Happy New Year! I thought I would take a little detour and look at the twelve apostles in the New Testament before we continue on with Mark.
The twelve apostles and where and when they are clearly located in the bible:
1) *Simon: Mark 1:29-30, Mark 1:36, Luke 4:38, Luke 5:3-5, Luke 5:10 (partner of The sons of Zebedee), Luke 7:40, 43-44, Luke 22:31-32, Luke 24:34, Acts 15:14
*Simon also called Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Matthew 16:16, Matthew 17:25, Mark 3: 16,
Mark 14:37, Luke 5:8, Luke 6:14 , John 1:40-42, John 6:8, John 6:68, John 13:6,9, 24,36, John 18:10,15,25, John 20:2,6, John 21:2, 3,7,11,15, Acts 10:5, 18,19,32, Acts 11:13, 2nd Peter 1:1
*Simon, son of Jonah: Matthew 16:17
*Simon, son of John: John 21:15-17
*Peter: Matthew 8:14, Matthew 14:28-29, Matthew 15:15, Matthew 16:18,22,23, Matthew 17:1,4, 24-26, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 19:27, Matthew 26:33,35,37, 40, 58,69, 73,75, Mark 5:37, Mark 8:29,32,33, Mark 9:2,5, Mark 10:28, Mark 11:21, Mark 13:3, Mark 14:27,29,33,54,66,67,70, 72, Mark 16:7, Luke 8:45,51, Luke 9:20,28, 32,33, Luke 12:41, Luke 18:28, Luke 22:8,34,54,55,58,60, 61, Luke 24:12, John 1:42, 44, (from Bethsaida) John 13:8, 37, John 18:11,16,17,18,26,27, John 20:3, 4, John 21:19-21, Acts 1:13,15, Acts 2:14,37, 38, Acts 3:1,3,4,6,11,12, Acts 4:1,3,7,8,13,19,23, Acts 5:3,8,9,15, 29, Acts 8:14,17,20,25, Acts 9:32,34,38-40,43 Acts 10:9,13,14,16-19, 21,23, 25-27, 34, 44-46, 48, Acts 11:2,4,7, Acts 12:3,5-9,11,13,14,16-18, Acts 15:7, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 2:7,8, 11,14 1st Peter 1:1
*Cephas: John 1:42, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Cor 3:22, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Cor 15:5, Galatians 2:9
The usage of Cephas exclusively in 1st Corinthians, tempts me to think Cephas may not be the same person as Peter. The author of John 1:42, writing long after Paul, may have assumed they were the same person. Since Cephas seems to mean rock and Peter means small stone, Paul could also have been making a translation, a play on words, or a backhanded insult. What I find fishy is that my NIV has replaced the word Cephas in 1 Corinthians 15:5 and Galatians 2:9 with Peter. Galatians is the only place Paul actually uses the word Peter. This is not the first time I have found the KJV to be more honest, much to my chagrin.
Other mentions of people named Simon: Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3 (brother of Jesus), Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3 (Simon the leper), Matthew 27:32, Mark 15:21, Luke 23:26(,Simon of Cyrene), John 6:71, John 13:2, 26(Simon Iscariot, father of Judas), Acts 8:9,13,18, 24(Simon the sorcerer), Acts 9:43, Acts 10:6,17,32,(Simon the tanner)
2) *Andrew brother of Peter: Matthew 4:18, Matthew 10:2, Mark 1:16, Luke 6:4, John 1:40-41, John 6:8,
*Andrew: Mark 1:29, Mark 3:18, Mark 13:3, John 1:44 (from Bethsaida), John 12:22, Acts 1:13
Paul makes no mention of Andrew.
Edited to add:
Read about Peter
Read about Andrew
More to come.
Showing posts with label Galatians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Galatians. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 1, 2019
Friday, November 23, 2018
Heaven part eleven
Are you getting tired of heaven? We aren't done yet but it should go faster because I don't think there is much left that is not redundant. One thing I have noticed is that heaven is thoroughly populated with angels. Angels are not discussed much in the churches of Christ, the faith tradition I came from.
Galations 1:8 says that if an angel from heaven, or anyone else, teaches you a gospel other than the one you learned from Paul, he will be eternally condemned!
Ephesians 3:15 says that god's whole family on earth and in heaven derives its name from him. Ephesians 6:9 says god is everyone's master in heaven. Philippians 3:20 says that a Christ believer's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. Colossians 1:5 says that hope is stored up in heaven for believers. 1Thessalonians tells us believers are waiting for god's son from heaven.
In Hebrews chapter 9, we are introduce to the idea that some earthly things are copies of heavenly things. The copies of the heavenly things were purified with blood sacrifices in an earthly sanctuary, which is a copy of the true heavenly one, by earthly priests. Christ entered the true sanctuary as the heavenly high priest to appear once and for all before god and offer himself as a sacrifice instead of an animal. Basically, everything on earth is supposed to be a kind of analogy, symbol, or shadow of the "real" things, which are in heaven. Believing this could lead to mental problems, in my opinion.
In 1 Peter 1:4, the reader is told an inheritance waits for him in heaven. In 3:22, Jesus is at god's right hand in heaven, with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
At last we move on to Revelation. We should learn some good stuff about heaven there. Maybe? In Rev. 3:12 a new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Chapter 4 has a description of heaven, with a throne, a person on the throne who looked like he was made of jewels, with a jeweled rainbow encircling him. There were also 24 other thrones with 24 elders, dressed in white with crowns on their heads. Lightening and thunder came from the main throne. Seven lamps were burning in front of the throne, these were the seven spirits of god. Whoa! God has seven spirits? That's interesting. Not something you hear every day. There was also a sea of glass in front of the throne. "Around the throne were four living creatures" all covered with eyes. (Heaven is getting crowded) They looked like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle. They each had six wings and the never stopped praising the god who lives forever. Whenever the god was praised the 24 elders fall before the guy on the throne and lay their crowns in front of him. Monotonous.
The description of what goes on in heaven continues on through chapter 5, where we see a scroll, angels, and a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.(The seven eyes are also the seven spirits, just like the lamps.) There is more praising, worshipping, and falling down. In chapter six the lamb does stuff with the seals on the scroll from chapter six. It releases four horsemen, War, famine, Death, and Hades. Under an altar were some dead martyrs who complained they wanted to be avenged. They were given white robes and told to wait a bit. In chapter seven, more stuff happens with angels and people wearing white robes. In chapter 8, there was silence in heaven for half an hour. Then we get more angels, trumpets, thunder, lightening, fire, destruction of earth from heaven. Things go on in this vein until chapter 12 when a woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and 12 stars on her head. A dragon also appears in heaven. He wants to eat the child the woman is about to have. The child was snatched up to god and his throne. Then there was a war in heaven between the angels and the dragon! It turns out the dragon was Satan! He is thrown to earth. As we go on, there are more angels, the lamb, more voices and signs from heaven, more symbolism, chapter after chapter. One thing is clear. We don't learn much, if anything about what heaven will be like for the multitudes of believers after all the battles are over. Yet.
More to come.
Galations 1:8 says that if an angel from heaven, or anyone else, teaches you a gospel other than the one you learned from Paul, he will be eternally condemned!
Ephesians 3:15 says that god's whole family on earth and in heaven derives its name from him. Ephesians 6:9 says god is everyone's master in heaven. Philippians 3:20 says that a Christ believer's citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. Colossians 1:5 says that hope is stored up in heaven for believers. 1Thessalonians tells us believers are waiting for god's son from heaven.
In Hebrews chapter 9, we are introduce to the idea that some earthly things are copies of heavenly things. The copies of the heavenly things were purified with blood sacrifices in an earthly sanctuary, which is a copy of the true heavenly one, by earthly priests. Christ entered the true sanctuary as the heavenly high priest to appear once and for all before god and offer himself as a sacrifice instead of an animal. Basically, everything on earth is supposed to be a kind of analogy, symbol, or shadow of the "real" things, which are in heaven. Believing this could lead to mental problems, in my opinion.
In 1 Peter 1:4, the reader is told an inheritance waits for him in heaven. In 3:22, Jesus is at god's right hand in heaven, with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
At last we move on to Revelation. We should learn some good stuff about heaven there. Maybe? In Rev. 3:12 a new Jerusalem will come down out of heaven. Chapter 4 has a description of heaven, with a throne, a person on the throne who looked like he was made of jewels, with a jeweled rainbow encircling him. There were also 24 other thrones with 24 elders, dressed in white with crowns on their heads. Lightening and thunder came from the main throne. Seven lamps were burning in front of the throne, these were the seven spirits of god. Whoa! God has seven spirits? That's interesting. Not something you hear every day. There was also a sea of glass in front of the throne. "Around the throne were four living creatures" all covered with eyes. (Heaven is getting crowded) They looked like an ox, a lion, a man, and an eagle. They each had six wings and the never stopped praising the god who lives forever. Whenever the god was praised the 24 elders fall before the guy on the throne and lay their crowns in front of him. Monotonous.
The description of what goes on in heaven continues on through chapter 5, where we see a scroll, angels, and a lamb with seven horns and seven eyes.(The seven eyes are also the seven spirits, just like the lamps.) There is more praising, worshipping, and falling down. In chapter six the lamb does stuff with the seals on the scroll from chapter six. It releases four horsemen, War, famine, Death, and Hades. Under an altar were some dead martyrs who complained they wanted to be avenged. They were given white robes and told to wait a bit. In chapter seven, more stuff happens with angels and people wearing white robes. In chapter 8, there was silence in heaven for half an hour. Then we get more angels, trumpets, thunder, lightening, fire, destruction of earth from heaven. Things go on in this vein until chapter 12 when a woman appears in heaven, clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and 12 stars on her head. A dragon also appears in heaven. He wants to eat the child the woman is about to have. The child was snatched up to god and his throne. Then there was a war in heaven between the angels and the dragon! It turns out the dragon was Satan! He is thrown to earth. As we go on, there are more angels, the lamb, more voices and signs from heaven, more symbolism, chapter after chapter. One thing is clear. We don't learn much, if anything about what heaven will be like for the multitudes of believers after all the battles are over. Yet.
More to come.
Thursday, October 19, 2017
Ephesians chapter 3
*Paul begins this section by talking about himself. He calls himself a prisoner of Jesus Christ for the sake of the Gentiles to whom he is writing. It is unclear if prisoner here is literal or figurative, but most of Christendom assumes it to mean Paul is literally a prisoner at this time. He goes on to say God's grace was given to him for them. As in Ephesians, Paul mentions the revelation he recieved. This means he has a special insight into what he calls "the mystery of christ." The mystery can be summed up by saying that through the gospel, the Jews and gentiles are actually members of one body and share in the promise of Jesus Christ.
*God has given Paul, in spite of his unworthiness, the special job of making the mystery plainly known to everyone. In the past this mystery was hidden. God had a plan to make his wisdom known to all the powers on earth and in heaven, through the church. He accomplished his plan through Jesus.
Now anyone who has faith in him can approach god with freedom and confidence.
*This is why Paul prays that the readers might strengthened by the power of the spirit and have christ living in their hearts through faith. He wants them all to know how very much christ loves them. God is able do far more than the could ever ask or imagine and his power is at work in them. To him be the glory forever, Amen.
*Does all this actually mean anything? Not really. Does it change anything? Yes, if you believe it. Then you will have a different attitude regarding your status with Yahweh as compared to the Jews. Now you are supposedly part of the family of Yahweh. That was god's plan all along. Yahweh is no longer an ethnic god or a national god, now he is a universal god. The mystery that he always was a universal god has been revealed through Paul.
*It is very interesting that this letter makes gentile believers equal to Jews and co-heirs. There is no superiority to Jews and no replacing Jews in the Yahweh's affections. They are now one big happy family. Again, this is in direct contrast to the Galatian letter, where the mystery was that the Gentiles were the true heirs of Yahweh and the Jews were his illegitimate children. There the gentiles had the superior position and were not going to share their inheritance with the Jews. Which one is the true doctrine of christianity? There can't have been more than one version of christianity, can there?
*God has given Paul, in spite of his unworthiness, the special job of making the mystery plainly known to everyone. In the past this mystery was hidden. God had a plan to make his wisdom known to all the powers on earth and in heaven, through the church. He accomplished his plan through Jesus.
Now anyone who has faith in him can approach god with freedom and confidence.
*This is why Paul prays that the readers might strengthened by the power of the spirit and have christ living in their hearts through faith. He wants them all to know how very much christ loves them. God is able do far more than the could ever ask or imagine and his power is at work in them. To him be the glory forever, Amen.
*Does all this actually mean anything? Not really. Does it change anything? Yes, if you believe it. Then you will have a different attitude regarding your status with Yahweh as compared to the Jews. Now you are supposedly part of the family of Yahweh. That was god's plan all along. Yahweh is no longer an ethnic god or a national god, now he is a universal god. The mystery that he always was a universal god has been revealed through Paul.
*It is very interesting that this letter makes gentile believers equal to Jews and co-heirs. There is no superiority to Jews and no replacing Jews in the Yahweh's affections. They are now one big happy family. Again, this is in direct contrast to the Galatian letter, where the mystery was that the Gentiles were the true heirs of Yahweh and the Jews were his illegitimate children. There the gentiles had the superior position and were not going to share their inheritance with the Jews. Which one is the true doctrine of christianity? There can't have been more than one version of christianity, can there?
Thursday, May 4, 2017
Galatians wrap up
Whew! I am so glad that is over. Galatians was much more complicated than I had realised. Let's summarize:
The Galatians were gentiles that Paul had taught Jesus worship at one time. Paul got news that they were being influenced by Jews teaching that circumcision was necessary to become children of yahweh. Paul declares, through metaphors, that those who follow the law of Moses aren't the true heirs of the promise, but those that have faith like Abraham are. He compares followers of the law to children born in slavery, turning the conventional understanding of Judaism upside down. Then he declares the Galatians free, by virtue of faith, from a law they were never bound to in the first place.
Paul also gives an account of his conversion that is somewhat different from that depicted in the book of Acts. He tells the Galatians that he learned everything about Jesus from personal revelations through visions, not from mere people, especially not those Jews in Jerusalem, who think they are so special. Throughout the whole book we feel an antipathy towards Judaism. Paul even goes so far as to say that Jews are not children of the promise and will not inherit anything if they don't have faith in the cross of Jesus. Plus, if the Jews are so obsessed with circumcision, Paul says they should go one step further and cut it all off.
Last, Paul explains how to tell the difference between people who live by the sinful nature and those who live by the spirit. Just in case those who live by the spirit slip up, the ones who are more spiritual are to help those backsliders see the true path. Along the way, they must keep a steady eye on themselves as well.
This book does not claim to be the word of a God or gods. It is very one sided. We do not know what the Galatians or the Jews thought of what Paul wrote or taught.
I think the book of Jonah will be a nice change of pace.
The Galatians were gentiles that Paul had taught Jesus worship at one time. Paul got news that they were being influenced by Jews teaching that circumcision was necessary to become children of yahweh. Paul declares, through metaphors, that those who follow the law of Moses aren't the true heirs of the promise, but those that have faith like Abraham are. He compares followers of the law to children born in slavery, turning the conventional understanding of Judaism upside down. Then he declares the Galatians free, by virtue of faith, from a law they were never bound to in the first place.
Paul also gives an account of his conversion that is somewhat different from that depicted in the book of Acts. He tells the Galatians that he learned everything about Jesus from personal revelations through visions, not from mere people, especially not those Jews in Jerusalem, who think they are so special. Throughout the whole book we feel an antipathy towards Judaism. Paul even goes so far as to say that Jews are not children of the promise and will not inherit anything if they don't have faith in the cross of Jesus. Plus, if the Jews are so obsessed with circumcision, Paul says they should go one step further and cut it all off.
Last, Paul explains how to tell the difference between people who live by the sinful nature and those who live by the spirit. Just in case those who live by the spirit slip up, the ones who are more spiritual are to help those backsliders see the true path. Along the way, they must keep a steady eye on themselves as well.
This book does not claim to be the word of a God or gods. It is very one sided. We do not know what the Galatians or the Jews thought of what Paul wrote or taught.
I think the book of Jonah will be a nice change of pace.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
Galatians 6 part 2
*In verse 11 Paul says, "See what large letters I use as I write with my own hand!" This phrase is a non sequiter, stuck in the passage, perhaps to try to prove Paul is the actual author. Other writings ascribed to Paul indicate he had some kind of infirmity or disability. Speculation is that his eyesight was poor.
*Paul returns to the topic of circumcision and continues to discount its proponents. He says they are just circumcised to avoid persecution for identifying with the cross of christ. They don't actually obey the law themselves. The circumcision is a bragging point. Who would brag about being circumcised and why? Well, male Jewish identity was tied to that physical mark. God had given the covenant of circumcision to Abraham as an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:13) The descendants of Abraham were God's chosen people. How could they discern who was part of the in crowd otherwise? It seems kind of strange to think that first century males went around looking to see if their acquantances were circumcised. Who would persecute a man for not being circumcised but proclaiming himself a child of Yahweh? Certainly not a gentile.
*I notice that this letter is not directed to women at all. Women in Judaism had no commanded distinguishing feature to proclaim them as children of Yahweh. Women had no everlasting covenant of any kind. They were just fertile ground in which to plant the male seed. Circumcision was none of their business, thank goodness.
* Paul goes on to say that there aren't really any bragging rights inherent in circumcision. (Even though, as a jew, he is circumcised.) Circumcision doesn't mean anything, according to Paul. His bragging rights are in the cross of Jesus, through which the world has been crucified to Paul, and Paul to the world. (It's all about Paul.) So, because some poor guy got himself crucified, Paul has a right to brag. Paul brags because he believes the guy was crucified on behalf of Paul and Paul was "crucified" to the world, even though Paul never met the guy. He learned all about Jesus from visions, not real world experience. He believed his visions, so everyone else must too. I find it reasonable to wonder if the crucifixion only took place in Paul's head. His writings are the probably the earliest writings of Christianity, the gospels being written later. Is the whole thing a creation of Paul's imagination, through some kind of mental illness or brain anomaly?
*The thing that counts, says Paul, is a new creation. (What is a new creation?) Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule....even to the Israel of God. Okay, even Israelites are right, if they agree with Paul.
*Finally Paul tells them that nobody better mess with him, he bears the marks of Jesus on his body. This is interesting. Is he speaking physically or metaphorically? There are various speculations. My study Bible talks of scars and injuries from stonings and other persecutions. I've also heard it said that Paul bore the stigmata of Jesus's crucifixion. There is no way to know for sure. Like many passages in scripture, this statement is rather cryptic.
*Paul returns to the topic of circumcision and continues to discount its proponents. He says they are just circumcised to avoid persecution for identifying with the cross of christ. They don't actually obey the law themselves. The circumcision is a bragging point. Who would brag about being circumcised and why? Well, male Jewish identity was tied to that physical mark. God had given the covenant of circumcision to Abraham as an everlasting covenant. (Gen. 17:13) The descendants of Abraham were God's chosen people. How could they discern who was part of the in crowd otherwise? It seems kind of strange to think that first century males went around looking to see if their acquantances were circumcised. Who would persecute a man for not being circumcised but proclaiming himself a child of Yahweh? Certainly not a gentile.
*I notice that this letter is not directed to women at all. Women in Judaism had no commanded distinguishing feature to proclaim them as children of Yahweh. Women had no everlasting covenant of any kind. They were just fertile ground in which to plant the male seed. Circumcision was none of their business, thank goodness.
* Paul goes on to say that there aren't really any bragging rights inherent in circumcision. (Even though, as a jew, he is circumcised.) Circumcision doesn't mean anything, according to Paul. His bragging rights are in the cross of Jesus, through which the world has been crucified to Paul, and Paul to the world. (It's all about Paul.) So, because some poor guy got himself crucified, Paul has a right to brag. Paul brags because he believes the guy was crucified on behalf of Paul and Paul was "crucified" to the world, even though Paul never met the guy. He learned all about Jesus from visions, not real world experience. He believed his visions, so everyone else must too. I find it reasonable to wonder if the crucifixion only took place in Paul's head. His writings are the probably the earliest writings of Christianity, the gospels being written later. Is the whole thing a creation of Paul's imagination, through some kind of mental illness or brain anomaly?
*The thing that counts, says Paul, is a new creation. (What is a new creation?) Peace and mercy to all who follow this rule....even to the Israel of God. Okay, even Israelites are right, if they agree with Paul.
*Finally Paul tells them that nobody better mess with him, he bears the marks of Jesus on his body. This is interesting. Is he speaking physically or metaphorically? There are various speculations. My study Bible talks of scars and injuries from stonings and other persecutions. I've also heard it said that Paul bore the stigmata of Jesus's crucifixion. There is no way to know for sure. Like many passages in scripture, this statement is rather cryptic.
Saturday, April 29, 2017
Galatians chapter 6 part 1
*Now that the Galatians know what the acts of the sinful nature are, Paul tells them "if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently." This brings many questions to my mind. Are there spiritual and non spiritual christians? Can a christian lose their spirituality? Is a christian who has lost their spirituality still a christian? How do you get spirituality back, if you have lost it? What if the person can't be restored gently? How do they "carry each others burdens?"
*Next Paul issues warnings to the Galatians to be on guard, lest they are also tempted. They musn't think themselves immune from the sinful nature, just because they are spiritual. Constant vigilance of ones own actions is necessary. "Each one should carry his own load."
*That's quite a load these christians had to carry around, each other's burdens plus their own load. How wearisome and paralyzing that must have been. Surely Paul meant that and wasn't contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Why do I envision a group of people continuously watching each other to see who will slip up first, all the while taking care not to do anything that might draw attention to themselves.
*Next Paul says "anyone who recieves instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor." Let's see, who has just shared instruction in the word? Why you have, Paul. Could it be that you are hinting for a handout?
*Paul goes on to imply that God's no fool, noone can take advantage of hm, people get what they deserve. They "reap what they sow." If someone sows to please the sinful nature, he will reap destruction. If someone sows to please the spirit (like Paul), he will reap eternal life. They shouldn't get tired of doing the right thing (bearing all those burdens), because eventually they will reap eternal life. (After they are dead)
Therefore (it naturally follows), as we have opportunity (like right now), we should do good to all people ( Even the Judiaizing teachers?), especially those who belong to the family of believers (like Paul.) After all, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Eternal life is a curious concept. I wonder if those who desire it actually think about what they are getting. What will there be to do for never ending time? Certainly not any acts of the sinful nature. What will be the use of self control in eternity, if there is nothing to control oneself from doing? Will there be a need for love, kindness, or goodness if no one needs anything? What is the benefit, where is the pleasure, in pure existence?
*Next Paul issues warnings to the Galatians to be on guard, lest they are also tempted. They musn't think themselves immune from the sinful nature, just because they are spiritual. Constant vigilance of ones own actions is necessary. "Each one should carry his own load."
*That's quite a load these christians had to carry around, each other's burdens plus their own load. How wearisome and paralyzing that must have been. Surely Paul meant that and wasn't contradicting himself in the same paragraph. Why do I envision a group of people continuously watching each other to see who will slip up first, all the while taking care not to do anything that might draw attention to themselves.
*Next Paul says "anyone who recieves instruction in the word must share all good things with his instructor." Let's see, who has just shared instruction in the word? Why you have, Paul. Could it be that you are hinting for a handout?
*Paul goes on to imply that God's no fool, noone can take advantage of hm, people get what they deserve. They "reap what they sow." If someone sows to please the sinful nature, he will reap destruction. If someone sows to please the spirit (like Paul), he will reap eternal life. They shouldn't get tired of doing the right thing (bearing all those burdens), because eventually they will reap eternal life. (After they are dead)
Therefore (it naturally follows), as we have opportunity (like right now), we should do good to all people ( Even the Judiaizing teachers?), especially those who belong to the family of believers (like Paul.) After all, everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.
Eternal life is a curious concept. I wonder if those who desire it actually think about what they are getting. What will there be to do for never ending time? Certainly not any acts of the sinful nature. What will be the use of self control in eternity, if there is nothing to control oneself from doing? Will there be a need for love, kindness, or goodness if no one needs anything? What is the benefit, where is the pleasure, in pure existence?
Friday, April 28, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 4
We will finish up the fifth chapter of Galatians with the "fruit of the spirit." The spirit in this passage is capitalized and seems to refer to god, though Paul does not define what the spirit is. If you live by this spirit, you will produce love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control. "Against such things there is no law." Of course not. But what do they have to do with a mystical spirit? There are followers of many religions, and even no religion, who possess many to all of these qualities. Do they have the spirit of god? Then why become a christian?
Paul contrasts this spirit with the "sinful nature." He say those who belong to christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Then why are so many professing Christians found practicing the acts of the sinful nature mentioned previously? Are they not true christians? It seems to be pretty hard to find one of those true christians nowadays. I'm pretty sure many Buddhists exhibit more fruits of the spirit than some of the christians I know.
Paul does some fancy footwork and says, "since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the spirit. Is it possible to live by the spirit and not keep in step with the spirit? I think Paul is really saying, "Get right, church. And don't embarrass me."
Paul contrasts this spirit with the "sinful nature." He say those who belong to christ have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Then why are so many professing Christians found practicing the acts of the sinful nature mentioned previously? Are they not true christians? It seems to be pretty hard to find one of those true christians nowadays. I'm pretty sure many Buddhists exhibit more fruits of the spirit than some of the christians I know.
Paul does some fancy footwork and says, "since we live by the spirit, let us keep in step with the spirit. Is it possible to live by the spirit and not keep in step with the spirit? I think Paul is really saying, "Get right, church. And don't embarrass me."
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 3
We are still looking at the "acts of the sinful nature."
6. Discord: I think this means "does not play well with others," the opposite of being in accord. Discord has to do with whether someone is in agreement or at least has pleasant attitude toward the people they interact with. Of course a person can be in discord with mean people. In that case they would be in the right, unless they are acting just like them. Causing discord can also refer to causing confusion.
7. Jealousy: admittedly an often unhealthy emotion. Wanting what you don't or can't have can lead to harmful behaviors, such as theft, murder, and destruction of other's property. It can lead to your own psychological harm as well, undermining your self esteem, if you place importance on the number, quality, or size of your posessions compared to others. Being possessive of people in your life is another form of jealousy that can do harm to relationships. It's wierd that the bible spends a lot of time saying god is a jealous god. Does god have a sinful nature?
8.Dissensions and factions: these seem to be very similar to causing discord, but in groups or cliques. There are many legitimate reasons to dissent, as we are seeing in the current political climate.
9. Envy: See jealousy.
10. Drunkenness: Surely we all know drunkenness has the potential to do great harm, to one's self and others. Personally, I prize my brain cells too highly to risk destroying any of them. I'm also not fond of feeling nauseated or not in control of my faculties. I don't understand why others might enjoy getting drunk. I missed that part of the "sin nature." However, as long as a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and precautions against harming others, what can anyone say, except to express their own opinion. Notice this passage does not say don't drink at all.
11. Orgies: this is a subject I know very little about and am not particularly interested in. I'm certainly not going to google it. I would think any thing that can be said has already been mentioned in the last post under Sexual immorality.
I think it's strange that Paul does not mention things like lying, theft, murder, rape, abuse, libel, slander, genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks his list covers all the important things in a round about way. He does say that the people who live according to this "sinful nature" will not inherit the kingdom of god. What exactly is the kingdom of god?
The idea of the sinful nature is predicated on the existance of a god who makes rules and has wishes about how things should be done. Ignoring those wishes means getting out of god's grace. Since I don't believe in any gods, I also don't believe in sinning against them. But I think we can sin against our fellow humans, by being hurtful or destructive in a large number of ways. I think we can sin against our selves in a way by self harm or unhealthy behaviors. To some extent that is our own business, untill it affects the well being of others, like second hand cigarette smoke. However, consequences arise naturally, and depend on the circumstances. Life just happens and people behave in ways that people have behaved for millenia. Some people have better luck, some people have better genes, some people have better self control, some people learn how to change the behaviors they want to change.
I'm not sure I covered this topic adequately but we will move on to the "fruit of the spirit" tomorrow.
6. Discord: I think this means "does not play well with others," the opposite of being in accord. Discord has to do with whether someone is in agreement or at least has pleasant attitude toward the people they interact with. Of course a person can be in discord with mean people. In that case they would be in the right, unless they are acting just like them. Causing discord can also refer to causing confusion.
7. Jealousy: admittedly an often unhealthy emotion. Wanting what you don't or can't have can lead to harmful behaviors, such as theft, murder, and destruction of other's property. It can lead to your own psychological harm as well, undermining your self esteem, if you place importance on the number, quality, or size of your posessions compared to others. Being possessive of people in your life is another form of jealousy that can do harm to relationships. It's wierd that the bible spends a lot of time saying god is a jealous god. Does god have a sinful nature?
8.Dissensions and factions: these seem to be very similar to causing discord, but in groups or cliques. There are many legitimate reasons to dissent, as we are seeing in the current political climate.
9. Envy: See jealousy.
10. Drunkenness: Surely we all know drunkenness has the potential to do great harm, to one's self and others. Personally, I prize my brain cells too highly to risk destroying any of them. I'm also not fond of feeling nauseated or not in control of my faculties. I don't understand why others might enjoy getting drunk. I missed that part of the "sin nature." However, as long as a person takes personal responsibility for their actions and precautions against harming others, what can anyone say, except to express their own opinion. Notice this passage does not say don't drink at all.
11. Orgies: this is a subject I know very little about and am not particularly interested in. I'm certainly not going to google it. I would think any thing that can be said has already been mentioned in the last post under Sexual immorality.
I think it's strange that Paul does not mention things like lying, theft, murder, rape, abuse, libel, slander, genocide, slavery, and other crimes against humanity. Maybe he thinks his list covers all the important things in a round about way. He does say that the people who live according to this "sinful nature" will not inherit the kingdom of god. What exactly is the kingdom of god?
The idea of the sinful nature is predicated on the existance of a god who makes rules and has wishes about how things should be done. Ignoring those wishes means getting out of god's grace. Since I don't believe in any gods, I also don't believe in sinning against them. But I think we can sin against our fellow humans, by being hurtful or destructive in a large number of ways. I think we can sin against our selves in a way by self harm or unhealthy behaviors. To some extent that is our own business, untill it affects the well being of others, like second hand cigarette smoke. However, consequences arise naturally, and depend on the circumstances. Life just happens and people behave in ways that people have behaved for millenia. Some people have better luck, some people have better genes, some people have better self control, some people learn how to change the behaviors they want to change.
I'm not sure I covered this topic adequately but we will move on to the "fruit of the spirit" tomorrow.
Friday, April 21, 2017
Galatians chapter 5 part 2
*So, Paul says, "live by the spirit." Define this spirit for us Paul. Is this the holy spirit? According to Paul, we have this thing called a "sinful nature" that desires what is contrary to the spirit. The sinful nature amd the spirit are in conflict with each other and keep you from doing what you want. This is kind of confusing. Do we want to do good things and are stopped by our sinful nature? Or does the sinful nature make us want to do bad things and we are stopped by the spirit? Paul says if the Galatians are led by this mysterious spirit, they are not under law. Well, Paul, they weren't under law to begin with. They were Gentiles! Me thinks Paul spends a lot of time projecting.
*Next, Paul lists "the acts of the sinful nature:"
1.Sexual immorality: Is this not following the sexual mores laid out by god in the biblical law, or not following the sexual mores laid out in culture? Those were/are often two very different things. How were the Galatians to know what Paul considered sexual immorality? Surely not by the law of moses, which he rejects? Sexual mores are complicated, even today. Humanists have tried to come up with a priciple that could work across cultures. It is the basic idea that whatever happens between consenting adults, and does not cause unwanted harm is their own business. The key words being consenting and adult.
2.Impurity: What is impurity anyway? Is that the same thing as uncleanness? Is it defined by the law? If it is, why should we worry about it?
3. Debauchery: According to Google, this means excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Maybe addictions to drugs, food, drink, sex? I would venture to say that it is unhealthy to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure, but part of the "sinful nature" in us? Not every one is susceptible to that kind of thing. Does that mean some of us don't have sinful natures? The only thing I am personally prone to over indulge in is chocolate. Blast those Aztecs! Actually, today, science has found that this kind of thing is a result of chemicals working in our brain to make us feel good. Everything that makes us feel good is a result of evolutionary biology. Man found ways to harness and concentrate those chemicals even before he knew that's what he was doing. When life is harsh and unpleasant, feel good remedies become something to live for, for some people. Some people seem to have biologically addictive natures, others don't. There are ways to deal with addictions that don't shame by calling the person sinful. Of course, those who are destructive or harmful because of their addictions must be restrained by society in some way, for the safety of the rest of us. But care must be taken to treat them humanely.
4. Idolatry and witchcraft: make believe and nonsense. The harm these do is all in how they make their adherents treat other people. If the adherents do no bodily or psychological harm to people or property, there is no reason to care what they practice. Many of the modern versions are quite harmless and even pleasantly benevolent. It can be quite pleasant to think of the world and the way things work as though they are magical in some way, but it can also be quite scary. Sinful nature though? How can something that must be learned or imagined be part of our nature?
5. Hatred: hatred is such an all encompassing word for feelings of ill will toward others. I believe it must be learned and is not part of our nature. For much of my life, I could not understand hatred. I guess that shows how lucky I have been in my life. I didn't know if it was possible for me to hate until about a decade ago when I was watching "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time. I felt such a burning disgust at the mean character Mr. Potter that it overwhelmed me. I realized that was hatred. I can't watch that movie any more. I know now that I am capable of hatred, especially in the presence of injustice. Is that a bad thing? I hear christians saying they hate the devil, but that appears to be acceptable hatred. In fact they seem to be permitted to hate the "acts of the sinful nature" in this list as well. Funny. It appears that hate may be complicated. Maybe we should measure its harm by how destructive it is. Some hatreds may have the power to cause people to act for the betterment of humanity. Some obviously do not. I think all hatred is based in fear, justified or not.
To be continued:
*Next, Paul lists "the acts of the sinful nature:"
1.Sexual immorality: Is this not following the sexual mores laid out by god in the biblical law, or not following the sexual mores laid out in culture? Those were/are often two very different things. How were the Galatians to know what Paul considered sexual immorality? Surely not by the law of moses, which he rejects? Sexual mores are complicated, even today. Humanists have tried to come up with a priciple that could work across cultures. It is the basic idea that whatever happens between consenting adults, and does not cause unwanted harm is their own business. The key words being consenting and adult.
2.Impurity: What is impurity anyway? Is that the same thing as uncleanness? Is it defined by the law? If it is, why should we worry about it?
3. Debauchery: According to Google, this means excessive indulgence in sensual pleasures. Maybe addictions to drugs, food, drink, sex? I would venture to say that it is unhealthy to excessively indulge in sensual pleasure, but part of the "sinful nature" in us? Not every one is susceptible to that kind of thing. Does that mean some of us don't have sinful natures? The only thing I am personally prone to over indulge in is chocolate. Blast those Aztecs! Actually, today, science has found that this kind of thing is a result of chemicals working in our brain to make us feel good. Everything that makes us feel good is a result of evolutionary biology. Man found ways to harness and concentrate those chemicals even before he knew that's what he was doing. When life is harsh and unpleasant, feel good remedies become something to live for, for some people. Some people seem to have biologically addictive natures, others don't. There are ways to deal with addictions that don't shame by calling the person sinful. Of course, those who are destructive or harmful because of their addictions must be restrained by society in some way, for the safety of the rest of us. But care must be taken to treat them humanely.
4. Idolatry and witchcraft: make believe and nonsense. The harm these do is all in how they make their adherents treat other people. If the adherents do no bodily or psychological harm to people or property, there is no reason to care what they practice. Many of the modern versions are quite harmless and even pleasantly benevolent. It can be quite pleasant to think of the world and the way things work as though they are magical in some way, but it can also be quite scary. Sinful nature though? How can something that must be learned or imagined be part of our nature?
5. Hatred: hatred is such an all encompassing word for feelings of ill will toward others. I believe it must be learned and is not part of our nature. For much of my life, I could not understand hatred. I guess that shows how lucky I have been in my life. I didn't know if it was possible for me to hate until about a decade ago when I was watching "It's a Wonderful Life" at Christmas time. I felt such a burning disgust at the mean character Mr. Potter that it overwhelmed me. I realized that was hatred. I can't watch that movie any more. I know now that I am capable of hatred, especially in the presence of injustice. Is that a bad thing? I hear christians saying they hate the devil, but that appears to be acceptable hatred. In fact they seem to be permitted to hate the "acts of the sinful nature" in this list as well. Funny. It appears that hate may be complicated. Maybe we should measure its harm by how destructive it is. Some hatreds may have the power to cause people to act for the betterment of humanity. Some obviously do not. I think all hatred is based in fear, justified or not.
To be continued:
Friday, April 14, 2017
Galatians chapter 4 part 2
*In verses 21-31, Paul is trying to redeem his metaphor of God and God's relationship to the jews and gentiles by comparing it to Abraham's relationship to his two sons, born of Sarah and Hagar. Hagar was a slave, Sarah was a free woman. Abraham's son by Hagar was "born in the ordinary way." That is Abraham consented to have sex with his wife's slave, at his wife's urging. Whether the slave consented doesn't enter into the matter. The child that was born would have been a slave also. The children of slave women, even by their masters, were slaves. This has been a fact of slavery even up to the age of American enslavement of Africans. Let's be clear, "Biblical slavery" was not any different than the slavery that was fought against in more modern times. It certainly wasn't a kinder more humane slavery. Slaves were only treated as well as their masters wanted to treat them.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
*According to Paul, Sarah's son was not born in the ordinary way, but was born as the result of a promise. Well, folks, in case you didn't know, there is only one way for children to be born. That is pretty ordinary, promise or no promise. Abraham was a man. Sarah was a woman. If they actually lived and had a child, he was born in the ordinary way. What did god do to cause this birth? Guide the sperm to the right egg? Produce a one time egg in a dried up old woman? Let's not forget that Sarah was ninety years old and have a little chuckle at the thought. Human female fertility ends well before the age of sixty. If I found out I was pregnant at ninety, I would probably die from the shock. I would probably die laughing if a 100 year old man tried to have sex with me when I am 90.
*Paul says, in a round about way, that his metaphor is equating the children of the slave woman Hagar with the present day Israelites, who are children of the covenant friom Mount Sinai (the law of Moses). This is how the metaphor works so far: Abraham= father/god. Hagar= Slave Mother/Mount Sinai/Jerusalem. Hagar's children=Jews/slave children born in the ordinary way. This is turning the tables on the Israelite identity. The Israelites banked on being the legitimate children of god and Abraham, the children of the promise. Paul is saying that may have been the physical reality, but not the spiritual one. I'm sure this did not go over well with the Jews.
*Paul goes on to say that there is a "Jerusalem that is above" that is free. If you follow the metaphor, Sarah=Free (non-slave) mother/spiritual Jerusalem. Isaac=Galatian christians/ gentile christians/ all christians/ children of promise born by the power of the spirit. In the Abrahamic story, the son born in the ordinary way persecuted the son born by the power of the spirit. "It is the same now." Wow. Is Paul actually saying the Jews are persecuting the christians? Well, he did it himself once, didn't he? (Gal. 1:13) Wait. It gets even more interesting.
*Paul goes on to ask, "What does the scripture say?" Then he claims scripture says," Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son" (!!!) It's true. Genesis 21:10 does say this. It is Sarah speaking, not God. Paul knows this. He goes on to say "we" (christians) are not children of the slave woman but of the free woman. Do you realize what Paul is implying here, in light of his extended metaphor? Spiritual Jerusalem (Sarah) advocates getting rid of physical Jerusalem's (Hagar's) children (the jews) in favor of her own children (christians.) He says the slave woman's son (Jews) will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son (christians.)
I'm blown away by today's reading. This is something I never heard in church. Sure we read this passage, but it was usually not dissected the way I've done here. Hagar was usually associated with every non believer, not just Jews. But I think it is quite clear that Paul is advocating a complete separation with Judaism, even going so far as to say Jews will not recieve the promised inheritance. We haven't been told what that inheritance is yet, but maybe that is to come.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Galatians chapter 4
After reading chapter 4:
*Verses 1-7. Paul says that Galatians previously had the status of children who have not reached the age of inheritance. Under aged children are still like slaves to their father. (In that day and age) So the Galatians were like slaves under the basic principles of the world. Time passed and god sent his son, "born of a woman, born under law" to redeem those under the law (the Jews) that they might recieve the full rights as sons. To me, the analogy breaks down here because children don't need to be redeemed by other children to inherit from ther fathers. It happens naturally. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, here we see god as the father and an unnamed human mother as parents of "the son." Paul never names Jesus's mother in any of his writings.
*After the son redeemed the slaves/children (which are they?), they became the recipients of the full rights as sons (of god). Because the Galatians are sons of god, (when did that happen?), god sent the spirit of his son into their hearts. Now they are no longer slaves but sons and heirs. Aren't sons still sons/heirs even when they are underage? This whole metaphor feels leaky: A child is like slave-- you were like children-- therefore you were slaves, not sons. Someone, who was a son, redeemed you and you became sons too. Because you are now a real son, now can you call god your daddy (abba). Now god will make you his heir. Of what?
Plus is Paul talking Jews, Gentiles, or both, in these passages?
*Verses 8-11 seem to be clearly speaking to gentile Galatians. He talks about when they previously participated in non-Yahweh religious practices, observing special days, presumably pagan rituals. Paul says they were once enslaved by their old practices, do they want to go back to that lifestyle? Maybe they did. Maybe it didn't feel like slavery to them. Religious syncretism was a common thing. Paul wonders if he has wasted his time and effort on them.
*In verse 12, Paul begs them to become like him because he became like them. He was very ill when he was in that part of the world and they took extra good care of him. So he preached the gospel to them while he was there. Apparently they recieved it with joy (or they were humoring him.) They May have just been really nice people that would have listened to anyone's stories of religious salvation. We don't have the Galatian's side of the story.
*Paul complains about the people who are trying to teach the Galatians different things than Paul did. Those nice Galatians appear to be willing to go along with the newcomer's teachings, too. He doesn't want the Galatians to be zealous for their teachings but for his teachings instead. The other teachings are "for no good." Paul is confused and wishes he were there to sort things out. He implies that christ is not fully formed in them, and it's causing him pain for them like a mother giving birth to her children. So, Paul thinks of the Galatians as his children in the faith, and he wants them to be obedient to him.
Edited.
*Verses 1-7. Paul says that Galatians previously had the status of children who have not reached the age of inheritance. Under aged children are still like slaves to their father. (In that day and age) So the Galatians were like slaves under the basic principles of the world. Time passed and god sent his son, "born of a woman, born under law" to redeem those under the law (the Jews) that they might recieve the full rights as sons. To me, the analogy breaks down here because children don't need to be redeemed by other children to inherit from ther fathers. It happens naturally. Maybe I'm missing something. Also, here we see god as the father and an unnamed human mother as parents of "the son." Paul never names Jesus's mother in any of his writings.
*After the son redeemed the slaves/children (which are they?), they became the recipients of the full rights as sons (of god). Because the Galatians are sons of god, (when did that happen?), god sent the spirit of his son into their hearts. Now they are no longer slaves but sons and heirs. Aren't sons still sons/heirs even when they are underage? This whole metaphor feels leaky: A child is like slave-- you were like children-- therefore you were slaves, not sons. Someone, who was a son, redeemed you and you became sons too. Because you are now a real son, now can you call god your daddy (abba). Now god will make you his heir. Of what?
Plus is Paul talking Jews, Gentiles, or both, in these passages?
*Verses 8-11 seem to be clearly speaking to gentile Galatians. He talks about when they previously participated in non-Yahweh religious practices, observing special days, presumably pagan rituals. Paul says they were once enslaved by their old practices, do they want to go back to that lifestyle? Maybe they did. Maybe it didn't feel like slavery to them. Religious syncretism was a common thing. Paul wonders if he has wasted his time and effort on them.
*In verse 12, Paul begs them to become like him because he became like them. He was very ill when he was in that part of the world and they took extra good care of him. So he preached the gospel to them while he was there. Apparently they recieved it with joy (or they were humoring him.) They May have just been really nice people that would have listened to anyone's stories of religious salvation. We don't have the Galatian's side of the story.
*Paul complains about the people who are trying to teach the Galatians different things than Paul did. Those nice Galatians appear to be willing to go along with the newcomer's teachings, too. He doesn't want the Galatians to be zealous for their teachings but for his teachings instead. The other teachings are "for no good." Paul is confused and wishes he were there to sort things out. He implies that christ is not fully formed in them, and it's causing him pain for them like a mother giving birth to her children. So, Paul thinks of the Galatians as his children in the faith, and he wants them to be obedient to him.
Edited.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 4
*Now we finish the chapter, starting at verse 26. The Jews have been released from the prison of the law, what about everyone else? Now, Paul says, every single person who has faith in christ is a child of god. Everyone who has been baptized has clothed themselves with christ. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female." Paul is saying that distinctions of ethnicity, social status, and gender don't matter. "If you belong to christ, you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise."
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
*There Is a question I have now that may be answered in the rest of Galatians. We'll see.
What are christians heirs of, exactly? What is this promise, this inheritance? So far, we have not had an explanation of this in Galatians. Look back to god's promises to Abraham in Genesis 12, 15, 17. They are: Abraham will have many descendants, his descendants will be given the land of Canaan, and El/yahweh would be his god. That's basically it in a nutshell. There is never any mention of any christ figure, any punishment for sin with redemption, or any eternal life package. Christians obviously didn't inherit the land of Canaan. But they did inherit Yahweh as their god. Yahweh used to be a one nation god, but now he is not. Is that what Paul means?
In Genesis 12:2-3 god says to Abraham, "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Is that the promise Paul is referring to? Is he saying christians will be a blessing to the world and that whoever blesses them will be blessed, and whoever curses them will be cursed?
*Also, about "Abraham's seed." Paul claimed the word seed meant one person- christ. Now he is using the word seed to mean all the people who believe in the christ. Paul is playing fast and loose with his definitions, isn't he? We can't fault him too much. The whole Bible plays with words right and left, using puns, innuendoes, metaphors and similes, and alternate meanings. Paul is just following in the path of those that have gone before. It wouldn't matter, if the Bible was just literature. But, if we are supposed to take it as a guide to reality, we should be able to pin down exactly what is meant.
*It's interesting that this passage clearly supports baptism as essential to being "clothed with christ." That is one of the fundamental teachings of the church I belonged to. It is one teaching of theirs that I would say follows what the bible actually teaches. Too bad, I don't believe the bible has any real authority to tell anybody anything.
*I still don't get why the gentiles need faith in Jesus to become god's children. Why can't they go the direct route like Abraham and just have faith in god. It would be less complicated. Still, that would not make it more true.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 Part 3
*We have reached the last part of verse 19 where the author says the law was put into effect through angels by a mediator (Moses?). Frankly, I don't understand verse 20, but my study bible claims it means the law was a contract between god and the Israelites, but god's promise to Abraham was one sided and needed no mediator. According to Paul, this does not make the law opposed to the promise because the law that was given was not capable of imparting life or righteousness.
*Next, Paul says scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin. Pause. When the New Testament writers talk about "scripture" they are referring to what we know as the books of the Old Testament, probably those included the Septuagint. The Bible as we know it today did not exist. The Septuagint also had more books than our modern Protestant Old Testament. I am not familiar with those books deemed unsuitable for the modern protestant versions. They may very well have a passage that states the whole world is a prisoner of sin. My Bible does not. However, there are numerous passages in Isaiah and Psalms that refer, in poetry and metaphor, to prisoners and captives being freed by god and/or his special servant. After reviewing many of them, it seems clear that the writer of Galatians most likely derived his Jesus theology from these kinds of passages.
*I'm going to do some armchair psychology here and say that I suspect Paul felt himself to be a prisoner of sin, because of his own attempts to follow the law of Moses to the nth degree, and finding himself incapable of doing so. Maybe he visited the temple and saw the floors running with the blood of the never ending sacrifices. The priest's garments would have been spattered with blood and gore. So much death. And some of it was because of him. Being an intelligent guy, he eventually figured out there was no way anyone could win at that game. (Just like Tic Tac Toe and Thermo-nuclear War) Also being psychologically incapable of declaring the law to be a farce, he had to come up with some reason god had imposed the law upon the Israelites. He also had to discover god's plan for the future, because god surely wouldn't leave people in that sorry state of being prisoners to the law forever. Couldn't god come up with a way to "fulfill" that bloody law of sacrifice for sin, once and for all? Paul must have seriously obsessed over this dilemma before he had his visionary revelation of Jesus.
Could his supposed vision have been influence by passages like Psalm 42 which talks about making god's servant "a covenant for the people and a light for the gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to free the captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."
*Paul says,"Before this faith came, we (Jews) were held prisoners by the law, locked up untl the faith should be revealed." To whom was it revealed? Paul! Trust him. The law was put in charge to lead them to christ that they might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come (back), they are no longer under the supervision of the law. It can't be wrong, he had a personal revelation.
Edited.
*I'm going to do some armchair psychology here and say that I suspect Paul felt himself to be a prisoner of sin, because of his own attempts to follow the law of Moses to the nth degree, and finding himself incapable of doing so. Maybe he visited the temple and saw the floors running with the blood of the never ending sacrifices. The priest's garments would have been spattered with blood and gore. So much death. And some of it was because of him. Being an intelligent guy, he eventually figured out there was no way anyone could win at that game. (Just like Tic Tac Toe and Thermo-nuclear War) Also being psychologically incapable of declaring the law to be a farce, he had to come up with some reason god had imposed the law upon the Israelites. He also had to discover god's plan for the future, because god surely wouldn't leave people in that sorry state of being prisoners to the law forever. Couldn't god come up with a way to "fulfill" that bloody law of sacrifice for sin, once and for all? Paul must have seriously obsessed over this dilemma before he had his visionary revelation of Jesus.
Could his supposed vision have been influence by passages like Psalm 42 which talks about making god's servant "a covenant for the people and a light for the gentiles, to open the eyes of the blind, to free the captives from prison, and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness."
*Paul says,"Before this faith came, we (Jews) were held prisoners by the law, locked up untl the faith should be revealed." To whom was it revealed? Paul! Trust him. The law was put in charge to lead them to christ that they might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come (back), they are no longer under the supervision of the law. It can't be wrong, he had a personal revelation.
Edited.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 2
*After the last post, I began to think: If Gentiles were not under the law of Moses, and they were not required to be, then the law's curse never applied to them. Since Jesus became cursed to remove the curse from the law. why did Gentiles even need him? In Galatians chapter 3:14, Paul basically says Christ redeemed the Jews so that the blessing of the spirit that was given to Abraham, because of his faith, could also be given to the Gentiles, if they have faith in that christ. The writer of Galatians seems to be saying Christianity is a movement by god to open up membersip in his fan club and make it all inclusive. However, to be a member, you need to understand that the Jews (descendants of Abraham) had exclusive membership first, through God's promise to Abraham, then through the laws of Moses. The Jew's terms of membership through the law have been voided by this Jesus guy. The new membership rules require an understanding that the old membership rules are defunct, and a belief that Jesus made them defunct. Faith in him is the new requirement for anyone who wants to recieve "the promise of the spirit." Whatever that is.
*Another question that constantly arises in my mind is: What was the exact historical moment when this belief in Jesus as the redeemer of the curse of the law was required in order to be part of Yahweh's entourage? That's pretty hard to pin down. What happens to all those billions of people, before and after that historic moment who were completely clueless about Yahweh and/or his requirements?
* Moving on to verse 15 and following: Here Paul does some verbal gymnastics to explain how this faith in Jesus requirement works. Contracts are binding, human ones and god ones. El/Yahweh made a contract with Abraham. The contract contained promises to Abraham and his "seed." In spite of linguistic conventions and common usage that denotes "seed" as a collective singular meaning all descendants, Paul says, "Look, seed is singular, not plural. Therefore it is actually talking about a single descendant. That single descendant was one person, christ." Hooray for logic! Thanks, Paul, for clearing that up. We (literally) would not have known that, if not for you.
*Next, Paul says, "430 years after Abraham, Yahweh made another contract, the law. The previous contract and its promise was still valid though. The inheritance (?) didn't depend on the law contract, but on the one that came before it, the Abrahamic contract. " What on earth was the purpose of the law then? "I'm glad you asked," says Paul. "Let me 'splain. The law was added because of transgressions (If there was no law, what was being transgressed?) until the Seed (capitalized now) to whom the promise had referred (says you) had come."
To be continued.
Most of the dialog in quotes here is my paraphrasing.
*Another question that constantly arises in my mind is: What was the exact historical moment when this belief in Jesus as the redeemer of the curse of the law was required in order to be part of Yahweh's entourage? That's pretty hard to pin down. What happens to all those billions of people, before and after that historic moment who were completely clueless about Yahweh and/or his requirements?
* Moving on to verse 15 and following: Here Paul does some verbal gymnastics to explain how this faith in Jesus requirement works. Contracts are binding, human ones and god ones. El/Yahweh made a contract with Abraham. The contract contained promises to Abraham and his "seed." In spite of linguistic conventions and common usage that denotes "seed" as a collective singular meaning all descendants, Paul says, "Look, seed is singular, not plural. Therefore it is actually talking about a single descendant. That single descendant was one person, christ." Hooray for logic! Thanks, Paul, for clearing that up. We (literally) would not have known that, if not for you.
*Next, Paul says, "430 years after Abraham, Yahweh made another contract, the law. The previous contract and its promise was still valid though. The inheritance (?) didn't depend on the law contract, but on the one that came before it, the Abrahamic contract. " What on earth was the purpose of the law then? "I'm glad you asked," says Paul. "Let me 'splain. The law was added because of transgressions (If there was no law, what was being transgressed?) until the Seed (capitalized now) to whom the promise had referred (says you) had come."
To be continued.
Most of the dialog in quotes here is my paraphrasing.
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
Galatians chapter 3 part 1
After a few detours, we are back in Galatians at chapter 3:
*Here Paul is berating the Galatians. He says they recieved the "spirit" by believing about the crucifiction of Jesus as it was portrayed when they heard it, probably from Paul, who never encountered the living Jesus, except through visions. They recieved the spirit and witnessed miracles not because they observed the law, but because they believed. Here, and in most of christianity, belief is the supreme virtue, even above any moral acts.
*Abraham is given as the epitome of righteousness obtained through belief, and anyone who believes is a metaphorical child of Abraham. Paul says everyone who relies on observing the law is under a curse because it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Deut 26:27, Jer. 11:3) Well, Paul, technically that means you and your gentile friends are cursed. To counter that, Paul also quotes Habbakuk 2:4 which according to Paul says "the righteous will live by faith." Looking back at that verse in Habbakuk, I find a footnote that says this passage could also say "the righteous will live by Faithfulness." Faith and Faithfulness are two different things. The first cognitive the second active, comparable to the difference between belief and ongoing obedience. One word that could send Paul's argument down the drain. Abraham didn't have to worry about the curse under the law because it didn't exist yet.
*Next Paul says Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deut. 21:23) Well it seems to me that being crucified is not the same as being hung. I guess it doesn't matter because it's still on a piece of wood. What about all the other innocent people who were hung or crucified, were they cursed for our sake? How does that work? We are cursed by not following the law properly, then we are not cursed because Jesus was cursed for us, then we are cursed for trying to follow the law anyway? I think Paul is trying to say that Jesus's crucifixion nullified the law and its curse, essentially rolling back to before there was a law, when Faith was the supreme virtue. But then he wants to claim that curse still holds if you don't believe in Jesus crucified.
*Abraham, if he existed, didn't believe in Jesus, he believed in El/Yahweh. Can a person just believe in that and be free from the curse of the law? It seems that Paul says you have to actually believe there was a redeemer of the curse for the nullification of the curse to work. It's like your mind flicks an invisible curse switch. Otherwise, you're toast.
*Here Paul is berating the Galatians. He says they recieved the "spirit" by believing about the crucifiction of Jesus as it was portrayed when they heard it, probably from Paul, who never encountered the living Jesus, except through visions. They recieved the spirit and witnessed miracles not because they observed the law, but because they believed. Here, and in most of christianity, belief is the supreme virtue, even above any moral acts.
*Abraham is given as the epitome of righteousness obtained through belief, and anyone who believes is a metaphorical child of Abraham. Paul says everyone who relies on observing the law is under a curse because it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." (Deut 26:27, Jer. 11:3) Well, Paul, technically that means you and your gentile friends are cursed. To counter that, Paul also quotes Habbakuk 2:4 which according to Paul says "the righteous will live by faith." Looking back at that verse in Habbakuk, I find a footnote that says this passage could also say "the righteous will live by Faithfulness." Faith and Faithfulness are two different things. The first cognitive the second active, comparable to the difference between belief and ongoing obedience. One word that could send Paul's argument down the drain. Abraham didn't have to worry about the curse under the law because it didn't exist yet.
*Next Paul says Christ redeemed us from the law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written, "cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." (Deut. 21:23) Well it seems to me that being crucified is not the same as being hung. I guess it doesn't matter because it's still on a piece of wood. What about all the other innocent people who were hung or crucified, were they cursed for our sake? How does that work? We are cursed by not following the law properly, then we are not cursed because Jesus was cursed for us, then we are cursed for trying to follow the law anyway? I think Paul is trying to say that Jesus's crucifixion nullified the law and its curse, essentially rolling back to before there was a law, when Faith was the supreme virtue. But then he wants to claim that curse still holds if you don't believe in Jesus crucified.
*Abraham, if he existed, didn't believe in Jesus, he believed in El/Yahweh. Can a person just believe in that and be free from the curse of the law? It seems that Paul says you have to actually believe there was a redeemer of the curse for the nullification of the curse to work. It's like your mind flicks an invisible curse switch. Otherwise, you're toast.
Friday, January 13, 2017
Galatians chapter 2 part 2
*Starting in verse 11 we learn that Peter had been in Antioch with Paul, had been eating with the Gentiles, and had been living like a gentile. In Acts, Peter is not said to have ever been to Antioch, indeed never very far from Jerusalem. In Acts 10, we find a story of Peter experiencing a vision from God which makes it clear that "God accepts men from every nation" including their eating habits. Then Peter goes to Jerusalem and explains his vision to the apostles and other believers. The "circumcised believers" drop all objections to accepting Gentiles. They praise God, saying "So, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18) That sounds like the gentile question is settled, right? This supposedly takes place before Paul and Barnabus go to
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Jerusalem in Galatians.
*It is also interesting to note that Acts has Paul and Barnabus travelling to Jerusalem once before the circumcision question arose, in order to take money to the saints in Judea as famine relief during the time of Claudius, which had supposedly been prophesied in Antioch by a man named Agabus. (Acts 11:27-30) while writing Galatians, Paul seems to have forgotten that he had been to Jerusalem with Barnabus before.
*Getting back to Galatians, we see Paul saying that while Peter was in Antioch "certain men came from James." When these Jews arrived, Peter separated himself from the gentiles and attached himself to the Jews because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. Other Jews, and even Barnabas followed Peter's example. Paul rebuked Peter for his hypocrisy in front of everyone. Why was this even an issue if the passages in Acts 11 about Peter's vision and the Jerusalem Jews acceptance of the gentiles is true? Are these men from James the false brothers that Paul mentions in verse 4? And which James is this? In Acts 12, James the brother of John was executed, some time before the circumcision debacle and the following council in Jerusalem, found in Acts 15. Acts has Peter being bold and visionary, a friend and advocate of the Gentiles. Paul in Galatians has Peter being wishy-washy. There, Paul is the true friend and advocate of the Gentiles.
*The rest of the chapter, presented as part of Paul's speech rebuking Peter, is a doctrinal statement. Paul says no one will be justified by observing the law (of moses). Justification is by faith in Christ Jesus. But what is justification, and why is it necessary? Apparently, there are differing opinions on the subject, but they all seem to center around being made "righteous," after some kind of recognition that every individual is a sinner. Then we have to define righteous, which is another kettle of fish. Basically, we will think of it as unsinful.
*Verse 19 says,"through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Huh? Verse 20 begins a passage that has been familiarized in christian songs as a kind of mantra. " I have been crucified with Christ (?) and I no longer live, but christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." I think it is normal to question Paul's sanity here. Is he speaking metaphorically, or does he believe that Jesus actually lives inside him? Is he speaking for himself or suggesting that this is the case for all believers? Remember that the only knowledge of Jesus that Paul claimed to have was through personal revelation by visions and disembodied voices.
*Last, Paul says he does not set aside the grace of God (christianese for a gift of mercy that you don't deserve), for if a state of unsinfulness could be reached by the law, christ died for nothing. Weeeellll.
First of all, you have assume that there is such a thing as a state of sinfulness to begin with. Then you have to believe that the death of a god born by a woman can fix that somehow. Of course, you must first believe that gods born by women can exist and that their deaths have the power to cancel out sins. Then you have to believe that one actually died. But, yeah, if a dude named Jesus died for the sins of the world, it may have been for nothing.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Galatians chapter 2, part 1
After reading chapter 2:
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
*The chapter starts with the words "Fourteen years later." Depending on Paul's intended starting date, his first revelation of Jesus or last visit to Jerusalem, it is 14-17 years from the time he was "converted" and started preaching to Gentiles. Remember, in chapter 1 he claims not to have had any personal contact with the churches in Judea, except for Peter and James, contrary to what we read in the Acts accounts. Now, he has had another revelation telling him to go to Jerusalem to privately tell the leaders (of the church?) what he was preaching to the Gentiles, hoping to be validated. Apparently, he had some doubts. He took Barnabus and Titus along.
*Titus was an uncircumcised Greek. This apparently had been an issue raised by what Paul calls "false brothers" who wanted to "make them slaves", presumably to the law of moses. The false brothers had to have been Jews. These Jews had the appearance of authority, but Paul puts them in their place by telling them that he is entrusted with preaching the gospel to the Gentiles just as Peter is to the Jews. Titus is not mentioned in Acts, only in the books of Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and of course, Titus. Many Christians assume that Titus was present in other passages, just not mentioned.
*This episode is presumed to be the same as the one mentioned in Acts 15. There Paul and Barnabas, while in Antioch, dispute with Men from Judea who try to insist that circumcision is essential to salvation. Paul and Barnabas are appointed (no revelation) to go to Jerusalem to consult with the apostles and elders about this. There, some believers who were pharisees said the Gentiles had to obey the law of moses. Then Peter gets up and makes a lovely speech about God accepting the Gentiles without the burden of the law. In Acts, Peter also had a revelation about preaching to the Gentiles. This speech and Peter's actions in Acts contrast to what we will read about Peter in the second part of Galatians chapter 2. Acts is much kinder to Peter and the apostles in Jerusalem than Paul is in his letter to the Galatians.
*The result, in either case, is that Paul's work with the Gentiles is accepted by Peter, James, and John in Galatians. In Galatians, Paul is only admonished to remember the poor. In Acts, a delegation of authorities from Jerusalem is sent back to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, including a letter which states that the only requirements they insisted on were abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood from the meat of strangled animals, and sexual immorality. That is not mentioned in Galatians.
Tuesday, January 3, 2017
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 4
Welcome to the new year! 2017 marks my 3rd anniversary as a nonbeliever. Now let's get back to the story of Paul, his conversion, and commission. The last place we will look before we return to Galations is Acts 26. There Paul is supposedly on trial before King Agrippa in Ceasarea, and gets to speak on his own behalf.
*Paul starts out in verse 4 saying all the Jews know about him and the way he has lived since he was a child in his own country. The country is not named. It is interesting to note that, just as with Jesus, there are no contemporary extrabiblical Jewish accounts of Paul from the time he was living, not from any of the spots he supposedly travelled to either. Paul also says:
1. He was a pharisee- not found elsewhere in Acts or Galatians, but mentioned in Philippians 3.
2. He persecuted followers of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem and other places, on the authority of the chief priests- found in Acts 9 and 22, no details given in Galatians.
3. On the road to Damascus he saw a bright light, fell to the ground, and heard a voice- found in all the Acts accounts but not in the epistles. This is the only account that says the voice spoke in Aramaic.
4. The voice claimed to be Jesus- in all the Acts accounts but not found in the epistles.
5. The voice gave him his mission to go to the Jews and Gentiles and open their eyes so they can recieve forgiveness of sins and sanctification by faith in Jesus. Nowhere else was this speech given by the disembodied voice on the road to Damascus. In the other Acts accounts Paul was told to go to Damascus where he would be told what to do.
6. He preached in Damascus then Jerusalem and all Judea- no mention of Arabia, Tarsus, or other locations in the gentile world, where he supposedly conducted missionary journeys. No mention of any events in the decades of time that passed between his conversion and this trial.
7. He claims his preaching was no more than what the prophets and Moses said would happen- that the christ would suffer and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and the Gentiles. Well, in the gospels others rose from the dead, came out of their graves, and walked around Jerusalem, before Jesus did. Didn't Jesus raise a few people from the dead as well? Also the books of the bible attributed to moses say nothing about a suffering christ being raised from the dead. Some of the books of the prophets do have references to a person who will be a light to the Jews and Gentiles, namely Isaiah. Like most prophesies, they are cryptic and open to interpretation.
*There is no mention of Paul's temporary blindness in this account.
We will continue on with Galatians next.
*Paul starts out in verse 4 saying all the Jews know about him and the way he has lived since he was a child in his own country. The country is not named. It is interesting to note that, just as with Jesus, there are no contemporary extrabiblical Jewish accounts of Paul from the time he was living, not from any of the spots he supposedly travelled to either. Paul also says:
1. He was a pharisee- not found elsewhere in Acts or Galatians, but mentioned in Philippians 3.
2. He persecuted followers of Jesus of Nazareth, in Jerusalem and other places, on the authority of the chief priests- found in Acts 9 and 22, no details given in Galatians.
3. On the road to Damascus he saw a bright light, fell to the ground, and heard a voice- found in all the Acts accounts but not in the epistles. This is the only account that says the voice spoke in Aramaic.
4. The voice claimed to be Jesus- in all the Acts accounts but not found in the epistles.
5. The voice gave him his mission to go to the Jews and Gentiles and open their eyes so they can recieve forgiveness of sins and sanctification by faith in Jesus. Nowhere else was this speech given by the disembodied voice on the road to Damascus. In the other Acts accounts Paul was told to go to Damascus where he would be told what to do.
6. He preached in Damascus then Jerusalem and all Judea- no mention of Arabia, Tarsus, or other locations in the gentile world, where he supposedly conducted missionary journeys. No mention of any events in the decades of time that passed between his conversion and this trial.
7. He claims his preaching was no more than what the prophets and Moses said would happen- that the christ would suffer and as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim light to his own people and the Gentiles. Well, in the gospels others rose from the dead, came out of their graves, and walked around Jerusalem, before Jesus did. Didn't Jesus raise a few people from the dead as well? Also the books of the bible attributed to moses say nothing about a suffering christ being raised from the dead. Some of the books of the prophets do have references to a person who will be a light to the Jews and Gentiles, namely Isaiah. Like most prophesies, they are cryptic and open to interpretation.
*There is no mention of Paul's temporary blindness in this account.
We will continue on with Galatians next.
Tuesday, December 13, 2016
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 3
Now we will look at Paul's account of his conversion as related by the author of Acts, in Acts 22. He is speaking to a crowd of Jews who are upset with him, in Aramaic:
-He tells them he is a Jew (Check).
-He is from Tarsus of Cilicia (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- yes) *1
-He was brought up in Jerusalem (Epistles-no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)
-He was taught the law at the feet of Gamaliel (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)*2
-He was zealous and persecuted the church (Epistles- yes, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He arrested men and women and threw them into prison ( Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He got letters from the high priest and council to go after believers in Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-On the road to Damascus a bright light flashed around him (Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9. - yes)
-This happened at noon (Not previously mentioned)
-He fell to the ground and heard a voice (Epistles- no, Acts 7-9 yes)
-The words of the voice recorded here and in Acts 9 are basically the same. No Surprise, same author.
-Paul is blinded and led by the hand to Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 9 - yes)
-Ananias stood beside Paul and recovered his sight. In Acts 9, he placed his hands on him. (Not in the epistles.)
-This time Ananias tells Paul his mission and orders him to be baptized "for the remission of his sins." This phrase was not used in Acts 9. Paul does not mention his baptism in Galatians. Also there is no mention here of Paul not eating and drinking for three days, as in Acts 9.
-After that he returned to Jerusalem, according to Acts 22:17, leaving out the preaching in Damascus and the narrow escape from there mentioned in Acts 9. This also eliminates the trip to Arabia found in Galatians.
-When he returned to Jerusalem, he was visited in the temple by another revelation of Jesus, telling him to leave immediately because his testimony would not be accepted. There is no mention of the visit with only Peter and James as mentioned in Galatians. Plus there is no mention of Barnabas bringing him to the disciples and the preaching he did in Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts 9.
*1. Cilicia is mentioned in Galatians, even though Tarsus isn't. Paul supposedly travelled in that region after he left Peter and James in Jerusalem.
*2. Gamaliel is mentioned in Acts 5:33-39 as a Pharisee and teacher of the law. He was against persecuting the followers of Jesus. So why did Saul?
Also we are not told how many years after Jesus died that Saul's event occurred on the road to Damascus. If Saul grew up in Jerusalem, how is it that he never saw or heard Jesus in the flesh?
-He tells them he is a Jew (Check).
-He is from Tarsus of Cilicia (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- yes) *1
-He was brought up in Jerusalem (Epistles-no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)
-He was taught the law at the feet of Gamaliel (Epistles- no mention, Acts 7 through 9- no mention)*2
-He was zealous and persecuted the church (Epistles- yes, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He arrested men and women and threw them into prison ( Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-He got letters from the high priest and council to go after believers in Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 7 through 9- yes)
-On the road to Damascus a bright light flashed around him (Epistles- no, Acts 7 through 9. - yes)
-This happened at noon (Not previously mentioned)
-He fell to the ground and heard a voice (Epistles- no, Acts 7-9 yes)
-The words of the voice recorded here and in Acts 9 are basically the same. No Surprise, same author.
-Paul is blinded and led by the hand to Damascus (Epistles - no, Acts 9 - yes)
-Ananias stood beside Paul and recovered his sight. In Acts 9, he placed his hands on him. (Not in the epistles.)
-This time Ananias tells Paul his mission and orders him to be baptized "for the remission of his sins." This phrase was not used in Acts 9. Paul does not mention his baptism in Galatians. Also there is no mention here of Paul not eating and drinking for three days, as in Acts 9.
-After that he returned to Jerusalem, according to Acts 22:17, leaving out the preaching in Damascus and the narrow escape from there mentioned in Acts 9. This also eliminates the trip to Arabia found in Galatians.
-When he returned to Jerusalem, he was visited in the temple by another revelation of Jesus, telling him to leave immediately because his testimony would not be accepted. There is no mention of the visit with only Peter and James as mentioned in Galatians. Plus there is no mention of Barnabas bringing him to the disciples and the preaching he did in Jerusalem as mentioned in Acts 9.
*1. Cilicia is mentioned in Galatians, even though Tarsus isn't. Paul supposedly travelled in that region after he left Peter and James in Jerusalem.
*2. Gamaliel is mentioned in Acts 5:33-39 as a Pharisee and teacher of the law. He was against persecuting the followers of Jesus. So why did Saul?
Also we are not told how many years after Jesus died that Saul's event occurred on the road to Damascus. If Saul grew up in Jerusalem, how is it that he never saw or heard Jesus in the flesh?
Friday, December 9, 2016
Paul's early life and mission as found in Acts, part 2
*We are at Acts 9:17.Both Saul (Paul) and Ananias have had visions about each other. Now Ananias goes to the house where Saul is staying. He put his hands on Saul. He identified the lord who appeared to Saul on the road as Jesus and says Jesus sent him to help Saul gain his sight back and be filled with the Holy Spirit, whatever that means. Scales fell off Saul's eyes. He got up and was baptized. It doesn't say why he was baptized. Today, it is generally assumed that it was to join the church, but notice that he ate right afterward. I looked at the Interlinear reference for the original word "baptized" in this passage. I found that the exact same word was used in Luke 11:38 (Supposedly written by the same author) to denote a tradition of ceremonial washing before eating!
*Next we are told Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus and immediately began to preach about Jesus in the synagogues. This is in direct contrast to what he says in Galatians 1:15. There he says that after his revelation he did not consult anyone but went immediately to Arabia and returned to Damascus later. Galatians also has Paul going to Jerusalem three years later. In Acts, he appears to go to Jerusalem right after Damascus. He never goes to Arabia. In Galatians, Paul sees only Peter and James, none of the other apostles. In Acts, Barnabas takes Paul to meet the apostles in Jerusalem and he preaches about Jesus in the city. Because of his preaching, Acts says an attempt is made on Paul's life in both Damascus and Jerusalem. Galatians does not mention that. Acts says other believers helped Paul escape by taking him to Caesarea and sending him off to Tarsus. (They sent him home.) Galatians says that Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, it never mentions Tarsus. In Galatians, Paul states, "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in christ." This is a direct contradiction to the events recorded in Acts 9.
*When we get to Galatians 2, we will see Paul going to Jerusalem with Barnabas...fourteen years later! Let's take a look at the timelines so far.
Galatians:
Persecuting the church
Revelation in unknown place, told to preach Jesus to the Gentiles
Trip to Arabia
Return to Damascus no people or events mentioned
Three years later, Trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James and no one else, for fifteen days
Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Fourteen years later, trip to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus in response to a revelation.
Acts:
Stoning of Stephen
Persecuting the church
Road to Damascus with bright light and voice
In Damascus with Ananias and disciples of Jesus
Ananias and Paul recieve visions. Ananias is told that Saul will preach Jesus to the Gentiles.
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Trip to Jerusalem to join the disciples there
Barnabas takes him to meet the apostles
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Sent to Tarsus by the disciples
*Next we are told Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus and immediately began to preach about Jesus in the synagogues. This is in direct contrast to what he says in Galatians 1:15. There he says that after his revelation he did not consult anyone but went immediately to Arabia and returned to Damascus later. Galatians also has Paul going to Jerusalem three years later. In Acts, he appears to go to Jerusalem right after Damascus. He never goes to Arabia. In Galatians, Paul sees only Peter and James, none of the other apostles. In Acts, Barnabas takes Paul to meet the apostles in Jerusalem and he preaches about Jesus in the city. Because of his preaching, Acts says an attempt is made on Paul's life in both Damascus and Jerusalem. Galatians does not mention that. Acts says other believers helped Paul escape by taking him to Caesarea and sending him off to Tarsus. (They sent him home.) Galatians says that Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, it never mentions Tarsus. In Galatians, Paul states, "I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in christ." This is a direct contradiction to the events recorded in Acts 9.
*When we get to Galatians 2, we will see Paul going to Jerusalem with Barnabas...fourteen years later! Let's take a look at the timelines so far.
Galatians:
Persecuting the church
Revelation in unknown place, told to preach Jesus to the Gentiles
Trip to Arabia
Return to Damascus no people or events mentioned
Three years later, Trip to Jerusalem to meet Peter and James and no one else, for fifteen days
Trip to Syria and Cilicia
Fourteen years later, trip to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus in response to a revelation.
Acts:
Stoning of Stephen
Persecuting the church
Road to Damascus with bright light and voice
In Damascus with Ananias and disciples of Jesus
Ananias and Paul recieve visions. Ananias is told that Saul will preach Jesus to the Gentiles.
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Trip to Jerusalem to join the disciples there
Barnabas takes him to meet the apostles
Caused trouble with his preaching, foiled a conspiracy to kill him, escaped
Sent to Tarsus by the disciples
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)