What did we learn? 1 Thessalonians is probably the oldest book of the New Testament and the first available letter of Paul. There is not much scholarly dispute that it is written by Paul, possibly in the early 50's CE. It is written to the church in Thessaloniki, Greece, which apparently was started by Paul, Silas, and Timothy. They had left the area and Paul was not able to go back for some time. He became anxious about whether the church was keeping the faith, and sent Timothy to check up on them. Timothy came back to Paul with a positive report. In spite of persecution, they were still active believers. It is said that they originally started out as idol worshippers, which would make them gentiles. Paul considered their success his crown of glory.
The author does not claim this letter is inspired or the word of god. There is no mention of specific Old Testament people, places, or events, in this letter. There are no Old Testament quotes. The only New testament people mentioned are Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Jesus. The New Testament places mentioned are Judea, Macedonia, Achaia, and Philippi. There are no New Testament events mentioned except travel and/or persecution in the mentioned areas. The specific persecutions mentioned were being insulted, forbidden from preaching the gospel to gentiles, and being run out of town.
There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, or teachings. There is no mention of his trial, crucifixion or burial. He is in heaven, having been raised from the dead. He will come back to earth. Satan is mentioned as stopping Paul from doing what he wants. He is also called the tempter who might have led the Thessalonians astray.
In this letter, the author accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, just as they killed the prophets. In the gospels we see that the Romans were the actual executioners of Jesus. The only way we see Jews killing anyone in the New Testament is by stoning. They never seemed to get in trouble with the authorities for that. Which makes me wonder, if they could do that, why didn't they stone Jesus? Also, it is very difficult to find any prophets who were killed by the Jews anywhere in the bible. In the New Testament, John the baptist might count, maybe Stephen also. In 1 Kings 19:10, Elijah tells god that his (unnamed) prophets have been put to death with the sword. That's the only mention I could find in the Old Testament.
Paul also mentions that he gave the Thessalonians instructions, by the authority of Jesus, on how to live as children of god. These instructions included avoiding certain sexual behaviors which sound like he could be obliquely referring to homosexuality. He does encourage self control and not taking advantage of others, which I guess is good in this oddly worded passage. They are also told to mind their own business and work with their hands. Significantly, in my mind, they aren't told to spread the gospel. How often are any people in the NT, besides the apostles, told to spread the gospel? I'm having trouble thinking of any.
Faithfulness and obedience to Paul's message is stressed in this letter. The message is one of eternal life for believers, when Jesus comes back. On a surprise date, the archangel will announce Jesus and god's trumpet will sound. The dead in christ will literally rise up into the air, then the living believers will follow and meet them in the clouds. Believers should be expecting this to happen in their lifetime so they will be ready. Unbelievers will be caught unaware. Believers don't need to grieve the death of other beloved believers, they will see them again. Not like non believers, they have no hope. (Erg.)
Sunday, July 28, 2019
Saturday, July 27, 2019
1 Thessalonians part four
We are at chapter four verse 13. Paul is telling the Thessalonians about people who have "fallen asleep" which a euphemism for died. He doesn't want the Thessalonians to grieve about those people who have died "like the rest of men who have no hope." (Is false hope a good thing?) Paul believes "that Jesus died and rose again" and that one day he will bring the dead back with him. Well, not all the dead. Just the ones who "fell asleep in him." In other words, only Jesus believers. So, should the Thessalonians grieve for those who died and didn't believe?
By the way, grieving is normal and very human. It also occurs in the animal kingdom. Pretending that people don't actually die, but live on, prevents people from learning valuable coping skills. Tragedies happen. Death happens every day. We will all die. Everyone we love will die, some before us. We need to talk about how to deal with it in non harmful ways.
Next Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead in christ will rise before the living, at the command of the archangel and the trumpet call of god. When he says rise, he literally means rise up into the air. After the dead begin to rise, the living believers..."we who are alive and left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air. And we will be with the lord forever." Very dramatic. What happens to the rest of the people, the dead and the living? Anyway, it never happened, did it?
Paul can not tell the Thessalonian when this will happen because god wants it to be a surprise. He wants to catch people off guard, when they think they are safe. Then boom! Destruction. No escape. Nice god. No worries, the Thessalonians won't be caught off guard, like those who sleep peacefully at night and don't expect intruders. No, the Thessalonians are like fully awake people in the day time, alert and self controlled.
The Thessalonians will be ready for Jesus's coming by "putting on faith and love as a breastplate and the hope of salvation as a helmet." There's a war coming. They need armor. God did not "appoint them to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through Jesus." He died for the believers, the dead and the living ones. They will all get to live together with him. Good for them. I'll pass.
Next Paul tells them how to police each other. They were to respect the hard workers who are over them in the lord. These are not everyday hard workers but ones who have been given authority over the church in Thessaloniki. This passage is talking about church work, not everyday living work. The respect has not necessarily been earned. They are also to "warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, and be patient with everyone." This is in the context of the church. It is god's will that they are always joyful, thankful, and prayerful, no matter what.
Finally the Thessalonians are told not to put out the spirit's fire, not to treat prophecies with contempt, test everything, and avoid every kind of evil. The letter ends with a kind of blessing. May god grant the Thessalonians sanctification and blamelessness of spirit, soul, and body, and he can do it. (What is the difference between a spirit and a soul?) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for his entourage and to greet all the bothers with a holy kiss. The letter is to be read aloud.
Next the wrap up.
By the way, grieving is normal and very human. It also occurs in the animal kingdom. Pretending that people don't actually die, but live on, prevents people from learning valuable coping skills. Tragedies happen. Death happens every day. We will all die. Everyone we love will die, some before us. We need to talk about how to deal with it in non harmful ways.
Next Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead in christ will rise before the living, at the command of the archangel and the trumpet call of god. When he says rise, he literally means rise up into the air. After the dead begin to rise, the living believers..."we who are alive and left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air. And we will be with the lord forever." Very dramatic. What happens to the rest of the people, the dead and the living? Anyway, it never happened, did it?
Paul can not tell the Thessalonian when this will happen because god wants it to be a surprise. He wants to catch people off guard, when they think they are safe. Then boom! Destruction. No escape. Nice god. No worries, the Thessalonians won't be caught off guard, like those who sleep peacefully at night and don't expect intruders. No, the Thessalonians are like fully awake people in the day time, alert and self controlled.
The Thessalonians will be ready for Jesus's coming by "putting on faith and love as a breastplate and the hope of salvation as a helmet." There's a war coming. They need armor. God did not "appoint them to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through Jesus." He died for the believers, the dead and the living ones. They will all get to live together with him. Good for them. I'll pass.
Next Paul tells them how to police each other. They were to respect the hard workers who are over them in the lord. These are not everyday hard workers but ones who have been given authority over the church in Thessaloniki. This passage is talking about church work, not everyday living work. The respect has not necessarily been earned. They are also to "warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, and be patient with everyone." This is in the context of the church. It is god's will that they are always joyful, thankful, and prayerful, no matter what.
Finally the Thessalonians are told not to put out the spirit's fire, not to treat prophecies with contempt, test everything, and avoid every kind of evil. The letter ends with a kind of blessing. May god grant the Thessalonians sanctification and blamelessness of spirit, soul, and body, and he can do it. (What is the difference between a spirit and a soul?) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for his entourage and to greet all the bothers with a holy kiss. The letter is to be read aloud.
Next the wrap up.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
1 Thessalonians part three
We are at chapter two verse 17. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, had to leave the Thessalonians. They wanted to go back very badly but Satan stopped them. Hmm. How do they know it was Satan and not humans? They are truly sad about that because the Thessalonians are the glorious crown they will wear in the presence of Jesus, when he comes. They make Paul and company look good. Too bad Jesus never came.
Paul got impatient (What, he didn't trust god's timing?) and sent Timothy back to Thessaloniki without him. Timothy was to bolster their faith, so they wouldn't be unsettled by the persecution they were going through. It was inevitable that they would be treated that way, as they had been told the first time Paul visited them. We are not told exactly what these persecutions entailed, physical, economic, or social harm, or a combination. Paul knew beforehand that it would happen, probably because he had seen the same results of his teaching elsewhere. He was worried that the Thessalonians would lose faith in what he taught them. Then his efforts would have been in vain. Their trials were blamed on "the tempter" tempting them.
Timothy returned back to Paul with a good report. The Thessalonians still like Paul and would like to see him again. Whew! They haven't given up their faith. Praise the lord! Paul and company are going to keep earnestly praying for the Thessalonians. One day they will get back and "supply what is lacking" in the Thessalonians' faith. What does that mean? What are they lacking? Paul is hoping god clears the way for another visit. In the meantime, he wants god to make their love increase and strengthen their hearts, so they will be ready when Jesus comes. Too bad he never came.
We are now at chapter four. Paul says he instructed the Thessalonians on how to live to please god, and they are doing it. But they've got to do it more. After all their instructions came by the authority of the lord Jesus. That's how we can know that their instructions were crap. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, never met Jesus, except in visions. Their authority is purely on their say so. The Thessalonians fell for it, hook line, and sinker. They get to tell the Thessalonians what god's will is and how are the Thessalonians to disagree? They never had any personal revelation of Jesus.
What did Paul say was god's will? Avoiding sexual immorality, controlling their bodies and not indulging in passionate lust "like the heathen who do not know god." The Thessalonian should not wrong his brother or take advantage of his brother, regarding this matter. Is Paul talking of same sex relations? It's hard to tell. It's obviously about some kind of sexual purity standards. Those who don't follow the standards have been warned that the lord will punish them.
Paul says he doesn't need to preach to the Thessalonians about brotherly love, because god seems to have already taught them how to love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. The brothers are clearly other christ believers. If god could teach them brotherly love without Paul's help, couldn't he have taught them other things as well. Why does god need Paul to spread his message?
Next, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "lead a quiet life, mind your own business, and work with your hands." That way they will earn the respect of outsiders and not be dependant on anyone. Wait. They are not to preach the gospel to their neighbors? It just occurred to me, most of the New Testament letters don't even encourage the readers to spread the gospel. The readers are just passive and obedient recipients of the message, a message that needs reinforcing and policing by Paul and his cohorts.
Till next time.
Paul got impatient (What, he didn't trust god's timing?) and sent Timothy back to Thessaloniki without him. Timothy was to bolster their faith, so they wouldn't be unsettled by the persecution they were going through. It was inevitable that they would be treated that way, as they had been told the first time Paul visited them. We are not told exactly what these persecutions entailed, physical, economic, or social harm, or a combination. Paul knew beforehand that it would happen, probably because he had seen the same results of his teaching elsewhere. He was worried that the Thessalonians would lose faith in what he taught them. Then his efforts would have been in vain. Their trials were blamed on "the tempter" tempting them.
Timothy returned back to Paul with a good report. The Thessalonians still like Paul and would like to see him again. Whew! They haven't given up their faith. Praise the lord! Paul and company are going to keep earnestly praying for the Thessalonians. One day they will get back and "supply what is lacking" in the Thessalonians' faith. What does that mean? What are they lacking? Paul is hoping god clears the way for another visit. In the meantime, he wants god to make their love increase and strengthen their hearts, so they will be ready when Jesus comes. Too bad he never came.
We are now at chapter four. Paul says he instructed the Thessalonians on how to live to please god, and they are doing it. But they've got to do it more. After all their instructions came by the authority of the lord Jesus. That's how we can know that their instructions were crap. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, never met Jesus, except in visions. Their authority is purely on their say so. The Thessalonians fell for it, hook line, and sinker. They get to tell the Thessalonians what god's will is and how are the Thessalonians to disagree? They never had any personal revelation of Jesus.
What did Paul say was god's will? Avoiding sexual immorality, controlling their bodies and not indulging in passionate lust "like the heathen who do not know god." The Thessalonian should not wrong his brother or take advantage of his brother, regarding this matter. Is Paul talking of same sex relations? It's hard to tell. It's obviously about some kind of sexual purity standards. Those who don't follow the standards have been warned that the lord will punish them.
Paul says he doesn't need to preach to the Thessalonians about brotherly love, because god seems to have already taught them how to love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. The brothers are clearly other christ believers. If god could teach them brotherly love without Paul's help, couldn't he have taught them other things as well. Why does god need Paul to spread his message?
Next, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "lead a quiet life, mind your own business, and work with your hands." That way they will earn the respect of outsiders and not be dependant on anyone. Wait. They are not to preach the gospel to their neighbors? It just occurred to me, most of the New Testament letters don't even encourage the readers to spread the gospel. The readers are just passive and obedient recipients of the message, a message that needs reinforcing and policing by Paul and his cohorts.
Till next time.
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
1 Thessalonians part two
We are at chapter two verse one. Paul, Silas, and Timothy had previously visited Thessaloniki. They thought their visit was a success, not like in Philippi, where they experienced non specific suffering and had been insulted. With god's help they dared to share the gospel with the Thessalonians, in spite of strong opposition. They weren't trying to trick the Thessalonians and their motives were pure, according to them. They spoke "as men approved by god," according to them. And everyone had to take their word for it. They claim to be trying to please god not men, but how in the world could anyone know for sure if they were telling the truth? Plus, why did god need them to spread the message? Why didn't he just tell the people himself? Why does god rely on an imperfect delivery system to get his word out? Think of all the people in the world who never heard the gospel. Are they all doomed? If they are not, then why does the message need spreading?
The author goes on to say they didn't use flattery, cover up greed, or look for praise. God is their witness. Some witness, he's mute. The three of them worked hard for their own support and did not expect anything from the Thessalonians. They shared what they had, as well as preached the gospel. The sharing part is commendable. The Thessalonians (and the mute god) were witnesses of how holy, righteous and blameless the three were among the believers. Are they supposed to be tooting their own horn? Also, we don't have the Thessalonians' side of the story. Plus, how did they treat nonbelievers?
The three treated the Thessalonians like a father treats his own children. Since they were actually adults, I wonder how they felt about that. They urged the Thessalonians to live lives worthy of god, whose spokesmen they were. What proof did the Thessalonians have besides their say so? The three were so pleased when their message was received as the word of god and not the word of men. Of course they were. The believers in Thessaloniki then became imitators of the christ believing churches in Judea. Then the believers in Thessaloniki began to experience the same persecution from their own countrymen that the believers in Judea received from the Jews. How bad was this persecution? Did they hurt them, or just ridicule them? We are not told.
Those Jews who treated believers in Judea badly are said to be the people who "killed the lord Jesus and the prophets" and also drove the three of them out. This is confusing to me, because weren't those believers also Jews? And what do the prophets have to do with it? Weren't the prophets also Jews? Also, this unfortunate passage has been used to support antisemitism throughout the ages, and it's not done being ugly. The author says these same Jews "displease god and are hostile to all men." They deliberately try to keep Paul, Timothy and Silas from speaking to the gentiles so they can be saved. In other words, those Jews don't want salvation for the non Jews. "In this way they heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of god has come upon them at last." Wow. So kind, loving, and christ like of Paul.
The Thessalonians had to take the author's word for all this, without proof. What Judean Jews were going to travel across the Mediterranean to Greece to set the record straight? They could basically spin any story they wanted, who would be the wiser?
Till next time.
The author goes on to say they didn't use flattery, cover up greed, or look for praise. God is their witness. Some witness, he's mute. The three of them worked hard for their own support and did not expect anything from the Thessalonians. They shared what they had, as well as preached the gospel. The sharing part is commendable. The Thessalonians (and the mute god) were witnesses of how holy, righteous and blameless the three were among the believers. Are they supposed to be tooting their own horn? Also, we don't have the Thessalonians' side of the story. Plus, how did they treat nonbelievers?
The three treated the Thessalonians like a father treats his own children. Since they were actually adults, I wonder how they felt about that. They urged the Thessalonians to live lives worthy of god, whose spokesmen they were. What proof did the Thessalonians have besides their say so? The three were so pleased when their message was received as the word of god and not the word of men. Of course they were. The believers in Thessaloniki then became imitators of the christ believing churches in Judea. Then the believers in Thessaloniki began to experience the same persecution from their own countrymen that the believers in Judea received from the Jews. How bad was this persecution? Did they hurt them, or just ridicule them? We are not told.
Those Jews who treated believers in Judea badly are said to be the people who "killed the lord Jesus and the prophets" and also drove the three of them out. This is confusing to me, because weren't those believers also Jews? And what do the prophets have to do with it? Weren't the prophets also Jews? Also, this unfortunate passage has been used to support antisemitism throughout the ages, and it's not done being ugly. The author says these same Jews "displease god and are hostile to all men." They deliberately try to keep Paul, Timothy and Silas from speaking to the gentiles so they can be saved. In other words, those Jews don't want salvation for the non Jews. "In this way they heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of god has come upon them at last." Wow. So kind, loving, and christ like of Paul.
The Thessalonians had to take the author's word for all this, without proof. What Judean Jews were going to travel across the Mediterranean to Greece to set the record straight? They could basically spin any story they wanted, who would be the wiser?
Till next time.
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
1 Thessalonians, introduction
You can read about the 1st letter to the Thessalonians at the embedded link. This is generally considered to be a genuine Pauline letter, except for a couple of passages that appear to have been added. It is possibly Paul's first letter, maybe making it the oldest and first book of the New Testament, circa 52 CE.
The letter opens with a greeting from Paul, Silas, and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians. The church would have been in the city of Thessaloniki, currently the capital of Greek Macedonia. There is the usual prayers and flattery in the greeting. The author knows the church there was chosen by god because the gospel came to them with power and deep conviction. They felt the holy spirit, it had to be true.
Paul, Silas, and Timothy had live with the Thessalonian church, who learned to imitate them, "in spite of severe suffering." This very early days of the church what kind of suffering were they experiencing? It doesn't say yet. Nevertheless, the Thessalonians welcomed the message with joy and "became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia." Their faith in god became known everywhere and others tell the story of how the Thessalonians "turned from idols to serve the one true god and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead-- Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." I'm guessing the suffering may have been a direct economic consequence of the Thessalonians giving up idol worship.
So, the Thessalonians were waiting for Jesus to come back and save them. I don't think that worked out for them.
Till next time.
Friday, July 19, 2019
1 John wrap up.
We have finished the supposed first epistle of John. What have I learned? This letter was written by an anonymous person, at an unknown date, probably sometime at the end of the first century, to an unknown group of christ believers. It may or may not be the same author that wrote the gospel book of John and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. There are arguments on both sides. The author does not claim this letter is the word of god or is inspired by god or the holy spirit.
There are no Old Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Cain and Abel. There is no Jewish theology on display, except for the concept of obeying god's commands, sin is breaking the law, and one admonition to stay away from idols, tacked on to the end. There are no Old Testament quotes. There are no New Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, and almost no mention of his teachings. (We'll get to what is mentioned) The believers are just told to walk as Jesus did. The words crucifixion, resurrection, baptism, heaven, angels, and hell, do not occur in this letter. The terms devil, the evil one, and anti christs, make appearances. The prize for belief and obedience is a vaguely worded concept of eternal life. In fact it's all pretty vague and abstract. It's not even clear what obedience entails.
In this letter, Jesus is called the Word of life, the christ, and the son of god. God loved believers and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for believers' sins. Jesus is righteous and speaks to god in the defense of believers. He appeared to destroy the devil's work, and lay down his life for believers. God sent him to be the savior of the world. He also "came by water and by blood." (This is not explained) Jesus is never specifically quoted as saying anything, but the author mentions "a message heard from the beginning: We should love one another." This is an echo of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
There is a lot of talk of love in this letter. It sounds really good in small bites. God is love. Don't hate your brother. Love your brother and you love god. To love god you must love your brother. Don't be like Cain and Abel. Everybody sins. Just "walk in the light" and your sins will be forgiven. But who are the brothers in this letter? The children of god. Who are the children of god? Those who believe that Jesus is the son of god. Everyone else is not a child of god. They are children of the devil. (Yes it says that.) Those who deny that Jesus is the son of god are antichrists. If you take the letter as a whole, it seems to be an attempt to create an us and them mentality. The other guys are the bad guys, even if they say they love god, cause they really don't.
How can you know who is telling the truth? "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god." All believers have the spirit of god, and the spirit of god tells the truth. "God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of god." Which leads me to say, I've never come across so many circular arguments in one place as I have while reading the book of 1st John. Seriously, you should try reading it if you like torturing yourself with that kind of stuff.
Why would someone need to write a letter like this? It would be my guess that there were enough people going around saying that Jesus never existed to be concerning to true christ believers. This letter appears to be damage control by creating a fire wall. It also appears to have worked for a while.
There are no Old Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Cain and Abel. There is no Jewish theology on display, except for the concept of obeying god's commands, sin is breaking the law, and one admonition to stay away from idols, tacked on to the end. There are no Old Testament quotes. There are no New Testament characters, places, or events mentioned in this letter, except for Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, and almost no mention of his teachings. (We'll get to what is mentioned) The believers are just told to walk as Jesus did. The words crucifixion, resurrection, baptism, heaven, angels, and hell, do not occur in this letter. The terms devil, the evil one, and anti christs, make appearances. The prize for belief and obedience is a vaguely worded concept of eternal life. In fact it's all pretty vague and abstract. It's not even clear what obedience entails.
In this letter, Jesus is called the Word of life, the christ, and the son of god. God loved believers and sent his son as an atoning sacrifice for believers' sins. Jesus is righteous and speaks to god in the defense of believers. He appeared to destroy the devil's work, and lay down his life for believers. God sent him to be the savior of the world. He also "came by water and by blood." (This is not explained) Jesus is never specifically quoted as saying anything, but the author mentions "a message heard from the beginning: We should love one another." This is an echo of Jesus in the Gospel of John.
There is a lot of talk of love in this letter. It sounds really good in small bites. God is love. Don't hate your brother. Love your brother and you love god. To love god you must love your brother. Don't be like Cain and Abel. Everybody sins. Just "walk in the light" and your sins will be forgiven. But who are the brothers in this letter? The children of god. Who are the children of god? Those who believe that Jesus is the son of god. Everyone else is not a child of god. They are children of the devil. (Yes it says that.) Those who deny that Jesus is the son of god are antichrists. If you take the letter as a whole, it seems to be an attempt to create an us and them mentality. The other guys are the bad guys, even if they say they love god, cause they really don't.
How can you know who is telling the truth? "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god." All believers have the spirit of god, and the spirit of god tells the truth. "God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of god." Which leads me to say, I've never come across so many circular arguments in one place as I have while reading the book of 1st John. Seriously, you should try reading it if you like torturing yourself with that kind of stuff.
Why would someone need to write a letter like this? It would be my guess that there were enough people going around saying that Jesus never existed to be concerning to true christ believers. This letter appears to be damage control by creating a fire wall. It also appears to have worked for a while.
Thursday, July 18, 2019
1 John part six
We are now at 1 John chapter five. The reader is told that everyone who believes Jesus is the christ is a child of god. Everyone who loves god, loves his children. When a person loves the children of god, he loves god and obeys his commands. More bible logic.
All the children of god overcome the world by their faith that Jesus is the son of god. The victory is theirs. (Where is the battle?) Jesus came by water and blood. Whatever that means. How can anyone know this? The spirit testifies, and the spirit is the truth. The author says so. The spirit is not the only witness, The water and blood are witnesses as well. The three of them agree. This is almost funny.
The reason there is a mention of three witnesses is because the law required at least two witnesses to verify something in a court of law. The author next states that "We accept man's testimony, but god's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of god." There ought be classes on bible logic. The reader is told that God gave the testimony about his son. Anyone who believes in the son has the testimony of god. Round and round the circular logic we go. It's enough to make me dizzy.
What about the people who do not believe the "testimony" about Jesus? They do not believe god. That's as good as calling god a liar. This is god's testimony: "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his son. He who has the son has life; he who does not have the son of god does not have life." Harsh. Not only that, god speaks of himself in the third person.
The author is writing all this stuff so the reader can know he has eternal life, if he believes in the name of the son of god. That should give them confidence to ask god for anything...according to his will. (Always a caveat). God will hear the believer, if they know god will hear them. If god hears, they can know that he will deliver whatever they ask for. Doubt is probably doomed to fail. Does that mean failure to receive what you ask for is a tell?
The next passage is about sins. All wrong doing is sin. Apparently there are two kinds of sin, the kinds that don't lead to death and those that do. They are not defined, so I am left wondering which are which. A believer can pray about the sins that don't lead to death and god will give him life. The life he already had to begin with. A person shouldn't pray about sins that lead to death. He's toast.
The children of god don't keep on sinning, Jesus keeps them safe and the "evil one" can't get them. The whole world is under the control of the evil one. Never fear, more bible logic to the rescue. The son of god came and gave them understanding to know who is true. Guess who is true? Jesus! He is true because he says he is. Not only that, "He is the true god and eternal life." The son of god is god. How does that work? Don't break your brain trying to figure it out.
The letter ends with a single admonition "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols." After all, they've just been told who is the true god.
All the children of god overcome the world by their faith that Jesus is the son of god. The victory is theirs. (Where is the battle?) Jesus came by water and blood. Whatever that means. How can anyone know this? The spirit testifies, and the spirit is the truth. The author says so. The spirit is not the only witness, The water and blood are witnesses as well. The three of them agree. This is almost funny.
The reason there is a mention of three witnesses is because the law required at least two witnesses to verify something in a court of law. The author next states that "We accept man's testimony, but god's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of god." There ought be classes on bible logic. The reader is told that God gave the testimony about his son. Anyone who believes in the son has the testimony of god. Round and round the circular logic we go. It's enough to make me dizzy.
What about the people who do not believe the "testimony" about Jesus? They do not believe god. That's as good as calling god a liar. This is god's testimony: "God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his son. He who has the son has life; he who does not have the son of god does not have life." Harsh. Not only that, god speaks of himself in the third person.
The author is writing all this stuff so the reader can know he has eternal life, if he believes in the name of the son of god. That should give them confidence to ask god for anything...according to his will. (Always a caveat). God will hear the believer, if they know god will hear them. If god hears, they can know that he will deliver whatever they ask for. Doubt is probably doomed to fail. Does that mean failure to receive what you ask for is a tell?
The next passage is about sins. All wrong doing is sin. Apparently there are two kinds of sin, the kinds that don't lead to death and those that do. They are not defined, so I am left wondering which are which. A believer can pray about the sins that don't lead to death and god will give him life. The life he already had to begin with. A person shouldn't pray about sins that lead to death. He's toast.
The children of god don't keep on sinning, Jesus keeps them safe and the "evil one" can't get them. The whole world is under the control of the evil one. Never fear, more bible logic to the rescue. The son of god came and gave them understanding to know who is true. Guess who is true? Jesus! He is true because he says he is. Not only that, "He is the true god and eternal life." The son of god is god. How does that work? Don't break your brain trying to figure it out.
The letter ends with a single admonition "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols." After all, they've just been told who is the true god.
Saturday, July 13, 2019
1 John part five
We are at 1 John 4:4. The author tells the readers that he and they are from god. They have overcome the antichrists. The spirit in them is greater than the spirit in the world. Those in the world listen to the world. That's how the reader can recognize who has "the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood." Whoever does not agree with them is wrong. It's that simple.
Next we have more talk about loving each other. "For love comes from god (no it doesn't). Everyone who loves has been born of god (prove it). Whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love." The previous statement is often used as a "gotcha" by christians. Do you believe in love, they ask. If you say yes, oh ho! That means you believe in god, because god is love. Gotcha. This a fallacy of false equivalence.
The reader is told that god showed his love by sending "his one and only son into the world." Again I say prove it. If there was a Jesus of flesh, and he looked like a man, talked like a man, and walked like a man, he was a man, unless someone can prove otherwise. Not only did god supposedly send his son to the world, he sent him as an atoning sacrifice. How sick is that? He had a child just so he could kill him for the sins of the people. That proves he loves the people sooooo much. Wait, not all the people, just the ones that actually profess a belief that Jesus was his son and not an ordinary human.
So since god loved them that much, they ought to love each other. I get the sense that this is not a universal love, but a love for their "brothers" in christ. The author admits that no one has ever seen god, in spite of the contrary claims about Moses seeing god in the Old Testament. That doesn't matter, if they love each other, god lives in them and his love is in them. This is bible logic. God is love. If you love your brother god lives in you. If only it was actually that easy. This rather feel good, mystical statement would actually cause little harm if that was all there was to christianity.
The next passage emphasizes the other requirement: acknowledge that Jesus is the son of god and the savior of the world. If anyone does that, god lives in him. There is the clincher. Love is not really enough. You must also believe. Then you can know that god lives in you because you get his spirit. How many people once thought they had been given the spirit of god, only to find out they were cheated?
The author claims they have seen and they testify that god sent his son. The reader must take his word. Who are They anyway? We are given no names except Jesus in this whole letter. Not one. In fact it is incredibly vague and abstract. There are no concrete details. Just a lot of repetition of the theme. "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in god , and god in him."
This is supposed to give the believer confidence on the day of judgment. They don't need to be afraid because "There is no fear in love...Perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." This is more bible logic. Got love? Then you shouldn't have fear. Got fear? Your love must not be perfect. Fix that. Or else.
Why do we love? Not because it is natural, and human to love those who are close to us. Nope. We love because god first loved us, even though he is not natural, not close to us, and we have never seen him or talked with him. The author asks, if we don't love whom we have seen, how can we love a god we haven't seen? Even if we do love those we have seen, we still haven't seen god. According to the author, anyone who says they love god and hates their brother is a liar. Actually, I believe them and think they are telling the truth. They love the invisible god of their imagination more than the person in front of them.
Till next time.
Next we have more talk about loving each other. "For love comes from god (no it doesn't). Everyone who loves has been born of god (prove it). Whoever does not love does not know god, because god is love." The previous statement is often used as a "gotcha" by christians. Do you believe in love, they ask. If you say yes, oh ho! That means you believe in god, because god is love. Gotcha. This a fallacy of false equivalence.
The reader is told that god showed his love by sending "his one and only son into the world." Again I say prove it. If there was a Jesus of flesh, and he looked like a man, talked like a man, and walked like a man, he was a man, unless someone can prove otherwise. Not only did god supposedly send his son to the world, he sent him as an atoning sacrifice. How sick is that? He had a child just so he could kill him for the sins of the people. That proves he loves the people sooooo much. Wait, not all the people, just the ones that actually profess a belief that Jesus was his son and not an ordinary human.
So since god loved them that much, they ought to love each other. I get the sense that this is not a universal love, but a love for their "brothers" in christ. The author admits that no one has ever seen god, in spite of the contrary claims about Moses seeing god in the Old Testament. That doesn't matter, if they love each other, god lives in them and his love is in them. This is bible logic. God is love. If you love your brother god lives in you. If only it was actually that easy. This rather feel good, mystical statement would actually cause little harm if that was all there was to christianity.
The next passage emphasizes the other requirement: acknowledge that Jesus is the son of god and the savior of the world. If anyone does that, god lives in him. There is the clincher. Love is not really enough. You must also believe. Then you can know that god lives in you because you get his spirit. How many people once thought they had been given the spirit of god, only to find out they were cheated?
The author claims they have seen and they testify that god sent his son. The reader must take his word. Who are They anyway? We are given no names except Jesus in this whole letter. Not one. In fact it is incredibly vague and abstract. There are no concrete details. Just a lot of repetition of the theme. "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in god , and god in him."
This is supposed to give the believer confidence on the day of judgment. They don't need to be afraid because "There is no fear in love...Perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." This is more bible logic. Got love? Then you shouldn't have fear. Got fear? Your love must not be perfect. Fix that. Or else.
Why do we love? Not because it is natural, and human to love those who are close to us. Nope. We love because god first loved us, even though he is not natural, not close to us, and we have never seen him or talked with him. The author asks, if we don't love whom we have seen, how can we love a god we haven't seen? Even if we do love those we have seen, we still haven't seen god. According to the author, anyone who says they love god and hates their brother is a liar. Actually, I believe them and think they are telling the truth. They love the invisible god of their imagination more than the person in front of them.
Till next time.
Thursday, July 11, 2019
1 John part four
We are at 1 John 3:11. It says, " This is the message you heard from the beginning: "We should love one another." Oh. That's the message. Back in chapter 1, verse 5, the message was "god is light." "Love one another" is easier to understand. The reader is then told "Do not be like Cain who murdered his brother." OK, I can agree with that. But then the author says Cain murdered his brother "because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. What were those evil actions that Cain committed? Offering a sacrifice of grain instead of a sheep. That's it. That made Cain "belong to the evil one." Never mind that no where in beginning of Genesis are we told anything about god requiring sacrifices at all, let alone what they should consist of. Plus, why does god even care about that? What difference does it make?
The author equates Cain hating his brother with the world hating believers. According to him, believers love their brothers, other people don't. The implication is that the world is jealous of believers and wants to kill them because god prefers the believers' brand of obedience. Then the author equates not loving your brother with hating your brother, which is equated with murder. Basically, he is saying to the readers that the people who don't like them are as good as murderers. Plus, no murderer has eternal life. Therefore, the people who don't like them don't have eternal life. It's a backhanded way of saying, "We are the righteous ones, like Abel, and are better than them."
The author goes on to give an example of true love, laying your life down for your brother, like Jesus did. But did Jesus really lay his life down FOR anyone? If you believe the stories, wasn't his life involuntarily taken from him? How did his death actually benefit anyone? Then, the author says love is having pity on a brother in need. They must not just love with words, but with actions. This I can get behind. But what does that have to do with Jesus's death?
The reader is told that whenever their hearts condemn them, they can set their hearts at rest, knowing they belong to the truth and god is greater than their hearts. He knows everything. Whenever their hearts do not condemn them, they "have confidence before god and receive anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him." Did you see that? Anything they ask. No caveats except obedience. That must mean that every time a believer's prayer was not answered they were disobedient in some way, right?
What are god's commands any way? "To believe in the name of his son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he (Jesus) commanded." Can you do one and not the other? Apparently, the author believes if they don't do the first, they are also not doing the other. "Those who obey Jesus's commands live in him and he in them." They can know that by the spirit he gave them, whatever that means.
What about the spirits? How does one know if they are from god? You test them. "Every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god." How convenient. A godly spirit will agree with them. On the other hand, "a spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from god. This is the spirit of the anti christ." Of course it is. They were told it would come, and it has. Amazing prediction. Not only that, it was there when this letter was being written, almost two thousand years ago. According to this author, an anti christ is merely someone who rejects the previous existence of a physical Jesus. People like that were around even when this letter was written, and it was supposedly written by someone who knew Jesus first hand. But what has he told us about the physical Jesus so far. Not much.
Till next time.
The author equates Cain hating his brother with the world hating believers. According to him, believers love their brothers, other people don't. The implication is that the world is jealous of believers and wants to kill them because god prefers the believers' brand of obedience. Then the author equates not loving your brother with hating your brother, which is equated with murder. Basically, he is saying to the readers that the people who don't like them are as good as murderers. Plus, no murderer has eternal life. Therefore, the people who don't like them don't have eternal life. It's a backhanded way of saying, "We are the righteous ones, like Abel, and are better than them."
The author goes on to give an example of true love, laying your life down for your brother, like Jesus did. But did Jesus really lay his life down FOR anyone? If you believe the stories, wasn't his life involuntarily taken from him? How did his death actually benefit anyone? Then, the author says love is having pity on a brother in need. They must not just love with words, but with actions. This I can get behind. But what does that have to do with Jesus's death?
The reader is told that whenever their hearts condemn them, they can set their hearts at rest, knowing they belong to the truth and god is greater than their hearts. He knows everything. Whenever their hearts do not condemn them, they "have confidence before god and receive anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him." Did you see that? Anything they ask. No caveats except obedience. That must mean that every time a believer's prayer was not answered they were disobedient in some way, right?
What are god's commands any way? "To believe in the name of his son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he (Jesus) commanded." Can you do one and not the other? Apparently, the author believes if they don't do the first, they are also not doing the other. "Those who obey Jesus's commands live in him and he in them." They can know that by the spirit he gave them, whatever that means.
What about the spirits? How does one know if they are from god? You test them. "Every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from god." How convenient. A godly spirit will agree with them. On the other hand, "a spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from god. This is the spirit of the anti christ." Of course it is. They were told it would come, and it has. Amazing prediction. Not only that, it was there when this letter was being written, almost two thousand years ago. According to this author, an anti christ is merely someone who rejects the previous existence of a physical Jesus. People like that were around even when this letter was written, and it was supposedly written by someone who knew Jesus first hand. But what has he told us about the physical Jesus so far. Not much.
Till next time.
Tuesday, July 9, 2019
The Grieving Atheist book reviews
I want to list a few books on death and grieving of which I've read all or most.
It's OK That You're Not Ok by Megan Devine. This is a book for the truly heartbroken. The author helps you to look at what you are thinking and feeling, with her own loss experience as a guide, she passes no judgment and goes with you into the tough, awkward places. Through it all, she tells you over again that there is nothing wrong with the things you are naturally feeling. Grief is not something to be cured but something we must learn how to carry. There are as many ways to carry as there are people.
A Time to Grieve: Meditations for Healing After the Death of a Loved One by Carol Staudacher. Each page encapsulates a thought about grief and grieving, using a statement from a griever, a quote, a paragraph of validation, and a short passage for the griever to repeat to themselves. It was helpful to me in those times when I was in a negative feedback loop or could not stop crying.
No Death, No Fear: Comforting Wisdom For Life, by Thich Nhat Hanh. I am still reading this. It is a Buddhist look at death and how to think of it in the ultimate perspective (infinite) rather than the historical (our lifetime). It is bigger than the big picture. I find it paradoxically comforting and frightening at the same time. This is as it should be. Death itself is paradoxical. We don't like or want death, but viewed in the long term, it ends up being a blessing. We are encouraged to consider ourselves and others as both dead and alive, just as we are both up and down, good and bad, etc. it caused me to come up with my own applicable paradox: We are simultaneously far more important and far less important than we imagine ourselves to be.
It's OK That You're Not Ok by Megan Devine. This is a book for the truly heartbroken. The author helps you to look at what you are thinking and feeling, with her own loss experience as a guide, she passes no judgment and goes with you into the tough, awkward places. Through it all, she tells you over again that there is nothing wrong with the things you are naturally feeling. Grief is not something to be cured but something we must learn how to carry. There are as many ways to carry as there are people.
A Time to Grieve: Meditations for Healing After the Death of a Loved One by Carol Staudacher. Each page encapsulates a thought about grief and grieving, using a statement from a griever, a quote, a paragraph of validation, and a short passage for the griever to repeat to themselves. It was helpful to me in those times when I was in a negative feedback loop or could not stop crying.
No Death, No Fear: Comforting Wisdom For Life, by Thich Nhat Hanh. I am still reading this. It is a Buddhist look at death and how to think of it in the ultimate perspective (infinite) rather than the historical (our lifetime). It is bigger than the big picture. I find it paradoxically comforting and frightening at the same time. This is as it should be. Death itself is paradoxical. We don't like or want death, but viewed in the long term, it ends up being a blessing. We are encouraged to consider ourselves and others as both dead and alive, just as we are both up and down, good and bad, etc. it caused me to come up with my own applicable paradox: We are simultaneously far more important and far less important than we imagine ourselves to be.
Sunday, July 7, 2019
1 John part three
We are at 1 John 2:23. The reader has been told that only the people who acknowledge the son (Jesus) have the father (god). If the reader keeps remembering what he has heard from the beginning (whatever that was), he will remain in the son and the father. Plus, he will have eternal life.
The author says he is writing about people who will try to lead the readers astray, aka anti-christs. The readers received an anointing from Jesus (what the heck is that?), so they don't need anyone to teach them. The anointing teaches them to remain in Jesus, and it is not a fake. (Then why does the author need to write this letter?) They are to continue in Jesus so they won't be ashamed when he comes back.( Just when is that? ) If they know that he is righteous, they know "that everyone who does what is right has been born of him." What about the christ deniers who do right? Or is denying christ one of the things on the naughty list? Does one bad mark cancel out all the good?
We are now in chapter three. The author is in raptures over the love of god the father. Aren't they so lucky to be his children! They don't know what their eternal form will be like, but they know it will be like god's. Yippee! When god shows up, they will get to see him. Everyone who wants to do this purifies himself, just like god is pure. Sure, set an impossible standard for mere mortals.
Here we go: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." How does he define sin? Lawlessness. What law is he talking about? The law of Moses? This person doesn't write like a Jewish believer in the law. He says that Jesus appeared to take away their sins. Anyone who lives in him doesn't keep on sinning. In fact, anyone "who continues to sin has neither seen him or known him." But what about back in chapter one, when we were told that everyone sins and if we just confess, Jesus will forgive.
We now have this circular argument: When you sin, you break the law. When you break the law you are lawless. When you are lawless, you are a sinner. Here comes another: When you do what is right, you are righteous. Jesus is righteous (therefore Jesus must be right.) Here is another argument: When you sin, you are of the devil. The devil is a sinner. Sinners are children of the devil, not the children of god. The children of god do not sin.
Why doesn't the child of god sin? "Because god's seed remains in him.....he has been born of god." What is god's seed? Well, "seed" usually refers to physical children. In the ancient view, a male human "plants his seed" in the female human, like a sower sows seed in the ground. The female is either barren or fertile ground. At that time there was no knowledge of the female contribution of an egg to be fertilized. Of course the author is using this as a metaphor. God's seed here is Jesus. When Jesus is in a person that person becomes born of god. It's a bit squicky to think about and doesn't actually work as a metaphor either. The person being implanted with the seed is also the person being born. A bit confusing, don't you think?
The passage ends with "Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of god, nor is anyone who does not love his brother." This compounds the confusion in my mind. Who is responsible for the "seed of god" here? It doesn't seem like god is taking responsibility for how well his seed produces offspring. Instead, he is saying that anyone who isn't like him, must not be his child, but someone else's, namely the devil's. He doesn't even allow for the possibility that his seed could be bad and produce birth defects.
Till next time.
The author says he is writing about people who will try to lead the readers astray, aka anti-christs. The readers received an anointing from Jesus (what the heck is that?), so they don't need anyone to teach them. The anointing teaches them to remain in Jesus, and it is not a fake. (Then why does the author need to write this letter?) They are to continue in Jesus so they won't be ashamed when he comes back.( Just when is that? ) If they know that he is righteous, they know "that everyone who does what is right has been born of him." What about the christ deniers who do right? Or is denying christ one of the things on the naughty list? Does one bad mark cancel out all the good?
We are now in chapter three. The author is in raptures over the love of god the father. Aren't they so lucky to be his children! They don't know what their eternal form will be like, but they know it will be like god's. Yippee! When god shows up, they will get to see him. Everyone who wants to do this purifies himself, just like god is pure. Sure, set an impossible standard for mere mortals.
Here we go: "Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness." How does he define sin? Lawlessness. What law is he talking about? The law of Moses? This person doesn't write like a Jewish believer in the law. He says that Jesus appeared to take away their sins. Anyone who lives in him doesn't keep on sinning. In fact, anyone "who continues to sin has neither seen him or known him." But what about back in chapter one, when we were told that everyone sins and if we just confess, Jesus will forgive.
We now have this circular argument: When you sin, you break the law. When you break the law you are lawless. When you are lawless, you are a sinner. Here comes another: When you do what is right, you are righteous. Jesus is righteous (therefore Jesus must be right.) Here is another argument: When you sin, you are of the devil. The devil is a sinner. Sinners are children of the devil, not the children of god. The children of god do not sin.
Why doesn't the child of god sin? "Because god's seed remains in him.....he has been born of god." What is god's seed? Well, "seed" usually refers to physical children. In the ancient view, a male human "plants his seed" in the female human, like a sower sows seed in the ground. The female is either barren or fertile ground. At that time there was no knowledge of the female contribution of an egg to be fertilized. Of course the author is using this as a metaphor. God's seed here is Jesus. When Jesus is in a person that person becomes born of god. It's a bit squicky to think about and doesn't actually work as a metaphor either. The person being implanted with the seed is also the person being born. A bit confusing, don't you think?
The passage ends with "Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of god, nor is anyone who does not love his brother." This compounds the confusion in my mind. Who is responsible for the "seed of god" here? It doesn't seem like god is taking responsibility for how well his seed produces offspring. Instead, he is saying that anyone who isn't like him, must not be his child, but someone else's, namely the devil's. He doesn't even allow for the possibility that his seed could be bad and produce birth defects.
Till next time.
Saturday, July 6, 2019
1 John part two.
We are at 1 John 2:1. The author says he is writing this letter so that the readers will not sin. But, if they do sin, Jesus speaks to god on their behalf. Then why should they even worry about sin? Jesus was the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. Even so, the author says everyone must obey Jesus's commands. If they say they know Jesus but don't obey his commands, they are liars. Yeah, but doesn't Jesus's sacrifice atone for that? Apparently not. You can only know your are "in Jesus" if you walk as Jesus did. And how did Jesus walk? We are not told yet.
The author says he is not writing a new command but an old one which has existed from the beginning. He doesn't say what that command is. He says the command is the message the reader has heard, but he doesn't say what that message was. Then he contradicts himself and says, yes, he is writing a new command. The truth of this new command is seen in Jesus and the reader. Though what is seen is still a mystery to me.
More metaphorical language about darkness and light. Hating your brother =darkness. Loving your brother=light. Who is ""your brother?" Good question. It doesn't say. It could be referring to all people, all males, all Jews, a male Jews, all christians, or all male christians. Interpret it in the way that works best for you. That's what most people do.
Verses 12-14 are in poetic form. The author addresses three groups, children, fathers, and young men. He cycles through them twice, but doesn't say much of anything substantial.
Verses 15-17 are about not loving the world or anything in the world. None of the stuff in the world comes from the father. Huh. That's weird. I thought that god was supposed to have made all the stuff and the ingredients to make other stuff, for which we are supposed to be truly thankful. But this says that everything in the world comes from the world. It is not good to crave any of it because the world will pass away, but "the man who does the will of god lives forever." What about the woman? And what exactly is it that lives forever? Not our worldly bits, obviously.
As I head into verse 18, I'm noticing a pattern to this letter. We are coming upon the fourth section that starts "My dear (children or friends)." Looking ahead, I see similar phrasing at least eight more times by the end of the letter. Not only that but I see a lot of repetition of ideas coming up too.
For now, we are headed to antichrist territory. The author says "this is the last hour." The reader has heard about the anti-Christ but he's telling them there are Many anti-christs right then. Who are these anti-christs? Apparently former believers who left the fold. Oh but they never really belonged. If they did, they wouldn't have left. Their leaving just proved they didn't belong. There you have it, the No True Scotsman fallacy in the 1st century. According to this, I am an antichrist.
The readers know the truth because they have an "Anointing from the holy one", whatever that means. No lie comes from the truth. The liar is "the man who denies Jesus is the christ." This means there were people around at that time denying Jesus was the christ. Good for them. Oops. That means they are antichrists. Anyone who denies the son, doesn't have the father (god). So, if you don't believe Jesus is the christ, your are told you don't have any part of god the father. I bet that was news to a lot of people at that time. I bet some of those antichrists were blissfully unaware that they were antichrists.
Speaking of antichrists, you should watch Good Omens on Amazon, or even better, read the book. Till next time.
The author says he is not writing a new command but an old one which has existed from the beginning. He doesn't say what that command is. He says the command is the message the reader has heard, but he doesn't say what that message was. Then he contradicts himself and says, yes, he is writing a new command. The truth of this new command is seen in Jesus and the reader. Though what is seen is still a mystery to me.
More metaphorical language about darkness and light. Hating your brother =darkness. Loving your brother=light. Who is ""your brother?" Good question. It doesn't say. It could be referring to all people, all males, all Jews, a male Jews, all christians, or all male christians. Interpret it in the way that works best for you. That's what most people do.
Verses 12-14 are in poetic form. The author addresses three groups, children, fathers, and young men. He cycles through them twice, but doesn't say much of anything substantial.
Verses 15-17 are about not loving the world or anything in the world. None of the stuff in the world comes from the father. Huh. That's weird. I thought that god was supposed to have made all the stuff and the ingredients to make other stuff, for which we are supposed to be truly thankful. But this says that everything in the world comes from the world. It is not good to crave any of it because the world will pass away, but "the man who does the will of god lives forever." What about the woman? And what exactly is it that lives forever? Not our worldly bits, obviously.
As I head into verse 18, I'm noticing a pattern to this letter. We are coming upon the fourth section that starts "My dear (children or friends)." Looking ahead, I see similar phrasing at least eight more times by the end of the letter. Not only that but I see a lot of repetition of ideas coming up too.
For now, we are headed to antichrist territory. The author says "this is the last hour." The reader has heard about the anti-Christ but he's telling them there are Many anti-christs right then. Who are these anti-christs? Apparently former believers who left the fold. Oh but they never really belonged. If they did, they wouldn't have left. Their leaving just proved they didn't belong. There you have it, the No True Scotsman fallacy in the 1st century. According to this, I am an antichrist.
The readers know the truth because they have an "Anointing from the holy one", whatever that means. No lie comes from the truth. The liar is "the man who denies Jesus is the christ." This means there were people around at that time denying Jesus was the christ. Good for them. Oops. That means they are antichrists. Anyone who denies the son, doesn't have the father (god). So, if you don't believe Jesus is the christ, your are told you don't have any part of god the father. I bet that was news to a lot of people at that time. I bet some of those antichrists were blissfully unaware that they were antichrists.
Speaking of antichrists, you should watch Good Omens on Amazon, or even better, read the book. Till next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)