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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Introduction to 1 John

Hello,

I've decided to focus on 1st John next, because I've already gone through 2nd and 3rd John. As a reminder, I'm using an NIV study bible and doing a plain reading of the text. If a god wanted everyone to understand the bible as his word, it should be easily interpreted by the common person, right? I do a lot of paraphrasing, but I put direct quotes in quotation marks. All opinions and thoughts are my own, unless stated otherwise. I provide links or name of a reference when I get information from another site. However, no one forms opinions in a vacuum and I have acquired some  personal knowledge to draw on. My style is gently sarcastic at times. If you enjoy reading my posts, please share my site with a friend.

Now let's look at 1 John. The author is traditionally assumed to be the same author of the gospel of John and the 2nd and 3rd epistles of John. There are some similarities and some differences, as noted in the Wikipedia article.  To be clear, no authorship is claimed by name in any of those bible books.

1 John does not begin as a typical letter with an introduction, it leaps right into theology. The author refers to Jesus as "the word of life." He appears to claim he has seen Jesus with his eyes and touched him with his hands, and that he was actually alive, but the language is very poetic and uses the collective pronoun "we," indicating others with him. Neither the author or the others are named. The author is proclaiming what the collective has seen and heard to the readers, so that they can have fellowship with this unknown group. The group's fellowship is with god the father and his son, Jesus.

Next, the author claims to have heard a message from Jesus, and this is it : "God is light; in him there is no darkness at all." Jesus is not recorded as saying that in any of the gospel accounts, nor is that exact phrase found anywhere else in the rest of the bible. The author continues on to say that anyone who "walks in darkness" yet claims to have fellowship with god, is a liar. (He does not say what walking in darkness consists of.) If anyone walks in light with god (again, what does that mean?), those people have fellowship with the mystery group, and the blood of Jesus cleans all the sin off all of them.

They mustn't claim to be without sin. They wouldn't be telling the truth. They just need to confess their sins, then Jesus will forgive them and purify them. If they say they do not sin, they are calling Jesus a liar. Lesson: No Matter what, you won't be believed if you say you haven't sinned. Sin makes you dirty. You can only be made clean if you tell what your sins are. Hmm. What constitutes sin? Who do you confess to?How could that go wrong?

Till next time.

2 John, part 5 And wrap up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 John part 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 John, part 3

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

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

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

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

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

More to come.

2 John part 2

We continue on with verse 5 which says "and now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another." This is a deceptively simple command, until you question from what beginning, what is love, and who are the one another. Are the "one another" fellow Christians, fellow Jewish Christians, or all people everywhere?

The word love here is derived from the Greek root verb agapao. You may have heard of the related noun agape, which, for Christians, represents a special self-sacrificial, divine, Yahweh love. The noun form, agape, appears to have been first used in the greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint. It was apparently derived from the verb. The verb forms, as in this passage, were common in secular ancient Greek writings. The ancient Greeks used it to simply mean having affection or preference for someone or something. Most Christians that I am acquainted with do not differentiate between the religious noun and the common verb. It's all the same to them.

This verse is one of a list of verses that my study bible says correlates to verses in 1 John and the gospel of John, which supposedly proves they have the same author. Lets see how they match up.

1 John 2:7- "Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard." This passage does not come right out and state what the command is. It is only implied, up until 1 John 3:11. A quick scan of 1st John shows me that the love one another in that book is being applied to fellow Christians or "brothers."

John 13:34-35- "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know you are my disciples if you love one another." These are supposed to be the words of Jesus. 1 John and 2 John appear to be referring back to this passage. They seem saying the command is not new, because it was supposed to be new when Jesus gave it. That is possibly the "beginning" referred to in the other two verses.

As I was writing this, a question came to mind about whether Paul ever preached "love one another" as a command of Jesus. The only place in Paul's writing in which I found the specific phrase "love one another" is Romans 13:8. It says "let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellow man has fulfilled the law." Here Paul seems to be saying that to love one another is a universal obligation for all humanity which also fulfills the law of Moses. (The Old Testament makes it clear that the love that fulfilled the law was directed at fellow
Jews and was not necessarily universal.) Paul never mentions love one another being a separate command given by Jesus to his disciples. For Paul the beginning of the command was the law. Other Pauline letters do stress the importance of love, but do not present it as a direct command of Jesus, as far as I can tell.

 I want to add that this seems rather hypocritical of Paul, since not all the writings attributed to him show a universal love for all of humanity. He displays some marked instances of dislike for particular people and groups of people. It is interesting to note that the letters attributed to Paul were probably written well before any of the letters attributed to John and even before the gospel of John.

Beside all that, how easy do you think it is to have affection for all of humanity? Most people have a hierarchy of affection, starting with their immediate family and moving outward to friends, acquaintances, countrymen, etc. should we be obligated to have the same level of affectionate feeling for everyone? Is it possible? Christians often say that this agape has nothing to do with how you feel, but with how you treat others. I'm not convinced. I don't think that is what love is. That is altruism. It's not the same, in my opinion.