Time for a review of what we learned from 2nd Peter. It claims to be written by Peter to an unidentified group of believers. It does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. Except by fundamentalists, it is generally considered pseudepigrapha, which is another word for FAKE. (Seriously, folks, call a spade a spade.)
This letter is unique among other NewTestament letters in that the author is obviously familiar with a number of other New Testament writings: At least one of the gospels--he quotes Matthew's version of god's words to those present at Jesus's transfiguration on a mountain; a number of letters attributed to Paul, which he calls scripture; the book of Jude, which he plagiarizes. 2Peter 2:1-3:3 contains most of Jude 4-18 paraphrased and interspersed throughout the text.
The author is familiar with Jewish scriptures. He quotes Proverbs. He speaks of the prophets, and makes excuses for the fact that their interpretation of their own prophecies didn't literally come true. It was because they were not understood properly, being words from god, not man. The author also mentions Noah, Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot (who he calls a righteous man), and Balaam and the donkey. He speaks of angels sinning and being sent to Tartarus, which is not part of the Old Testament or New. It appears to be extrabiblical legend that was used to explain parts of the Old Testament.
Technically, there is no gospel preached in this letter. Jesus's righteousness saves people through faith, not his death. The initial message is "Do these things (like kindness, perseverance, and love) and you will never fall, and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of Jesus Christ." The author also claims that the stories of Jesus are not "cleverly invented." One sentence about god saying Jesus is his son, on the mount of transfiguration, is all we are told about the life of Jesus. The author claims to have been present at this event. There is no birth story, no miracles, no teachings, no commands, no crucifixion, no resurrection. There is also no mention of any Christian religious rituals, no mention of any New Testament characters but Paul, no mention of any other New Testament places or events. There are two cryptic mentions of a sacred command but we are not told what it is.
The bulk of the text is about false teachers and their destruction. There are many warnings against destructive heresies, denial of Jesus, made up stories (irony alert), slander of celestial beings, blasphemy, scoffing, etc. The false teachers are thoroughly reviled in as many ways possible, being called all manner of foulness appropriate to the times. Examples are given of types of destruction that god meted out to the ungodly in the past. The readers are assured that all heretics will similarly be paid back. They are told that those who once knew the truth and turned their backs on it would be worse off in the end than if they had never known Jesus. This is clearly cult language.
There is also considerable effort made to assure the reader that "the day of the lord" will come, just not when they expect it. God works in his own time frame. It's taking a while because he wants to save all the people, except the ungodly, who will be burnt up with the heavens and the earth on the day of judgment. But the author and the readers will get to live in a new heaven and new earth, if they make every effort to be found spotless and blameless, and are not seduced by the dark side.
Showing posts with label 2 Peter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2 Peter. Show all posts
Friday, June 28, 2019
Thursday, June 27, 2019
2 Peter part four.
We are in chapter three, verse ten. We recently read that, even though it seems like god hasn't kept his promise to send Jesus back, we can't assume that he won't because our time and god's time are not on the same scale. God's not being slow, he's being patient, because he doesn't want anyone to perish.. Yeah, right.
That's why, in the very next passage, the reader is told that the day the world ends will be a surprise, in which everything will be burnt to ashes. Since everything will be destroyed, the readers ought to live holy and godly lives as they "look forward to the day of god and speed its coming." Plus, this end won't just be hot, it will melt the very elements in the heavens. But, no worries, the reader can look forward to a new heaven and new earth. All this is reason for the reader to make every effort to be practically perfect in every way. And remember, the longer it takes for Jesus to return, the more people will be saved. Why it might even take over two thousand years.
The author goes on to say Paul wrote about this stuff too. I think this is the only book of the bible not attributed to Paul, besides Acts, which mentions Paul by name. Not only that, it mentions that Paul wrote multiple letters, and that the letters contain "some things that are hard to understand, Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Implication: don't try too hard to understand what Paul wrote, because if you get it wrong, Poof! You're toast.
So, be careful, who you listen too. You are in a precarious situation and could very easily fall "from your secure position" if you follow the wrong person. Just grow in grace (what's grace?) and knowledge and you should be fine. (I hope.) to Jesus be the glory (what's glory?) forever. Amen.
Comforting?
We have finished with 2nd Peter. Next time we will wrap up with our usual summary. Till then.
That's why, in the very next passage, the reader is told that the day the world ends will be a surprise, in which everything will be burnt to ashes. Since everything will be destroyed, the readers ought to live holy and godly lives as they "look forward to the day of god and speed its coming." Plus, this end won't just be hot, it will melt the very elements in the heavens. But, no worries, the reader can look forward to a new heaven and new earth. All this is reason for the reader to make every effort to be practically perfect in every way. And remember, the longer it takes for Jesus to return, the more people will be saved. Why it might even take over two thousand years.
The author goes on to say Paul wrote about this stuff too. I think this is the only book of the bible not attributed to Paul, besides Acts, which mentions Paul by name. Not only that, it mentions that Paul wrote multiple letters, and that the letters contain "some things that are hard to understand, Which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." Implication: don't try too hard to understand what Paul wrote, because if you get it wrong, Poof! You're toast.
So, be careful, who you listen too. You are in a precarious situation and could very easily fall "from your secure position" if you follow the wrong person. Just grow in grace (what's grace?) and knowledge and you should be fine. (I hope.) to Jesus be the glory (what's glory?) forever. Amen.
Comforting?
We have finished with 2nd Peter. Next time we will wrap up with our usual summary. Till then.
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
2 Peter part three
We are at chapter two verse seven. We have read about god's power to destroy the ungodly, which uses language similar to Jude 6 and 7. Now the author tells us god knows how to rescue the godly, like Lot. He says, "Lot was a righteous man who was distressed by the filthy lives of lawless men." Go back and read the story of Lot in Genesis 19. This is the Lot who offered his daughter to be raped by an angry mob to save the virtue of a couple of angels. This same Lot got filthy stinking drunk and was raped by his own daughters. Lovely story. Not.
The author continues on, talking of arrogant men who are not afraid to slander celestial beings. Good for them. Why should they be afraid? Well, the author says that not even very powerful angels will slander celestial beings in the presence of the lord. Maybe because none of them exist. Or is it because the slanderers are "brute beasts...born only to be caught and destroyed."
The next verses, from 13-22, are pure vitriol. They malign and slander the author's opposition in a particularly nasty way. He calls them blots and blemishes, carousers, adulterers, seducers, unstable, greedy, accursed, wicked, boastful, and lustful. He also uses some pretty descriptive metaphors like springs without water, mists driven by a storm, slaves to depravity, dogs returning to vomit (Proverbs 26:11 quote), and sows wallowing in mud. Were they actually that bad? What is the other side of the story? Also, I urge you to read through the book of Jude, which is quite short. So much of this passage is similar to the language found there.
What was the point of all that hatred? It was this, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our lord and savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." This is a subtle threat to those christians who would dare to leave the group, dare to say anything against it, and go back into the world. "Blackest darkness is reserved for them." This is cult language, calculated to make people fear and quake at the mere thought of leaving, questioning, or complaining.
We have come to chapter three. The author says, "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." That is interesting because many scholars don't believe 1st and 2nd Peter were written by the same person. The language, the format, and the subject matter differ. The author of first Peter wrote in a very Jewish way, referring to the Old Testament with quotations. So far, the author of second Peter Has referred to various parts of the old Testament and to Matthew, but he has drawn significant amounts of text directly from Jude. What's even more interesting, he used all the bits he got from Jude in the order that they appear in that book, interspersed with his own words. According to my study bible he clearly uses, in order, phrases from Jude 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18. He is a plagiarist.
The author goes on to say he wrote both his letters to "stimulate the reader to wholesome thinking." He wants them to recall the words of the prophets and the command Jesus gave the apostles, but he doesn't say which words and which command. They also need to realize that in the last days scoffers will scoff. (Haters will hate.)They will question the whereabouts of Jesus, as well they should. He supposedly promised he would come back. He hadn't then, and he hasn't yet. The author accuses the scoffers of deliberately forgetting that god's word has the power to create and destroy. Then he explains Jesus's tardy return. "With the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. The lord is not slow in keeping his promis as some understand slowness." In other words, time means nothing to god, whenever he decides to do something will be the right time.
Till next time.
The author continues on, talking of arrogant men who are not afraid to slander celestial beings. Good for them. Why should they be afraid? Well, the author says that not even very powerful angels will slander celestial beings in the presence of the lord. Maybe because none of them exist. Or is it because the slanderers are "brute beasts...born only to be caught and destroyed."
The next verses, from 13-22, are pure vitriol. They malign and slander the author's opposition in a particularly nasty way. He calls them blots and blemishes, carousers, adulterers, seducers, unstable, greedy, accursed, wicked, boastful, and lustful. He also uses some pretty descriptive metaphors like springs without water, mists driven by a storm, slaves to depravity, dogs returning to vomit (Proverbs 26:11 quote), and sows wallowing in mud. Were they actually that bad? What is the other side of the story? Also, I urge you to read through the book of Jude, which is quite short. So much of this passage is similar to the language found there.
What was the point of all that hatred? It was this, "If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our lord and savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning." This is a subtle threat to those christians who would dare to leave the group, dare to say anything against it, and go back into the world. "Blackest darkness is reserved for them." This is cult language, calculated to make people fear and quake at the mere thought of leaving, questioning, or complaining.
We have come to chapter three. The author says, "Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you." That is interesting because many scholars don't believe 1st and 2nd Peter were written by the same person. The language, the format, and the subject matter differ. The author of first Peter wrote in a very Jewish way, referring to the Old Testament with quotations. So far, the author of second Peter Has referred to various parts of the old Testament and to Matthew, but he has drawn significant amounts of text directly from Jude. What's even more interesting, he used all the bits he got from Jude in the order that they appear in that book, interspersed with his own words. According to my study bible he clearly uses, in order, phrases from Jude 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 18. He is a plagiarist.
The author goes on to say he wrote both his letters to "stimulate the reader to wholesome thinking." He wants them to recall the words of the prophets and the command Jesus gave the apostles, but he doesn't say which words and which command. They also need to realize that in the last days scoffers will scoff. (Haters will hate.)They will question the whereabouts of Jesus, as well they should. He supposedly promised he would come back. He hadn't then, and he hasn't yet. The author accuses the scoffers of deliberately forgetting that god's word has the power to create and destroy. Then he explains Jesus's tardy return. "With the lord, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day. The lord is not slow in keeping his promis as some understand slowness." In other words, time means nothing to god, whenever he decides to do something will be the right time.
Till next time.
Tuesday, June 25, 2019
2 Peter part two
We are at 2 Peter 1:12. The author says he will always remind the reader of the stuff they already know. That seems rather pointless doesn't it? He thinks it is right to keep doing this as long as he is alive, because Jesus has made it clear to him that he hasn't got much time left. But no fear, he will find a way to be responsible for helping them remember, even after he shuffles off this mortal coil. This guy has issues.
He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?
The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?
We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.
The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.
Till next time.
Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.
He goes on to say that he and his cronies didn't make stuff up when they told about "the power and coming of our lord Jesus Christ." They were "eyewitnesses of his majesty" because they were with Jesus on a sacred mountain when a voice from god said, "This is my beloved son, with him I am well pleased." Well, well, well. This is the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in the presence of Peter, James and John. It is found in Mark 9, Matthew 17, and Luke 9. Mark says god's words are "This is my son, whom I love. listen to him." In Luke it is "This is my son, whom I have chosen. listen to him." In Matthew it is "This is my son, whom I love, with him I am well pleased. Listen to him." Notice that 2 Peter appears to be quoting from the book of Matthew. In all of the instances, god supposedly also commanded those present to listen to Jesus, but the author of 2 Peter did not include those words of god. Will he ever tell us any of the things Jesus is supposed to have said?
The author goes on to say that the readers would also do well to pay attention to the words of the prophets. (What about the words of Jesus?) However, they need to understand that no prophecy of scripture ever came about by the prophets own interpretation. That's funny. He's acknowledging that prophets got the meanings of their prophecies wrong. He says that's because the prophecies didn't come from the will of man, but from god, through the holy spirit. Excuses excuses. So, how in the world can anyone know what the prophecies actually meant, or if they came true, if even the prophets got it wrong?
We are now in chapter two.The author says, "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign lord who bought them (AKA Jesus)." Okay. Let us recognize that both liars and truth tellers will say that the people disagreeing with them are wrong. These people "spreading heresies" could actually be the truth tellers, but of course the author begs to differ. He says people will follow the heretic's shameful ways and bring the truth into disrepute. They will also exploit the reader with made up stories. Is this projection? I'm pretty sure the story of the transfiguration is made up. The author says the story tellers will get the destruction awaiting them. When we point our finger, three fingers are pointing back at us.
The author goes on to say that after all, "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but sent them to hell, putting them in gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement" He also did not spare the people who were drowned in the flood. Nor did he spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, which were burnt to ashes, "an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly." These are all proof that sinners will get what is coming to them. A note about the angels who sinned and got sent to hell: there isn't actually any Old Testament scriptures that say this. Also the word "hell" here is translated from the Greek word Tartarus, which is a deep pit located below Hades, the land of the dead. This isn't the "lake of fire" hell that Christianity is fond of.
Till next time.
Edited to add: the bit about angels in prison and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah very closely echoes terminology found in Jude 6.
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
2 Peter, introduction
Hello, time to move on to the 2nd bible book attributed to Peter. Let's see what Wikipedia has to say about it here. There appears to be very little doubt that this letter is a fake, written between 100-150 CE, by an unknown author who was familiar with Paul's epistles and the so called book of Jude. In fact, it seems to rely heavily in the content of Jude, which we have studied before. This should be interesting.
The letter begins with the author introducing himself as Simon Peter, not just Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is addressed to a nonspecific group of believers.
The author opens by saying that Jesus's divine power has given them everything they need for life and godliness through their knowledge of him. (Then why do they need this letter from Peter?) Through Jesus's divine power, he gave them "great and precious promises" (what were they?)so that they could participate in the divine nature (what is that?) and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." So, does this boil down to " Jesus has the power to take away your evil desires?"
In spite of Jesus's awesome power in their lives, the readers must still make an effort to have faith, goodness, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (What does the divine power do?) If the readers have these qualities in increasing measure, it will keep them from being ineffective and unproductive in their knowledge of christ. (Again, then what does the divine power actually do that a person can't do for himself?) if anyone does not have the aforementioned qualities, the author says they are nearsighted, blind, and have forgotten they were cleansed from their sins. I guess he's implying that they owe Jesus their good behavior and good attitudes in repayment for the invisible nullification of their sins.
So, a claim is made that Jesus did something for them that they can not see, and gave something to them that they may never experience. Now it's up to them to be sure they act like they deserve it. And if they do, they will "receive a rich welcome into the eternal (invisible) kingdom of Jesus Christ." After they are dead.
Till next time.
The letter begins with the author introducing himself as Simon Peter, not just Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ. It is addressed to a nonspecific group of believers.
The author opens by saying that Jesus's divine power has given them everything they need for life and godliness through their knowledge of him. (Then why do they need this letter from Peter?) Through Jesus's divine power, he gave them "great and precious promises" (what were they?)so that they could participate in the divine nature (what is that?) and "escape the corruption in the world caused by evil desires." So, does this boil down to " Jesus has the power to take away your evil desires?"
In spite of Jesus's awesome power in their lives, the readers must still make an effort to have faith, goodness, self control, perseverance, godliness, brotherly kindness, and love. (What does the divine power do?) If the readers have these qualities in increasing measure, it will keep them from being ineffective and unproductive in their knowledge of christ. (Again, then what does the divine power actually do that a person can't do for himself?) if anyone does not have the aforementioned qualities, the author says they are nearsighted, blind, and have forgotten they were cleansed from their sins. I guess he's implying that they owe Jesus their good behavior and good attitudes in repayment for the invisible nullification of their sins.
So, a claim is made that Jesus did something for them that they can not see, and gave something to them that they may never experience. Now it's up to them to be sure they act like they deserve it. And if they do, they will "receive a rich welcome into the eternal (invisible) kingdom of Jesus Christ." After they are dead.
Till next time.
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.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Heaven part thirteen and wrap up.
We have reached the end of the references to heaven (singular) in Strong's concordance. There a few more under heavens (plural). In Acts 2:29-34, we are told that David died and was buried, and remains in his tomb, he did not ascend to the heavens. I feel this brings up an important point. In christianity, many believers tend to think their love ones ascend to heaven immediately after death. This negates many of the New Testament teachings about a resurrection of the dead and a final judgment, especially what we find in Revelation 20. You can't have it both ways.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1, the author says, "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from god, an eternal house in the heavens, not built by human hands." Okay. So, this house in the heavens, is it in the new Jerusalem that's going to come down from the heavens after the judgment? Do any of the letters attributed to Paul speak of a Holy City or new Jerusalem? I ran those phrases through the search on Bible Gateway. A new Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere but Revelation. Of all the New Testament books, the phrase holy city is only in Matthew and Revelation. Matthew is referring to the city of Jerusalem that existed in the first century.
Did Paul not know about the new heaven and new earth? I looked up those phrases as well. They are only mentioned in Revelation and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter chapter three has a description of the end times that is not couched in symbolism like that of Revelation, but it coincides with events mentioned. In verse 7, the author says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." In verse 10, the author says, "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Verses 12-13 go on to say,"That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." Paul's letters do not mention those phrases at all.
In reality, the earthly and heavenly dwellings mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are referring to supposedly earthly and heavenly personal bodies. Paul was big on talking about how believers would get new indestructible bodies. He doesn't seem to have mentioned much else about the afterlife and the actual place those bodies will reside.
Let's see if we can find anything else new and interesting in the New Testament under the word "heavenly." 1 Corinthians chapter 15 discusses the resurrection, but even though the author rambles on about it, he doesn't say much that is concrete or substantial. Like I said before it is mostly about the difference between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, the resurrection of physical bodies, and their transformation into spiritual, imperishable ones. This will all happen "in a flash, in the tinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." Nothing about heaven, the holy city, or what will go on in the afterlife.
In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul says, "The lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom." Is this the same kingdom that will be the New Jerusalem coming down out of the heavens after the judgment?
Hebrews 11:16 says that a heavenly country and city are prepared by god for the faithful. In Hebrews chapter 12, the author speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god. Again the writer of Hebrews tells us that earthly things are just representations of the heavenly reality. In verses 26-28, we are told that the earthly or created things will be removed so that what cannot be shaken, god's kingdom, remains.
Does any of this coincide with what you have learned about heaven? It certainly isn't what I was taught and what I continue to hear from Christians around me.
In 2 Corinthians 5:1, the author says, "If the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from god, an eternal house in the heavens, not built by human hands." Okay. So, this house in the heavens, is it in the new Jerusalem that's going to come down from the heavens after the judgment? Do any of the letters attributed to Paul speak of a Holy City or new Jerusalem? I ran those phrases through the search on Bible Gateway. A new Jerusalem is not mentioned anywhere but Revelation. Of all the New Testament books, the phrase holy city is only in Matthew and Revelation. Matthew is referring to the city of Jerusalem that existed in the first century.
Did Paul not know about the new heaven and new earth? I looked up those phrases as well. They are only mentioned in Revelation and in 2 Peter. 2 Peter chapter three has a description of the end times that is not couched in symbolism like that of Revelation, but it coincides with events mentioned. In verse 7, the author says, "the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." In verse 10, the author says, "the heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire , and earth and everything in it will be laid bare." Verses 12-13 go on to say,"That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness." Paul's letters do not mention those phrases at all.
In reality, the earthly and heavenly dwellings mentioned by Paul in 2 Corinthians are referring to supposedly earthly and heavenly personal bodies. Paul was big on talking about how believers would get new indestructible bodies. He doesn't seem to have mentioned much else about the afterlife and the actual place those bodies will reside.
Let's see if we can find anything else new and interesting in the New Testament under the word "heavenly." 1 Corinthians chapter 15 discusses the resurrection, but even though the author rambles on about it, he doesn't say much that is concrete or substantial. Like I said before it is mostly about the difference between earthly bodies and heavenly bodies, the resurrection of physical bodies, and their transformation into spiritual, imperishable ones. This will all happen "in a flash, in the tinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet." Nothing about heaven, the holy city, or what will go on in the afterlife.
In 2 Timothy 4:18, Paul says, "The lord will rescue me from every evil attack and will bring me safely to his heavenly kingdom." Is this the same kingdom that will be the New Jerusalem coming down out of the heavens after the judgment?
Hebrews 11:16 says that a heavenly country and city are prepared by god for the faithful. In Hebrews chapter 12, the author speaks of the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the living god. Again the writer of Hebrews tells us that earthly things are just representations of the heavenly reality. In verses 26-28, we are told that the earthly or created things will be removed so that what cannot be shaken, god's kingdom, remains.
Does any of this coincide with what you have learned about heaven? It certainly isn't what I was taught and what I continue to hear from Christians around me.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Jude, part 3
Verse 7 of Jude says that Sodom and Gomorrah, with their sexual immorality and perversion, are examples of "those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire." This is another old Testament reference. Notice that lack of hospitality is not the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in this passage.
Verse 8 says that "In the same way these dreamers (the condemned people this letter is about) pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. This could apply to Jews who have given up following the law of Moses. (See 2 Peter 2:10)
Verse 9 Talks about the archangel Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. Even Michael, himself a celestial being, did not have the nerve to slander another celestial being. (See 2 Peter 2:10-11) Instead, he said, "The lord rebuke you!" This story is supposed to have come from a document called the Testament of Moses or the Ascension of Moses. However, it bears a remarkable similarity to the first verses of Zechariah 3, where a high priest Joshua (same name as Jesus ) is standing before the angel of the lord (Michael?) and Satan. There Satan is rebuked with the words "The lord rebuke you." Some Wikipedia writer suggests that the word 'Moses' has replaced the word 'Joshua' deliberately, to avoid confusion. You're darn right it would be confusing if Jude said that the devil and Michael argued over the body of Joshua (Jesus). Then this verse would clearly be associated with the high priest Joshua of Zechariah 3, and it might be doubted that the author was referring to the first century Jesus. I can see how that would be a problem for those promoting the first century Jesus guy.
Verse 10 says the godless men don't know what they are talking about, and what they do know does them no good.
Verse 11 says the godless men have taken the way of Cain (murder?), Balaam (greed), and Korah (rebelling against leadership). 2 Peter 2:15 also mentions Balaam.
Verses 12 -13 says the godless men are blemishes at (the jew's? or the christian's ?) love feast. (Echoed in 2 Peter 2:13) They are shepherds who feed only themselves, clouds without rain (see 2Peter 2:17), autumn trees without fruit and uprooted, wild waves, wandering stars with blackest darkness reserved for them (see 2 Peter 2:17 again. Notice how 2 Peter draws many phrases and themes from Jude.)
Verses 14-16 is said to quote directly from the the book of Enoch, "See the lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (That's four times ungodly.) My study bible says that "the book of Enoch was not canonical does not mean it contained no truth." Can't that be said of any book, fiction and non-fiction? It goes on to say "Nor does Jude's quotation of the book mean he considered it inspired." Then what does it mean?
The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. The author of the book of Enoch did not even live at the same time Enoch was supposed to have lived. It is fiction.Enoch is most likely a fictional person. How can it be talking about a prophecy that never happened, from a person who may never have lived, and it still be true? My study bible says "Jude uses the quotation to refer to Christ's second coming and to his judgment of the wicked." So? How does that make it true? How is a fictional quote from a fictional man support for anything? It reminds me of "quotes" from famous people found all over the internet today. It seems clear to me that the author of Jude did not consider it fictional at all. He was ignorant of the history of the book of Enoch. We have an advantage over him.
More to come. Because of pressing family matters, The next post will probably be at the end of next week.
Verse 8 says that "In the same way these dreamers (the condemned people this letter is about) pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. This could apply to Jews who have given up following the law of Moses. (See 2 Peter 2:10)
Verse 9 Talks about the archangel Michael disputing with the devil over the body of Moses. Even Michael, himself a celestial being, did not have the nerve to slander another celestial being. (See 2 Peter 2:10-11) Instead, he said, "The lord rebuke you!" This story is supposed to have come from a document called the Testament of Moses or the Ascension of Moses. However, it bears a remarkable similarity to the first verses of Zechariah 3, where a high priest Joshua (same name as Jesus ) is standing before the angel of the lord (Michael?) and Satan. There Satan is rebuked with the words "The lord rebuke you." Some Wikipedia writer suggests that the word 'Moses' has replaced the word 'Joshua' deliberately, to avoid confusion. You're darn right it would be confusing if Jude said that the devil and Michael argued over the body of Joshua (Jesus). Then this verse would clearly be associated with the high priest Joshua of Zechariah 3, and it might be doubted that the author was referring to the first century Jesus. I can see how that would be a problem for those promoting the first century Jesus guy.
Verse 10 says the godless men don't know what they are talking about, and what they do know does them no good.
Verse 11 says the godless men have taken the way of Cain (murder?), Balaam (greed), and Korah (rebelling against leadership). 2 Peter 2:15 also mentions Balaam.
Verses 12 -13 says the godless men are blemishes at (the jew's? or the christian's ?) love feast. (Echoed in 2 Peter 2:13) They are shepherds who feed only themselves, clouds without rain (see 2Peter 2:17), autumn trees without fruit and uprooted, wild waves, wandering stars with blackest darkness reserved for them (see 2 Peter 2:17 again. Notice how 2 Peter draws many phrases and themes from Jude.)
Verses 14-16 is said to quote directly from the the book of Enoch, "See the lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all the ungodly of all the ungodly acts they have done in the ungodly way, and of all the harsh words ungodly sinners have spoken against him." (That's four times ungodly.) My study bible says that "the book of Enoch was not canonical does not mean it contained no truth." Can't that be said of any book, fiction and non-fiction? It goes on to say "Nor does Jude's quotation of the book mean he considered it inspired." Then what does it mean?
The book of Enoch was not written by Enoch. The author of the book of Enoch did not even live at the same time Enoch was supposed to have lived. It is fiction.Enoch is most likely a fictional person. How can it be talking about a prophecy that never happened, from a person who may never have lived, and it still be true? My study bible says "Jude uses the quotation to refer to Christ's second coming and to his judgment of the wicked." So? How does that make it true? How is a fictional quote from a fictional man support for anything? It reminds me of "quotes" from famous people found all over the internet today. It seems clear to me that the author of Jude did not consider it fictional at all. He was ignorant of the history of the book of Enoch. We have an advantage over him.
More to come. Because of pressing family matters, The next post will probably be at the end of next week.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Jude, part 2
You can read the book of Jude here. There are no chapters. I will also be checking each verse against the interlinear Greek. You can do that on bible hub also.
The first section of the letter is labelled "The sin and doom of godless men" in my study bible. Sounds ominous. Jude says he is writing to these nonspecific people because he is worried that godless men who have secretly slipped in among them. In the NIV, these bad people were supposedly written about long ago, but Jude doesn't tell us where or when. The study bible does plenty of speculation, however. Also, if you look at other translations it is not translated as being "written beforehand." Instead it speaks of men who were designated (predestined?) for condemnation long ago. If Jude is written by a Jew to Jews, he might be referring to the Jewish sect known as "the way", later called christianity.
In verse 4, some insiders are accused of changing the grace of god (there's the word grace again) into a license for immorality. They also deny Jesus is the only sovereign and Lord. This sounds very similar to what many christians say about atheists today. "You don't believe in god because you just want to sin." In this case, it would seem that some people in the sect that we would call early christianity did not believe Jesus had any kind of authority over them.
However, if you consider Jude might have been written by a Jew to Jews, not christians, all you have to do is take out the words "Jesus Christ" and verse 4 would still make sense, except it would be talking about god as the sovereign lord. The writer of Jude could very well be telling Jews that just because god has been gracious enough to make them a holy people, doesn't mean they don't have to obey him via the law of Moses.
Verse 5 says "Though you already know all this, (they would know it if they were Jews), I want to remind you that the lord at one time delivered his people (the Hebrews/ancestors of the Jews) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe." The lord in this verse must be referring to yahweh/god. This would make the previous word lord in verse 4 confusing, if it was referring to Jesus. Are there two lords in this book or one? The ESV fixed the problem by replacing the word lord with Jesus. But even a child in Sunday school could tell you Jesus was not the one who delivered his people out of Egypt.
Verse 6 says, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great day." This is a unique teaching in the New Testament, found elsewhere only in 2 Peter, another highly disputed text. Scholars have noted similarities in Jude and 2 Peter, and suspect that the 2 Peter author used the Jude text as a reference. 2 Peter is an obviously Christian text. I have come to believe Jude is not. A very interesting tidbit is that this verse appears to draw from a Jewish writing called the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was written at least 300 years BCE. Part of it tells the story of the supposed fallen angels. It is clear that Jude drew from the book in this verse, but my study bible does not mention that at all. That is an interesting ommission. The author of 2 Peter could also have concievably drawn from the Enoch text. There is no way to know. What is clear from reading the linked articles, is that the concept of fallen angels was a Jewish cultural myth that made its way into mainstream Christianity. Fascinating stuff.
More to come.
The first section of the letter is labelled "The sin and doom of godless men" in my study bible. Sounds ominous. Jude says he is writing to these nonspecific people because he is worried that godless men who have secretly slipped in among them. In the NIV, these bad people were supposedly written about long ago, but Jude doesn't tell us where or when. The study bible does plenty of speculation, however. Also, if you look at other translations it is not translated as being "written beforehand." Instead it speaks of men who were designated (predestined?) for condemnation long ago. If Jude is written by a Jew to Jews, he might be referring to the Jewish sect known as "the way", later called christianity.
In verse 4, some insiders are accused of changing the grace of god (there's the word grace again) into a license for immorality. They also deny Jesus is the only sovereign and Lord. This sounds very similar to what many christians say about atheists today. "You don't believe in god because you just want to sin." In this case, it would seem that some people in the sect that we would call early christianity did not believe Jesus had any kind of authority over them.
However, if you consider Jude might have been written by a Jew to Jews, not christians, all you have to do is take out the words "Jesus Christ" and verse 4 would still make sense, except it would be talking about god as the sovereign lord. The writer of Jude could very well be telling Jews that just because god has been gracious enough to make them a holy people, doesn't mean they don't have to obey him via the law of Moses.
Verse 5 says "Though you already know all this, (they would know it if they were Jews), I want to remind you that the lord at one time delivered his people (the Hebrews/ancestors of the Jews) out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe." The lord in this verse must be referring to yahweh/god. This would make the previous word lord in verse 4 confusing, if it was referring to Jesus. Are there two lords in this book or one? The ESV fixed the problem by replacing the word lord with Jesus. But even a child in Sunday school could tell you Jesus was not the one who delivered his people out of Egypt.
Verse 6 says, "And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling--these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great day." This is a unique teaching in the New Testament, found elsewhere only in 2 Peter, another highly disputed text. Scholars have noted similarities in Jude and 2 Peter, and suspect that the 2 Peter author used the Jude text as a reference. 2 Peter is an obviously Christian text. I have come to believe Jude is not. A very interesting tidbit is that this verse appears to draw from a Jewish writing called the book of Enoch. The book of Enoch was written at least 300 years BCE. Part of it tells the story of the supposed fallen angels. It is clear that Jude drew from the book in this verse, but my study bible does not mention that at all. That is an interesting ommission. The author of 2 Peter could also have concievably drawn from the Enoch text. There is no way to know. What is clear from reading the linked articles, is that the concept of fallen angels was a Jewish cultural myth that made its way into mainstream Christianity. Fascinating stuff.
More to come.
Thursday, January 18, 2018
More Abaddon and Abyss, plus Tartarus
Here are some more passages that link abaddon with sheol:
Psalm 88:10-12 says to god: "Do you show your wonders to the dead? Do those who are dead rise up and praise you? (Hmm. The writer of the Psalm doesn't know about the judgement day?) Is your love declared in the grave (sheol) your faithfulness in destruction (abaddon)? Are your wonders known in the places of darkness, or your righteous deeds in the land of oblivion?" The land of oblivion...That doesn't sound like the christian hell, does it? If you read the whole of Psalm 88, you see that the author is afraid and feels like he is dead, " in the lowest pit, in the darkest depths." Those who lie in the grave are cut off from god's care and he forgets about them. Where is the concept of eternal life in this passage? We've covered verses about pits in this series of posts about hell and punishment after death. Those pits could be referring to abaddon.
Proverbs 15:11 says "Death (sheol) and destruction (abaddon) lie open before the lord, how much more the hearts of men." Proverbs 27:20 says "Death (sheol) and destruction (abaddon) are never satisfied and neither are the eyes of a man."
Going back to the word abyss, I find that, beside the book of Revelation, there are only two other appearances of the word abyss in the New Testament. One is found in Luke 8:31. This is the story of the demon possessed man who has many demons. "The demons begged Jesus repeatedly not to order them to go into the abyss." Jesus complies with the demons' request to be sent into some pigs. Then the pigs rush down a steep bank into the lake and are drowned. What happened to the demons then? Did they end up in the abyss anyway? Wasn't that kind of a dirty trick?
The other instance is in Romans 10:6-8, where the author says that righteousness based on faith does not ask who will bring christ down from heaven. Nor does it ask who will bring christ up from the abyss. Faith says that "the word" (christ) is near you, in your mouth and in your heart. In other words, people of faith don't focus on the physical location of jesus's body. They focus on faith and the statement of belief that god raised jesus from the dead. That will save them. From what? Not death. Everybody dies. Also, why would Jesus need to be raised from the abyss? Is that where Jesus went when he died? He wasn't raised directly from the tomb?
Finally, let's look at an interesting passage in 2 Peter 2:24 that says "God did not spare the angels when they sinned but cast them into hell, delivering them in chains to be held in gloomy darkness until their judgement." What makes this so interesting is the word translated into hell, in both the KJV and the NIV, is actually the greek word Tartarus. This is the only occurrance of the word in the whole bible. At the time 2 Peter was written, Tartarus had been part of Greek mythology for at least seven hundred years. There was a Greek tradition that Tartarus was a "deep abyss that is used as a dungeon of torment and suffering for the wicked and as the prison for the titans" (Wikipedia) Isn't it interesting that the beast of Revelation emerges from the abyss and satan gets chained up in it? Is that the same abyss as Tartarus? Isn't it also interesting that 2 Peter calls this abyss a holding place, like a prison, of gloomy darkness? No fire. Judgement comes later.
Apparently some christians have tried to get around this obviously Greek synchretism and have said that the Greeks got the idea of Tartarus from the Jews and stories of fallen angels being imprisoned. Which more likely came first, the Iliad or the Bible?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)