Mark part twenty-one

We are now at Mark chapter twelve. Jesus is speaking to the religious authorities in the temple. He tells a parable about a man who planted a vineyard, rented it out, and then went away on a journey. This man obviously represents god. The tenants represent the Israelites. When harvest time comes, the man sends servants to collect some of the produce. (It was common for tenant farmers to have to give a percentage of their crop to the landowner, just as the Israelites had been commanded to tithe.) As we have seen in other parts of the bible the servants represent the  prophets of yahweh. The servants in the parable were treated very badly by the farmers, even killed like John the Baptist. Eventually, the landowner sent his beloved son (aka Jesus), thinking they would respect him. Of course they did not, they killed him and threw him out of the vineyard.

Remember, Mark was written at least a couple of decades after the death of Jesus. So, the author already knows what has happened, if in fact Jesus did exist. Mark also very well could be putting words in Jesus's mouth as a literary tool, foreshadowing what was to come in the story. This book is written very much like a work of fiction. We go from one tall tale to the next, with very little sense of time.

Next Mark has Jesus saying that the owner of the metaphoric vineyard will come back, kill the tenants, and give the vineyard to others. If this is a literary foreshadowing of the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, then this book was written after 70 CE. I assume it would be a retroactive prophecy, because I do not accept the existence of true foreknowledge. Then Jesus quotes Psalm 118:22-24 to the religious authorities. It says "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone (or cornerstone)." It appears that Jesus believes the passage is referring to himself being rejected but becoming foundational in some way.

The religious leaders assumed Jesus's parable referred to them. The text says they wanted to have him arrested but were afraid of the crowd. Later (How much later?), they sent some Pharisees and Herodians to try to trap Jesus into saying something which would condemn himself. They asked him if they should pay taxes to Caesar. If he said no, they could sic the Romans on him. If he said yes, the Jewish people might take offense and he would lose his following. Jesus was too clever for them. He asked them to give him a Roman coin and tell him whose picture was on it. They said Caesar's. Jesus then replied, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to god what is god's."

Next, came the Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection of the dead. They were justified in that non-belief, in my opinion, considering the Hebrew scriptures say next to nothing about resurrection. We know Jesus must believe in a resurrection. He has said the son of man will rise again after he is killed. The Sadducees reminded Jesus of the Old Testament teaching that if a woman became a widow and had no children, her husband's brother must marry her and produce an heir for his dead brother. They then tell a story of a widow who ended up marrying seven consecutive brothers without producing an heir for any of them. Then the woman died. The question asked of Jesus was, "At the resurrection, whose wife will she be?"

Jesus told them they were in error because they did not know the scriptures. "When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." However, this concept is not even found in the canon of Old testament scriptures. A similar idea can  be found in 1 Corinthians 15, leading to the possibility that Mark wrote his book after Paul had spread this teaching about resurrected bodies.

A very interesting note: My study bible ignores the fact that the idea of the woman with seven husbands most likely came from the book of Tobit.

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.

Resurrection part four.

We are still in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Verse 29 says, "if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" Good question. In fact I've got another question. Why are Mormons the only people I know of who baptize for the dead. Why doesn't all of christendom practice this? It's biblical.

If we move on to verse 35, Paul tells us what resurrection is like. According to him, there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Earthly bodies that die are metaphorically like seeds that are being sown. The body that is sown is perishable, but what rises up after death is imperishable. "It is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body." Here is Paul's logic for that: Adam was made a living being, then he was given a spirit. That means spiritual stuff comes after natural stuff. Therefore spiritual bodies come after natural bodies. Duh!

Further proof of  spiritual bodies, offered by Paul, is this: Adam, who was the first man, came from the earth. All earthly men are like Adam. The second man (Jesus?) came from heaven. All men are going to be like the second man. As usual, no women are mentioned. Further more, Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.....we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Paul promises the Corinthians immortality. He says nothing here about judgment on that day, or what happens to non-believers.

In Philippians 4:10-11, Paul says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection, so he can also attain resurrection some day. In Hebrews 6, the author says the resurrection of the dead is one of the elementary teachings about Christ, along with repentance, faith, baptism, and eternal judgment." In Hebrews 11:35 tells of those who were tortured for their faith and refused to be released so that they might have a better resurrection. (!!) That is so messed up.

1 Peter chapter one speaks of a hope of an eternal inheritance for the suffering faithful being kept in heaven and the coming salvation of souls in the last times. This hope comes through the resurrection of Jesus.  1 Peter chapter three tells  the reader that baptism with water saves people by the resurrection of Jesus.

Finally, we come back to Revelation 20, where we read of a first resurrection of Christian martyrs and a second resurrection of the rest of the dead, from the sea and Hades. Then comes judgment and second death for anyone whose name is not written in the lambs book of life.

Does this give you a sense of why Christians are so keen on martyrdom? It should also show you that these beliefs are what many Christians believe they are living for, an eternal reward  of an imperishable body, for the price of faithfullness. Any alternative is unthinkable to so many. It's hard not to feel sorry for them, wasting so much precious time and thought on a delusion.

Resurrection part three

We are still in the books of Acts. In chapter 23, Paul is in Jerusalem and  has been taken into custody by some Roman soldiers because some Jews are supposed to have caused a riot in objection to Paul's presence in the temple. The Roman commander doesn't understand why there is such animosity towards Paul. (He's been preaching about Jesus.) So, the commander takes Paul to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body. Paul plays off the fact that there are both Pharisees and Sadducees in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees believe in a resurrection, Sadducees do not. Paul shouts out that he is a Pharisee and is on trial because of his belief in a resurrection. Of course that is part of the truth, but not the whole truth. The Pharisees and Sadducees present get into a violent argument. Paul has to be removed from there by the commander.

In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise.  He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.

We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.

Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?

More to come.

Heaven part thirteen and wrap up.

We have reached the end of the references to heaven (singular) in Strong's concordance. There a few more under heavens (plural). In Acts 2:29-34, we are told that David died and was buried, and remains in his tomb, he did not ascend to the heavens. I feel this brings up an important point. In christianity, many believers tend to think their love ones ascend to heaven immediately after death. This negates many of the New Testament teachings about a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment, especially what we find in Revelation 20. You can't have it both ways.

In 2 Corinthians 5:1, the author says, "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from god, an eternal house in the heavens, not built by human hands." Okay. So, this house in the heavens, is it in the new Jerusalem that's going to come down from the heavens after the judgment? Do any of the letters attributed to Paul speak of a Holy City or new Jerusalem? I ran those phrases through the search on Bible Gateway. A new Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere but Revelation. Of all the New Testament books, the phrase holy city is only in Matthew and Revelation. Matthew is referring to the city of Jerusalem that existed in the first century.

Did Paul not know about the new heaven and new earth? I looked up those phrases as well. They are only mentioned in Revelation and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter chapter three has a description of the end times that is not couched in symbolism like that of Revelation, but it coincides with events mentioned. In verse 7, the author says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." In verse 10, the author says, "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Verses 12-13 go on to say,"That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." Paul's  letters do not mention those phrases at all.

In reality, the earthly and heavenly dwellings mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are referring to supposedly earthly and heavenly personal bodies. Paul was big on talking about how believers would get new indestructible bodies. He doesn't seem to have mentioned much else about the afterlife and the actual place those bodies will reside.

Let's see if we can find anything else new and interesting in the New Testament under the word "heavenly." 1 Corinthians chapter 15 discusses the resurrection, but even though the author rambles on about it, he doesn't say much that is concrete or substantial. Like I said before it is mostly about the difference between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, the resurrection of physical bodies, and their transformation into spiritual, imperishable ones. This will all happen "in a flash, in the tinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." Nothing about heaven, the holy city, or what will go on in the afterlife.

In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul says, "The lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom." Is this the same kingdom that will be the New Jerusalem coming down out of the heavens after the judgment?

Hebrews 11:16 says that a heavenly country and city are prepared by god for the faithful. In Hebrews chapter 12, the author speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god. Again the writer of Hebrews tells us that earthly things are just representations of the heavenly reality. In verses 26-28, we are told that the earthly or created things will be removed so that what cannot be shaken, god's kingdom, remains.

Does any of this coincide with what you have learned about heaven? It certainly isn't what I was taught and what I continue to hear from Christians around me.

Heaven part ten

We are now at the book of John. Let's see if anything different is said about heaven. In John 1: 51, Jesus tells Nathaniel that because he believes, he will see heaven open and the angels of god ascending and descending on the son of man. This supposed future happening never happens in the bible.

In John 3:13, Jesus says that "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the son of man." This is presumed by christians to be Jesus himself. In 6:32-33, Jesus says, "It is not Moses who has given you bread from heaven (a reference to manna), but it is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of god is he who came down from heaven and gives life to the world." Again, this is presumed to be Jesus. This is confirmed in 6:38 where Jesus says, "I have come down from heaven...." None of the other gospel books have Jesus saying anything remotely like this. Verse 6:41-"I am the bread that came down from heaven." Verses 6:50-53, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. The bread is his flesh. Anyone who eats of it will live forever. (Cannibalism!) By the way, in these passages, Jesus does not try to make this into a metaphor. He says his flesh is real food and his blood real drink. Those who eat and drink him have eternal life. The Catholics didn't just make up stuff when they insisted that they are actually eating Jesus's flesh during communion. They got it from the book of John.

We move on to Acts. In 1:9-11, Jesus was taken up to heaven (the sky) in front of the apostles. In Acts 3:21, Peter tells a crowd that Jesus must remain in heaven "until the time comes for god to restore everything." In 7:55-56, Stephen sees "heaven open and the son of man standing at the right hand of god. God has hands. In 9:3, Saul (Paul) sees a light from heaven (the sky) flash around him and hears god speak to him. In 10:11, Peter has a vision of heaven (the sky) opening and a large sheet with all kinds of animals being let down to earth. God also speaks to him.

We don't learn much more about heaven until we get to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, where Paul says there is only one god, but even if there were "so-called gods" in heaven or earth, the people Paul is writing to only worship the one god the father and the one lord Jesus. In 1 Cor. 15:47-53, Paul says there was the first man made from  the earth and the second man from heaven. Paul's followers are currently earthly men, but in the future they will "bear the likeness of the man from heaven." Obviously Jesus. Paul goes on to say that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does perishable inherit imperishable." No worries, they will all be transformed from the flesh in a flash, at the last trumpet. They will be clothed with the imperishable and will become immortal. What about the judgment and all that jazz?

In 2nd Corinthians 12:2, Paul boasts about his visions and revelations by telling about "a man" who was caught up to the third heaven or paradise. What is this third heaven? Apparently, there are many apocryphal stories and legends about this third heaven, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible.

More to come.