What did we learn when we read 1 Peter? The author identifies himself as Peter at the beginning and mentions two traditional companions of Peter at the end, Silas and Mark. However, he never mentions anything Peter did or said in the gospel stories, Acts, or Paul's writings. He only says he was a witness to Christ's suffering. It is unclear to me if that is supposed to be literal or metaphorical.
No other New Testament people are mentioned, except Jesus. The author does not claim to be writing the words of god or to be inspired. At the end, it is implied that Silas did the actual physical writing and Peter dictated. The letter claims to be written to Believers in the region of Anatolia/ modern Turkey. This letter actually calls believers christians, which no other other New Testament writer did, except the author of Acts. A phrase at the end of the letter implies it is coming from Rome, but does not directly say that. No other New Testament places are mentioned.
There are no New Testament events mentioned except the crucifixion of Christ. The only Old Testament event mentioned is the story of Noah's flood. Besides Noah, only Abraham and Sarah are mentioned. Several Old Testament scriptures are quoted, sometimes differently than what is found in my Old Testament, and often out of context, as usual.
The author does not seem to be promoting any departure or separation from Judaism. It is clear that he assumes his readers are familiar with Jewish scriptures, which makes them exiled Jews or Gentile followers of Yahweh. It could be a combination of both.
There are no deeds, words, or teachings, of Jesus recorded in this letter. I find that particularly strange from someone who was supposedly his constant companion for one to three years. There are no mentions of any Christian rituals besides baptism, which many people forget was a Jewish ritual before it became a christian one. Angels and the Devil are mentioned. Heaven is waiting.
Unique to this book is the teaching that after Jesus was crucified, he went to the realm of the dead and preached the gospel to the souls that had been imprisoned there since the flood. It has supposedly already happened, not something that will happen in the future as some groups teach. In this book, Jesus is not the high priest of the heavenly temple, but simultaneously its cornerstone and capstone. He is also a stumbling block to nonbelievers. Believers are living stones in this spiritual house, and a holy priesthood. Biblical authors do not have any qualms about mixing metaphors. Jesus is also called the lamb of god, without blemish, chosen before the creation of the world.
To be fair, positive things like hospitality and love are also taught. Malice, deceit, hypocrisy, and slander are not acceptable. These Christians are urged not to repay evil with evil or insult with insult.
The theme of the book appears to be salvation through submission and obedience to all authority, the ultimate authority being god, of course. The reward for obedience is a "crown of glory that will never fade away." The reader is told to expect and rejoice in suffering as a christian, especially if it is for doing good. All this suffering is supposed to be for a short time because "the end of all things is near."
Next, we will look at 2 Peter.
Showing posts with label 1 Peter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1 Peter. Show all posts
Sunday, June 16, 2019
Saturday, June 15, 2019
1 Peter part eight
We are now at chapter five, the last chapter. The first section directly addresses the elders among the readers. The word for elder here is Presbyterous, which denotes a mature or older man. The author says he is also an elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings. Is that a literal witness or a metaphorical one?
The elders are told to be shepherds and overseers of god's flock under their care, not because they must, but because they are willing, as god wants them to be. In other words, they must. They are not to be greedy for money or lord it over those entrusted to them, but be examples to the flock. Boy, some older men in the church today have missed this verse. Those who do this will receive a crown of glory that will never fade away, after they are dead. Again, what the heck is glory? And who wants an eternal crown as a prize? What Is it good for?
Next, the author addresses young men. They are to be submissive to the older men. All of them are to "clothe themselves with humility toward one another." They do this because of Proverbs 3:34 which, according to the author, says "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble." However, my old testament says, "He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." The new Testament version leaves out the connection between pride and mockery, probably because he would prefer to relate it to disobedience. Of course he also relates it all back to submission to god. They are also to cast all their anxiety on god "because he cares for them." And what good does that do?
The readers are also told to "be self controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." And what proof is there of this? None. It is meant to provoke fear in the hearts of the readers. They are told to resist the devil by standing firm in the faith, of course. Why? Because their brothers throughout the world are also suffering. This is like telling a child to eat all his food because children are starving in Africa. But it's okay, because after they suffer for a little while (their whole life) Christ will restore himself to them and make them firm and steadfast. Big whoop.
The letter ends with the author saying he had Silas's help writing this letter. How do we know if Silas wrote what he was supposed to? The author trusted him, but why should we? Silas is associated with Paul in much of the book of Acts. The author may have included the name as a nod to that, as an attempt at proof of authenticity.
There is also a reference to "she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, which in general Christianese is thought to mean the church in Rome, where Peter was possibly writing from. They and "My son Mark" greet the readers with a kiss of love. Christian tradition associates Mark, the supposed author of the book of Mark with Peter, and it is believed this is the same Mark. All this is without any evidence.
The elders are told to be shepherds and overseers of god's flock under their care, not because they must, but because they are willing, as god wants them to be. In other words, they must. They are not to be greedy for money or lord it over those entrusted to them, but be examples to the flock. Boy, some older men in the church today have missed this verse. Those who do this will receive a crown of glory that will never fade away, after they are dead. Again, what the heck is glory? And who wants an eternal crown as a prize? What Is it good for?
Next, the author addresses young men. They are to be submissive to the older men. All of them are to "clothe themselves with humility toward one another." They do this because of Proverbs 3:34 which, according to the author, says "God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble." However, my old testament says, "He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble." The new Testament version leaves out the connection between pride and mockery, probably because he would prefer to relate it to disobedience. Of course he also relates it all back to submission to god. They are also to cast all their anxiety on god "because he cares for them." And what good does that do?
The readers are also told to "be self controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." And what proof is there of this? None. It is meant to provoke fear in the hearts of the readers. They are told to resist the devil by standing firm in the faith, of course. Why? Because their brothers throughout the world are also suffering. This is like telling a child to eat all his food because children are starving in Africa. But it's okay, because after they suffer for a little while (their whole life) Christ will restore himself to them and make them firm and steadfast. Big whoop.
The letter ends with the author saying he had Silas's help writing this letter. How do we know if Silas wrote what he was supposed to? The author trusted him, but why should we? Silas is associated with Paul in much of the book of Acts. The author may have included the name as a nod to that, as an attempt at proof of authenticity.
There is also a reference to "she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, which in general Christianese is thought to mean the church in Rome, where Peter was possibly writing from. They and "My son Mark" greet the readers with a kiss of love. Christian tradition associates Mark, the supposed author of the book of Mark with Peter, and it is believed this is the same Mark. All this is without any evidence.
Wednesday, June 12, 2019
1 Peter part seven
We are now at 1 Peter 4:3 and have just read that suffering people are "done with sin" and now live for the will of god. We know that is not quite accurate, to say the least. The author says that the readers used to live in a "flood of dissipation, " just like the pagans. (Do you think flood here is an oblique reference to the genesis flood?) Those pagans are now heaping abuse on the believers because they will no longer join in their carousing and orgies. Not to worry, they will get what is coming to them from the judge of the living and the dead. That's why Jesus went and preached the gospel (which hasn't been defined in this book) to the dead, because god is going to judge them.
Look out! The end is near! Keep a clear mind, so you can pray. "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers a multitude of sins." Well then. If love covers sins, then why isn't that the be all and end all of Christianity. Why is baptism necessary? Why is authoritarianism necessary? Why can't god's love just cover all the sins? Why can't our love for other people cover their sins?
What is love any way in this context? It appears to consist of hospitality, serving others, and "administering god's grace in its various forms." Grace again. Also, anyone who speaks should speak as though they are saying the words of god. That's quite a proposition. How does one speak as though they are god? If anyone serves, they should do it with the strength god provides, which happens to be the same strength nature provides. Because of this, in some unfathomable way, god will be mysteriously come to be praised. To prove that, the author ends this passage praising god. Amen.
The next verse (4:12) is almost like the start of another letter and begins with "dear friends." The reader is not to be surprised at the painful trial they are suffering. It is not strange, under the circumstances. Instead they should rejoice that they get to participate in suffering like Jesus. That means they will be overjoyed when his "glory" is revealed. I feel sorry for the readers. Their suffering never amounted to anything, no joy or glory. Nevertheless, the author tells them they are blessed to be insulted for christ.
If they are going to suffer, it should not be as murderers, thieves, criminals, or even meddlers. (Meddlers...that's a weird addition.) Those things are shameful, but suffering as a christian is praiseworthy. Judgement begins with the family of god. And if it begins with them, what will be the outcome of those who do not obey. If they think they've got it bad, just think of what's waiting for the nonbelievers.
The author supposedly quotes Proverbs 11:31, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly sinner?" Except this is what Proverb 11:31 actually says, " If the righteous receive their due on earth, how much more the ungodly sinner." Clearly there are two very different implications. One suggests eternal reward and punishment the other is obviously earthly. Woe to him who not only quote mines but changes the text to suit his own purposes!
So, "those who suffer according according to god's will (because all suffering is god's will) should commit themselves to their faithful creator and continue to good." Suffering appears to be their lot in life, no matter what.
Till next time.
Look out! The end is near! Keep a clear mind, so you can pray. "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers a multitude of sins." Well then. If love covers sins, then why isn't that the be all and end all of Christianity. Why is baptism necessary? Why is authoritarianism necessary? Why can't god's love just cover all the sins? Why can't our love for other people cover their sins?
What is love any way in this context? It appears to consist of hospitality, serving others, and "administering god's grace in its various forms." Grace again. Also, anyone who speaks should speak as though they are saying the words of god. That's quite a proposition. How does one speak as though they are god? If anyone serves, they should do it with the strength god provides, which happens to be the same strength nature provides. Because of this, in some unfathomable way, god will be mysteriously come to be praised. To prove that, the author ends this passage praising god. Amen.
The next verse (4:12) is almost like the start of another letter and begins with "dear friends." The reader is not to be surprised at the painful trial they are suffering. It is not strange, under the circumstances. Instead they should rejoice that they get to participate in suffering like Jesus. That means they will be overjoyed when his "glory" is revealed. I feel sorry for the readers. Their suffering never amounted to anything, no joy or glory. Nevertheless, the author tells them they are blessed to be insulted for christ.
If they are going to suffer, it should not be as murderers, thieves, criminals, or even meddlers. (Meddlers...that's a weird addition.) Those things are shameful, but suffering as a christian is praiseworthy. Judgement begins with the family of god. And if it begins with them, what will be the outcome of those who do not obey. If they think they've got it bad, just think of what's waiting for the nonbelievers.
The author supposedly quotes Proverbs 11:31, "If it is hard for the righteous to be saved, what will become of the ungodly sinner?" Except this is what Proverb 11:31 actually says, " If the righteous receive their due on earth, how much more the ungodly sinner." Clearly there are two very different implications. One suggests eternal reward and punishment the other is obviously earthly. Woe to him who not only quote mines but changes the text to suit his own purposes!
So, "those who suffer according according to god's will (because all suffering is god's will) should commit themselves to their faithful creator and continue to good." Suffering appears to be their lot in life, no matter what.
Till next time.
Saturday, June 8, 2019
1 Peter part six
We are at 1 Peter 3:19. We have last read that the christ was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit. Now the author is saying that through that spirit (whatever that is) the christ "went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when god waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built."
Let's unpack that. The author is referring to the Genesis flood story. It appears that he believes god was patient with the supposedly disobedient people who died in the flood. He gave them time to be obedient while Noah was building the ark. We all know what happened. In the Noah story, the people did not change their wicked ways and they were all drowned, except Noah and his family. The author refers to these drowned people as spirits in prison. What does he mean? It is likely that he is referring to Sheol or Hades, the shadowy underworld place where all the dead go in the ancient Jewish and Greek mythologies. In the Old Testament, death is synonymous with Sheol. It is a place from which there is no escape, a prison if you will. The author of 1 Peter is telling us Jesus went and preached to the dead, after he died. So, he went to Sheol just like everyone else, but there is a difference that the author will reveal to us eventually.
We go on to read about Noah and the ark and how only eight people were saved through water. (And supposedly the rest of the people on earth died through the same water) Now, this water that saved those few people (though technically it was a boat that saved them) symbolizes baptism that now saves them, the readers. Again, generic water, which once floated a boat and drowned everything else in an ancient story, now symbolizes baptism which saves believers. Saves them from what? Why from the wrath of god that gets dispensed on the disobedient, of course! Though the author doesn't tell us that specifically, it is easy to infer, just by the nature of the story.
Now the author wants the reader to know that baptism isn't the literal washing of dirt from the body, "but the pledge of a good conscience toward god. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus." So the symbolic power of baptism exists because Jesus was resurrected. He didn't stay in the land of the dead. We are not told if this is a resurrection of the body or just the spirit. We are told that Jesus "has gone into heaven and is at god's right hand-- with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."
This whole story of Jesus dying and going to preach to the "spirits in prison" is part of the christian doctrine of the harrowing of Hell. Not all christian groups teach this. Not all christian groups teach that believers are saved by baptism. Some latch on to the word "symbolic" and say it is not the act of baptism that matters but the previously mentioned "pledge of a good conscience toward god." These seem to be important teachings, if they pertain to salvation. Why don't all christians agree?
On to chapter four. Since christ suffered in his body, the reader is to have the same attitude. What attitude is that, the attitude of suffering? Apparently, "one who has sufferred in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of god." I'm not so sure about that. Plenty of suffering people do evil things and have human desires, sometimes because they are suffering. It is also in direct contradiction of buddhist teaching which says that suffering is caused in part by human desires. Suffering is supposedly alleviated by ritual practices of the mind and body that have the side efect of helping us to live more comfortably with our humanity. I don't know how well it works, but it at least sounds more appealing.
Till next time.
Let's unpack that. The author is referring to the Genesis flood story. It appears that he believes god was patient with the supposedly disobedient people who died in the flood. He gave them time to be obedient while Noah was building the ark. We all know what happened. In the Noah story, the people did not change their wicked ways and they were all drowned, except Noah and his family. The author refers to these drowned people as spirits in prison. What does he mean? It is likely that he is referring to Sheol or Hades, the shadowy underworld place where all the dead go in the ancient Jewish and Greek mythologies. In the Old Testament, death is synonymous with Sheol. It is a place from which there is no escape, a prison if you will. The author of 1 Peter is telling us Jesus went and preached to the dead, after he died. So, he went to Sheol just like everyone else, but there is a difference that the author will reveal to us eventually.
We go on to read about Noah and the ark and how only eight people were saved through water. (And supposedly the rest of the people on earth died through the same water) Now, this water that saved those few people (though technically it was a boat that saved them) symbolizes baptism that now saves them, the readers. Again, generic water, which once floated a boat and drowned everything else in an ancient story, now symbolizes baptism which saves believers. Saves them from what? Why from the wrath of god that gets dispensed on the disobedient, of course! Though the author doesn't tell us that specifically, it is easy to infer, just by the nature of the story.
Now the author wants the reader to know that baptism isn't the literal washing of dirt from the body, "but the pledge of a good conscience toward god. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus." So the symbolic power of baptism exists because Jesus was resurrected. He didn't stay in the land of the dead. We are not told if this is a resurrection of the body or just the spirit. We are told that Jesus "has gone into heaven and is at god's right hand-- with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him."
This whole story of Jesus dying and going to preach to the "spirits in prison" is part of the christian doctrine of the harrowing of Hell. Not all christian groups teach this. Not all christian groups teach that believers are saved by baptism. Some latch on to the word "symbolic" and say it is not the act of baptism that matters but the previously mentioned "pledge of a good conscience toward god." These seem to be important teachings, if they pertain to salvation. Why don't all christians agree?
On to chapter four. Since christ suffered in his body, the reader is to have the same attitude. What attitude is that, the attitude of suffering? Apparently, "one who has sufferred in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of god." I'm not so sure about that. Plenty of suffering people do evil things and have human desires, sometimes because they are suffering. It is also in direct contradiction of buddhist teaching which says that suffering is caused in part by human desires. Suffering is supposedly alleviated by ritual practices of the mind and body that have the side efect of helping us to live more comfortably with our humanity. I don't know how well it works, but it at least sounds more appealing.
Till next time.
Friday, May 31, 2019
1 Peter part four
We have arrived at 1Peter 2:18. Last time, the author was telling his "free" readers to submit to the governing authorities. Now he is telling the slaves to submit to their masters, "with all respect." Not only to the good ones, but also the abusive ones that make them suffer unjustly. Why? Because it's commendable! And who is going to commend them, the bad master? Look what a great job you are doing being brave while he beats you. God loves you for it. Really? Or is this teaching because the author doesn't want christians to have a reputation for fighting against injustice? It's embarrassing and draws unwanted attention. Instead, he wants them to believe that the real credit is in suffering for doing good. The same exact suffering, for rebelling, gets you no points with god.
Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9, "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.
Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.
The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?
Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.
Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!
Then the author tells the readers they were "called" to suffer, because Christ suffered for them, leaving them an example. They should follow in his footsteps. Just so you know, Jesus suffered for about six hours in the entire story of his life, as found in the gospels. So that's all the reader has to suffer, right? The author then tries to stress the suffering of Jesus by quoting Isaiah 53:9, "He committed no sin (had done no violence in stead of committed no sin), and no deceit was found in his mouth." The words in parentheses are what my Old Testament version of that verse says. This committing no sin supposedly happened "when they (who is they?) hurled insults at him." At the time he was suffering, he didn't retaliate, he just trusted god. Be like Jesus, go to your grave suffering in silence.
Then the reader is told that Jesus bore their sins in his body on the tree (presumably referring to the cross.) so that they might "die to sins and live for righteousness." Why? Because they have been healed by his wounds. How does that work? How does one person's physical wounds heal another persons sins? How can a physical body carry the world's sins on it? Sins aren't even actual entities to be carried. They have no weight. They are offenses against an invisible god that does not choose to prove he actually exists.
The next group of people who are told to submit to authority are wives. They are to submit to their husbands in the same way that slaves are to submit to their masters and christ submitted to humiliating suffering. That is what it says. Don't go 'splaining how biblical slavery and biblical marriage was so much better than early American slavery. Didn't we just read about suffering, beatings, insults, and injustice?
Why should the women submit? The author says it's to convince their husbands about the truth of "the word." How are they to do this? They are to forgo finery and all attempts at outward beauty. Instead they are to practice inner beauty by having a "gentle and quiet spirit." That's the way god likes his women. The author tells us that Sarah was submissive like that to Abraham. As if. Go back and read the stories. Sarah was a shrew and possessed such great external beauty that kings and Pharaohs wanted her. The author conveniently forgets that and tells the readers they will be Sarah's daughters if they take her example. He must be writing to Jews. Gentiles would not know anything about Sarah or care if they are her daughters.
Next time we take a look at husbands. Till then. Share this site if you are enjoying the content. Thanks!
Saturday, May 25, 2019
1 Peter introduction.
I think we will tackle 1st and 2nd Peter next. It should be interesting. Lets read what Wikipedia has to say about 1 Peter here.
Notice that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the authorship of this letter. The most pertinent objection to Peter having written it is that it is just too well written to be composed by a first century fisherman. Let's see if we can uncover any other objections.
The book starts off with the author introducing himself as the apostle Peter, presumably the same Peter we read about in other New Testament books. It is written "to god's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." These areas were all provinces in Asia Minor/Anatolia, in or around modern Turkey. The letter addresses those "who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of god the father, through the sanctifying work of the spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood." There is a lot of theology in that greeting. Notice the mention of the trinity and the role of each part. Notice Jesus's blood is sprinkled, like Moses did with the blood of the covenant, as we discussed in our Hebrews study. Of course it's figurative sprinkling of figurative blood, because Jesus's actual blood was never sprinkled on any actual person or thing. Who are god's elect going to be in this letter, exiled Jews, gentiles, or both? They are obviously believers in Jesus, but we also already have some reference to Jewish symbolism.
The letter continues on praising god for giving them "new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil, or fade-- kept in heaven" for them. All supernatural, invisible stuff that they have to wait till they are dead to see. Maybe. The readers' faith is supposed to create a shield of god's power for them , "until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." This means it hasn't been revealed to them yet. Guess what, two thousand years later, still no reveal.
Peter informs the readers that they rejoice in this coming salvation, even though they've bee through some rough times for a little while: "grief and all kinds of trials." No specifics though. The trials have a purpose, to refine their faith, the same way fire refines gold, even though faith is worth a lot more than gold. This is called an analogy: Trials are to faith as fire is to gold. Trials supposedly prove whether or not faith is genuine. They are a test of a true christian. When they haven't seen Jesus, yet they still love him and believe in him, they are "filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy" because they are receiving the salvation of their souls.
This is delusional and sick, in my opinion, if anyone actually feels joy from having grief or trials. Seriously, the joy stuff is pure propaganda. In my experience very few Christians experience joy when going through tough times. They are human beings after all. Most people do whatever it takes to get by, avoiding hardships and pain whenever possible, or using coping mechanisms when they can't. The author's manufactured joy isn't even pleasant. Who wants it?
Till next time.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Hebrews part nine
We are now at Hebrews 7:11. The author has just tried to convince us that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, the Levites, and all Abraham's descendants. This is important to the author because he is trying to convince his readers that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. That would make Jesus greater than all of them as well.
The author now tells us that the Levitical priesthood was not perfect. If it was, why would we need a another priest in the order of Melchizedek? Um. Why do we need one anyway? And who decided we needed one? As far as I can tell, this is of the author's own invention. The concept of Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek is found only in the book of Hebrews. In fact, the concept of Jesus as any kind of priest is found only in Hebrews.
1 Peter 2:5 and 9 mentions the body of believers as being a "holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to god through Jesus christ." But that's not the same thing as what the author of Hebrews is saying, is it? Revelation 5:10 speaks of people of all nations being made into a kingdom of priests to serve god while they reign on earth. Revelation 20:6 speaks of the same thing and adds that these future priests of god are going to be the ones who were beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus. No high priest Jesus is mentioned.
The author of Hebrews goes on to say, "when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law." Why? Because he says so. He goes on to say that it is clear that Jesus belonged to a tribe that never served at the altar, the tribe of Judah. How does the author know this? What makes it clear? My study bible refers me to Psalm 11, which is assumed by christians to be a prophecy about the messiah, or Jesus. This Psalm speaks of the tribe of Judah and "the root of Jesse." It is interpreted as meaning a messiah that comes from the lineage of David. It is possible that this author presupposes Jesus was the messiah. Therefore, he must be of the Davidic line, if the Psalm was talking about the messiah. If you want to make scripture work for your pet belief, there is always a way.
According to the author, all this becomes clear if another Melchizedek like priest appears: "One who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." But it doesn't hurt if we say he is from the lineage of David. Does all of this circular thinking make your head spin?
We go on to read that the old Mosaic law was weak and useless because it didn't make anything perfect. Could that be because there is no such thing as perfection? That old law is set aside and now there is a better hope. God swore, and will not change his mind, that someone is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Guess what, that someone is Jesus! Other priests died in office. Jesus lives forever, so he has a permanent priesthood. That way he can save everyone who comes to god through him, because he can intercede for them forever. And boy do they need it.
Jesus is not like other high priests. He is holy and sinless. He doesn't have to offer daily sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (Jews). "He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself." If I remember correctly, Jesus did not go willingly to his death. He had a change of heart near the end. At least according to Mark.
Chapter seven end with the author telling us the law appoints high priests who are weak. God's oath about the priest in the order of Melchizedek came after the law. It appointed "the son, who has been made perfect forever." Or at least that is what is assumed.
As a reminder: I am using an NIV study bible. All opinions are my own, unless otherwise stated. Share this site if you think anyone you know might enjoy it.
The author now tells us that the Levitical priesthood was not perfect. If it was, why would we need a another priest in the order of Melchizedek? Um. Why do we need one anyway? And who decided we needed one? As far as I can tell, this is of the author's own invention. The concept of Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek is found only in the book of Hebrews. In fact, the concept of Jesus as any kind of priest is found only in Hebrews.
1 Peter 2:5 and 9 mentions the body of believers as being a "holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to god through Jesus christ." But that's not the same thing as what the author of Hebrews is saying, is it? Revelation 5:10 speaks of people of all nations being made into a kingdom of priests to serve god while they reign on earth. Revelation 20:6 speaks of the same thing and adds that these future priests of god are going to be the ones who were beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus. No high priest Jesus is mentioned.
The author of Hebrews goes on to say, "when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law." Why? Because he says so. He goes on to say that it is clear that Jesus belonged to a tribe that never served at the altar, the tribe of Judah. How does the author know this? What makes it clear? My study bible refers me to Psalm 11, which is assumed by christians to be a prophecy about the messiah, or Jesus. This Psalm speaks of the tribe of Judah and "the root of Jesse." It is interpreted as meaning a messiah that comes from the lineage of David. It is possible that this author presupposes Jesus was the messiah. Therefore, he must be of the Davidic line, if the Psalm was talking about the messiah. If you want to make scripture work for your pet belief, there is always a way.
According to the author, all this becomes clear if another Melchizedek like priest appears: "One who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." But it doesn't hurt if we say he is from the lineage of David. Does all of this circular thinking make your head spin?
We go on to read that the old Mosaic law was weak and useless because it didn't make anything perfect. Could that be because there is no such thing as perfection? That old law is set aside and now there is a better hope. God swore, and will not change his mind, that someone is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Guess what, that someone is Jesus! Other priests died in office. Jesus lives forever, so he has a permanent priesthood. That way he can save everyone who comes to god through him, because he can intercede for them forever. And boy do they need it.
Jesus is not like other high priests. He is holy and sinless. He doesn't have to offer daily sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (Jews). "He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself." If I remember correctly, Jesus did not go willingly to his death. He had a change of heart near the end. At least according to Mark.
Chapter seven end with the author telling us the law appoints high priests who are weak. God's oath about the priest in the order of Melchizedek came after the law. It appointed "the son, who has been made perfect forever." Or at least that is what is assumed.
As a reminder: I am using an NIV study bible. All opinions are my own, unless otherwise stated. Share this site if you think anyone you know might enjoy it.
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
The twelve apostles
Happy New Year! I thought I would take a little detour and look at the twelve apostles in the New Testament before we continue on with Mark.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Resurrection part four.
We are still in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. Verse 29 says, "if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?" Good question. In fact I've got another question. Why are Mormons the only people I know of who baptize for the dead. Why doesn't all of christendom practice this? It's biblical.
If we move on to verse 35, Paul tells us what resurrection is like. According to him, there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Earthly bodies that die are metaphorically like seeds that are being sown. The body that is sown is perishable, but what rises up after death is imperishable. "It is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body." Here is Paul's logic for that: Adam was made a living being, then he was given a spirit. That means spiritual stuff comes after natural stuff. Therefore spiritual bodies come after natural bodies. Duh!
Further proof of spiritual bodies, offered by Paul, is this: Adam, who was the first man, came from the earth. All earthly men are like Adam. The second man (Jesus?) came from heaven. All men are going to be like the second man. As usual, no women are mentioned. Further more, Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.....we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Paul promises the Corinthians immortality. He says nothing here about judgment on that day, or what happens to non-believers.
In Philippians 4:10-11, Paul says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection, so he can also attain resurrection some day. In Hebrews 6, the author says the resurrection of the dead is one of the elementary teachings about Christ, along with repentance, faith, baptism, and eternal judgment." In Hebrews 11:35 tells of those who were tortured for their faith and refused to be released so that they might have a better resurrection. (!!) That is so messed up.
1 Peter chapter one speaks of a hope of an eternal inheritance for the suffering faithful being kept in heaven and the coming salvation of souls in the last times. This hope comes through the resurrection of Jesus. 1 Peter chapter three tells the reader that baptism with water saves people by the resurrection of Jesus.
Finally, we come back to Revelation 20, where we read of a first resurrection of Christian martyrs and a second resurrection of the rest of the dead, from the sea and Hades. Then comes judgment and second death for anyone whose name is not written in the lambs book of life.
Does this give you a sense of why Christians are so keen on martyrdom? It should also show you that these beliefs are what many Christians believe they are living for, an eternal reward of an imperishable body, for the price of faithfullness. Any alternative is unthinkable to so many. It's hard not to feel sorry for them, wasting so much precious time and thought on a delusion.
If we move on to verse 35, Paul tells us what resurrection is like. According to him, there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. Earthly bodies that die are metaphorically like seeds that are being sown. The body that is sown is perishable, but what rises up after death is imperishable. "It is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body." Here is Paul's logic for that: Adam was made a living being, then he was given a spirit. That means spiritual stuff comes after natural stuff. Therefore spiritual bodies come after natural bodies. Duh!
Further proof of spiritual bodies, offered by Paul, is this: Adam, who was the first man, came from the earth. All earthly men are like Adam. The second man (Jesus?) came from heaven. All men are going to be like the second man. As usual, no women are mentioned. Further more, Paul says, "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.....we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." Paul promises the Corinthians immortality. He says nothing here about judgment on that day, or what happens to non-believers.
In Philippians 4:10-11, Paul says he wants to know Christ and the power of his resurrection, so he can also attain resurrection some day. In Hebrews 6, the author says the resurrection of the dead is one of the elementary teachings about Christ, along with repentance, faith, baptism, and eternal judgment." In Hebrews 11:35 tells of those who were tortured for their faith and refused to be released so that they might have a better resurrection. (!!) That is so messed up.
1 Peter chapter one speaks of a hope of an eternal inheritance for the suffering faithful being kept in heaven and the coming salvation of souls in the last times. This hope comes through the resurrection of Jesus. 1 Peter chapter three tells the reader that baptism with water saves people by the resurrection of Jesus.
Finally, we come back to Revelation 20, where we read of a first resurrection of Christian martyrs and a second resurrection of the rest of the dead, from the sea and Hades. Then comes judgment and second death for anyone whose name is not written in the lambs book of life.
Does this give you a sense of why Christians are so keen on martyrdom? It should also show you that these beliefs are what many Christians believe they are living for, an eternal reward of an imperishable body, for the price of faithfullness. Any alternative is unthinkable to so many. It's hard not to feel sorry for them, wasting so much precious time and thought on a delusion.
Friday, November 23, 2018
Heaven part eleven
Are you getting tired of heaven? We aren't done yet but it should go faster because I don't think there is much left that is not redundant. One thing I have noticed is that heaven is thoroughly populated with angels. Angels are not discussed much in the churches of Christ, the faith tradition I came from.
Galations 1:8 says that if an angel from heaven, or anyone else, teaches you a gospel other than the one you learned from Paul, he will be eternally condemned!
Ephesians 3:15 says that god's whole family on earth and in heaven derives its name from him. Ephesians 6:9 says god is everyone's master in heaven. Philippians 3:20 says that a Christ believer's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. Colossians 1:5 says that hope is stored up in heaven for believers. 1Thessalonians tells us believers are waiting for god's son from heaven.
In Hebrews chapter 9, we are introduce to the idea that some earthly things are copies of heavenly things. The copies of the heavenly things were purified with blood sacrifices in an earthly sanctuary, which is a copy of the true heavenly one, by earthly priests. Christ entered the true sanctuary as the heavenly high priest to appear once and for all before god and offer himself as a sacrifice instead of an animal. Basically, everything on earth is supposed to be a kind of analogy, symbol, or shadow of the "real" things, which are in heaven. Believing this could lead to mental problems, in my opinion.
In 1 Peter 1:4, the reader is told an inheritance waits for him in heaven. In 3:22, Jesus is at god's right hand in heaven, with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
At last we move on to Revelation. We should learn some good stuff about heaven there. Maybe? In Rev. 3:12 a new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Chapter 4 has a description of heaven, with a throne, a person on the throne who looked like he was made of jewels, with a jeweled rainbow encircling him. There were also 24 other thrones with 24 elders, dressed in white with crowns on their heads. Lightening and thunder came from the main throne. Seven lamps were burning in front of the throne, these were the seven spirits of god. Whoa! God has seven spirits? That's interesting. Not something you hear every day. There was also a sea of glass in front of the throne. "Around the throne were four living creatures" all covered with eyes. (Heaven is getting crowded) They looked like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle. They each had six wings and the never stopped praising the god who lives forever. Whenever the god was praised the 24 elders fall before the guy on the throne and lay their crowns in front of him. Monotonous.
The description of what goes on in heaven continues on through chapter 5, where we see a scroll, angels, and a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.(The seven eyes are also the seven spirits, just like the lamps.) There is more praising, worshipping, and falling down. In chapter six the lamb does stuff with the seals on the scroll from chapter six. It releases four horsemen, War, famine, Death, and Hades. Under an altar were some dead martyrs who complained they wanted to be avenged. They were given white robes and told to wait a bit. In chapter seven, more stuff happens with angels and people wearing white robes. In chapter 8, there was silence in heaven for half an hour. Then we get more angels, trumpets, thunder, lightening, fire, destruction of earth from heaven. Things go on in this vein until chapter 12 when a woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and 12 stars on her head. A dragon also appears in heaven. He wants to eat the child the woman is about to have. The child was snatched up to god and his throne. Then there was a war in heaven between the angels and the dragon! It turns out the dragon was Satan! He is thrown to earth. As we go on, there are more angels, the lamb, more voices and signs from heaven, more symbolism, chapter after chapter. One thing is clear. We don't learn much, if anything about what heaven will be like for the multitudes of believers after all the battles are over. Yet.
More to come.
Galations 1:8 says that if an angel from heaven, or anyone else, teaches you a gospel other than the one you learned from Paul, he will be eternally condemned!
Ephesians 3:15 says that god's whole family on earth and in heaven derives its name from him. Ephesians 6:9 says god is everyone's master in heaven. Philippians 3:20 says that a Christ believer's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. Colossians 1:5 says that hope is stored up in heaven for believers. 1Thessalonians tells us believers are waiting for god's son from heaven.
In Hebrews chapter 9, we are introduce to the idea that some earthly things are copies of heavenly things. The copies of the heavenly things were purified with blood sacrifices in an earthly sanctuary, which is a copy of the true heavenly one, by earthly priests. Christ entered the true sanctuary as the heavenly high priest to appear once and for all before god and offer himself as a sacrifice instead of an animal. Basically, everything on earth is supposed to be a kind of analogy, symbol, or shadow of the "real" things, which are in heaven. Believing this could lead to mental problems, in my opinion.
In 1 Peter 1:4, the reader is told an inheritance waits for him in heaven. In 3:22, Jesus is at god's right hand in heaven, with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
At last we move on to Revelation. We should learn some good stuff about heaven there. Maybe? In Rev. 3:12 a new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Chapter 4 has a description of heaven, with a throne, a person on the throne who looked like he was made of jewels, with a jeweled rainbow encircling him. There were also 24 other thrones with 24 elders, dressed in white with crowns on their heads. Lightening and thunder came from the main throne. Seven lamps were burning in front of the throne, these were the seven spirits of god. Whoa! God has seven spirits? That's interesting. Not something you hear every day. There was also a sea of glass in front of the throne. "Around the throne were four living creatures" all covered with eyes. (Heaven is getting crowded) They looked like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle. They each had six wings and the never stopped praising the god who lives forever. Whenever the god was praised the 24 elders fall before the guy on the throne and lay their crowns in front of him. Monotonous.
The description of what goes on in heaven continues on through chapter 5, where we see a scroll, angels, and a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.(The seven eyes are also the seven spirits, just like the lamps.) There is more praising, worshipping, and falling down. In chapter six the lamb does stuff with the seals on the scroll from chapter six. It releases four horsemen, War, famine, Death, and Hades. Under an altar were some dead martyrs who complained they wanted to be avenged. They were given white robes and told to wait a bit. In chapter seven, more stuff happens with angels and people wearing white robes. In chapter 8, there was silence in heaven for half an hour. Then we get more angels, trumpets, thunder, lightening, fire, destruction of earth from heaven. Things go on in this vein until chapter 12 when a woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and 12 stars on her head. A dragon also appears in heaven. He wants to eat the child the woman is about to have. The child was snatched up to god and his throne. Then there was a war in heaven between the angels and the dragon! It turns out the dragon was Satan! He is thrown to earth. As we go on, there are more angels, the lamb, more voices and signs from heaven, more symbolism, chapter after chapter. One thing is clear. We don't learn much, if anything about what heaven will be like for the multitudes of believers after all the battles are over. Yet.
More to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)