord had mercy on him. The man went around the whole region telling what Jesus had done. But there is no extrabiblical record of it.
Next, Jesus goes back to the other side of the lake. Among the large crowd gathered there was a synagogue leader Jairus. This man begged Jesus to come heal his dying daughter. Jesus followed Jairus with the large crowd milling about them. In the crowd was a woman with some kind of ailment that caused her to bleed for twelve years (and she's not dead or an invalid?). It doesn't say what kind of bleeding, presumably it was menstrual. This would have made herself, and everyone who came in contact with her, ritually unclean, including Jesus. She came up behind Jesus and touched his cloak, thinking that just touching Jesus's clothes would give her access to his healing powers, which the story says it did. Jesus felt the power go out of himself and turned around saying, "Who touched me?" The disciples reminded him of the press of the crowd, but Jesus kept looking. Funnily enough, he didn't have the power to know who touched him. The woman confessed, "trembling with fear." Jesus told her that her faith had healed her. Here's the thing about that: this woman's problem was of a hidden/private nature. She could have lied. Jesus could have lied. Even if we were right there, we wouldn't know the truth of the healing without an examination, which of course wouldn't happen. Should we just believe?
Of course we mustn't forget about Jairus's daughter. The story seems to have gotten side tracked. More next time.
When the man saw Jesus, he fell on his knees in front of him. Jesus ordered the evil spirit to come out. The man yelled, "what do you want with me, Jesus, son of the most high god. Swear to god you won't torture me." So, the evil spirit didn't immediately obey Jesus. First it tried to bargain with him. Jesus ask the spirit what its name was. It said, "Legion, for we are many." Sounds like Schizophrenia.
The demons begged Jesus to allow them to go into some nearby pigs. Jesus "gave them permission." The spirits came out of the man and into a large herd of pigs. About 2,000 pigs ran down a steep bank into the river and drowned.
Interestingly, there actually wasn't any region of the Gerasenes with ten miles of the lake (Sea of Galilee) which Jesus is supposed to have just crossed. It's like the author of Mark doesn't know the region very well. Second, the story suddenly jumps from the lake to a river, possibly the Jordan. Also, this is the east side of the lake, or river, gentile territory, as seen by the herds of pigs. What is Jesus doing here any way? Not to mention, he is now responsible for the death of about 2,000 pigs owned by some sure to be angry pig farmer(s).That's a lot of dead pigs in the river.
The news got out and people came running to see what had happened. They saw the formerly demon possessed man dressed and in his right mind. (This version never says the man started out naked.) The people were told the story and clearly were not happy, because they begged Jesus to leave. Jesus got back in the boat. The cured man wanted to come with him but Jesus ordered the man to go and tell his family how the lord had mercy on him. The man went around the whole region telling what Jesus had done. But there is no extrabiblical record of it.
Next, Jesus goes back to the other side of the lake. Among the large crowd gathered there was a synagogue leader Jairus. This man begged Jesus to come heal his dying daughter. Jesus followed Jairus with the large crowd milling about them. In the crowd was a woman with some kind of ailment that caused her to bleed for twelve years (and she's not dead or an invalid?). It doesn't say what kind of bleeding, presumably it was menstrual. This would have made herself, and everyone who came in contact with her, ritually unclean, including Jesus. She came up behind Jesus and touched his cloak, thinking that just touching Jesus's clothes would give her access to his healing powers, which the story says it did. Jesus felt the power go out of himself and turned around saying, "Who touched me?" The disciples reminded him of the press of the crowd, but Jesus kept looking. Funnily enough, he didn't have the power to know who touched him. The woman confessed, "trembling with fear." Jesus told her that her faith had healed her. Here's the thing about that: this woman's problem was of a hidden/private nature. She could have lied. Jesus could have lied. Even if we were right there, we wouldn't know the truth of the healing without an examination, which of course wouldn't happen. Should we just believe?
Of course we mustn't forget about Jairus's daughter. The story seems to have gotten side tracked. More next time.
Thursday, January 10, 2019
Mark part seven
We are at Mark 4:17. Jesus has just told the disciples that he will explain parables to them but not to outsiders. He then proceeds to chastise them for not understanding the parable of the sower. The farmer is the person "sowing" the word of god. The different types of soil are the different types of people who hear the message. Their receptiveness and retention of the word determines whether or not they become "fruitful." Being fruitful is open to interpretation here. Perhaps it just means producing more people willing to sow the word, kind of like multi-level marketing.
Next, without any context or explanation, Jesus tells the disciples, " Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or bed? Instead don't you put it on a stand? For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open." I am not going to talk about how the other gospels interpret this. We are reading Mark as if it is a stand alone book, which it must have been when it was written. In Mark, there seems to be very little to take away unless you assume that "lamp" refers to the word of god, as in Old Testament poetry. If what is hidden is meant to be disclosed, why doesn't Jesus disclose the meaning of the parables to everyone?
Next, again without context or explanation, Jesus says, ..."with the measure you use, it will be measured to you--and even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." What are we measuring? What do we have or not have? Your guess is as good as mine. It could be money/generosity. It could be faith. It could be something else. Whatever it is, it seems patently unfair to give someone who has abundance of something more, while depriving the person who has less.
In verses 26-29, Jesus tells a parable about the kingdom of god. Again, a man scatters seed. Whatever the man does during the other parts of his life, the seed grows, in spite if his level of understanding of the growth process. It reaches maturity and is harvested. Jesus does not explain this parable. Presumably the seed is still the word of god. What is the harvest?
The next passage is another parable about the kingdom of god. This time it is like a mustard seed, "the smallest seed you plant in the ground. Yet....it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade." This author was obviously not a gardener, or he was not talking about the plant we know as mustard today. That plant in never any larger than a small shrub. My study bible says the point is that the kingdom of god appeared to start out insignificantly but will grow to magnificent proportions. If it is like the mustard plant mentioned, it won't even exist. The chapter ends by saying Jesus continued to speak in parables and to explain them to his disciples when he was alone with them.
"That day when evening came," (what day was that?) Jesus and his disciples got in a boat on the lake. There were other boats as well. There came a bad storm with waves crashing over the boat. Jesus was asleep. The disciples woke him up. Jesus told the storm to sit down and shut up. Jesus berated his disciples for the perfectly natural fear that they experienced, accusing them of having no faith. The disciples were terrified by Jesus's power over the elements. I'm guessing that most people instinctively know that gods are not usually available in times of natural peril. Even those that have faith can still be killed by drowning while they pray. Not many people are keen on dying.
Next, without any context or explanation, Jesus tells the disciples, " Do you bring in a lamp to put it under a bowl or bed? Instead don't you put it on a stand? For whatever is hidden is meant to be disclosed, whatever is concealed is meant to be brought out into the open." I am not going to talk about how the other gospels interpret this. We are reading Mark as if it is a stand alone book, which it must have been when it was written. In Mark, there seems to be very little to take away unless you assume that "lamp" refers to the word of god, as in Old Testament poetry. If what is hidden is meant to be disclosed, why doesn't Jesus disclose the meaning of the parables to everyone?
Next, again without context or explanation, Jesus says, ..."with the measure you use, it will be measured to you--and even more. Whoever has will be given more; whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." What are we measuring? What do we have or not have? Your guess is as good as mine. It could be money/generosity. It could be faith. It could be something else. Whatever it is, it seems patently unfair to give someone who has abundance of something more, while depriving the person who has less.
In verses 26-29, Jesus tells a parable about the kingdom of god. Again, a man scatters seed. Whatever the man does during the other parts of his life, the seed grows, in spite if his level of understanding of the growth process. It reaches maturity and is harvested. Jesus does not explain this parable. Presumably the seed is still the word of god. What is the harvest?
The next passage is another parable about the kingdom of god. This time it is like a mustard seed, "the smallest seed you plant in the ground. Yet....it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade." This author was obviously not a gardener, or he was not talking about the plant we know as mustard today. That plant in never any larger than a small shrub. My study bible says the point is that the kingdom of god appeared to start out insignificantly but will grow to magnificent proportions. If it is like the mustard plant mentioned, it won't even exist. The chapter ends by saying Jesus continued to speak in parables and to explain them to his disciples when he was alone with them.
"That day when evening came," (what day was that?) Jesus and his disciples got in a boat on the lake. There were other boats as well. There came a bad storm with waves crashing over the boat. Jesus was asleep. The disciples woke him up. Jesus told the storm to sit down and shut up. Jesus berated his disciples for the perfectly natural fear that they experienced, accusing them of having no faith. The disciples were terrified by Jesus's power over the elements. I'm guessing that most people instinctively know that gods are not usually available in times of natural peril. Even those that have faith can still be killed by drowning while they pray. Not many people are keen on dying.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Mark part six
We are back to the book of Mark, just after the appointing of the twelve apostles, chapter three, verse 20.
Jesus is in a house trying to eat and a huge crowd develops. His family hears about it and thinks he's gone crazy. Teachers of the law say he's possessed by Beelzebub. He's able to drive out demons because he's in league with the prince of demons. Jesus basically says that's silly. Why would Satan oppose himself? A kingdom or house divided against itself cannot stand. (Interesting that Beelzebub, the prince of demons, and Satan are used synonymously in this passage.)
Next Jesus says no one can enter a strong man's house and take his possessions without tying him up. Presumably this is referring to Jesus being able to remove people from demon possession. This must mean Jesus has some how overpowered Satan. Then Jesus pointedly says "I tell you the truth, all the sin and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whosoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven; he us guilty of an eternal sin. Jesus said this because they were saying he has an evil spirit." So, Jesus obviously equated their words about him with blasphemy against the holy spirit.
Because of this passage, blasphemy against the holy spirit/ Jesus/ God has come to be known in Christianity as the "unforgivable sin." Let me tell you, this fact has caused a of load trouble for people all around the world in the form of blasphemy laws. It also causes intense psychological angst for the person who thinks that just thinking forbidden words in ones head will bring a conviction of blasphemy/eternal sin from god. Do you know how hard it is not to think something once you've been told it is forbidden to think it?
Moving on to verse 31, Jesus's mother and brothers are outside the house and they send someone in to get him. He replies, "who are my mother and my brothers?" He answers his own question by saying, "Whoever does god's will is my brother and sister and mother." This seems to establish that Jesus had a family and that his mother had other children, but they are not named, not even Mary. Remember there was no holy spirit conception or virgin birth narrative at the beginning of Mark. So far, Jesus appears to be fully human. His holy spirit vision upon baptism wasn't witnessed by anyone else in Mark either. Is it no wonder some people thought he was crazy?
Next, Jesus is teaching by the lake and has to get in a boat because there are such large crowds. He apparently taught them parables from the boat. One of the parables was about a farmer who sowed seed. The seed fell upon different types of soil, producing different results, some good, some poor. When the disciples got Jesus alone they asked him to explain the parables. Jesus told the disciples that he would tell them the secret meanings of the parables, but he would not tell those "on the outside," so that "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven."
Wait. What?!! Do you realize that Jesus is saying he is deliberately keeping people from being forgiven? Well, if Jesus is god in the flesh, it's not the first time. That passage was quoting from Isaiah 6:9-10, where god says that to Isaiah. If the Jews hearing/reading this statement of Jesus's were familiar with the passage in Isaiah, they would know it goes on to say the peoples' non-understanding will continue "until the cities lie ruined....until the lord has sent everyone far away." Is this a foreshadowing of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora? If the author of Mark wrote later than 70 CE, he already knew what was coming.
More to come.
Jesus is in a house trying to eat and a huge crowd develops. His family hears about it and thinks he's gone crazy. Teachers of the law say he's possessed by Beelzebub. He's able to drive out demons because he's in league with the prince of demons. Jesus basically says that's silly. Why would Satan oppose himself? A kingdom or house divided against itself cannot stand. (Interesting that Beelzebub, the prince of demons, and Satan are used synonymously in this passage.)
Next Jesus says no one can enter a strong man's house and take his possessions without tying him up. Presumably this is referring to Jesus being able to remove people from demon possession. This must mean Jesus has some how overpowered Satan. Then Jesus pointedly says "I tell you the truth, all the sin and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. But whosoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will never be forgiven; he us guilty of an eternal sin. Jesus said this because they were saying he has an evil spirit." So, Jesus obviously equated their words about him with blasphemy against the holy spirit.
Because of this passage, blasphemy against the holy spirit/ Jesus/ God has come to be known in Christianity as the "unforgivable sin." Let me tell you, this fact has caused a of load trouble for people all around the world in the form of blasphemy laws. It also causes intense psychological angst for the person who thinks that just thinking forbidden words in ones head will bring a conviction of blasphemy/eternal sin from god. Do you know how hard it is not to think something once you've been told it is forbidden to think it?
Moving on to verse 31, Jesus's mother and brothers are outside the house and they send someone in to get him. He replies, "who are my mother and my brothers?" He answers his own question by saying, "Whoever does god's will is my brother and sister and mother." This seems to establish that Jesus had a family and that his mother had other children, but they are not named, not even Mary. Remember there was no holy spirit conception or virgin birth narrative at the beginning of Mark. So far, Jesus appears to be fully human. His holy spirit vision upon baptism wasn't witnessed by anyone else in Mark either. Is it no wonder some people thought he was crazy?
Next, Jesus is teaching by the lake and has to get in a boat because there are such large crowds. He apparently taught them parables from the boat. One of the parables was about a farmer who sowed seed. The seed fell upon different types of soil, producing different results, some good, some poor. When the disciples got Jesus alone they asked him to explain the parables. Jesus told the disciples that he would tell them the secret meanings of the parables, but he would not tell those "on the outside," so that "they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven."
Wait. What?!! Do you realize that Jesus is saying he is deliberately keeping people from being forgiven? Well, if Jesus is god in the flesh, it's not the first time. That passage was quoting from Isaiah 6:9-10, where god says that to Isaiah. If the Jews hearing/reading this statement of Jesus's were familiar with the passage in Isaiah, they would know it goes on to say the peoples' non-understanding will continue "until the cities lie ruined....until the lord has sent everyone far away." Is this a foreshadowing of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the diaspora? If the author of Mark wrote later than 70 CE, he already knew what was coming.
More to come.
Friday, January 4, 2019
The apostles part five and wrap up.
11)* Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus: Matthew 10:3
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
The apostles part four
8)*Matthew: Matthew 9:9, Matthew 10:3, Mark3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
The apostles part three
5)*Philip: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, John 1:43-46, 48, (from Bethsaida) John 6:5,7, John 12:21-22, John 14:8-9, Acts 1:3
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The apostles part two
3)*James the son of Zebedee: Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19, 29, Mark 3:17, Mark 10:35, Luke 5:10,
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
The twelve apostles
Happy New Year! I thought I would take a little detour and look at the twelve apostles in the New Testament before we continue on with Mark.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)