The book of Hebrews, as its name implies, is written exclusively for Hebrew believers in Jesus. It was written at an unknown time, around the first two centuries of the christian era, by an unknown author, who does not claim to be inspired or to be writing the word of god. Hebrews defines the gospel as the teaching that there is still "god's sabbath rest", or an afterlife to come, for the believing Jews. In the old covenant, god's rest had to do with rest or freedom from from dealing with their enemies in the land God gave the Hebrews. When this book was written, there probably was still no rest from dealing with enemies in the land of the Hebrews, even after centuries of living under the old covenant. A new interpretation is being made of "god's rest," along with everything else associated with the old covenant.
This book can not have been written by Paul, who was convinced that the gospel message was the salvation of the gentiles as well as Jews. Some writings attributed to Paul even make gentile believers the chosen ones. There are no gentiles saved in this book. "The people" frequently referred to are the Hebrews or Jews. This is a Jewish letter to Jewish christians. For gentile christians to believe it applies to them is misguided. Gentiles aren't even mentioned.
The book is a jumble of bad metaphors and false equivalences. Jesus =son of god = son of man = speaker of old testament words once attributed to god and others = great high priest. God's rest = the seventh day of creation = an afterlife for believers. We are also treated to multiple instances of bad logic and circular reasoning, especially in the convoluted explanation about how Jesus is a high priest in the order of Melchizedek.
Also, elements of physical worship in the old covenant are claimed to be shadows of more perfect spiritual elements in heaven. Jesus is a more perfect, heavenly high priest with a more perfect, heavenly sacrifice presented to god in the more perfect, heavenly tabernacle. Jesus's high priesthood is of the "order of Melchizedek," which, using convoluted logic, is somehow superior to the levitical priesthood. Jesus's sacrifice not only makes him the heavenly high priest and god's right hand man, but also a living curtain through which believers go to get to god in the holy place.
The author of Hebrews uses multiple reference quotes from the old testament to prove his points. The problem is they are often pulled randomly from passages that have nothing to do with what he is claiming. They are not even the words of the personages he is claiming, namely god, Jesus, or the holy spirit. The author repeats many of the old testament quotes multiple times. He also repeats his reasons for using those quotes. He sometimes adds words and phrases that weren't in the original passages.
The only reality based things we are told about Jesus's life in the book of Hebrews are that he was a human, he prayed a lot, he was crucified, and died. This very similar to what Paul tells us about Jesus. We are, however, given extensive passages on the imaginary high priesthood of Jesus. No birth story, no teachings, or miracles of Jesus are mentioned. There is no genealogy, but It is assumed Jesus is a descendant of David, possibly David reincarnated. I say that because passages once attributed to David are attributed to Jesus by the Hebrew author.
No New Testament characters or events are mentioned, except Jesus and his death. No secular figures or events that could place this writing in time are named. Besides Melchizedek, quite a few Old Testament characters are mentioned as examples of faith. Angels and the devil are mentioned. Baptism is kind of mentioned, communion is not. Faith is the focus. A Hebrew who believes that Jesus is now the great high priest who presented himself as a perfect sacrifice to god will get to enter god's sabbath rest, if he stops sinning. Hell is not mentioned by name, but there will be burning of sinners and the unfaithful.
I previously posted portions of this on the Roll to Disbelieve comments.
Showing posts with label David. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David. Show all posts
Saturday, May 18, 2019
Friday, May 3, 2019
Hebrews part twelve
We are at Hebrews chapter ten. The Hebrews are told, "The law is only a shadow of things that are coming-- not the realities themselves." Here we go again with earthly things being shadows of perfect heavenly things. Again the author goes over the previous necessity of regular earthly sacrifices and how they were a shadow of christ's single sacrifice of himself.
In fact, the author claims christ said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. (Even though you mandated them.) Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will o god.'"
But Jesus never actually said that. Whoever wrote Psalm 40:6-8 did. My bible says it is a Psalm of David. Again, is the author of Hebrews suggesting Jesus is a reincarnation of David? Also, the author of Hebrews left out a few parts of the original Psalm. There it claims god pierced the speaker's ears. Ear piercing was a sign that you were someone's slave. In this case David would be claiming to be god's slave. That's not in the letter to the Hebrews. Another thing: in verse eight of that Psalm, the writer says to god, "your law is in my heart." He looks on the law as the will of god, not a shadow of a greater reality. Nowhere in the Psalm is it said that the speaker (Jesus or David?) will be literally sacrificing his own body. That is the personal interpretation of the Hebrews writer.
The author goes on to say that after the christ made his one time sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of god. Again we are told about enemies becoming (Jesus or David's?) footstools. Again we are told that the holy spirit spoke in Jeremiah 31:33-34, when god says he will put his law in the Jews' hearts and minds, and forget their sins. Since they are forgiven, "there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin."
So, now the brothers (Jews) get to enter the most holy place (the heavenly temple) by the blood of Jesus. Yay? Jesus's body has become the new living curtain into the holy place. Eww. The hearts of the faithful have been sprinkled (with Jesus's blood) to cleanse them from a guilty conscience. Is that invisible/metaphorical sprinkled blood? The author also mentions having their bodies washed with pure water. That seems to be a reference to actual water and bodies, so he must be referring to baptism. I think.
Next the readers are told to hold on to their faith, because of what they've been promised. They also need to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." (I'm sure it's figurative, but "spurring" sounds painful.) They also need to keep meeting together, even more as "the day" approaches. That day hasn't arrived yet, over 1,500 years later.
Also, no more sinning. (Define sin) If the readers keep sinning, jesus's sacrifice for sins will get used up and run out. That would make them enemies of god who will eventually be consumed by raging fire. After all, the law of Moses contained the death penalty, without mercy for sinners. How much worse should it be for those who "trample the son of god under foot?" This trampling of Jesus is obviously figurative, will the burning of sinners be as well? Sinners are treating the blood of the new covenant as unholy and insulting the spirit of grace. For shame! Uh, oh, don't forget, vengeance is god's and he will repay. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the lord." But don't worry, be happy.
Till next time.
In fact, the author claims christ said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. (Even though you mandated them.) Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will o god.'"
But Jesus never actually said that. Whoever wrote Psalm 40:6-8 did. My bible says it is a Psalm of David. Again, is the author of Hebrews suggesting Jesus is a reincarnation of David? Also, the author of Hebrews left out a few parts of the original Psalm. There it claims god pierced the speaker's ears. Ear piercing was a sign that you were someone's slave. In this case David would be claiming to be god's slave. That's not in the letter to the Hebrews. Another thing: in verse eight of that Psalm, the writer says to god, "your law is in my heart." He looks on the law as the will of god, not a shadow of a greater reality. Nowhere in the Psalm is it said that the speaker (Jesus or David?) will be literally sacrificing his own body. That is the personal interpretation of the Hebrews writer.
The author goes on to say that after the christ made his one time sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of god. Again we are told about enemies becoming (Jesus or David's?) footstools. Again we are told that the holy spirit spoke in Jeremiah 31:33-34, when god says he will put his law in the Jews' hearts and minds, and forget their sins. Since they are forgiven, "there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin."
So, now the brothers (Jews) get to enter the most holy place (the heavenly temple) by the blood of Jesus. Yay? Jesus's body has become the new living curtain into the holy place. Eww. The hearts of the faithful have been sprinkled (with Jesus's blood) to cleanse them from a guilty conscience. Is that invisible/metaphorical sprinkled blood? The author also mentions having their bodies washed with pure water. That seems to be a reference to actual water and bodies, so he must be referring to baptism. I think.
Next the readers are told to hold on to their faith, because of what they've been promised. They also need to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." (I'm sure it's figurative, but "spurring" sounds painful.) They also need to keep meeting together, even more as "the day" approaches. That day hasn't arrived yet, over 1,500 years later.
Also, no more sinning. (Define sin) If the readers keep sinning, jesus's sacrifice for sins will get used up and run out. That would make them enemies of god who will eventually be consumed by raging fire. After all, the law of Moses contained the death penalty, without mercy for sinners. How much worse should it be for those who "trample the son of god under foot?" This trampling of Jesus is obviously figurative, will the burning of sinners be as well? Sinners are treating the blood of the new covenant as unholy and insulting the spirit of grace. For shame! Uh, oh, don't forget, vengeance is god's and he will repay. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the lord." But don't worry, be happy.
Till next time.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
Hebrews part nine
We are now at Hebrews 7:11. The author has just tried to convince us that Melchizedek is greater than Abraham, the Levites, and all Abraham's descendants. This is important to the author because he is trying to convince his readers that Jesus is a priest in the order of Melchizedek. That would make Jesus greater than all of them as well.
The author now tells us that the Levitical priesthood was not perfect. If it was, why would we need a another priest in the order of Melchizedek? Um. Why do we need one anyway? And who decided we needed one? As far as I can tell, this is of the author's own invention. The concept of Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek is found only in the book of Hebrews. In fact, the concept of Jesus as any kind of priest is found only in Hebrews.
1 Peter 2:5 and 9 mentions the body of believers as being a "holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to god through Jesus christ." But that's not the same thing as what the author of Hebrews is saying, is it? Revelation 5:10 speaks of people of all nations being made into a kingdom of priests to serve god while they reign on earth. Revelation 20:6 speaks of the same thing and adds that these future priests of god are going to be the ones who were beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus. No high priest Jesus is mentioned.
The author of Hebrews goes on to say, "when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law." Why? Because he says so. He goes on to say that it is clear that Jesus belonged to a tribe that never served at the altar, the tribe of Judah. How does the author know this? What makes it clear? My study bible refers me to Psalm 11, which is assumed by christians to be a prophecy about the messiah, or Jesus. This Psalm speaks of the tribe of Judah and "the root of Jesse." It is interpreted as meaning a messiah that comes from the lineage of David. It is possible that this author presupposes Jesus was the messiah. Therefore, he must be of the Davidic line, if the Psalm was talking about the messiah. If you want to make scripture work for your pet belief, there is always a way.
According to the author, all this becomes clear if another Melchizedek like priest appears: "One who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." But it doesn't hurt if we say he is from the lineage of David. Does all of this circular thinking make your head spin?
We go on to read that the old Mosaic law was weak and useless because it didn't make anything perfect. Could that be because there is no such thing as perfection? That old law is set aside and now there is a better hope. God swore, and will not change his mind, that someone is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Guess what, that someone is Jesus! Other priests died in office. Jesus lives forever, so he has a permanent priesthood. That way he can save everyone who comes to god through him, because he can intercede for them forever. And boy do they need it.
Jesus is not like other high priests. He is holy and sinless. He doesn't have to offer daily sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (Jews). "He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself." If I remember correctly, Jesus did not go willingly to his death. He had a change of heart near the end. At least according to Mark.
Chapter seven end with the author telling us the law appoints high priests who are weak. God's oath about the priest in the order of Melchizedek came after the law. It appointed "the son, who has been made perfect forever." Or at least that is what is assumed.
As a reminder: I am using an NIV study bible. All opinions are my own, unless otherwise stated. Share this site if you think anyone you know might enjoy it.
The author now tells us that the Levitical priesthood was not perfect. If it was, why would we need a another priest in the order of Melchizedek? Um. Why do we need one anyway? And who decided we needed one? As far as I can tell, this is of the author's own invention. The concept of Jesus as a high priest in the order of Melchizedek is found only in the book of Hebrews. In fact, the concept of Jesus as any kind of priest is found only in Hebrews.
1 Peter 2:5 and 9 mentions the body of believers as being a "holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices to god through Jesus christ." But that's not the same thing as what the author of Hebrews is saying, is it? Revelation 5:10 speaks of people of all nations being made into a kingdom of priests to serve god while they reign on earth. Revelation 20:6 speaks of the same thing and adds that these future priests of god are going to be the ones who were beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus. No high priest Jesus is mentioned.
The author of Hebrews goes on to say, "when there is a change of priesthood, there must also be a change of law." Why? Because he says so. He goes on to say that it is clear that Jesus belonged to a tribe that never served at the altar, the tribe of Judah. How does the author know this? What makes it clear? My study bible refers me to Psalm 11, which is assumed by christians to be a prophecy about the messiah, or Jesus. This Psalm speaks of the tribe of Judah and "the root of Jesse." It is interpreted as meaning a messiah that comes from the lineage of David. It is possible that this author presupposes Jesus was the messiah. Therefore, he must be of the Davidic line, if the Psalm was talking about the messiah. If you want to make scripture work for your pet belief, there is always a way.
According to the author, all this becomes clear if another Melchizedek like priest appears: "One who has become a priest not on the basis of a regulation as to his ancestry but on the basis of the power of an indestructible life." But it doesn't hurt if we say he is from the lineage of David. Does all of this circular thinking make your head spin?
We go on to read that the old Mosaic law was weak and useless because it didn't make anything perfect. Could that be because there is no such thing as perfection? That old law is set aside and now there is a better hope. God swore, and will not change his mind, that someone is a priest forever in the order of Melchizedek. Guess what, that someone is Jesus! Other priests died in office. Jesus lives forever, so he has a permanent priesthood. That way he can save everyone who comes to god through him, because he can intercede for them forever. And boy do they need it.
Jesus is not like other high priests. He is holy and sinless. He doesn't have to offer daily sacrifices for his own sins and the sins of the people (Jews). "He sacrificed for their sins once and for all when he offered himself." If I remember correctly, Jesus did not go willingly to his death. He had a change of heart near the end. At least according to Mark.
Chapter seven end with the author telling us the law appoints high priests who are weak. God's oath about the priest in the order of Melchizedek came after the law. It appointed "the son, who has been made perfect forever." Or at least that is what is assumed.
As a reminder: I am using an NIV study bible. All opinions are my own, unless otherwise stated. Share this site if you think anyone you know might enjoy it.
Friday, April 19, 2019
Hebrews part six
We are now at the beginning of Hebrews chapter four. Of course the original writings had no chapters and verses, so the text continues on about the subject of "god's rest." The author claims that the original promise of entering god's rest, to the Jews who didn't disobey, still stands. He conveniently passes over the general knowledge that the original promise was not speaking of some spiritual paradise. Could it be because, at the time the book was written, the majority of Jews were displaced from Canaan and needed to reinvent a definition of god's rest, so that it could still be true?
The message of god's rest (for the faithful Jews) is practically defined as the gospel message in verse 4:2! Those Old Testament Jews from Egypt didn't get anything out of the message because they didn't have faith! The people the author is writing to believe the message, so they will get to enter god's rest. All this has been prearranged since the creation. Didn't it say in Genesis that god rested on the seventh day? Some people get to enter god's rest, but not those disobedient people of old. That's why god spoke through David and told the people not to harden their hearts if they heard his voice. I don't know. Is it a good idea to listen to disembodied voices? How would you know if they were telling the truth?
The author of Hebrews goes on to say Joshua didn't give them rest , because god spoke about "the rest" again later, presumably in the Psalm previously referred to in chapter three. However, Joshua 21:40 says, The lord gave them (the Israelites) "rest" on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. we go to Joshua 22:4, we see that three tribes got the "rest" god promised. Further on, in Joshua 23:1, we see the Israelites given "rest" from their enemies. What was the originally promised rest? Rest from enemies! See Deuteronomy 12:8-9, 25:19. However, in 4:10, the author of Hebrews equates it with rest from life's labor, just as god rested after working on creation.
The readers of Hebrews are told to make every effort to enter the rest through obedience. Obedience to who or what? Well, the next sentence says "the word of god is living and active. Sharper than any two edged sword... It judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Is this "word of god" the scriptures of the Old Testament? Or is it what the believers "hear" god saying to them?
In verse 14, we are back to reading about Jesus as a great high priest who has been through the heavens. It is spelled out here: Jesus is the son of god. Not only that, he can sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every way we are, but without sin. That means we can approach his throne and receive mercy. This is an allusion to literal lawbreakers having to stand before a king and receive his judgement, as was common in those days.
We now move into Hebrews chapter five. There we read about how high priests are selected and appointed to represent the people (Jews) in matters related to god. They offer sacrifices for sins and deal "gently" with the ignorant an those going astray. I bet. The priest isn't perfect, that's why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as those of the people (Jews). High priests are called by god, just like Aaron was, they don't take the honor upon themselves. Hah! Isn't that just what they do, since there are no gods actually calling people?
Jesus also didn't take the high priesthood on himself. Didn't god say to him, "You are my son, today I have become your father." Well, technically, it was written by author of Psalm 2:7, who was writing about god installing him as king. There is no reason to believe a god ever said it, or that Jesus was the one said god was speaking to. Also, how does being told you are god's son make you the great high priest? The author of Hebrews has that covered. In another place (Psalm 110:4), god said, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." That Psalm is labelled as a Psalm of David and reads like a promise from a god to a warrior king. What does it have to do with Jesus? Nothing, as far as I can see, except whatever the author of Hebrews finds in his imagination. A pinch of one Psalm and a dash of another makes a high priest named Jesus.
The message of god's rest (for the faithful Jews) is practically defined as the gospel message in verse 4:2! Those Old Testament Jews from Egypt didn't get anything out of the message because they didn't have faith! The people the author is writing to believe the message, so they will get to enter god's rest. All this has been prearranged since the creation. Didn't it say in Genesis that god rested on the seventh day? Some people get to enter god's rest, but not those disobedient people of old. That's why god spoke through David and told the people not to harden their hearts if they heard his voice. I don't know. Is it a good idea to listen to disembodied voices? How would you know if they were telling the truth?
The author of Hebrews goes on to say Joshua didn't give them rest , because god spoke about "the rest" again later, presumably in the Psalm previously referred to in chapter three. However, Joshua 21:40 says, The lord gave them (the Israelites) "rest" on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. we go to Joshua 22:4, we see that three tribes got the "rest" god promised. Further on, in Joshua 23:1, we see the Israelites given "rest" from their enemies. What was the originally promised rest? Rest from enemies! See Deuteronomy 12:8-9, 25:19. However, in 4:10, the author of Hebrews equates it with rest from life's labor, just as god rested after working on creation.
The readers of Hebrews are told to make every effort to enter the rest through obedience. Obedience to who or what? Well, the next sentence says "the word of god is living and active. Sharper than any two edged sword... It judges thoughts and attitudes of the heart." Is this "word of god" the scriptures of the Old Testament? Or is it what the believers "hear" god saying to them?
In verse 14, we are back to reading about Jesus as a great high priest who has been through the heavens. It is spelled out here: Jesus is the son of god. Not only that, he can sympathize with our weaknesses because he was tempted in every way we are, but without sin. That means we can approach his throne and receive mercy. This is an allusion to literal lawbreakers having to stand before a king and receive his judgement, as was common in those days.
We now move into Hebrews chapter five. There we read about how high priests are selected and appointed to represent the people (Jews) in matters related to god. They offer sacrifices for sins and deal "gently" with the ignorant an those going astray. I bet. The priest isn't perfect, that's why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins as well as those of the people (Jews). High priests are called by god, just like Aaron was, they don't take the honor upon themselves. Hah! Isn't that just what they do, since there are no gods actually calling people?
Jesus also didn't take the high priesthood on himself. Didn't god say to him, "You are my son, today I have become your father." Well, technically, it was written by author of Psalm 2:7, who was writing about god installing him as king. There is no reason to believe a god ever said it, or that Jesus was the one said god was speaking to. Also, how does being told you are god's son make you the great high priest? The author of Hebrews has that covered. In another place (Psalm 110:4), god said, "You are a priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek." That Psalm is labelled as a Psalm of David and reads like a promise from a god to a warrior king. What does it have to do with Jesus? Nothing, as far as I can see, except whatever the author of Hebrews finds in his imagination. A pinch of one Psalm and a dash of another makes a high priest named Jesus.
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Hebrews part four
We are at Hebrews 2:5. Now the author quotes Psalm 8:4-6, "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor and put everything under his feet." He goes on to equate Jesus with the "son of man" who was made lower than the angels. (Is it possible for god's exact representation, Hebrews 1:3, to be lower than the angels?) Every thing is subject to Jesus, but the author did not see everything subject to him, yet. This is the first time the name of Jesus is mentioned. He doesn't seem to have quite the stature of the Son of god mentioned earlier. Are they the same person?
The author goes on to say Jesus is crowned with glory and honor, BECAUSE he suffered death. Did he not have glory and honor before he died? We are then told that by the grace of god Jesus tasted death for everyone. Ah grace, that undefinable something that is supposed to be good. This time it is responsible for a senseless death. Jesus tasted death for us, but we still must die. What good was that?
Well, according to verse ten, it brought many sons to glory. What happened to the daughters? Did they get any of the glory? What is glory exactly?
So, according to Hebrews 2:10, god made the author of salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering. Was he not perfect beforehand? Hmm. Next, we are told "Both the one who makes men holy (Jesus) and those who are made holy (other people?) are members of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." The proof of this is supposedly found in a quote from Psalm 22:22, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."
Psalm 22 is supposed to be a Psalm of David. The whole Psalm is often claimed to be a prophecy about the christ. However, the Psalm author wrote it in the first person and appears to have been addressing god. The Hebrew author is suggesting that the Psalm is the words of the christ, written at least a few hundred years before Jesus was ever born. (Again, does he believe Jesus is the reincarnation of David?)Therefore, by some weird magic, the brothers mentioned in the Psalm can't be "the descendants of Jacob" mentioned later in the Psalm? They must be those people Jesus is making holy. And who are those people? I'm not sure that has been made clear yet.
In verse 13, the Hebrews author quotes a phrase that starts at the end of Isaiah 8:17 and goes into the beginning of Isaiah 8:18. "I will put my trust in him. Here am I, and the children god has given me." The context is god speaking to and through Isaiah about the Israelites, from whom god is hiding his face. After the words that Isaiah says were from god, he gives his own statement of loyalty to god. That's what the first sentence of the Hebrew quote is. The children in the second sentence of the quote are Isaiahs own flesh and blood children, as can be seen in the beginning of Isaiah chapter 8. However, strangely enough, the Hebrews author attributes those word to Jesus! How can that be? Is Jesus also a reincarnation of Isaiah?
It's almost like the author of Hebrews flipped through the old testament, stuck his finger in, and declared verses to be the words of Jesus. Either that or he deliberately searched for passages to fit his narrative. Surely that can't be it.
More to come.
The author goes on to say Jesus is crowned with glory and honor, BECAUSE he suffered death. Did he not have glory and honor before he died? We are then told that by the grace of god Jesus tasted death for everyone. Ah grace, that undefinable something that is supposed to be good. This time it is responsible for a senseless death. Jesus tasted death for us, but we still must die. What good was that?
Well, according to verse ten, it brought many sons to glory. What happened to the daughters? Did they get any of the glory? What is glory exactly?
So, according to Hebrews 2:10, god made the author of salvation (Jesus) perfect through suffering. Was he not perfect beforehand? Hmm. Next, we are told "Both the one who makes men holy (Jesus) and those who are made holy (other people?) are members of the same family. So, Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers." The proof of this is supposedly found in a quote from Psalm 22:22, "I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises."
Psalm 22 is supposed to be a Psalm of David. The whole Psalm is often claimed to be a prophecy about the christ. However, the Psalm author wrote it in the first person and appears to have been addressing god. The Hebrew author is suggesting that the Psalm is the words of the christ, written at least a few hundred years before Jesus was ever born. (Again, does he believe Jesus is the reincarnation of David?)Therefore, by some weird magic, the brothers mentioned in the Psalm can't be "the descendants of Jacob" mentioned later in the Psalm? They must be those people Jesus is making holy. And who are those people? I'm not sure that has been made clear yet.
In verse 13, the Hebrews author quotes a phrase that starts at the end of Isaiah 8:17 and goes into the beginning of Isaiah 8:18. "I will put my trust in him. Here am I, and the children god has given me." The context is god speaking to and through Isaiah about the Israelites, from whom god is hiding his face. After the words that Isaiah says were from god, he gives his own statement of loyalty to god. That's what the first sentence of the Hebrew quote is. The children in the second sentence of the quote are Isaiahs own flesh and blood children, as can be seen in the beginning of Isaiah chapter 8. However, strangely enough, the Hebrews author attributes those word to Jesus! How can that be? Is Jesus also a reincarnation of Isaiah?
It's almost like the author of Hebrews flipped through the old testament, stuck his finger in, and declared verses to be the words of Jesus. Either that or he deliberately searched for passages to fit his narrative. Surely that can't be it.
More to come.
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Hebrews part three.
I'm back. Somehow life goes on, even when your heart has been smashed into a million pieces by the inconceivable and unexplainable.
We continue on in Hebrews chapter one at verse ten. There the author makes a quote that he attributes to god speaking about the christ. "In the beginning, o lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." First of all, this exact phrase does not seem to appear as is in the Old Testament. It appears to be a mash up of Psalm 8:6 and Zechariah 12:1. Second, the logic seems to be: if scripture is the word of god, and god is saying these things, and god appears to be talking to someone else. Who else could that someone be? Must be the christ!
Verse 11 contains a small piece of Isaiah 51:6, "they (the heavens) will wear out like a garment." Verse 12 is a reconstruction of Psalm 102:25-27, You will roll them (the heavens)up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed, but you remain the same, and your years will never end." Again, this is supposed to be the words of god speaking about the christ. I guess the writer couldn't admit to himself that the OT scriptures were not the words of god, but someone else talking about god.
Hebrews 1:10-12 is supposed to be a single quote from god, but what we find is words picked from multiple Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah. They are all sewed together to prove the author's point by seeming to be a cohesive unit. And who is going to know any better if they don't have access to scriptures?
In verse 13, the author tells us that god never told any angels to sit at his right hand until he makes their enemies into a foot stool, now did he? No, but he said that to someone in Psalm 110:1, which was supposed to have been written by David about someone called "the lord." Must be Jesus!! Hallelujah.
In verse 14, the author veers off course and says, "aren't angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" This must be so because, according to my study bible, Psalm 91 implies it and the story of Daniel in the lion's den proves it. That's logic.
That concludes chapter one. Chapter two continues on with the angel theme. The readers are told to pay careful attention to what they've heard (from whom?) and not drift away. The message spoken by angels is binding and disobedience results in punishment that we can't escape if we ignore the message of salvation. Nice. What choice do we have?
So....about this message of salvation. We are not yet told exactly what is was, or who it came through. Maybe the author will enlighten us later, or maybe he thinks we already know. It was apparently first announced by "the lord" and confirmed by those who had heard him, whoever they were. Apparently the author was not one who personally heard him. I'm assuming that "the lord" here refers to the christ, because the next sentence says that god also testified to it by distributing miraculous signs and gifts. Not any more.
We will pause here. Till next time.
We continue on in Hebrews chapter one at verse ten. There the author makes a quote that he attributes to god speaking about the christ. "In the beginning, o lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands." First of all, this exact phrase does not seem to appear as is in the Old Testament. It appears to be a mash up of Psalm 8:6 and Zechariah 12:1. Second, the logic seems to be: if scripture is the word of god, and god is saying these things, and god appears to be talking to someone else. Who else could that someone be? Must be the christ!
Verse 11 contains a small piece of Isaiah 51:6, "they (the heavens) will wear out like a garment." Verse 12 is a reconstruction of Psalm 102:25-27, You will roll them (the heavens)up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed, but you remain the same, and your years will never end." Again, this is supposed to be the words of god speaking about the christ. I guess the writer couldn't admit to himself that the OT scriptures were not the words of god, but someone else talking about god.
Hebrews 1:10-12 is supposed to be a single quote from god, but what we find is words picked from multiple Psalms, Isaiah, and Zechariah. They are all sewed together to prove the author's point by seeming to be a cohesive unit. And who is going to know any better if they don't have access to scriptures?
In verse 13, the author tells us that god never told any angels to sit at his right hand until he makes their enemies into a foot stool, now did he? No, but he said that to someone in Psalm 110:1, which was supposed to have been written by David about someone called "the lord." Must be Jesus!! Hallelujah.
In verse 14, the author veers off course and says, "aren't angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?" This must be so because, according to my study bible, Psalm 91 implies it and the story of Daniel in the lion's den proves it. That's logic.
That concludes chapter one. Chapter two continues on with the angel theme. The readers are told to pay careful attention to what they've heard (from whom?) and not drift away. The message spoken by angels is binding and disobedience results in punishment that we can't escape if we ignore the message of salvation. Nice. What choice do we have?
So....about this message of salvation. We are not yet told exactly what is was, or who it came through. Maybe the author will enlighten us later, or maybe he thinks we already know. It was apparently first announced by "the lord" and confirmed by those who had heard him, whoever they were. Apparently the author was not one who personally heard him. I'm assuming that "the lord" here refers to the christ, because the next sentence says that god also testified to it by distributing miraculous signs and gifts. Not any more.
We will pause here. Till next time.
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Hebrews part two
We are in Hebrews 1:5. The author is giving us old testament scriptures that show god telling some man he is gods son. We haven't actually been given Jesus's name yet, but it is assumed the reader knows who the author is referring to. The implication is that Jesus is god's son and that it was foretold in the Hebrew scriptures. We've read the first quoted scripture from Psalms and have seen that it is problematic as a foretelling of Jesus. It is most likely referring to David.
Let's look at the next scripture given. It comes from 2 Samuel 7:14. "I will be his father, he will be my son." These words of god are coming from the prophet Samuel and being told to David, about David. In fact the rest of the verse reads "when he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." Is god really also speaking of Jesus here?
The next Old Testament verse quoted is supposed to be about when god's first born came into the world (aka the birth of Jesus). Deuteronomy 32:43: "Let all god's angel's worship him." There is a problem with this sentence. It is not found in all the manuscripts of Deuteronomy, just one dead sea scroll and the Septuagint. It is obviously an addition. Not only that, when the phrase is put in context, the subject is god, not Jesus. The angels are worshipping god, not his son at all. There is no mention of god's son in Deuteronomy 32.
The author of Hebrews then goes off on a tangent. "Speaking of angels" he decides to include an Old Testament reference to angels, Psalm 104:4. "He makes his angels winds and his servants flames of fire." Even though this phrase has nothing to do with Jesus, it is interesting, in that the author has quoted this scripture differently than how it appears in the context of the Psalm. In Psalm 104, natural elements are being created and used by god for his purposes. "He makes the wind his messengers and flames of fire his servants." He does not start with spiritual beings and turn them into forces of nature. The author of Hebrews is clearly playing word games.
Back to the son. The author of Hebrews next quotes Psalm 45:6-7. "Your throne, o god, will last forever and ever, and righteousness ("justice" in my OT) will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore god, your god, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." What in the world is the oil of joy? First of all, in context, this Psalm specifically states in verse one that it was written for the king who lived at that time. What king? We don't know, but nevertheless, an earthly king born in the lineage of David, long before Jesus. He is called a man in verse two. He is also called god in verse six.
Guess what, it was not uncommon for kings in ancient days to be thought of as gods themselves. However, the same terminology was often used for gods and kings, even when the kings were not considered divine, such as "lord" and "master." This is terminology that was also used for Jesus in the New Testament. My study bible notes say that the king was probably called god as an honorific, because he was god's representative on earth. However, it is a false equivalence to assume that every king or revered person called god actually was a supernatural god. Not to mention, the same individual called god in the Old Testament Psalms was not in any way the same person as Jesus.
Did the Jews believe in reincarnation? Did they believe he was David reborn? Do Christians believe that? That's almost what they would have to believe in order to believe this Psalm is talking about Jesus. Otherwise, the author is just cherry picking phrases that he likes and applying them to his perception of who Jesus was. In fact, I am beginning to be convinced that is exactly what Jesus's followers originally believed. When he was called the son of god or the christ (anointed one), I think they knew very well that those phrases referred to King David, the king of the Jews.
Remember in Mark, when Jesus asked Peter who people thought he was. Peter replied "Some say
John the Baptist, some say Elijah." Jesus would have been a reincarnation to be John or Elijah. Peter
then told Jesus that he believed Jesus was the christ. Who would have been reincarnated then? David! No wonder Jesus told his disciples not to tell people about him. No wonder he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews! That makes sense to me, what do you think?
Let's look at the next scripture given. It comes from 2 Samuel 7:14. "I will be his father, he will be my son." These words of god are coming from the prophet Samuel and being told to David, about David. In fact the rest of the verse reads "when he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men." Is god really also speaking of Jesus here?
The next Old Testament verse quoted is supposed to be about when god's first born came into the world (aka the birth of Jesus). Deuteronomy 32:43: "Let all god's angel's worship him." There is a problem with this sentence. It is not found in all the manuscripts of Deuteronomy, just one dead sea scroll and the Septuagint. It is obviously an addition. Not only that, when the phrase is put in context, the subject is god, not Jesus. The angels are worshipping god, not his son at all. There is no mention of god's son in Deuteronomy 32.
The author of Hebrews then goes off on a tangent. "Speaking of angels" he decides to include an Old Testament reference to angels, Psalm 104:4. "He makes his angels winds and his servants flames of fire." Even though this phrase has nothing to do with Jesus, it is interesting, in that the author has quoted this scripture differently than how it appears in the context of the Psalm. In Psalm 104, natural elements are being created and used by god for his purposes. "He makes the wind his messengers and flames of fire his servants." He does not start with spiritual beings and turn them into forces of nature. The author of Hebrews is clearly playing word games.
Back to the son. The author of Hebrews next quotes Psalm 45:6-7. "Your throne, o god, will last forever and ever, and righteousness ("justice" in my OT) will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore god, your god, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." What in the world is the oil of joy? First of all, in context, this Psalm specifically states in verse one that it was written for the king who lived at that time. What king? We don't know, but nevertheless, an earthly king born in the lineage of David, long before Jesus. He is called a man in verse two. He is also called god in verse six.
Guess what, it was not uncommon for kings in ancient days to be thought of as gods themselves. However, the same terminology was often used for gods and kings, even when the kings were not considered divine, such as "lord" and "master." This is terminology that was also used for Jesus in the New Testament. My study bible notes say that the king was probably called god as an honorific, because he was god's representative on earth. However, it is a false equivalence to assume that every king or revered person called god actually was a supernatural god. Not to mention, the same individual called god in the Old Testament Psalms was not in any way the same person as Jesus.
Did the Jews believe in reincarnation? Did they believe he was David reborn? Do Christians believe that? That's almost what they would have to believe in order to believe this Psalm is talking about Jesus. Otherwise, the author is just cherry picking phrases that he likes and applying them to his perception of who Jesus was. In fact, I am beginning to be convinced that is exactly what Jesus's followers originally believed. When he was called the son of god or the christ (anointed one), I think they knew very well that those phrases referred to King David, the king of the Jews.
Remember in Mark, when Jesus asked Peter who people thought he was. Peter replied "Some say
John the Baptist, some say Elijah." Jesus would have been a reincarnation to be John or Elijah. Peter
then told Jesus that he believed Jesus was the christ. Who would have been reincarnated then? David! No wonder Jesus told his disciples not to tell people about him. No wonder he was killed for claiming to be king of the Jews! That makes sense to me, what do you think?
Friday, March 22, 2019
Introduction to Hebrews and part one.
I think our next book to study will be Hebrews. I tried to do an in depth study of Hebrews a couple of times as a christian and gave up. I was using a Bible study guide before. It only confused me because there seemed to be a lot of speculation and subjective opinion. Let's see how it goes this time.
First, let's read what Wikipedia has to say about the book of Hebrews here.
Hebrews is called an epistle or letter because there is a postscript which sounds personal, mentions Timothy, and sends greetings to unspecified leaders from unspecified persons in Italy. However, there is no greeting or address from or to a specific person or church at the beginning of Hebrews. There is also no claim of authorship in the entire book. The mention of Italy seems to suggest authorship by Paul or his cohorts, which may be exactly what the author intended us to think. The main body of the text, before the postscript, ends with an amen, leading me to think that was the original ending. Multiple other authors have been hypothesized throughout the centuries. The author still remains unknown.
The date of the writing is also unknown, with speculations ranging from 63 CE on into the second century. The oldest existing manuscripts of Hebrews are fragments from the late second century-early third century. The book appears to be directed specifically at Jewish christians.
The book begins by talking about how god spoke to the Hebrews of old through the prophets but in those "last days" he spoke through his son. (If those were the last days, what are these days?) Right off the bat, Jesus is identified as the son of god. He is the heir of all things. Why does god need an heir? Is he going to die? That's what heirs are for, right? They inherit the father's property upon his death. If the father is eternal, what happens to the heir?
Next we are told that the universe was made through the son. This is news. The son didn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis. Oh wait, next we are told the son is the "radiance of god's glory." Is he shiny? Maybe he is the light in "let there be light." Next we are told the son is the exact representation of god's being. What does that mean? Is he the spitting image of god? In what way? Is he a clone? Does god have a body? If not, did Jesus have a body? That is not clear yet. We are also told the son sustains all things by his powerful word. Again, what in the heck does that mean? How does he do that?
The text then assumes that we know how the son provided purification for sins, after which he sat at the right hand of god in heaven. Presumably, god and Jesus have bottoms to sit with and heavenly chairs to sit on, unless they sit on clouds. In this way the son became superior to the angels, because God never called any angel his son. How do we know god called anyone his son? Must we take them at their word? What if Jesus was actually a liar, or a lunatic? If someone today told you god spoke to him and told him he was god's son, what would you think? You and I both know you would think he is bonkers.
The text gives two old testament references for god calling someone his son. Let's take a look at them. The first is Psalm 2:7. Who wrote this? Nobody knows, but it is presumed to be David speaking. Who is it talking about? "God's anointed one" which is a phrase for the king god has sanctified to lead the Jews, presumably David. This is all about the king/David being called god's son and being given the nations as an inheritance. (Not only that, The psalm goes on to say he will dash them to pieces like pottery!) Is the writer of the book of Hebrews referring to David? Nope. He's referring to Jesus. Is Jesus going to dash the nations to pieces like pottery? Hmm. That psalm also goes on to say that kings better kiss the son or he might get angry and destroy them. Nice guy this son of god.
First, let's read what Wikipedia has to say about the book of Hebrews here.
Hebrews is called an epistle or letter because there is a postscript which sounds personal, mentions Timothy, and sends greetings to unspecified leaders from unspecified persons in Italy. However, there is no greeting or address from or to a specific person or church at the beginning of Hebrews. There is also no claim of authorship in the entire book. The mention of Italy seems to suggest authorship by Paul or his cohorts, which may be exactly what the author intended us to think. The main body of the text, before the postscript, ends with an amen, leading me to think that was the original ending. Multiple other authors have been hypothesized throughout the centuries. The author still remains unknown.
The date of the writing is also unknown, with speculations ranging from 63 CE on into the second century. The oldest existing manuscripts of Hebrews are fragments from the late second century-early third century. The book appears to be directed specifically at Jewish christians.
The book begins by talking about how god spoke to the Hebrews of old through the prophets but in those "last days" he spoke through his son. (If those were the last days, what are these days?) Right off the bat, Jesus is identified as the son of god. He is the heir of all things. Why does god need an heir? Is he going to die? That's what heirs are for, right? They inherit the father's property upon his death. If the father is eternal, what happens to the heir?
Next we are told that the universe was made through the son. This is news. The son didn't appear in the first chapter of Genesis. Oh wait, next we are told the son is the "radiance of god's glory." Is he shiny? Maybe he is the light in "let there be light." Next we are told the son is the exact representation of god's being. What does that mean? Is he the spitting image of god? In what way? Is he a clone? Does god have a body? If not, did Jesus have a body? That is not clear yet. We are also told the son sustains all things by his powerful word. Again, what in the heck does that mean? How does he do that?
The text then assumes that we know how the son provided purification for sins, after which he sat at the right hand of god in heaven. Presumably, god and Jesus have bottoms to sit with and heavenly chairs to sit on, unless they sit on clouds. In this way the son became superior to the angels, because God never called any angel his son. How do we know god called anyone his son? Must we take them at their word? What if Jesus was actually a liar, or a lunatic? If someone today told you god spoke to him and told him he was god's son, what would you think? You and I both know you would think he is bonkers.
The text gives two old testament references for god calling someone his son. Let's take a look at them. The first is Psalm 2:7. Who wrote this? Nobody knows, but it is presumed to be David speaking. Who is it talking about? "God's anointed one" which is a phrase for the king god has sanctified to lead the Jews, presumably David. This is all about the king/David being called god's son and being given the nations as an inheritance. (Not only that, The psalm goes on to say he will dash them to pieces like pottery!) Is the writer of the book of Hebrews referring to David? Nope. He's referring to Jesus. Is Jesus going to dash the nations to pieces like pottery? Hmm. That psalm also goes on to say that kings better kiss the son or he might get angry and destroy them. Nice guy this son of god.
Wednesday, December 26, 2018
Mark part four
We are in the second half of Mark chapter two. Jesus now has five disciples, Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Levi. Levi is a tax collector. In verse 15, we find Jesus at Levi's house eating with many tax collectors and "sinners." Three times sinners are mentioned in this passage and all three times the word is put in quotation marks with no explanation for that. My study bible also says that these sinners were "notoriously evil people" like adulterers and robbers. It is also unclear how that conclusion was arrived at.
The pharisees apparently saw Jesus eating with these social outcasts and criticized it. How did they see that? Was everyone eating outside? Were the Pharisees looking in the windows? Jesus's defense against the pharisees charges was that he was not there to call the righteous, but the sinners.
Next, we are told that John's disciples and the pharisees were fasting, which probably made them cranky. The story doesn't say the occasion of the fast, but it was presumably religious. People wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples were not fasting. Jesus uses a metaphor to say they don't need to fast because he is with them, when he is gone then they will fast. He's special. Then Jesus makes another metaphor about old wine skins and new wine skins, which, to me, makes no sense at all in this context.
The next story takes place on a sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are walking through grain fields and the disciples begin picking heads of grain, presumably to eat. The pharisees, who must have been walking with them, tattle to Jesus, saying what the disciples are doing is unlawful on the sabbath. Jesus then gives an example of David breaking the mosaic law when he was hungry. He says "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Yeah, right. That is why god gave a death penalty for breaking the Sabbath. The story of David breaking the law and getting away with it only proves that no one was willing to kill him for that transgression, if it actually happened. In fact, throughout history, Jews have been reluctant to carry out all the various death penalties mentioned in the law of Moses.
Chapter three tell us that "another time he went into the synagogue and a man with a shriveled hand was there." Jesus was watched carefully to see if he would heal the man on the sabbath. Of course, Jesus bucked convention and healed the man's hand with a great deal of show. Apparently these healings did not impress the pharisees, because they began to plot Jesus's death. I wonder how the pharisees would have told this story. Did they think Jesus was a charlatan? Or were they actually so mean hearted as to prefer Jesus's death over his miraculous healings?
In chapter 3, verses 7-12, Jesus is being followed by crowds of people from all over the region, because of the healings. Demon possessed people are falling down before him and calling him the son of god, but he is adamant that they should not tell anyone. It does not say he exorcised all those demons. If he did, why would he have to tell them to shut up? Because of all the crowds, Jesus had a boat ready to take him away, at the sea of Galilee.
In verse 13, Jesus decides to take a few select people with him up on a mountainside. There he selects his twelve apostles. We've only read of five up to now. The twelve are Simon, who we are told Jesus names Peter, which means "pebble." Does this say something about Peter's personality? There are also James and John, who Jesus calls "the sons of thunder." Then we have, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, another James, Thaddeus, another Simon, and Judas Iscariot, who is said to have betrayed Jesus. There is a little foreshadowing there.
More to come.
The pharisees apparently saw Jesus eating with these social outcasts and criticized it. How did they see that? Was everyone eating outside? Were the Pharisees looking in the windows? Jesus's defense against the pharisees charges was that he was not there to call the righteous, but the sinners.
Next, we are told that John's disciples and the pharisees were fasting, which probably made them cranky. The story doesn't say the occasion of the fast, but it was presumably religious. People wanted to know why Jesus and his disciples were not fasting. Jesus uses a metaphor to say they don't need to fast because he is with them, when he is gone then they will fast. He's special. Then Jesus makes another metaphor about old wine skins and new wine skins, which, to me, makes no sense at all in this context.
The next story takes place on a sabbath. Jesus and his disciples are walking through grain fields and the disciples begin picking heads of grain, presumably to eat. The pharisees, who must have been walking with them, tattle to Jesus, saying what the disciples are doing is unlawful on the sabbath. Jesus then gives an example of David breaking the mosaic law when he was hungry. He says "the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath." Yeah, right. That is why god gave a death penalty for breaking the Sabbath. The story of David breaking the law and getting away with it only proves that no one was willing to kill him for that transgression, if it actually happened. In fact, throughout history, Jews have been reluctant to carry out all the various death penalties mentioned in the law of Moses.
Chapter three tell us that "another time he went into the synagogue and a man with a shriveled hand was there." Jesus was watched carefully to see if he would heal the man on the sabbath. Of course, Jesus bucked convention and healed the man's hand with a great deal of show. Apparently these healings did not impress the pharisees, because they began to plot Jesus's death. I wonder how the pharisees would have told this story. Did they think Jesus was a charlatan? Or were they actually so mean hearted as to prefer Jesus's death over his miraculous healings?
In chapter 3, verses 7-12, Jesus is being followed by crowds of people from all over the region, because of the healings. Demon possessed people are falling down before him and calling him the son of god, but he is adamant that they should not tell anyone. It does not say he exorcised all those demons. If he did, why would he have to tell them to shut up? Because of all the crowds, Jesus had a boat ready to take him away, at the sea of Galilee.
In verse 13, Jesus decides to take a few select people with him up on a mountainside. There he selects his twelve apostles. We've only read of five up to now. The twelve are Simon, who we are told Jesus names Peter, which means "pebble." Does this say something about Peter's personality? There are also James and John, who Jesus calls "the sons of thunder." Then we have, Andrew, Philip, Thomas, Matthew, another James, Thaddeus, another Simon, and Judas Iscariot, who is said to have betrayed Jesus. There is a little foreshadowing there.
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.
Thursday, June 8, 2017
Jonah wrap up
After reading the book of Jonah, we see that there is no way to know who was the author of the book, where the information came from, exactly when it was originally written, and exactly when the events were supposed to have taken place. The king of Nineveh is not named. The book does not claim to be the words of a god. There are no angels or demons. There is no mention of a messiah.* There is no mention of a resurrection, or eternal life. There is no hell, but there is a mention of Sheol in 2:2, translated as "grave."
If the book was written before the destruction of Nineveh in 612BCE, what was the intended message? Perhaps the author was a proponent of tolerance and/or trying to show Yahweh to be equally concerned for all people. Perhaps he was trying to convince the Israelites it wasn't too late to to repent, in a round about way.
If the book was written after the destruction of Nineveh, one can't help but wonder if it was satire. Perhaps it was showing the opposite, that Yahweh didn't actually care if a nation repented, he would destroy them if he wanted to. Or perhaps the author was showing that salvation from God's wrath is not necessarily permanent. Of course this is speculation.
Also, we need to remember that a revelation to one person is not a revelation to all. We didn't hear the voice Jonah heard. No one else in the story did either. There is an argument to be made that people who hear disembodied voices are not likely to be mentally stable. People who believe people who hear disembodied voices are probably gullible.
*In many Christian circles, Jonah is assumed to be a "type" of christ. There is nothing in the book of Jonah itself, when read as a stand alone story, to indicate that Jonah is supposed to prefigure or predict Jesus, or a messiah. To christian minds focussed on the relationship of the New Testament to the Old Testament, Moses, Joshua, and David, have all been types "prefiguring" Jesus. What they don't seem to realize is the more likely occurrance that the story of Jesus was written in such a way as to deliberately refer to these Heroes of the Old Testament.
Another way Jonah is a type of christ.
More typology of Jonah.
If the book was written before the destruction of Nineveh in 612BCE, what was the intended message? Perhaps the author was a proponent of tolerance and/or trying to show Yahweh to be equally concerned for all people. Perhaps he was trying to convince the Israelites it wasn't too late to to repent, in a round about way.
If the book was written after the destruction of Nineveh, one can't help but wonder if it was satire. Perhaps it was showing the opposite, that Yahweh didn't actually care if a nation repented, he would destroy them if he wanted to. Or perhaps the author was showing that salvation from God's wrath is not necessarily permanent. Of course this is speculation.
Also, we need to remember that a revelation to one person is not a revelation to all. We didn't hear the voice Jonah heard. No one else in the story did either. There is an argument to be made that people who hear disembodied voices are not likely to be mentally stable. People who believe people who hear disembodied voices are probably gullible.
*In many Christian circles, Jonah is assumed to be a "type" of christ. There is nothing in the book of Jonah itself, when read as a stand alone story, to indicate that Jonah is supposed to prefigure or predict Jesus, or a messiah. To christian minds focussed on the relationship of the New Testament to the Old Testament, Moses, Joshua, and David, have all been types "prefiguring" Jesus. What they don't seem to realize is the more likely occurrance that the story of Jesus was written in such a way as to deliberately refer to these Heroes of the Old Testament.
Another way Jonah is a type of christ.
More typology of Jonah.
Friday, July 15, 2016
Ruth wrap up
The book of Ruth has no known author and no definitely known date. It must have been written after the establishment of the Davidic monarchy because one of its purposes seems to be to establish David's lineage from Judah. Another purpose could be to show that Yahweh can approve of marriages with women from other nations, and even bless them and the Israelites through them, in spite of his previous adamant commands against them. Plus, descendants of Moabites are not supposed to be allowed to enter the assembly of Yahweh for 10 generations. (Deuteronomy 23:3) Jewish commentaries get around that by saying the nationality of the father is what mattered, not the mother.
The book does not claim to be the word of Yahweh or to be inspired by Yahweh or his Holy Spirit. There is no mention of angels, demons, or other supernatural beings besides Yahweh. There is no heaven, hell, or messaiah mentioned. There are no descriptions of religious rituals or commands, in spite of the fact that the story must have taken place from the time of passover to Pentecost, because those dates are tied to the harvesting of grain. The only hint of religion is the kinsman-redeemer tradition depicted, and that is more cultural. There is no mention of the ark of the covenant, Shiloh, priests, or sacrifices.
The book does not claim to be the word of Yahweh or to be inspired by Yahweh or his Holy Spirit. There is no mention of angels, demons, or other supernatural beings besides Yahweh. There is no heaven, hell, or messaiah mentioned. There are no descriptions of religious rituals or commands, in spite of the fact that the story must have taken place from the time of passover to Pentecost, because those dates are tied to the harvesting of grain. The only hint of religion is the kinsman-redeemer tradition depicted, and that is more cultural. There is no mention of the ark of the covenant, Shiloh, priests, or sacrifices.
There is a conspicuous lack of violence and prejudice against other people groups. Ruth, a Moabite, is given the highest praise. She is said to be better than seven sons to Naomi, high praise indeed. Everyone else behaves admirably as well. I have an atheist friend who says this is her favorite story in the bible.
A hint that the story may have been fabricated is found in the names of people in the story. Naomi means "pleasant" but she asks to be called Mara which means "bitter." Ruth means "friendship." Ruth's dead husband Mahlon's name means "weakling" and Boaz's name means "strength." Coincidence?
Job will be our next book, because its events also seem to take place before there was a monarchy. Then we will continue on to 1 Samuel.
A hint that the story may have been fabricated is found in the names of people in the story. Naomi means "pleasant" but she asks to be called Mara which means "bitter." Ruth means "friendship." Ruth's dead husband Mahlon's name means "weakling" and Boaz's name means "strength." Coincidence?
Job will be our next book, because its events also seem to take place before there was a monarchy. Then we will continue on to 1 Samuel.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Ruth chapter 4
After reading chapter 4:
*That was fast! We are already on the last chapter of Ruth. Now we see Boaz arranging for his marriage to Ruth. He finds the kinsman-redeemer who has a closer claim than he does. In the presence of ten elders, he explains that Naomi is selling the land of their "brother" Elimelech. Does this mean Boaz and the other man are actually younger brothers of Elimelech, Boaz being the youngest? The other man is willing to redeem the land until Boaz explains that there is another piece of property that goes along with it, the dead man's widow, which technically is Naomi, not Ruth. But I suppose Ruth would be part of the package, since it appears that once a family owned a woman, she was theirs to do with what they wanted. Boaz also told the other man that if he took on all this "property," he would be responsible for maintaining the name of the dead. This would mean he was obligated to produce children for a dead man with the dead man's widow, as in the story of Tamar back in Genesis.
*The other man was unwilling to take this on because of legal implications regarding the property he already owned, probably his current wife and children. So, he took off his sandle and handed it to Boaz, which is said to have been a way of concluding legal transactions in those days. Boaz was told he could buy the "property" himself. Then Boaz reminds the ten elders that they are witnesses and that he now owns the dead men's property, including Ruth. He owns Naomi too, even though the text doesn't say so, which gives her the security of a good home for the rest of her life. The elders agreed to be witnesses of the transaction and gave Boaz a blessing saying may his offspring be famous in Bethlehem and may his family be blessed like that of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah. Judah was also much older than Tamar (He was her father-in-law and a kind of kinsman redeemer, even if reluctantly.) Of course the author of this story already knew that Boaz's descendant was claimed to be King David. That increases the likelihood that he put these words into the mouths of the witnesses. See, another prophecy conveniently came true! Funny how that works.
*Ruth and Boaz became husband and wife, and Yahweh "enabled" Ruth to concieve. She had a son, because Israelite women seem to disproportionately bear sons. The local women praised Yahweh and blessed Naomi, again prophesying Ruth's son would become famous. Naomi took care of her grandchild like she was its mother. The other women even said, "Naomi has a son." Hopefully Ruth was okay with that. The boy was named Obed, and became the father of Jesse, the father of David.
*Lastly, we are given a geneology from Perez, the Tamar connection, to David. Ten generations from Judah, a son of Israel (Jacob), in Genesis, to David, forefather of the Judahite monarchy. This appears to be problematic. A generation is approximately 22-32 years. We have been told the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. (Exodus 12:41) David's ancestors from that era would have been Perez, Hezron, Ram, and Aminidab. That is an average generation of 107 years. The time of the judges supposedly lasted at least 350years from scriptures we have read so far. We may find out more later. David's ancestors from that period would have been from Nashon (also mentioned in Numbers 7), Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse. That is an average generation of 70 years. 780 years altogether, at normal human reproduction rate, would have produced at least 25 generations, unless they all took after Abraham and produced children at a very advanced age. What is the likelihood of that?
*That was fast! We are already on the last chapter of Ruth. Now we see Boaz arranging for his marriage to Ruth. He finds the kinsman-redeemer who has a closer claim than he does. In the presence of ten elders, he explains that Naomi is selling the land of their "brother" Elimelech. Does this mean Boaz and the other man are actually younger brothers of Elimelech, Boaz being the youngest? The other man is willing to redeem the land until Boaz explains that there is another piece of property that goes along with it, the dead man's widow, which technically is Naomi, not Ruth. But I suppose Ruth would be part of the package, since it appears that once a family owned a woman, she was theirs to do with what they wanted. Boaz also told the other man that if he took on all this "property," he would be responsible for maintaining the name of the dead. This would mean he was obligated to produce children for a dead man with the dead man's widow, as in the story of Tamar back in Genesis.
*The other man was unwilling to take this on because of legal implications regarding the property he already owned, probably his current wife and children. So, he took off his sandle and handed it to Boaz, which is said to have been a way of concluding legal transactions in those days. Boaz was told he could buy the "property" himself. Then Boaz reminds the ten elders that they are witnesses and that he now owns the dead men's property, including Ruth. He owns Naomi too, even though the text doesn't say so, which gives her the security of a good home for the rest of her life. The elders agreed to be witnesses of the transaction and gave Boaz a blessing saying may his offspring be famous in Bethlehem and may his family be blessed like that of Perez whom Tamar bore to Judah. Judah was also much older than Tamar (He was her father-in-law and a kind of kinsman redeemer, even if reluctantly.) Of course the author of this story already knew that Boaz's descendant was claimed to be King David. That increases the likelihood that he put these words into the mouths of the witnesses. See, another prophecy conveniently came true! Funny how that works.
*Ruth and Boaz became husband and wife, and Yahweh "enabled" Ruth to concieve. She had a son, because Israelite women seem to disproportionately bear sons. The local women praised Yahweh and blessed Naomi, again prophesying Ruth's son would become famous. Naomi took care of her grandchild like she was its mother. The other women even said, "Naomi has a son." Hopefully Ruth was okay with that. The boy was named Obed, and became the father of Jesse, the father of David.
*Lastly, we are given a geneology from Perez, the Tamar connection, to David. Ten generations from Judah, a son of Israel (Jacob), in Genesis, to David, forefather of the Judahite monarchy. This appears to be problematic. A generation is approximately 22-32 years. We have been told the Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. (Exodus 12:41) David's ancestors from that era would have been Perez, Hezron, Ram, and Aminidab. That is an average generation of 107 years. The time of the judges supposedly lasted at least 350years from scriptures we have read so far. We may find out more later. David's ancestors from that period would have been from Nashon (also mentioned in Numbers 7), Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse. That is an average generation of 70 years. 780 years altogether, at normal human reproduction rate, would have produced at least 25 generations, unless they all took after Abraham and produced children at a very advanced age. What is the likelihood of that?
Tuesday, September 1, 2015
Exodus chapter 6 part 3
*In the clan section we see that:
-Each of Moses's direct ancestors supposedly lived well past 100 years
-Moses and Aaron were from the tribe of Levi. Their mother was their paternal grandfather's sister, therefore also from the tribe of Levi. Levi was the father of Kohath, Moses's grandfather, and Jochebed, Moses's mother. Kohath was the father of Amram, Moses's father. In other words, Moses's father married his own aunt.
-Aaron's wife Elisheba was the daughter of Aminidab and the sister of Nashon. This is very interesting because, if we look ahead to the book of Ruth 4:18-22, which supposedly would have been written hundreds of years later, we see that Aminidab was the great grandson of Perez, the son of Judah by Tamar back in Genesis chapter 38. Nashon was supposedly the great, great, great grandfather of David. The text is anticipating David, surely not a coincidence.
-In 400 years of captivity, there were only four or five generations born, from the children of Jacob to the children of Moses and Aaron.
-My study bible's footnotes say that the ages and generations don't quite work in real time, so there must be an explanation for the discrepancy. Maybe the text doesn't mean what it says and the word father needs to be interpreted loosely. Maybe it really means "ancestor." Except that doesn't quite work either.
-Each of Moses's direct ancestors supposedly lived well past 100 years
-Moses and Aaron were from the tribe of Levi. Their mother was their paternal grandfather's sister, therefore also from the tribe of Levi. Levi was the father of Kohath, Moses's grandfather, and Jochebed, Moses's mother. Kohath was the father of Amram, Moses's father. In other words, Moses's father married his own aunt.
-Aaron's wife Elisheba was the daughter of Aminidab and the sister of Nashon. This is very interesting because, if we look ahead to the book of Ruth 4:18-22, which supposedly would have been written hundreds of years later, we see that Aminidab was the great grandson of Perez, the son of Judah by Tamar back in Genesis chapter 38. Nashon was supposedly the great, great, great grandfather of David. The text is anticipating David, surely not a coincidence.
-In 400 years of captivity, there were only four or five generations born, from the children of Jacob to the children of Moses and Aaron.
-My study bible's footnotes say that the ages and generations don't quite work in real time, so there must be an explanation for the discrepancy. Maybe the text doesn't mean what it says and the word father needs to be interpreted loosely. Maybe it really means "ancestor." Except that doesn't quite work either.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Genesis chapter 49
After reading chapter 49:
*Jacob gathers his sons around to predict their futures, and the futures of their descendants. Reuben will not excel because he slept with his father's slave wife, Bilhah. Simeon and Levi, who killed all the men in Shechem, will be cursed and scattered in Israel. Judah will be a ruler, and is blessed. Zebulon will live by the sea. Issachar will be forced to labor. Dan will provide justice for the tribes of Israel. Gad will be attacked. Asher will be a gourmet. Naphtali will have beautiful offspring. Joseph is given many blessings and called the prince among his brothers. Benjamin is described as a ravenous wolf.
*Here is the first time we encounter symbolic references to the lion of Judah and God as a shepherd and a rock.
*For people, like me, who do not belive in being able to see the future, passages like this are assumed to have been written with hindsight, with knowledge of certain events having already happened. Therefore, it had to have been written some time after the first king of Israel in the lineage of Judah, David. That would be a good 700 years or so after these events.
*Jacob asks his sons to have him buried in the same place as Abrahaham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah, in the cave on land bought from the Hittites. Then he dies.
*Jacob gathers his sons around to predict their futures, and the futures of their descendants. Reuben will not excel because he slept with his father's slave wife, Bilhah. Simeon and Levi, who killed all the men in Shechem, will be cursed and scattered in Israel. Judah will be a ruler, and is blessed. Zebulon will live by the sea. Issachar will be forced to labor. Dan will provide justice for the tribes of Israel. Gad will be attacked. Asher will be a gourmet. Naphtali will have beautiful offspring. Joseph is given many blessings and called the prince among his brothers. Benjamin is described as a ravenous wolf.
*Here is the first time we encounter symbolic references to the lion of Judah and God as a shepherd and a rock.
*For people, like me, who do not belive in being able to see the future, passages like this are assumed to have been written with hindsight, with knowledge of certain events having already happened. Therefore, it had to have been written some time after the first king of Israel in the lineage of Judah, David. That would be a good 700 years or so after these events.
*Jacob asks his sons to have him buried in the same place as Abrahaham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, and Leah, in the cave on land bought from the Hittites. Then he dies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)