Heaven part eleven

Are you getting tired of heaven? We aren't done yet but it should go faster because I don't think there is much left that is not redundant. One thing I have noticed is that heaven is thoroughly populated with angels. Angels are not discussed much in the churches of Christ, the faith tradition I came from.
Galations 1:8 says that if an angel from heaven, or anyone else, teaches you a gospel other than the one you learned from Paul, he will be eternally condemned!

Ephesians 3:15 says that god's whole family on earth and in heaven derives its name from him. Ephesians 6:9 says god is everyone's master in heaven. Philippians 3:20 says that a Christ believer's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. Colossians 1:5 says that hope is stored up in heaven for believers. 1Thessalonians tells us believers are waiting for god's son from heaven.

In Hebrews chapter 9, we are introduce to the idea that some earthly things are copies of heavenly things. The copies of the heavenly things were purified with blood sacrifices in an earthly sanctuary, which is a copy of the true heavenly one, by earthly priests. Christ entered the true sanctuary as the heavenly high priest to appear once and for all before god and offer himself as a sacrifice instead of an animal. Basically, everything on earth is supposed to be a kind of analogy, symbol, or shadow of the "real" things, which are in heaven. Believing this could lead to mental problems, in my opinion.

In 1 Peter 1:4, the reader is told an inheritance waits for him in heaven. In 3:22, Jesus is at god's right hand in heaven, with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

At last we move on to Revelation. We should learn some good stuff about heaven there. Maybe? In Rev. 3:12 a new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Chapter 4 has a description of heaven, with a throne, a person on the throne who looked like he was made of jewels, with a jeweled rainbow encircling him. There were also 24 other thrones with 24 elders, dressed in white with crowns on their heads. Lightening and thunder came from the main throne. Seven lamps were burning in front of the throne, these were the seven spirits of god. Whoa! God has seven spirits? That's interesting. Not something you hear every day. There was also a sea of glass in front of the throne. "Around the throne were four living creatures" all covered with eyes. (Heaven is getting crowded) They looked like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle. They each had six wings and the never stopped praising the god who lives forever. Whenever the god was praised the 24 elders fall before the guy on the throne and lay their crowns in front  of him. Monotonous.

The description of what goes on in heaven continues on through chapter 5, where we see a scroll, angels, and a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.(The seven eyes are also the seven spirits, just like the lamps.) There is more praising, worshipping, and falling down. In chapter six the lamb does stuff with the seals on the scroll from chapter six. It releases four horsemen, War, famine, Death, and Hades. Under an altar were some dead martyrs who complained they wanted to be avenged. They were given white robes and told to wait a bit. In chapter seven, more stuff happens with angels and people wearing white robes. In chapter 8, there was silence in heaven for half an hour. Then we get more angels, trumpets, thunder, lightening, fire, destruction of earth from heaven. Things go on in this vein until chapter 12 when a woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and 12 stars on her head. A dragon also appears in heaven. He wants to eat the child the woman is about to have. The child was snatched up to god and his throne. Then there was a war in heaven between the angels and the dragon! It turns out the dragon was Satan! He is thrown to earth. As we go on, there are more angels, the lamb, more voices and signs from heaven, more symbolism, chapter after chapter. One thing is clear. We don't learn much, if anything about what heaven will be like for the multitudes of believers after all the battles are over. Yet.

More to come.

Introduction to Philemon

Read about Paul's private letter to Philemon here. Philemon was a Colossian. If the letter is authentic, it must have been sent at the same time as the public letter to the Colossians. This suggests that the letter carried a message intended to give the Colossian audience Paul's views on the slave/master relationship in order to put a little social pressure on Philemon regarding his slave Onesimus. I don't understand why it does not immediately follow Colossians in the text of the New Testament. That would make much more sense than its current place, after the letter to Titus.

The letter begins with a greeting from Paul and Timothy, to Philemon, Apphia, and Archippus. It is speculated that Apphia was Philemon's wife and Archippus his son. Verses 4-7 are the common "thanks, praise, and prayers"  that Paul includes in his letters. After praising Philemon's love, Paul gets to the purpose of the letter.

He says he is not going to be bold and order Philemon to do what he ought. He appeals to him on the basis of love, Paul's advanced age, and his prisoner status. In other words, he is giving Philemon cause to feel guilty for not doing what Paul is asking him to do. Paul is making an appeal on behalf of Onesimus, who is like a son to him, another reason to give Philemon pause to think. Paul admits Onesimus was useless to Philemon, but he has made himself useful to Paul. I'm not surprised. Psychologically, there is a big difference between doing something obligatory, as a slave for a master, and something voluntary, as a friend for a friend.

I don't think Paul fully understood the nuances of the slave/master relationship. Apparently, he was never a slave or a master. Historically, a slave was property. They were owned like possessions. The slave was under compulsion to be obedient to the master in anything and everything. In the Old Testament, the master was only obligated not to kill the slave quickly. Yes, there was a whole range of good and bad masters throughout history. There was a large variation in duties and living conditions among slaves.  That did not erase the fact that a slave was not his own master. He was under obligation to his master in every single aspect of his life, if the master so chose it. The slave had no freedom that the master did not grant him.

I am sure that kind and generous masters were often loved by their slaves. However, I personally think that if they actually loved their slaves as equals or friends, they would have given them their freedom and allowed them to choose whether or not to remain employed under them. Why have slaves to begin with? Why not hire someone at fair wages to do the jobs you need done? 1. The master has a position of power over the slave and he may not be the kind of person any one is willing to work for. 2. The slave cannot quit and go work for someone else. 3. The master only has to pay and provide for the slave as much as he is willing or able. I imagine that was less than the going rate for a free person with the same skills.

 Also, in an authoritarian society, under a monarchy, everyone was a kind of slave to the king who was supposed to be god's representative power, if not actually a god himself, as in many cultures. Freedom was a privilege, not a right. Philemon and Paul were privileged by circumstance of birth. Paul and the people he writes to have lived in this kind of world their whole lives, they have known no other. That is  one reason Paul's claims to heavenly knowledge cannot be taken seriously. He is not radical enough. If slavery is wrong now, it was wrong then. Paul was already a prisoner and willing to die for his faith. He also asked others to sacrifice themselves for christ's sake. What difference would the truth about the evil of slavery have made to his earthly position? The truth is Paul did not consider slavery wrong at all. To him, it was another metaphor for the heavenly reality. Everyone is a slave to the master in heaven.

Colossians part 9 and wrap up.

We are in chapter 4 verse 10 and nearing the end of the letter. Paul sends greetings from various persons: Aristarchus, Mark  the cousin of Barnabas, Jesus who is called Justus, Epaphrus who is also a Colossian, Luke the Doctor, and Demas. The first three are the only Jews with Paul. All of them, except Jesus/Justus are mentioned at the end of The letter to Philemon. All of them except Jesus/Justus and Demas are mentioned in the book of Acts. There are people named Justus in Acts, but this seems not to be either one. One was a gentile, not a Jew. Demas is mentioned in 2 Timothy as having deserted Paul. Mark is supposedly the writer of the Gospel of Mark.

Paul asks for his greetings to be given to the church in Laodicea and to Nympha, whose house is where the church meets. He requests that this letter be also read in Laodicea and the letter to the Laodiceans be read in Colossi. You would think the letter to the Laodiceans would be important to Christians,  having been written by Paul. However, it is lost to history.

Finally, there is a personal exhortation for Archippus, who is also mentioned in Philemon. Paul says he writes  his final greeting himself, which means someone else probably wrote the body of the letter for him, by his dictation.

Now for the wrap up. This letter may very well be authentic. However, it does not claim to be the word of god, and Paul never uses words that would indicate he is transmitting a message directly from god or Jesus. In fact, Paul never quotes Jesus anywhere. This letter does not say anything about Jesus's birth, childhood, and life. He says nothing about Jesus's teachings or miracles. He only mentions Jesus's suffering, death on the cross, and resurrection from the dead. Paul mentions none of the disciples/apostles or events from Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

In Fact, Paul does not mention a single person or event from the old testament. He does mention generic religious festivals, circumcision, and written codes. There are no specific Old Testament laws mentioned. He does not even mention Abraham or Moses. There is no mention of angels, demons, Satan, or hell, just the "dominion of darkness." Paul does mention heaven.

As far as theology goes, Paul tells the Colossians that Jesus is the image (icon) of god. His death on the cross reconciled all people to god. The mystery of christ in everyone has been revealed, that's Paul's purpose in life. Paul tells the Corinthians there is no need for circumcision or following other religious traditions and regulations. Those were nailed to the cross. People are metaphorically circumcised by putting off the sinful nature in baptism, which is also characterized as a kind of death, burial, and resurrection.

According to Paul, there are no distinctions of race, background, and cultural differences, in Christ. Since they have "died" to sin, they should be living a new, virtuous life, bound together in unity by love. They should be doing everything in the name of Jesus. Wives should submit to their husbands. Husbands should love their wives. Children should obey their parents. Slaves should obey their masters. Masters should be fair. Why? Because every believer is a slave/servant to the master Jesus, including Paul and his cohorts.

Next we look at the letter to Philemon, because it has a close connection with this letter. Plus, it is short.

Edited for grammar.

Colossians part 8

We are in verse 20 of chapter three. There, children are told to obey their parents in everything, for this pleases the lord. I'm sure it pleases the parents too. It's a very convenient verse to use when a child is being obstinate, providing the child believes that the bible is an authority. But what if the child is an adult? Do they still have to obey? What if a parent asks them to do something harmful or immoral? It does say "in everything."

Next, fathers are told not to embitter their children. What that specifically means is anybody's guess. there are no specifics. A child could use that to his advantage, if he had the nerve.

Next, slaves are told to obey their earthly masters, and not only when they are being watched. They must do it sincerely, with all their heart, as if they were working for Jesus. Paul says it is actually Jesus they are serving and they will be rewarded with an inheritance. Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong. There is no favoritism. Masters must also provide for their slaves, what is just and fair, because they have a master in heaven.

Let's unpack that. Paul obviously does not find slavery objectionable. He does not condemn it. Instead he uses it to compare the relationship of slaves and masters to that of Jesus/god and his believers. Christians are to be like slaves/servants of Jesus/god. So, why would slavery be wrong to Paul? If slavery was fundamentally wrong, then being a slave/servant to a god would be wrong also. It would even be wrong for that god to expect his followers to be his slaves/servants. Paul would be out of a job. His main occupation was trying to find willing slaves for Jesus.

No, slavery in bible times was not different from slavery in the early American colonies. Both slaves had no personal autonomy or rights. Their purpose in life was to do the master's bidding. Carry that as a metaphor into christianity. In fact, the greek word for master in this passage is practically the same word that is also translated as lord. If it it was to be translated literally "the lord" would be "the master."

Chapter 4, verses 2-6, are general admonitions for the Colossians to pray for Paul and his cohorts as they proclaim the "mystery of christ," which we have previously been told just means that christ is in everyone. The Colossians are also told to behave themselves in word and deed. Verse 7 says Tychicus, who probably delivered the letter, will give them news about Paul and company. Tychicus is called a fellow servant in the lord. Translated literally, this would say something like Tychicus is a a fellow slave of the master.

Verse 9 tells about Onesimus, who was apparently a Colossian travelling with Tychicus. We will hear more about Onesimus when we read the book of Philemon next. He was apparently a slave, returning to his master. The parts about slavery in this letter may have been indirectly intended for Philemon.

Again, it seems important to remember that everything Paul writes here is his own thoughts and words. He does not claim they are the commands of Jesus or God. In fact, Jesus says no such things in the so called gospel books.

Colossians part 7

We are at chapter 3, verse 16, which says, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to god." I already talked about the word of Christ. The teaching and admonishing is curious also. What should be the content of that teaching? What are the actual teachings of Christ, not Paul? Remember the church probably had no access yet to the books of the bible that we call the gospels. Paul has said the gospel is simply the revelation of the hitherto unknown fact that Christ is in everyone, even the gentiles.

The part about singing is a key verse used in churches of Christ. The legalists among them say that since only Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs are mentioned, those are the only kind of songs that Christians can sing. Also, there is an absence of musical instruments of a mechanical nature mentioned. Therefore, they conclude that it would be going beyond biblical authority to use musical instruments in a worship service and, by extension, in a church building. However, this passage says nothing about worship services or church buildings.

The next verse says that whatever they do, the Colossians should do it in the name of Jesus while giving thanks to God through Jesus. I suppose that could even include playing a musical instrument. How easy is it to actually implement this command? Should I brush my teeth in the name of Jesus? Should I comb my hair in the name of Jesus? What does that mean any way? How does doing something in the name of Jesus change what you are doing in any way? Do you have to say I do " whatever it is" in the name of Jesus? I am getting out of bed in the name of Jesus. I am crossing the floor in the name of Jesus. I am getting a vitamin and a glass of water in the name of Jesus. Jesus, that would be a pain.

Now we come to the really controversial stuff. Verse 18 says, "Wives submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the lord." According to Google dictionary, submission is "accepting or yielding  to a superior force or the will or authority of another person." Paul does not tell the Colossians' wives that Jesus says they are to submit. In fact, nowhere in scripture does Jesus tell wives what to do. This is Paul speaking. Paul, a man who never had a wife, telling wives what to do. He is implicitly expecting them to submit to his authority on this matter, and he's not even their husband. What if their husbands told them to ignore Paul? Hmm? I'm not going to get into why this is bad advice and how it has caused so much misery in the lives of women over the centuries, even today.

Verse 19 says, "Husbands love your wives and do not be harsh with them." This verse is used far less often, but it is usually used to justify the previous verse. If a husband is following this command (of Paul's), the wife should have no trouble with submitting, right? Wellll...it turns out that practically every man has a different definition of "love" and "harsh." Plus, their definitions are often different than the wives' definitions. I suggest you read up on Christian patriarchy and complementarianism. They are really both the same thing. The latter is just a modern spin on it. It boils down to "the person with male genitalia has the final word in the marriage relationship, and maybe in everything else as well.

The churches of christ generally practice a soft complementarianism. No women have any leadership role, or even any public speaking role, in most congregations. They are relegated to the spheres of child care, cleaning, food prep, and women's studies. They do not preach, lead prayer in mixed company, lead singing in mixed company, teach with adult males present, or serve communion in mixed company. In more legalistic congregations, women do not even participate in bible discussions in mixed company. However, home life is not necessarily that restricted, depending on the individuals. A wide range of freedom and oppression occurs, with lip service still given to the man's authority. The previous passage is not the only one in the New Testament used to support the practice of patriarchy.

Colossians part 6

We are in chapter three, verse 9. Paul tells the Colossians not to lie to each other because they have taken off their old self and put on a new self. (More metaphors) I don't know if that is a convincing reason not to lie. Wouldn't it be more practical to lay out possible real life consequences of lying, such as destruction of trust?

In verse 11, Paul says, "Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and is in all. This list shows the promotion of equality among cultures and races. It says Christ is in everyone! Was Paul a universalist? That's doubtful. I think he means Christ is in all believers, regardless of background. I did notice that does not say "no male, no female" in this passage. It is in Galatians 3:28 though.

Paul calls the believers "god's chosen people" (It's no longer just the Jews.) and tells them that means they must practice compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience." There is nothing wrong at all with those things, but are they practiced among all Christians today?

 The believers are also told to forgive each other as the lord forgave them. What did the lord forgive them of exactly? And should they forgive everything, even heinous or criminal acts? Forgiveness is a strange concept if you think about it. It is just a mental mindset borne out in actions. However, I can act like I've forgiven you without the mental mindset. I can also say I've forgiven you but not act like it. Our mental mindset does affect us physically. Forgiveness seems to hinge on putting the past behind you and resuming a relationship. One can put the past behind them, yet not resume a relationship. No one should be forced to be in the company of those they wish to avoid.

Next, the Colossians are told to put love above all other virtues. I don't know if that's actually possible. Christians like to say love is not a feeling but an action. I disagree. It carries a connotation of affection. I can do all kinds of things for people I don't feel affection for and without love. That does not negate the good consequences of my actions. Sympathy, empathy, and compassion, don't need love to provide a motivation to act. It could be that I just recognize our common humanity and want to ease a burden, because I can. To me love is something else. It is a deeper regard and higher favor for someone with whom we are connected in some way. I think it would be worse to live without compassion than without love. Paul says that all the previously mentioned virtues are bound together in love.  Do you agree?

Verse 15 tells the Colossians to let the peace of Christ rule in their hearts. What is the peace of Christ? Verse 16 tells them to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly. You know what's rich? Paul never says what the word of Christ is in this letter. Paul rarely talks about anything that Jesus was supposed to have said or taught. As far as I know, he never says,"Thus saith the lord." All the words in this letter are from Paul.

Colossians part 4

We continue on in chapter two verse 6.  The Colossians are told that since they accepted Jesus as lord, they are to continue living in him, as they were taught. What does it mean to live in Christ? Paul has not yet covered that in this letter. So far, all it encompasses is faith.

Verse 8 contains another warning about people who could take the Colossians "captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy." But not Paul. He wouldn't do that. Paul's philosophy is based on christ. Again, what does that mean in practical terms? It seems to mean rejecting "human tradition and the basic principles of this world."

In verse 9, we are given another theology lesson about christ. All the fullness of the deity lives in him in bodily form. Notice the present tense. Paul worships a living christ. Jesus's physical body contains the deity, and not on earth. How does that work? The Colossians have "been given fullness in christ." Whatever that means. Christ "is the head over every power and authority." Even over those that have never heard of him or don't believe? Even over yahweh?

In verse 11, things get weird again. Paul tells the Colossians that in Jesus, they are circumcised. Not with real circumcision, but imaginary circumcision done by christ. Why? Remember Paul is a Jew. Circumcision was declared to be an everlasting covenant in the Hebrew scriptures. If you aren't circumcised, you don't belong to yahweh. Solution: metaphorical circumcision. When does this metaphorical circumcision take place? At baptism.

Verse 12 gives us the theology of baptism. A person who was metaphorically dead in their sins is literally buried in the water and metaphorically raised from the dead. The person's sinful nature was then considered circumcised ( cut off?). The person was no longer metaphorically dead, now they were metaphorically, and literally, alive with Christ. Christ forgave all their sins. He cancelled the written code with its regulations. You heard it here folks. Paul basically says the law of Moses is null and void for a baptised person.  Jesus took it away and nailed it to the cross. Metaphorically speaking, of course. What I'm wondering is if the old law is gone, why the circumcision language? Wouldn't any kind of circumcision, even metaphorical, be unnecessary?

Verse 15 says Jesus "disarmed the powers and authorities, and made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross." That's not the way the story is told in the gospel books, is it. There, Jesus is meek and submissive, dying pretty quietly and quickly. Where is the public spectacle made of the authorities? Where is the triumph over them? Where is the disarming of authorities?  Or is this a metaphorical spectacle and disarming? My how the metaphors are flying fast and thick. You would almost think none of this stuff is real.

More to come.

Colossians part 3

We are at verse 20 in the first chapter. There it says that through Jesus god reconciled to himself all things "by making peace through his (Jesus's) blood shed on the cross." So god had a falling out with his creation and he patched it up by having Jesus bleed on the cross? Does this make sense to you?

Paul goes on to say that the Colossians used to be alienated from god because of their evil behavior. Basically, god was shunning them. That's all over now because the death of christ's physical body has made them holy - IF they keep the faith in the hope of the gospel. The gospel they heard has been preached to every creature under heaven. That's an outright lie. If everyone had heard the gospel, then Paul's work was done. There was no need for him or anyone else to travel anywhere else to spread the gospel. Paul died in the 60's CE. Did the gospel get to North America, South America, Australia, the Pacific Islands, and more, before he died? Not a chance. There is more than a chance that Paul didn't even know those places existed.

In verse 24, Paul says he rejoices in what was suffered for them. He's glad that Jesus bled on a cross so they could be reconciled to god. This is weird stuff. It gets weirder. He says he fills up in his flesh "what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions." So it wasn't enough for Jesus to suffer? It sounds like Paul might be practising self mortification of some kind.

Paul goes on to say he has become the servant of Jesus's body, the church, by the commission god gave him. God gave him this commission in visions and revelations that no one else heard or saw. Everyone had to take his word for it. Christianity requires you and I to take his word for it. Why should we?

Next he talks of "the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints," by Paul. So, god kept all this  secret for thousands of years. Nobody knew, not even the Jews. "God has chosen to make known among the gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery which is christ in you." That's the mystery out of the bag--christ is in them. The job of Paul and his cohorts is to work hard at teaching and admonishing, so they can present everyone perfect in christ. Poor Paul. He must have been very frustrated trying to do that, people being what they are.

In chapter two, Paul tells the Colossians he wants them to know how hard he struggles for them and the Laodiceans, and for all he has not met. Struggle? Doing what? He wants them to have complete understanding of the mystery of god, in other words, christ. That's kind of impossible because this mystery was born in Paul's brain. Paul says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in hidden christ. What are they how will they find them? By listening to Paul. In verse 4, Paul warns them about others who may have "fine sounding arguments." They are decievers. Not Paul. Paul is so happy to hear that the Colossians are good boys and girls, orderly and firm in their faith. Even though he is not there in the flesh, he is there in spirit.

I used to like Paul. Not so much anymore.

More to come.

Colossians part 2

Before we continue, take a look at this chapter called "The Idea of Salvation in Greece and Italy" from an old book. It does an interesting job of discussing the ways in which Roman and Greek ideas of salvation and punishment after death were eventually synchronized  with those of Christianity, even though they were very different to begin with.

Now we turn to verse 15 of Colossians chapter one. This starts a theological description of the person Jesus Christ. "He is the image of the invisible god." What exactly does that mean? The Greek word for image here is the same word from which we get the modern word icon. It is a representation or likeness. A statue or painting of a god would be the god's icon. In ancient times the priests treated the icons (idols)  as if they actually were the god the represented. Does that mean Jesus was as much god as an ancient statue of a god was that god?

Next we are told Jesus was "the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible.......all things were created for him and by him." Being the firstborn in Jewish society means he is the favorite and the heir. This creation bit seems quite blasphemous if you are Jewish. The god of the Hebrews was supposed to be the creator. Why didn't he previously mention any first born by which he created everything? God supposedly had a couple thousand years to tell them, yet he never mentioned it. And how exactly did an invisible god have a son, plus use the son to create stuff?

Verse 18 tells us "He is the head of the body, the church..." This body symbolism is prevalent in Christianity. The church (universal) is often called the body of Christ. Christ being the head obviously means he is above the body, the one in charge and in control. Except what exactly does he do? People tend to control their own lives, for the most part, unless they are under a visible authority. Invisible authorities can't do much on their own, so they need visible ones to enforce the rules. There are plenty of people eager to assume authority in order to "help" the invisible god. It sounds like Paul was one.

Next Paul says Jesus is "the beginning and the first born from among the the dead, so that in everything he might have supremacy." So, Jesus is first at everything, even at being raised from the dead. But what about Lazarus or Jairus's daughter or the widow's son? Paul's letters were most likely written before the gospel accounts were ever penned. Beside that, he prided himself on getting his info about Jesus directly from revelation, not from people. His work shows that he knew next to nothing about the actual activities and teachings of Jesus, as represented in Matthew Mark, Luke, and John. Perhaps Paul meant first  at being made into a heavenly being after being resurrected. Those people Jesus raised had to live out the rest of their lives and die again. There was no guarantee that they would be resurrected after their second death.

Verse 19 says "god was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him." So, if all god's fullness dwelt in Jesus then was god still omnipresent? How is it possible to be everywhere yet have all of your being in a single container? I say it's not. If god dwelt in Jesus, was Jesus just a god container, not the god himself? We end up back in icon territory. Is the physical representation of a god a god itself? This would explain why ancient gods were territorial. They only existed for the people where there were icons made specifically for those gods. Yahweh of the old testament did not allow his people to create an icon of himself. He lived where he chose to live, in a cloud, a pillar of fire, a burning bush, a temple, but he was still not omnipresent. He belonged to the nation of Israel alone.

More to come.

Introduction to Colossians And part one

Hello. Our next study will be wading through the book called Paul's letter to the Colossians. Also take a look at the area called Colossae. The letter is traditionally accepted as genuine, with objections cropping up in the  modern era. Because of certain references, it is thought that Paul wrote this letter from prison in Rome. However, the exact location is actually unknown.

The letter starts off with a greeting from Paul, who calls himself an apostle, and Timothy "our brother." It is to "the holy and faithful brothers in christ at Colosse." Here we have a definite identification of the sender and receiver of the letter, not like in 3 John. We also have the brotherhood language, but the type of brotherhood is clearly identified. Everyone is a believer in Christ.

The body of the letter begins with effusive compliments on the reputation of recipients' faith and love. They have hope stored in heaven that they heard about in the word of truth, aka the gospel. The gospel is spreading throughout the world. The Colossians learned it from a fellow named Epaphras, who works for and with Paul in spreading the word. We find out later, in Colossians 4:12, that Epaphrus is a Colossian, and he is currently travelling and working with Paul. He is also mentioned in the book of Philemon as a co-prisoner with Paul.

Since Epaphras has told Paul about the Colossians' love, he prays for them to be filled with the knowledge of God's will, so they can live a life worthy of the lord. He uses a lot of words to tell them how much he prays for them. That prayer description sounds a lot like a sermon. I don't understand how anyone being prayed for by Paul could possibly go wrong. He claims to know the will of god. If someone else didn't, I'm sure he was willing to tell them what god's will was.

Paul starts theologizing around verse 12. Where we learn that the Colossians "share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light." How? He rescued them from the "dominion of darkness" and brought them into the  kingdom of the son he loves. Where is the dominion of darkness? Where is the kingdom of light? Your guess is as good as any body's. Paul says it is in the son of god that the Colossians have redemption and the forgiveness of sins. Redemption from what?  Where does the idea of sins come from? I'm guessing Paul borrowed his notion of sin from Judaism. 

Did the gentiles (Greeks/Romans) have a theology of sin? Let's see what Encylopedia Brittanica says about sin here. It seems obvious that Greeks and Romans would not have had the same concept or theology of sin as Jews and Christians. For one thing, the Greeks and Romans were not concerned with breaking the law of Moses or offending Yahweh. They also did not subscribe to the teachings of Jesus. They had their own gods and their own famous teachers. The Greek and Roman gods weren't exactly paragons of virtue either. Zeus probably never threatened those who committed adultery with fire and brimstone, seeing as how he was guilty of the same many times over. In order for a Greek or Roman to be convicted of sin in the Christian manner, he would have to have been first convinced of the truth of of the existence and supremacy of Yahweh, the authority of the scriptures, and that Jesus's death on the cross was a necessary remedy for sin.

More to come.

The sermon on the mount, part three

Many people don't realize it, but the so called sermon on the mount, or Luke's sermon on the plain, contains more than just the so called beatitudes. Jesus is not done sermonizing. We will continue to compare the sermons in Matthew and Luke.

*Matthew 5:13 calls the disciples (or the jews?) the "salt of the earth." But if salt loses its saltiness, it isn't good for anything and needs to be thrown out and trampled by men.
*Luke does not say this in his comparable sermon. However, he does say something very similar much later, in Luke 14:34-35. There, it is in the context of the  cost of being disciple of Jesus. The author says, "Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is fit neither for the soil, nor the manure pile; it is thrown out."
*Mark 9:50 also says something very similar in a very different context. After talking about it being better to remove body parts than to be cast into hell where the fire is not quenched, the author says, "Everyone will be salted with fire. Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves and be at peace with each other."

Can salt lose its saltiness? Well, yes and no. Answer in link. Does this metaphor make any sense in its various contexts? To me, it seems to make the most sense in the Matthew context. The other two instances seem very random and disconnected to the context. Also, salt has never been good for soil. Does Luke not know that? What does it mean to be salted with fire? I think Mark was mixing his metaphors. The only other mention of salt in the New Testament is Colossians 4:6 where Paul says, "Let your speech be gracious and seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." This actually makes sense, because salt is a flavor enhancer. Matthew's salty verse seems to be referring to that as well.

*Next in the sermon as recorded in Matthew 5:14-16 is a continuation of Matthew's theme of the disciples being an enhancement to the world. He tells them they are the "light of the world." They need to let their light shine before men that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.  "Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl, instead they put it on a stand and it gives light to everyone in the house."
*Luke 8:16 has a similar verse, but it is not in the comparable sermon. It comes after the parable of the sower and says, "No one lights a lamp and hides it under a jar, or puts its under a bed. Instead, he puts it on a stand, so that those who come in can see the light. For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open." we can see that the reason for the lamp is very different in Luke's passage. The concept of divine hiddenness is given by Jesus earlier in the chapter, when he tells the disciples  secrets of the kingdom are given to them, but he talks about the kingdom to everyone else in parables to keep them in the dark, so to speak. "Though seeing, they may not see; though hearing they may not understand." That doesn't seem quite sporting of Jesus.

More to come.