11)* Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus: Matthew 10:3
No other book mentions any Lebbaeus
*Thaddaeus: Mark 3:18
Only Matthew and Mark mention Thaddaeus
*Judas son of James (NIV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
*Judas (or Jude) the Brother of James (KJV): Luke 6:16, Acts 1:13, Jude 1:1
Was it son or brother?!! Which James?!! Is this the same person as Thaddaeus? Christians assume it is, because otherwise there is something wrong with the different apostle lists. Jesus had brothers named Judas and James. (Matthew 13:55) Was this another brother of Jesus? This Judas of James is not mentioned by Mark or Matthew. John 14:22 speaks once of a Judas "not Iscariot." Paul doesn't mention this person. Jude and Judas are actually the same name. So, since the book of Jude begins with a greeting from Jude, the brother of James, it is assumed the book was written by the apostle aforementioned.
More about Thaddaeus
12)* Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus: Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:19, Matthew 26:25, Matthew 27:3, Luke 6:16, Luke 22:48, John 12:4, John 13:2, John 18:2,3, 5, Acts 1:16,25
*Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve: Matthew 26:14,16,47, Mark 14:10, 43, Luke 22:47, John 6:71,
*Judas Iscariot, son of Simon: John 6:71, John 12:4, John 13:2, 26, 29,
John is the only book that speaks of Judas as the son of Simon. The question is Simon who? Paul does not mention Judas. Kind of strange, don't you think?
More about Judas Iscariot
13)*Matthias, Judas's replacement: Acts 1:23,26
Matthias is not mentioned anywhere else. More about Matthias.
*How many of each of the twelve are specifically named in New Testament books, generously interpreted:
Matthew-12, Mark-12, Luke-12, John-7(Peter, Andrew, Philip, Nathaniel, Thomas, Judas-not-Iscariot, Judas Iscariot) Acts-13, Galatians-2 (Cephas/Peter and John), 1st Corinthians-1 (Cephas/assumed to be Peter), 1st Peter-1 (Peter), Jude-1 (Jude/assumed to be Judas/ Thaddaeus), Revelation-1(John)
*Number of times the phrase "twelve apostles" or "Twelve disciples" or "the twelve" is specifically mentioned:
Matthew-8, Mark-10, Luke-8, John-4, Acts-1, 1 Corinthians-1, Revelation-1
I find it fascinating that the only two of the twelve that Paul mentioned by name are Peter and John. The James he mentions is considered to be Jesus's brother. Adding: I have caught a couple of mistakes and fixed them, mostly with chapter and verse numbers. So, I expect that I may not be precise with all my figuring, but I tried to be as accurate as possible.
Showing posts with label Acts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Acts. Show all posts
Friday, January 4, 2019
The apostles part four
8)*Matthew: Matthew 9:9, Matthew 10:3, Mark3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
The book of Matthew never uses the name Levi. However, the apostle Matthew is called the tax collector. John and Paul do not mention Matthew.
*Levi: Mark 2:14, Luke 5:27, 29
Levi is called a tax collector in Mark and Luke. However, he is not associated with Matthew in those books and Matthew is not called a tax collector in those books. Matthew, John, and Paul do not talk of a disciple named Levi. The Old Testament Levi is also mentioned in a few places in the New Testament.
Read about Matthew here.
9) *James the son of Alphaeus: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
There is not much to say about James the son of Alphaeus. He only appears in the lists of apostles. John and Paul do not mention him. In Mark 2:14, Levi is also called the son of Alphaeus.
*James the less, brother of Joses and Salome, son of Mary: Mark 15:40
Here's where things get complicated. Was James the less the same James as the son of Alphaeus? Then who was Mary his mother? Wouldn't she have been the wife of Alphaeus? Was it the Mary mentioned as being Jesus's mother, as well as the mother of James, Joses, Judas and Simon, in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3? Which Mary was the mother of James and Joses mentioned in Matthew 27:56? What about the Mary, mother of Joses, who went to the tomb of Jesus with Mary Magdalene? Are all these Marys, Jameses, and Joseses the same people? Some people think so. I haven't a clue. Plus, I don't think it's possible to know for sure who is who. Isn't possible that Joseph the carpenter died and Jesus's mother Mary remarried a man named Alphaeus?
Read more about James the son of Alphaeus.
10)* Simon the Zealot (NIV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15 Acts 1:13
*Simon the Canaanite ((KJV): Matthew 10:4, Mark 3:18
*Simon Zelotes (KJV): Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13
John and Paul do not mention this Simon.
Read more about Simon the Zealot.
More to come.
Thursday, January 3, 2019
The apostles part three
5)*Philip: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, John 1:43-46, 48, (from Bethsaida) John 6:5,7, John 12:21-22, John 14:8-9, Acts 1:3
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Only John has the story of Philip becoming a disciple. The strange thing about that story is that it is just a lead in for the story of how a man named Nathanael became a disciple. The other gospels and Acts only list him in the roll call of apostles. John includes Philip in a few stories of direct interaction with Jesus. No Philip is mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Philip.
There is a Philip mentioned in Acts, who is commonly called Philip the evangelist. He is assumed to not be the same as Philip the apostle because he is listed as one of the first seven deacons listed who do the grunt work of the new church. These deacons are not part of the twelve.Scriptures that include that Philip are: Acts 6:5, Acts 8:5-6, 12-13,26,29-31,34-35,37-40, Acts 21:8
Read more about Philip the evangelist.
6)*Bartholomew: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13,
There is no mention of Bartholomew by John, Paul, or anywhere else in the New Testament.
Read more about Bartholomew.
*Nathanael: John 21:2 lists Nathanael of Cana, presumably the same Nathanael that Philip introduces to Jesus In John 1:45-49, as one of Jesus's disciples. Soon after that introduction, is the story of the wedding at Cana, which is only mentioned in John. Because Bartholomew's name is paired with Philip's in the book of Matthew, and because Nathanael is brought to Jesus by Philip in John, and because Nathanael is listed as a disciple in John, there is a traditional assumption that Nathanael and Bartholomew must be the same person. I hope you can see that is not necessarily so. They are never explicitly connected. The name Nathanael is mentioned nowhere else in the New Testament but in the book of John. (Do you find this as fascinating as I do?)
Read more about Nathanael.
7)*Thomas: Matthew 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, John 14:5, John 20:26-29, Acts 1:13
*Thomas called Didymus: John 11:16, John 20:24
The word Thomas and Didymus are said to both mean "twin." Thomas is only called Didymus in John. John is also the only book that includes any dialog or stories of Thomas. This is the same Thomas who is also commonly called "doubting Thomas" because of his skepticism about Jesus's resurrection. Thomas is not mentioned by Paul.
Read more about Thomas.
More to come.
Wednesday, January 2, 2019
The apostles part two
3)*James the son of Zebedee: Matthew 4:21, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:19, 29, Mark 3:17, Mark 10:35, Luke 5:10,
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
*James the brother of John: Matthew 17:1, Mark 5:37,
*James and John: Mark 9:2, Mark10:41, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:33, Luke 6:14, Luke 8:51, Luke 9:28, Luke 9:54, Acts 1:13, Acts 12:2 (James is put to death by the sword.)
This James is always mentioned in conjunction with John.
Read about James.
4)*John the son of Zebedee: See James the son of Zebedee.
*John the brother of James: See James the brother of John.
*James and John: See James and John above.
*John: Mark 9:38, Luke 9:49, Luke 22:8, Acts 3:1,3,4, 11, Acts 4:13, 19, Acts 8:14, Galatians 2:9, Revelation 1:1, 4,9, Revelation 21;2, Revelation 22:8
The John in Acts and Galatians is almost always paired with Peter. The John in Revelation is often assumed to be the same John, brother of James, author of all the books with John's name, but there is nothing that definitively identifies him as such.
Now the weird part. Neither John nor James are mentioned in the Book of John, which is traditionally supposed to have been written by this John. Instead there is a recurring cryptic phrase "the disciple whom Jesus loved," assumed to be the John who is assumed to be the author of the book of John. Neither assumption has any basis in anything other than speculation and elimination. Why couldn't it have been James or some other unmentioned disciple? John's name has also been paired with the concept of altruistic love as the speculated author of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John. Some similarity of style may mean the authors are the same person. However, at no time is any John actually identified as that person.
"The disciple Jesus loved" is found in John 13:23, John 19:26, John 20:2, John 21:20. Most of these verses connect this disciple with Peter in some way, just as Acts often connects John with Peter. This may be one reason It is assumed to be John. The book of John also states that when Jesus was dying on the cross, he gave the care of his mother to the disciple he loved. It never says who that was. If John did write the book of John, what of James, John's brother? Would a truly loving person actually cut his close brother out of history?
The book of John ends by saying, "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." Um. No. Hello. We don't even know who you are because you haven't actually told us. Why should we trust you?
Read about John
More to come.
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.
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Mark part five
If we look more closely at the list of the twelve apostles mentioned in Mark chapter three, we see that Levi the tax collector is not mentioned. However, in Matthew 10:3, we are told that Matthew was the tax collector. Are Levi and Matthew the same person as is traditionally said? Let's look at each gospel account.
Mark chapter two says Levi is the "son of Alphaeus" and a tax collector. He follows Jesus. Jesus eats with him. The name Levi is no where else in Mark. In chapter three, Matthew is named as one of the twelve, but Mark does not say Matthew was a tax collector. Matthew is nowhere else in the book of Mark. Oddly enough, The author calls another one of the twelve "James the son of Alphaeus." Were James and Levi brothers? There is no mention of Alphaeus again in the book of Mark.
Matthew chapter 10 mentions Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Matthew does not mention the name Levi at all in the whole book. He tells the same story of the tax collector, in chapter 9, but uses the name Matthew instead. The author of Matthew does not call the tax collector the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is not mentioned any more in the rest of the book of Matthew, neither is Alphaeus. You would think that if the book of Matthew was actually written by Matthew, he would have injected himself into the story more.
Luke speaks of Levi the tax collector in chapter five. He is not called the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is mentioned as one of the twelve in chapter six, but is not called a tax collector. James the son of Alphaeus is listed as one of the twelve. Alphaeus is not mentioned again in Luke, neither is Levi or Matthew.
Acts chapter one also names the twelve apostles. It does not mention the name Levi. It names Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus. There is no other mention of Matthew or Alphaeus in Acts. There are no other instances of Levi the tax collector, Matthew, or Alphaeus in the whole rest of the New Testament. Paul does not mention any of them either.
Now let's look at another of the twelve mentioned in Mark 3, Thaddaeus. In the KJV, Matthew 10 says his name was Lebbaeus with the last name of Thaddaeus. The NIV and other translations only say Thaddaeus. Neither Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus are mentioned elsewhere in the bible. Luke 6 lists a "Judas SON of James" in the NIV instead of Thaddaeus, and so does Acts chapter one. The KJV calls this person in Luke and Acts "Judas the BROTHER of James." The Greek actually looks like "Judas of James." It seems that Judas's relationship to James is actually unclear. Most commentaries tend to assume that all these names, Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, and Judas were the same person.
A Judas is also mentioned in Matthew 13:55 as one of the brothers of Jesus. Some people think this Judas is the same person as above and the author of the book of Jude. Though that seems problematic to me, considering Judas and Thaddaeus are supposed to be the same person and Thaddaeus is mentioned in Matthew 10.
A Judas is mentioned once more in John 14:22. This Judas asks Jesus why he will reveal himself to just the apostles and not the whole world. This Judas is also assumed to be the apostle. Paul does not mention any Judas.
Are we confused yet?
Mark chapter two says Levi is the "son of Alphaeus" and a tax collector. He follows Jesus. Jesus eats with him. The name Levi is no where else in Mark. In chapter three, Matthew is named as one of the twelve, but Mark does not say Matthew was a tax collector. Matthew is nowhere else in the book of Mark. Oddly enough, The author calls another one of the twelve "James the son of Alphaeus." Were James and Levi brothers? There is no mention of Alphaeus again in the book of Mark.
Matthew chapter 10 mentions Matthew the tax collector and James the son of Alphaeus. Matthew does not mention the name Levi at all in the whole book. He tells the same story of the tax collector, in chapter 9, but uses the name Matthew instead. The author of Matthew does not call the tax collector the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is not mentioned any more in the rest of the book of Matthew, neither is Alphaeus. You would think that if the book of Matthew was actually written by Matthew, he would have injected himself into the story more.
Luke speaks of Levi the tax collector in chapter five. He is not called the son of Alphaeus. Matthew is mentioned as one of the twelve in chapter six, but is not called a tax collector. James the son of Alphaeus is listed as one of the twelve. Alphaeus is not mentioned again in Luke, neither is Levi or Matthew.
Acts chapter one also names the twelve apostles. It does not mention the name Levi. It names Matthew and James, the son of Alphaeus. There is no other mention of Matthew or Alphaeus in Acts. There are no other instances of Levi the tax collector, Matthew, or Alphaeus in the whole rest of the New Testament. Paul does not mention any of them either.
Now let's look at another of the twelve mentioned in Mark 3, Thaddaeus. In the KJV, Matthew 10 says his name was Lebbaeus with the last name of Thaddaeus. The NIV and other translations only say Thaddaeus. Neither Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus are mentioned elsewhere in the bible. Luke 6 lists a "Judas SON of James" in the NIV instead of Thaddaeus, and so does Acts chapter one. The KJV calls this person in Luke and Acts "Judas the BROTHER of James." The Greek actually looks like "Judas of James." It seems that Judas's relationship to James is actually unclear. Most commentaries tend to assume that all these names, Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, and Judas were the same person.
A Judas is also mentioned in Matthew 13:55 as one of the brothers of Jesus. Some people think this Judas is the same person as above and the author of the book of Jude. Though that seems problematic to me, considering Judas and Thaddaeus are supposed to be the same person and Thaddaeus is mentioned in Matthew 10.
A Judas is mentioned once more in John 14:22. This Judas asks Jesus why he will reveal himself to just the apostles and not the whole world. This Judas is also assumed to be the apostle. Paul does not mention any Judas.
Are we confused yet?
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Resurrection part three
We are still in the books of Acts. In chapter 23, Paul is in Jerusalem and has been taken into custody by some Roman soldiers because some Jews are supposed to have caused a riot in objection to Paul's presence in the temple. The Roman commander doesn't understand why there is such animosity towards Paul. (He's been preaching about Jesus.) So, the commander takes Paul to the Sanhedrin, the Jewish ruling body. Paul plays off the fact that there are both Pharisees and Sadducees in the Sanhedrin. Pharisees believe in a resurrection, Sadducees do not. Paul shouts out that he is a Pharisee and is on trial because of his belief in a resurrection. Of course that is part of the truth, but not the whole truth. The Pharisees and Sadducees present get into a violent argument. Paul has to be removed from there by the commander.
In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise. He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.
We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.
Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?
More to come.
In Acts chapter 24, Paul has been brought before the governor. The high priest of the Jews has charged him with being a troublemaker, inciting riots, being a ringleader of "the Nazarene sect," and trying to desecrate the temple. Paul denies any wrong doing and says he was in compliance with the religious laws and no one can prove otherwise. He admits to being a member of the sect called "the way" and again says that it he has hope of a resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It is concerning the resurrection of the dead that he was there. Paul had been teaching about the resurrection of Jesus.
We move on to the book of Romans, which was written before the book of Acts. Paul is telling the Romans about baptism and metaphorically comparing it to burial. Just as Jesus was buried and was raised again, believers are united with Jesus in the burial of baptism, so they are also united with him in his resurrection. After they are raised out of the waters of baptism, their "bodies of sin" are gone and they may live new lives. There is a definite blurring of the lines between reality and metaphor in this teaching of Paul's. Nothing actually happens to a person when they are baptized, besides getting wet. In spite of what Paul says, a baptized person still dies and still "sins." Any difference is all in their heads.
In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, starting in verse12, Paul again speaks of resurrection. Apparently, some Corinthians may have been teaching that there was no resurrection of the dead. Paul says,"if there is no resurrection, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Ain't that the truth. Also that would make the preachers liars. Yep. And all those who died in Christ are lost. No, just dead.
Paul goes on to say that Christ HAS been raised from the dead. He is the first fruits of those who have "fallen asleep" or dies. Paul is claiming here that Christ was the first to be resurrected. He obviously hasn't read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Probably because he wrote all his material before those books were written. He also obviously never heard of the times Jesus resurrected people from the dead, or the dead that rose right after Jesus died. Paul says that "in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."
According to Paul, Christ was first and when he comes back those who belong to him will rise. Then comes the interesting part, which is a bit different from what Revelation 20 says: "Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to god the father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Paul goes on to say this destruction Jesus is doing obviously doesn't include destroying god. After all this stuff happens, the son will be be made subject to god so that god may be all in all. I don't understand why god needs Jesus to do all that, or anything else.Can't he just speak stuff into happening?
More to come.
Friday, December 7, 2018
Resurrection part two
We are still in the book of John. In chapter 11, Jesus' friend Lazarus has died. His sister Martha is distraught. She is convinced that if Jesus had come sooner, Lazarus would not have died. In verse 23, Jesus tells Martha Lazarus will rise again. Martha says, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Jesus replies, " I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." Jesus asks Martha if she believes this and she says she does. Martha goes and tells her sister Mary that Jesus has arrived. Mary runs and tells Jesus the same thing Martha had, that Lazarus would still be alive if Jesus had come sooner. This time however, Jesus does not give his resurrection spiel. He responds to Mary's distress in a more emotional way. He weeps. Why? Presumably he knows he's going to raise Lazarus from the dead. Even if he waits till judgment day, Lazarus is guaranteed to live again, right? Unsurprisingly, that is no consolation to the living. It rarely is.
So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead. There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?
Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.
In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.
In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)
In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.
More to come.
So, As we all know, Jesus ends up raising Lazarus from the dead. We are told from the passage that Lazarus was not just merely dead but really most sincerely dead. There are so many questions I have about this event. Is this considered a resurrection? It also took place before Jesus was resurrected. Did Lazarus get a new fully human body? How did Lazarus feel about it? After all, he would presumably have to die and be resurrected again some day. Will Lazarus have to go through the final judgment?
Lets move on to the book of Acts. In chapter 1, verse 22, the disciples/apostles, decide to choose someone to replace Judas. It must be someone who was with Jesus from the beginning of his ministry. This person is to become a co-witness of Jesus' resurrection, not to mention make the disciples twelve again. Eleven is not quite as magical. Matthias is chosen and we never hear about him again.
In Acts 2:31, Peter tells a crowd of Jews that "David died and was buried and his tomb is here to this day." (Funny thing that. No one actually knows where David's tomb is, if there was one. There are some doubts as to whether David actually existed. The only extrabiblical evidence of him is found in a couple of unclear stone inscriptions. ) Peter says David was a prophet who predicted Jesus and his resurrection. He goes on to say, "god has raised this Jesus to life and we (the disciples) are all witnesses of the fact." According to Peter, David didn't go up to heaven, but Jesus did. The Jesus that the Jews crucified was now both lord and Christ. This is one of the bible passages often used to justify anti-semitism.
In Acts 4:2, the Sadducees are disturbed because Peter and John were preaching in Jesus about the resurrection of the dead. They got a lot of people to believe them. In 4:32-36, the believers begin to pool all their funds and resources in a kind of cooperative socialism, and the apostles continue to preach about the resurrection of Jesus. (Isn't it funny that so many fundamentalist christians today think any and all socialism or social welfare is evil.)
In Acts 17:18-34, Paul is preaching in Athens about Jesus and the resurrection, to some Epicurean and Stoic philosophers. He tells them that the god who created everything and everyone "has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead." Many of them called Paul a babbler and sneered at him when he mentioned resurrection. Others are said to have believed. One thing: How is the resurrection of one man proof that there is going to be a resurrection of all and a final judgment? It doesn't necessarily follow. It seems to be typical of biblical logic to make such leaps.
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.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Heaven part ten
We are now at the book of John. Let's see if anything different is said about heaven. In John 1: 51, Jesus tells Nathaniel that because he believes, he will see heaven open and the angels of god ascending and descending on the son of man. This supposed future happening never happens in the bible.
In John 3:13, Jesus says that "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the son of man." This is presumed by christians to be Jesus himself. In 6:32-33, Jesus says, "It is not Moses who has given you bread from heaven (a reference to manna), but it is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of god is he who came down from heaven and gives life to the world." Again, this is presumed to be Jesus. This is confirmed in 6:38 where Jesus says, "I have come down from heaven...." None of the other gospel books have Jesus saying anything remotely like this. Verse 6:41-"I am the bread that came down from heaven." Verses 6:50-53, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. The bread is his flesh. Anyone who eats of it will live forever. (Cannibalism!) By the way, in these passages, Jesus does not try to make this into a metaphor. He says his flesh is real food and his blood real drink. Those who eat and drink him have eternal life. The Catholics didn't just make up stuff when they insisted that they are actually eating Jesus's flesh during communion. They got it from the book of John.
We move on to Acts. In 1:9-11, Jesus was taken up to heaven (the sky) in front of the apostles. In Acts 3:21, Peter tells a crowd that Jesus must remain in heaven "until the time comes for god to restore everything." In 7:55-56, Stephen sees "heaven open and the son of man standing at the right hand of god. God has hands. In 9:3, Saul (Paul) sees a light from heaven (the sky) flash around him and hears god speak to him. In 10:11, Peter has a vision of heaven (the sky) opening and a large sheet with all kinds of animals being let down to earth. God also speaks to him.
We don't learn much more about heaven until we get to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, where Paul says there is only one god, but even if there were "so-called gods" in heaven or earth, the people Paul is writing to only worship the one god the father and the one lord Jesus. In 1 Cor. 15:47-53, Paul says there was the first man made from the earth and the second man from heaven. Paul's followers are currently earthly men, but in the future they will "bear the likeness of the man from heaven." Obviously Jesus. Paul goes on to say that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does perishable inherit imperishable." No worries, they will all be transformed from the flesh in a flash, at the last trumpet. They will be clothed with the imperishable and will become immortal. What about the judgment and all that jazz?
In 2nd Corinthians 12:2, Paul boasts about his visions and revelations by telling about "a man" who was caught up to the third heaven or paradise. What is this third heaven? Apparently, there are many apocryphal stories and legends about this third heaven, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible.
More to come.
In John 3:13, Jesus says that "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven -- the son of man." This is presumed by christians to be Jesus himself. In 6:32-33, Jesus says, "It is not Moses who has given you bread from heaven (a reference to manna), but it is my father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of god is he who came down from heaven and gives life to the world." Again, this is presumed to be Jesus. This is confirmed in 6:38 where Jesus says, "I have come down from heaven...." None of the other gospel books have Jesus saying anything remotely like this. Verse 6:41-"I am the bread that came down from heaven." Verses 6:50-53, Jesus is the living bread that came down from heaven. The bread is his flesh. Anyone who eats of it will live forever. (Cannibalism!) By the way, in these passages, Jesus does not try to make this into a metaphor. He says his flesh is real food and his blood real drink. Those who eat and drink him have eternal life. The Catholics didn't just make up stuff when they insisted that they are actually eating Jesus's flesh during communion. They got it from the book of John.
We move on to Acts. In 1:9-11, Jesus was taken up to heaven (the sky) in front of the apostles. In Acts 3:21, Peter tells a crowd that Jesus must remain in heaven "until the time comes for god to restore everything." In 7:55-56, Stephen sees "heaven open and the son of man standing at the right hand of god. God has hands. In 9:3, Saul (Paul) sees a light from heaven (the sky) flash around him and hears god speak to him. In 10:11, Peter has a vision of heaven (the sky) opening and a large sheet with all kinds of animals being let down to earth. God also speaks to him.
We don't learn much more about heaven until we get to 1 Corinthians 8:5-6, where Paul says there is only one god, but even if there were "so-called gods" in heaven or earth, the people Paul is writing to only worship the one god the father and the one lord Jesus. In 1 Cor. 15:47-53, Paul says there was the first man made from the earth and the second man from heaven. Paul's followers are currently earthly men, but in the future they will "bear the likeness of the man from heaven." Obviously Jesus. Paul goes on to say that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of god, nor does perishable inherit imperishable." No worries, they will all be transformed from the flesh in a flash, at the last trumpet. They will be clothed with the imperishable and will become immortal. What about the judgment and all that jazz?
In 2nd Corinthians 12:2, Paul boasts about his visions and revelations by telling about "a man" who was caught up to the third heaven or paradise. What is this third heaven? Apparently, there are many apocryphal stories and legends about this third heaven, but it is not mentioned anywhere else in the bible.
More to come.
Friday, May 25, 2018
Philppians, part one
As we begin the letter to the Philippians, we see that the letter is not just from Paul, but from Timothy also. The letter goes on to thank god for the Philippians. They are told that they are prayed for with joy because of their good work. Paul longs affectionately for all of them. He prays that they will continue to have an abundance of love, discernment, purity, and righteousness.
In verse twelve, Paul talks about his incarceration. He is in chains, under the oversight of the palace guard. At the end of the letter (4:22) we see this is Caesar's palace, which would be in Rome. The palace guard knows that the reason for his imprisonment is his religious proselytizing. His chains have actually encouraged other believers to speak "the word of god"more courageously.
Verses 15-18, Paul speaks of two groups of people who preach Christ: 1. Those who do it out of envy, rivalry, and selfish ambition, just to stir up trouble for Paul. (This makes absolutely no sense to me) 2. Those who do it out of good will and love. Then Paul goes on to say it doesn't matter. Either way, the gospel gets preached. If it doesn't matter, why mention it? Who are these people who preach the right thing for the wrong reasons? If they are preaching the same gospel as Paul, wouldn't they end up in chains also?
So, no matter what, Paul will rejoice. He knows that the prayers of the Philippians and help from the spirit of Jesus Christ will cause him to be released. (Magical thinking) Paul also hopes that he will have enough courage to not do anything he will be ashamed of later. He wants Christ to always be exalted in his body, even if that means becoming a martyr. "For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain."
This is what Christians all over the world claim to believe, but their actions say otherwise. Most of them don't really want to die. They make every effort to stay alive as long as possible.
Paul, on the other hand, says he is torn between living or dying. He wants so bad to die and be with Christ, because that is the best possible outcome. However, it would be better for the Philippians if he stayed alive. That's why he knows he won't die yet. Then, he will get to continue on with them and their joy in Christ will overflow because of him. Conceited or what?
At the end of chapter one, Paul tells the Philippians that whatever happens, they need to behave themselves. That way Paul will know they are standing firm in the gospel and are not afraid of those who oppose them. The Philippians' lack of fear will prove to those unnamed others that they will be destroyed, but the Philippians will be saved by god. I bet those other people were quaking in their boots. (Not) Paul says the Philippians were not only given the privilege to believe in christ, but also to suffer for him. Proof of this is they are going through some unnamed struggle that is just like Paul's struggle was/is, whatever that was/is.
My study bible refers us to Acts 16:11-38, to read about Paul's time in Philippi. There Paul and Silas were put in jail after exorcising a "spirit" from a little girl. They were miraculously released from their jell cell by an earthquake, but did not leave. After preaching to the jailor, he and his household were baptized. The magistrates let Paul and Silas go after they were found to be Roman citizens. Another important convert in Philippi was a woman named Lydia. This letter to the Philippians does not mention Lydia, Silas, the jailor, or the events depicted in Acts.
In verse twelve, Paul talks about his incarceration. He is in chains, under the oversight of the palace guard. At the end of the letter (4:22) we see this is Caesar's palace, which would be in Rome. The palace guard knows that the reason for his imprisonment is his religious proselytizing. His chains have actually encouraged other believers to speak "the word of god"more courageously.
Verses 15-18, Paul speaks of two groups of people who preach Christ: 1. Those who do it out of envy, rivalry, and selfish ambition, just to stir up trouble for Paul. (This makes absolutely no sense to me) 2. Those who do it out of good will and love. Then Paul goes on to say it doesn't matter. Either way, the gospel gets preached. If it doesn't matter, why mention it? Who are these people who preach the right thing for the wrong reasons? If they are preaching the same gospel as Paul, wouldn't they end up in chains also?
So, no matter what, Paul will rejoice. He knows that the prayers of the Philippians and help from the spirit of Jesus Christ will cause him to be released. (Magical thinking) Paul also hopes that he will have enough courage to not do anything he will be ashamed of later. He wants Christ to always be exalted in his body, even if that means becoming a martyr. "For me, to live is Christ, to die is gain."
This is what Christians all over the world claim to believe, but their actions say otherwise. Most of them don't really want to die. They make every effort to stay alive as long as possible.
Paul, on the other hand, says he is torn between living or dying. He wants so bad to die and be with Christ, because that is the best possible outcome. However, it would be better for the Philippians if he stayed alive. That's why he knows he won't die yet. Then, he will get to continue on with them and their joy in Christ will overflow because of him. Conceited or what?
At the end of chapter one, Paul tells the Philippians that whatever happens, they need to behave themselves. That way Paul will know they are standing firm in the gospel and are not afraid of those who oppose them. The Philippians' lack of fear will prove to those unnamed others that they will be destroyed, but the Philippians will be saved by god. I bet those other people were quaking in their boots. (Not) Paul says the Philippians were not only given the privilege to believe in christ, but also to suffer for him. Proof of this is they are going through some unnamed struggle that is just like Paul's struggle was/is, whatever that was/is.
My study bible refers us to Acts 16:11-38, to read about Paul's time in Philippi. There Paul and Silas were put in jail after exorcising a "spirit" from a little girl. They were miraculously released from their jell cell by an earthquake, but did not leave. After preaching to the jailor, he and his household were baptized. The magistrates let Paul and Silas go after they were found to be Roman citizens. Another important convert in Philippi was a woman named Lydia. This letter to the Philippians does not mention Lydia, Silas, the jailor, or the events depicted in Acts.
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Ephesians chapter 1, part three
We will continue reading about Paul's associations with Ephesus, found in Acts and other writings, before we finish Ephesians chapter one.
*Starting in Acts 19:21, we see that after the scroll burnings, Paul decided to travel back through the region we know of as Turkey, to Jerusalem. He is said to have wanted to go to Rome from there. Before he left, there was a rabid protest against Paul by crafstmen whose businesses were linked to idol worship. They said they were losing business because of Paul's teachings. Paul was encouraged by his friends to not interact with the protesters. The city clerk quelled the uprising by telling the protesters that Paul and his disciples did not appear to have broken any laws. If there was a claim aganst him, it was to be made through proper channels. Again, none of this appears in extrabiblical contemporary histories.
*In Acts 20, Paul travelled around Macedonia and Greece for a while. Before he finally set sail for Jerusalem, he stopped in Miletus and sent a message to the elders of the church in Ephesus to meet with him. When they came, he made a farewell speech full of pathos, saying he will never see them again because prison and hardships await him. He warns them of wolves among the sheep who would distort the truth and draw away disciples. After an emotional scene, he leaves.
*What does Paul say about Ephesus in the letters attributed to him? In first Corinthians 15:32, Paul says, "If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for human motives, what did I gain if the dead are not raised." This is part of a passage which is declaring that if the message about Jesus and the resurrection of the baptized is false, baptism is useless and Paul's risking death to promote it has been in vain. Who knows what this sentence about Ephesus means, probably not real wild beasts but metaphorical ones, referring to Paul's opponents.
*First Corinthians 16 ends that book. It refers to Paul being in Ephesus at the time. It also mentions his travels in Asia Minor plus Pricilla and Aquila. Presumably, First Corinthians was written in Ephesus. However, Paul also says he is staying there till Pentecost. Acts 20 has Paul eager to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost.
*First and second Timothy are supposedly written from Paul imprisoned in Rome, as the book of Ephesians is supposed to have been. They also mention Ephesus and refer to particular people there, namely Pricilla and Aquila. (1 Tim. 1:3, 2Tim. 4) The Timothy books have many exhortations against false teachers.
*Starting in Acts 19:21, we see that after the scroll burnings, Paul decided to travel back through the region we know of as Turkey, to Jerusalem. He is said to have wanted to go to Rome from there. Before he left, there was a rabid protest against Paul by crafstmen whose businesses were linked to idol worship. They said they were losing business because of Paul's teachings. Paul was encouraged by his friends to not interact with the protesters. The city clerk quelled the uprising by telling the protesters that Paul and his disciples did not appear to have broken any laws. If there was a claim aganst him, it was to be made through proper channels. Again, none of this appears in extrabiblical contemporary histories.
*In Acts 20, Paul travelled around Macedonia and Greece for a while. Before he finally set sail for Jerusalem, he stopped in Miletus and sent a message to the elders of the church in Ephesus to meet with him. When they came, he made a farewell speech full of pathos, saying he will never see them again because prison and hardships await him. He warns them of wolves among the sheep who would distort the truth and draw away disciples. After an emotional scene, he leaves.
*What does Paul say about Ephesus in the letters attributed to him? In first Corinthians 15:32, Paul says, "If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for human motives, what did I gain if the dead are not raised." This is part of a passage which is declaring that if the message about Jesus and the resurrection of the baptized is false, baptism is useless and Paul's risking death to promote it has been in vain. Who knows what this sentence about Ephesus means, probably not real wild beasts but metaphorical ones, referring to Paul's opponents.
*First Corinthians 16 ends that book. It refers to Paul being in Ephesus at the time. It also mentions his travels in Asia Minor plus Pricilla and Aquila. Presumably, First Corinthians was written in Ephesus. However, Paul also says he is staying there till Pentecost. Acts 20 has Paul eager to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost.
*First and second Timothy are supposedly written from Paul imprisoned in Rome, as the book of Ephesians is supposed to have been. They also mention Ephesus and refer to particular people there, namely Pricilla and Aquila. (1 Tim. 1:3, 2Tim. 4) The Timothy books have many exhortations against false teachers.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Galatians chapter 2 part 2
*Starting in verse 11 we learn that Peter had been in Antioch with Paul, had been eating with the Gentiles, and had been living like a gentile. In Acts, Peter is not said to have ever been to Antioch, indeed never very far from Jerusalem. In Acts 10, we find a story of Peter experiencing a vision from God which makes it clear that "God accepts men from every nation" including their eating habits. Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and explains his vision to the apostles and other believers. The "circumcised believers" drop all objections to accepting Gentiles. They praise God, saying "So, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) That sounds like the gentile question is settled, right? This supposedly takes place before Paul and Barnabus go to
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 4
Welcome to the new year! 2017 marks my 3rd anniversary as a nonbeliever. Now let's get back to the story of Paul, his conversion, and commission. The last place we will look before we return to Galations is Acts 26. There Paul is supposedly on trial before King Agrippa in Ceasarea, and gets to speak on his own behalf.
*Paul starts out in verse 4 saying all the Jews know about him and the way he has lived since he was a child in his own country. The country is not named. It is interesting to note that, just as with Jesus, there are no contemporary extrabiblical Jewish accounts of Paul from the time he was living, not from any of the spots he supposedly travelled to either. Paul also says:
1. He was a pharisee- not found elsewhere in Acts or Galatians, but mentioned in Philippians 3.
2. He persecuted followers of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem and other places, on the authority of the chief priests- found in Acts 9 and 22, no details given in Galatians.
3. On the road to Damascus he saw a bright light, fell to the ground, and heard a voice- found in all the Acts accounts but not in the epistles. This is the only account that says the voice spoke in Aramaic.
4. The voice claimed to be Jesus- in all the Acts accounts but not found in the epistles.
5. The voice gave him his mission to go to the Jews and Gentiles and open their eyes so they can recieve forgiveness of sins and sanctification by faith in Jesus. Nowhere else was this speech given by the disembodied voice on the road to Damascus. In the other Acts accounts Paul was told to go to Damascus where he would be told what to do.
6. He preached in Damascus then Jerusalem and all Judea- no mention of Arabia, Tarsus, or other locations in the gentile world, where he supposedly conducted missionary journeys. No mention of any events in the decades of time that passed between his conversion and this trial.
7. He claims his preaching was no more than what the prophets and Moses said would happen- that the christ would suffer and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and the Gentiles. Well, in the gospels others rose from the dead, came out of their graves, and walked around Jerusalem, before Jesus did. Didn't Jesus raise a few people from the dead as well? Also the books of the bible attributed to moses say nothing about a suffering christ being raised from the dead. Some of the books of the prophets do have references to a person who will be a light to the Jews and Gentiles, namely Isaiah. Like most prophesies, they are cryptic and open to interpretation.
*There is no mention of Paul's temporary blindness in this account.
We will continue on with Galatians next.
*Paul starts out in verse 4 saying all the Jews know about him and the way he has lived since he was a child in his own country. The country is not named. It is interesting to note that, just as with Jesus, there are no contemporary extrabiblical Jewish accounts of Paul from the time he was living, not from any of the spots he supposedly travelled to either. Paul also says:
1. He was a pharisee- not found elsewhere in Acts or Galatians, but mentioned in Philippians 3.
2. He persecuted followers of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem and other places, on the authority of the chief priests- found in Acts 9 and 22, no details given in Galatians.
3. On the road to Damascus he saw a bright light, fell to the ground, and heard a voice- found in all the Acts accounts but not in the epistles. This is the only account that says the voice spoke in Aramaic.
4. The voice claimed to be Jesus- in all the Acts accounts but not found in the epistles.
5. The voice gave him his mission to go to the Jews and Gentiles and open their eyes so they can recieve forgiveness of sins and sanctification by faith in Jesus. Nowhere else was this speech given by the disembodied voice on the road to Damascus. In the other Acts accounts Paul was told to go to Damascus where he would be told what to do.
6. He preached in Damascus then Jerusalem and all Judea- no mention of Arabia, Tarsus, or other locations in the gentile world, where he supposedly conducted missionary journeys. No mention of any events in the decades of time that passed between his conversion and this trial.
7. He claims his preaching was no more than what the prophets and Moses said would happen- that the christ would suffer and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and the Gentiles. Well, in the gospels others rose from the dead, came out of their graves, and walked around Jerusalem, before Jesus did. Didn't Jesus raise a few people from the dead as well? Also the books of the bible attributed to moses say nothing about a suffering christ being raised from the dead. Some of the books of the prophets do have references to a person who will be a light to the Jews and Gentiles, namely Isaiah. Like most prophesies, they are cryptic and open to interpretation.
*There is no mention of Paul's temporary blindness in this account.
We will continue on with Galatians next.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 3
Now we will look at Paul's account of his conversion as related by the author of Acts, in Acts 22. He is speaking to a crowd of Jews who are upset with him, in Aramaic:
-He tells them he is a Jew (Check).
-He is from Tarsus of Cilicia (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- yes) *1
-He was brought up in Jerusalem (Epistles-no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)
-He was taught the law at the feet of Gamaliel (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)*2
-He was zealous and persecuted the church (Epistles- yes, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He arrested men and women and threw them into prison ( Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He got letters from the high priest and council to go after believers in Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-On the road to Damascus a bright light flashed around him (Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9. - yes)
-This happened at noon (Not previously mentioned)
-He fell to the ground and heard a voice (Epistles- no, Acts 7-9 yes)
-The words of the voice recorded here and in Acts 9 are basically the same. No Surprise, same author.
-Paul is blinded and led by the hand to Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 9 - yes)
-Ananias stood beside Paul and recovered his sight. In Acts 9, he placed his hands on him. (Not in the epistles.)
-This time Ananias tells Paul his mission and orders him to be baptized "for the remission of his sins." This phrase was not used in Acts 9. Paul does not mention his baptism in Galatians. Also there is no mention here of Paul not eating and drinking for three days, as in Acts 9.
-After that he returned to Jerusalem, according to Acts 22:17, leaving out the preaching in Damascus and the narrow escape from there mentioned in Acts 9. This also eliminates the trip to Arabia found in Galatians.
-When he returned to Jerusalem, he was visited in the temple by another revelation of Jesus, telling him to leave immediately because his testimony would not be accepted. There is no mention of the visit with only Peter and James as mentioned in Galatians. Plus there is no mention of Barnabas bringing him to the disciples and the preaching he did in Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts 9.
*1. Cilicia is mentioned in Galatians, even though Tarsus isn't. Paul supposedly travelled in that region after he left Peter and James in Jerusalem.
*2. Gamaliel is mentioned in Acts 5:33-39 as a Pharisee and teacher of the law. He was against persecuting the followers of Jesus. So why did Saul?
Also we are not told how many years after Jesus died that Saul's event occurred on the road to Damascus. If Saul grew up in Jerusalem, how is it that he never saw or heard Jesus in the flesh?
-He tells them he is a Jew (Check).
-He is from Tarsus of Cilicia (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- yes) *1
-He was brought up in Jerusalem (Epistles-no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)
-He was taught the law at the feet of Gamaliel (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)*2
-He was zealous and persecuted the church (Epistles- yes, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He arrested men and women and threw them into prison ( Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He got letters from the high priest and council to go after believers in Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-On the road to Damascus a bright light flashed around him (Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9. - yes)
-This happened at noon (Not previously mentioned)
-He fell to the ground and heard a voice (Epistles- no, Acts 7-9 yes)
-The words of the voice recorded here and in Acts 9 are basically the same. No Surprise, same author.
-Paul is blinded and led by the hand to Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 9 - yes)
-Ananias stood beside Paul and recovered his sight. In Acts 9, he placed his hands on him. (Not in the epistles.)
-This time Ananias tells Paul his mission and orders him to be baptized "for the remission of his sins." This phrase was not used in Acts 9. Paul does not mention his baptism in Galatians. Also there is no mention here of Paul not eating and drinking for three days, as in Acts 9.
-After that he returned to Jerusalem, according to Acts 22:17, leaving out the preaching in Damascus and the narrow escape from there mentioned in Acts 9. This also eliminates the trip to Arabia found in Galatians.
-When he returned to Jerusalem, he was visited in the temple by another revelation of Jesus, telling him to leave immediately because his testimony would not be accepted. There is no mention of the visit with only Peter and James as mentioned in Galatians. Plus there is no mention of Barnabas bringing him to the disciples and the preaching he did in Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts 9.
*1. Cilicia is mentioned in Galatians, even though Tarsus isn't. Paul supposedly travelled in that region after he left Peter and James in Jerusalem.
*2. Gamaliel is mentioned in Acts 5:33-39 as a Pharisee and teacher of the law. He was against persecuting the followers of Jesus. So why did Saul?
Also we are not told how many years after Jesus died that Saul's event occurred on the road to Damascus. If Saul grew up in Jerusalem, how is it that he never saw or heard Jesus in the flesh?
Friday, December 9, 2016
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 2
*We are at Acts 9:17.Both Saul (Paul) and Ananias have had visions about each other. Now Ananias goes to the house where Saul is staying. He put his hands on Saul. He identified the lord who appeared to Saul on the road as Jesus and says Jesus sent him to help Saul gain his sight back and be filled with the Holy Spirit, whatever that means. Scales fell off Saul's eyes. He got up and was baptized. It doesn't say why he was baptized. Today, it is generally assumed that it was to join the church, but notice that he ate right afterward. I looked at the Interlinear reference for the original word "baptized" in this passage. I found that the exact same word was used in Luke 11:38 (Supposedly written by the same author) to denote a tradition of ceremonial washing before eating!
*Next we are told Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus and immediately began to preach about Jesus in the synagogues. This is in direct contrast to what he says in Galatians 1:15. There he says that after his revelation he did not consult anyone but went immediately to Arabia and returned to Damascus later. Galatians also has Paul going to Jerusalem three years later. In Acts, he appears to go to Jerusalem right after Damascus. He never goes to Arabia. In Galatians, Paul sees only Peter and James, none of the other apostles. In Acts, Barnabas takes Paul to meet the apostles in Jerusalem and he preaches about Jesus in the city. Because of his preaching, Acts says an attempt is made on Paul's life in both Damascus and Jerusalem. Galatians does not mention that. Acts says other believers helped Paul escape by taking him to Caesarea and sending him off to Tarsus. (They sent him home.) Galatians says that Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, it never mentions Tarsus. In Galatians, Paul states, "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in christ." This is a direct contradiction to the events recorded in Acts 9.
*When we get to Galatians 2, we will see Paul going to Jerusalem with Barnabas...fourteen years later! Let's take a look at the timelines so far.
Galatians:
Persecuting the church
Revelation in unknown place, told to preach Jesus to the Gentiles
Trip to Arabia
Return to Damascus no people or events mentioned
Three years later, Trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James and no one else, for fifteen days
Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Fourteen years later, trip to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus in response to a revelation.
Acts:
Stoning of Stephen
Persecuting the church
Road to Damascus with bright light and voice
In Damascus with Ananias and disciples of Jesus
Ananias and Paul recieve visions. Ananias is told that Saul will preach Jesus to the Gentiles.
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Trip to Jerusalem to join the disciples there
Barnabas takes him to meet the apostles
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Sent to Tarsus by the disciples
*Next we are told Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus and immediately began to preach about Jesus in the synagogues. This is in direct contrast to what he says in Galatians 1:15. There he says that after his revelation he did not consult anyone but went immediately to Arabia and returned to Damascus later. Galatians also has Paul going to Jerusalem three years later. In Acts, he appears to go to Jerusalem right after Damascus. He never goes to Arabia. In Galatians, Paul sees only Peter and James, none of the other apostles. In Acts, Barnabas takes Paul to meet the apostles in Jerusalem and he preaches about Jesus in the city. Because of his preaching, Acts says an attempt is made on Paul's life in both Damascus and Jerusalem. Galatians does not mention that. Acts says other believers helped Paul escape by taking him to Caesarea and sending him off to Tarsus. (They sent him home.) Galatians says that Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, it never mentions Tarsus. In Galatians, Paul states, "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in christ." This is a direct contradiction to the events recorded in Acts 9.
*When we get to Galatians 2, we will see Paul going to Jerusalem with Barnabas...fourteen years later! Let's take a look at the timelines so far.
Galatians:
Persecuting the church
Revelation in unknown place, told to preach Jesus to the Gentiles
Trip to Arabia
Return to Damascus no people or events mentioned
Three years later, Trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James and no one else, for fifteen days
Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Fourteen years later, trip to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus in response to a revelation.
Acts:
Stoning of Stephen
Persecuting the church
Road to Damascus with bright light and voice
In Damascus with Ananias and disciples of Jesus
Ananias and Paul recieve visions. Ananias is told that Saul will preach Jesus to the Gentiles.
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Trip to Jerusalem to join the disciples there
Barnabas takes him to meet the apostles
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Sent to Tarsus by the disciples
Thursday, December 8, 2016
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, Part 1
*Now we will see what the author of Acts has to say about Paul's early life and conversion. We do not know who the author of Acts is, but whoever he is, he was not an eyewitness to the events we will cover. Acts had to have been written after 63 C.E. The book of Acts is written as though the narrator is omnicient. The author does not claim to have recieved his knowledge of the events from God. Nor does he claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
*Acts 7:58-9: First we see Saul (supposedly Paul's original Jewish name, which Paul does not mention in the epistles.) watching and giving approval to the stoning of Stephen, a disciple of Jesus. This is not mentioned in Paul's letters, but that is understandable. However, He does say he persecuted the church. In 8:3, we see Paul trying to destroy the church by dragging its adherents off to prison. In chapter 9, Paul asks the high priest for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to "The Way, " men or women, he could take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. Pause.
*One thing that stands out to me so far is that the disciples were called members of The Way and they were meeting in synagogues. This means they were probably Jews and still considered themselves Jews. They had not separated themselves from the Jewish faith. The Way was not a separate religion. Also interesting is the fact that many Eastern religions had philosophies or practices called the way or the path, including Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shinto. I wouldn't be surprised if that concept was a component of most ancient religions, but I'm not going to look them all up.
*In Acts 9, as Saul is travelling to Damascus, a light from heaven (How did he know it was from heaven? My first thought is to wonder if this is a description of being struck by lightening. Some people think it sounds like he had an epileptic siezure.) flashed around him, he fell to the ground and heard a voice say,"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" He answered the voice and said,"who are you, lord?" You want to be polite and respectful to disembodied voices that come with flashes of light, but how would Saul know if the owner of the voice was good or evil? The voice then said it was Jesus, whom Saul was persecuting. How does he know it's not a demon playing a trick on him? He was to get up, go into the city and he would be told what to do. Men travelling with Saul heard the sound but did not see anyone. It is not clear if they heard words or just noises. Saul got up from the ground but could not see, so he had to be led to Damascus by the hand. For three days he was blind and did not eat or drink anything. The Bible just loves three day stretches. Saul would have been pretty weak after three days of no food or drink. None of this is mentioned in the epistles.
*In Damscus there was a disciple called Ananias. The lord (God or Jesus?) called to him in a vision. How did he know it was the lord? We must take the author's word for it. The author must take the word of the person who told him. If Ananias existed, someone had to take his word for it. Ananias is not mentioned in Paul's epistles. God (or Jesus?) gives Ananias specific instructions about how to find a man from Tarsus named Saul. He was told that Saul was also having a vision of Ananias coming to heal his blindness by placing his hands on him. Paul never mentions he is from Tarsus in the epistles.
*Ananias speaks back to his vision, saying he has heard of the damage Saul has done to the people who are calling on the lord's name. Oh, I guess it is supposed to be Jesus, whom christians would have us believe is actually God in the flesh. But a vision doesn't have flesh, so how could a person distinguish between God and Jesus? Anyway, this lord tells Ananias that he has chosen Saul to carry the lord's name before the Gentiles, their kings, and the people of Israel. As an added bonus, he gets to suffer for the name.
I've run out of room. To be continued...
*Acts 7:58-9: First we see Saul (supposedly Paul's original Jewish name, which Paul does not mention in the epistles.) watching and giving approval to the stoning of Stephen, a disciple of Jesus. This is not mentioned in Paul's letters, but that is understandable. However, He does say he persecuted the church. In 8:3, we see Paul trying to destroy the church by dragging its adherents off to prison. In chapter 9, Paul asks the high priest for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to "The Way, " men or women, he could take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. Pause.
*One thing that stands out to me so far is that the disciples were called members of The Way and they were meeting in synagogues. This means they were probably Jews and still considered themselves Jews. They had not separated themselves from the Jewish faith. The Way was not a separate religion. Also interesting is the fact that many Eastern religions had philosophies or practices called the way or the path, including Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shinto. I wouldn't be surprised if that concept was a component of most ancient religions, but I'm not going to look them all up.
*In Acts 9, as Saul is travelling to Damascus, a light from heaven (How did he know it was from heaven? My first thought is to wonder if this is a description of being struck by lightening. Some people think it sounds like he had an epileptic siezure.) flashed around him, he fell to the ground and heard a voice say,"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" He answered the voice and said,"who are you, lord?" You want to be polite and respectful to disembodied voices that come with flashes of light, but how would Saul know if the owner of the voice was good or evil? The voice then said it was Jesus, whom Saul was persecuting. How does he know it's not a demon playing a trick on him? He was to get up, go into the city and he would be told what to do. Men travelling with Saul heard the sound but did not see anyone. It is not clear if they heard words or just noises. Saul got up from the ground but could not see, so he had to be led to Damascus by the hand. For three days he was blind and did not eat or drink anything. The Bible just loves three day stretches. Saul would have been pretty weak after three days of no food or drink. None of this is mentioned in the epistles.
*In Damscus there was a disciple called Ananias. The lord (God or Jesus?) called to him in a vision. How did he know it was the lord? We must take the author's word for it. The author must take the word of the person who told him. If Ananias existed, someone had to take his word for it. Ananias is not mentioned in Paul's epistles. God (or Jesus?) gives Ananias specific instructions about how to find a man from Tarsus named Saul. He was told that Saul was also having a vision of Ananias coming to heal his blindness by placing his hands on him. Paul never mentions he is from Tarsus in the epistles.
*Ananias speaks back to his vision, saying he has heard of the damage Saul has done to the people who are calling on the lord's name. Oh, I guess it is supposed to be Jesus, whom christians would have us believe is actually God in the flesh. But a vision doesn't have flesh, so how could a person distinguish between God and Jesus? Anyway, this lord tells Ananias that he has chosen Saul to carry the lord's name before the Gentiles, their kings, and the people of Israel. As an added bonus, he gets to suffer for the name.
I've run out of room. To be continued...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)